Nuclear accident in Japan, a Japanese Chernobyl?

[Christophe]

170 billion? It will be much more than that, 500 to 1000 $ billion provided the nuclear disaster is not a new Chernobyl. The Kobe earthquake was already 100 billion.

I think the same! Especially that no one knows how the nuclear case will end.

Other figures are still less than 40 billion, see the subject I just made about the economic impact of the earthquake: https://www.econologie.com/forums/japon-et-i ... 10587.html

We are talking about 30 m3 hour of borated seawater injected per reactor. With 3 reactors for now it's 90 m3 time. It is carefully avoided to say at present where is rejected the contaminated water ....

Uh if I understand correctly, the technique used is this one:

a) flooding of the reactor and primary circuit (as much as possible)
b) which would allow "external" cooling (flooding of the BR?) by an improvement in conduction / convection (the thermal resistance of concrete is almost zero, that of steel completely zero ...)

So the water inside the reactor remains obviously static and fortunately otherwise it would already be a maritime Tcherno!

The radioactivity of the water b) must be rather limited ... unless there is a real leak on the structures ... but in this case: is it better that it goes in the water of sea ​​or air? Frankly, I do not know ...

[Christophe]

Here's an interesting article that tried to estimate the cost of the Chernobyl disaster, and as expected, it's tricky: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/ ... obyl.shtml

(...)

socio-economic consequences

To assess the cost of the Chernobyl disaster, we must consider:
- direct damage and repair and rehabilitation costs: construction of a concrete sarcophagus around the damaged reactor, cleaning of the site, landfilling of waste and the most contaminated land, evacuation of a town of 50 000 inhabitants and construction of an equivalent city to relocate the inhabitants, relocation of the inhabitants of the hundreds of evacuated villages, monitoring of the radioactivity,
- indirect expenditure: compensation, victim care,
- the losses of agricultural, forestry and industrial production (including the production of electricity from the Chernobyl power plant permanently closed in 2000).

● As far as she is concerned, Belarus evaluates the total cost of the disaster on 30 years to 235 billion dollars. She dedicated 22,3% of her budget in 1991 and 6,1% in 2002. As an indirect consequence of the disaster, some analysts believe that the need to establish a genuine war economy is one of the causes of the installation of authoritarian rule in Belarus.

● Ukraine, for its part, gives a range of 175 to 200 billions of dollars and allocated 25% of its budget to Chernobyl in 1991 (3,4% today). But these figures do not include the loss of life or the loss of production of invalids (65 000 liquidators).
For example, according to the Act on the status and social protection of citizens affected by the Chernobyl disaster, about 7% of the Ukrainian population is concerned, that is:
-165 000 residents evacuated areas
-253 000 liquidators
-643 000 children of liquidators

● Russia, for its part, has not published precise accounts.

However, spending added three countries certainly exceed 500 billion.
The payment of compensation to victims is the most burdensome for the three countries. Seven million people currently receive allowances related to Chernobyl.
However, the tax burden is being quickly proved unbearable for transition countries experiencing a drop in their standard of living, the authorities have failed to reassess disability pensions and other allowances, so that the amounts received individually become relatively paltry.

In conclusion, the real cost and the environmental and health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster will probably never be known in their entirety.

(...)

In addition, it is always difficult to quantify the human cost (and biological in the broad sense ...)

I reasonably think we can go on 500 to 1000 billion for the direct and indirect costs of Chernobyl ...

[Addrelyn]

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/fr/chernobyl.html

Here you will find real news about Chernobyl.

Exposure according to classes (liquidators, public ...)
An estimate of deaths and cancers, the source term, maps etc ...
It's a United Nations document, not any lobby ...

It is better to put the iodine in the sea water, that's for sure, that's what is done in the Hagues. Cesium is boring everywhere.

[Obamot]

Why, there is no lobby at the UN ^^ [the exit is this way ->]

Otherwise, there has been in Japan tests of resistance of containment with missile fire.

That's for the "shots on purpose" ... not for the reactor explosions.

Except that today with modern weapons, you have to cross 1m50 concrete like butter, right?

[Christophe]

Thanks for the link but why specify "true", the others are "false"? It seems to me that the IAEA had reported about thirty official victims on Tcherno: a little light, no?

And the link I just gave seems rather serious to me?

There is no real info on the economic cost on the web page that you give but the .pdf link on the page gives but it lacks numbers (page 32 and following): http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Bookle ... rnobyl.pdf
Mirror: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... JBYEdl.pdf

This seems the same sources that I just gave to know:

Belarus, for instance, 30 years at US $ 235 billion.

So I stay on a cost between 500 billion and 1 billion ...

ps: pay attention to the big numbers in English one billion home = one billion english and the rest also seems offset by a factor of a thousand (I just checked on wiki ... but it's confusing)!
Never do as we do when it comes to numbers anyway!

[Macro]

30m3 time seems to me a symbolic flow to cool such a source of energy ... To extinguish a hydrocarbon spill fire count 1.5litre minute foaming solution per m² inflamed ...

[Leo Maximus]

So the water inside the reactor remains obviously static and fortunately otherwise it would already be a maritime Tcherno!

Are you sure of that ? So much the better, phew!

It is TEPCO in its press releases that 30 m3 of borated seawater is injected per hour into each reactor. Why talk about time if it's closed circuit? it's 30 m3 point / bar. And if it's closed circuit, how cool is it? The generators are stopped I guess.

[Leo Maximus]

Why, there is no lobby at the UN ^^ [the exit is this way ->]

Otherwise, there has been in Japan tests of resistance of containment with missile fire.

That's for the "shots on purpose" ... not for the reactor explosions.

Except that today with modern weapons, you have to cross 1m50 concrete like butter, right?

1,50 m? Much more, it's crazy the "progress" ....!

[Christophe]

Pkoi Macro?

If we don't know the delta, you can't say ... I think the "legal" delta is obviously not respected and that the water can be rejected much hotter than +1 or + 2 ° C in normal times .

We can easily estimate a maximum range that can dissipate this flow before the water mud!

a) cold water source at 10 ° C
b) discharge at 90 ° C
c) delta = 80 ° C

"Max" power dissipated in kW = 30 / 000 * 3600 * 4180 = 80 kW or 2 MW.

It sticks completely with the thermal power of a reactor of 500 MW (1 reactor) is about 1500 MW thermal (in power / maximum load). The rejected water must therefore be with a delta of 40 at 50 ° C ...

QED!

ps: it's time to go for hot sea bathing !!

[Macro]

So the water inside the reactor remains obviously static and fortunately otherwise it would already be a maritime Tcherno!

Are you sure of that ? So much the better, phew!

It is TEPCO in its press releases that 30 m3 of borated seawater is injected per hour into each reactor. Why talk about time if it's closed circuit? it's 30 m3 point / bar. And if it's closed circuit, how cool is it? The generators are stopped I guess.

There are probably 30m3 hour that leave in vaporization to see in the form of hydrogen following the contact of very hot element ...
Hydrogen that they could not stop exploding .. But who continues to fuck the camp ...