Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nuclear Risk Expert: Fukushima Fuel May Be Leaking

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the so-step-lively dept.

Japan 500

An anonymous reader writes "Three weeks after the nuclear crisis began at Japan's Fukushima Dai-1 power plant, there's still a real danger of melted nuclear fuel escaping the reactor buildings and releasing a large dose of radiation. So says Theo Theofanous, an engineer who spent 15 years studying the risks of nuclear reactors. Theofanous believes that melted nuclear fuel has already leaked through the reactor vessels and accumulated at the bottoms of the primary containment structures. All attempts to keep the reactor buildings cool may not be enough to prevent the overheated fuel from eating through the concrete floors, he says."

cancel ×

500 comments

Seal it and shut it down... (0, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691580)

This is a plant that shouldn't be operating in the first place right now. This series of nuclear reactors is past its expiration date and therefore can't be expected to perform under the duress of an earthquake and following flooding. There always was a plan to lock them up for one last time after which its supposed to be unbreakable (or anybody who does break it would be dead from radiation near instantly) but there never was any other plan for renewing it after it had run for too long.

Sorry Japan, we love electric power just as much as you do, but you've got to pay for what it takes to make it. Doing it on the cheap just causes other problems for humans in other areas than your own.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691612)

Problem is that they can't shut it down unless they get control of it first, and that's what they're trying to do right now

That's why people are basically committing suicide by still working there, because if they don't continue their work the end result will be so bad that it'll make people forget that lil thing that happened in russia.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (0)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691634)

Um, no. You're very wrong.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (4, Informative)

Ponder (3878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691696)

No one at Fukushima has received a radiation dose that require treatment for radiation sickness let alone received a fatal dose. Two workers received a dose that exceeded their yearly dose limit and were removed from the site. Perhaps you are getting this situation confused with Chernobyl.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691712)

that lil thing that happened in russia.

Perhaps you are getting this situation confused with Chernobyl.

Which didn't happen in Russia.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691746)

That's correct Russia did not exist when Chernobyl happened. The U.S.S.R. existed.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691782)

Russia and the Ukraine were both part of the USSR but the place was effectively run by Russia anyway.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (4, Insightful)

semiotec (948062) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691796)

You meant _ineffectively_ run by Russia, right?

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691826)

Oops. You are right.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

IgnitusBoyone (840214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691832)

I wish I had mod points.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691828)

That's correct Russia did not exist when Chernobyl happened. The U.S.S.R. existed.

Not the point, Chernobyl is in Ukraine. You wouldn't say that something that happened in London while it was part of the Roman empire happened in Italy, would you? They're not even originally a part of Russia, Ukraine was one of the states in the Soviet Union.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691740)

Oh look, another volunteer. Since they're not dying on the spot, what's holding you back? If a little cancer is not worth mentioning in a discussion, it certainly isn't a reason not to help out, is it? People like you disgust me. The workers couldn't even do their job there under the normal limits. The limit has been increased to a quarter of a sievert. The workers incur the limit dose after just 15 minutes of working in some of the areas. Just one hour in the same area: Radiation sickness and 10% dead within 30 days.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691958)

I thought they were wearing special suits to reduce radiation exposure?

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (0)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691760)

There's a real simple shutdown plan.... trigger the explosives that release helium from containers that were designed to be broken in a case like this into the reactor zone, and you've got a tight seal that radiation can't pass through.

Downside to that plan is if you do it, that reactor is offline for good. Power supply in Japan would go down, and that's an economic impact.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

germansausage (682057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691840)

I've read this three times and still can't parse meaning from it. Are you saying that there are helium containers at Fukushima that should have been triggered but weren't? Or, are you saying that there should have been helium containers but there weren't any? And in either case, how does helium block radiation?

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691866)

The Mark I reactor has always had He containers built in that could be triggered to make a quick emergency seal. Once this is done, the reactor is offline forever... but these reactors should have had an orderly shutdown long before the quake hit simply based on their age.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691846)

There's a real simple shutdown plan.... trigger the explosives that release helium from containers that were designed to be broken in a case like this into the reactor zone, and you've got a tight seal that radiation can't pass through.

Downside to that plan is if you do it, that reactor is offline for good. Power supply in Japan would go down, and that's an economic impact.

What are you talking about!? Helium? What is that supposed to do? How does helium make a seal?

TEPCO has no hope that these reactors can ever be brought back online - they lost all such hope back in the beginning when they pumped seawater into them. Releasing helium won't make it any worse or better.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691664)

Another hopeless optimist. Japan is a high-tech country. Japan is not hampered by an anti-nuclear movement. Japan builds new reactors. Japan's reactors are highly regulated for safety. None of that has prevented them from having aging reactors, operated by a corrupt company. If this can happen in Japan, it can happen anywhere.

Now it's not just a matter of "sealing it and shutting it down": If the core melts through the floor, how are you going to seal that up? The crux with nuclear power is that even undamaged reactors are high maintenance for decades after they've been shut down at the very least. So far nobody has figured out what to do with the "spent" fuel and other radioactive waste. Attempts to bury it have repeatedly resulted in unforeseen accidents with the result that even more radioactive waste needs to be dug up and stored above ground, essentially forever. This stuff isn't just radioactive, it's also extremely toxic and chemically aggressive.

No nuclear facility is insured to an amount that would cover all damages which an accident could cause: No insurer is willing to take the risk. The risk is entirely on the shoulders of the public, who cannot reject it, thanks to representative democracy and bought politicians. The exception to the rule is Austria: In a fluke of common sense, they held a referendum before Austria's first nuclear power plant (completed and ready) was going to be activated: The Austrian people rejected nuclear power and they have not reneged so far.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691810)

Japan is not hampered by an anti-nuclear movement.

Their anti-nuclear movement blocked several plants back in the 90s.

The exception to the rule is Austria: In a fluke of common sense, they held a referendum before Austria's first nuclear power plant (completed and ready) was going to be activated: The Austrian people rejected nuclear power and they have not reneged so far.

Right before a reactor starts is a great time to have a referendum. I wouldn't call it common sense, but dangerous hysteria that hurt a lot of people.

All you need to know! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691830)

Nuclear Power = Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Weapons = Nuclear War
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

Nuclear technology must be destroyed for the safety of all mankind. Nuclear knowledge must be prohibited and destroyed, and all who know nuclear secrets must be martyred for the sake of world peace. Nuclear power is a power mankind cannot have for his own safety - It's like giving a toddler a loaded machine gun with the safety disabled. It's only a matter of time before tragedy happens again. First the thousands of deaths and suffering in the Ukraine after Chernobyl, and now what will be thousands more deaths and suffering in Japan - What will it take for mankind to learn that the ultimate power is not his to tamper with?

The nuclear genie must be put back in the bottle - BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

Re:All you need to know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691950)

Knowledge isn't dangerous. Corporations and Politicians are. And Financiers. By their very nature, corrupt. And weak and twisted "democracies".

A little prophylatic corporate-exec/politician/"banker" entrail noosefest, every couple of decades or so, would be most salutary to society, history, and humanity as a whole.

And, since those people people consider themselves to be moral stanchions and instruments of divinity - it would also be "morally uplifting".

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691916)

...And what power source would you recommend? Coal, which is pretty much the only other viable alternative to nuclear energy at this point, which kills over 5 thousand workers each year just mining it, not to mention all of the health risks associated with burning coal for power. On the other hand, we've had about 63 deaths occurring directly from nuclear incidents since nuclear power started. Now, while others have obviously had larger cancer risks and such resulting in death, but it is nearly impossible to be 100% certain about how many of those have occurred. Quite honestly nuclear power is the safest type of power we have at the moment.

And we have to realize that the disaster at the Fukushima plant isn't normal. Rather, this was the fifth largest earthquake to be recorded in modern history. Not only that but it had a huge tsunami to go along with it. Could TEPCO have handled this better? Yes. Could the Japanese government have handled this better? Yes. Should TEPCO have built this reactor to withstand larger earthquakes? Yes. But is nuclear power more dangerous than coal, oil, and every other power source that can be used in large quantities? No.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691682)

In hindsight their emergency diesel generators should not have been at such a low level. If they had been out of reach of the tsunami they would have been able to continue running to keep the cooling water flowing. And yes, I realize that it's very easy to sit at my desk and point this out now that everything has gone to hell in Fukushima. Let's hope this is as bad as it gets and that things don't get worse for them.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691788)

The plant operators seem to have followed procedure by shutting the plant down right after the quake, but I wonder if things would have turned out better if they had not done that.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

AngryNick (891056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691868)

The plant operators seem to have followed procedure by shutting the plant down right after the quake, but I wonder if things would have turned out better if they had not done that.

Well, INANE, but I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a different outcome if the control rods hadn't been inserted during the quake...a much worse one.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691898)

The plant operators seem to have followed procedure by shutting the plant down right after the quake, but I wonder if things would have turned out better if they had not done that.

Well, INANE, but I'm pretty sure we'd be looking at a different outcome if the control rods hadn't been inserted during the quake...a much worse one.

But if the plant had continued running would there have been power to run the cooling system?

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (2)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691960)

Precisely. The problem all along has been that power was lost and no backups were working to provide power to run the cooling systems.

If the reactors kept running, they would have had no trouble keeping themselves cool just as they were before the Quake. In other words, business would have continued as normal.

Hopefully this incident will cause a reevaluation to the auto-scram-on-earthquake rule currently in place. (And of course, for more reliable backups to be in place too.)

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (2)

spectro (80839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691972)

dude, they had it all considered, they even had barriers to prevent tsunamis from doing what they did. What nobody thought was the possibility that such an earthquake could sink Japan coastline 3+ feet rendering their tsunami barriers useless.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691688)

It isn't operating. It was shutdown automatically during the earthquake 3 weeks ago.

How is it under that rock?

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691692)

Thats a businessman for you I guess. The current CEO of TEPCO, whom pretty much has just hid out in his office ever since the quake, got to the top due to his relentless cost cutting. I guess buying a modern, safe nuclear reactor wasn't really on the top of his to do list, and mothballing the Fukushima reactors before the quake would have been unthinkable, they provided about 20% of the total power used in northern Honshu. It's going to be a rough summer.

sounds like mr burns I hope he does hard time (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691718)

sounds like mr burns I hope he does hard time for trying to bribe his way out of this.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691756)

It feels like BP all over again. Public relations disaster on top of environmental disaster.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (0)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691938)

It feels like BP all over again. Public relations disaster on top of environmental disaster.

Myths are great that way. You just need to ignore a few facts and you can fit any situation into the myth.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691940)

and now the tea baggers are trying to do the same thing to the US govt - cut costs and increase the likelihood of disaster and suffering. Govt is not a business. What CEO swears to provide for the General Welfare, as the US Govt is required to do by the Constitution?

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691876)

Long term planned failures seem to do that. Seeing it worked for 30 years is cause for celebration, but it should also have been a going away party. Agreed, A/C in the affected areas is going to cost more this summer.

Re:Seal it and shut it down... (5, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691908)

I am sick of the idiots saying "seal it". What the fuck do you think that means? The core material has most likely melted through the inner steel vessels and probably in places through the concrete containment (at least that seems likely) - as a result, highly radioactive water is leeching out into the drainage tunnels and out to the Pacific Ocean.

How exactly can you "seal" that? Furthermore, even if you could, what makes you think that sealing it before you've cooled down the corium material is a good idea? I mean, if it's been hot and radioactive enough to melt through concrete, how exactly do you "seal" it?

The whole point is it needs to be cooled down enough and stabilized so that it's not melting through anything on an ongoing basis, and only then do the existing leaks need to be sealed up as best as possible, or at least mitigated so that whatever has escaped stays relatively localized.

As for "shut it down", it was shut down within seconds of the original earthquake. It's just that it needs ongoing cooling even after shutdown for quite some time - and once the fuel rods have melted down, it needs even more cooling.

APRIL FOOOOOLLLSS! (3, Funny)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691592)

HAHAHA

Close... It is actually hype-reel fools. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691722)

From TFA:

But the drywell's concrete floor is probably 5 to 10 meters thick, so Theofanous says there's not an immediate risk of a release of radioactive materials via this route. "A lot of melting has to take place before you get through 5 meters of concrete," he says.

And:

"We don't really know where the fuel is," he says

.
Also:

Theofanous found that as long as there was a typical amount of water in the drywell--about half a meter--and that water was continuously cycled through to prevent it from heating up and boiling away, the nuclear fuel would not immediately make its way out into the environment. "We showed that if there's a severe accident, you must make sure there's water in the drywell," says Theofanous.

So, yeah... Article is hype but the summary is outright lying.

See... these are the moments when I wish that I was religious.
So that I could find some modicum of relief believing that there is a special hell for people who are hyping up these stories just so they'd get more fucking clicks and page-views.
You know... Trying their best to make a cent or two from their fellowman's suffering. Cunts.

Re:APRIL FOOOOOLLLSS! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691748)

Yeah, the worst part is /. will be posting April Fools stories from other news sites for the next couple weeks, and we'll have to be extra diligent in checking.

Re:APRIL FOOOOOLLLSS! (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691890)

I know. I actually read a few articles thinking, at first, it may be something worth reading to only get smacked in the face with an obvious prank. Now, I am not totally sure if this article is even serious or not. Boy who cried wolf.

Re:APRIL FOOOOOLLLSS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691770)

More like HAHA APRIL FUELS! amirite?


Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Why is the fuel hungry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691602)

"All attempts to keep the reactor buildings cool may not be enough to prevent the overheated fuel from eating through the concrete floors, he says."

Why is the fuel so hungry?

Re:Why is the fuel hungry? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691630)

"Eat" pretty much is the right word... we've got rods so radioactive and hot they're melting concrete all the way to vapor. Damn that's powerful when it works right, but damn that's trouble when it's not under control.

Re:Why is the fuel hungry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691676)

it doesn't have enough chernobylite in its diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobylite

Is this supposed to be funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691606)

I don't know it's appropriate to post April fools jokes about possible nuclear meltdowns. Oh well, Slashdot editors know best; now we just need a drop down list so we can set the number of people that will be killed!!

Re:Is this supposed to be funny? (1)

Idzy (1549809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691620)

I'm not sure this is an april fools post sadly.

Re:Is this supposed to be funny? (2)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691626)

As posted in the last story, stories in this site are posted on tomorrow's business after Midnight GMT which was 8pm EDT. We're done with the jokes, now back to serious business.

Re:Is this supposed to be funny? (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691640)

Yup, maybe next year they could be really clever and not do anything at all. However, I did kinda like the mad lib function, sorta wish that there was more to it.

Some actual facts: (5, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691608)

Re:Some actual facts: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691632)

I was about to post the same thing. Here's a quote that addresses this situation [mitnse.com] :

The experiments have shown that without water quenching, corium under conditions similar to those present at Fukushima Dai-ichi will ablate the meters-thick concrete pad at a rate of just millimeters per minute. Gases would build up within the containment at a rate which would require filtered ventilation of the containment in order to prevent rupture.

If, however, water is supplied to quench the corium as it spreads onto the reactor floor, the ablation occurs at 5-7% of the pre-quench rate, and production of gases is suppressed. The rate of ablation continues to undergo fits and starts, as the corium forms a solid crust, and then this crust is broken and re-formed.

Re:Some actual facts: (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691680)

Good link. I was rather curious on why this particular researcher was relevant as all of his thoughts seem to be nothing more than conjecture.

Re:Some actual facts: (1)

toppavak (943659) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691860)

The link to the atmospheric radiation monitoring data is quite encouraging. 3 sites reported measurements comparable to roughly 3 hours of jet travel per hour on the ground and the rest are mostly at or near background.

Facts are stubborn things (3, Informative)

nido (102070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691884)

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams [quotationspage.com]

Nuclear power has one thing going for it:

  • * High Energy Density

Nuclear power also has several strikes:

  • * High maintenance - everything has to work all the time so that your plant doesn't explode and make hundreds of square miles uninhabitable
  • * High initial cost
  • * High shutdown costs
  • * stuck with billion-dollar boiling water reactors [wikipedia.org] and pressurized water reactors [wikipedia.org]

Even if a superior reactor design comes along, there's an incredible financial incentive to stick with the technology that was first developed and deployed (see the Wired story on thorium [wired.com] ).

The best argument in favor of nuclear power is that "it may have problems, but it's all we've got". Nuclear advocates rightly point out that, compared to coal, oil, natural gas, and even hydropower (complicated), perhaps nuclear isn't so bad. Coal is abundant but dirty, oil is expensive and dirty, natural gas is cleaner but still poisons the ocean with CO2, and hydropower has it's own challenges.

But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.

One example: I've mentioned Global Resource Corporation's Microwave here before. This device uses specific microwave frequencies to release gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons from solids, such as coal (diesel, propane, butane). The company had a prototype that worked on tires, but they fell apart before they could get commercial versions of their technology to market. Luckily archive.org has a copy of their website: http://waybackmachine.org/*/http://www.GlobalResourceCorp.com [waybackmachine.org] . I remember reading about a cool patent that used Magnetic Resonance to figure out what specific microwaves a given sample of "trash" would need to be broken down...

GRC's site talked about applying the technology to tar sands, to coal mining, breaking down hundreds of millions of used tires piled everywhere... How would the energy equation change if harvesting coal and tar sands didn't require massive amounts of energy?

Here's something else: according to an old story on money.cnn.com [cnn.com] , the largest single use of electricity in southern California is pumping water. And very large amount of water is used to generate electricity.

So, with these twin issues... What if Raphial Morgado [angellabsllc.com] 's MYT (Mighty) pump [youtube.com] really is as good as he says it is? Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?

Whereas Global Resource Corp's special microwaves haven't reached market because it was torpedo'd by mismanagement (or maybe there's a technical problem - I'm pretty certain that the science is sound), Morgado's pump is in limbo because he hasn't yet found anyone who'd lend him $4-million or $10-million to build a factory. He has plenty of offers to buy the technology outright, but he has the audacity to presume that he should be the one to profit from his invention.

Imagine if the demand for energy suddenly plunged by more than 25%. Oil is only going for $100/barell because demand roughly matches supply. If supply exceeds demand by a significant percentage, we'd be back to $1/gallon gas in a heartbeat.

These are just the two technologies that I've been watching. There are others, and our understanding of physics is constantly evolving. What if the string theory advocates come up with a testable theory that fully links gravity, electricity and magnetism? Anti-gravity technology would really wreck big-oil's plans for world domination.

Remember that JP Morgan only financed Nikola Tesla until he realized that Tesla wanted to give electricity away to everyone for free. Perhaps Tesla groked string theory, and used it to power his touring car [evworld.com] .

The utility barons are going to lose their shirts, eventually. I wonder if Nuclear power has a future.

Re:Facts are stubborn things (3, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691982)

Nuclear power also has several strikes: * * High maintenance - everything has to work all the time so that your plant doesn't explode and make hundreds of square miles uninhabitable
* * High initial cost
* * High shutdown costs
* * stuck with billion-dollar boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors

As the Fukushima accident showed, everything doesn't have to work right. The high cost thing is a real problem. And you're just repeating yourself with the last point.

The best argument in favor of nuclear power is that "it may have problems, but it's all we've got". Nuclear advocates rightly point out that, compared to coal, oil, natural gas, and even hydropower (complicated), perhaps nuclear isn't so bad. Coal is abundant but dirty, oil is expensive and dirty, natural gas is cleaner but still poisons the ocean with CO2, and hydropower has it's own challenges.

I hate to say it, but the economic argument for nuclear power is the weakest link. It's all heavily subsidized with liability protection that no other industry (well to my knowledge, which isn't so hot) has.

GRC's site talked about applying the technology to tar sands, to coal mining, breaking down hundreds of millions of used tires piled everywhere... How would the energy equation change if harvesting coal and tar sands didn't require massive amounts of energy?

The problem is that these do require significant amounts of energy either to harvest or to turn into a viable vehicle fuel. If the energy is cheap enough, then you can do things like the above to produce vehicle fuel.

That leads to the fundamental problem in your calculation. Vehicle fuel is not just any form of energy, but a rather costly one. If you're going to make it using exotic methods like the above, you will need a cheap source somewhere, perhaps nuclear power (if they ever get the issues sorted out).

What if Raphial Morgado's MYT (Mighty) pump really is as good as he says it is? Suppose you could get 25% more water pumped for the same amount of electricity, or generate 25% more electricity with the same amount of steam?

That's not much of a saving. And it probably is not petroleum powered.

If supply exceeds demand by a significant percentage, we'd be back to $1/gallon gas in a heartbeat.

Supply never exceeds demand for very long in an oil market. Where would the oil be stored?

Radiation (2)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691614)

Then, quite appropriately...OMG GLOWING PONIES!

8 hour backup (2)

rednip (186217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691618)

I couldn't imagine that they had 8 hours to get a generator to the site of the plant, and yet failed to return any service for days. The idea of having an eight hour backup is that you'd expect to have a mobile generator on site in that time. I might have missed it, but can anyone tell me why the couldn't drag or fly power to them in less than, what 3 or 4 days? Was it that cut off? Are they just that bone headed?

Re:8 hour backup (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691644)

Incompatible power connectors...

Re:8 hour backup (1)

IgnitusBoyone (840214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691670)

I've been told that, but can't find it. I assume its more of incompatible power. Multi Phase or frequency rate?. Any links would be helpful.

Re:8 hour backup (4, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691724)

Oh pooh. Any electrician working at an industrial facility knows exactly how to fix this and with an emergency of this nature the parts would come in via very special delivery very very quickly.

The problems were a LOT more serious - switchgear wiped out, pumps destroyed, no water supply, no instrumentation working, and a lot more.

Re:8 hour backup (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691728)

... and nobody in a 15 minute drive (flight?) could figure out how to cut the ends off and tie them together with some electrical tape or some really huge crimpers or something? There's just something fishy about that.

Re:8 hour backup (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691848)

We're not talking about the little Honda generator sitting in your garage. These are big industrial diesels. And it wasn't just your typical bad day, it was right after the entire region was wiped out by an earthquake and tsunami. If they could indeed have found the proper generators, then they would have had to find a helicopter or two to carry them over there, then rig it up, then fuel it up. All on top of an enormous amount of local damage and confusion.

Not such a trivial job.

Re:8 hour backup (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691762)

In the future, they should standardize them all to USB then, I guess.

Re:8 hour backup (1)

Nit Picker (9292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691738)

I don't have a reference on this, and there is so much misinformation running around that I can't be sure of anything, but I have heard that the panels to take the electricity to the equipment were all in the basement of the plant and were flooded. Units 5 and 6 also had panels in their basement, but there was an alternate circuit that allowed the cooling equipment to be energized without going through the basement panels, explaining why they haven't experienced so much trouble.

"Wrong connector" doesn't make sense. It would be easy to wire around an incompatible connector. Wrong voltage or wrong frequency would be more plausible, but I haven't heard that explanation.

Re:8 hour backup (2)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691798)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG [wikipedia.org]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-power-grid/ [washingtonpost.com]

Take the above 2 links into account and you have a pretty serious picture. South half of Japan uses different a different frequency than the northern half. Post-tsunami the northern half had severe power failures.

Additionally, you don't just plug in a motor to a transmission line. You need transformers and switches for that. You'd also need to drop power to wherever you connected it to and protect the "temporary" power source so people don't accidentally wander into it (there is a reason those power lines are way up in the air).

Also, for the lengths they were talking about, resistance of the line and availability of wire is a concern.

They have done an excellent job of getting power back to the plant to continue doing what they are doing.

Re:8 hour backup (5, Informative)

Orne (144925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691778)

The information I have is that they did bring mobile generators to the site.
* Fukushima Dai-ichi units 1, 2 & 3 successfully shut down when the plant lost off-site power during the earthquake. Units 4, 5 & 6 were already offline for maintenance.
* On-site diesel backups successfully engaged to continue the cooling process, but the diesels were knocked offline when seawater from the tsunami flooded the fuel tanks. They got about an hour of cooling before these diesels were ruined.
* At that point, an backup battery supply engaged, and ran for about 8 hours before it was depleted. This is 2x the average capacity of the battery backup system at an American nuclear power plant.
* Meanwhile, they did get mobile diesels brought in, but the were only able to generate enough power to stabilize units 2 & 3. Unit 1 lost cooling water, and in 4 hours they were forced to vent the built up hydrogen gas.
* I found some discussion that the coolant pumps require 5 MW to power, which a generator at 100,000 lbs is above what even a US chopper could airlift. This is why the helicopters were focusing on transporting coolant (seawater).
* The issue then was they were physically leaking coolant water, and the rods were exposed at units 1 & 4. The exposed rods resulted in hydrogen explosions (which is what all the videos show).
* The transco's goal was to get off-site power restored, which was basically rebuilding the transmission line to a neighboring plant. It took 6 days to get it restrung.
Yes, it was that cut off.

This appears to be a very informative article. I did not know that the batteries were actually the 4th backup system:
http://www.backsidesmack.com/2011/03/explaining-the-fukushima-1-incident/ [backsidesmack.com]

Re:8 hour backup (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691904)

The switchgear (in the basement) wasn't quite knocked out, but is was underwater when they needed it (the unfortunately result of poor human foresight and a 15 m high wall of water flowing into the basement).

SlashSnippets broken... (0)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691646)

Bummer man. I guess i'll have to do this the old fashioned way...

"Nearly three decades after the nuclear crisis began at Ukraine's Chernobyl power plant Reactor No. 4, there's still a real danger of melted nuclear fuel escaping reactor buildings and releasing a large dose of radiation. So says Obama, a superhuman who spent 15 years pondering about the risks of nuclear powered cheeseballs. Batman believes that melted Pu239 has already leaked through the porn receptacles and accumulated at the bottoms of the primary erected structures. All attempts to keep the reactor buildings soft may not be enough to prevent the narly fuel from eating through the cardboard walls, Taco says."

There... didn't fix it for you.

Mine it. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691660)

In Uranium mining, there is a technique called in-situ leeching.
In summary, it involves drilling a hole, pouring an acid or alkaline into the hole to dissolve the resource, and pumping it back out.
Once it's out, in the case of uranium, there are a couple of steps involved in turning it into yellowcake.

Given the probability that it is now leaking onto concrete, an alkaline solution would be more ideal.
What would be needed is something like an oil drain pan that resists the chosen alkaline.
The solution would be pumped in and out of the pan into an recovery tank. Uranium in this format is quite similar to the safe-to-handle yellowcake.
Very little reaction would occur - not much more than in nature. Depending on the speed of this chemical reaction, the size of the current breach, and the rate that it eats the steel, it might be possible to use the reactor's own cooling system to supplement the removal process. The key is to remove the fuel, and separate it enough physically that the reaction 'stops'. At this point, damaging the building is no longer an issue. The only important thing is to recover the resource to stop the reaction.
Obviously the rods are no longer able to be removed as one complete unit, or it would be well under way.

We need some miners to step up and advise of the fastest method to dissolve uranium in a steel container and pump it out.
Nuclear engineers are trained in how to make reactors work. Not in how to mine for resources which is exactly what we need right now.
Miners stand the best chance of leaving the area safe.
Contamination only means that there are radioactive elements mixed in with the safe dirt.
Miners are the only experts who know how to extract these resources. If they're gone, then it's safe again.
Even if they replace radioactive contamination with chemical contamination, chemicals are usually easier to deal with in the longer run.
Compare an oil spill to the land around Chernobyl. Chemical spills are problematic for a decade or so.

Anyhow, that's my view. We should treat it like a mine. Mine the resource, make it safe. Get it to a reprocessing facility. Just make sure it is no longer in the reactor in a self sustaining fission state.

Re:Mine it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691700)

So you're volunteering, right? Go there and mine the "safe to handle" stuff that once powered a 1MW reactor. Talk is cheap, buddy. GO THERE AND DO IT!

Re:Mine it. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691864)

Nitwit. That would be like trying to 'mine' a junk yard with clorox.

Re:Mine it. (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691924)

nevermind what you are trying to mine is a billion fucking degrees.

Re:Mine it. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691944)

After fission, there's a whole lot more in there than uranium in there, and uranium is the least of the concerns from a radioactivity point of view.

The stuff will be a molten mix of uranium, zirconium, ceramic, steel and all sorts of other stuff, mostly the materials with high boiling temperatures. The molten core material would have the gross composition of a mix of metal and silicate rock. It's very dense and very difficult to cut up, if the melted products in the bottom of Three Mile Island are any indication. For leaching to be effective it would have to be crushed up (in order to increase the surface area and let the water percolate through) and you'd have to use a leaching solution that removes all the elements of interest. I'm not sure such a chemical solution exists. Furthermore, you have to do it at high temperatures without the introduced solution reacting with the concrete. Given how chemically reactive concrete is compared to typical metal or silicate rock, I can't think of a solution that would promptly dissolve the latter two without probably dissolving the former. Even if you were successful at selectively removing the dangerous stuff into solution, then you've got a solution full of the dangerous stuff -- a solution that can leak and escape lot easier. Worse, if it is boiling off it might even end up concentrating the radioactive solids as it evaporates and eventually could increase the nuclear reaction where the solids are concentrated.

This is not the same rock that they mine uranium from. It's a different material. This is a bad idea even if there was any chance of it actually working, which seems doubtful.

Re:Mine it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691962)

trouble is that EVERYTHING else is much more soluble in said acid. it's impossible to dissolve just the uranium without everything else. In nature it's possible mine it this way because everything else is inert, aka rocks.

RPV, contains high amounts of nickel, and would release large amounts of hydrogen gas when exposed to acid. not to mention that it is kind of keeping some of the uranium in place. dissolving the RPV would make the situation worse.

Concrete is also very quickly reacts with acids, neutralizing them.

Believe me, they have the best minds in the world working on this. If it could be done they would've done it already.

could this cause (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691694)

an 'america syndrome' ?

Re:could this cause (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691834)

More like a Brazilian Syndrome.

Is this the first non April Fools story all day? (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691704)

Jesus Christ Slashdot. You're meant to be a news site.

not a nuclear risk expert (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691714)

Really someone who "left the industry because they didn't listen to him" is now being quoted as an expert. I am dissapointed in both slashdot and IEEE.

Swarovski outlet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691720)

Swarovski Crystals [swarovski-outlet.com] are popular in 2011.Discount Swarovski Crystas are hot on sale in our online store,we provide high standard, high-class service to satify your demands for pretty things. including Swarovski Crystal [swarovski-outlet.com] Beads.Welcome to visit our website to search Swarovski Beads [swarovski-outlet.com] you perfer.

Radiation level beyond Chernobyl relocation limits (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691742)

The IAEA is reporting that measured soil concentrations of Cs-137 as far away as Iitate Village, 40 kilometers northwest of Fukushima-Dai-Ichi, correspond to deposition levels of up to 3.7 megabecquerels per square meter (MBq/sq. m).

Compare this with the deposition level that triggered compulsory relocation in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident: the level set in 1990 by the Soviet Union was 1.48 MBq/sq. m.

From http://www.japan.org

This is absurd (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691758)

The first problem is that TEPCO isn't telling anyone what they know (to save face and because they're freaking out)
The second problem is that whatever they are telling, they're telling to the Japanese government and no-one else (even their own workers, who they convinced to wade through radioactive water without boots, go into radioactive buildings without radiation badges or suitable gear, etc).
The third problem is that the experts are working with minimal data - and what they do have is suspect
The fourth problem is that TEPCO has been trying to salvage the reactors at the same time as spraying them with seawater (which would be corrosive) and after the outer shell had exploded on three of them (causing untold damage to electronics, shock-proofing, etc)

On top of all that, TEPCO allowed the hydrogen build-up in the first place. They could have burned it off with a controlled burn. This would have prevented the explosions, reduced the spillage and possibly prevented the fuel leak. (Reducing pressure may have reduced water temperature and may have conserved some of the cooling pools.)

As for building the reactors ALONG the fault-line, despite advice not to by their own chief scientists, and building a tsunami wall far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights....

This accident was stoppable at so many points in so many ways. The problem wasn't so much the reactor alone as the mindset together with the reactor.

Re:This is absurd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691808)

I figure, Japanese are every bit as sophisticated engineers as Americans. If a plant can just go like that in Japan, why not in USA? Combine a 40 year old reactor and a mega-twister, and the results could be quite similar. Private corps cannot handle this heat any better than Russians. These things should blow like once in a thousand years, not every other decade. The price of nuclear power just went up.

Re:This is absurd (5, Informative)

borrrden (2014802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691870)

Burn it off with a controlled burn? How do you suggest that they do that? Light a match next to where it is coming out? It's not like they had a lot of options for the hydrogen gas with no power whatsoever on site. Also I don't know what you mean by "build the reactors along the fault line" You do realize that the fault line is in the ocean right? Not directly under Fukushima. By that reasoning, Tokai and Onagawa should not have been built either. "far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights" where did you get this information? I can't find any data on historic wave heights of Fukushima. Don't just say "Oh there was such and such a high wave in Hokkaido" either, because the geography of the sea floor and the coast makes a big difference. They had a wall ready for a 5.5 meter tsunami, which is still a huge wave. The earthquake sunk the Japanese coast by about 1 meter AND it was hit by a 14 meter tsunami. This is documented in NOVA's documentary on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/japan-killer-quake.html [pbs.org] . Salvage the reactors? They wrote off the reactors the minute they injected them with seawater. They have publicly said that reactors 1 - 4 will never run again. There is a good deal of information out there if you speak Japanese. Otherwise, you have to wait for someone to translate it which doesn't always happen. If you don't speak Japanese then you are in no position to comment on the amount of information that is or is not coming out.

Re:This is absurd (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691900)

I see we have the top Slashdot second-guessers in action.

As to your initial list of "problems", the first three are nonsense. We'll see after things settled what really happened, but at this point, you don't know one way or another and are just committing libel.

In the "fourth problem", the outer shell has exploded on two not three reactors.

On top of all that, TEPCO allowed the hydrogen build-up in the first place. They could have burned it off with a controlled burn.

According to Wikipedia, those safety devices existed for a controlled burn, but didn't work for some reason. Maybe it was the fault of TEPCO or maybe the devices needed power to operate. But it strikes me, that if they could have burned off that hydrogen, especially when the second reactor (#3 I believe) was threatening to blow, they would have.

As for building the reactors ALONG the fault-line, despite advice not to by their own chief scientists, and building a tsunami wall far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights....

We'll see if evidence for these claims comes out, or if it's the typical libel that appears when scary nuclear accidents happen. As I see it, no one has evidence that TEPCO behaved improperly here.

This accident was stoppable at so many points in so many ways.

And it was stopped. Let's not forget that. What you are saying is that it would be nice for the accident to stop short of corium dribbling out of the bottom of one or more of the reactors. There may well be a somewhat more significant radiation release as a result of the situation, we'll just have to see.

But speaking of this accident as "starting" and "stopping" merely indicates your stilted view. Accidents such as this are not binary. There are many actions you can take to make things better or worse.

Re:This is absurd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691978)

Do you have any basis or references for anything you said, or were you just spouting off?

I highly doubt any radiation worker would ever be convinced to wade through water anywhere near a reactor without boots. The only time they would do this would be highly unlikely situation where there were no boots anywhere near, they couldn't get a shipment of boots from nearby cities, it had to be done immediately, _AND_ it was going to pose a hazard to the greater populace if they didn't do it. You are basically calling all of their workers idiots, and I don't think you deserved any mod points.

Real news should not be run on April 1st. (2)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691800)

eom

Re:Real news should not be run on April 1st. (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691874)

by thisisauniqueid (825395) writes: Alter Relationship on 2011-04-02 12:44 (#35691800)

Transparency, Cooperation & Risk Management (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691802)

From what I read Tepco, their regulators and the general government in Japan has ignored all 3 items in my subject.

For doing that they will pay the huge price of a 10-20 year cleanup with enormous damage to their economy and the respect the people have for their institutions.

It is not only the Middle East that may see governmental changes in the near future.

This HAS Been Bad, But Much WORSE is Coming .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691812)

Think about it...
A massive Earthquake,
A Tsunami,
A Giant Crack in the Bottom of the the ocean,
A giant radiation leak....

Can Godzilla be too far away???

Reactor #2 is already leaking (5, Interesting)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691814)

Jeeze Louise. Literally thousands of tons of highly radioactive water have gotten past containment already. They are planning to pump it into barges and ships with a total capacity of 15,000 tons. A lot of the radioactive water is 100,000 times more radioactive than water found in a functioning nuclear reactor. The only way this radioactivity could have escaped is if the fuel rods melted or broke contaminating the water and then the water escaped through leaks in the secondary stainless steel containment vessel.

The authorities don't know how the water is leaking out and don't know the upper bound on the total amount of radioactivity released. The lower bound is already rather staggering. In addition, radioactive materials have already leaked into the ocean and the ground water. TEPCO said the level they measured in the ground water was the similar to the high levels found in the turbine buildings and the tunnels outside the plants. The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said those readings were way too high so they asked TEPCO to measure again more carefully.

The only specific theory I've heard of how the thousands of tons of highly radioactive water got out of the containment vessel is that it got out via graphite seals in the bottom of the vessel. There are holes there for control rods and the holes are blocked with graphite seals. The seals will fail at high temperatures and melted fuel rods falling to the bottom of the vessel would provide more than enough heat to cause the seals to fail. If it is any solace, reactors that don't contain melted fuel rods probably don't have leaks all over the bottom of the containment vessel.

The radioactivity released at Chernobyl escaped upward into the air. This made it easier to get a handle on the magnitude of the total amount of radioactivity released. The release at the light water reactors at Fukushima is for the most part traveling downward, to basements, tunnels, ground water, and the ocean. This makes it extremely difficult to get a handle on the total amount of radioactivity that has been released. They really don't know of the bulk of it is in the thousands of tons they have already discovered or if that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Reactor #2 is already leaking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691928)

highly radioactive water

Please panic now!

Jaysus effing christ. And this is slashdot!

When will people start to understand that something that is highly radioactive won't stay that way very long and conversely that something that is radioactive for a long time (read: has a long half life) is not very (insignificantly) radioactive.

But no.

All you get is idiots who believe that anything that can somehow be traced back to a radioactive element is forever an instant death atom.

Re:Reactor #2 is already leaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691952)

The radioactivity released at Chernobyl escaped upward into the air. This made it easier to get a handle on the magnitude of the total
amount of radioactivity released.

Next up: it's easier to find (sorry, "to get a handle on") needles when they're hidden in a haystack!

And this stuff gets modded up?

April's fool, right?

Radiation level beyond Chernobyl evacuation limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691850)

The IAEA is reporting that measured soil concentrations of Cs-137 as far away as Iitate Village, 40 kilometers northwest of Fukushima-Dai-Ichi, correspond to deposition levels of up to 3.7 megabecquerels per square meter (MBq/sq. m).

This should be compared with the deposition level that triggered compulsory relocation in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident: the level set in 1990 by the Soviet Union was 1.48 MBq/sq. m.

This information is from http://japan.org [japan.org]

Ha ha (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691856)

April fool!

What? Oh.

Damn. Can we go back to the silly stories? :-(

Straight Dope - Nuclear Power is Safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691858)

...and if you believe that, you'll buy this watch!

The odds of a nuclear accident are small. The consequences of a nuclear accident are large. It's the classic risk problem everyone's been talking about since Katrina. The Soviets/Ukrainians dealt with the consequences of their nuclear accident by creating a large exclusion zone, but the Japanese have a lot less land to "exclude." The lesson is we (humanity) should learn, it that we have only this one nest. We can't afford to foul it up (that is, any more than we have already.)

p.s. Straight Dope is usually on the mark. Not today. [straightdope.com]

Re:Straight Dope - Nuclear Power is Safe (4, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691906)

The lesson is we (humanity) should learn, it that we have only this one nest.

If we don't solve that problem, we deserve whatever happens to us.

We can't afford to foul it up (that is, any more than we have already.)

So you'll be turning off your computer and lights in 5, 4, 3... Oh, yeah, I forgot. Solar, wind, and geothermal will give all six billion of us all the electricity we need, so I guess you can leave that stuff powered up.

Call me when this accident... (0)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691886)

... kills as many people as the coal-mining industry did in its best year to date (2005) [msha.gov] .

Re:Call me when this accident... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35691942)

You don't get it, do you?

Either it's safe or not.

You know where you can shove your coal, don't you?

He has no info on the Fukushima, just guesses (3, Insightful)

viking80 (697716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691922)

Why would someone with no insight into the current status at Fukushima throw wild guesses around. This sounds more like an religious agenda then science.

He teaches chemistry at UC Santa Barbara.

Horrible sensationalist summary; RTFA (2, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691932)

First sentence says it all: "It's Theo Theofanous's job to worry about worst-case scenarios." The rest of the article is a description of a worst-case scenarios that is not entirely 100% impossible, but quite implausible. The cautious language also reflects this.

At this point, it seems the bigger risk is a steady stream of isotopes from the fuel pools which are still not full and still steaming hot, and possibly some more from cracks in the reactor containment. It's going to be challenging to isolate it all from the air, given the contamination levels above and around these fuel pools.

Godzilla (-1, Offtopic)

leoaloha (90485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35691974)

Will this bring Godzilla to life?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...