It will take the media and Japan a while to circle around to what caused the explosion, so I'll explain it now.
1. cooling circulation failed due to power loss.
2. reactor boiled off the coolant inventory and exposed the core
3. core overheated and damaged the fuel
4. the damaged fuel reacted with water vapor (zircaloy+H2O) and created a hydrogen bubble
5. the hydrogen burned (exploded, iow) and neatly removed the outer walls of the reactor building
The explosion you see in the videos aligns perfectly with the Fukushima Daiichi No.1 reactor building seen here [wikimedia.org] (forth square building from the left.)
The BBC has provided this incredible before/after photo [bbcimg.co.uk] where you can actually see the reactor building structure with the walls removed by the explosion: the metal framework is still intact.
The exact same thing happened with TMI-2 in 1979. The hydrogen burn occurred inside the containment dome. The Fukushima reactor doesn't have such a dome, so the hydrogen accumulated in the reactor building.
this shoulda stopped at number 1. power loss circlation failer shoulda trigger emergy shutdown.these do have safetys agenst this happing and they well failed. as you said it will take years to knoe what relly happond and who wasent doing there job.
A nuclear reactor is not like your electric water kettle. There is NO off switch. Stopping the primary fission reaction by inserting the control/emergency rods does not stop heat generation. There's plenty of fissioning byproduct that will simply generate decay heat for days on end. This heat is significant, and you need to keep cooling the reactor for perhaps a week until the heat output is low enough. The reactor was shut down via control rods likely before cooling has stopped. Had it been running at nomi
I was inaccurate here: what I should have meant by the "primary fission reaction" was a made up gobbledygook stand in for "reaction going at a rate that produces close to the rated power output". Control rods and whatever other SCRAM systems you have in a BWR will cut the heat output by a factor of magnitude, there's still plenty of neutrons to go around to keep things hot.
Hydrogen burn isn't a very energetic event, which is why the Reactor Building framework is still intact. This means the Reactor Vessel is still intact and bolted upright to the floor with the damaged core inside. The RV and the steel containment around it is a very robust container, much stronger than the framework of the building.
All cooling apparatus is gone. If the detonation didn't disable it the fire will. So total core melt is almost certain.
TMI-2 melted 50% of the core which pooled at the bottom of the RV. The RV did not rupture despite the intense heat. It is possible this RV may also not rupture, especially if any cooling can be applied to the outer surface. If so then widespread intense contamination may be avoided.
If the RV does rupture then we'll have molten corium pooling on the concrete floor uncovered before God and everyone. All bets are off at that point.
FYI the reactor is a GE Mark I BWR with steel containment. Details here [uiuc.edu](PDF). A very old, before-mandatory-concrete-containment-dome system.
Simply put, this reactor design (especially without the containment dome) is less safe than Three Mile Island. We (the world at large) really need to modernize our nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, that's going to require building new reactors - we can't practically afford the loss of generating capacity to take the existing ones off the grid that long - and there is, as always, a ridiculous amount of opposition, largely from luddites who wouldn't know a molten salt reactor from a bomb shelter.
But but but... I thought that nuclear energy was so perfectly safe now, a Chernobyl-like accident just could never ever happen again in any civilized country, it was just due to the sheer stupidity of those stinking commies, and anybody daring to think any differently was only a fucking ignoramus barely worth being laughed at with scorn? And I've always felt so ashamed of thinking that renewable energy sources were so much simpler, cleaner, reliable, safe and cheaper when taking into account externalities,
That was what shocked me when I first heard it. A proper reactor like the ones typically employed in the US, will shut down automatically when power is lost to the core. The control rods drop from the top and the fuel rods drop out of the core into basically a concrete slot. And the reaction very quickly comes to a halt as all those particles flying around get absorbed by the control rods.
For some reason, these reactors seem to require power in order to be off, which is one of the lessons we learned from Ch
Your "proper reactors" in the US also require active decay heat removal to prevent meltdowns. In fact, they're very similar to the ones in Japan. You can stop the chain reaction easily enough, but you can't stop the heat produced from radioactive decay of the fission products.
Radioisotope decay thermal energy is a pretty weak power source, by itself. The chain reaction is always the problem in situations like this. Of course, that's how a fission reactor works - staying on the hairy line of criticality, where each nucleus fissioning releases (on average) enough neutrons to fission another one - so the catch is how you stop the chain reaction from running away (going super-critical) when something breaks. Removing heat alone won't do it, but adding heat isn't inherently a problem
"A proper reactor like the ones typically employed in the US, will shut down automatically when power is lost to the core."
As someone else said, nuclear reactors don't have an "off switch". The control rods dampen the reaction. On a shutdown, reactivity drops by over an order of magnitude, but it takes minutes or hours to then ramp down to idle levels, and idle still does not mean none.
More significantly, even if you could wave a magic wand and kill all atomic reaction instantly, the core remains at operating temperature until coolant can remove all that thermal energy. And at the risk of stating the obvious, there is a *lot
That's not possible. Market forces prevent unsafe designs from being built. Who would invest in a nuclear reactor that could melt down before its rated service life? Or in an automobile that put its occupants at unusual risk of death or injuries?
People would have to be really stupid to invest in such disasters waiting to happen...
Simply put, this reactor design (especially without the containment dome) is less safe than Three Mile Island. We (the world at large) really need to modernize our nuclear power plants.
Which is shocking
I keep hearing Japanophiles talking about how awesome Japan's disaster preparation is and how "we could learn a lot from them"
sounds like they could learn a few things from us....
The catch is that when the core is exposed (after the coolant boils off), it's still too hot and leads to hydrogen gas formation. You either need some way to remove that heat more quickly (such as pumping in additional coolant, which takes energy and irradiates more material, or venting the core, which releases radiation), or some way to prevent the core from becoming exposed (such as coolant that doesn't boil off).
We need to start voting on the issue in a concrete way. Each power customer gets to choose the list of pollutants they would like to be responsible for over the next 10 years. The figures should include the weight and volume of the pollutants and where they will be. They should also be granted the option to voluntarily shut their power off if they prefer. I'll bet with the options laid out simply, a lot of people concerned about the environment would select nuclear.
If the RV does rupture then we'll have molten corium pooling on the concrete floor uncovered before God and everyone. All bets are off at that point.
I'm hopeful that won't happen. The uranium fuel inside the reactor is a ceramic- you know, the type of material with very poor heat conduction. The steel RV has much better heat conduction, and flooding the primary containment (another pressure vessel between the RV and the outside rectangular building) should be a successful strategy.
Now, it may sound strange that the heat source in a massive heat engine has poor heat conduction, but it is the case. It takes a very specific geometry to both reach criticality (criticality = stable power generation in Nuke terms) and remove heat via the coolant.
Obviously there's not much in the way of coolant left, and the geometry is (ahem) 'suspect' at this point. However, the decay heat will continue to decrease as days go by, and little nuclear heat should be generated in a disorganized pile of molten ceramic. The bottom of the RV should hold.
(I am not a nuclear physicist, but I know a lot about making nuclear power)
If you've got a question, son, just go ahead and ask it. There's no need to be a snarky little jackass.
Now, more folks know a large amount about nuclear power without being a D.O.P.E. (Doctor Of Pile Engineering), but apparently you can't fathom such a thing. I'll try to help you out.
The comment about not being a nuclear physicist relates to not being certain about nuclear power generation in a disorganized pile of uranium in the bottom of a reactor vessel.
What I do know, however, is that for a nuclear chain reaction to occur, you need neutrons splitting off of uranium, and then those neutrons need to cause fission of other uranium atoms.
However, these neutrons from a fission event are traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and at such speeds, they are unlikely to cause fission of another uranium atom. These neutrons need to be slowed to a 'thermal' state (near the kinetic energy of, say, water in an operating reactor) in order to cause the next fission event.
This is where the water comes in. The neutrons are slowed by the water to a thermal state, and in such a state, they are likely to cause the fission of another uranium atom, creating power and continuing the nuclear chain reaction.
When you've got a mass of molten uranium in the bottom of a pressure vessel, you don't have water in between the uranium atoms, so you can't slow down the neutrons to cause the next chain event.
Now, as to the heat conduction angle, normally the ratio of surface area to mass is high in normal geometry. A fuel pellet is about the size of a pencil eraser, a fuel rod is a stack of these in zircaloy cladding, and a fuel assembly is a cluster of these rods with space in between them (for the water to slow down the neutrons and carry heat away for power production.)
Now if you've got a molten pool of this stuff, the surface area vs the mass ratio is much lower. This means that heat removal (which is done with surface area) is degraded. As a consequence, the fuel heats up incredibly (until the decay heat falls off), but relatively little sensible heat is transferred to the steel reactor vessel- which can conduct heat away from the uranium pool at the bottom rapidly, especially if they flood the primary containment structure.
I have not, however, ran sophisticated computer simulations to these ends, nor am I qualified to perform a back of the envelope calculations to the same effect.
I am, however, intimately familiar with the normal and emergency operating parameters of a certain pressurized water reactor, and many of the physical principles are similar to that of the boiling water reactor in question. As such, I can compare the likely conditions in this reactor with the normal and emergency operating conditions in the reactor that I am familiar with, and make reasonably credible predictions- certainly moreso than you, or 95% of the stuff you've read so far.
But hey, there's no PHD in nuclear physics after my name. How could I possibly know anything relevant?
Now if you've got a molten pool of this stuff, the surface area vs the mass ratio is much lower. This means that heat removal (which is done with surface area) is degraded. As a consequence, the fuel heats up incredibly (until the decay heat falls off), but relatively little sensible heat is transferred to the steel reactor vessel- which can conduct heat away from the uranium pool at the bottom rapidly, especially if they flood the primary containment structure.
As I understand it, the core is inside 6 inches of stainless steel, so heat removal from the RV is so close to zero that it can be neglected. Am I missing something -- is there any significant heat removal mechanism aside from (heat) radiation from the containment vessel?
As I understand it, the core is inside 6 inches of stainless steel, so heat removal from the RV is so close to zero that it can be neglected. Am I missing something -- is there any significant heat removal mechanism aside from (heat) radiation from the containment vessel?
One possible accident mitigation strategy is to flood the primary containment structure around the reactor vessel with water. In such a case, the heat would transfer through the 6" of steel, heat up and boil water, and remove heat that way.
It wasn't a snark - it was a statement of fact. You're falsely claiming to be an authority about something you aren't an authority on at all.
The comment about not being a nuclear physicist relates to not being certain about nuclear power generation in a disorganized pile of uranium in the bottom of a reactor vessel.
Yet, that didn't stop you from specifically stating that there would be very little heat being generated in such a pile in your first postin
If you don't, you are, in fact, being a snarky little jackass.
I've clearly stated the basis for my theories. It's more relevant than the crap you're getting from most news articles or many other Slashdot posters. The actual nuclear physics PHD's are mostly too busy trying to help out in Japan to post here on Slashdot, so you get me instead. Maybe a couple other knowledgeable posters, too.
Your wikipedia link on corium was unmoving. It was a problem at Chernobyl, b
The cooling pumps only failed roughly an hour after the quake when the diesel generators were flooded. This hour probably save the plant from a more serious outcome.
The shutdown would have been almost immediate with the start of the quake. After an hour's cooldown the decay heat would only be producing 0.5-1% of the full power level ie. a few hundred kW not MW. Now a day later the decay heat will have reduced even further.
It is extremely unlikely that after this time there would be enough heat t
1 We don't know if the cooling system has completely failed (and you're accusing the power company of blatant lies)
2 We don't know if the explosion happened in the core power production (but they're saying it was a hydrogen explosion in the cooling system)
3 The same pictures would be seen if this is pressure release valves operating normally within the core unit.
The hydrogen at TMI almost exploded off the containment dome. They guessed there was no oxygen to make it burn, but put all effort towards getting rid of it, using a plasma device and then just venting it out. Too bad the Japanese did not vent more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident [wikipedia.org]
I don't see how a powerloss caused this... the coolant hardware or plumbing must have failed or ruptured or vital systems that could generate power in the manner a nuclear plant does prevented it from functioning.
Why, if there is too much heat despite a shutdown/cooldown being underway, do they not simply generate power from the turbines for on-site use in mediating the 1-2 day cooldown? Something has to be broken, not just a generator, as half the place's design is expressly intended to convert heat into
The water cooling system of the plant itself cannot produce enough cool water because of the power loss or something.
Anyway, this means that they decided to basically trash the plant after everything is (hopefully) contained even though the reactor vessel is intact: The inside of the reactor will be contaminated by I-do
Informative, and most speculative, but probably wrong. For those not near the plant, the best bet is to wait for some answers (which will probably involve a coolant pipe burst due to high reactor vessel pressure rather than a hydrogen explosion). For those near the plant, if you've got somewhere else to, go there until things are under control and fallout has been mapped..
Why it exploded (Score:5, Informative)
It will take the media and Japan a while to circle around to what caused the explosion, so I'll explain it now.
The explosion you see in the videos aligns perfectly with the Fukushima Daiichi No.1 reactor building seen here [wikimedia.org] (forth square building from the left.)
The BBC has provided this incredible before/after photo [bbcimg.co.uk] where you can actually see the reactor building structure with the walls removed by the explosion: the metal framework is still intact.
The exact same thing happened with TMI-2 in 1979. The hydrogen burn occurred inside the containment dome. The Fukushima reactor doesn't have such a dome, so the hydrogen accumulated in the reactor building.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A nuclear reactor is not like your electric water kettle. There is NO off switch. Stopping the primary fission reaction by inserting the control/emergency rods does not stop heat generation. There's plenty of fissioning byproduct that will simply generate decay heat for days on end. This heat is significant, and you need to keep cooling the reactor for perhaps a week until the heat output is low enough. The reactor was shut down via control rods likely before cooling has stopped. Had it been running at nomi
Re: (Score:2)
I was inaccurate here: what I should have meant by the "primary fission reaction" was a made up gobbledygook stand in for "reaction going at a rate that produces close to the rated power output". Control rods and whatever other SCRAM systems you have in a BWR will cut the heat output by a factor of magnitude, there's still plenty of neutrons to go around to keep things hot.
What happens next (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen burn isn't a very energetic event, which is why the Reactor Building framework is still intact. This means the Reactor Vessel is still intact and bolted upright to the floor with the damaged core inside. The RV and the steel containment around it is a very robust container, much stronger than the framework of the building.
All cooling apparatus is gone. If the detonation didn't disable it the fire will. So total core melt is almost certain.
TMI-2 melted 50% of the core which pooled at the bottom of the RV. The RV did not rupture despite the intense heat. It is possible this RV may also not rupture, especially if any cooling can be applied to the outer surface. If so then widespread intense contamination may be avoided.
If the RV does rupture then we'll have molten corium pooling on the concrete floor uncovered before God and everyone. All bets are off at that point.
FYI the reactor is a GE Mark I BWR with steel containment. Details here [uiuc.edu](PDF). A very old, before-mandatory-concrete-containment-dome system.
Re:What happens next (Score:5, Interesting)
Simply put, this reactor design (especially without the containment dome) is less safe than Three Mile Island. We (the world at large) really need to modernize our nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, that's going to require building new reactors - we can't practically afford the loss of generating capacity to take the existing ones off the grid that long - and there is, as always, a ridiculous amount of opposition, largely from luddites who wouldn't know a molten salt reactor from a bomb shelter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are
Re: (Score:2)
That was what shocked me when I first heard it. A proper reactor like the ones typically employed in the US, will shut down automatically when power is lost to the core. The control rods drop from the top and the fuel rods drop out of the core into basically a concrete slot. And the reaction very quickly comes to a halt as all those particles flying around get absorbed by the control rods.
For some reason, these reactors seem to require power in order to be off, which is one of the lessons we learned from Ch
Re: (Score:3)
Your "proper reactors" in the US also require active decay heat removal to prevent meltdowns. In fact, they're very similar to the ones in Japan. You can stop the chain reaction easily enough, but you can't stop the heat produced from radioactive decay of the fission products.
Re: (Score:2)
Radioisotope decay thermal energy is a pretty weak power source, by itself. The chain reaction is always the problem in situations like this. Of course, that's how a fission reactor works - staying on the hairy line of criticality, where each nucleus fissioning releases (on average) enough neutrons to fission another one - so the catch is how you stop the chain reaction from running away (going super-critical) when something breaks. Removing heat alone won't do it, but adding heat isn't inherently a problem
Nuclear reactors do not have an off switch (Score:2)
"A proper reactor like the ones typically employed in the US, will shut down automatically when power is lost to the core."
As someone else said, nuclear reactors don't have an "off switch". The control rods dampen the reaction. On a shutdown, reactivity drops by over an order of magnitude, but it takes minutes or hours to then ramp down to idle levels, and idle still does not mean none.
More significantly, even if you could wave a magic wand and kill all atomic reaction instantly, the core remains at operating temperature until coolant can remove all that thermal energy. And at the risk of stating the obvious, there is a *lot
Re: (Score:2)
That's not possible. Market forces prevent unsafe designs from being built. Who would invest in a nuclear reactor that could melt down before its rated service life? Or in an automobile that put its occupants at unusual risk of death or injuries?
People would have to be really stupid to invest in such disasters waiting to happen ...
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply put, this reactor design (especially without the containment dome) is less safe than Three Mile Island. We (the world at large) really need to modernize our nuclear power plants.
Which is shocking
I keep hearing Japanophiles talking about how awesome Japan's disaster preparation is and how "we could learn a lot from them"
sounds like they could learn a few things from us....
Re: (Score:2)
The catch is that when the core is exposed (after the coolant boils off), it's still too hot and leads to hydrogen gas formation. You either need some way to remove that heat more quickly (such as pumping in additional coolant, which takes energy and irradiates more material, or venting the core, which releases radiation), or some way to prevent the core from becoming exposed (such as coolant that doesn't boil off).
Re: (Score:2)
We need to start voting on the issue in a concrete way. Each power customer gets to choose the list of pollutants they would like to be responsible for over the next 10 years. The figures should include the weight and volume of the pollutants and where they will be. They should also be granted the option to voluntarily shut their power off if they prefer. I'll bet with the options laid out simply, a lot of people concerned about the environment would select nuclear.
Re:What happens next (Score:4, Informative)
If the RV does rupture then we'll have molten corium pooling on the concrete floor uncovered before God and everyone. All bets are off at that point.
I'm hopeful that won't happen. The uranium fuel inside the reactor is a ceramic- you know, the type of material with very poor heat conduction. The steel RV has much better heat conduction, and flooding the primary containment (another pressure vessel between the RV and the outside rectangular building) should be a successful strategy.
Now, it may sound strange that the heat source in a massive heat engine has poor heat conduction, but it is the case. It takes a very specific geometry to both reach criticality (criticality = stable power generation in Nuke terms) and remove heat via the coolant.
Obviously there's not much in the way of coolant left, and the geometry is (ahem) 'suspect' at this point. However, the decay heat will continue to decrease as days go by, and little nuclear heat should be generated in a disorganized pile of molten ceramic. The bottom of the RV should hold.
(I am not a nuclear physicist, but I know a lot about making nuclear power)
On nuclear physics..... (Score:4, Informative)
If you've got a question, son, just go ahead and ask it. There's no need to be a snarky little jackass.
Now, more folks know a large amount about nuclear power without being a D.O.P.E. (Doctor Of Pile Engineering), but apparently you can't fathom such a thing. I'll try to help you out.
The comment about not being a nuclear physicist relates to not being certain about nuclear power generation in a disorganized pile of uranium in the bottom of a reactor vessel.
What I do know, however, is that for a nuclear chain reaction to occur, you need neutrons splitting off of uranium, and then those neutrons need to cause fission of other uranium atoms.
However, these neutrons from a fission event are traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light, and at such speeds, they are unlikely to cause fission of another uranium atom. These neutrons need to be slowed to a 'thermal' state (near the kinetic energy of, say, water in an operating reactor) in order to cause the next fission event.
This is where the water comes in. The neutrons are slowed by the water to a thermal state, and in such a state, they are likely to cause the fission of another uranium atom, creating power and continuing the nuclear chain reaction.
When you've got a mass of molten uranium in the bottom of a pressure vessel, you don't have water in between the uranium atoms, so you can't slow down the neutrons to cause the next chain event.
Now, as to the heat conduction angle, normally the ratio of surface area to mass is high in normal geometry. A fuel pellet is about the size of a pencil eraser, a fuel rod is a stack of these in zircaloy cladding, and a fuel assembly is a cluster of these rods with space in between them (for the water to slow down the neutrons and carry heat away for power production.)
Now if you've got a molten pool of this stuff, the surface area vs the mass ratio is much lower. This means that heat removal (which is done with surface area) is degraded. As a consequence, the fuel heats up incredibly (until the decay heat falls off), but relatively little sensible heat is transferred to the steel reactor vessel- which can conduct heat away from the uranium pool at the bottom rapidly, especially if they flood the primary containment structure.
I have not, however, ran sophisticated computer simulations to these ends, nor am I qualified to perform a back of the envelope calculations to the same effect.
I am, however, intimately familiar with the normal and emergency operating parameters of a certain pressurized water reactor, and many of the physical principles are similar to that of the boiling water reactor in question. As such, I can compare the likely conditions in this reactor with the normal and emergency operating conditions in the reactor that I am familiar with, and make reasonably credible predictions- certainly moreso than you, or 95% of the stuff you've read so far.
But hey, there's no PHD in nuclear physics after my name. How could I possibly know anything relevant?
Re: (Score:2)
Now if you've got a molten pool of this stuff, the surface area vs the mass ratio is much lower. This means that heat removal (which is done with surface area) is degraded. As a consequence, the fuel heats up incredibly (until the decay heat falls off), but relatively little sensible heat is transferred to the steel reactor vessel- which can conduct heat away from the uranium pool at the bottom rapidly, especially if they flood the primary containment structure.
As I understand it, the core is inside 6 inches of stainless steel, so heat removal from the RV is so close to zero that it can be neglected. Am I missing something -- is there any significant heat removal mechanism aside from (heat) radiation from the containment vessel?
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the core is inside 6 inches of stainless steel, so heat removal from the RV is so close to zero that it can be neglected. Am I missing something -- is there any significant heat removal mechanism aside from (heat) radiation from the containment vessel?
One possible accident mitigation strategy is to flood the primary containment structure around the reactor vessel with water. In such a case, the heat would transfer through the 6" of steel, heat up and boil water, and remove heat that way.
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't a snark - it was a statement of fact. You're falsely claiming to be an authority about something you aren't an authority on at all.
Yet, that didn't stop you from specifically stating that there would be very little heat being generated in such a pile in your first postin
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got something better to add, do so.
If you don't, you are, in fact, being a snarky little jackass.
I've clearly stated the basis for my theories. It's more relevant than the crap you're getting from most news articles or many other Slashdot posters. The actual nuclear physics PHD's are mostly too busy trying to help out in Japan to post here on Slashdot, so you get me instead. Maybe a couple other knowledgeable posters, too.
Your wikipedia link on corium was unmoving. It was a problem at Chernobyl, b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The shutdown would have been almost immediate with the start of the quake. After an hour's cooldown the decay heat would only be producing 0.5-1% of the full power level ie. a few hundred kW not MW. Now a day later the decay heat will have reduced even further.
It is extremely unlikely that after this time there would be enough heat t
Talking out your ass (Score:2)
1 We don't know if the cooling system has completely failed (and you're accusing the power company of blatant lies)
2 We don't know if the explosion happened in the core power production (but they're saying it was a hydrogen explosion in the cooling system)
3 The same pictures would be seen if this is pressure release valves operating normally within the core unit.
Re: (Score:2)
The hydrogen at TMI almost exploded off the containment dome. They guessed there was no oxygen to make it burn, but put all effort towards getting rid of it, using a plasma device and then just venting it out. Too bad the Japanese did not vent more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see how a powerloss caused this... the coolant hardware or plumbing must have failed or ruptured or vital systems that could generate power in the manner a nuclear plant does prevented it from functioning.
Why, if there is too much heat despite a shutdown/cooldown being underway, do they not simply generate power from the turbines for on-site use in mediating the 1-2 day cooldown? Something has to be broken, not just a generator, as half the place's design is expressly intended to convert heat into
Next step: sea water with boronic acid (Score:1)
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20110313/t10014635191000.html [nhk.or.jp]
The water cooling system of the plant itself cannot produce enough cool water because of the power loss or something.
Anyway, this means that they decided to basically trash the plant after everything is (hopefully) contained even though the reactor vessel is intact: The inside of the reactor will be contaminated by I-do
Re: (Score:2)