Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

In reply to the discussion: TEPCO Rose [View all]

PamW

(1,825 posts)
36. Spontaneous fission.
Sat Feb 23, 2013, 07:32 PM
Feb 2013

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

RobertEarl stated:
I think I have figured out what good ol' Arnie has been trying to tell us. This: Fukushima reactor plutonium experienced spontaneous fission.

Just so you know; it was NOT a case of spontaneous fission not happening and then all of a sudden it happened and we got an explosion. That is NOT the case.

In any amount of Plutonium that contains Pu-240 and Pu-242; even weapons grade plutonium; spontaneous fission is happening ALL the time.

In any macroscopic amount of Pu-240 / Pu-242; there are huge numbers of atoms of Pu-240 / Pu-242. So even though the probability per atom is small; since there are a huge number of atoms; there is a constant background of neutrons due to these spontaneous fissions.

In weapons grade plutonium, the amount of Pu-240 / Pu-242 is low enough so that this background of neutrons is low enough. Even though when in a bomb the background neutrons will start multiplying as the bomb assembles, the original level is low enough that the bomb doesn't predetonate or disassemble before assembly is complete.

If you have reactor grade plutonium, the presence of more Pu-240 / Pu-242 means the background level is higher. This means that the amplification of the neutron population needed to get enough energy production to predetonate or disassemble the bomb core is less; because you started with a higher level to begin with. That means it takes less time, and the predetonation can "beat" the assembly and cause the bomb to fizzle out. That's why you can't make a bomb with reactor grade plutonium.

Arnie Gundersen was TOTALLY WRONG in EVERYTHING he said.

What you saw in the Unit-3 explosion was a hydrogen explosion that occurred OUTSIDE the containment building. As a result of that explosion, a bunch of non-radioactive structural material was dispersed. However, that explosion wasn't the source of the radioactive contamination as Gundersen claimed.

However, CTBTO claimed that it saw contamination from a damaged reactor. That is correct. So where did the contamination come from? The Fukushima reactors are BWRs. That means that the Rankine cycle working fluid, the water that turns to steam to drive the turbines goes through the reactor:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-bwr.html

Contrast that with the PWR which has separate water loops for reactor coolant and Rankine working fluid:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html

You can see the difference. The reactor coolant in the PWR is that yellow loop which gives up its heat in the heat exchanger / steam generator; but is otherwise sealed off from the Rankine working fluid water that goes through the turbine.

When Fukushima lost its diesel generators due to the tsunami, it lost the power to run the cooling pumps. Therefore, the plant couldn't circulate water and dump heat to the environment benignly. After the quake, the reactor shut down, but due to the radioactivity, there's still heat being produced, and the reactor needs to be cooled. The plant didn't have any offsite power to run the pumps, but it did have those diesel generators which kicked in automatically.

So for the first hour after the earthquake, the pumps circulated water through the reactor, and then through some valves that bypass the turbine ( "turbine bypass valves" ) and sent steam directly to the condenser where it was cooled by that dark blue loop at right. The condenser acts like the heat exchanger in the PWR and allows heat to be transferred from reactor coolant to that dark blue loop at right. Because the two loops are isolated from each other; there's no radioactivity that is discharged by that dark blue loop. Therefore, the plant can cool the reactor without discharging radioactivity, the same as it does when it's at power and turning the turbine.

However, an hour or so after the earthquake, the tsunami hit. No question, the Japanese had a very poor design of the "balance of plant". They had the fuel tanks for those backup diesel generators sitting at dockside above ground for convenience of filling. The diesel generators and their electric switchgear were in the basement which flooded. The fuel tank got swept away by the tsunami water.

So the plant was left without power to run those pumps you see in the diagram.

So in order to cool the plant, the operators purposefully opened valves to vent steam to the environment. Unlike PWRs, where the steam is separate from the reactor coolant; the steam in a BWR is the same water that goes through the reactor. Because the reactor overheated and the tubes that contain the fuel oxidized; radioactive fission products that were created when the fission reaction was going on before the quake, got into the reactor coolant water. The operators were venting the steam made from that water to the atmosphere as a way to cool the reactor. This operation therefore meant that the operators were venting radioactive fission products to the atmosphere, on purpose.

It was the radioactivity from those venting operations that CTBTO captured and analyzed. The explosion really had little, if any; effect on putting radioactivity into the environment. It looks bad; but that's not what contaminated the environment. It was the venting by the operators.

PamW


TEPCO Rose [View all] Octafish Feb 2013 OP
What "murder of 8 billion people" are you talking about? wtmusic Feb 2013 #1
I imagine that refers to plutonium exposure. Octafish Feb 2013 #2
Sounds like the seabirds are healthy. wtmusic Feb 2013 #3
According to your way of thinking, wtmusic, plutonium must be good for you. Octafish Feb 2013 #4
Is that what passes for logic these days? FBaggins Feb 2013 #8
Fantastic catch! Octafish Feb 2013 #11
What about him/her? FBaggins Feb 2013 #12
Lady Barbara Judge is the subject of the post. Do you have anything to add about her? Octafish Feb 2013 #13
She's the subject of the thread... not the post. FBaggins Feb 2013 #18
Thanks. Very astute observation, FBaggins. Octafish Feb 2013 #29
This is where EDUCATION is needed.. PamW Feb 2013 #34
I like education Thanks Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #35
Spontaneous fission. PamW Feb 2013 #36
Turbine steam was in direct contact with the MOX fuel? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #37
Actually... PamW Feb 2013 #40
Tell us what you think of this, Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #41
Sure.... PamW Feb 2013 #43
Plutonium Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #44
I've looked... PamW Feb 2013 #46
Denying science again, aren't you, Pam? Yep. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #49
I don't doubt the Lithuaninan scientists.. PamW Feb 2013 #51
Bravo. wtmusic Feb 2013 #38
Pam sure made this clear RobertEarl Feb 2013 #39
You need to cool a reactor.. PamW Feb 2013 #42
Wow, Pam. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #45
Again... PamW Feb 2013 #47
Another profound statement RobertEarl Feb 2013 #50
I'm glad you AGREE!! PamW Feb 2013 #48
She's not suggesting they are thinking about re-starting parts of the Dai-ichi plant is she? AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #5
Her hiring may be a PR move of the first stank rather than as a professional fixer-upper. Octafish Feb 2013 #6
K&R RobertEarl Feb 2013 #7
Nuclear war is crazy. Nuclear weapons are crazy. Nuclear power is crazy. Octafish Feb 2013 #9
There's tons spread around the world WITHOUT the bunkers. PamW Feb 2013 #10
That paper was published in 2002. It's a good bet there's a lot more plutonium now. Octafish Feb 2013 #14
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! Everything you said was 100% WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2013 #15
Uhhh, Pam? You do know this, right? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #16
I hope she doesn't know it... FBaggins Feb 2013 #19
Hey, ya seen #4 RobertEarl Feb 2013 #20
Another straw man? FBaggins Feb 2013 #21
Building #4 has crumbled RobertEarl Feb 2013 #23
WRONG AGAIN!!! PamW Feb 2013 #25
There are TONS of spent MOX (PLUTONIUM and URANIUM!!!) outside that core in the spent fuel pools. Octafish Feb 2013 #32
Another thread you should review FBaggins Feb 2013 #33
You're kidding, right? FBaggins Feb 2013 #26
Self-righteous anti-nukes. PamW Feb 2013 #28
You'll get a kick out of today's Dilbert FBaggins Feb 2013 #30
I'll have to send this to my colleague.. PamW Feb 2013 #31
YES - volatile materials PamW Feb 2013 #22
Thank you for straightening me out, PamW. Octafish Feb 2013 #17
But you need to be an engineer... PamW Feb 2013 #24
Scientifically - I agree with the TEPCO assessment PamW Feb 2013 #27
Lady Barbara Judge to give David J. Rose Memorial Lecture at MIT PamW Feb 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»TEPCO Rose»Reply #36