Number 3 Reactor loaded with MOX Plutonium-Enriched Fuel at Fukushima 1

[Samen]

MOX fuel loaded into Tokyo Electric's old Fukushima reactor
FUKUSHIMA, Aug. 21, 2010 (Kyodo News International) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. (OOTC:TKECY) loaded plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel Saturday into a reactor at its nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture in preparation for the largest Japanese utility's first plutonium-thermal power generation.


http://www.investorpoint.com/stock/S...news/33417424/

[Samen]

What is MOX?
MOX stands for "Mixed-Oxide Fuel." It is a nuclear power reactor fuel made from plutonium mixed with uranium. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) wants to make experimental MOX fuel using plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons.
There is no doubt that we must contain the plutonium from nuclear warheads. It must neither enter the environment--where it can poison drinking water and virtually everything else with which it comes into contact--nor be accessible to terrorists or others who might wish to build atomic bombs.
But using plutonium as reactor fuel accomplishes neither of those goals.

• MOX fuel requires processing of plutonium before the fuel is fabricated, creating new plutonium-laced waste, added worker exposures, and releases to the environment.
• Transportation of the plutonium, even when armed guards are deployed, is an open invitation to terrorists or others seeking this deadly material.
• Use of MOX in nuclear reactors is not safe, and could result in serious accidents.
• Use of MOX would add to our nation's immense radioactive waste burden, and would make it more difficult to find scientifically-defensible solutions to our atomic waste problems.

MOX is dangerous
Use of MOX fuel attacks commercial nuclear reactors where they are the weakest. Many reactors are aging prematurely, and cracks are appearing in vital reactor components. Most atomic reactors were not originally designed to use MOX fuel and MOX makes key reactor components age even faster.
Because of its high "neutron flux" levels, the reactor pressure vessel can become embrittled and fail during accident conditions. A nuclear accident involving MOX fuel could cause a meltdown more serious than Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, because the levels of radiation inside a reactor using MOX are even higher than in a normal atomic reactor.


http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/basicmoxinfo.htm

[Samen]

DANGER TO SOCIETY
A plutonium fuel fabrication plant is a threat to nearby communities. Inefficient or damaged filters, fires, or explosions at a plutonium fabrication plant could result in the release of plutonium into the environment, affecting human population. European plutonium reprocessing facilities have repeatedly failed to meet safety standards. Childhood leukemia incidence, among other health problems, is higher near some of Europe's largest plutonium reprocessing facilities. A 1997 study showed that children who had played on beaches near the La Hague reprocessing facility in France more than once a month were almost three times more likely to develop leukemia than those who did not. This facility is operated by the French firm Cogema, which would be the lead contractor under the U.S. Department of Energy’s MOX fuel program.
THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT
All of the issues outlined above also may impact the biosphere, locally, and over time, or with a catastrophe globally. Plutonium has a hazardous-life of 240,000 years. It moves in the environment much more rapidly than previously believed by the federal government. At the Nevada test-site plutonium has been found moving in a plume more than a mile away from an underground test that was set off only about 30 years ago. Previous estimates were that it would take more than 10,000 years for this deadly substance to travel this far.
Like other radioactive materials, in addition to initiating cancers, plutonium is highly mutagenic and can disrupt reproductive cells. It threatens the entire web of life, upon which we depend for food, oxygen, water purification and materials for most of our products.



http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pluto...abrication.htm

[Samen]

if a reactor uses MOX fuel its control rods will become less effective because the plutonium fission process is less stable than that for uranium. And finally, there remains the problem of how to properly dispose of spent MOX fuel.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0091111a2.html

part of the problem, the reactor is not designed for MOX and less effective control rods...

[Samen]

The reason i posted this separate is that MOX seems to be much more dangerous in case of an accident than traditional fuels, and this is apparently the first MOX fueled reactor with a serous accident.

Pu-242. Pu-244. Am-241. Am242m. Am-243. Cm-242. Cm-243. Cm-244 + More
Americium, Curium, Plutonium, Uranium, Californium + More

Significant neutron radiation emitter, highly toxic, etc are words that pop up in a quick search along with warning that any accident with it will be a lot more serious than when using traditional fuel.

With traditional fuel accident in Japan I would not be worried about fallout in US with MOX don't know but doubt it, but locally in Japan it will be messy, and who knows if they have used it in other reactors at these 2 F plants.

[Kassy]

On dutch news they mentioned the plutonium but only in one sentence. Thanks for the info.

[Brihard]

I think this disaster may begin to catalyse the long term conversion over to Thorium reactors...

[Samen]

MOX Use and Severe Accident Risk



-LEU and WG-MOX Core Characteristics.
-Consequences of severe reactor accidents (cycle average).
And a lot more.

http://www.nci.org/PDF/lyman-mox-sgs.pdf

[Potemkin]

NCI isn't exactly an unbiased sourced.

[Samen]

Originally Posted by Potemkin

NCI isn't exactly an unbiased sourced.

I agree but thought that this particular document would be pretty close to the truth.

[DReynolds]

What is the earthquake rating of this Nuclear Power Plant? I guarantee you the answer is less than M9.0
But, hey, didn't Japan just experience a M9.0 one month ago? Yes.

So how exactly do we understand this. They are building Nuclear infrastructure that is not rated up to the seismic stresses of their environment, that contains freakin Plutonium fuel?

[l'Incendiario]

They can shut the plant down to limit damage ... but shut downs are time consuming and cost heaps (opportunity costs of electric production capacity off-line), so people in charge (read: those receiving the profits of the operation) don't like to shut the plants off very often ...

[Ross]

l'Incendiario .... the plant is a wreck and has not been working since ET day .

[l'Incendiario]

I meant BEFORE the quake. They had a few minutes and some ambigious signals that sometimes indicate trouble is coming, but they are reluctant to power the station down because it is not cheap. If safety were a higher priority than profit, there would be more brown-outs, but this might have been avoided, or at least minimized.

[Exodia]

Originally Posted by l'Incendiario

I meant BEFORE the quake. They had a few minutes and some ambigious signals that sometimes indicate trouble is coming, but they are reluctant to power the station down because it is not cheap. If safety were a higher priority than profit, there would be more brown-outs, but this might have been avoided, or at least minimized.

What were the signals? I'm speaking out of my area of expertise, but I would have to believe that more than a few minutes are needed to go through the process of starting a safe shutdown.