2011/3/16 Joseph McAllister <[email protected]>: > > I agree with that as well. If I recall though, to get a good water flow into > a reactor with pump failure, one needs to vent the pressure from the > containment vessel, normally through the Torus in these units, though in an > emergency greater than that there are valves that can be opened to vent the > steam from the boiling water out the top of the vessel. > > The downside of that is, if you remember from science class, if you have > superheated water under pressure, removing the pressure lowers the boiling > point of the liquid, which causes a great amount of steam to be generated > that needs to be released. Sort of a cascading problem, because at some point > so much water is being turned to steam that it lowers the water level, > perhaps faster than water can be pumped in to replace it.
this is actually something that has been boggling my mind since I started thinking about what these poor people at fukushima who are still their and giving their lives for what amounts to palliative care of the plant and hopefully turning a 100% disaster into an 80% disaster are doing all day. I would kind of think that all this pumping of water onto fuel rods glowing at somewhere between 800 and 2500 °C would cause instant evaporation and the corresponding shock waves of pressure rises; AFAIK water expands 1700fold from liquid to vapor/gaseous after all. wouldn't that cause enormous stress and ultimately fatigue of the containment vessel? and are the pressure relief valves designed to withstand this abuse for an extended period? > I do not claim to know everything about the operation of the GE reactors in > trouble in Japan right now. I did learn the basics as a teenager some 50 > years ago, conversing with my father as well as listening in on many > conversations over dinners with several of the big names in the Atomic Energy > business. R.G. McAllister was a Nuclear Health Physicist sent to represent > the the U.S.A. Insurance Pool at several ISO conventions held at the Hague in > the 1950's and 60's where the many safety measures in the use of these > radioactive materials, from dentists and hospital use up to weapons > production, were discussed and agreed upon. The reason for these month long > meetings was that no insurance company, nor any country's insurance industry, > could afford to cover a catastrophic event such as the one we are currently > witness to in Japan. The risk had to be covered on a global scale. just don't get me started on weapons. this is bad enough as it is. > Don't be surprised if some of the large insurance companies in the world > start selling off assets such as downtown buildings and other properties in > the next year or three. sounds probable indeed. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
