Fukushima Fukushima Unit Four: Details and Risks of the Hydrogen Explosion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Unit
AI Thread Summary
Unit four experienced a weak hydrogen blast due to the slow accumulation of hydrogen after the loss of electricity and air circulation, with rising temperatures promoting chemical reactions that likely initiated the explosion. Concerns about radiolysis highlight the risks of hydrogen gas accumulation in wet storage, necessitating continuous monitoring of both air and water in the pools. The explosion was characterized as a minor deflagration rather than a full detonation, differing from common perceptions of explosive events. The discussion concludes that there are no significant unknowns regarding unit four, leading to the decision to close the thread. Overall, the incident underscores the importance of understanding the dynamics of hydrogen in nuclear facility contexts.
Quim
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Unit four appears to me to have no significant details left unknown.

This was a weak hydrogen blast. The hydrogen had accumulated slowly after electricity was lost and air circulation stopped. The upper portion of the building was becoming quite warm which was encouraging the chemical reactions which probably initiated the explosion.

Two clips from post # 856 by fusefiz:
fusefiz said:
"Radiolysis, the dissociation of molecules by radiation, is of particular concern in wet storage, as water may be split by residual radiation and hydrogen gas may accumulate increasing the risk of explosions. For this reason the air in the room of the pools, as well as the water, must permanently be monitored and treated"


While searching for info, I did run across this off-subject suggestion of using the pool water to generate hydrogen fuel:
Unit #4 probably exploded with near the minimum of hydrogen possible for a deflageration and far below the limit for a detonation.

Hydrogen reacts with enough metals and such so as to provide a source for the few joules of energy needed to set it off.

Compared to what most people have in their minds as an "explosion" this was more like a big puff. (I think most people visualize something high velocity such as an IED when they think of an explosion.) Fuel/air explosions require a bit of an adjustment of outlook for some.

But I see no secrets left at unit four.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Quim said:
Unit four appears to me to have no significant details left unknown.

(...)

But I see no secrets left at unit four.

Which is a reason why I am closing this thread - let's not multiply entities beyond necessity.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Back
Top