Skip to main content

Wednesday Update

By

From NEI’s Japan micro-site:

TEPCO Takes Precaution Against Possible Fission in Fukushima Reactor

November 2, 2011

Plant Status

  • Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility have taken steps to halt the possibility of localized fission reactions in reactor 2 after detecting trace amounts radioactive xenon in the reactor’s containment vessel, NHK World reports. Xenon is a byproduct of fission. Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the facility, reports no significant changes in temperature, pressure and other data from the reactor.

Media Highlights

  • A special report on the IEEE Spectrum website looks at “Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Power.” Articles include an in-depth review of the first 24 hours after the earthquake and tsunami struck the nuclear energy facility and a comparison of the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents.
  • In a first since the March 11 nuclear accident, a shutdown reactor in Japan has resumed operation, the New York Times reports. After receiving approvals from the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and the local government, reactor 4 at the Genkai nuclear energy facility came back on line this week. The reactor was inadvertently shut down Oct. 4 due to an operator error. However, it will shut down again in December for a scheduled inspection.
  • U.S. boiling water reactors “would have fared much better” in an earthquake and tsunami than the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility, the website Electric Light & Power reports. The article says that U.S. facilities are subject to regulations that would limit damage in a severe natural event and that plants are located in places with minimal vulnerability to the kind of tsunami that struck Japan.

New Products

  • A new series on NEI’s Safety First website examines some of the industry and independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s post-Fukushima activities. Articles appearing this week explore seismic and flooding protection, safety during a loss of off-site electricity, used fuel storage, operator emergency training and accessibility of specialized vent valves.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Trace" amounts of xenon? That doesn't sound like a really firm indicator of fission, much less criticality (fission doesn't necessarily mean uncontrolled criticality). Anyone done a decay calculation? I know a lot of half-lives have passed, but if your initial amount was very high, you could still have "trace" amounts left even after a lot of half-lives have passed.
November 3, 2011 at 11:11 AM
D Pulaski said…
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/03_19.html

TEPCO now says that the radioactive krypton they found was due to spontaneous fission of curium.

D. Pulaski
November 3, 2011 at 9:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more