Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

In reply to the discussion: TEPCO Rose [View all]

PamW

(1,825 posts)
40. Actually...
Sun Feb 24, 2013, 04:51 PM
Feb 2013

RobertEarl,

The MOX is a ceramic. When ever I explain this, I think of a couple of blue glass tumblers that my brother and I got when we were children. One of the soda fountains we used to go to had an offer in which you got to keep the glass the float was served in. My parents still have those blue glass tumblers.

What makes the glass blue is a blue pigment. Suppose you had some blue glasses like my parents have. Are you concerned that the blue pigment is going to come off on your hand when you handle the glasses; even when wet? Are you afraid that the blue pigment is going to come off when you wash the glasses?

The blue pigment is trapped in the glass.

The same is true for the uranium and plutonium in the ceramic fuel; they are trapped in the ceramic.
As long as you don't melt the ceramic; the heavy metals are trapped.

However, the ceramic fuel pellets are encased in zirconium tubes. In order to load the tubes with the fuel pellets, the pellets just slide into the tubes. That's because the outer diameter of the pellets is just a shade smaller than the inner diameter of the zirconium tube. So there's a little gap between the pellets and the tubes. When uranium and plutonium fission, the fission products, which are the remnants of the split nucleus repel each other after the fission. Those remnants get a bunch of kinetic energy in the process, and when they slow down, that energy becomes heat, and that's the heat that we ultimately turn into electric energy. These fission products usually come to rest somewhere in the ceramic fuel pellet, and are trapped. However, sometimes they come to rest in that little gap between the pellet and the tube. Some of the fission products are Iodine-131, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137.

So in that little gap between the pellet and the tube, you have radioactive "fission gas". When the zirconium overheats and oxides, and the tube falls apart, the fission gas that used to be trapped by the tube is no longer trapped, and gets into the coolant water. In a BWR, like Fukushima, the coolant water for the reactor is the same water that gets turned into steam for the turbine. So there is a path for these released radioactive fission gases to contaminate the turbine steam piping. However, there is not normally a path from that loop to the environment.

However, when Fukushima lost its electric power, it lost the capability to use coolant pumps to keep the reactor cool. So the operators vented that contaminated coolant loop to the atmosphere as a way of cooling the reactor. That is why Fukushima released Iodine-131, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137.

However, the Plutonium is trapped in those fuel pellets. There can be a small amount of Plutonium that escapes from the pellet surface. That's why the measurements show that the amount of Plutonium that was released to the environment due to the 4 reactors and the fuel pools was about 2 grams.

Very little of the Plutonium will escape the pellets. That's why nobody should be surprised that the Fukushima accident only released a couple grams of Plutonium.

As far as Iodine, Strontium, and Cesium; which were in those gaps; the calculations / measurement of those releases are as detailed in this post from the University of California - Berkeley:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5774#comment-21635

PamW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

TEPCO Rose [View all] Octafish Feb 2013 OP
What "murder of 8 billion people" are you talking about? wtmusic Feb 2013 #1
I imagine that refers to plutonium exposure. Octafish Feb 2013 #2
Sounds like the seabirds are healthy. wtmusic Feb 2013 #3
According to your way of thinking, wtmusic, plutonium must be good for you. Octafish Feb 2013 #4
Is that what passes for logic these days? FBaggins Feb 2013 #8
Fantastic catch! Octafish Feb 2013 #11
What about him/her? FBaggins Feb 2013 #12
Lady Barbara Judge is the subject of the post. Do you have anything to add about her? Octafish Feb 2013 #13
She's the subject of the thread... not the post. FBaggins Feb 2013 #18
Thanks. Very astute observation, FBaggins. Octafish Feb 2013 #29
This is where EDUCATION is needed.. PamW Feb 2013 #34
I like education Thanks Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #35
Spontaneous fission. PamW Feb 2013 #36
Turbine steam was in direct contact with the MOX fuel? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #37
Actually... PamW Feb 2013 #40
Tell us what you think of this, Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #41
Sure.... PamW Feb 2013 #43
Plutonium Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #44
I've looked... PamW Feb 2013 #46
Denying science again, aren't you, Pam? Yep. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #49
I don't doubt the Lithuaninan scientists.. PamW Feb 2013 #51
Bravo. wtmusic Feb 2013 #38
Pam sure made this clear RobertEarl Feb 2013 #39
You need to cool a reactor.. PamW Feb 2013 #42
Wow, Pam. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #45
Again... PamW Feb 2013 #47
Another profound statement RobertEarl Feb 2013 #50
I'm glad you AGREE!! PamW Feb 2013 #48
She's not suggesting they are thinking about re-starting parts of the Dai-ichi plant is she? AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #5
Her hiring may be a PR move of the first stank rather than as a professional fixer-upper. Octafish Feb 2013 #6
K&R RobertEarl Feb 2013 #7
Nuclear war is crazy. Nuclear weapons are crazy. Nuclear power is crazy. Octafish Feb 2013 #9
There's tons spread around the world WITHOUT the bunkers. PamW Feb 2013 #10
That paper was published in 2002. It's a good bet there's a lot more plutonium now. Octafish Feb 2013 #14
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! Everything you said was 100% WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2013 #15
Uhhh, Pam? You do know this, right? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #16
I hope she doesn't know it... FBaggins Feb 2013 #19
Hey, ya seen #4 RobertEarl Feb 2013 #20
Another straw man? FBaggins Feb 2013 #21
Building #4 has crumbled RobertEarl Feb 2013 #23
WRONG AGAIN!!! PamW Feb 2013 #25
There are TONS of spent MOX (PLUTONIUM and URANIUM!!!) outside that core in the spent fuel pools. Octafish Feb 2013 #32
Another thread you should review FBaggins Feb 2013 #33
You're kidding, right? FBaggins Feb 2013 #26
Self-righteous anti-nukes. PamW Feb 2013 #28
You'll get a kick out of today's Dilbert FBaggins Feb 2013 #30
I'll have to send this to my colleague.. PamW Feb 2013 #31
YES - volatile materials PamW Feb 2013 #22
Thank you for straightening me out, PamW. Octafish Feb 2013 #17
But you need to be an engineer... PamW Feb 2013 #24
Scientifically - I agree with the TEPCO assessment PamW Feb 2013 #27
Lady Barbara Judge to give David J. Rose Memorial Lecture at MIT PamW Feb 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»TEPCO Rose»Reply #40