Tepco Official on Unit 3: “We don’t know if it was really a hydrogen explosion”

Published: August 8th, 2012 at 6:44 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
20 comments


Statement of Tepco Executive Akio Takahashi recorded 30 minutes after the explosion at Reactor No. 3 on March 14, 2011 translated by Fukushima Diary:

“We don’t know if it was really a hydrogen explosion, but because the government, Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said it was a hydrogen explosion, let’s announce it was a hydrogen explosion. They’re trying to say it was the same explosion but different reactor number, aren’t they.”

See also:

Published: August 8th, 2012 at 6:44 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
20 comments

Related Posts

  1. Tepco: We don’t know if it was a hydrogen explosion at Unit 3 — Tell public it was though because “it’s a speed game” (VIDEO) October 8, 2012
  2. Asahi: Video shows Tepco’s hastiness when reporting Unit 3 as a hydrogen explosion — Cause “has yet to be determined” August 8, 2012
  3. Reactor Specialist on Unit 3: “I can’t tell you if it’s a hydrogen explosion or a nuclear explosion” (VIDEO) August 24, 2012
  4. Engineer: 6 experts say nuclear explosion at reactor is possible — NRC: Fukushima Unit 3 explosion had 3 loud bangs, much larger than Unit 1 blast — Tokyo professor’s presentation adds question mark: “Hydrogen explosion of Reactor #3?” (VIDEO) December 28, 2013
  5. Real severe problem cooling Unit No. 3 reactor — Hydrogen explosion possible (VIDEO) May 13, 2011

20 comments to Tepco Official on Unit 3: “We don’t know if it was really a hydrogen explosion”

  • Urban27

    Well, the photos show the third reactor building where concrete pillars of abt. 4×4 feet, are cracked like matches. And one third of the building is gone, and the rest is just rubble.
    The explosion was felt 25 miles away. (40 km)
    It is clearly not just a gas explosion like in no. 1 and 2.


    Report comment

  • eatliesndie eatliesndie

    It clearly was a nuclear explosion at #3


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Yes ..nuclear…


    Report comment

  • What a criminal act these nuclear power programmes- the very epitome of ignorance where the truth can be swamped under a tissue of statements which can only be proved by as yet uninvented instrumentation and repeatability(my God!)of what happened.


    Report comment

  • PhilipUpNorth philipupnorth

    We demand a third party investigation before the evidence is removed or destroyed. After one and a half years, we still don't know what happened at Building3 (or Buildings1,2,&4). The world deserves to know what happened here. It would also be acceptable to shut all nukes down immediately. But, if the nuke industry intends to operate these unstable, problematic death machines, shouldn't the failure mode of Fuku3 be thoroughly studied in order to avoid having a similar nuke failure elsewhere?


    Report comment

  • Flapdoodle Flapdoodle

    So, after a year and a half, the owners, operators, various governments, and regulatory agencies are clueless.

    I would believe any ENEnewsianite before the others anyhow.


    Report comment

  • jackassrig

    These ill conceived monsters have a number of design flaws.
    The piece of equipment that separates the high side from the low side is the condenser. The condenser tubes separate the boiling water from the cooling water. IMO if the main circulators or piping that supplies water to the condenser fails a meltdown can occur. The cooling water condenses the steam on the high side. No cooling water no condensation of the steam in the condenser. Steam replaces the water in the reactor, circulating pump, and piping. Since this is a saturated closed cycle-no superheat-temperature and pressure are joined at the hip. As the pressure goes up temperature goes up. As pressure goes down temperature goes down. Pressure goes up because the reactor cannot be immediately shut down. Heat is still being supplied to a constant volume. If the circulator to the reactor or piping fails, the coolant to reactor is lost. This pump pulls condensed water out of the condenser and drives it back into the reactor.
    It appears the reactors have a remote safety relief system. Loss of power means loss of relieving reactors. IMO this should have been a conventional spring load safety valves.
    Even if the safety relief valves open, they discharge into the containment vessel which will not contain due to the flanged gasket at top. The joint was probably designed properly but was in the wrong application.


    Report comment

  • jackassrig

    Steel and zirconium have a design limit of about 800 degF to 1000 degF. As pressure increases, the reactor will fail because the pressure exceeds the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP). Zirconium will fail due to high temperature and these are tubes with very thin wall thickness. GE bumped right up against the line. No margin of safety. IMO it looks like GE set the operating pressure of the BWR using the zirconium tube designed to the yield which is not code practice.
    All emergency generators except one were water cooled. There must have been cooling water pumps for the diesels. Loss of power means loss of cooling to pumps. Failed piping means loss of cooling to diesels. Diesels trip due to high temperature. If it takes four generators for emergency power, how did GE expect one air cooled generator to carry the load?
    The water circulators to the condensers are probably located close to the sea. Keep the suction short. With the sea bed moving up or down 4 – 5 feet, we know the piping gave up. No one has said anything about material. On sea water systems such as condenser water it is not uncommon to use fiber reinforced pipe (FRP). In this case all bets are off.
    These are issue we can see around here. What other design problems are lurking that YAPCO has been covering up.


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    You can design all you want around an inherently dangerous failed technology. Still, it is what it is. We are not mature enough, as a collective species, to have even a tiny portion of the stars, at our disposal. It should not have been resurrected on earth…
    Everything about nuclear, from top to bottom, is a loss for all life. A negative net effect. It's time.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.