Sorry for the long drought (ha, ha) in posting. I've been completing my work in Australia and traveling back to the US. In Australia, I helped with conceptual and technical studies of a satellite for monitoring soil moisture--a very important capability for efficient agricultural use of water.
The impetus for this post is a recent study showing that food production, particularly grains, must increase between 60% and 110% by 2050 to keep pace with the Earth's growing population. This cannot be surprising. Fortunately it is consistent with studies by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, cited in previous posts, indicating that production must increase by 73% by 2050.
As the recent study notes, "one solution is to increase the amount of cropland." The FAO had concluded in its 2006 interim report that 120 million hectares of additional arable land would be needed, even if agricultural efficiency continued growing at its present rate. The 2012 update to the FAO report makes that figure slightly smaller:
"The overall result for developing countries is a projected net increase in the arable area of some 107 million ha (from 968 in the base year to 1075 in 2050), an increase of 11 percent...Not surprisingly, the bulk of this projected expansion is expected to take place in sub-Saharan Africa (51 million) and Latin America (49 million), with almost no land expansion in South Asia, and a constant area in Near East/North Africa and East Asia."
But, let's face it: if 107 million new hectares of arable
land are going to appear in Africa and South America, there's only one place it's going to come from--rain forests. Because arable land also needs water. It's not going to be in the Andes or the Kalahari.
Destroying 107 million hectares of
rain forest is not a good idea. An alternative solution would be high-technology solutions that allowed food production on non-arable land. Like vertical farming. And solar desalination of brackish water coupled with hydroponic gardening. But can this be done in an economical way?
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Friday, May 3, 2013
Energy for all
A new study discusses pathways to providing sustainable energy to every human being. Not only does it discuss the "how," but I learned something new about the "why": the smoke from conventional cooking stoves causes millions of premature deaths.
Developed nations need to tackle this problem and solve it.
The amount of investment being called for is not insignificant: US $65-86 billion per year between now and 2030. That would result, apparently, in complete rural electrification and clean stoves for all who currently lack them. Without policy, evidently the number of people lacking electricity and clean cooking will actually increase.
This in addition to the obvious: electricity vastly increases quality of life. A beautiful example of that is given by William Kamkwamba in his wonderful book, The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind. A few lights in his family's hut allowed children to study at night--something they'd never been able to do before.
A major concern with increasing global energy consumption is the impact on the atmosphere. The referenced study finds that their approach would have a negligible impact on global climate change. They do appear to have overlooked one effect of current practices, the Asia Brown Cloud: combustion of low-quality conventional fuels (wood, dung) creates high particulate concentrations, which has tended to result in local cooling over the affected areas. So cleaning this up might actually increase global warming! More study is needed.
We must remember that the problem the study is addressing is not the sum total of increasing global energy demands. Food production must increase to keep pace with the growing population; food production requires significant energy inputs. The demand for water, both for agriculture and human consumption, will also increase. Energy is required to move water. As a friend says, "Food, energy and water are one thing."
In my blog about new activities in outer space, there have been many recent posts about off-Earth mining and expanding the global economy into the solar system. A recurring theme has been using space resources to construct space solar power stations. Those would provide completely clean, global-warming-free energy to the Earth from geosynchronous orbit, in the form of microwaves which are converted to electricity.
The stations on Earth where the power is received need to be large--several kilometers on a side. This is to keep the power per unit area in the beam low enough that it wouldn't harm a person or animal who strayed into the beam. Clearly, these receiving stations should go where there is no human habitation--such as the Sahara, Gobi, and Great Indian deserts. Interestingly, those are no too distant from the disadvantaged populations who need energy and clean cooking.
There is no way that space solar power stations will be in operation by 2030. First, industry must develop a space resources processing capability. That's because it would be far too expensive to launch all the needed materials from Earth to build the stations. But from water ice and dust on the Moon and asteroids, the necessary construction materials and fuel for building can be obtained affordably. This industry might have progressed to a small-scale state by 2030.
In another generation, though--say 2060--space solar power could perhaps be the dominant source of energy for non-mobile applications.
The developed nations should plan to move forward with more conventional approaches, but make them synergistic with the long-term goal of receiving energy from space. Transmission and distribution networks for rural electrification would certainly have this synergism.
Once the processing of off-Earth resources is fully underway, the $65-86 billion per year needed to electrify the rest of the world will seem like a trivial amount. Space resources are plentiful and valuable.
Developed nations need to tackle this problem and solve it.
The amount of investment being called for is not insignificant: US $65-86 billion per year between now and 2030. That would result, apparently, in complete rural electrification and clean stoves for all who currently lack them. Without policy, evidently the number of people lacking electricity and clean cooking will actually increase.
This in addition to the obvious: electricity vastly increases quality of life. A beautiful example of that is given by William Kamkwamba in his wonderful book, The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind. A few lights in his family's hut allowed children to study at night--something they'd never been able to do before.
A major concern with increasing global energy consumption is the impact on the atmosphere. The referenced study finds that their approach would have a negligible impact on global climate change. They do appear to have overlooked one effect of current practices, the Asia Brown Cloud: combustion of low-quality conventional fuels (wood, dung) creates high particulate concentrations, which has tended to result in local cooling over the affected areas. So cleaning this up might actually increase global warming! More study is needed.
We must remember that the problem the study is addressing is not the sum total of increasing global energy demands. Food production must increase to keep pace with the growing population; food production requires significant energy inputs. The demand for water, both for agriculture and human consumption, will also increase. Energy is required to move water. As a friend says, "Food, energy and water are one thing."
In my blog about new activities in outer space, there have been many recent posts about off-Earth mining and expanding the global economy into the solar system. A recurring theme has been using space resources to construct space solar power stations. Those would provide completely clean, global-warming-free energy to the Earth from geosynchronous orbit, in the form of microwaves which are converted to electricity.
SPS-ALPHA: The First Practical Solar Power Satellite via Arbitrarily Large PHased Array
John Mankins
Artemis Innovation Management Solutions
Artemis Innovation Management Solutions
The stations on Earth where the power is received need to be large--several kilometers on a side. This is to keep the power per unit area in the beam low enough that it wouldn't harm a person or animal who strayed into the beam. Clearly, these receiving stations should go where there is no human habitation--such as the Sahara, Gobi, and Great Indian deserts. Interestingly, those are no too distant from the disadvantaged populations who need energy and clean cooking.
There is no way that space solar power stations will be in operation by 2030. First, industry must develop a space resources processing capability. That's because it would be far too expensive to launch all the needed materials from Earth to build the stations. But from water ice and dust on the Moon and asteroids, the necessary construction materials and fuel for building can be obtained affordably. This industry might have progressed to a small-scale state by 2030.
In another generation, though--say 2060--space solar power could perhaps be the dominant source of energy for non-mobile applications.
The developed nations should plan to move forward with more conventional approaches, but make them synergistic with the long-term goal of receiving energy from space. Transmission and distribution networks for rural electrification would certainly have this synergism.
Once the processing of off-Earth resources is fully underway, the $65-86 billion per year needed to electrify the rest of the world will seem like a trivial amount. Space resources are plentiful and valuable.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Knowledge is food
People are getting worried about drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The concern is that soon they will be being spied upon, tracked and eavesdropped by drones. In fact, one US state has just put into law a 2-year moratorium on the use of UAVs by law enforcement.
Hopefully any assault on our privacy by UAVs can be controlled, and their capabilities used beneficially. Specifically, it turns out that one of the biggest markets for them may be, not law enforcement, but agriculture.
This should be no surprise. The more data farmers have, the more efficiently they can plant, water and harvest. One expert here in Australia said to me, "Australian farmers are the most water-efficient in the world. And what makes that possible is information."
In my previous post, I discussed why soil moisture is critical data, not just for agriculture, but for meteorology, public health, environmental protection and restoration, and mining. Moisture-poor, high-productivity nations like Australia are particularly in need of this information.
The Wired article doesn't really say what farmers and graziers will use the UAV-derived data for. Some guesses: looking for areas of poor crop growth; evaluating erosion prevention methods; checking the performance of infrastructure such as irrigation systems or feeding systems; tracking down wandering livestock; and monitoring the condition of grazing crops and herds.
I hope the cattle aren't concerned about their privacy.
Hopefully any assault on our privacy by UAVs can be controlled, and their capabilities used beneficially. Specifically, it turns out that one of the biggest markets for them may be, not law enforcement, but agriculture.
This should be no surprise. The more data farmers have, the more efficiently they can plant, water and harvest. One expert here in Australia said to me, "Australian farmers are the most water-efficient in the world. And what makes that possible is information."
In my previous post, I discussed why soil moisture is critical data, not just for agriculture, but for meteorology, public health, environmental protection and restoration, and mining. Moisture-poor, high-productivity nations like Australia are particularly in need of this information.
The Wired article doesn't really say what farmers and graziers will use the UAV-derived data for. Some guesses: looking for areas of poor crop growth; evaluating erosion prevention methods; checking the performance of infrastructure such as irrigation systems or feeding systems; tracking down wandering livestock; and monitoring the condition of grazing crops and herds.
I hope the cattle aren't concerned about their privacy.
Monday, January 21, 2013
The invisible resource
At the University of New South Wales, we are developing the design of a new satellite. It will have a very unusual capability: it can measure how much moisture is in the first few centimeters of soil.
When one wishes to account for water resources, the list of
assets includes lakes, rivers, streams, reservoirs, and the underground water
table. But the additional water to be found in the soils, right at the surface,
is a highly significant resource as well. In Australia, for example, a calculation shows that there
is as much water in the uppermost layer of Australia’s soils as in all her
lakes, rivers and reservoirs. It is also the most crucial to plant life—this is the water that plants actually
absorb.
The importance of this invisible resource to the
environment cannot be overstated. In addition to the obvious importance to
farming, moisture in the soil has many other far-reaching impacts.
- Soil moisture drives the weather. High moisture in a soil heated by the sun will increase the chance of cloud formation.
- It is a critical factor in determining wind erosion, the source of the huge dust storms that plague Australia and some other nations. Advance warning of dust storm conditions will help protect persons with respiratory conditions. Knowledge of soil moisture can improve the success of ground cover planting programs for dust mitigation.
- Soil moisture is critical for minimizing water erosion of soils, by watering the plants that stabilize the soils against erosion.
- Knowledge of trends in soil moisture is a key to effective land use planning. Long term changes to soil moisture can force unwanted change; awareness of soil moisture trends can allow for orderly transitions and protect livelihoods. Today, most land use planning maps are static and outdated; real-time knowledge of soil moisture can make advisories more responsive.
- Soil moisture is the key to the health of sensitive ecologies, including wetlands, forests and iconic sites. The effectiveness of water diversion for ecological health and restoration is highly dependent upon the existing soil moisture levels.
- It is critical for broad acre farming and grazing. Soil moisture determines, for instance, how long a grazier may use a particular paddock before having to move her cattle.
- Soil moisture is a key driver for “tipping points” in agricultural settings. If moisture falls below a certain level, a farm may simply crash and be unrecoverable. Only weeds will remain.
- Soil moisture determines the success of carbon storage initiatives. Carbon stored in the root zones is not volatile, so it represents a permanent form of storage. To use this storage technique effectively, water must be conserved in the root zone.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Vertical farming: how big an impact?
Vertical farming is basically the use of the third dimension to increase the effective density of planted area. The idea has been around for millennia, and the term itself for a century .
VF solves two problems faced by conventional agriculture in the Century of Scarcity: it is stingy with land, and with water.
Recent advocates for vertical farming have been Ken Yeang and Dickson Despommier. The latter's approach is featured in this futuristic video . I have worked with the inventor of contour crafting, also featured in the video, to propose its use in very simple structures for VF like this "GroWall" structure:
Unfortunately, buildings cost more than dirt. Hence there is always a question of whether vertical farming is economically viable. In the "40 Point Plan" video, the argument is made that economies of scale will eventually make VF affordable.
I was skeptical until I came across actual vertical farming going on in Singapore . As you can see in the CNN clip, the approach is similar to Despommier's in several respects.
Singapore is the perfect place for VF. It has the highest population density in the world, and absolutely no room for agriculture. Every calorie is imported, except perhaps for fish. Singapore's wealth means that somewhat higher prices can be charged for locally grown food (although in my own trip to Singapore, I found food prices quite reasonable). The extra expenses associated with VF might be offset by the savings in importation costs--and the carbon from the transportation as well. Singapore also has several high-technology water purification projects underway, which should be exploited by the VF effort.
Having a viable VF enterprise going in a wealthy place like Singapore will lead to improvements in the technique over time. Affordability will increase, and VF will expand to less wealthy areas.
And that's important. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated a need for120 million additional hectares for farming by 2050, even with projected increases in productivity. Conventional arable land is actually shrinking, due to erosion and urban growth. To create such a vast new amount of farmland, there's really only one place it can happen: the earth's rain forests (since agriculture also requires water). That would be devastating to the climate, and to species diversity.
Can VF scale up to make a dent in this 120 million hectare increase? It seems unlikely on its face. More feasible, perhaps, would be to use VF in a targeted way, to supplement some calorie-adequate diets with foods rich in certain nutrients or micronutrients. Another exciting idea would be to combine VF with solar desalination of brackish water--such as that going on in the fantastic Sundrop Farms project here in Australia that I've blogged about earlier.
Both the Singapore VF installation and the Sundrop Farms results have shown economic viability. Now, the next hurdle is for them to show scalability to keep up with humanity's skyrocketing food needs.
VF solves two problems faced by conventional agriculture in the Century of Scarcity: it is stingy with land, and with water.
Recent advocates for vertical farming have been Ken Yeang and Dickson Despommier. The latter's approach is featured in this futuristic video . I have worked with the inventor of contour crafting, also featured in the video, to propose its use in very simple structures for VF like this "GroWall" structure:
Unfortunately, buildings cost more than dirt. Hence there is always a question of whether vertical farming is economically viable. In the "40 Point Plan" video, the argument is made that economies of scale will eventually make VF affordable.
I was skeptical until I came across actual vertical farming going on in Singapore . As you can see in the CNN clip, the approach is similar to Despommier's in several respects.
Singapore is the perfect place for VF. It has the highest population density in the world, and absolutely no room for agriculture. Every calorie is imported, except perhaps for fish. Singapore's wealth means that somewhat higher prices can be charged for locally grown food (although in my own trip to Singapore, I found food prices quite reasonable). The extra expenses associated with VF might be offset by the savings in importation costs--and the carbon from the transportation as well. Singapore also has several high-technology water purification projects underway, which should be exploited by the VF effort.
Having a viable VF enterprise going in a wealthy place like Singapore will lead to improvements in the technique over time. Affordability will increase, and VF will expand to less wealthy areas.
And that's important. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated a need for120 million additional hectares for farming by 2050, even with projected increases in productivity. Conventional arable land is actually shrinking, due to erosion and urban growth. To create such a vast new amount of farmland, there's really only one place it can happen: the earth's rain forests (since agriculture also requires water). That would be devastating to the climate, and to species diversity.
Can VF scale up to make a dent in this 120 million hectare increase? It seems unlikely on its face. More feasible, perhaps, would be to use VF in a targeted way, to supplement some calorie-adequate diets with foods rich in certain nutrients or micronutrients. Another exciting idea would be to combine VF with solar desalination of brackish water--such as that going on in the fantastic Sundrop Farms project here in Australia that I've blogged about earlier.
Both the Singapore VF installation and the Sundrop Farms results have shown economic viability. Now, the next hurdle is for them to show scalability to keep up with humanity's skyrocketing food needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)