The scarcity summit

In about a month, world leaders and major group representatives will gather in Rio de Janeiro for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development.. One hopes that more will come out of it than, say, the 2009 Copenhagen conference on climate change.

The Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has laid out goals for the sustainability conference. His "top level" goals:

• Inspire new thinking and action
• Be about people--a people's summit that offers concrete hope for real improvements in daily lives
• Waste not

Within these are some very specific goals. Some of them address the "big three" resource challenges of food, energy and water. Along with them are economic development, environmental and fairness goals.

FOOD

• zero stunting of children's growth (the supplements to make this happen are affordable and easily distributed)
• zero waste of food
• zero waste of agricultural inputs

ENERGY

• advance the Sustainable Energy for All initiative
• doubling of energy efficiency by 2030
• doubling of the use of renewable sources by 2030

WATER

• protect our sources of water

I have to admit to being disappointed in the lack of concrete goals for water. Nevertheless, I recommend reading the Secretary General's opinion piece. I will be following and reporting on progress in Rio.

Can 3D printing technology help ameliorate scarcity?

There is a technology that is about to have as big an impact on manufacturing as the personal computer had on--everything. The technology is called 3D (for three-dimensional) printing. It can build solid, hollow, and complex structures the same way an inkjet printer works--a print head moving back and forth, laying down stuff in a pattern. You just do it layer after layer, and voila--a 3D object.

3D printing would be mildly interesting if you could just do it with plastic. But you can make METAL structures this way--Ducati uses it for motorcycle engine parts; US defense firms use it for jet engine parts; a titanium JAW that was 3D-printed was recently implanted in an elderly patient.. And you can 3D-print with BIOLOGICAL materials--CELLS. A full kidney was built recently.

You can do 3D printing in CHOCOLATE. Tell me that's not going to be big.

This is not in the lab, it is real, presently about a $1 billion industry. It is coming very quickly, and the economic advantages it holds will help it take over the manufacturing sector. Don't take my word for it, take The Economist's. Some of the features:
--you don't need molds or forms. So customizing the shape of something is easier, and you can make things that can't be injection molded or machined.
--the design and manufacturing don't need to occur in the same place.
--much less labor is required than for traditional manufacturing processes, like machining.
--it's much faster too.

Clearly, there is a problem when this takes hold in the developed nations: what's going to happen to all the JOBS in conventional manufacturing?

But that's not the point of this blog. I think there might be a place for 3D printing in developing nations--specifically in the AGRICULTURE sector.

First, let me tell you about a special kind of 3D printing called Contour Crafting.. Contour Crafting is just 3D printing with CONCRETE, on a very large (building size) scale. Contour Crafting was invented by a good friend of mine, Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis of the University of Southern California. He has built whole walls and very complex shapes. And remember, it doesn't need molds or forms! You can make very complex shapes (multiply curved walls, with wires and plumbing inside if you want) with less material, and very quickly. A house could be built in a day.

Professor Khoshnevis already has the vision to use Contour Crafting to make high quality, affordable housing in developing nations. The idea of using it in agriculture is just another application.

30% of all the crops in Africa are lost due to poor storage. What if we were to use Contour Crafting to build durable, high quality storage facilities? The trick will be to be able to use INDIGENOUS, affordable materials--mud, sand, and water, rather than energy-intensive concrete. We think this is possible.

Imagine a Contour Crafting Convoy that drives around Africa building food storage facilities. If local soils, plant materials and solar heating are enough for the buildings, the only imported material would be fuel for the vehicles. They would also carry smaller 3D printers with them to make the other components that would be needed for complete structures--hinges, brackets, doorknobs, whatever.

And what else could we build with these techniques beside food storage? How about vertical planting containers? Irrigation ditches that don't wash away in the rains? 

This could be one of the many, many technology solutions that we will need to ameliorate the coming resource crisis.

Worse than scarcity

It has been said that the struggles for resources in the 21st century could lead to military conflicts. It hadn't been obvious to me that that was actually true. But in looking at two current projects in resource development, one in India and one being done by China, I found some scenarios that could indeed result in military conflicts.

INDIA: THE RIVER-LINKING PROJECT

The extent of the water crisis in India is well-known and here is an excellent summary of it. Notice in particular this indictment from the article: "India’s water crisis is predominantly a manmade problem. India’s climate is not particularly dry, nor is it lacking in rivers and groundwater. Extremely poor management, unclear laws, government corruption, and industrial and human waste have caused this water supply crunch and rendered what water is available practically useless due to the huge quantity of pollution." 

Now, mitigation of human suffering is not exactly a crowning achievement of recent Indian governments. But perhaps they will be motivated to act, as their vaunted economic growth is threatened by the same water issues.

Unfortunately, an old and terrible approach to Indian water resources has suddenly reared its ugly head.  This is the Indian River-Linking Project,, conceived decades ago as a solution for both flooding and drought. In some sense, the river-linking idea is a lot like U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood-control projects in this country. There is one huge difference, however: the Himalayan-origin rivers that will be affected cross into Bangladesh before returning to India. The project will basically turn Bangladesh into a desert.

Obviously, the Bangladeshi military capability can do nothing to India. Bangladeshi interests might, however, resort to extreme measures within its own borders (dynamiting dams, whatever) to deny India the water it would have gotten. This could be an invitation for Indian military incursions into Bangladesh to protect and stabilize the flows. And might China not see this as an opportunity to "defend" Bangladesh with Chinese forces?

We always find these scenarios far-fetched--until they happen. Then we ask, "How could they have been so stupid?" And of course, China and India have capable nuclear arsenals.

CHINA: LEASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN AFRICA

China leaves no stone unturned in attempting to feed its people. One of the stones that was first turned in the 1960's was Africa. Back then, the Chinese goals were political rather than economic--wooing fellow-travelers in the war against imperialism. Today, however, it would appear that China hopes to make a significant addition to domestic food production through its agricultural investments in Africa. And China is not alone, with South Korea also making big African land plays.

I wish them well. In the best case, this would provide economic stimulus in Africa, and backup food supplies for the all-too-common African famines, as well as a supplement to Chinese production. But here I will quote Alan Bjerga's great book Endless Appetites, the story of the recent worldwide instability in food prices. Alan traveled the world to understand the interconnections of farms, markets and consumers. He observes, "Land grab touches nerves, with its echoes of rich outsiders carving up Africa to exploit its resources and residents."

The perfect storm happens when China actually becomes dependent on such crops as an integral part of its food supply; when a shortage in the producing country causes hungry people to pilfer the crops grown for export; and the local government does nothing to stop them, fearing riots. Could China actually be tempted to send in troops to secure "their" produce? I wouldn't bet against it. And what happens when the poor nation appeals to the world community to protect it against "invasion"?

The "no silver bullet" principle

There are so many worth efforts going on to fight hunger through improved agriculture. An excellent HuffPost Green article gives a long list of worthy efforts. Perhaps with enough such creative, innovative approaches, we really can conquer the coming world resource challenges.

But the article tells a second story as well. Every incidence of food insecurity, every crisis situation, every sustainability issue, is unique. Thirty percent of African produce is lost due to insufficient storage--but how to get the produce from storage to the area of greatest need? What if those areas suffer unexpected (or expected) drought? So there are lots of "green bullets," but no one "silver bullet."

This poses challenges for research--how many people is each new approach going to help? It's a problem for policy, too--how do I spread resources for greatest effectiveness?

A few of us have looked at this problem as an opportunity. There is a whole subfield of computer science called "automated decision support." The achievements in this field have helped decision makers--engineers, designers, analysts, planners--find the good options out of huge numbers of possibilities.

To my knowledge, these powerful tools haven't been applied to food insecurity yet. Perhaps the time has come.

What does Outer Space have to do with it? (last of a series)

Whether or not space operations can provide physical benefits, there is another benefit: their contribution to the human spirit, to hope.

This century is likely to see human agony on a very large scale--not caused by war and genocide, as in the previous century, but simply by the inexorable growth of the human species. That agony will affect the morale of every living person, as ever-improving global communications make it all too real, even for those not living in want. What will the psychological effects be?

We should consider space travel, space exploration, and space science as counterweights. They have been a source of inspiration to humanity for the last 50 years. That inspiration is needed now, more urgently than ever. Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson has stated this need eloquently to a Congressional committee. He has boldly called for a significant increase in NASA funding, even in these times of tight Federal budgets.

Others have said that space travel drains resources from programs that address more immediate human needs. But no one has a program to "keep up humanity's spirits." That is what continued space exploration has the potential to do.

Our first post on GM crops--and definitely not the last

I'm interrupting the series on Outer Space in reaction to a drama in the UK. Protestors are threatening to "decontaminate," i.e. destroy, an experimental wheat field containing genetically modified crops. The researchers have asked the protest organizations to come in for a dialogue before taking destructive actions.

Whether you are in favor of or opposed to GM crops, there are moral questions to be addressed:

• PRO: how certain are we, and how certain must we be, that GM crops will not affect human health nor surrounding ecosystems?
• CON: in the Century of Scarcity, is your opposition to GM crops justifiable should they offer the possibility of reducing the misery of hunger and starvation?

There is not enough scientific understanding to answer either of these questions. Increased yields and decreased need for pesticides are hypothetical at this point--as are notions of how GM crops might contaminate surrounding genomes.

GM crops are one of many potential approaches for reducing the threat of starvation. We will follow the science.

What does Outer Space have to do with it? (fourth of a series)

I have a confession to make: I've been using asteroid mining as a teaser. There is nothing about that plan that will have an impact on the coming food, energy and water crises here on Earth. EXCEPT: as we continue to learn how to operate in space, especially with robots, we may be able to build things that CAN help to alleviate terrestrial challenges.

I'm referring to SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE. Now, if harvesting stuff from asteroids sounded crazy to you, space solar power is crazy to the fourth power. It involves huge arrays of solar-power stations orbiting the Earth, which also convert the power to microwaves and beam it to receiving stations on the ground.

If we consider doing this with today's equipment, space power is a non-starter. It costs $5,000 to launch one pound of anything into low Earth orbit--and maybe $10,000 to launch it out to the higher orbit where the power station needs to go. At these rates, a power station giving as much power as an Earth nuclear plant would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That's at least ten times what that Earth plant would cost.

So why even talk about it? Because, slowly but surely, the costs of launching things are coming down. The leadership is not from NASA, but from commercial companies who see a profit in the space business. The demonstrated leader in low-cost launch is Space Exploration Corporation out of Hawthorne, CA--popularly known as SpaceX. (Their next launch is May 7, and it's going to the Space Station. Exciting!) But as they help NASA keep the Station operating, they're also working on a HUGE launch vehicle called Falcon Heavy. It will bring down launch costs by a factor of FIVE.

Also, people are taking baby steps to show that space solar power will actually work. In 2008, an experiment was done off the Haleakala volcano on Maui, showing that power could be beamed over 100 kilometers through the lower atmosphere. And power coming from space only needs to traverse the equivalent of about 20 kilometers of surface air! The leader of this experiment, John Mankins, now has NASA funding to do a study building on these ideas, attempting to design a space solar power concept that's not off-the-charts crazy. John has worldwide interest in his work.

"BUT WHO CARES?"

OK, if the big problems are Food, Energy and Water, isn't energy really a distant third? True, space solar power could reduce our production of greenhouse gases. And it could raise the standard of living for people who have limited access to energy today. But will this really make a difference when millions are at risk of starvation?

I think the answer lies a mantra, given to me by my friend Richard McPherson: "FOOD, ENERGY AND WATER ARE ACTUALLY ONE THING."

Energy is required at every step of modern food systems:

• cultivation
• harvesting
• irrigation
• processing
• transportation
• storage
• distribution

And how does energy relate to water? Here's the bottom line from a study of the water-energy relationship in California: "[In California] water-related energy use consumes 19 percent of the state’s electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year – and this demand is growing."

Repeat after me: "Food, energy and water are actually one thing."

Bringing energy down from space--and it has to be affordable--really could mitigate our resource challenges on Earth. If people succeed in mining asteroids, they will develop key technologies--particularly space robotics--that we'll need for for building affordable space solar power stations.