0
How much water does each spent fuel pool at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant hold?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
I heard the answer myself on TV today: about 1300 t (the pool is 11 m deep, 29 m long, and 12 wide, but because it is filled with spent rods less water is needed than if it were empty)
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How much pollution is made from a nuclear power plant?
Spent fuel accounts for 3 percent of a nuclear power plant's waste. For every new fuel assembly loaded there is an old one which must be stored carefully, under water at first to allow much of the decay heat to reduce. In the US this is done at the power station site, as there is no long term storage available elsewhere and no program for dismantling discharged fuel. Other sources of low level waste are comparatively easy to deal with.Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html
Why is nuclear energy decreasing?
The nuclear energy industry in the US stopped expanding because of the political turmoil caused by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. We allowed ourselves to be driven by the anti-nuclear factions, even in the face of hard scientific evidence that nuclear power was economically viable, environmentally appropriate, and radiologically safe, when considered in the global context, particularly in comparison with the known consequences of fossil power. Look at Shoreham. Fully assembled and tested. 851 megawatts electric. Full power operating license. Ready to go. Six billion dollars. All thrown away for a dollar because of politics. Decommissioned and left to rot. And who pays for it? And for the replacement power plants that will ultimately be needed to cover its capacity? Why, the ratepayers, of course. Now, with the new accident at Fukushima Daiichi, things are going to get worse. Public sentiment is going to be swayed against nuclear, due to misunderstanding and, in some cases, deliberate misinformation. That is unfortunate, because we are at a very sensitive juncture, where the environmental consequences of fossil power need to be abated now, not in the distant future, and nuclear energy is the only viable option in the immediate term, and in the near and mid future. All of the alternative sources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar are not ready for main stream commercial operation, and neither is nuclear fusion. We need to objectively consider the global issues surrounding nuclear power and take a stand, one that is based on hard scientific fact, not mythology, scare tactics, and politics. In point of fact, both Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl released substantial amounts of radioactive material (Chernobyl about ten times as great, although the final picture is not complete on Fukushima Daiichi) but, and do not misunderstand this, the dilution effect of the enormous volume of the atmosphere and the ocean strongly mitigates the consequences of both accidents. I am not trying to minimize these accidents. They are serious, and they need to be studied so that we can learn from them. We just need to put them into global context. In addition, we are critically hampered by the lack of a long term high level waste facility. We have spent fuel accumulating in our 104 reactors with no place to go, simply because of politics, and misguided information. Yucca Mountain was built specifically for this purpose. We need to start using it. Now. Otherwise, we are not going to be able to proceed with a viable nuclear program, and the global consequences are that we will wind up in the dark ages, so to speak, and - might I add - literally. And, along with nuclear power, we need to look very carefully at automobiles. The marriage of nuclear power with automobiles running on electricity is a "match made in heaven". It is time to put our collective feet down and force the issue. These gas guzzlers need to go. No ifs, ands, ors, or buts. If that means mass transit and/or a change in life style, then so be it - our very existence on Earth depends on it. No exceptions.
What are disadvantages of the use of nuclear power for energy?
The waste is hazardous and difficult to store.There is some potential danger in operating a nuclear power plant (cf. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island), but the principal disadvantage is the need to safely store the spent fuel for tens of thousands of years.With proper regulation, safety features, and common sense pretty much none. When you test a poorly designed reactor, lets say a light water graphite moderated reactor also know as an RBMK reactor (Chernobyl) under low power low coolant conditions with al of the safety features turned off things can happen. When you ignore what the computers when they say to shut down the reactor and keep it running (Three mile island) things happen. But if you need disadvantages:Radioactive WasteHigher level waste can be reprocessed into Plutonium either through the use of a reprocessing facility or can be prevent from being made by using a breeder reactor where the higher level waste is not made and enriched Plutonium is made instead.Proliferation of fissionable materialsThe problem with breeder reactors is also the reason why they are good.They produce more fuel but they produce more fuel this highly enriched fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, or be used in a nuclear reactor to make energy.There is a large safety risk, from accidents and from terrorists stealing the fuel/byproducts to make weapons of mass destruction, nuclear power plants cost a lot to start, the nuclear fuel is non renewable and there is only enough to last approx 70 years.Nuclear fuel is in fact renewable in so-called "breeder" plants. France uses them, though there are none in the US.Nuclear plants are quite expensive to build, but so are coal-powered plants of equivalent capacity. Several companies are working on low-capacity plants... enough to power a neighborhood or a small village... that would be much cheaper.One disadvantage not mentioned above is the problem of disposing of spent... but still radioactive... fuel.
Is uranium the same thing as radium?
No, nuclear energy is due to a phenomenon called the "binding energy" of the atom which every element has and is a result of the strong nuclear force. However releasing this "binding energy" to get heat and thereby do work is not possible in every element.There are two practical ways to release this energy: fission of large massive atoms (e.g. uranium, plutonium) and fusion of small light atoms (e.g. hydrogen). Both fission and fusion have been used in nuclear weapons, only fission has been used in nuclear power plants. The stars use only fusion.While most nuclear power plants operating today use only uranium as fuel, France reprocesses spent fuel and uses both uranium and plutonium as fuel. A few experimental nuclear power plant reactors (e.g. the Integral Fast Breeder) have been worked on that are actually capable of using all the transuranic elements as well as uranium as fuel, so that they generate no long lived waste products.
What made the nuclear power plant get destroyed in Japan?
Fukushima Daiichi was destroyed by a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) caused by the tsunami which was caused by the earthquake. The earthquake caused the three operating units (three were operating, two were shutdown, and one was defueled) to automatically shutdown, as designed. Emergency cooling systems started up, also as designed. 41 minutes later, the tsunami occurred, and was much larger than expected, and it incapacitated the emergency diesel generators and damaged most of the emergency cooling system switchgear. Battery power remained, and partial emergency cooling continued for awhile, but with no way to recharge the batteries, emergency cooling failed. Even though the reactors were shutdown and not producing full power, there was decay heat caused by mixed fission byproducts, which accounts for about 7% of full power, for a significant period of time after shutdown. This decay heat is sufficient to overheat the fuel and cause damage unless the fuel is constantly cooled. The same thing applies to the spent fuel stored in the fuel storage rack in the spent fuel pool. Even though not in the reactor, it still has decay heat which must be removed with fuel pool cooling, cooling that was lost when all power was lost. As a result, the spent fuel also overheated and was damaged. Along the way, the hot zircalloy cladding on the fuel rods generated hydrogen gas in a reaction with water. Hydrogen gas in the nuclear steam cycle is normally removed with hydrogen recombiners, but they were not available. When you add water to hydrogen in a situation like this, it tends to explode, and it did, damaging parts of the building structure. Note that this was not a nuclear explosion, but it still damaged parts of the building and the systems.
What is the bad in nuclear energy?
Mostly the long lived radioactivity left in the spent fuel, but also any leakage from a damaged plant as at Fukushima.
Which is a waste problem of nuclear power that does not occur with coal-burning power plants?
The only waste from a nuclear power plant is spent fuel rods, which can be reprocessed. The waste from a coal fired plant is carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, ash, and soot.
What damage does nuclear power cause?
Nuclear power has multiple dangers such as, Power plant accidents- a notable one is Chernobyl but many have occurred Radiation which causes cancer Radioactive waste If Nuclear war comes into play
What pollution problems are associated with nuclear power plants?
Very little, provided the spent fuel is stored carefully, and there are no serious accidents in operating the plant
A place where nuclear power is produced?
A nuclear power plant or nuclear power station.This consists of:a nuclear fission reactoran electric generation facilityone or more cooling towers to dispose of waste heat in the form of water vapora spent fuel rod storage pool of water (to keep the rods cool as their fission products decay)a manned control roometc.
What happens if the fukushima plant explodes?
Actually, at the time this question was written, the plant had already undergone three explosions. According to the New York Times, nuclear fuel was thrown about 1.6 km (1 mile) from the plant, and the ground in the are was made radioactive. The reactor containment vessels failed sufficiently to leak large amounts of radioactive material into the sea. Later the water coming from the reactors and spent fuel pools was contained in storage tanks. Windborn radioactive material has been carried to various places near the plant, requiring about 100000 people to be evacuated. You should understand, however, that the explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were not nuclear in nature, even though they did through radioactive material around. They were caused when an air-hydrogen mix in the reactor buildings ignited and exploded.
What is the most likely disaster in a nuclear power plant?
proliferation of radio active nuclear waste For US nuclear power plants, this answer is incorrect. The high level waste, which is the spent fuel rods, are under tight control and are kept cool and protected as they decay. The likelyhood of their contribution to a disaster is quite low. The above answer used the word "proliferation", which is associated with countries or groups who do not have nuclear weapons somehow gaining the knowledge and technology. Spent fuel is a poor source for weapons grade nuclear material due to the high levels of radioactivity, which make working with the material a deadly job, and the fact that the plutonium in the spent fuel is not weapons grade. Proliferation is not a likely danger. The most likely disaster is a steam leak which can burn the operators or a coolant leak from the primary plant. Neither of these events constitute a "disaster". Nuclear power plants are much more fearful when Hollywood designs them than the real things are. == ==
How long before you die from Fukushima?
Well assuming that you spent your whole life in Fukushima you would have a mere 82.9 years to live. Radiation poisoning is different and depends greatly upon method of exposure, what kind of radiation, how much exposure, how quick it is treated and pre-existing conditions. Although if you spent an equal amount of time in a semi truck full of bananas and in the main city of Fukushima you would die from the bananas' natural radioactivity before radiation in the main city of Fukushima. BTW: Fukushima is a city, not a syndrome.
Is nuclear power cheaper than thermal power?
yes It's difficult to measure. There are HUGE up-front costs to build a nuclear power plant, and then long-term costs to safely store the spent fuel, which must be included with the relatively low day-to-day operating costs to calculate the total cost of nuclear power. Of course, in the rare event of a serious reactor failure, there are also enormous environmental costs, too. Geothermal power is only available in specific areas that have the right conditions, but it doesn't have the extreme potential costs of nuclear power.
Is one of the biggest concerns about nuclear power?
The radioactivity of the spent fuel, and the possibility of release to the surroundingsThe biggest concern about nuclear power is the possible meltdown of the reactor causing a massive release of radiation material into the atmosphere.
What is one of the biggest concerns about nuclear power?
The radioactivity of the spent fuel, and the possibility of release to the surroundingsThe biggest concern about nuclear power is the possible meltdown of the reactor causing a massive release of radiation material into the atmosphere.
Definition of nuclear power plant waste?
Primarily it is the spent fuel which contains highly active fission products. There will be small amounts of low level waste arising mainly from maintenance operations, this can usually be put into a dry store on the site.
