- #11,796
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 22,046
- 6,644
tsutsuji said:
See the links posted by tsutsuji.clancy688 said:Thanks for the link, Astronuc.
"The bulk"? For the bulk to disappear from the vessel, there have to be much larger leaks than previously thought of. At least I don't believe that dozens of tons of fuel- and control rods would be able to leak through a couple of holes only a few square centimeters wide. So there has to be a much larger hole.
Previous discussions regarding leaks discarded the theory of holes on that scale because of some temperature sensors at the bottom of the RPV, some of which still were "alive". Which's highly unlikely if the core came marching through. So how does this new analysis fit with those sensors still reporting?
Related article in Nuclear Engineering International (Nov 28, based on Nov 22 handouts from Tepco, those cited by tsutsuji) - http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2061233
Bear in mind, it is an analysis, not the result of observing the RPV and core. The analysis would imply essentially complete loss of cooling of the core, i.e., nearly adiabatic conditions, and effectively no water in the bottom plenum, or rather no make up. The article reports this for unit 1. It appears that Units 2 and 3 had some loss of the core, possibly through vessel penetrations, e.g., control rod drive mechanisms.
Even without melting, if a lot of fuel reacted with the coolant, there could have been dissolution of the fuel which could have washed out. The effect would have been more or less the same, namely the loss of gaseous and volatile fission products to the containment and vent systems.
I'd like to read the report.
Last edited by a moderator: