Solutions to the Japanese nuclear crisis?

It is unlikely that the four nuclear reactors under duress at
Fukushima will ever be used again. There have been some suggestions
that all four reactors be entombed under a sarcophagus as was done
with Chernobyl. This however is not an ideal solution. In such a
scenario there is the constant fear that the nuclear material will
come in contact with the water table as time goes on leading to
widespread contamination of drinking water. This is already a concern
with the discovery of leaks of contaminated water out of the
reactors.
Another danger is large steam explosions with a meltdown if the hot
fuel melting through floors of the plant reaches a large source of
water such as ground water under the plant. This could lead to large
explosions leading to large scale radioactivity release. This was a
worry for years later with Chernobyl even with the sarcophagus
covering the reactor.
On the other hand there is a worry that the crisis could go on for
months or even years:

More radioactive water spills at Japan nuke plant.
By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – Mon Mar 28, 5:49 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/...pan_earthquake

I therefore suggest means be explored for removing the radioactive
material from the area over a short time frame. One possibility: move
the entire buildings. Truly large buildings have been moved in the
past up to 15,000 tons:

The Five Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved.
by Molly Edmonds
http://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...ing-moved5.htm

The heaviest parts of the Fukushima buildings that would have to be
moved would be the concrete and steel containment vessels. This
article on p. 6 estimates their mass as about 2,500 tons:

Nuclear Accident in Japan.
http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/news/...arAccident.pdf

On the other hand this article gives the containment vessel weight
of a more modern nuclear reactor type as 910 tons:

Construction progresses at Shimane 3.
27 July 2009
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...3-2707094.html

The GE Mark I reactors used at Fukushima are known for their
leightweight containment vessels so they actually might weigh less
than the Shimane 3 containment vessel.
Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.
Another problem is that large electricity generation buildings block
the path to the pier. These could be razed, an expensive and time
consuming prospect, or you might have to first move the reactor
buildings sideways, leveling much smaller buildings on the side, then
move the reactor buildings towards the pier.
In the article on the moving of the large buildings its surprising
how low the cost is. For instance the second biggest move was at about
7,400 tons and cost only $6 million. However, a consideration is that
for these moves the engineers had to add extra supports inside the
buildings to ensure they would remain intact during the lifting and
the transportation. This would be a problem if this was necessary for
the reactor buildings if this was required inside the highly
irradiated areas.


Bob Clark

On Mar 29, 4:58*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*It is unlikely that the four nuclear reactors under duress at
Fukushima will ever be used again. There have been some suggestions
that all four reactors be entombed under a sarcophagus as was done
with Chernobyl. This however is not an ideal solution. In such a
scenario there is the constant fear that the nuclear material will
come in contact with the water table as time goes on leading to
widespread contamination of drinking water. This is already a concern
with the discovery of leaks of contaminated water out of the
reactors.
*Another danger is large steam explosions with a meltdown if the hot
fuel melting through floors of the plant reaches a large source of
water such as ground water under the plant. This could lead to large
explosions leading to large scale radioactivity release. This was a
worry for years later with Chernobyl even with the sarcophagus
covering the reactor.
*On the other hand there is a worry that the crisis could go on for
months or even years:

More radioactive water spills at Japan nuke plant.
By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – Mon Mar 28, 5:49 pm EThttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake

*I therefore suggest means be explored for removing the radioactive
material from the area over a short time frame. One possibility: move
the entire buildings. Truly large buildings have been moved in the
past up to 15,000 tons:

The Five Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved.
by Molly Edmondshttp://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/heaviest-buil...

*The heaviest parts of the Fukushima buildings that would have to be
moved would be the concrete and steel containment vessels. This
article on p. 6 estimates their mass as about 2,500 tons:

Nuclear Accident in Japan.http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/news/...NuclearAcciden...

* On the other hand this article gives the containment vessel weight
of a more modern nuclear reactor type as 910 tons:

Construction progresses at Shimane 3.
27 July 2009http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Construction_progresses_at_Shima...

*The GE Mark I reactors used at Fukushima are known for their
leightweight containment vessels so they actually might weigh less
than the Shimane 3 containment vessel.
*Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.
*Another problem is that large electricity generation buildings block
the path to the pier. These could be razed, an expensive and time
consuming prospect, or you might have to first move the reactor
buildings sideways, leveling much smaller buildings on the side, then
move the reactor buildings towards the pier.
* In the article on the moving of the large buildings its surprising
how low the cost is. For instance the second biggest move was at about
7,400 tons and cost only $6 million. However, a consideration is that
for these moves the engineers had to add extra supports inside the
buildings to ensure they would remain intact during the lifting and
the transportation. This would be a problem if this was necessary for
the reactor buildings if this was required inside the highly
irradiated areas.

* *Bob Clark

the entire plant will never produce power again, its too damaged and
too contaminated. The sea water cooled things initially but made long
term problems worse.

For everyones safety the japanes government should enforce at least a
70 mile exclusin zone cutting all utilties to homes in that area, and
remove people by force if necessary

If they tried lifting the reactors all the plumbing will leak
radioactive water. sooner or later it will be entombed on site.

japan will learn another lesson from all this

Consumers worldwide will avoid buying japanes made goods from japan
for fear they may be buying radioactive merchandise. Even if all
expoorts are tested sales will be poor

On Mar 29, 10:58*pm, Robert Clark wrote:

*Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.

We can use Russia, no one seems to be using that.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Consumers worldwide will avoid buying japanes made goods from japan
for fear they may be buying radioactive merchandise. Even if all
expoorts are tested sales will be poor

Most people don't know what's Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese,
etc. anymore.

Brian

On Mar 29, 6:36*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Consumers worldwide will avoid buying japanes made goods from japan
for fear they may be buying radioactive merchandise. Even if all
expoorts are tested sales will be poor

Most people don't know what's Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese,
etc. anymore.

Brian

this will bring country of origin to big note

On Mar 29, 6:45*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Mar 29, 6:36*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Consumers worldwide will avoid buying japanes made goods from japan
for fear they may be buying radioactive merchandise. Even if all
expoorts are tested sales will be poor

Most people don't know what's Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese,
etc. anymore.

Brian

this will bring country of origin to big note

What a bunch of nonsense over a non-crisis. The long term
consequences will be nearly zero. Do some reading before you guys
post such BS.

Robert Clark wrote in message


It is unlikely that the four nuclear reactors under duress at
Fukushima will ever be used again. There have been some suggestions
that all four reactors be entombed under a sarcophagus as was done
with Chernobyl. This however is not an ideal solution. In such a
scenario there is the constant fear that the nuclear material will
come in contact with the water table as time goes on leading to
widespread contamination of drinking water. This is already a concern
with the discovery of leaks of contaminated water out of the
reactors.
Another danger is large steam explosions with a meltdown if the hot
fuel melting through floors of the plant reaches a large source of
water such as ground water under the plant. This could lead to large
explosions leading to large scale radioactivity release. This was a
worry for years later with Chernobyl even with the sarcophagus
covering the reactor.
On the other hand there is a worry that the crisis could go on for
months or even years:

More radioactive water spills at Japan nuke plant.
By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press =96 Mon Mar 28, 5:49 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/...pan_earthquake

I therefore suggest means be explored for removing the radioactive
material from the area over a short time frame. One possibility: move
the entire buildings. Truly large buildings have been moved in the
past up to 15,000 tons:

The Five Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved.
by Molly Edmonds

http://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...eaviest-buildi
ng-m=
oved5.htm

The heaviest parts of the Fukushima buildings that would have to be
moved would be the concrete and steel containment vessels. This
article on p. 6 estimates their mass as about 2,500 tons:

Nuclear Accident in Japan.

http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/news/...uclearAccident.
pdf

On the other hand this article gives the containment vessel weight
of a more modern nuclear reactor type as 910 tons:

Construction progresses at Shimane 3.
27 July 2009

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...ses_at_Shimane
_3-2=
707094.html

The GE Mark I reactors used at Fukushima are known for their
leightweight containment vessels so they actually might weigh less
than the Shimane 3 containment vessel.
Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to
move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.
Another problem is that large electricity generation buildings block
the path to the pier. These could be razed, an expensive and time
consuming prospect, or you might have to first move the reactor
buildings sideways, leveling much smaller buildings on the side, then
move the reactor buildings towards the pier.
In the article on the moving of the large buildings its surprising
how low the cost is. For instance the second biggest move was at
about
7,400 tons and cost only $6 million. However, a consideration is that
for these moves the engineers had to add extra supports inside the
buildings to ensure they would remain intact during the lifting and
the transportation. This would be a problem if this was necessary for
the reactor buildings if this was required inside the highly
irradiated areas.
Bob Clark

Just junk the current technology.
There's no need to roomate a with gamma ray generator.

Pebble bed technology and thorium seem to be solutions.

Robert Clark wrote:
It is unlikely that the four nuclear reactors under duress at
Fukushima will ever be used again. There have been some suggestions
that all four reactors be entombed under a sarcophagus as was done
with Chernobyl. This however is not an ideal solution. In such a
scenario there is the constant fear that the nuclear material will
come in contact with the water table as time goes on leading to
widespread contamination of drinking water. This is already a concern
with the discovery of leaks of contaminated water out of the
reactors.
Another danger is large steam explosions with a meltdown if the hot
fuel melting through floors of the plant reaches a large source of
water such as ground water under the plant. This could lead to large
explosions leading to large scale radioactivity release. This was a
worry for years later with Chernobyl even with the sarcophagus
covering the reactor.
On the other hand there is a worry that the crisis could go on for
months or even years:

More radioactive water spills at Japan nuke plant.
By SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – Mon Mar 28, 5:49 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/...pan_earthquake

I therefore suggest means be explored for removing the radioactive
material from the area over a short time frame. One possibility: move
the entire buildings. Truly large buildings have been moved in the
past up to 15,000 tons:

The Five Heaviest Buildings Ever Moved.
by Molly Edmonds
http://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...ing-moved5.htm

The heaviest parts of the Fukushima buildings that would have to be
moved would be the concrete and steel containment vessels. This
article on p. 6 estimates their mass as about 2,500 tons:

Nuclear Accident in Japan.
http://www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw/news/...arAccident.pdf

On the other hand this article gives the containment vessel weight
of a more modern nuclear reactor type as 910 tons:

Construction progresses at Shimane 3.
27 July 2009
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN...3-2707094.html

The GE Mark I reactors used at Fukushima are known for their
leightweight containment vessels so they actually might weigh less
than the Shimane 3 containment vessel.
Japan is a small island country so there would really be no where
safe to put these damaged reactors. Then it might be necessary to move
them by sea on barges to some large deserted region.
Another problem is that large electricity generation buildings block
the path to the pier. These could be razed, an expensive and time
consuming prospect, or you might have to first move the reactor
buildings sideways, leveling much smaller buildings on the side, then
move the reactor buildings towards the pier.
In the article on the moving of the large buildings its surprising
how low the cost is. For instance the second biggest move was at about
7,400 tons and cost only $6 million. However, a consideration is that
for these moves the engineers had to add extra supports inside the
buildings to ensure they would remain intact during the lifting and
the transportation. This would be a problem if this was necessary for
the reactor buildings if this was required inside the highly
irradiated areas.


Bob Clark





Next time build them under water. If the dome blows up it will flood
with water and keep it cool.


--
All is as it is.

On Mar 29, 6:36*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Consumers worldwide will avoid buying japanes made goods from japan
for fear they may be buying radioactive merchandise. Even if all
expoorts are tested sales will be poor

Most people don't know what's Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese,
etc. anymore.

Brian

If you have cans of tuna that glow in the dark send them to Bush and
Chaney. They have lots of GE stock. TreBert

On Mar 29, 7:14*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 29, 6:45*pm, bob haller wrote:

On Mar 29, 6:36*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

Consumers worldwide will avoid buying japanes made goods from japan
for fear they may be buying radioactive merchandise. Even if all
expoorts are tested sales will be poor

Most people don't know what's Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese,
etc. anymore.

Brian

this will bring country of origin to big note

What a bunch of nonsense over a non-crisis. *The long term
consequences will be nearly zero. *Do some reading before you guys
post such BS.

I challenge your statement.

Long term issues

Customers acceptance of products from a area thats radioactive
espically with pluntonium. people will fear they are getting a glow in
the dark whatever.

higher cancer rates worldwide, if they go up after this lawyers will
win big time suing tokyo power and the country for allowing whats
clearly a unsafe plant

Japans nuke accident clean up costs, these will go on forever

Short and long term costs for japan and the world to close unsafe nuke
plants or those in danger areas, note thats most of the plants
worldwide

Long term added costs to put all spent cores in dry cask storage
quickly and get those cores away from operating plants, where their in
danger if the plant malfunctions.or attacks by terrorists

long term storage issues for nuke waste, no one will want it where
they are. Yucca mountain is a great example of not in my backyard,
although there are other issues too.

Effects to GE for building a cheap plant that failed to take into
account known safety issues. Like designing for a 18 foot sunami when
historical info indicated one twice the height was possible. It will
cost too much to build for that severity this will be fine..... bad
design decision

Now if the plant fully melts down all of these and far more

Americans will likely be encouraged or ordered to remain indoors for a
week or more.Think improvised fallout shelters.

There will be widespread panic lawness stick ups, runs on stores
hoarding traffic jams as people try to get to areas believed safer.

I hope none of this occurs but some certinally will.

Incidently news just reported 2 japanese workers got drenched with
radioactive water today. Sooner or later that plant will be entomed