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”