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 Today, most land use planning maps are static and outdated; real-time knowledge of soil moisture can make advisories more responsive.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.

In a subsequent post, I'll discuss why this resource must be measured from space, and what is involved in the process. 

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.

Very, very good news: food from the desert

I try to avoid exaggeration. But the word "very" was repeated in the title to shout out the importance of an agricultural advance here in Australia.

Out in the scrub desert of South Australia, Sundrop Farms is operating a huge greenhouse producing food with no fresh water from outside . They are using solar energy to desalinate brackish water, and the water becomes an input to a hydroponic growing system.

None of these individual advances are new in themselves. The biggest difference between this and the numerous other hydroponic concepts out there, such as vertical farming, is that the Sundrop process has already proven itself to be economically viable--and scalable to enormous systems.

We all know that solar energy has yet to prove itself competitive with fossil fuel and nuclear generated electricity. That's why it's still struggling. So it's the economic success of the Sundrop process that is really the big news here.Their approach is completely market-driven: "People want nice-looking veggies. So we're going to make sure that our veggies are nice. So that people actually buy them." Wow, what a concept.

[The inventor of the technology is sniffing with disgust. "Oh, my God, they've sold out to the evil capitalists! I'd much rather tinker in my electricity-free home and never actually feed anyone!" He also hates the fact that they use some natural gas to keep the greenhouse warm at night, so the tomatoes don't look like they have tumors. Darn, only 95% of the energy needs are provided by the sun instead of 100%. How could they be so profligate?]

Even beyond these magnificent accomplishments, the Sundrop process will solve yet another problem, which the article in The Australian doesn't mention.

Ten years ago, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimated that 120 million hectares of new farmland would be required by 2030 to avoid massive food insecurity. That's the entire growing area of the US or China. Where in God's name would that come from? Most likely, rain forest. Because you need fresh water to grow things.

But not with the Sundrop approach. So in addition to reducing the demands on the world's fresh water, AND eliminating pesticides, AND eliminating most of the energy costs of agricultural production, the Sundrop process reduces the threat to our diminishing rain forests. As noted before, Sundrop is growing food in the desert. Qatar is the next Sundrop site.

Now, I will grant you, The Australian's paean to this process is rather unquestioning, perhaps even unctuous. A little contemplation raised some concerns:

• Does the process actually work on pure seawater, or only brackish water? What is the fate of the brine (the concentrated salt water left after evaporation)? Does it become an environmental pollutant? This is a serious concern for all desalination processes.
• What estimated lifetime of the system is used to calculate the return on investment? Granted that the desert environment is a good one from the longevity standpoint, many of the components surely require refurbishment over time.
• What level of training is required for the operators? The article emphasizes the complexity of the system. Could people of average education in developing nations be qualified to operate the system successfully?
• How is harvesting accomplished? If harvesting is manual, where are the workers to live? In the desert? If harvesting is automated, there are energy costs, capital investment and maintenance to factor in.
• Do the exterior surfaces, particularly the mirrors, require cleaning? How is that done, and how often? Is fresh water required? This has killed many solar power projects located in deserts.
• How robust are the pest control and pollinator solutions?

I will try to explore these questions with the developers. In the meantime, let's pray that there is some workable answer to each of these, that does not fail as the process is scaled up to levels of production that matter.

Now imagine the wealthy, developed nations and nongovernmental organizations getting onboard with Sundrop in a big way, placing a big bet on the technology. How about starting in sub-Saharan Africa, where food shortages are both chronic and acute? How about some aggressive, coordinated trial investments by:

• the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service,  including its Office of Capacity Building and Development
• Oxfam
• the Gates Foundation
• the Catholic Church
• agribusinesses (Cargill, ADM, Monsanto)

The Sundrop Farms technology represents great hope for the Century of Scarcity. I close with a quotation from the Holy Bible, which amazingly was today's daily reading in the Catholic lectionary: (Isaiah 41: 17-20)

¹⁷ “The poor and needy search for water,
    but there is none;
    their tongues are parched with thirst.
But I the Lord will answer them;
    I, the God of Israel, will not forsake them.
¹⁸ I will make rivers flow on barren heights,
    and springs within the valleys.
I will turn the desert into pools of water,
    and the parched ground into springs.
¹⁹ I will put in the desert
    the cedar and the acacia, the myrtle and the olive.
I will set junipers in the wasteland,
    the fir and the cypress together,
²⁰ so that people may see and know,
    may consider and understand,
that the hand of the Lord has done this,
    that the Holy One of Israel has created it."

Food prices spike--again

Alan Bjerga examined, in his excellent book "Endless Appetites," the behavior of markets during the food price spikes of 2007-8 and 2010.

Well, as expected, it's happening again . US droughts and excessive UK rainfall have damaged grain crops in both nations.

In our October 20 blog entry, we gave a link to a BBC story centered on the US drought. The price rises are essentially inevitable in the near term.

What direction on climate?

The talks starting in Doha are looking like they're going to stumble . To me, that's not surprising. There is more recognition now than at Kyoto that aggressive measures to curb carbon emissions are also likely to curb economies--and this might not be the best time for that. Also, some energy moves are happening independent of Kyoto, like a big shift to natural gas . Two things to know about natural gas: (1) it's actually economical, unlike renewables, and (2) for the same energy output, there's 60% less CO2 emitted--not perfect but a big improvement.

It's worth pondering this quote from MIT Technology Review:

"UCSD's David ­Victor, for one, estimates that a modern gas-fired power plant emits roughly two-fifths as much carbon as even a new coal plant. According to his calculations, the United States is saving about 400 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually in the recent switch to natural gas from coal. That's roughly twice as much progress as the European Union has made in complying with the Kyoto Protocol through policy efforts. 'There is no single event that has had as large and sustained an impact on carbon emissions as the gas revolution,' he says."

So climate negotiators need to get their heads around these things. They need to figure out how to support technologies that are ready for prime time. And carbon control measures need to support economies, not hamstring them.

Doing more with no more

One of the challenges of providing adequate food in the 21st century will be the development of new agricultural land. A ten-year-old publication of UN FAO estimated that 120 million hectares of new farmland would be required. It is hard to see how that could be achieved without an increase in the destruction of ecosystems such as rainforests.

One of the challenges of combatting hunger is preventing malnutrition caused by insufficient micronutrients in the diet. This letter in Science magazine suggests that the micronutrient problem could be addressed using available croplands. It is critical that its recommendations are implemented fully.

Creating some momentum after Rio+20

The palpable disappointment following the Rio+20 sustainable development conference cast a pall on sustainability thinking in general. What does it take to motivate nations to change?

One thinker, Edward Barbier, has put forward three near-term actions in an article in Science magazine. Since many of you probably don't subscribe to Science, I'm giving it a tiny amount of added publicity.

Basically Barbier, at the University of Wyoming, is saying that sustainability and development have been separate and cannot remain so; that sustainability has no priority in the thinking of governments; and that even the UN has no body to push sustainability initiatives. He cites the World Health Organization and the International Labor Organization as UN bodies that are effective because they have mandates.

But perhaps the most exciting thing in Barbier's piece was a discussion about how to raise funds for development. He cited a Gates Foundation study of which I was unaware. Bill Gates discusses in great detail how to finance global development using several untapped and largely painless sources.