News Japan Earthquake, Tsunami, & Nuclear Disaster

Artlav

Aperiodic traveller
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
5,791
Reaction score
782
Points
203
Location
Earth
Website
orbides.org
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
As I understand it, as the heat increases the amount of neutrons increase
Why? Isn't radioactivity independent of state of matter?
Or does the rods become more transparent somehow as they heat up?
 

Cairan

Donator
Donator
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
601
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Amqui, QC
For screamer:

In easy to understand terms: Because all the radioactive elements (uranium itself and the byproducts of the fission reaction) continue to disintegrate... Those that disintegrate into smaller atoms the fastest produce the most waste heat and those that disintegrate the slowest produce much less heat, for a given time. And once the atoms that disintegrate the fastest are out of the way, only those which are slow to undergo disintegration remain to provide heat...

Hence, a nuclear reactor's radioactive fuel rods still generate quite a lot of heat for a few days, then less heat for a few months, then even less heat for a few years, etc. However, when we are talking about the huge amounts of heat generated for a power plant, 1% of the maximum output of the core can be a very large amount of heat to dissipate.

Think of it this way: When you make a wood fire, the glowing ambers are quite warm for a while because they still "burn", albeit at a very very slow rate compared to when flames are produced.
 

Screamer

New member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand it better. The poor Japanese get it from all fronts. Who would fought that such a thing would ever happen. No man made thing is safe proof!!!!!
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,783
Reaction score
2,542
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Why does it took so long to cool down? I am by no means an expert on nuclear reactors. If the rods went into a shut down position, why is there still heating of the reactor core? Please be patient with me on this one.

Well simply said, the fuel elements of a nuclear reactor are similar to the plutonium fuel elements inside the RTG of a spacecraft. In a RTG, a slowly decaying substance like Plutonium produces heat energy by nuclear decay. Every second, a fraction of the available fuel decays. The energy behind every decay is pretty much constant for the type of decay, the number of decays per second and the involved isotopes defines how thermal power the decay of a kg of fuel has.

In a nuclear reactor, after shutdown, there are many isotopes in the fuel elements and the water, that decay quickly, producing much more energy per kg for a shorter time. Also, there is a lot more material in the reactor, than in a RTG. Thus the need for cooling even after the control rods reduced the neutron flux a lot.

The neutron flux drops pretty rapidly after a scram, especially because of Xenon poisoning. If the water boils away, there is also less moderation and less thermal neutrons (neutrons that are slow enough for triggering nuclear fission) are around, which means the risk of the core getting critical is even lower when the water boils (As you can learn in the simulator "BWR", hotter water means less reactivity).

BUT: Steam has only a low thermal conductivity. Especially dry steam, that is steam that is hotter than just the boiling point. The steam reduces the heat by nuclear decay in the fuel elements less good as water. The temperatures can easily raise. Next, once the surface of the fuel elements exceeds 800°C, the zircalloy cladding of the fuel (that has the purpose of keeping the fuel in the fuel rods) reacts with the steam and this chemical reaction produces a lot of hydrogen and more heat.

Also, what can make such situations even more bad: Lets assume the normal cooling fails. In this case, you need to use alternate cooling systems. There is a high pressure one, that you can use at operating pressure of the core, and a low pressure one, that requires you to vent steam first and reduce the pressure in the core. If you have a massive circulation pump failure, the flow from the high pressure system can be not enough to keep the water level in the reactor above the fuel. So, the usual action is to automatically vent the pressure into the suppression pool. But reducing pressure also means that the boiling point of water drops and more steam is produced. Which means you need to pump much more water into the reactor at a time to compensate.

This essentially happened in Japan. First the normal shutdown by automatic primary seismic wave triggered scram happened, all pumps worked. temperatures had been slowly cooling.

Then the Tsunami washed away the pumps and/or the fuel tanks for the Diesel generators. Now most of the pumps failed, because electricity was gone. Only thing left had been a few ECCS pumps that had been able to operate on battery power. Temperatures and pressure starts to raise. These pumps had not been designed for operating for a long time.

So, for buying time, the pressure was reduced, more flow was possible by using the low pressure spray system, but at the same time, more water rapidly boiled away.

The water levels in the reactor drop, despite more water flowing into it. At the same time, the temperatures in the suppression pool reach boiling point as well, and the water levels there drop as well. Less water is available for cooling by the only available water source.

When the final battery pack is consumed, there is no flow at all anymore. Only weak convection inside the too small reactor vessel provides some motion and heat transfer.

While the water levels drop, more fuel gets exposed and heats faster. Now the fuel cladding starts to react with the steam, and hydrogen forms. The hydrogen is vented with the steam into the suppression pool.

When the pressure in the suppression pool becomes too high, air from the containment building is vented into the reactor building (Not directly into the atmosphere) The hydrogen concentrates below the roof, until there is an explosion.

By pumping cold sea water into the suppression pool, there is already new water available for venting steam and pumping more water by low pressure into the core.

At least one reactor had also the whole containment structure being flooded (including the pumps) as last resort action, to provide more cooling (bigger heat transfer from inside to the bigger outside area). This likely damaged the pumps inside as well. Such pumps are robust and should work even when water sprays on them or steam condenses at them, but I am not aware that being 100% water tight was ever required.
 

C3PO

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
2,605
Reaction score
17
Points
53
I know from experience that "waterproof" ans "submersible" are two very different things.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,783
Reaction score
2,542
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand it better. The poor Japanese get it from all fronts. Who would fought that such a thing would ever happen. No man made thing is safe proof!!!!!

Sorry, but there is a lot of reason to assume that the Japanese had been very careless in the specifications there. The Tsunami protection was not-existing, already a 3m Tsunami would have caused significant damage.

Also the inside of the plant is only specified for pretty weak Earthquakes, I remember it being designed to 0.15 (acceleration unit), the strongest measured in Japan before it was build being 0.25 (acceleration unit), this Earthquake had 0.35 (acceleration unit). I don't remember the exact numbers or the unit for earthquake accelerations, would need to look for them again.

Currently such numbers don't really matter, because the damage is done and worse has to be prevented. But afterwards, when it is about finding out who was finally responsible, such questions and numbers become important.
 

RGClark

Mathematician
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Philadelphia
Website
exoscientist.blogspot.com
More on the danger of the spent fuel rods:

Will General Electric Get Whacked for the Catastrophic Failure of Its Nuke Plants in Fukushima?
Monday 14 March 2011
...
http://www.truth-out.org/will-gener...rophic-failure-its-nuke-plants-fukushima68465

It has been said that this accident won't be as bad as Chernobyl
because the reactor is contained in a thick containment vessel, unlike
at Chernobyl. But the spent fuel rods which typically contain more
radioctive material than the reactor aren't held within a containment
chamber at Fukushima.
Another argument that has been made for why this won't be as bad as
Chernobyl is that Chernobyl used graphite control rods, unlike at
Fukushima, that caught on fire, thus spreading the radiation.
However,the zirconium cladding used on the fuel rods, including those
spent fuel rods not held within a containment chamber, can also catch
on fire at high enough temperatures, so the result can be just as bad
as or worse than Chernobyl.


The key question I haven't seen answered is how much is there of the spent fuel rods at the four damaged Fukushima reactors total? How does this compare to the reactor material at Chernobyl?

Bob Clark
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,783
Reaction score
2,542
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire



The key question I haven't seen answered is how much is there of the spent fuel rods at the four damaged Fukushima reactors total? How does this compare to the reactor material at Chernobyl?

It is mostly pretty fresh fuel that was just stored there during the maintenance, which is good, because this means less nasty isotopes inside them. There are 1097 tons of fuel rods in the pool.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/17/2011-03-17_talk_of_doomsday_in_japan.html

This is normal 4% enriched uranium fuel, not MOX. Chernobyl had 2% enriched fuel. Which doesn't tell much about how nasty it can be.
 

steph

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
1,400
Reaction score
722
Points
113
Location
Vendee, France
1097 tons souns scary regardless of the type of fuel. At least that's the total number, not just one pool. How hard can it be to quench the fire if the fuel in pool 4 catches fire?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,783
Reaction score
2,542
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
1097 tons souns scary regardless of the type of fuel. At least that's the total number, not just one pool. How hard can it be to quench the fire if the fuel in pool 4 catches fire?

Depends on what catches fire. If it is zircalloy cladding or fragments of Uranium oxide fuel, it becomes very hard, water would only fuel the fire then as oxygen source.

From a point on, you can only dump as much dense matter at it as possible to contain the radioactive materials, because the chemical reactions will go on in the presence of enough water or air.
 

Sky Captain

New member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
945
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When the pressure in the suppression pool becomes too high, air from the containment building is vented into the reactor building (Not directly into the atmosphere) The hydrogen concentrates below the roof, until there is an explosion.

Why is the steam containing H2 wented into an enclosed building? That sounds like recipe for disaster proved by exploding reactor buildings. Why not went it into that tall ventilation stack near the reactor buildings? As I understand the steam contains some radiaoactive substances from activated water and any leaked radiactive gasses from fuel rods, but that is not large amounts of radiation. If I were in charge of similar situation I would take dispersal of some minor radiation into atmoshere any day over blowing up my reactor buildings potentially killing personel and risking damage to spent fuel pool.

Sorry, but there is a lot of reason to assume that the Japanese had been very careless in the specifications there. The Tsunami protection was not-existing, already a 3m Tsunami would have caused significant damage.
Completely agree. It was well known there is subduction zone nearby, it is well known fact megathrust earthquakes are the strongest of any kind always followed by large tsunami. There was even exapmple 6 years ago of what happens when large megathrust earthquake strikes. No excuse for placing vital hardware so low that it can be damaged by tsunami. Not only tsunamis but Japan also is prone to hurricanes that also can cause significant storm surges and large waves potentially flooding something important at nuclear plant site.
 

RGClark

Mathematician
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
Philadelphia
Website
exoscientist.blogspot.com
It is mostly pretty fresh fuel that was just stored there during the maintenance, which is good, because this means less nasty isotopes inside them. There are 1097 tons of fuel rods in the pool.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/17/2011-03-17_talk_of_doomsday_in_japan.html

This is normal 4% enriched uranium fuel, not MOX. Chernobyl had 2% enriched fuel. Which doesn't tell much about how nasty it can be.

Thanks for that. According to the article that would be the spent fuel just at reactor #4.
I found this article that gives the total of the spent fuel rods at the six-reactor plant as 3,400 tons, and the total fuel in the reactor cores as 877 tons:

Plutonium in troubled reactors, spent fuel pools.
Published March 18, 2011
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/18/plutonium-troubled-reactors-spent-fuel-pools/

The amount of fuel at Chernobyl was only about 170 to 180 tons. So these spent fuel rods have the potential to release 20 times as much radioactive material as at Chernobyl.
Also, we can no longer be assured the containment vessels will hold around the reactor cores since at least one and perhaps two appear to have been cracked by the hydrogen explosions. If that radioactive material is also released it would then total 25 times as much radioactive material as at Chernobyl.


Bob Clark
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,783
Reaction score
2,542
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Why is the steam containing H2 wented into an enclosed building? That sounds like recipe for disaster proved by exploding reactor buildings. Why not went it into that tall ventilation stack near the reactor buildings?

Very simple: Because you can not separate steam from hydrogen earlier.

If there would be electricity, air and hydrogen would be recombined to water again in special recombiners.

As I understand the steam contains some radiaoactive substances from activated water and any leaked radiactive gasses from fuel rods, but that is not large amounts of radiation. If I were in charge of similar situation I would take dispersal of some minor radiation into atmoshere any day over blowing up my reactor buildings potentially killing personel and risking damage to spent fuel pool.

Not so harmless, only harmful substances of pretty short half-life, for example nitrogen-13, which is formed inside the water by xyogen capturing beta radiation. That is why there are such radiation spikes when steam is vented, that quickly disappear again.
 
Last edited:

PhantomCruiser

Wanderer
Moderator
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
5,608
Reaction score
171
Points
153
Location
Cleveland
A quick mention regarding hydrogen released into the "aux" building...

Out of a lessons-learned from TMI, sites installed methods for testing for the existance of H2 at several points inside containment and the associated aux building. Here we have two "trains" of hydrogen analyzers, and test each train every 30 days.
Should an event occur, hydrogen igniters would be actuated (really they are just heater coils) to burn off the hydrogen before it could increase to a level that, well, the building would blow up.

It's pretty high on the checklist of things to do if an event occurs. But it does require electricity to operate...
 

Wishbone

Clueless developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
2,421
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Moscow
In short, a combo of LOCA and loss-of-off-site power is a showstopper, right? What can the 3rd-plus and 4th generation designs offer to offset this vulnerability?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,783
Reaction score
2,542
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
In short, a combo of LOCA and loss-of-off-site power is a showstopper, right? What can the 3rd-plus and 4th generation designs offer to offset this vulnerability?

ABWR reactors for example have redesigned pressure vessels that permit cooling the fuel by natural convection inside them, so even a complete pump failure does not result in loss of cooling.
 
Top