11 ms·

Tepco carries out examination in Fukushima by remote-controlled probe

44 points by Ultramanoid 8y ago

themodelplumber 8y ago
How fascinating that they might need to develop new tools for the unique circumstances. Does anyone know if they would keep the design proprietary and e.g. mine it for profits, or are they under any requirement for open-design, open process? It strikes me that in what can be described as a "disaster" from many angles, they are potentially modeling a working containment-and-recovery process from other angles. This could be extremely valuable, the exception to the safety tradition that writes new rules providing higher leverage in working with beneficial and yet hazardous materials.
- Animats 8y ago
  Custome tools are not unusual in nuclear cleanup. The Three Mile Island job required many very job-specific tools. This thing is a gripper at the end of a cable, built for the specific space into which it has to fit. The most it can do is take samples. Fuel removal is a long way off. It's discouraging that it took eight years to reach this point.
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  Tepco is not exactly famous for its competence. I understand the IAEA is involved at some level, though. I'd expect the latter to leverage any tech breakthroughs in this decades-long process and apply this knowledge to any incidents in the future, much as the air travel industry does, learning from every crash.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  It's been quite a few years and this is the first time they've made to reactor. My guess is this success is not so much a matter of finally creating a clever design as it is the radiation has finally gotten down to a manageable level. I know they tried earlier with quite a variety of robots, all of which were rendered useless by the radiation levels (sensors and circuits becoming too unpredictable).
  - geomark 8y ago
    What are the radiation levels the failed robots experienced? Searching, I keep finding information about radiation levels in reference to human health. But I'm interested in the total dose those robots get before they fail. I used to work on space electronics that had to survive mega-rad levels of total dose radiation. How quickly do electronics accumulate those levels inside Fukushima?
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      Maybe I sound naive, but why do we need to move electronics there?. Why they don't just use a disposable lead tube ending in the minimum working telescopic lens (mechanical) system possible and a cable moving electrons inside to build an image in a computer at km of distance. The brain of the robot should be out of the building, not inside. Couldn't we estimate radiation by how long some well known matherial is surviving before to crash instead to use a sensor?.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        Ah, the HN "why don't they just"... A good overview: https://www.wired.com/story/fukushima-robot-cleanup/ https://www.wired.com/story/fukushima-robot-cleanup/ containing the excellent phrase "Until we send the bot in, we don’t know what the conditions are. And after it’s sent, we can’t change it". https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/robots-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-dying-probe-clean-up-tepco-toshiba-reactor-nuclear-radiation-a7612396.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/robots-fukushima-nu... : "The latest attempt to harvest data on Fukushima failed after a robot designed by Toshiba to withstand high radiation levels died five times faster than expected. The robot was supposed to be able to cope with 73 sieverts of radiation, but the radiation level inside the reactor was recently recorded at 530 sieverts per hour."
        jandrese 8y ago
        If anybody is curious how much radiation a sievert is, there is a handy chart for reference: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 530 sieverts/hour would mean a person exposed for less than a minute would be a dead man walking. Even a 30 second exposure would be difficult to recover from. Electronics would suffer from constant bit flips. You would really need to keep most or all of the electronics back in a shielded box at the end of a long cable and make the robot as dumb as possible. This sadly only goes so far since you do need sensors that are made out of electronics on the robot. Cameras for example. It's a complicated system, and worse you need this robot to be quite capable if it's going to deal with uneven terrain and eventually breaking up and removing the melted fuel.
trhway 8y ago
seems that there is more progress on Mars than at Fukushima. That illustrates the true scale of risks/dangers/difficulty of dealing with nuclear disasters. Basically we have no technology to deal with nuclear disasters. All we can is just to wait for the radiation to decrease while for example in Belarus several thousand people die per year from Chernobyl related cancers (plus associated birth defects, etc.). And we can do nothing. This is why the only way we have is like Germany - getting rid of nuclear completely. While nuclear is our best bet in space, on Moon/Mars/etc., it just cant be used on Earth as we completely lack necessary technology.
- kaybe 8y ago
  At this point I'd rather take the risks and costs of nuclear instead of the sure problems of coal and gas. Until it is all replaced with renewable (hopefully very soon) we should definitely keep everything possible running.
  - Ultramanoid 8y ago
    To your point, the effect of Fukushima is two-fold in Japan. On top of the meltdown and its consequences, since most of its 50-odd nuclear plants were stopped with only half a dozen restarted since, and with Japan lagging quite a bit in renewable energy projects, most of the energy needs have been since then met with a substantial increase in coal and gas use.
- reacweb 8y ago
  I think it is important to remember that the number of nuclear-related deaths is unrivalled compared to the mortality from oil-related conflicts or mortality from coal pollution. Mortality per kilowatt for electrovoltaics is very high due to accidents during the installation of solar panels on roofs. Germany is certainly not a good model on this.
  - crispyambulance 8y ago
    I expect that's true on a "per kilowatt-hour" basis. BUT, the potential for harm from nuclear accidents is vastly higher, and also lasting (though one can make a competitive case for fossil fuel impact on global warming). In any case, "the big one" hasn't happened yet. It may not ever happen, but if it does, ONE incident can cause incalculable harm. I think potential for harm needs to be assessed in addition to just death per kilowatt hour.
AaronM 8y ago
Anyone know why it was raining inside the reactor?

44 points by Ultramanoid 8y ago

How fascinating that they might need to develop new tools for the unique circumstances. Does anyone know if they would keep the design proprietary and e.g. mine it for profits, or are they under any requirement for open-design, open process? It strikes me that in what can be described as a "disaster" from many angles, they are potentially modeling a working containment-and-recovery process from other angles. This could be extremely valuable, the exception to the safety tradition that writes new rules providing higher leverage in working with beneficial and yet hazardous materials.

Animats 8y ago
Custome tools are not unusual in nuclear cleanup. The Three Mile Island job required many very job-specific tools. This thing is a gripper at the end of a cable, built for the specific space into which it has to fit. The most it can do is take samples. Fuel removal is a long way off. It's discouraging that it took eight years to reach this point.
Ultramanoid 8y ago
Tepco is not exactly famous for its competence. I understand the IAEA is involved at some level, though. I'd expect the latter to leverage any tech breakthroughs in this decades-long process and apply this knowledge to any incidents in the future, much as the air travel industry does, learning from every crash.
joe_the_user 8y ago
It's been quite a few years and this is the first time they've made to reactor. My guess is this success is not so much a matter of finally creating a clever design as it is the radiation has finally gotten down to a manageable level. I know they tried earlier with quite a variety of robots, all of which were rendered useless by the radiation levels (sensors and circuits becoming too unpredictable).
- geomark 8y ago
  What are the radiation levels the failed robots experienced? Searching, I keep finding information about radiation levels in reference to human health. But I'm interested in the total dose those robots get before they fail. I used to work on space electronics that had to survive mega-rad levels of total dose radiation. How quickly do electronics accumulate those levels inside Fukushima?
  - pvaldes 8y ago
    Maybe I sound naive, but why do we need to move electronics there?. Why they don't just use a disposable lead tube ending in the minimum working telescopic lens (mechanical) system possible and a cable moving electrons inside to build an image in a computer at km of distance. The brain of the robot should be out of the building, not inside. Couldn't we estimate radiation by how long some well known matherial is surviving before to crash instead to use a sensor?.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Ah, the HN "why don't they just"... A good overview: https://www.wired.com/story/fukushima-robot-cleanup/ https://www.wired.com/story/fukushima-robot-cleanup/ containing the excellent phrase "Until we send the bot in, we don’t know what the conditions are. And after it’s sent, we can’t change it". https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/robots-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-dying-probe-clean-up-tepco-toshiba-reactor-nuclear-radiation-a7612396.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/robots-fukushima-nu... : "The latest attempt to harvest data on Fukushima failed after a robot designed by Toshiba to withstand high radiation levels died five times faster than expected. The robot was supposed to be able to cope with 73 sieverts of radiation, but the radiation level inside the reactor was recently recorded at 530 sieverts per hour."
      - jandrese 8y ago
        If anybody is curious how much radiation a sievert is, there is a handy chart for reference: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 530 sieverts/hour would mean a person exposed for less than a minute would be a dead man walking. Even a 30 second exposure would be difficult to recover from. Electronics would suffer from constant bit flips. You would really need to keep most or all of the electronics back in a shielded box at the end of a long cable and make the robot as dumb as possible. This sadly only goes so far since you do need sensors that are made out of electronics on the robot. Cameras for example. It's a complicated system, and worse you need this robot to be quite capable if it's going to deal with uneven terrain and eventually breaking up and removing the melted fuel.

trhway 8y ago

seems that there is more progress on Mars than at Fukushima. That illustrates the true scale of risks/dangers/difficulty of dealing with nuclear disasters. Basically we have no technology to deal with nuclear disasters. All we can is just to wait for the radiation to decrease while for example in Belarus several thousand people die per year from Chernobyl related cancers (plus associated birth defects, etc.). And we can do nothing. This is why the only way we have is like Germany - getting rid of nuclear completely. While nuclear is our best bet in space, on Moon/Mars/etc., it just cant be used on Earth as we completely lack necessary technology.

kaybe 8y ago
At this point I'd rather take the risks and costs of nuclear instead of the sure problems of coal and gas. Until it is all replaced with renewable (hopefully very soon) we should definitely keep everything possible running.
- Ultramanoid 8y ago
  To your point, the effect of Fukushima is two-fold in Japan. On top of the meltdown and its consequences, since most of its 50-odd nuclear plants were stopped with only half a dozen restarted since, and with Japan lagging quite a bit in renewable energy projects, most of the energy needs have been since then met with a substantial increase in coal and gas use.
reacweb 8y ago
I think it is important to remember that the number of nuclear-related deaths is unrivalled compared to the mortality from oil-related conflicts or mortality from coal pollution. Mortality per kilowatt for electrovoltaics is very high due to accidents during the installation of solar panels on roofs. Germany is certainly not a good model on this.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  I expect that's true on a "per kilowatt-hour" basis. BUT, the potential for harm from nuclear accidents is vastly higher, and also lasting (though one can make a competitive case for fossil fuel impact on global warming). In any case, "the big one" hasn't happened yet. It may not ever happen, but if it does, ONE incident can cause incalculable harm. I think potential for harm needs to be assessed in addition to just death per kilowatt hour.

AaronM 8y ago

Anyone know why it was raining inside the reactor?