Talk about being up a creek without a paddle. Can't (or shouldn't) pump water into the reactor to cool it since the water is leaking and contaminating the environment, and can't let the spent fuel rods and rector core sit without water and heat up and melt. Geeze...
Possible reactor meltdown in Japan
- Thread starter expat
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Al
...
Decay heat in even the operating reactor is below .2%
@ what temperature would that be?
Its not a function of temperature. Its a function of time. You could take the fuel and freeze it but it keeps producing that .2% decay heat. It will then heat up and stop getting hotter as long as the .2% decay heat = heat being rejected. If you reject less the temp will go up to a point where it reaches equilibrium again. But it still continues giving off decay heat.
Right, I understand about the pile decaying over time....what I'm after is this.
When you say...."...the temp will go up to a point...."
What is that temperature? Is it well above 2,000 Deg F? And if you know, what would the range of temps be as the pile goes back and forth between equilibrium?
These questions are assuming the core, or part of it, has escaped the vessel and is laying on the reinforced concrete. The best I can tell, the concrete melts/burns/crumbles at well under 2,000 Deg F. Thats why I'm curious about the temp of the core or whatever part of it may be outside the containment.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Al
...
Decay heat in even the operating reactor is below .2%
@ what temperature would that be?
Its not a function of temperature. Its a function of time. You could take the fuel and freeze it but it keeps producing that .2% decay heat. It will then heat up and stop getting hotter as long as the .2% decay heat = heat being rejected. If you reject less the temp will go up to a point where it reaches equilibrium again. But it still continues giving off decay heat.
Right, I understand about the pile decaying over time....what I'm after is this.
When you say...."...the temp will go up to a point...."
What is that temperature? Is it well above 2,000 Deg F? And if you know, what would the range of temps be as the pile goes back and forth between equilibrium?
These questions are assuming the core, or part of it, has escaped the vessel and is laying on the reinforced concrete. The best I can tell, the concrete melts/burns/crumbles at well under 2,000 Deg F. Thats why I'm curious about the temp of the core or whatever part of it may be outside the containment.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The best I can tell, the concrete melts/burns/crumbles at well under 2,000 Deg F. Thats why I'm curious about the temp of the core or whatever part of it may be outside the containment.
I'm not sure the core temperature matters much once the core drops through the last concrete or steel barrier into the ground. Presuming moisture is in the soil or bedrock, which is a certainty as far as I know, there will be a steam explosion, resulting in much of the core matter violently going airborne. That means sayonara for anybody working in the vicinity. It also means a rather large cloud of death blowing wherever the wind takes it.
By the way, only about 5% of the total core matter from the nuclear plant at Chernobyl were released into the atmosphere. By 2014 they want to erect a huge steel building over the wrecked Chernobyl reactor building. The structure will be the size of an airship hangar.
The best I can tell, the concrete melts/burns/crumbles at well under 2,000 Deg F. Thats why I'm curious about the temp of the core or whatever part of it may be outside the containment.
I'm not sure the core temperature matters much once the core drops through the last concrete or steel barrier into the ground. Presuming moisture is in the soil or bedrock, which is a certainty as far as I know, there will be a steam explosion, resulting in much of the core matter violently going airborne. That means sayonara for anybody working in the vicinity. It also means a rather large cloud of death blowing wherever the wind takes it.
By the way, only about 5% of the total core matter from the nuclear plant at Chernobyl were released into the atmosphere. By 2014 they want to erect a huge steel building over the wrecked Chernobyl reactor building. The structure will be the size of an airship hangar.
Asking Al for an answer is pretty insane.
My High School nuclear physics 28 years ago was limited to the sphere of U235 or Pu that needed to be "assembled" to make a critical mass...along with the disclaimer that you'd be dead long before you even machined up the pieces, let alone managed to assemble them into an arrangement to do stuff.
An ex Canadian, he taught us about elephants and diffraction...and beetles on straight 30 winter morning starts in Calgary.
If the rods in the reactors or the cooling pools form a great big pancake, or somehow form a perfect sphere will greatly influence the outcome of this incident.
To ask Al for a temperature/outcome is pretty futile...IMO
My High School nuclear physics 28 years ago was limited to the sphere of U235 or Pu that needed to be "assembled" to make a critical mass...along with the disclaimer that you'd be dead long before you even machined up the pieces, let alone managed to assemble them into an arrangement to do stuff.
An ex Canadian, he taught us about elephants and diffraction...and beetles on straight 30 winter morning starts in Calgary.
If the rods in the reactors or the cooling pools form a great big pancake, or somehow form a perfect sphere will greatly influence the outcome of this incident.
To ask Al for a temperature/outcome is pretty futile...IMO
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Asking Al for an answer is pretty insane.
To ask Al for a temperature/outcome is pretty futile...IMO
I'm sure both you and your HS teacher know more about the nuclear field than I'll ever know especially since you have worked in a coal fired plant all your life and perhaps your teacher had a bit of chemistry/physics 101 classes.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows what happens to a fuel element as it melts/gassifies. I think it is very unlikely that it will return critical in the molten state. But neither you or your teacher can know that...its beyond what has ever been tested. Also this mess (or some of it) is sitting ion the presence of unborated water.
I was concerned with pouring sea water on "close packed" fuel elements wiithout borated wateer. I can guarantee you that close packed fuel rods in an unborated spent fuel pool will go critical. (Verify that with your H.S.teacher)
As far as the temperature thing..I was under the impression that you were an engineer. Guess I was wrong. You would know that a heat source would continue to heat up until heat generated = heat rejected.
Hey, I'm just putting out an opinion based on what I picked up here and there in the Nuke industry for 30+ years. Feel free to get your information from Tokyo Electric.
Asking Al for an answer is pretty insane.
To ask Al for a temperature/outcome is pretty futile...IMO
I'm sure both you and your HS teacher know more about the nuclear field than I'll ever know especially since you have worked in a coal fired plant all your life and perhaps your teacher had a bit of chemistry/physics 101 classes.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows what happens to a fuel element as it melts/gassifies. I think it is very unlikely that it will return critical in the molten state. But neither you or your teacher can know that...its beyond what has ever been tested. Also this mess (or some of it) is sitting ion the presence of unborated water.
I was concerned with pouring sea water on "close packed" fuel elements wiithout borated wateer. I can guarantee you that close packed fuel rods in an unborated spent fuel pool will go critical. (Verify that with your H.S.teacher)
As far as the temperature thing..I was under the impression that you were an engineer. Guess I was wrong. You would know that a heat source would continue to heat up until heat generated = heat rejected.
Hey, I'm just putting out an opinion based on what I picked up here and there in the Nuke industry for 30+ years. Feel free to get your information from Tokyo Electric.
So it's been decided to bury reactors 1 through 4 by the end of April. For now they want to cover the plant with a special fabric.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725
I guess I'm waiting for Godzilla to appear. The government understating the problem to avoid panic and mayhem.
Prayers for the people of Japan.
Prayers for the people of Japan.
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
So it's been decided to bury reactors 1 through 4 by the end of April. For now they want to cover the plant with a special fabric.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725
Not sure how you came to that conclusion by reading that article. They have officially stated what was obvious a couple weeks ago, that the 4 damaged reactors would have to be decommissioned, and there is a mention of putting some sort of cover over the damaged buildings in the meantime. No mention of burying them.
It then mentions some newly prescribed safety measures for (presumably still operating) nuclear plants, to be implemented by the end of April - not many specifics other than a mention of setting up backup power supplies, which doesn't say much because plants already have them. Perhaps a 2nd backup, or maybe bringing the existing ones up to new standards? The article almost reads like a cobbled together translation of random news nuggets.
jeff
So it's been decided to bury reactors 1 through 4 by the end of April. For now they want to cover the plant with a special fabric.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725
Not sure how you came to that conclusion by reading that article. They have officially stated what was obvious a couple weeks ago, that the 4 damaged reactors would have to be decommissioned, and there is a mention of putting some sort of cover over the damaged buildings in the meantime. No mention of burying them.
It then mentions some newly prescribed safety measures for (presumably still operating) nuclear plants, to be implemented by the end of April - not many specifics other than a mention of setting up backup power supplies, which doesn't say much because plants already have them. Perhaps a 2nd backup, or maybe bringing the existing ones up to new standards? The article almost reads like a cobbled together translation of random news nuggets.
jeff
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
So it's been decided to bury reactors 1 through 4 by the end of April. For now they want to cover the plant with a special fabric.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725
Not sure how you came to that conclusion by reading that article. They have officially stated what was obvious a couple weeks ago, that the 4 damaged reactors would have to be decommissioned, and there is a mention of putting some sort of cover over the damaged buildings in the meantime. No mention of burying them.
It then mentions some newly prescribed safety measures for (presumably still operating) nuclear plants, to be implemented by the end of April - not many specifics other than a mention of setting up backup power supplies, which doesn't say much because plants already have them. Perhaps a 2nd backup, or maybe bringing the existing ones up to new standards? The article almost reads like a cobbled together translation of random news nuggets.
jeff
I apologize for not quoting all my sources. The bit about burying the reactor 1 through 4 was from a Reuters article. I bet you can find it.
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
So it's been decided to bury reactors 1 through 4 by the end of April. For now they want to cover the plant with a special fabric.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12903725
Not sure how you came to that conclusion by reading that article. They have officially stated what was obvious a couple weeks ago, that the 4 damaged reactors would have to be decommissioned, and there is a mention of putting some sort of cover over the damaged buildings in the meantime. No mention of burying them.
It then mentions some newly prescribed safety measures for (presumably still operating) nuclear plants, to be implemented by the end of April - not many specifics other than a mention of setting up backup power supplies, which doesn't say much because plants already have them. Perhaps a 2nd backup, or maybe bringing the existing ones up to new standards? The article almost reads like a cobbled together translation of random news nuggets.
jeff
I apologize for not quoting all my sources. The bit about burying the reactor 1 through 4 was from a Reuters article. I bet you can find it.
Most recent Reuters article mentions the same stuff about increased standards at the other plants. A little bit of info about a special resin they're going to spray around to capture airborne contaminants, and the following text which touches on the time required to deal with the problem:
"...However, just how radiation is spilling into the ocean is unclear and controlling leakage from the plant could take weeks or months, making precise risk assessments difficult.
Tokyo Electric said it would take a "fairly long time" to stabilize overheating reactors, adding four of the six reactors would need to be decommissioned..."
No mention of burying anything by the end of April.
"...However, just how radiation is spilling into the ocean is unclear and controlling leakage from the plant could take weeks or months, making precise risk assessments difficult.
Tokyo Electric said it would take a "fairly long time" to stabilize overheating reactors, adding four of the six reactors would need to be decommissioned..."
No mention of burying anything by the end of April.
As I said, I can't find the article anymore. There are lots of blurbs and bits of info floating around, and I was looking at articles in several languages other than English also.
Anyway, decommissioning a reactor is a process that takes decades under normal circumstances. And these aren't normal circumstances.
Anyway, decommissioning a reactor is a process that takes decades under normal circumstances. And these aren't normal circumstances.
I want to apologize to Shannow for my abrasive post above. As I told him I woke up on the wrong side of bed today. I tried to delete it but the time expired.
Al
Al
Originally Posted By: Al
I want to apologize to Shannow for my abrasive post above. As I told him I woke up on the wrong side of bed today. I tried to delete it but the time expired.
Al
I should use a similar excuse for 51% of my posts.
I want to apologize to Shannow for my abrasive post above. As I told him I woke up on the wrong side of bed today. I tried to delete it but the time expired.
Al
I should use a similar excuse for 51% of my posts.
Originally Posted By: Al
I want to apologize to Shannow for my abrasive post above. As I told him I woke up on the wrong side of bed today. I tried to delete it but the time expired.
Al
Al, this whole mess must be bringing back some "not so fond" memories.
I want to apologize to Shannow for my abrasive post above. As I told him I woke up on the wrong side of bed today. I tried to delete it but the time expired.
Al
Al, this whole mess must be bringing back some "not so fond" memories.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Asking Al for an answer is pretty insane.
My High School nuclear physics 28 years ago was limited to the sphere of U235 or Pu that needed to be "assembled" to make a critical mass...along with the disclaimer that you'd be dead long before you even machined up the pieces, let alone managed to assemble them into an arrangement to do stuff.
An ex Canadian, he taught us about elephants and diffraction...and beetles on straight 30 winter morning starts in Calgary.
If the rods in the reactors or the cooling pools form a great big pancake, or somehow form a perfect sphere will greatly influence the outcome of this incident.
To ask Al for a temperature/outcome is pretty futile...IMO
OK, so lets leave the actual temperature aside for a moment. And let me ask this question that more directly addresses my line of thinking....
If the pile leaks out of the containment vessel, is it a forgone conclusion that the concrete surrounding it will fail as well? What I'm getting at is, if the material breaches the containment vessel, and it appears it has, is it only a metter of time before the concrete also fails. Or is there a possibility that the concrete will contain the mass?
Asking Al for an answer is pretty insane.
My High School nuclear physics 28 years ago was limited to the sphere of U235 or Pu that needed to be "assembled" to make a critical mass...along with the disclaimer that you'd be dead long before you even machined up the pieces, let alone managed to assemble them into an arrangement to do stuff.
An ex Canadian, he taught us about elephants and diffraction...and beetles on straight 30 winter morning starts in Calgary.
If the rods in the reactors or the cooling pools form a great big pancake, or somehow form a perfect sphere will greatly influence the outcome of this incident.
To ask Al for a temperature/outcome is pretty futile...IMO
OK, so lets leave the actual temperature aside for a moment. And let me ask this question that more directly addresses my line of thinking....
If the pile leaks out of the containment vessel, is it a forgone conclusion that the concrete surrounding it will fail as well? What I'm getting at is, if the material breaches the containment vessel, and it appears it has, is it only a metter of time before the concrete also fails. Or is there a possibility that the concrete will contain the mass?
Originally Posted By: Volvo_ST1
I should use a similar excuse for 51% of my posts.
I hear ya.
I couldn't find the article you were discussing other than:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special...from=public_rss
I should use a similar excuse for 51% of my posts.
I hear ya.
I couldn't find the article you were discussing other than:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special...from=public_rss
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
If the pile leaks out of the containment vessel, is it a forgone conclusion that the concrete surrounding it will fail as well? What I'm getting at is, if the material breaches the containment vessel, and it appears it has, is it only a metter of time before the concrete also fails. Or is there a possibility that the concrete will contain the mass?
I believe that it's called China Syndrome ....
If the pile leaks out of the containment vessel, is it a forgone conclusion that the concrete surrounding it will fail as well? What I'm getting at is, if the material breaches the containment vessel, and it appears it has, is it only a metter of time before the concrete also fails. Or is there a possibility that the concrete will contain the mass?
I believe that it's called China Syndrome ....
You guys all forgot they've been adding boron to the water that's being pumped into the core and pools
France shipped 95 tons of boron.
- Status
Similar threads
