Fukushima: A future cast in concrete

If, as seems increasingly likely, the cooling pumps can’t be restarted in each and every block of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, we will lose all the blocks due to release of excessive radiation from whatever block melts down first. The only option left will be to seal the power station under a huge amount of concrete, a sarcophagus like in Chernobyl.

Two weeks after the quake and tsunami hit the plant, the situation is no better than it was, if anything it has deteriorated since then, despite how it has been spun by Tepco and the government in the Japanese mass media.

On the upside, external power has been restored to inside the control rooms and limited cooling has been established via splashing water from outside and injecting water through the fire extinguisher system. Freshwater is being used for that now, after nothing but seawater had been available for two weeks. The use of will relieve worries about problems from salt buildup inside the plants (over 100 tons of sea salt are supposed to have accumulated already).

On the downside, the basements of the turbine halls under units 1 through 4 were flooded with highly radioactive water (#1: 0.4m, #2: 1m, #3: 1.5m, #4: 0.8m). On Thursday three workers were injured while trying to replace a cable in the turbine hall basement for unit 3 when they walked in the water which had not been observed the day before. It contained a staggering 3.9 million becquerels of radioactivity per cubic centimeter which is 10,000 times the usual amount inside the reactor (or 13 million times the Japanese safety level for drinking water for adults). That water is now being pumped out, but Tepco is not sure how to dispose of it.

An analysis of radioactivity in water from the basement of unit #1 showed that most of the radioactivity (1.8 million becquerel) was from cesium-137, which has a half life of 30.2 years. This is much more long lived than iodine-131 (half life: 8 days), which so far dominated tests around Japan before. Besides cesium-137 the water in unit #1 contained cesium 134 (160,000 becquerel), cesium-136 (17,000 becquerel) and iodine-131 (210 000 becquerel). The dominance of cesium-137 is a major worry: While radioactivity from iodine-131 drops off rapidly within weeks and months, pollution from cesium-137 will be dangerous for decades and centuries.

Both cesium and iodine are fission products normally contained within the uranium oxide (or uranium/plutonium oxide in the case of unit #3) of the fuel rods inside zirconium alloy tubes held inside a thick steel pressure vessel (reactor core) inside a reinforced concrete containment vessel. In the case of spent fuel rod assemblies in the storage pools there is no pressure vessel or containment.

When the fuel rods overheat the zirconium alloy will melt at temperatures over around 1800C, allowing volatile fission products to diffuse out of he oxide tablets into the pressure vessel or the storage pool.

It is not clear if the highly radioactive water in unit 1, 2, 3 and 4 came from the reactor core or from a storage pool. In the latter case, there could either be a leak in the pool (it consists of a stainless steel liner inside a reinforced concrete structure) or the pool could have overflowed during attempts to refill it so it doesn’t boil until dry.

If the water came from the reactor core it could be due to a damaged containment and reactor core or it could be due to problems with the pipes or valves connecting the reactor to the adjacent turbine hall.

Either way the leaks make the turbine hall a hostile environment for technicians trying to restore the cooling system for the damaged reactors. The reactor cores in unit 1, 2 and 3 would have to be cooled for about the next 2 years to prevent the fuel rods from melting through the reactor core. This will be next to impossible to achieve without reactivating the cooling pumps and restoring their control system.

With significant damage to the fuel rods as presumed by Tepco, any primary cycle cooling water will be loaded with dangerous fission products. Dealing with leaks of coolant or bleeding pockets of air and gas from coolant pumps as needed before resuming pumping could expose workers to life threatening doses of radiation. Under these circumstances, if any of the pumps turn out to be damaged there is little prospect of being able to replace them, even if spare parts could be manufactured and brought in.

The bottom line is that getting proper cooling working again for all cores at Fukushima Daiichi is a long shot, especially considering how long the cooling will still be required. The power station units have been damaged so badly by overheating, hydrogen explosions and sea water flooding that time is running out. The more radioactive fission products are leaked, the more difficult it becomes for humans to work and survive inside the plant. There will come a point when all of Fukushima Daiichi is a death zone that no one can enter and get out again alive.

At that point the only option is to find a way to completely and permanently seal the plant off from air and water by entombing it inside concrete like the stricken block in Chernobyl. The reason Tepco has not started doing that yet is not that they’re still trying to salvage their property: Since seawater and boron was pumped into the reactor cores on the first weekend the reactors have already been beyond rescue, as boron is a “neutron poison” and seawater is highly corrosive. At best the reactors would have to be mothballed indefinitely after that. They could never have been restarted to provide power again.

Why then is Tepco not pouring concrete over the reactors yet? Partly the answer may be that it’s like trying to dismount a tiger one is riding. While the reactor is still exposed to the outside one can still try to do things like cooling it down with fire hoses or replenishing water in the spent fuel storage pool. Once it is partly buried under concrete that becomes more and more difficult. As a result radioactivity might spike before the concrete could securely enclose the mortally wounded reactors.

A durable sarcophagus in this earthquake zone not only requires ample quantities of concrete but also steel reinforcements, which is hard to do if humans aren’t safe near the reactors. This will be no ordinary construction job by any means. The construction effort may have to involve remote controlled vehicles and other novel engineering approaches.

A primitive approach could simply bury the entire plant area under a mountain of concrete, perhaps piled up via remote-controlled trucks and bulldozers, later sealed with a skin of reinforced concrete to deal with earthquakes.

One would hope that Tepco started work on various alternative plans for increasingly severe scenarios as soon as they realized the cooling systems failed on March 11. Unless a miracle happens and all reactor cooling systems can be restored quickly, a concrete “Mt. Fukushima” probably is the only way to save Eastern Japan or all of Japan from massive radioactive pollution.

UPDATE (2011-03-28):

The lack of discussion of the concrete sarcophagus solution by Tepco suggests they are still committed to a “Three Mile Island” solution: Try to reestablish adequate cooling, wait about 5 years and then open the containment and pressure vessel to remove the radioactive mess in the core, clean up the contamination in the building. In other words, they still see the accident as a TMI-like level 5 accident and hope to keep it there, even though both the French nuclear safety authority ASN and its counterpart in Finland have rated the accident as level 6 on the INES scale.

The gradual melt-down of cores 1, 2 and 3, the uncertainty about whether the containment of block 2 is cracked or not plus the problems with the spent fuel storage pools 1, 2, 3 and 4 raise serious questions about how realistic a TMI-type recovery and cleanup is.

Japanese nuclear crisis “only just starting”

The crisis at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has yielded the top news spot to the events in Libya for now, but it’s far from over. “Factually, the problem in Japan is only just starting, ” Sebastian Pflugbeil, a physicist and president of Gesellschaft für Strahlenschutz (Society for Radiation Protection, Germany) is quoted by German magazine Focus.

To secure Fukushima Daiichi, a total of 3 reactor cores (1, 2 and 3) and 4 spent fuel pools (1, 2, 3 and 4) need to be brought permanently under control. If any one of these cores or spent fuel pools goes into full melt down, high levels of radiation from destroyed fuel rod assemblies may pollute the reactor site so much that staff will be forced to indefinitely abandon the entire plant, including control rooms and cooling equipment of units currently in a semi-controlled state.

On Tuesday Tepco reconnected power to the damaged reactor blocks in Fukushima Daiichi, but it is still a long step from being able to turn on lights in control rooms to actually running massive cooling pumps in the damaged plant.

Keith Bradsher writes in the New York Times:

Preventing the reactors and storage pools from overheating through radioactive decay would go a long way toward limiting radioactive contamination. But that would require pumping a lot of cold freshwater through them.

The emergency cooling system pump and motor for a boiling-water reactor are roughly the size and height of a compact hatchback car standing on its back bumper. The powerful system has the capacity to propel thousands of gallons of water a minute throughout a reactor pressure vessel and storage pool.

These pumps first need draining of air pockets to be able to be operated again, which is a difficult process under ordinary conditions, when the core isn’t damaged yet and radioactivity in the water of the primary cooling cycle is relatively low. Now the risks to the technicians will be tremendous.

It has also been reported that the pumps in unit #2 are no longer usable and replacements have been ordered. Any effort to remove the dead pumps, move in new pumps and reconnect them to the piping is going to be a real challenge under current conditions.

A couple of days ago the first reports came in of low doses of radiation in drinking water in Tokyo, then still around 1% of legal limits. That was after winds for the first time since the accident had blown south from Fukushima towards the Kanto area, the flat plain surrounding Tokyo. Later they turned back out towards the sea.

This week the winds from the north returned. Radiation levels in drinking water in Tokyo that exceed Japanese legal limits for infants below one year old have now alerted many to the risks. Tap water should no longer be used to mix with infant formula, but stores have run out of bottled water. What are mothers going to do? Boiling does not destroy radioactivity. Tokyo gets much of its drinking water from dams in the mountains west of the city, such as Lake Okutama, which get replenished by rain.

The Kanto plain is home to about as many people as live in Canada, California or Spain. What are they going to do without safe drinking water?

For lack of available fresh water, sea water has been used for cooling at Fukushima for almost two weeks now. Each ton of sea water contains about 35 kg of salt, which stays behind when the water boils off or evaporates as steam. Gradually the inside of the reactor cores and storage pools will become silted or encrusted with solid salt. Sooner or later the efforts to cool the reactors won’t be sustainable without ample supplies of fresh water.

Time is running out in Fukushima.

See also:

Japan nuclear crisis: Seeking safety for my family

Dear friends,

it has not been an easy decision, but today I have purchased four airline tickets to Europe for my family.

One line of defense after another against nuclear disaster has fallen. After the fire in Fukushima Daiichi #4 and the damage to #2, the increased release of radiation, the talk of a damaged containment and the detection of nuclear fission products as far away as Tokyo and Kanagawa I have lost all confidence in the ability of the people in charge to protect the Japanese population from harm.

In a few days we will be leaving Japan to seek safety with my brothers and parents in my home country until the situation here becomes clearer.

Joe Wein

See also:

Power cuts hit Tokyo

The Japanese capital Tokyo will join other regions of Japan to share rolling power cuts. Each region will be cut off from power for 3 hours a day on a rotating schedule, with a different time every day. I probably will be offline in about half an hour, which means no computer usage, no Internet access, no Skype calls, no landline phone calls (I have an Internet phone line), no mobile calls inside the house (I have an internet femto cell base station), no flushing of toilets (too high tech), no shopping (cash registers), no refuelling (electric gas pumps).

The good news I’ll have time reading on good old paper.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), the operator of the fatally injured nuclear power stations, until recently ran a campaign (“oru denka”) to get consumers to switch to only electricity. That means using it for hot water preparation, domestic heating, cooking, everything – not a gas pipe in the house. Not only was this totally un-ecological as about 60-70% of energy is lost when making electricity from heat sources like gas or oil (you burn three times more gas to cook electrically if the electric power is made from gas rather than using a gas cooker), it also meant laying all eggs in one basket. These super consumers of electric power now also put their load on a supply system over-strained by knocked out generating capacity.

Hopefully I will be online again in four hours. The power cuts may continue until next month, Tepco announced, but the real challenge will be the coming summer, when Japanese consumers usually turn on their air conditioners. With at least half of Tepco’s nuclear generating capacity knocked out the outlook is grim.

If only Japan had invested in Wind power and other renewable energy instead of 55 nuclear power stations, a fast breeder reactor and a plutonium recycling plant that alone cost $25 billion, which now have a questionable future.

Japan hit by major Earthquake

Today’s magnitude 8.9 earthquake 400 km from Tokyo was not business as usual. The Japanese are well prepared for quakes and building standards are high, but this quake is the strongest since scientific measurements have been available. It was shaking powerfully even here in Tokyo, for what felt like minutes on end. Numerous items fell of shelves, most of my wine glasses are now a pile of shards — and this is several hours by car away from the centre of the quake. We’ve had countless aftershocks for several hours now.

I was alone at home when it happened and have not been able to make mobile phone calls or send SMS to reach my other family members, though my wife and I could communicate by Skype chat (she has an iPhone). I know all the trains are stopped right now, with people walking for kilometers to get home on foot, as did my wife.

The images of tsunami devastation near Sendai are shocking. A refinery is on fire in Chiba prefecture near Tokyo. I wonder how many people will have lost their lives in the tsunami and in collapsed buildings.

UPDATE (2011-03-12 05:38 JST):

All members of my family got home OK. We were watching TV news until 01:30 in the morning. I got many emails, phone calls and Skype chats from concerned friends and relatives.

Several mentioned the serious technical problems in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. While the government announced an evacuation of people living within 3 km of the station, few details of what was going on were provided. From US and German media reports I hear that both mains power and backup generators are out and that the cooling system seems to have a leak. Tokyo Electric Power Corporation (TEPCO) was trying to connect external power generators. There was talk about releasing steam that had built up to 50% more pressure than the reactor was designed for. Without adequate cooling the reactor core could melt even when shut down due to nuclear decay heat that continues at about 7% of regular power output when the reactor is shut down. The backup diesel generators were not working due to flooding by the tsunami.

UPDATE (2011-03-12 15:20 JST):

The decision to vent the containment vessel of unit 1 of Fukushima Daiichi suggests that efforts to get the main cooling system back online have not been successful, as it reflects excess temperatures of cooling water and heat buildup.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has announced it will “implement measures to reduce the pressure of the reactor containment vessel for those units that cannot confirm certain level of water injection by the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System, in order to fully secure safety.”

The Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System is a mechanical system to pump cold water to cool the reactor core using a steam turbine driven by boiling coolant water. It does not rely on outside A/C power for the pumps, but needs at least battery power to open and close valves. It is the last line of defense should both grid power and backup power be lost. Without the above mentioned water injection, water levels could fall in the reactor core and the fuel elements could overheat and partially melt, as in the Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979.

See also:

UPDATE (2011-03-12 22:20 JST):

The cabinet secretary said that the explosion at Fukushima Daiichi #1 power station was a hydrogen explosion. When they released excessive pressure from inside the containment vessel, it contained hydrogen, which mixed with air in between the exterior wall and the containment vessel, and ignited. That blew away the outside wall. Four workers were injured and have been hospitalized.

The hydrogen is assumed to be the result of a reaction between steam and overheated zirconium cladding of the fuel rods. The water level in the reactor must have dropped so far that the top of the rods was no longer immersed in water and became red hot. The zirconium stripped oxygen from water (H2O) which releases hydrogen. If you remember the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, that was the same way the hydrogen bubble was produced in the TMI incident. The fuel rods then melted into a blob, but the restored cooling managed to contain the molten fuel inside the reactor core.

Since all attempts to restart the cooling pumps have failed, the reactor operators are now planning to pump sea water into the reactor vessel to cool the pressure vessel inside. The choice of sea water appears to be dictated by a lack of fresh water on site. Normally one would avoid salt water because of its corrosive effects, but the operators realize that this 40 year old reactor will never be repaired or put back into service again. It’s a wreck and they do all they can to stop its spent fuel from being melted and released.

An area of about 160 square kilometers that lies within 20 km of Fukushima Daiichi or 10 km within Fukushima Daini along the Pacific coast is going to be evacuated.

Bloom Energy: Cutting through the hype

On 24 February 2010 Bloom Energy, a Sunnyvale, California based company launched its solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), which is currently being field tested at several large customers, including eBay, Google and WalMart. CBS “60 Minutes” ran a program on the company and their product three days earlier. Their technology will let you generate your own electric power from natural gas or other fuels. Each Bloom Energy Server has a power output of 100 kW and is about the size of a small truck. Google was the first company to have a unit installed in July 2008. It now has 4 units and eBay has 5. They are the two most visible installations so far. It may be coincidence, but Google was not only the first customer of Bloom Energy, in 1999 it had also received venture funding from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), the major backer behind Bloom Energy. Other customers are Staples, Walmart, FedEx, Coca Cola and Bank of America.

Costs versus carbon savings
According to Bloom Energy, their Servers can generate electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kWh (read Jesse Jenkins’ interesting article on Forbes.com). That is after California state and US federal subsidies for the purchase of the units, which go for at $700,000-$800,000 each or some $7,000-$8,000 per kW of rated power. Their cost per installed kW is high, more than an order of a magnitude higher than the around $600 per kW of rated output for combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT), an established and proven technology that combines gas turbines with steam turbines for best efficiency. CCGTs are used in many power stations that supply the electric grid.

Even with US tax payers picking up around half the cost, the Energy Servers are still six times as expensive per kW as CCGTs. That might be an acceptable price for nurturing a new technology, but Bloom Energy fuel cells are more expensive without giving clearly superior results: While SOFC technology as used by Bloom Technology achieves efficiencies of about 50-55%, CCGT achieves thermal efficiencies of close to 60%, which translates to overall efficiencies similar to what Bloom can offer. Consequently, specific CO2-Output is virtually identical for both technologies, at about 0.8 lb of CO2 per kWh when run on natural gas for either technology. Though Bloom Energy undercuts coal fired power stations by some 60% on greenhouse gas emissions, it offers no clear advantage in that respect when compared to the most advanced gas turbines, which do equally well but are much cheaper to install than fuel cells.

Transmission and conversion losses
It is true that decentralized generation adjacent to your parking lot can save grid transmission losses, but these losses are actually smaller than many people assume: In 1995 some 7.2% of electricity generated in the US was lost in transmission (see Wikipedia). With steam turbine power generation the bulk (60-70%) of the energy losses is not during grid transmission, but conversion losses during generation. Not all the heat from a gas, oil or coal fire can be turned into mechanical and subsequently electrical energy. The laws of physics limit the maximum possible efficiency according to the temperature difference between the hot side and the cold side of the working cycle of any kind of engine. The low temperature heat that is left is waste heat which accounts for 60% or more of the initial heat from burnt fuel. In centralized power stations it ends up warming rivers or oceans or ambient air while condensing steam back into water to run it trough the boiler and steam turbine once more. It can not be put to use because it’s too far from most consumers.

If you really wanted to cut down on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel, you need to address the major conversion losses and not just the minor transmission losses. If power was generated where it’s consumed, then all that waste heat was still available for low temperature applications (below 100°C / 180F), such as providing warm water, heating buildings and even cooling them via absorption chillers. Yet this major benefit of decentralized generation is for now rejected as impractical by Bloom Energy:

Some makers of legacy fuel cell technologies have tried to overcome these limitations by offering combined heat and power (CHP) schemes to take advantage of their wasted heat. While CHP does improve the economic value proposition, it only really does so in environments with exactly the right ratios of heat and power requirements on a 24/7/365 basis. Everywhere else the cost, complexity, and customization of CHP tends to outweigh the benefits.
(Bloomenergy: Solid Oxide Fuel Cells)

At Google or eBay the waste heat produced in the fuel cell only heats the air in the parking lot. By contrast, the EneFarm combined heat and power (CHP) system offered by Tokyo Gas in Japan, another natural gas powered fuel cell already on the market, is designed primarily as a hot water source, with electricity generation as a byproduct. When you run that fuel cell to generate hot water, you either use or sell the electricity produced in the process, but there is never any waste.

The potential of reverse fuel cell technology
In the CBS interview, the Bloom Technology CEO also mentioned the possibility of reversing the function of their fuel cell, producing hydrocarbons or other fuels from CO2, water and (perhaps solar) electricity. That one had me a bit puzzled. It will still be a few more decades before we will completely stop using hydrocarbons and coal for generating electricity. Until then, wouldn’t it be easier to simply cut back on burning gas, coal and and oil to make electricity, instead of using precious electricity (which we mostly produced by burning fossil fuel) to regenerate a fraction of that carbon-based fuel from CO2?

Reverse fuel cells make little sense for energy storage – chances are, if an SOFC is about 50% efficient at converting fuel into electricity, it probably won’t be much more efficient going the opposite direction, making fuel using electricity. Do the conversion both ways to even out power output between day and night and you end up losing 75% of the energy. Batteries would retain as much as 90% and lose only 10%. Still, one could see a role for reverse fuel cells at remote wind or solar installations for making methane or other chemical feed stocks from surplus electricity some time in the far future. It won’t be as an energy carrier though, because if you have spare electricity it’s far easier to electrolyze water and make hydrogen than to make methane, which requires a CO2 supply as well.

Let’s assume the Bloom Energy server produces 0.8 lbs of CO2 per kWh and a coal fired plant produces 2 lbs per kWh. If we assume that reverse fuel cell operating is about as efficient as regular fuel cell operation (some 50%), then per kWh (say from wind, geothermal or nuclear) you could turn only 0.2 lb of CO2 back into fuel. For each extra kWh of carbon-free electricity, would you invest it on

  • preventing 2 lb of CO2 output from coal power or
  • on avoiding 0.8 lb of CO2 output from a fuel cell or CCGT, or
  • on a mere 0.2 lb of CO2 reduction in a reverse fuel cell?

From a carbon balance point of view, the latter makes no sense at all until you’ve completely exhausted the former two, i.e. completely stopped burning fossil fuel.

Summary
Bloom Technology’s fuel cell technology looks interesting, but nowhere near as revolutionary as its supporters would have us believe. It certainly has applications in niche markets such as backup power for data centers, but it remains severely hampered by excessive cost relative to its technically feasible performance. Lowered production costs, availability of smaller units and making use of waste heat could still improve its prospects, but don’t expect this device to revolutionize electricity production.

Apart from combined heat and power generation, fuel cells will find markets in remote locations where diesel generators are costly and maintenance intensive or too noisy, such as as tactical generators for the military, but they’re unlikely to make major inroads for electricity-only generation anywhere near the grid in the foreseeable future. That’s because gas turbines can be made just as efficient / low carbon and they’re known to work year after year, at a fraction of the capital cost of fuel cells.

Reading list:

John Doerr On Bloom Energy Launch: “This Is Like The Google IPO”
by Erick Schonfeld on Feb 24, 2010

The Bloom box
February 21, 2010

Doing The Math On Bloom Energy
Jesse Jenkins, 02.25.10

Is Bloom Energy’s Secret Ingredient Zirconia?
Michael Kanellos 2010-02-22

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine project

Kleiner Perkins, stealth, and Ion America
Posted by Matt Marshall on November 17, 2004

RCA Airnergy looks like a hoax

Gizmodo reported about a Gadget shown at CES 2010 that supposedly harvests energy from a wireless hotspot. The “RCA Airnergy WiFi Hotspot Power Harvester” consists of a small battery, a USB connector and some circuitry that is supposed to convert wireless signals into DC power to top up the battery. The gadget can then be used to recharge or power any device that can draw power from a USB port, such as a cell phone or iPod.

A claim was made in a Youtube video on the Gizmodo site that the gadget will charge a Blackberry mobile phone from 30% to fully charged in 90 minutes. That may well be true, if the internal battery of the gadget starts off fully charged and is big enough. The big question is, how much energy can this wireless harvester actually draw out of thin air to replenish its internal battery, if any?

The whole thing reminds me of the hoax of the Japanese “car that runs on water” demonstrated in June 2008 by now apparently defunct company Genepax Co. Ltd. (their website went offline the following year). That car turned out to have a set of lead-acid batteries that — fully charged — could have powered the car some distance even if the proprietary fuel cell announced by Genepax was completely dysfunctional. In any case, the quoted power output of the fuel cell of only 300W was completely inadequate to power a car, meaning the batteries (the real power source) would have had to be recharged from a wall socket before too long.

Likewise, the amount of power available from a WiFi hotspot is nowhere near enough to run a computer or mobile phone. Take my cheap Samsung mobile phone with a 880 mAh 3.7 V Li ion battery (a battery capacity of 3.2 Wh) that I normally need to charge every other day or so. 3.2 Wh over 48 h works out as about 67 mW, which is not that much. However, the maximum power at which a wireless access point may transmit under FCC regulations without needing a broadcast license is a mere 100 mW. Even if the “Hotspot Harvester” could convert 2/3 of the radio energy into usable DC power, it would have to suck up 100% of all energy radiated by the access point, which would have to broadcast at full blast all the time instead of just when there is traffic, just to keep my cell phone charged.

In reality, there is no way the harvester can grab 100% or 10% or even 1% of the energy from the hotspot, which radiates wireless signals in all directions. The gadget can only harvest the small fraction of the airwaves that cross its antenna, which is only a few centimetres by a few centimetres in size, while the hotspot may be metres or tens of metres away. The numbers simply don’t add up.

What that device is then is just a glorified spare battery that will need to be recharged by plugging it into a wall socket or the USB port of a mains-powered computer. The “energy harvesting” function can make no meaningful contribution to the battery charge – unless maybe you happen to put it inside a microwave oven and radiate it with 1000W of power (boys, don’t try this at home! 😉 ).

The sad thing is how many websites and blogs have given free publicity to these claims, without doing the math to check if they make any sense at all.

Electricty in Japan

Our household of four uses about 500 kWh of electricity per month on average, a considerable portion of which is consumed by the computers I run my business on. The total tends to be more in July and August, when we also run air conditioners to take the edge of 35+ centigrade heat, whereas in the winter our municipal gas bill tends to go up a lot because of heating. All year round we use gas for cooking and hot water.

TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), the local utility for the Kanto area, charges us about 25 yen per kWh on average (the exact rate varies a bit month by month, as the company tries to even out charges for its customers against seasonal consumption patterns). That’s about US$0.28 / EUR 0.18 per kWh at current exchange rates.

While electricity in Japan tends to be expensive by US standards, its supply is also extremely reliable. Until a few years ago uninterruptable power supplies (UPS) for domestic use used to be almost unheard of here, because we’d expect maybe one brief blackout per year. The Japanese power grid tends to be a lot more redundantly laid out and with more spare capacity than in the US, where cost is the top priority.

The voltage of A/C power in Japan is 100 V compared to 230 V in Europe and 110V in the US. Western Japan (Nagoya, Osaka and further west) uses a mains frequency of 60 Hz like the US whereas Eastern Japan (including Tokyo) uses 50 Hz like Europe. Equipment sold in Japan works with either frequency, but often the Wattage rating is slightly different depending on the frequency. Japan uses two pin plugs like ungrounded US plugs and usually they’re not polarized. If equipment has a ground wire it is attached separately, not via a plug pin.

Electrical appliances purchased in the US will usually work OK at the slightly lower voltage of Japan, but the reverse is more risky. I once managed to fry a power brick for a USB hard disk which I took to the US and used without a step-down transformer (110 V to 100 V). Moving between Europe and Japan, a transformer is almost always required, with the exception of consumer electronics items that use a 100-240 V universal switched mode power supply. These days the latter category includes almost all notebook computers, digital cameras, video cameras and many desktop computers, flat screen monitors, etc.

Japan generates about 30% of its electricity from nuclear power, 7% from hydroelectric dams and the rest from fossil fuels including coal, natural gas (imported as LNG) and oil.

In recent years the electric utility companies have been aggressively promoting “orudenka” (all electric power) homes, i.e. new homes that use electricity for cooking, cooling, heating and hot water, with no propane, natural gas or heating oil usage in the house.

So called “EcoCute” heat pumps produce hot water using ambient heat and electricity. Even if they manage to provide two extra units of heat for every unit of electricity, they are unlikely to save much CO2 output compared to burning gas, as fossil fueled power plants only produce one unit of electricity for every three units of heat from burning fuel. Yes, it may be better to use a heat pump to make hot water from electricity than a simple heater element, but at the power station you’re still wasting 60-70 percent of the primary energy from coal, oil or LNG, which goes as waste heat into a river or ocean or up a cooling tower. It would make more sense to burn gas at home to heat water, instead of two conversions (from heat to electricity to heat) and transmission losses. With the current power infrastructure EcoCute is hardly the way of the future.

EcoCute would make sense only with plenty of wind, geothermal or hydro power to supply electricity without pumping out CO2 or piling up toxic radioactive waste. In reality Japan is generating almost two thirds of its power from fossil fuels. Its utility companies are sitting on piles of nuclear waste that has nowhere to go. Japan is lagging far behind other developed countries in wind power or other renewable energy sources while confidence in its nuclear industry has been shaken by several high profile accidents since the 1990s.

If you’re going to burn anything at all to make electricity (as we’ll probably have to for a few more decades), a much more promising concept is the “Ene Farm” combined heat and power (CHP) generator promoted by several gas utilities and oil companies, launched in Japan in June 2009. It’s a residential fuel cell producing electricity from hydrogen and oxygen while heating water with the waste heat. Like in prototype automative fuel cells (e.g. Honda), the hydrogen is extracted from natural gas through a process called steam reformation. A fuel cell CHP system located where heat can be used directly is about the most economical way imaginable of using fossil fuel, if you’re going to use it at all.

The biggest current drawback of Ene Farm is the high cost of the system: 3,255,000 yen ($US36,000) for a system that puts out 250 to 700 W of power and a multiple of that in heat that goes into a 200 l storage tank. A 1,400,000 yen subsidy by government does make it a bit more affordable, but still its cost needs to come way down to make it popular enough to make a big dent in CO2 emissions from Japanese homes. Its proponents are hoping to reduce the equipment cost by as much as 90% over the next decade. I hope they succeed – at a lower price it could be a killer product.

A very similar idea, but taking a different route is the Linear Free Piston Stirling Engine (LFPSE) cogeneration unit jointly developed by Infinia, Enatec, Bosch and Rinnai (a Japanese maker of gas appliances). Instead of a fuel cell it uses a Stirling engine to convert heat into mechanical motion, which via a moving coil generates electricity. The waste heat produces hot water or heats a home. First generation prototypes are being tested in Europe from 2008 to 2010, with mass production by Rinnai in Japan scheduled for 2011.

Computer power usage: AMD, Intel and VIA

The Kill A Watt EZ Electricity Usage Monitor P4460 by P3 International is a popular gadget in North America for measuring power usage by electronics and electrical appliances. You simply plug it into the wall socket and plug the appliance into the device and it will give you instant read-outs of power usage in Watt, electricity consumption over time in kWh as well as electricity costs (if you enter the price the utility charges per kWh). Knowing exactly how much electricity each device consumes encourages smart choices about when and how you use them.


Watt Checker Plus (2022-04)

While Kill A Watt models have been available for 115V and 230V markets in North America and Europe, I could not find any mention of a 100V model for Japan. As it turned it out, the device is made by Prodigit in Taiwan, who do make a model for Japan (2022-04) which is sold here under the name ワットチェッカーPlus (“Watt Checker Plus”) by Keisoku Giken, Co. Ltd. I bought mine through Amazon.co.jp for JPY 5,670 (about US$63, $28 more than in the US).

Here are some preliminary results:

  • Acer Aspire M5201 (desktop: AMD Athlon X2 5000+, 2.60 GHz, integrated Radeon HD 3200, 4 GB DDR2 RAM, 320 GB + 1000 GB 3.5″ SATA HD):
    – 68 W at idle
    – 120 W at 100% CPU (both cores loaded)
  • eMachines T6212 (desktop: AMD Athlon 64 3200+, 2.00 GHz, discrete Asus EAH3450 256 MB, 3 GB DDR RAM, 160 GB 3.5″ HD):
    – 69 W at idle + “performance on demand”
    – 75 W at idle + “maximum performance”
    – 90 W at 100% CPU (only core loaded)
  • Dell Dimension 3100C (desktop: Intel Celeron D 331, 2.66 GHz, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB 3.5″ SATA HD):
    – 78 W at idle
  • VIA MM3500 (desktop: VIA C7, 1.5 GHz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, 2 x 1 TB SATA WD10EADS):
    – 41 W at (almost) idle
    – 69 W loaded
  • Gateway M-6750 (notebook: Core 2 Duo T5450, 1.67 GHz, 3 GB DDR2 RAM, 250 GB 2.5″ SATA HD):
    – 24 W at idle
    – 48 W at 100% CPU (both cores loaded)
  • Mac mini (desktop: Core 2 Duo T5600, 1.83 GHz, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, 80 GB 2.5″ SATA HD):
    – 21 W at idle
  • Lenovo S10e (Notebook: Atom N270, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, 160 GB 2.5″ SATA):
    – 20 W at 90% CPU load
  • Dell Latitude CPx J650GT (notebook: Intel Pentium III Mobile, 650 MHz, 512 MB PC100 RAM, 60 GB 2.5″ IDE HD):
    – 13 W at idle, screen off
  • Dell 2408WFP (monitor: 24″, 1920 x 1200):
    – 48 W at brightness 0%
    – 60 W at brightness 12%
    – 120 W at brightness 100%
  • Dell 1905FP (monitor: 19″, 1280 x 1024):
    – 27 W at brightness 0%
    – 32 W at brightness 50%
    – 36 W at brightness 100%
  • Epson PM-A950 (inkjet printer / scanner / copier):
    – 3 W at standby (display off) or soft “off”
    – 15 W at idle (display on)
    – 19 W while scanning
    – 25 W while printing
  • Mitsubishi 25T-SY3 (colour TV: 25″, CRT, 110 W):
    – 80 to 100 W (depending on brightness of scene)

The inefficiency of the Celeron D was to be expected. It’s based on the infamous Pentium4 architecture that was later abandoned by Intel in favour of the more efficient Pentium III / Pentium M derived Core architecture.

Also expected was the frugality of the Atom N270 netbook, but I was positively surprised by how little power the Pentium III Mobile machine (Dell Latitude 650) consumed. Neither of these machines is a scorcher, but given its age the 8 year old Dell is doing surprisingly well as a temporary web browser and e-mail machine for my wife after her Dimension 3100C’s hard disk failed last week.

My biggest surprise was that the Mac mini uses only half the electricity of the VIA server I built (21 W versus 42 W). Admittedly, it only has one notebook drive (80 GB 2.5″) instead of two high capacity 3.5″ drives, but that should only account for about one quarter of the advantage of the faster Intel Mac over the slower VIA. The 80 GB single platter Hitachi TravelStar 2K250 in the Mac only draws a tiny 0.55 W at idle, but the Western Digital WD10EADS in the VIA server are doing quite well for a drive with 1 TB and 3 disks at only 2.8 W each at idle.

Note also that my Mac mini is last year’s model (2008). A newer model that came out in early 2009 (2.0 GHz Core2 Duo, 2GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HD, GeForce 9400M video) is rated even lower, at less than 14 W at idle. Apple calls the Mac mini the “most energy-efficient desktop computer” and not without cause.

I also expected my old CRT TV to use considerably more power than my flat screen monitors. That was true for the 19″ monitors, but not necessarily for the 24″, depending on screen brightness settings.

Another surprise was that it makes no difference whatsoever whether I switch off my inkjet printer when I’m not expecting to print anything soon. After powering it on or after any printing, copying or scanning, the small LCD display will stay lit for a few minutes, with the printer drawing about 15 W (idle mode). After that interval, the display goes dark and the printer goes into a sleep mode from which it will awake on any button press or print job. In this state it is drawing the same 3 W as after switching it off using the On/Off button but leaving it plugged in. All the Off-switch seems to do is to stop it from responding to print output or to buttons other than the On-button. To get rid of the last 3 W you would need to unplug it or switch it off at a switchable power strip. Note that inkjet printers should only be fully disconnected from the mains this way while already switched off using the On/Off button.

I wish that power draw figures at idle and load were readily available for every computer on the market, so that consumers could make informed decisions.


Watt Checker Plus (2022-04)

Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) and mercury

In December 2007, Congress passed a bill and President Bush signed it into law that would ban conventional light bulbs by 2014, starting with 100W bulbs in 2012. In February 2009 the European Union’s Environment Committee voted to phase out conventional light bulbs, starting with 100W bulbs by September 2009. Australia and Canada have similar laws, which seek to encourage consumers to switch to more energy efficient compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) that also fit conventional fixtures, but use some 75% less electricity and last up to ten times longer.

Though CFLs are more expensive to buy (from about $3 compared to conventional light bulbs at 50 cents), they will actually pay for themselves via a lower electricity bill over only a couple of months. Also, because of the much shorter life span of conventional bulbs they would be more expensive to run even if electricity were free: At 10,000 hours per CFL and 1000 hours per light bulb, you’d end up buying 10 light bulbs that cost more than the single CFL that matches their total life span.

Nevertheless, there are other criticisms brought against a switch to CFLs. One of them is the fact that CFLs, like all types of fluorescent light, contain small amounts of mercury, a toxic heavy metal. They need to be handled carefully so as not to break them. Dead bulbs must not be thrown into the trash to go into landfills or garbage incinerators. Many electrical stores or recycling centres will take them back to dispose of them safely.

However, even if most consumers dumped old CFLs into the garbage bin, it is doubtful if this would cause more environmental problems than sticking with Edison’s old invention. In many countries, cheap coal provides a major portion of electricity. In the USA it’s about half. Unfortunately coal contains trace amounts of mercury, which goes up the chimney when the coal gets burnt. This makes for some interesting numbers:

  • Annual mercury emissions from coal fired power plants in US (1999): 48 tons
  • Electricity saved in US by switching all incandescent lamps to compact flourescents: 7%
  • Equivalent mercury pollution reduction: 3.36 tons
  • Typical amount of mercury in a CFL: 4 mg
  • Number of improperly trashed CFLs per year it would take to match mercury pollution reduction from switching to CFLs: 1,000,000,000
  • Number of CFLs sold per year: 330 million

Note that mercury content in CFLs is gradually being reduced. According to a July 2008 fact sheet by Energy Star, the average mercury content in CFLs dropped at least 20% during the previous year. Some models now contain as little as 1.4-2.5 mg of mercury, driving the break-even point up to 2 to 3 billion improperly trashed CFLs per year.

Better consumer education can avoid mercury pollution, whether it’s from lamps that should not be in the garbage or from coal that should not need to be burnt due to more efficient lights.

A recent New York Times article raised some questions about failure rates of cheap CFLs. Probably the bulbs I buy are not as cheap as those mentioned in the article (I used to pay about $10 a decade ago, maybe $5 now), but in all the years that I’ve been using CFLs I have yet to experience one failing in its first year.

Here in Japan regular fluorescents (non-CFL) have been very common in homes for decades, as people here like their homes brighter than in the west, which would have used a lot more electricity and put out much more heat with incandescent bulbs.

The average Japanese dining room, kitchen, living room or bed room uses either circular or straight fluorescent lights, but CFLs have become very common where incandescent bulbs were in use before.

When I moved to my current home 9 years ago and had to buy new lamp fixtures for all the main rooms, I installed CFLs or circular fluourescents throughout. The living room and the dining room table are only on their second set of CFLs during all these years.

Most of the first generation of bulbs in those rooms didn’t actually burn out before being replaced, but merely lost some brightness (the phosphor coating gradually wears out), so I swapped them for a new set and gradually reused the old set to replace less frequently used incandescents left in the house.

CFLs are big step forward from incandescent light bulbs, but eventually we will see them replaced with solid state lights and other new technologies that at the moment are still too expensive to compete for domestic lighting.