On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Edmund Storms wrote:
[snip stuff related to metallic uranium because there is no evidence
such exists in such GE designed reactors.]
The UO2 fuel is more stable but the Zr will react with air and
water, which would release the fuel pellets and cause them to be
distributed at random over the bottom of the pond.
Yes, we are agreed on something.
This is not a good thing because clean up is made that much more
difficult and this allows the fission products to be released.
Adding water simply insures that the Zr will be converted to oxide
if it has not already been destroyed.
The Zr will also burn when merely exposed to air. Without water the
fuel can still rubblize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)
"During a meltdown, the temperature of the fuel rods increases and
they begin deforming, in case of Zircaloy above 700–900°C. If the
reactor pressure is low, the pressure inside the fuel rods ruptures
their cladding."
Yes, but no geometry that can form under these conditions will go
critical under these conditions.
If that is so then neutron absorber slabs should not be required to
decrease the assembly storage distances, increase the storage
density, in these pools. They are already too near critical.
Condensing the fuel pellets in the bottom of the storage pools
represents a large volume reduction. It seems to me an analysis is
required to determine what will happen with regard to criticality.
4. Addition of water will accelerate this process, make the fuel
even hotter, and spread the powdered U3O8 as a slurry.
The opposite seems to have happened so far. When water is
restored things stabilize momentarily. This is buying time for a
more permanent solution, though the time bought is undoubtedly
very small.
Where did you get this idea. Adding water has only released
radioactive steam. Nothing else has changed.
According to the news reports things have periodically stabilized -
following water being added via fire hoses and water drops. I recall
seeing photos, without the large vapor/smoke plumes seen prior, taken
after water adding measures.
Please, don't patronize. You know exactly what I mean. You are
saying things that are at odds with all my experience with uranium
fuel while giving an impression of authority. I just asked where
this authority comes from.
Ed
I know exactly what you mean, and you know what I mean. You are
attempting an argument from authority (your own), which is fallacious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
I see no reason to respond to such an argument. What I am saying has
merit or not regardless of source, thus needs no authority.
It seems to me one of the biggest problems now is the involvement of
so many fuel containing components at Fukushima, any one of which
could force permanent evacuation of the plant. The combined
probability of none of them causing a serious problem is thus low,
much lower than for any one component. Upon a prolonged forced
evacuation, every component not having coolant will then become
problematic, due to loss of all coolant. It thus seems now is the
time, if it is not too late, to stabilize as much as possible the
fuel storage for prolonged situations in which there is no water.
The fuel storage has about 75% of the onsite fuel. Hopefully the
steel reactor containment will reduce the material released to the
air from the reactors if the plant is abandoned.
Unfortunately, we may actually see what happens in the event of
prolonged abandonment.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
