Skip to main content

Recritical Thinking

You may have noticed some talk flowing around the great chatter box that is the Internet about recriticality at the reactors at Fukushima.
…Now there is definitive proof, courtesy of Tellurium 129 and a order of magnitude higher concentration of Iodine 131 in Reactor 1, that the reactor is now undergoing sporadic events of recriticality…
Simply put, recriticality means that a reactor has become critical again and reentered the fission process. But finding tellurium-129 in water in the turbine building of the reactor is hardly the smoking gun of recriticality that “Tyler Durden” would have you believe.
It is evidence of criticality, to be sure, but not re-criticality. In fact, it is evidence of past criticality at the reactor. In this case—if the reading turns out to be accurate—it could be evidence of criticality before the earthquake on March 11 when the reactor was operating normally and was, well, critical.
Here is NEI’s own Rodney McCullum with a technical explanation:
The detection of tellurium-129 is not proof of recriticality.
Even though it has a half-life of just 69 minutes it is still one of the most prevalent fission products in used nuclear fuel several months after fuel is removed from the reactor core or last criticality.
This is due to the fact that tellurium-129 also exists in a higher energy state (Te-129m, where “m” stands for metastable) with a half-life of 34.1 days prior to transforming into lower energy tellurium-129. Given the high initial abundance of both forms of tellurium-129 among fission products, it is reasonable that some would still be present months after the reactor was last critical.
The author also cites iodine-131, with a half-life of eight days, as evidence of recriticality. However, since we are about 20 days post-accident, you can still expect about 10 percent of the original iodine-131 to be present.
According to Rodney not realizing that tellurium-129 has a higher and lower energy state is “a common mistake a new nuclear engineering student would make.” Thanks, Rodney, that makes us non-technical types feel much better. 
What’s more, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has said that its reading of tellurium-129 is “doubtful.”
It is ascertained that the result of nuclide analysis of tellurium-129 (half life: about 70 minutes) conducted on March 30th, for water puddle collected near the trench and ground water collected near the turbine building are [is] doubtful.
To sum up, at this point, TEPCO is not sure if tellurium-129 has been found in water in the turbine building. And even if the results do show tellurium-129 in the water, it is not evidence of recriticality, but past criticality from the Fukushima reactors operating regularly before the earthquake struck on March 11.

Comments

Cyril R said…
For those interested, also see this:

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/04/idea-about-faulty-i-134-reading.html
M. Simon said…
The ratio of I-131 between reactors #1 vs #2 and #3 is more compelling.

BTW I'm trying to figure out how Te 129 gets produced. I can't find any ready references (Google).
Anonymous said…
M. Simon,

See here for Te-129 production:

http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/nuclide?nuc=Te-129&n=1
Uli said…
Re-criticality is also highly doubtful from a physics point of view. In order to be critical, a reactor needs sufficient water to moderate the neutrons and cause fission. It is unlikely that a hot rubble pile of fuel/cladding would have enough water mixed within the pile sustain a chain reaction.
M. Simon said…
Uli,

Sure it is doubtful. But the indications are there. Plus it could be critical from fast neutrons. Or the water above the slag could be acting as a moderator and reflector.

If the wells below the slag are filled with water even better.

Anon,

Thanks for the link. Much appreciated.
M. Simon said…
Re: the higher/lower energy state.

Easy enough to determine by running the sample twice (or some multiple of that depending on how close you want the results - i.e. reduction of statistical errors).

Once as soon as the sample is available and a second time about 1 to 5 (short) half lives later.

You have to assume that if the operators were sharp they did this. So either the operators were not sharp or they did the determination in such a way that it could be plausibly denied.
Anonymous said…
The above is why I despise Arnie Gunderson. Through omission, deception, turning a blind eye, etc, he takes a few facts and spins a hell of a yarn. He's a scientist by profession, but a propaganda specialists by trade. He does a disservice every time he opens his mouth about Fukushima. He shamelessly manipulates this crisis at every opportunity.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…