At two reactors, a race to contain meltdowns

The Washington Post ^ | Monday, March 14, 1:24 AM | Steven Mufson

[little jeremiah]

Pretty interesting, I posted part of a very informative article by a nuclear engineer with 30 years in the field explaining in detail why a loss of electricity can mean spent fuel rods will melt and burn, and the responses are mostly all that it’s not true, without defeating any of the reasons why.

It’s as though they’re wedded to the fiction that there is no possible way these nuke plants could ever cause anyone any harm and that nuke energy must happen or we’ll all be in caves using suet lamps.

I don’t get it.

[D-fendr]

Plus, if you read the article, the spent fuel doesn’t just need water, it need the water circulating through a heat exchanger.

If you mean the survivalblog article, I don't get that from reading it, perhaps you can correct me here..

Heat exchange would be more efficient, but not absolutely necessary:

At that point, once the fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool become uncovered because the water has boiled off… Of course, there are usually multiple sources of water than can be called upon to re-fill the spent fuel pool before the water all boils off.

It’s not a character weakness to look at possible dangers of what’s going on there. Sheesh.

But we have to be realistic about the dangers and the possibilities. Thus far we have no evidence that there are spent rods in the reactor housing, that if there are, they are at risk, and that if they are at risk, water cannot be delivered as it is to the reactors.

If the cooling process stops, the radiation can’t be contained anymore.

Something is missing in this snippet. Loss of cooling will cause a meltdown, the fuel rods melt to the bottom of the pressure vessel. They can, and apparently are, flooding the containment structure with seawater to prevent any further steam releases. What else is the author of the snippet assuming here?

[D-fendr]

explaining in detail why a loss of electricity can mean spent fuel rods will melt and burn, and the responses are mostly all that it’s not true, without defeating any of the reasons why.

Friend, you're not being honest here.

[antiRepublicrat]

Did you read the article from which I posted the relevant excerpt about spent fuel rods melting and burning if they don’t have water and the heat exchange working due to lack of electricity?

Yes. And did you read the part where I said that an EMP is not likely to be a source of said lack of electricity short of all-out nuclear war? A power plant dumping its core into its graphite basket will be the least of our worries.

[palmer]

In post 79, are you talking about the core, or the pool? In one paragraph you are quoting someone about the core. In the next you talk about the pool. The core needs a heat exchanger or two. The pool needs none, just water, can be topped off anytime it gets low.

The reason nobody but your blog is talking about the pool is because it isn't a problem. The core is another story, but it is under control (550C is the highest I heard).

[little jeremiah]

I humbly admit I am not a nuclear engineer with 30 years in the field, but in my readings about nuclear power plants, the spent fuel rods are always described as having to cool in a pool of water which circulates through a heat exchanger, for quite some time - measured in years - before they are cool enough to transport to a final destination.

Why you seem to think this is not so, I have no idea.

My comments were quotes from the author who does happen to be a nuclear engineer with 30 years in the field and is pro-nuclear energy, btw. If you read the whole article then maybe you can make a reasoned critique of it.

[little jeremiah]

EMPs have nothing to do with this situation. It’s just one (possible) way to lose power to a nuke plant.

I don’t understand why you keep bringing it up. It is not pertinent to the discussion, it’s just that the nuclear engineer who wrote the article wrote it in September before the tsunami and earthquake and so his theoretical scenario of power loss was from a theoretical EMP blast. The results - no power to nuke plants - is then the same, no matter how the power gets cut off.

Sheesh

[little jeremiah]

This thread at Ticker Forum has constant up to date links and the comments are much more reasonable for the most part than the ones here on FR.

http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=182121&page=40

Anyway, I’m not interested in debating any more, I’m not trying to be “right”, just presenting some stuff I found elsewhere that is useful, you don’t like it fine, I’m only interested in finding out what’s actually going on.

[little jeremiah]

Honest? I’m trying to determine what’s happening over there by reading everything I have time for.

I have no point of view.

Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time making statements based on your own thoughts, you’d know more and be able to contribute usefully to the debate.

Free will in action, whatever.

I find Ticker Forum much more useful, constant update info, with very little idiocy.

[D-fendr]

Maybe if you spent more time reading and less time making statements based on your own thoughts, you’d know more and be able to contribute usefully to the debate.

I read the article, accepted it as true and objected to your fears based upon it - citing the article itself.

Respond where I'm wrong and why it's not your thoughts that are in error in the reading of your own posted article.

Then I'll consider your posts useful to the debate. Until then at least be honest in characterizing my posts.

[palmer]

I’m not trying to win arguments either, just presenting facts. The new reactor problem (the one that just exploded this evening) sounds a lot more serious than the first two over the weekend.

[little jeremiah]

It sounds very serious now.