Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rachel Maddow - total amount of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods in the pools at PLANT #1

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:22 PM
Original message
Rachel Maddow - total amount of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods in the pools at PLANT #1
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 08:51 PM by Tx4obama
Spent Fuel at Plant #1

Building No.1 - 50 tons
Building No.2 - 100 tons
Building No.3 - 90 tons
Building No.4 - 130 tons
Building No.5 - 160 tons
Building No.6 - 150 tons

Numbers above do not include the fuel in the reactors that were 'in use' before the shutdown.

Note: Info from NHK in Japan

Also note: The amount at Chernobyl was 180 tons


Edited to add:

The amount of 'regular fuel' in the reactors is...
#1 - 70
#2 - 90
#3 - 90
#4 - 90
#5 - 90
#6 - 130

p.s. I missed those last set of numbers above because that is when I was doing the dishes.

GRAND TOTAL OF NUCLEAR FUEL at PLANT No.1 = 1240 TONS
That is 6.8 times the fuel at Chernobyl

Haven't heard how much is at PLANT #2. I heard this morning they are having serious problems over there too!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. and that does not include the spent fuel pools
Cheers, nice to see huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Huh? Those are the 'spent fuel pool' numbers. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. She also showed what was IN The reactor cores
let me see if I can find the graphic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. nadin, I thought she said that's what those numbers are - the spent fuel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I'll have to listen again and FIND the dang graphic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I did a rewind on my tv and found them. Added them in the OP above. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. thanks can't
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Tx4obama updated the O.P adding the numbers for what
was in the reactors.

Looks like what I saw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thom Hartmann is right - these things are freaking time bombs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. That spent fuel includes a whole lot of Plutonium
and all that that implies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. eek
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. I heard the plutonium is only in the MOX rods in building #3.
Have you heard anything else?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Plutonium is created in reactor.
Some about 2% of uranium is converted into plutonium.

MOX fuel is recycled fuel. they keep the uranium and plutonium and remove the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. a bit more info
DUer formerica on another thread said:

The problem with Reactor number three.

It uses a mixture of Uranium and Plutonium Oxides. Put aside for a moment, the fact that Plutonium is very toxic. It has one nasty feature that may cause serious problems.
Once the fuel assemblies have been breached, and Water comes in contact with the Plutonium Oxide, a reaction begins whereby the Plutonium begins to dissolve in the Water. It can reach a concentration where a Chain Reaction occurs. This would completely rupture the pressure vessel and release the Reactor Core and spent fuel to the Atmosphere in a massive explosion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x593558
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwasthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Staggering...
So much the world over... check out these numbers from the plant near me:

The Hanford Site includes more than 50 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in 177 underground storage tanks, 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel, 12 tons of plutonium in various forms, about 25 million cubic feet of buried or stored solid waste, and about 270 billion gallons of groundwater contaminated above drinking water standards, spread out over about 80 square miles, more than 1,700 waste sites, and about 500 contaminated facilities, according to Hanford officials."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. So find out how much is stored at your local Nuke. You might be amazed. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. So, unless I added incorrectly, that is a grand total of 1240 TONS. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. my very quick math, I am sure missing a few, was 1000
so yes, your math is correct.



Though in reality now probably naturally occurring



Sorry, my sense of humor has gone dark,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. Definitely comparisons TPTB anyplace would prefer the masses not know. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I'd rather not know them, also.
~~getting under desk~~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Yeah, I know what you mean. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
:scared: :scared: :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
21. OMG !!! There is even MORE
Here's a two minute clip from Maddow's show with the numbers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#42121003

Listen carefully at the 1:20 minute mark where she says "there's even a larger common pool" outside of the six reactors!

I wonder how much is in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
22. it should have been illegal to store spent fuel onsite, should be required
to store 'spent fuel' at least 20 miles from any reactor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Even if it were 20 miles away, if there's no electricity to run the cooling water.....
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 11:02 PM by Tx4obama

then the rods would still melt.

Some of the problems with Plant #1 - that even a NON scientist can see are
1) The cooling pools were placed up high 'towards the top of the buildings' - 4th or 5th floor of a 6 story building) - hard to access them with the roof on.
2) The backup generators should have been placed up on higher ground were they couldn't be damaged by a tsunami.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarsInHerHair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. so then why didn't the nuke scientists see these problems? & if the 'spent'
fuel is still hot enough to require cooling why not have them generate their own electricity to cool themselves off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Well....
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 11:32 PM by Tx4obama
the 'spent rods' are stored 'under water' so while they are under water they can't generate electricity - and they don't actually give off electricity they are used to boil water.

When fuel rods are in use in the reactor the fuel rods generate heat which boils water which is then used to create electricity.
After five or six years the rods start to weaken some and are removed from the reactor and placed under water that is cooled by cycling water - it takes months/year to cool down all the way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-16-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Yikes! What if that's where I live?? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. It is illegal to not store spent fuel on site, At least in the US.
Only DOE can approve a spent fuel storage site.

Every spent fuel rod ever used in a reactor in last 50 years is on reactor site in the US. We have been doing this longer than the Japanese too.

We should establish a govt run spent fuel storage facility. Of course I got attacked for suggesting that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Putting All the Spent Fuel in ONE Place Isn't Such a Hot Idea Either
Especially in a place that has an earthquake fault running right through it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. How about a few places and not on earth quake faults and away from population centers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-17-11 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
32. Rachel is covering the spent fuel issue again tonight! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC