Robot retrieves first melted fuel from Fukushima nuclear reactor

 with a tiny piece of melted fuel it collected from inside one of three damaged reactors at the tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant for the first time since the 2011 meltdown.

It only takes 13 years, even that only tiny piece being recovered.

There are, maybe, 1 million grams in a Japanese ton(ne), and there are 800 tons of melted, highly radioactive fuel. If you can clip a 3 gram piece of it every two weeks without stopping, and place each piece in a lead_lined box sufficiently thick to eliminate the radiation, how long will it take to remove all the melted fuel, not counting the time to put those boxes somewhere safer? I suspect 40 years is a bit ambitious.

Currently, there is no known way to remove the molten fuels.

sakurasukiToday 06:57 am JST

It only takes 13 years, even that only tiny piece being recovered.

This line again? What a surprise.

They haven't just been doing this for 13 years. A ton of other stuff is being done too. I will paste my previous reply, since you're posting the same inflammatory nonsense.

...

There are also small matters like reactor cold shutdown, decontamination work, reactor building coverings, ice wall, groundwater bypass, development/upgrade of ALPS, non-melted fuel removal, reactor surveys, robot development and deployment, treated water release, ocean surveys, rearing of fish in treated water, etc. etc. etc.

NiftyToday 07:31 am JST

If you can clip a 3 gram piece of it every two weeks without stopping, and place each piece in a lead_lined box sufficiently thick to eliminate the radiation, how long will it take to remove all the melted fuel

It's my understanding that this endeavor is only for sampling, not removal. It's to understand the physical/chemical make-up of the fuel debris so they can form a realistic plan for the actual removal.

New technologies will come along, but Japan may have to come to terms with the possibility that this may never be fixable. Perhaps someone can work out what the regional and global consequences will be when humanity can no longer curate this mess. And there are plenty more Fukushimas out there, that will not survive WW III intact.

sakurasukiToday  06:57 am JST

* with a tiny piece of melted fuel it collected from inside one of three damaged reactors at the tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant for the first time since the 2011 meltdown.*

It only takes 13 years, even that only tiny piece being recovered.

Feel free to volunteer to go carry some out for them. That will speed up the process.

Isabelle - you are correct. They haven't been sitting on their hands.

Tons of stuff has been developed, carried out and it's ongoing - of course. Admirable as this has been, it's also a necessity, an absolute minimum necessity. And the measures to date are nothing but stop-gap.

But the key point is - when tasked with the removal of 800+ tonnes of radioactive fuel, nothing is likely to occur in the near to far future, if at all.

Setting recovery time frames like within 40/50/60 years or whatever is nonsensical. The effort required technically, financially and logistically is beyond current capabilities.

And it's not only the deadly fuel itself, it's all of the highly contaminated surrounds that must be dealt with and then disposed of - how, when, where....?

A mighty task that will see generations working on this.

If ever there was a case for the dangers of Fission nuclear power, Fukushima is the gold medal case. Extending the lives of ancient reactors, albeit renovated, is fraught with great risk esp in a high quake prone zone like Japan.

Safe(r) Fusion or Thorium nuclear power is a long, long way off.

Tough times ahead.

browny1Today 10:37 am JST

But the key point is - when tasked with the removal of 800+ tonnes of radioactive fuel, nothing is likely to occur in the near to far future, if at all.

It won't occur in the "near" future, but I'm sure it will in the "far" future (decades).

Setting recovery time frames like within 40/50/60 years or whatever is nonsensical.

I don't think it's "nonsensical" to set plans/targets, as that's standard project management practice, especially for such a huge project as this.

However, it's definitely true that many experts think the current time-frame unrealistic. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it were.

Tons of stuff has been developed, carried out and it's ongoing - of course. Admirable as this has been, it's also a necessity, an absolute minimum necessity. And the measures to date are nothing but stop-gap.

I would disagree with the "stop-gap" characterization, to be honest. It's work that simply needs to be done (as you say, a "necessity") in order to decommission the plant. And it's being conducted in conjunction with organizations like the IAEA and the UK's Sellafield (which has more decommissioning experience than anyone), so I doubt it can realistically be done any other way.

The effort required technically, financially and logistically is beyond current capabilities.

Technically - yes, they don't have the capabilities yet. That's why the robot etc. development work is ongoing. But even without the capabilities, they're not just going to give up: they're trying to develop them, as they should.

Financially and logistically - I'd say it's achievable, but will be phenomenally expensive.

And it's not only the deadly fuel itself, it's all of the highly contaminated surrounds that must be dealt with and then disposed of - how, when, where....?

Still to be determined, but possibly Hokkaido or Saga.

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/05/178b40fd7df7-nuclear-waste-site-survey-to-go-ahead-in-southwestern-japan-town.html

A mighty task that will see generations working on this.

Yes, I'd agree.

Fukushima is a 100-year project. The final cost ¥100 trillion.

The radiation levels in the reactors are 15-50 SIEVERTS per hour—an impossible environment.

Usually the simplest solution is the right one.

They should just call it quits and do this the proper way, as they did on Chernobyl. Pour concrete all over and make a sarcophagus out of it, and done. Or do they really think by investing billions they can really proper clean up there?

DanteKH

Usually the simplest solution is the right one.

They should just call it quits and do this the proper way, as they did on Chernobyl. Pour concrete all over and make a sarcophagus out of it, and done. Or do they really think by investing billions they can really proper clean up there?

I have already posted many times that solution is not possible. Chernobyl and Fukushima are two different types of nuclear disasters. The molten fuel requires cooling. A tunnel would need to be constructed under the reactors which is not possible. If the molten fuel cannot be removed the current situation will continue for many decades.

The first use of engineering + science to u'stand the molten fuel' chemical changes, I reckon it has taken mankind 60yrs to get this far?? Well done gals, guys, robotic arms. We humans need energy. Understanding exactly what is down there can only lead to reducing future radiation leaks.

That's exciting. Hopefully they are working on a way to scale this up, though.

Thanks for your reply Isabelle.

For me decades is the near future and far is way beyond that - even into the next century.

While not insurmountable any finished solution - ie complete cleanup - to the problem isn't likely before 22ndC.

And your comment re "unrealistic" is exactly what I was hinting at. The expressed desire for a conclusion by a set date is just for the media and masses.

And my use of stop-gap - short term measures - just goes to many of the aspects of the process to date. Witness the storage of treated water in tanks to the tune of 1.5 billion liters. Or the Ice wall. Necessary - but still stop-gap short terms answers.

And yes they're not going to give up. They are committed by law to solve the problem.

I have no doubt that one day they will, and it will be a great achievement. but not in my lifetime or my childrens I'm sure of that.

browny1Today 02:53 pm JST

And thanks for your reply. It's rare to actually have a proper debate about this. I'm usually countering disinformation on these threads.

Necessary - but still stop-gap short terms answers.

I can see your point but would still respectfully disagree. When the "full" solutions take time, interim measures then become part of the overall process.

For instance, with regard to the contaminated water, the ALPS treatment and release into the sea would not even be possible (with the level of scrutiny that is in place) were it not for the tanks storing the water in the first place. An analogy would be that temporary scaffolding is often necessary for construction work: yes, it's short-term, but it's part of the overall process.

This decommissioning work is completely unprecedented, so there will undoubtedly be many such cases, however one characterizes them.

The expressed desire for a conclusion by a set date is just for the media and masses.

The Mid-and-Long-Term Roadmap isn't just for the media and masses.

It provides a baseline to measure progress against (again, standard project management practice), and drives the vital political debate. It determines budgeting and planning at the operational, prefectural, and national level. It's also periodically updated to reflect progress, so "should" become more authoritative over time.

For anyone interested, here it is:

https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissioning/index.html

In my opinion, the current state of technology makes anything other than leaving the radioactive material in place impractical. It may be uncomfortable to accept, but for now the only thing that can be done is to leave the melted cores in place, while trying to protect the surrounding areas from radiation.

On a related matter, I will always remember an article in Scientific American magazine about naturally occurring uranium reactors. There is evidence that earlier in Earth's history uranium placer deposits occasionally caused accumulations and concentrations of uranium in river beds that resulted in the generation of huge amounts of radiation. That can't have been very good for the local lifeforms. The theory of explanation is that earlier in Earth's history there was a larger amount of surface uranium, which, naturally accumulating in river beds, could concentrate to the point of generating a nuclear reaction. Evidence of such nuclear reactions have, reportedly, been discovered in a river bed in Africa. The amount and concentration of uranium today is no longer sufficient to result in a natural uranium breeder, the theory goes.

It's a small but extremely significant step in the right direction. Getting to the root of the disaster is the right approach. Don’t cover it up like Russia did with Chernobyl.