PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 One of the big gripes with the anti nuke crowd here in Plymouth is the storage of spent rods on site. When the Nevada site never opened they all stored locally. We can bet storage at all these sites will go through careful scrutiny. I was asking a buddy in the biz why there isn't more from "experts"...reason is we have these reactors in many locations. GE knew about issues (today's times) and there is no upside from going public. It's a bad situation barely in control. As one expert said on CNN they are hanging on by their fingernails. There also aren't many "experts." Nuclear engineering is not a popular subject in the US outside of the US Navy. They recruit heavily for smart folks to join the service and get advanced degrees in nuclear engineering because of that fact. Problem is naval reactors are far different from these big boys. When Constellation Energy wanted to build another nuclear plant down here, they had to fly in a team of French experts to design and oversee the project because our homegrown capability wasn't very deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 “That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi unit 1." We’d be lucky if we only had to worry about the spent fuel rods from a single holding pool. We’re not that lucky. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven pools for spent fuel rods. Six of these are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building. Each “reactor top” pool holds 3450 fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 There also aren't many "experts." Nuclear engineering is not a popular subject in the US outside of the US Navy. They recruit heavily for smart folks to join the service and get advanced degrees in nuclear engineering because of that fact. Problem is naval reactors are far different from these big boys. When Constellation Energy wanted to build another nuclear plant down here, they had to fly in a team of French experts to design and oversee the project because our homegrown capability wasn't very deep. you couldn't be more wrong on all of your points. We have plenty of experts in nuclear energy, and I am sitting next to some of them at this moment. Also, Constellation brought in the french because they were looking to build a French design, the Areva EPR. We also have American designs and Japanese designs that are being considered all over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 “That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi unit 1." We’d be lucky if we only had to worry about the spent fuel rods from a single holding pool. We’re not that lucky. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven pools for spent fuel rods. Six of these are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building. Each “reactor top” pool holds 3450 fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods. Source(s), please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 you couldn't be more wrong on all of your points. We have plenty of experts in nuclear energy, and I am sitting next to some of them at this moment. Also, Constellation brought in the french because they were looking to build a French design, the Areva EPR. We also have American designs and Japanese designs that are being considered all over the country. How can spent fuel rods reach criticality again? It seems a little nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 . This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods. Highly doubtful. That would be 41 fuel rods every day of the 40 year life if the plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 you couldn't be more wrong on all of your points. We have plenty of experts in nuclear energy, and I am sitting next to some of them at this moment. Also, Constellation brought in the french because they were looking to build a French design, the Areva EPR. We also have American designs and Japanese designs that are being considered all over the country. So because you are browsing AMEX while sitting next to "experts" I am wrong. I am an engineer with deep connections to the Navy and various university engineering programs. You are a meteorologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 “That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi unit 1." We’d be lucky if we only had to worry about the spent fuel rods from a single holding pool. We’re not that lucky. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven pools for spent fuel rods. Six of these are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building. Each “reactor top” pool holds 3450 fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods. It does contain more. Last year they got the okay to "re-rack" the spent rods into smaller (closer) racks. And that put them over the 100% planned capacity points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetjanet998 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 How can spent fuel rods reach criticality again? It seems a little nuts. ------------------------------------------------- The spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are the most radioactive of all nuclear wastes. When all the radiation given off by nuclear waste is tallied, the fuel rods give off 99% of it, in spite of having relatively small volume. There is, as of now, no permanent storage site of spent fuel rods. Temporary storage is being used while a permanent site is searched for and prepared. When the spent fuel rods are removed from the reactor core, they are extremely hot and must be cooled down. Most nuclear power plants have a temporary storage pool next to the reactor. The spent rods are placed in the pool, where they can cool down. The pool is not filled with ordinary water but with boric acid, which helps to absorb some of the radiation given off by the radioactive nuclei inside the spent rods. The spent fuel rods are supposed to stay in the pool for only about 6 months, but, because there is no permanent storage site, they often stay there for years. Many power plants have had to enlarge their pools to make room for more rods. As pools fill, there are major problems. If the rods are placed too close together, the remaining nuclear fuel could go critical, starting a nuclear chain reaction. Thus, the rods must be monitored and it is very important that the pools do not become too crowded. Also, as an additional safety measure, neutron-absorbing materials similar to those used in control rods are placed amongst the fuel rods. Permanent disposal of the spent fuel is becoming more important as the pools become more and more crowded. http://library.think...te_storage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 How can spent fuel rods reach criticality again? It seems a little nuts. The 'pool' is flooded with boric acid to prevent just that, if the pool is boiling off... well you get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Source(s), please? On treadmill will dig out in a few but if you search snippets google will return reprints . Great and accurate http://www.dcbureau.org/201103141303/Natural-Resources-News-Service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 How can spent fuel rods reach criticality again? It seems a little nuts. I'm no expert, but if the zirconium cladding around the fuel pellets isn't kept cool, the fuel still gives off enough heat to cause a reaction. this is why the spent rods are kept in a pool for 5 years after they are depleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 How can spent fuel rods reach criticality again? It seems a little nuts. Depends how much of them you get all jumbled together. There have been cases where a slurry mixture of HEU dust and other waste has been enough to go critical. Happened a few times back in the 1950 and 1960s when we still built nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 So because you are browsing AMEX while sitting next to "experts" I am wrong. I am an engineer with deep connections to the Navy and various university engineering programs. You are a meteorologist. He works at the NRC lol...and just mentioned why you were wrong about the French experts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Cove Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 On treadmill will dig out in a few but if you search snippets google will return reprints . Great and accurate http://www.dcbureau....-fukushima.html Page 6 http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/6-1_powerpoint.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 So because you are browsing AMEX while sitting next to "experts" I am wrong. I am an engineer with deep connections to the Navy and various university engineering programs. You are a meteorologist. you don't even know where I work as a meteorologist do you? I'm browsing AMEX while working because some people here have good links to news sites. Many ex Navy nukes come to work in my division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I'm no expert, but if the zirconium cladding around the fuel pellets isn't kept cool, the fuel still gives off enough heat to cause a reaction. this is why the spent rods are kept in a pool for 5 years after they are depleted I've been reading that the racks themselves also contain boron to prevent criticality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avdave Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 So because you are browsing AMEX while sitting next to "experts" I am wrong. I am an engineer with deep connections to the Navy and various university engineering programs. You are a meteorologist. You really have no clue what he does, thats for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I'm no expert, but if the zirconium cladding around the fuel pellets isn't kept cool, the fuel still gives off enough heat to cause a reaction. this is why the spent rods are kept in a pool for 5 years after they are depleted Here is a Wikipedia summary of criticality that is pretty good. A bunch of factors are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I've been reading that the racks themselves also contain boron to prevent criticality. You are probably right. I'm by no means an expert in anything nuclear. except how to review applications for new plants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 He works at the NRC lol...and just mentioned why you were wrong about the French experts... So I called his baby ugly. No wonder he responded. Yeah, I'm sure he thinks there are plenty of experts since they are all down the hall. I would think my city was nothing but chickens if I woke up in a Purdue freezer too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 So I called his baby ugly. No wonder he responded. Yeah, I'm sure he thinks there are plenty of experts since they are all down the hall. I would think my city was nothing but chickens if I woke up in a Purdue freezer too. you're just a stupid troll...go take your **** to OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jburns Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 On treadmill will dig out in a few but if you search snippets google will return reprints . Great and accurate http://www.dcbureau....-fukushima.html Based on what I know, and admittedly I am no expert, that article has several important inaccuracies. For example: "The problem is if the spent fuel gets too close, they will produce a fission reaction and explode with a force much larger than any fission bomb given the total amount of fuel on the site. " This is not true and nothing but scare journalism, which, by the way, seems to be the only occupation of the writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppsRunner Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 “That would be like Chernobyl on steroids,” said Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a member of the public oversight panel for the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which is identical to the Fukushima Daiichi unit 1." We’d be lucky if we only had to worry about the spent fuel rods from a single holding pool. We’re not that lucky. The Fukushima Daiichi plant has seven pools for spent fuel rods. Six of these are (or were) located at the top of six reactor buildings. One “common pool” is at ground level in a separate building. Each “reactor top” pool holds 3450 fuel rod assemblies. The common pool holds 6291 fuel rod assemblies. [The common pool has windows on one wall which were almost certainly destroyed by the tsunami.] Each assembly holds sixty-three fuel rods. This means the Fukushima Daiichi plant may contain over 600,000 spent fuel rods. I would hope that they would use something like bullet-proof glass on that, and hopefully that would allow it to survive. It's not like they'd use standard glass or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 you're just a stupid troll...go take your **** to OT. basically. I've already proven that he is clueless and spouting off stuff he doesn't understand. anyway, that's the last I'll say about Phin so as to not clutter up the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 you're just a stupid troll...go take your **** to OT. Nothing I said was wrong. My post was totally non-confrontational. We are looking at foreign designs because they are better than our own. Read up on the Westinghouse AP1000 (approved by the NRC!). The French are way better at this than we are. Sorry, that's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poimen Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 So because you are browsing AMEX while sitting next to "experts" I am wrong. I am an engineer with deep connections to the Navy and various university engineering programs. You are a meteorologist. I bet your Lionel set-up is something to behold... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhineasC Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 basically. I've already proven that he is clueless and spouting off stuff he doesn't understand. anyway, that's the last I'll say about Phin so as to not clutter up the thread No, you didn't. You are a met hearing stuff at the water cooler. Of course the NRC thinks we are hunky-dory in the nuclear department. If they didn't they'd all be fired. I made a totally calm post and you took it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catoctin wx Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Nothing I said was wrong. My post was totally non-confrontational. We are looking at foreign designs because they are better than our own. Read up on the Westinghouse AP1000 (approved by the NRC!). The French are way better at this than we are. Sorry, that's life. wrong again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMo Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Looks like the webcam is back up: http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/f1-np/camera/index-j.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.