Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, now that they're pumping in seawater in to these reactors, what happens to the

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Demonaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:21 AM
Original message
So, now that they're pumping in seawater in to these reactors, what happens to the
seawater after it's been run over the radioactive rods?...pumped back out to sea?...stored?...just converted into radioactive steam?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. They turn into beautiful butterflys.....
About as accurate as anything the Japanese government says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. All of the above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. They use a heat exchanger. The sea water does not come in contact with the radioactive materials.
Usually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nonsense n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Go look up heat exchangers. That's how reactors are cooled. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. That's how they're USUALLY cooled.
They're pumping in seawater because the usual systems are no longer working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Do you know the difference between a BWR and a PWR?
The reactors in question are BWRs and have no heat exchangers/steam generators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Actually both types have heat exchangers. Look at a diagram (of either type)
where the coolant (sea water) enters and leaves. Notice how the coolant doesn't come into contact with the reactor? That is thanks to a heat changer. Rather than asking me if I know the difference, why not ask the folks at Wiki why their diagram didn't label all the parts? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. regardless, it's exchanges on DU such as this that can be very informative. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. They are talking about COOLING THE REACTORS!
Not the cooling loop used to cool and condense the steam that went through the turbine.

Yes, BWRs do have a heat exchanger in their design, but that's not what they're talking about here. That water in the heat exchanger is way far down the line from the actual reactor.

We are at such a bad point, they are having to pump water into the reactor directly. That's why this is so bad.

And God they are lying and those reactor containment systems didn't probably make it through the explosion safely, without even the slightest crack, right?

I'm so sick and fucking tired of this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. Here is a really simple diagram of a PWR like the reactor at Three Mile Island...
and a BWR like the one at Fukushima.

First the PWR:


At points 6 and 7, you will notice there is NO FUCKING HEAT EXCHANGER!

Down the line at point 12 there is. This is usually what cools and condenses the water after it's gone through a turbine in a BWR (boiling water reactor). This is not to mistaken as a full separation between the reactor and external water going into the rest of the plant, however. The steam comes directly from the reactor in a BWR.

However, in a PWR, or pressurized water reactor. No water in the core itself ever boils under normal circumstances. And there is a heat exchanger separating water that becomes steam and goes through the turbines from the water circulating in the core.

Here is a simple diagram of that:


In this diagram the heat exchanger is a "steam generator". Now you will also notice that down the line AFTER the turbines there is another heat exchanger. This one is the like the ONLY heat exchanger in a boiling water reactor. It serves the same purpose, to cause the steam to condense back down into water, by transferring heat to water that flows freely in and out of the plant.


NOW back to the BWR:


At point 1, there is coolant in there, and that in these reactors at Fukushima is low. So low that fuel rods are no longer being actively cooled. This is a problem, because although there are control rods that sort of shut down the reactions causing heat to be made, they do not themselves radiate heat away from this pressure vessel. So they can be in there, and unless there is cooling still going on during shut down, you will perhaps see the fuel rods melt (called a meltdown.)

This believed to be what's happening now, unfortunately. And this may very well breach the containment of the reactor if cannot be stopped and this means that radioactivity in large amounts could be released into the surrounding environment. If you've ever heard of the China Syndrome, that's what I'm talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. There is a heat exchanger in both diagrams. You obviously wouldn't know what a heat exchanger
is even if it was in front of you (which it is in this case). Stop spreading hysterical misinformation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Yes, only where the seawater would usually come in and out of a plant.
However, there is not one between the reactor coolant the turbines in BWR.

That's not misinformation, that's the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FSogol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Yeah, Whatever Chicken Little. Let me know when you finish your Wikipedia Engineering Degree.
:facepalm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. I'm not sure if you know as much as you think you know....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. So you believe no seawater is coming in contact with the rods?
Really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. With the actual rods? No I don't think that. Because I have more then a wikipedia knowledge of how
Nuclear power plants work.



Really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Just to clarify: You believe that in Reactors 1 & 3, no seawater is in contact with the fuel rods...
I just want your incredible ignorance and arrogance on display for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. That is my position. I also don't think you know where the fuel rods are located.
Feel free to prove me wrong, educate all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. In the reactor vessel and in the spent fuel pools. The ones that they are trying to cool....
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:55 PM by Junkdrawer
with seawater are in the reactor vessel.



Now, I'd just LOVE to hear where you think they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. Wow that was informative
Care to elaborate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. So much disinformation, so little time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
25. Then what's the purpose of adding Boron to the sea water?
This sure makes it sound like the sea water is going into the reactor itself.

Reports note that boric acid is being added with the sea water. Boric acid is a soluable form of boron, which is very good at absorbing neutrons. By adding this to the water around the fuel rods, it would capture neutrons that could otherwise cause additional atoms to fission. This is being added to the reactor to make sure it does not become critical again, which might happen in two ways: (1) fuel rod damage that results in fuel rod segments dropping to the bottom of the reactor vessel, where they could form a critical mass, or (2) withdrawals of the control rods caused by malfunctions of the hydraulic control units that move the control rods in and out of the core.

http://allthingsnuclear.org/tagged/Japan_nuclear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Of course it is, or else they wouldn't be doing that...
When they are talking about doing this, it goes right in there.

And that also means they're not planning on using that shit ever again, so it must be too far gone!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. They are.
They need to add water in two places.

1) Primary coolant loop. Water has droped too low due to excess boiling. Adding water here would be a one way trip. The boron is a safety measure that would prevent criticality even if the fuel rods are melted (thus making control rods ineffective). This water stays in the reactor and replaces the water that was their under routine operation (it boiled off when reactor overheated).

2) They will use seawater to cool the primary loop. This water will be returned to the ocean and be a continual process. This water will not be exposed to the core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokerfan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Tokyo Electric is also saying that #3 may be leaking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. The seawater becomes high-level radwaste that needs to be dealt with in the future
Kicking the can down the road.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Nope... it becomes very low-level radioactive waste
That unfortunately appears to be leaking out of the reactors as fast as they're pumping it in. Given the plant's location, the bulk of this almmost certainly ends up in the sea.

It's the kind of thing that would be a really big deal in other circumstances (I'm sure it's quite a bit more substantial than the tritiated water leaking out of a couple US reactors), but in context of the greater danger, it's not a major issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. I think, like the steam, it's low level if the integrity of the fuel rods hasn't been compromised.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 11:58 AM by Warren DeMontague
Unfortunately, it sounds like in all 3 reactors, it HAS been compromised, so presumably you're having all sorts of shit mixed in with the steam and waste.

It is hardly what anyone would call an ideal situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
41. I agree that that's relevant,
but the water doesn't appear to be spending much time in or around the core. It's leaking out (reportedly) as fast as they pump it in.

The activity levels in the core should be declining pretty rapidly as well... so that should make a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. leaking out or boiling off? The later is to be expected, the former is worrisome. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. Tritium isn't high level waste. It is a weak alpha emitter with almost no energy
and a short half life. Also water is "resistance" to neutron capture and thus only a tiny fraction becomes irradiated (usually less than 1%).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. You're making an assumption that the water isn't coming directly into contact with core material
Which would contaminate it with uranium and all kids of ugly fission byproducts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Even if that did happen (which there is nothing to indicate core has breached)
the primary coolant loop is a closed system. Contaminants would remains in the primary cooling loops. Not a good situation but harldy like dumping spent fuel into the ocean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. So tritium is the only problem, and no iodine and cesium?
Are the pressure vessels losing coolant only because it's boiling off and they're having to release pressure, or is there a leak in the pressure vessel?

Can they even know at the current time if the valves controlling the flow of coolant are working properly?

Are they visually inspecting this? Wouldn't any cameras have been damaged in the hydrogen-oxygen explosions that were obviously strong enough to disintegrate the containment buildings?

Just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Haven't they already detected both products outside of the whole core?
That shouldn't be happening if they have containment, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. Looks like it's not closed any more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
7. The seawater is corrosive and it is likely that using it will render whatever it comes ...
into contact with unusable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. yes they will have to replace just about everything after using salt water


that's if the rods don't melt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. They won't replace anything. These reactors stopped being commercial entities the second
they had hydrogen explosions. Neither plant will ever run again.

They made the decision to use seawater knowing that is essence they are writing the plant off forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. Simple answer: radioactive steam. Complex answer ....
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 11:50 AM by Statistical
not all radiation is equal.

There is a difference between radiation (energy) and radioactive material (material that now emits energy). Also not all the water goes into the core.


Water is being added to the core. That water is converted into steam and it flows into a condensor where more sea water (second loop) cools it back into water.

Only the water directly added to the core is exposed to radiation. Oxygen is extremely resistant to radiation and will not become radioactive. Some of the hydrogen in the water can be converted into an unstable isotope, tritium. In a normal reactor less than 1% of the water turns into tritium. Most of the water never becomes radioactive but some of it will. A small portion of steam is periodically vented to reduce pressure so some tritinated steam will escape

Most of the water is being used in the second loop and thus is not radioactive. Some water will need to be added to the core to replace water lost and that will become radioactive. Lastly tritium has a short half life (12 years) and will decay back into inert "normal" water. Also if you absorb tritium it leaves the body quickly (about 10 days) minimizing damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yawnmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
23. We'll never be able to drink it. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
24. I have no idea, but whatever you do, don't get panicky
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kennah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
39. If seawater isn't coming into direct contact with rods then why is boron also being used?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
40. I believe it will go into the same ponds that the fresh
water goes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-14-11 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
43. The seawater which becomes is contaminated is the source of the radioactive steam being released.
Edited on Mon Mar-14-11 01:28 PM by Lone_Star_Dem
They covered this on the news. Most of the seawater is being used to try and cool down the steam before the pressure gets too high and forces them to release contaminated steam. The water used in that process does not come in contact with contaminants from the fuel rods.

Also, I just saw where they may need to continue to release contaminated steam for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vicarofrevelwood Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
47. Radio active steam of course.
the ocean is a toilet don't cha know. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC