|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Solutions to the Japanese nuclear crisis?
On Mar 29, 1:58*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 Japan got exactly what it paid for, if not considerably more than their worth because multiple catastrophic meltdowns should have happened before this latest one. Basically what’s inside of Earth and especially Venus that’s likely too hot and too young for an iron core is a fluid traveling wave reactor that breeds its own neutrons, that in turn keep the fission process going. Not that any high density form of nuclear energy is ever 100% clean or 100% failsafe, but extensive use of thorium and other conventional spent-fuel reutilized in a TWR is certainly a whole lot better option than anything else on the table. http://www.metaefficient.com/news/nu...rgy-green.html TWRs are not a new idea, just intentionally kept as a back burner kind of alternative because you don’t get plutonium from TWRs, and the nearly renewable energy they can produce could be almost too cheap to meter, which would put coal, oil and even natural gas fired energy out of business unless their price per therm was dramatically reduced. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Japanese nuclear mess is getting worse than what some said itwould be. | [email protected] | | Policy | 40 | April 6th 11 07:29 AM |
Japanese Company Wants To Built Nuclear Plants In Texas | nightbat[_1_] | Misc | 9 | March 30th 11 12:12 AM |
Power cuts feared in UK nuclear plants crisis | Abo | UK Astronomy | 2 | October 8th 08 07:42 AM |
email extractor , site , solutions , email based marketing , email marketing solution , email extractor , newsletter software , mass email , e-mail marketing , email marketing solutions , bulk email software , web advertising , email marketing , mark | Nuclear Incorporation. www.nuclear-inc.com | UK Astronomy | 0 | April 5th 07 09:37 PM |
How do I - Dew Solutions | Mark Smith | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | May 9th 04 08:38 PM |