ENERGY

Explaining Japan’s Nuclear Crisis

.photo.right { display:none; }

National Journal
Amy Harder
March 17, 2011, 2 a.m.

In light of Ja­pan’s nuc­le­ar crisis, the en­tire world is either get­ting an im­promptu nuc­le­ar phys­ics les­son or com­pletely con­fused about what’s go­ing on in­side the four rocked re­act­ors at the Fukushi­ma Daii­chi plant. More ac­cur­ately, it’s prob­ably both.

Here’s a primer on what is””and is not””go­ing on with the re­act­ors (with the un­der­stand­ing that ma­jor de­vel­op­ments are hap­pen­ing con­stantly).

The dis­aster un­fold­ing at the plant, which in­cludes four re­act­ors with ma­jor prob­lems and two without, is at the start of the nuc­le­ar power gen­er­a­tion cycle and at the end. Par­tial nuc­le­ar melt­downs and co­in­cid­ing ex­plo­sions have oc­curred in at least two of the re­act­ors after the double whammy of the earth­quake and tsunami knocked out the plant’s elec­tri­city. Those prob­lems have aris­en with the ac­tu­al gen­er­a­tion of the nuc­le­ar power. The news of the day Wed­nes­day fo­cused on prob­lems with the fourth re­act­or’s spent-fuel pool, the nuc­le­ar waste left over once power has been gen­er­ated.

The terms nuc­le­ar melt­down and spent fuel””and the dozens of oth­ers also crop­ping up in me­dia re­ports””can be com­plex on pa­per and even more con­fus­ing to ima­gine. But one ba­sic point is that the most im­port­ant piece of the puzzle is wa­ter. And in Ja­pan’s case, that piece of the puzzle has been miss­ing.

What’s a melt­down?

Former Nuc­le­ar Reg­u­lat­ory Com­mis­sion Chair­man Dale Klein de­scribed a nuc­le­ar melt­down like a car ac­ci­dent: It can be as minor as a fend­er bend­er or as ma­jor as a head-on col­li­sion. Three of the four dam­aged re­act­ors at Ja­pan’s plant have ex­per­i­enced what can best be de­scribed as “par­tial melt­downs.” A nuc­le­ar melt­down is a bad thing, to be sure, but it’s bad only if the bar­ri­ers en­cas­ing the re­act­or’s core break down. That has ap­peared to have happened in at least two of the four crippled re­act­ors, which caused ex­plo­sions.

A nuc­le­ar melt­down oc­curs with­in a re­act­or’s core when pel­lets about the size of a pen­cil eraser con­tain­ing the ra­dio­act­ive ma­ter­i­al heat up, melt, and form a mol­ten blob. The pel­lets are in­side thou­sands of 10-feet long, pen­cil-thin, shiny met­al tubes called fuel rods. And those fuel rods make up the re­act­or’s core.

An ex­plo­sion oc­curs if that mol­ten blob””which in­cludes hy­dro­gen””es­capes some or all of the re­act­or’s bar­ri­ers and com­busts with air. The re­act­ors at Ja­pan’s plant have three ma­jor bar­ri­ers.

So what causes a re­act­or’s core to heat up in the first place? The lack of wa­ter mov­ing around the re­act­or’s core. In Ja­pan’s case, the earth­quake and tsunami knocked out elec­tri­city and pre­ven­ted the plant from us­ing its backup dies­el gen­er­at­ors to en­sure wa­ter can keep get­ting pumped in­to the core to keep the rods cool.

In a sim­pli­fied ana­logy, pro­du­cing nuc­le­ar power is like boil­ing wa­ter on a hot stove, where the flame un­der­neath the tea kettle is the source of en­ergy. In a nor­mal scen­ario wa­ter boils and steam goes out of the kettle. At a nor­mal nuc­le­ar plant, nuc­le­ar fis­sion in the fuel is the source of en­ergy that heats the wa­ter to pro­duce steam, which gen­er­ates elec­tri­city.

But even if the nuc­le­ar plant stops, the ra­dio­act­ive ma­ter­i­al with­in the nuc­le­ar re­act­or’s core con­tin­ues to pro­duce en­ergy and re­quires wa­ter to cool it down. “They [fuel rods] have a mind of their own,” said Gil­bert Brown, a nuc­le­ar en­gin­eer­ing pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Mas­sachu­setts. “They’re still pro­du­cing heat.” It’s like a tea kettle on a stove where the flame is only slowly turned down, but not en­tirely off after you tried to turn it off.  In nor­mal gen­er­a­tion of nuc­le­ar power, “you con­stantly have to be put­ting wa­ter in and tak­ing en­ergy out” to cool down the fuel, Brown said. But if there is no wa­ter (be­cause there is no elec­tri­city) that’s not an op­tion and the fuel can be­come dan­ger­ously over­heated. 

Story Con­tin­ues Be­low Graph­ic

 

What’s the spent-fuel pool?

It’s es­sen­tially a massive swim­ming pool full of wa­ter and spent fuel en­closed in a con­crete and steel con­tain­er. “It’s a very ro­bust swim­ming pool,” Klein said. In Ja­pan’s case, the con­tain­er was el­ev­ated next to the re­act­ors, Klein said. Cur­rent NRC Chair­man Greg Jaczko told law­makers Wed­nes­day that he be­lieved the pool had run dry of wa­ter and was left with the ex­posed fuel rods. Klein and oth­er in­dustry ex­perts who spoke with Na­tion­al Journ­al Wed­nes­day said the re­ports are mixed. But the con­sequences of los­ing wa­ter in a spent pool are bad, Klein said.

“If you lose wa­ter then the spent-fuel pools are out­side con­tain­ment and so you could have ra­dio­act­ive re­lease if you have a prob­lem with los­ing wa­ter in those pools,” Klein said. “I think the worst-case scen­ario is the in­ab­il­ity to keep the spent-fuel pool covered with wa­ter.”

How does it stack up to oth­er nuc­le­ar dis­asters?

“I would ima­gine that after everything sta­bil­izes this will be more sig­ni­fic­ant than Three Mile Is­land,” Klein said, ref­er­en­cing the par­tial melt­down that oc­curred at a Pennsylvania plant in 1979. The Three Mile Is­land dis­aster res­ul­ted from re­act­or mal­func­tions and op­er­at­or er­ror, while Ja­pan’s crisis stems from just not be­ing pre­pared to re­spond to the nat­ur­al dis­aster double-head­er. “I think they know what they want to do, it’s not hav­ing the abil­ity to do it,” Klein said.

The Chernobyl dis­aster in the former So­viet Uni­on, con­sidered the worst nuc­le­ar dis­aster in his­tory, was vastly dif­fer­ent and Ja­pan’s crisis isn’t likely to rise to that level, Klein and oth­er ex­perts said. That re­act­or didn’t have any ma­jor sec­ond­ary con­tain­ment, which al­lowed ra­dio­act­ive ma­ter­i­al to be re­leased in­to the at­mo­sphere freely after an ex­plo­sion.

The big pic­ture

The re­act­ors at the Ja­pan­ese plant were built by Gen­er­al Elec­tric and faced what the nuc­le­ar power in­dustry de­scribes as a “bey­ond-design” cata­strophe. In oth­er words, the double whammy of an earth­quake and a tsunami lar­ger than an­ti­cip­ated was not something the re­act­or design was cap­able of with­stand­ing.

Ra­dio­act­ive ma­ter­i­al that has been in­ter­mit­tently re­leased from the crippled re­act­ors is not in and of it­self a great cause of pub­lic con­cern, ex­perts say. It de­pends on wheth­er the ma­ter­i­al goes any­where oth­er than right near it and how much is re­leased. “Just be­cause there is ra­di­ation, un­less you’re sit­ting in a hot air bal­loon over the top of the build­ing, you’re prob­ably not go­ing to get ra­di­ated,” Brown said.

But sci­entif­ic as­sess­ments aside, the idea of ra­di­ation is not a good one and that’s what got the en­tire world stirred up.

“You would not know you were be­ing ra­di­ated,” said Ar­thur Motta, chair of the Nuc­le­ar En­gin­eer­ing pro­gram at Penn State Uni­versity. “That’s the scary part. I could be sit­ting here and I wouldn’t know it.”

What We're Following See More »
WEST WING REDUX
Allison Janney Takes to the Real White House Podium
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Carolyn Kaster/AP

STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
12 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
14 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
×