Nuclear Fission Q&A: Japan Disaster & Fuel Rods

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmnew51
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Japan
AI Thread Summary
Nuclear fission reactors continue to generate heat even after the reaction is stopped due to the residual radioactivity of short-lived isotopes, which produce heat as they decay. The withdrawal of moderating rods reduces power output but does not eliminate the heat generated by these isotopes. Keeping the reactor core submerged is crucial during the initial days post-reaction to prevent overheating and potential meltdowns. The heat production decreases exponentially over time, becoming less problematic after several days. Understanding these dynamics is essential for reactor safety and management.
jmnew51
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
I have a question about nuclear fission reactors. If the reaction is stopped, then why do the fuel rods continue to heat up after being exposed to air to the point where it could cause a meltdown.
Thank you
Jim
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
residual radioactivity of short lived isotopes
 
I'd also like to know, Pengwuino.

There are about 160 posts on that thread to filter. The only thing I seem to know is that withdrawl of the moderating rods stops the thing from producing power--or reduces the power--so why is keeping the core submerged important?
 
See granpa answer. There is still a lot of short lived isotopes that produce heat, these can't be stopped, they just have to decay. That takes time and produces heat.

From what I understand first several days are critical, later heat production is low enough to be not that problematic, after all it goes down exponentially.
 
As Penguino pointed out, there's already a thread on this in the appropriate section.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top