• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Just how long does it take to cool a reactor?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
    So what about the spent fuel rods (there are an awful lot of them, far more than in all the reactors I hear). How much cooling do they need?
    Apparently after a year or so it generates about 10kW per tonne.

    Decay heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by doodab View Post
      Apparently after a year or so it generates about 10kW per tonne.

      Decay heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      That's a rather surprisingly benign figure, 10W/kg, with only passive cooling required. I thought some had reportedly caught fire and were becoming a real menace.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
        That's a rather surprisingly benign figure, 10W/kg, with only passive cooling required. I thought some had reportedly caught fire and were becoming a real menace.
        A Wiki has already been updated to say that a spent fuel pond did catch fire:

        But if the pool were to be drained of water, the discharged fuel from the previous two refuelings would still be "fresh" enough to melt under decay heat. However, the zircaloy cladding of this fuel could be ignited during the heatup. The resulting fire would probably spread to most or all of the fuel in the pool. The heat of combustion, in combination with decay heat, would probably drive "borderline aged" fuel into a molten condition. Moreover, if the fire becomes oxygen-starved (quite probable for a fire located in the bottom of a pit such as this), the hot zirconium would rob oxygen from the uranium dioxide fuel, forming a liquid mixture of metallic uranium, zirconium, oxidized zirconium, and dissolved uranium dioxide. This would cause a release of fission products from the fuel matrix quite comparable to that of molten fuel. In addition, although confined, BWR spent fuel pools are almost always located outside of the primary containment. Generation of hydrogen during the process would probably result in an explosion damaging the secondary containment building. Thus, release to the atmosphere is more likely than for comparable accidents involving the reactor core. [4] A spent fuel pool accident releasing radioactive material to atmosphere happened in a Mk-1 type BWR reactor in Fukushima, Japan, on March 14, 2011.

        Comment


          #44

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Churchill View Post
            Build a sarcophagus around the damaged reactor.

            We just need some very brave souls to go and build it.

            Those chaps at Chernobyl were incredibly brave in their self sacrifice.

            If only the japs had been more advanced with that humanoid robot stuff we had a thread on in the last week or so. Send in the robots to build it and have them seal themselves in if they get too contaminated.

            They could use prisoners on day release. Send our life-sentenced scum over as part of a multinational effort. Everyone's a winner, who deserves to be.
            Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
            Feist - I Feel It All
            Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
              AtW mentioned this proposal a day or so ago and I asked him how you'd keep the reactor cool, with something like 2GW of heat to remove. Okay, getting water down there won't be a problem under gravity feed, but you might need to be pumping a tonne or more water a second (I did a rough calculation once but have forgotten the result) 2 miles uphill. Assuming you can't cool the water underground.
              Build it under ocean floor....

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by AtW View Post
                Build it under ocean floor....
                You are Patrick Duffy, but you can keep your £5, you need it more.
                What happens in General, stays in General.
                You know what they say about assumptions!

                Comment


                  #48
                  Has anyone called Red Adaire?
                  Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by AtW View Post

                    Build it under ocean floor....
                    Sorry, but that's a ridiculous idea.

                    There'd be too much sediment in most places. Having to shore up several thousand feet of mud would be hideously expensive and probably technically impossible.

                    Also, if a meltdown occurred it would seep back up through the mud and contaminate the ocean.

                    Far cheaper and simpler to drill into watertight basement rock (basalt or granite or something) on dry land.
                    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by suityou01 View Post

                      Has anyone called Red Adaire?
                      or failing him, Red Robbo?
                      Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X