5739 Shares

How to solve a nuclear reactor problem in physics?

How to solve a nuclear reactor problem in physics? Topic: How to solve problem solving in physics
June 19, 2019 / By Dorean
Question: the problem asks about at what rate we should keep the water flow in order to keep the reactor from melting??
Best Answer

Best Answers: How to solve a nuclear reactor problem in physics?

Cassia Cassia | 10 days ago
try here.. http://www.visharadsoftware.com/forum/ you can ask calculus, physics, and math there... there's a genius person there who answers all the questions asked.. she answered correctly all of my physics questions.. try it for urseLf... goodluck! ^_^
👍 208 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? How to solve a nuclear reactor problem in physics? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to solve problem solving in physics


Cassia Originally Answered: Fission based nuclear reactor?
You are basically correct. Despite all the cosmic energy that the word "nuclear" invokes, power plants that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. Both heat water into pressurized steam, which drives a turbine generator. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While coal plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two. There are several components common to most types of reactors: Fuel. Usually ceramic pellets of uranium oxide (UO2) arranged in Zirconium steel alloy tubes to form fuel rods. The rods are arranged into fuel assemblies in the reactor core. Moderator. This is material which slows down the neutrons released from fission so that they cause more fission. It is usually water, but may be heavy water or graphite. Control rods. These are made with neutron-absorbing material such as silver, cadmium, hafnium or boron, and are inserted or withdrawn from the core to control the rate of reaction, or to halt it. (Secondary shutdown systems involve adding other neutron absorbers, usually boron in the primary cooling system.) This controls the average temperature and allows extra fuel to be added for a extended time between refueling. Coolant. A liquid or gas circulating through the core so as to transfer the heat from it. In light water reactors the moderator functions also as coolant. Pressure vessel or pressure tubes. Usually a robust steel vessel containing the reactor core and moderator/coolant, but it may be a series of tubes holding the fuel and conveying the coolant through the moderator. Steam generator. Part of the cooling system in Pressurized Water Reactors where the heat from the reactor is used to make steam for the turbine. Some reactor designs, called Boiling Water Reactors, do not have S/Gs but instead allow boiling in the reactor core to produce steam for the turbine.. Containment. The structure around the reactor core which is designed to protect it from outside intrusion and to protect those outside from the effects of radiation in case of any major malfunction inside. It is typically a meter (3ft.) thick concrete and steel structure designed to be air/water tight to prevent any leak to the environment in the worst case Loss Of Coolant accident. Most reactors need to be shut down for refueling, so that the pressure vessel can be opened up. In this case refueling is at intervals of 1-2 years, when a quarter to a third of the fuel assemblies are replaced with fresh ones. The CANDU and RBMK types have pressure tubes (rather than a pressure vessel enclosing the reactor core) and can be refueled while still generating electricity by disconnecting individual pressure tubes. If graphite or heavy water is used as moderator, it is possible to run a power reactor on natural instead of enriched uranium. Natural uranium has the same elemental composition as when it was mined (0.7% U-235, over 99.2% U-238), enriched uranium has had the proportion of the fissile isotope (U-235) increased by a process called enrichment, commonly to 3.5 - 5.0%. In this case the moderator can be ordinary water, and such reactors are collectively called light water reactors. Because the light water absorbs neutrons as well as slowing them, it is less efficient as a moderator than heavy water or graphite. Practically all fuel is ceramic uranium oxide (UO2 with a melting point of 2800°C) and most is enriched. The fuel pellets (usually about 1 cm diameter and 1.5 cm long) are typically arranged in a long zirconium alloy (zircaloy) tube to form a fuel rod, the zirconium being hard, corrosion-resistant and permeable to neutrons. Up to 264 rods form a fuel assembly, which is an open lattice and can be lifted into and out of the reactor core. In the most common reactors these are about 3.5-4.0 meters (12ft.) long. The uranium 235 in these pellets absorb slowed down (moderated or thermal) neutrons, becoming unstable U-236 which splits, creating; heat, gamma, neutrons, and fission fragments. The heat generated can be calculated from the mass loss in the fission process equal to the famous equation E=MC squared, also known as binding energy. The energy released from a single fuel pellet is equivalent to the energy released burning 1 ton of coal. The links below have some excellent detailed information and graphics about nuclear power. I hope this helps you to demystify nuclear power, it really isn't that complicated, and is a safe, reliable, environmentally friendly, economical, energy source.
Cassia Originally Answered: Fission based nuclear reactor?
Since nobody yet knows what 'dark matter' is supposed to be, except that it's supposed to interact through gravitation, the answer would be a definite 'maybe'. The other question would be - what's the difference in your question between a 'nuclear reactor' and a 'fission reactor'? Currently, both are the same.

Ann Ann
You only have to have enough flow to remove the residual heat, assuming the reactor has just scrammed due to some kind of emergency. At the time of the scram (rapid control rod insertion), the power level would drop off to about one percent and keep going down as time passes. Depending on the starting temperatures involved, you just have to calculate/find the enthalpy (heat) exchange from the reactor fuel (core) to the coolant. A simple minded answer would be, of course, that you have to have at least the one percent flow to remove one percent of the reactor design heat level. At 100 percent power you need 100 percent flow, and it is generally linear as far as heat removal goes. Unfortunately, it is far more complicated than this, assuming you are really trying to keep the core from melting. The reactor coolant pressure is even more important than the flow. This is because a loss of pressure would result in a steam bubble in the fuel area, which would inhibit heat transfer out of the fuel rods, which would cause them to overheat quickly due to the mentioned residual heat being generated even after a scram. Moreover, due to outgassing of the non-condensable gases (eg, hydrogen) in the coolant, you might easily get a GAS bubble, from which it is much more difficult to recover, but having the same effect as the steam bubble in terms of removing the heat that continues to build up in the fuel for several hours, days, and even weeks. Generally speaking, a reactor core that is in trouble is threatened more by pressure transients than by loss of flow, even though both are really not desirable. Loss of flow merely means the water temperature starts going up from about 600F to about 1100F rather quickly but slow enough to react such that flow can likely be established again before core melt points are reached (nominally in the middle of the fuel). Loss of pressure makes that fuel temperature shoot up a lot faster, and there may not be many options for recovery. At Three Mile Island, there was a reluctance to keep the pumps running either to keep pressure up or to keep flow going. With a stuck open relief valve, pressure went way down, putting a gas bubble in the core area and making the fuel temperature instruments appear to fail as the temperature indications were so high. It took a day or two before they started to believe their temperature indications that indicated the fuel was melting (had melted). Nobody had seen that before, of course. Another problem is that most nuclear plant operators (at PWRs, mostly) don't like to take a plant "water solid." That reluctance is a mistake even if understandable, but putting the plant on the discharge head of a centrifugal pump is really the way to go to keep the pressure up. It is also way beyond your question, but I offer this to make it clear that this question is narrow and only marginally key to keeping the core safe. There are many factors involved, and the key really is to minimize the need for the operators to anything right away during an accident transient, using automatic systems to keep the reactor safe, if not also using advanced designs that are inherently safe and require little in the way of safety systems to keep the core from melting and releasing the radioactivity of the fission products into the coolant and, possibly, outside the coolant system or containment.
👍 80 | 👎 4

Ann Originally Answered: Obama supporters, what magical thing is your President going to do to solve the North Korean nuclear problem?
President Obama acted immediately when learning of the nuclear test. He spoke with leaders in Japan, China, and South Korea and issued a strong statement that was presented on CNN and MSNBC. He coordinated with the UN, who tightened sanctions and who reached out to Japan's leader to act as emissary. President Obama also consulted with experts for the region, and two experts were interviewed on CNN---one immediately after we learned of the nuclear test and the other right after North Korea (under the leader's direction) launched two small missiles from a different location. According to these experts, North Korea's leader (Kim Jong IL) likes to flex his muscles every now and then to stay relevant on the world stage and to gain leverage. His recent heart attack/stroke was leaked to the outside press, which sparked speculation among other countries that he might be weakened, and they believe this was the leader's way of showing power to dispel any notion that he was at all weak. The experts also believe that Kim Jong IL wants to respond to President Obama's offer for talks, but wants to save face (have leverage) when and if he finally agrees to meet with the new American President. There is some indication that Kim Jong IL is willing to meet at the UN, but this has not been confirmed. By not retaliating in cowboy bravado or fury (as the previous administration might have done), President Obama has left room for Kim Jong IL to accept the invitation for talks from a position of seeming strength, which is important to the Asian culture. I think our new President has handled this brilliantly.
Ann Originally Answered: Obama supporters, what magical thing is your President going to do to solve the North Korean nuclear problem?
Stern words and harsh looks. Lots of finger waving, maybe even smack 'em on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. Then he will apologize for the U.S. interfering with their peaceful existence, and blame Bush and his policies for igniting their hatred and driving them towards these actions. This will be followed by Keith Oblerman chuckling like an idiot while 'reporting' that Bush caused the whole situation.

If you have your own answer to the question how to solve problem solving in physics, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.