**** Just Got Real in Japan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Man, sucks to be living there right now.

This meltdown serves to remind us how dangerous nuclear power can be. The Japanese are probably one of the most stringent and careful when it comes to managing their plants. If it can happen to them, it can happen to any of us. One thing I don't seem to be hearing a lot of is "This could have been avoided" which tells me they did everything right and still got hosed. That really sucks.

Did you forget what caused all of this? One of the biggest earthquakes in history combined with one of the biggest tsunamis.

On top of that its a reactor design that 50 year old. If anything I say this shows how safe nuclear power is. It of course also highlights some weaknesses in planning and design which can be accounted for in new construction.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
Shit if this hits the core it would cause a catastrophic stellar ignition and turn the earth into a dwarf star.

We need to get someone out there with some kind of special vessel that can drill into the area and scoop up the radio active stuff before we end up blowing up the earth.
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Wait.. if this were actually true, couldn't they just shut down the reactor before this happened?

The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.

What if we replace the water with ice water? That would make it colder. So, what we need is some ice. Lots and lots of ice.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.

You can turn it off, you just stop the reaction with enough neutron absorbers.
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
The actual reactor is not a machine, its a solid state device. Its a single contained unity. The radioactive decay causes increased activity which then increases radioactive decay. That produces a LOT of heat, which is what we're harnessing. It gets hot, we throw some water on it, the water takes away the heat and produces steam, the steam turns turbines. But if we don't keep cooling it, it overheats, and we're screwed.

So no, you can't turn it off. You have to preemptively dismantle it while in a controlled state. They kind of missed that window of opportunity.

If they stopped supplying it with fuel, wouldn't it stop and cool down on its own at some point before it sunk through the earth?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,882
36,884
136
What they think is going on in #1 is mostly based on computer models. As long as the unit has cooling the ability of corium to eat through the barriers is vastly reduced. The TEPCO report seems to detail a worst case scenario. Given previous experience at TMI and Chernobyl it's highly unlikely much (if any) would get through the pressure vessel or let alone the reactor pad.
 

AmdEmAll

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2000
6,688
2
81
Harv.jpg
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
That lack of basic nuclear knowledge that is present in this thread is appalling. I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter has been damaged by something... :biggrin:
 

Imp

Lifer
Feb 8, 2000
18,828
184
106
When is S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Fukushima coming out?

I wonder if people would get offended this soon afterwards...

It'd be a nice departure though. We've had 3 set in Chernobyl already. And hey, can have Americana military this time around.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
Since enriched uranium is heavy. Why not build like a long tube in the ground and fire at high velocity a slab of uranium against the molten uranium mass from the reactor. That should push it right out of the ground and out so it can be scooped up.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Since enriched uranium is heavy. Why not build like a long tube in the ground and fire at high velocity a slab of uranium against the molten uranium mass from the reactor. That should push it right out of the ground and out so it can be scooped up.
Just to clarify - you want more highly enriched nuclear fuel to be SHOT at melted fuel?
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
22
81
That lack of basic nuclear knowledge that is present in this thread is appalling. I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter has been damaged by something... :biggrin:

Well, quite honestly I never think about nuclear reactors all to often. I've lost a lot of that basic knowledge thinking about other things such as what my daughter wants to wear for school the next day, or has my kitty eaten, or has my wife come home for dinner yet. You know, the important stuff. :D
 

Rubycon

Madame President
Aug 10, 2005
17,768
485
126
Well, duh...use the snow makers like they do at the ski resorts!!

SnowMakingMachine.jpg

That's just a near zero static vaneaxial and the MBH capacity in airborne frost is probably a fraction so tiny of what's needed to make a difference. ;)

Now if you could bring down billions of cubic meters per second of air from the troposphere in a virtual path secured by a toroidal plasma channel you could probably freeze it so fast it would be like the ice cube in the deep fryer - inside out. Imaging skiing down a mountain of ice seeing the eerie phosphorescent Cherenkov glow. ;)
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
22
81
That's just a near zero static vaneaxial and the MBH capacity in airborne frost is probably a fraction so tiny of what's needed to make a difference. ;)

Now if you could bring down billions of cubic meters per second of air from the troposphere in a virtual path secured by a toroidal plasma channel you could probably freeze it so fast it would be like the ice cube in the deep fryer - inside out. Imaging skiing down a mountain of ice seeing the eerie phosphorescent Cherenkov glow. ;)

You know Dawn, you scare me.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
8,443
1,070
126
we could pump ln2 into the ground around the reactor. Not sure if this would be worth the effort as the heat mass must be very impressive but it may slow it down a bit if it gets to that point.

also, it could be possible to freeze the water table around the site.

we should probably be drilling down at least that far now to monitor it.
 
Last edited:

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
That lack of basic nuclear knowledge that is present in this thread is appalling. I sincerely hope my sarcasm meter has been damaged by something... :biggrin:

I only have a basic knowledge of nuclear reactor workings. Would you mind giving us a quick run down of whether this is just an "absolute worst case scenario" press release, or if there is some validity/real possibility of water table pollution, etc.

Oh, also, just in honor of the thread title:
real.gif