Final storage containing spent HTR fuel elements

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the rise in temperature of salt in a final storage facility containing spent High-Temperature Reactor (HTR) fuel elements over a period of 100 years. Participants explore various assumptions and approaches related to heat transfer, boundary conditions, and the nature of the storage containers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula involving the integral of power over time to estimate temperature rise, but expresses uncertainty about its correctness.
  • Another participant questions whether the scenario assumes an infinite array of storage containers and suggests a model with symmetrical boundary conditions.
  • A participant clarifies that the storage containers are cylindrical and discusses the implications of having a single heat source in a large salt deposit.
  • Concerns are raised about the units of the terms in the proposed equation, indicating a potential inconsistency in the formulation.
  • Discussion includes the nature of the thermal source, noting that radioactive decay may lead to a decaying exponential heat output.
  • Participants consider the effect of multiple containers on the surrounding salt temperature, suggesting a model where containers are arranged in a lattice.
  • One participant proposes treating the problem as a one-dimensional radial heat conduction scenario, given the lack of height dimension information.
  • There is a suggestion that if the heat flux is constant, the temperature could theoretically increase indefinitely, which raises questions about the realism of the assumptions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the assumptions regarding the number of storage containers or the appropriate model for heat transfer. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the formulation and implications of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the number of storage containers, the height dimension of the containers, and the nature of the heat flux over time. The discussion also highlights potential inconsistencies in the proposed mathematical formulation.

Lucky mkhonza
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
can anyone help me with the following problem: I have been asked to estimate the rise in temperature in the salt in a final storage containing spent HTR-fuel elements in a time span of 100 years. Given the following data: Average heat flux 10 W/m; Heat capacity of salt 0.9 kJ/kg.K; density of salt 2100 kg/m3; distance between storage vessels in salt S=30m.

What I know is that the following relation might in solving this problem (not sure if is correct)
\int_{\tau_1}^{\infty}{P_D(t)}dt = \tau.S^2.\rho.C.\Delta T

Thank you in advance
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Are you assuming an infinite array of storage containers?

One can then assuming a square cell of salt with symmetrical BC (e.g. q" = 0), with a cylindrical storage container (heat source).
 
Astronuc "Are you assuming an infinite array of storage containers?"

The problem does not state whether we have an infinite array of storage containers or certain number of containers. storage containers are in cylindrical shape.
 
Yes, I was proposing one approach to obtain the boundary conditions - and it would represent the worst case for an individual container.

Think about it. If it is one container in a 'very large' salt deposit, then one has a single heat source an infinite heat sink. That's fairly easy to deal with. One has a cylindrical heat source, with a heat flux in an infinite medium of some temperature. There will be radial temperature profile in the salt around the container.

Back to the equation:
\int_{\tau_1}^{\infty}{P_D(t)}dt = \tau.S^2.\rho.C.\Delta T

The integral of power over time is the energy produced during that time, in this case from time of insertion to infinity. The terms on the right hand side do not produce the units of energy.

\tau = time, s
S^2 = area, m2
\rho = density, kg/m3
C = specific heat, J/kg-K
\Delta T = temperature, K

the product on the right hand side has units of J-s/m.

So let's look at the integral. It represents some amount of energy produced over a long period of time, and since the source is radioactive, it will be a decaying exponential, more or less. (In reality, the thermal source could be increasing for a while because the decay of Pu-241 to Am-241 to U-237 into Np-237, and both Am241 and Np237)

Anyway, one can take that energy and put it into the surrounding salt. Then there is the relationship between energy (enthalpy), specific heat and temperature.


On the other hand, part of problem statement is "distance between storage vessels in salt S=30m" - so consider the case where there are 'many' similar containers. Then one container, assuming a square lattice is surrounded by 8 containers, and so on, or rather a large array of containers. The surrounding containers are also raising the temperature of the salt formation, and the salt surrounding the containers heats up.

One could assuming 'tall' (or stack of) containers, and simply make this a one dimensional radial heat conduction problem. There does not appear to be any height dimension given, so one could assume one meter of container heats one meter of salt. There also does not seem to be a radial dimension of the container.

Perhaps one is to assume one dimensional Cartesian coordinates, i.e. the problem involves a semi-infinite slab, 30 m thick with a heat flux at the surface, which is decreasing in time. If the heat flux is constant, then the amount of heat continually increases and the temperature would continually increase - to infinity - which is certainly not realistic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K