Bottom line - its about Communication

[LCHIEN]

i was just saying that their only plan B (if they can't control it, if the containment melts down, fails or the site otherwise becomes too radioactive to work on anymore) is to bury the reactors in sand and cement, Just as they finally did with Chernobyl. That's the only comparison I made.

Having the graphite reactor core catch fire is much worse in any terms than what has happened at Fukushima - SO FAR. But, Fukushima is still ongoing. What has happened so far most all of the mainstream power operators and nuclear regulators have said was near impossible. Who knows what else will happen - they already said it will take months and years to wind down.

P.S. I just read in a AP news article dated today the problems I foresaw over the weekend:
1. Contradictory issues of draining the contaminated water at the same time they must continue to pump water on it to cool it. Too much contaminated water and you can't pump anymore. But if you pump then you'll have more contaminated water because you can't fix or drain it.
2. They have no idea where to put all the water they drain...
3. they have to barge in any freshwater they use. Use of Seawater's already ruined the cooling system effectiveness.

[JimD]

The sand at Chernboyl was to put out the graphite fire. Water and fire extinguishers are ineffective against burning graphite. I don't see any situation where sand would be used for this situation.

My guess is that Units 1-3 will enter cold shutdown in a few months. The cores will be off-loaded to repaired spent fuel pits. Fuel that is cool enough (5-10 years storage) will go into dry storage casks. The utility will have a skeleton crew to monitor the plant but it will no longer make electricity. What we found at TMI was that it would take more money to repair the plant than to build a new one. I think that is what will be the end result here too. The secondary containment will be repaired first, however. The spent fuel pits cannot be open to the sky. If it was not for the radioactivity, that would not be a large task. Any leakage from the primary containment will be a higher priority and will proceed as soon as normal cooling is established, probably a couple weeks. I don't think we know for sure that the primary containment is leaking - reports seem to conflict, probably due to instrumentation issues.

While I don't forsee the use of sand I think the end state will be like Chernoybl - destroyed plants being monitored with sister units at the same site used (units 5-6, maybe 4) still generating. I think this state can be maintained in Japan, unlike Chernoybl, indefinitely because the radiation release is much much lower. All this is pretty much my guess, however.

Jim

[LCHIEN]

Jim, I've seen several credible articles on using sand and concrete to bury the reactor as a last ditch plan, like this one:
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/18/if...nuclear-plant/

I suppose the sand is to get the bulk up and the concrete cap is to seal it against erosion. They'd probably concrete the whole thing if they could but concrete would be much heavier and messier to mix and deliver by helicopter.

[leehljp]

Now they're talking!

. . . At least that communication isn't happening:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...gain-and-again


And read the comments below. Good insight into the cultural aspect of it.

[jziegler]

Hank,

I just want to say thanks for posting you insight into the communications issues in Japan. I've been reading your posts regularly since the earthquake hit, and your commentary on the Japanese culture and language has been the most insightful I have read.

Jim

[smorris]

I found this cultural issue out the hard way. I was in a meeting with a few of our Japanesse sales guys a couple years back and they were being rather obtuse and I thought rambling so I asked if they had a point to make and if so to please get to it. They looked like I threw a dead rat on the table. The upside was I always got direct answers after that.

[leehljp]

I found this cultural issue out the hard way. I was in a meeting with a few of our Japanesse sales guys a couple years back and they were being rather obtuse and I thought rambling so I asked if they had a point to make and if so to please get to it. They looked like I threw a dead rat on the table. The upside was I always got direct answers after that.

It is not bad to do that in the US, but they sure consider their land to be their playing field and their rules. The direct approach can be done on their playing field, but it is a matter of the proper mix of deep respect, psychology and a little luck. It was several Japanese over a couple of years that told me that I had a unique way of communicating that could be direct without offending. I was encouraged to develop that and build my comm skills in that direction. One of the most important aspects of communicating in Japanese is the use of silence (and pauses) at the right times and for the right length. Knowing when to speak and when not to speak - brings deep respect from them. But I just can't seem to do it in English as well.

[jaybee]

One of the most important aspects of communicating in Japanese is the use of silence (and pauses) at the right times and for the right length. Knowing when to speak and when not to speak - brings deep respect from them. But I just can't seem to do it in English as well.

This finally explains why Kirk was able to solve the Kobayashi Maru scenario. In English.