This is not water level in the SFP, but in the FPC skimmer tank. If this level increases, it simply tells that SFP is full. Otherwise, no conclusion can be drawn.
One can question this "<". For U in page 2 they explicitly stated "ND" (not detected?). Moreover for Zr in page 2, the detection limits would not be the same for each sample analyzed ... (I understand Italic numbers as being recalculated from analysis of diluted solutions).
Is it plausible...
AFAIK water flows into the FPC skimmer surge tank. The highest recorded level for SFP4 skimmer level is 6600; without knowing how high can this measure go, one cannot know if water has overflowed.
SPF4 losses are quiet constants, if we trust skimmer level as indicating the pool is full when...
This map shows that some concrete was measured max 400 mSv/h, and some iron pipes 100 to 230 mSv/h. In a former post (last one I could find was from Astronuc) it was explained that maybe rebars (or whatever) could "catch" I and Cs.
Is it plausible that some material (like concrete and iron)...
Haa, interesting. Do you have an indication of their capacity? By design how much would they process (depending on plant power I guess)?
Edit: and are there such recombiners over spent fuel pools?
Wouldn't it also happen in BWR cores then? Boiling water, high radiation would generate lot of hydrogen, which would not recombine (boiling + steam environment). This means cores would generate a lot of hydrogen, a lot more than observed, don't you think?
BTW same for Zirconium oxydation by...
Look at the damages on the unit 4 building, particularly regarding the roof. Propane explosion would have done more damages to one part of the roof, don't you think? It seems the explosion was sort of "uniform", fitting well with a spread hydrogen explosion. The wall near the SFP, south of it...
About unit 4 explosion breaking gate theory ...
This theory is interesting, but it relies on the assumption that the pool was quite empty at the time of the explosion, in order to explain that in the days after there were no signs of a dry pool, like for instance zirconium fire. I've even...
Well we can go further than that.
rmattila estimates and AESJ estimates converges.
Moreover, using formulas mentioned on Cambrige slide by AntonL, assuming one year burn for 548 assemblies and then 156 days of decay, one year burn for the other ones and 522 days of decay for the 783 other...
Thank you so much !
Well on Nov. 29th 2010 548 fuel assemblies went out of the core, assuming they had one year burn; so the pink line is a simulation for this part of the fuels; today (157 days after Nov. 29th 2010), it would indicate about 1MW residual heat today, 1.4 MW at time of the...
I've done a calculation with T0 = 365 days, assuming that no re-fuel had taken place at unit 4 since one year before its stop on Nov. 29th 2010, based on reports of 100% operation for one year http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/aij/index2.html" . I found 1.2 MW? Did you take T0 as 365?
Thank you for your explanation.
I also found that edgepflow used a different formula in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3188377&postcount=113".
Applying it to SFP4 for 4 month old spent fuel would give 3.1~3.2 MW max. Can you explain the difference in your calculation please?