Greenhouses in the Desert

The very real possibility of shortages of energy and freshwater some day are prompting the development of all sorts of innovative technologies, especially in the hottest, driest regions of the world. How about this - greenhouses in the desert that produce freshwater, powered only by the sun and using only saltwater drawn from the sea?

Here’s how it would work. Concentrated solar power would produce steam to drive turbines, producing electricity for power. Evaporation of saltwater would produce cool, moist air for the greenhouse. Hotter, more humid air leaving the greenhouse would be further heated and humidified using solar energy, then cooled (by cool seawater), producing freshwater by condensation. The freshwater would be used to irrigate crops both within and outside the greenhouse, and would support a local settlement. Presumably most of the saltwater (now saltier than before) would be returned to the sea.

An 8-acre pilot project is expected to begin operations in Jordan within five years. If it works, other larger projects may follow.

Climate Change Casualties

The evidence keeps getting stronger that climate change brought about by global warming is likely to cause disruptions in food production and mass migrations of some people from their homes and homelands within the next century. The latest article, in the January issue of Scientific American, describes three critical “hot spots” to watch – Mozambique, already experiencing more frequent droughts and floods; the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam, a rich farming area that is likely to face severe floods and loss of food production as the sea level rises; and Mexico and Central America, likely to be hit with increased numbers of tropical storms and crippling droughts.

Do we have the will to do something about climate change? Frankly, I’m not sure we do – the problem of global warming is still seen by many nations as either not severe enough, slow to develop, or not their fault (or at least not sufficiently their fault). Most nations have other more urgent issues to worry about first.

My prediction is that nations will spend more money over the next century dealing with the disastrous effects of climate change than they will in joining together to prevent the problems from ever happening in the first place. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

But then, I won’t be here to see it, will I?

Cellulosic Ethanol? Not Any Time Soon

Old conventional wisdom: ethanol made from farm and forest organic wastes (cellulosic ethanol) would soon be powering our cars and trucks. New conventional wisdom: cellulosic ethanol is dead, at least for now.

Not five years ago the government was pouring money and tax credits into various cellulosic biofuels projects. Although there were technical hurdles still to be overcome in extracting ethanol efficiently from cellulose and lignin (the primary energy storage molecules in most plants), there was optimism that the problems would be solved in short order. Today, plans for large-scale demonstration plants have been shelved, venture capital has dried up, and the industry is producing just 10% of the production goal once set by the Environmental Protection Agency. What happened?!

Lots of things happened, it turns out. Ethanol production from corn (technically easier) increased four-fold and is at an all-time high. Oil got cheaper again, technical problems in producing ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks have not yet been overcome, and investors are worried that government support (i.e., subsidies) for the developing cellulosic biofuels industry may dry up. Unless something changes, don’t expect to hear much about cellulosic biofuels for a while.

Why is Global Warming Such a Hot-Button Issue?

Why can’t we hold a civilized conversation about global warming any more without the feeling that everyone’s minds are already made up? Some people argue that global warming is an established fact, and that human activities (most notably the burning of fossil fuels) are responsible. Others insist that the evidence in support of global warming is either not convincing, deliberately misleading, or even just plain false. It’s getting to be almost as bad as talking about abortion. How did it come to this?

One science writer suggests that part of the problem lies with a failure of climate scientists to communicate the meaning of scientific uncertainty adequately to the public. Predicting climate change far into the future IS an inexact science at the moment, but that does not mean that the climate isn’t changing. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. I’m reminded of the common anti-evolutionist argument that evolution can’t be true because (gasp) “there are GAPS in the fossil record!”

In addition, scientists may sometimes come across as having a “we know best” attitude toward dissent, rather than a willingness to engage the dissenters in a dialogue. Scientists may need to acknowledge openly that there are things about climate change that they do not know yet. But rather than representing a failure of the scientific method, these uncertainties represent an opportunity to develop better methods and testable hypotheses so that in the future we CAN be more certain.

Biodiesel Fuel from Sunlight and CO2

From time to time I like to highlight innovations that have the potential to be real game-changers; good ideas still in the development stage that could alter our lives significantly within our lifetimes. So here’s one; a tiny start-up company called Joule Unlimited announced last week that it had received a patent on a bacterium that has been genetically engineered to produce diesel fuel using only sunlight, water and CO2. It’s similar to how plants produce hydrocarbons, but in this instance the hydrocarbon is diesel fuel, not a sugar or a starch.

The company expects that the process could be scaled up to produce 15,000 gallons of diesel fuel per acre, using water that is unfit for drinking (it could be wastewater or brackish water) and land that is unsuitable for farming. The process is not yet efficient enough to use the very limited amount of CO2 available in air (air is only 0.04% CO2), but it has been shown to work using the kinds of CO2 concentrations found in the effluent of coal-fired energy facilities. The company expects to begin production at a pilot plant in Texas by 2012.

Imagine a future in which the very CO2 that we’re trying so hard to get rid of these days (because it’s a greenhouse gas) becomes an asset – the raw material for creating diesel fuel. That would make CO2 an endlessly renewable energy source and solve most of the global warming problem at the same time.

With a few more good ideas like this, maybe there’s hope for our planet (smile).

Removing Carbon From the Atmosphere

How can we absorb all that excess carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels? Preserving Earth’s forests and planting more trees might help, but it won’t be sufficient. One idea is to use carbon-scrubbing machines that would pull the carbon dioxide out of the air. The recovered carbon dioxide could then be used in such products as high-carbon cement, dry ice, or synthetic gasoline. Or it could be stored deep underground again.

Current technology would need to be improved before carbon-scrubbing is economically feasible. But the basic techniques are in place already – they’ve been used in submarines for decades.

Reference: Lackner, Klaus S. Washing Carbon Out of the Air. Scientific American pp. 66-71, June 2010.

Weekend squirm

Most people could do without the discovery of a new species of leech that specializes on the mucus membranes, including eyes, urethras, rectums, and vaginas.

The new species—dubbed Tyrannobdella rex, or "tyrant leech king" was discovered in the remote Peruvian Amazon region

The full report is in PLoS ONE this week: Tyrannobdella rex N. Gen. N. Sp. and the Evolutionary Origins of Mucosal Leech Infestations and National Geographic also has a write up with a catchier title: "Tyrant King" Leech Discovered, Attacks Orifice- Toothy new T. rex saws into eyes, rectums ... and so on.

"As Douglas Adams would say: Do we want a planet that is only full of panda bears and pine trees?" he said. "The loss of any species is going to make this planet colder and lonelier."

Hmm. I'm not convinced that most people would see the argument this way. I could be wrong but I suspect most people would rather live on a planet without orifice invading leeches. I'm a card carrying bleeding heart liberal tree hugger and I'm in two minds about this one so I don't see Mr and Mrs Middle America caring too much for the Tyrant Leech King. I believe that conservationists need to get their story straight, or at least consistent. Why should we care about the tremendous diversity of life on the planet? Because we might get valuable products from it? Because it provides invaluable ecosystem services? Because we have a moral responsibility to do so?

Feeding the World in 2050

Forty years from now will there be enough food to supply the world’s growing human population? Perhaps the best answer is “It depends”. It depends on how much we can improve the energy efficiency of producing and transporting food. It depends on what we are willing to eat (“Excuse me sir – would you like the beef or the crickets?”). It depends on what we do about climate change, how much damage we do to the environment, and how efficiently we use our precious supplies of fresh water. It depends on whether we’re willing to use genetically modified crops.

A special section of Science magazine available online examines some of these and other issues on the subject of food security. There are some pretty interesting and thought-provoking ideas out there. There’s even an article on what kinds of careers might be available for persons interested in this subject.

Carbon Dioxide and Forest Growth

Plants require carbon dioxide (CO2) for growth. How are they affected by the rise in atmospheric CO2 that occurred over the last century, as a result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels? Do plants use more CO2 (i.e, grow faster) when more CO2 is available?

There is some evidence that they may. A study of 55 forest plots in the Eastern United States reveals that the tree biomass is increasing at a faster rate now than in several decades past. After factoring out other known factors, the most likely causes appear to be increases in atmospheric CO2 and in temperature. This may be good news, for it means that as the atmospheric CO2 rises, some of the excess CO2 may naturally be stored in Earth's forest biomass. This could be slowing the rate of rise of CO2 (and global warming) that would otherwise occur.

Energy Sustainability in 20 years?

Would it be possible to get 100% of our energy needs from renewable resources such as wind, water, and the sun in just 20 years? In theory, yes, but for practical reasons it's not likely to happen that soon. With current technologies it would require almost 4 million wind turbines, nearly 90,000 concentrated solar and photovoltaic power plants, and rooftop photovoltaic systems on nearly every rooftop – 1.7 billion, to be exact. Other challenges include a projected critical shortage of certain materials that would be needed, including rare earth metals (found primarily in China), lithium for lithium-ion batteries (half of the world’s reserves are in Bolivia and Chile) and platinum for fuel cells. In addition, we’d have to shift to shift to electric vehicles for transportation.

Fortunately, the technologies for harnessing energy from renewable resources continue to improve each year. It may take some time and effort, but what choice do we have? At current rates of consumption, known reserves of the non-renewable energy resources (coal, oil, and gas) will run out in less than a century.

Reference: Jacobson, Mark Z. and Mark A. Delucchi. A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030. Scientific American pp. 58-65, Nov. 2009.

Water versus Ethanol

In 2007 the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which calls for a five-fold increase in fuel-grade ethanol production by 2022. Most of the ethanol would come from corn produced in the Corn Belt states of the Midwest. It sounds good for the economy of those states, but there’s a catch; growing the corn and producing the ethanol would require nearly 100 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol, by some estimates. Eventually we might have to choose between water and ethanol, or between ethanol and higher food prices.

There would be winners and losers in an ethanol-based biofuels economy, because water generally must be used locally, whereas ethanol is more easily transported. Agricultural communities with plenty of irrigation water and the ability to grow corn would benefit from an ethanol-based biofuel economy. Agricultural communities with marginal water supplies would be forced to choose how best to use their dwindling water supplies – for agriculture or for people? City dwellers generally would be in favor of ethanol production for fuel by others; they don’t use much water for agriculture anyway and so have nothing to give up. However, they are likely to react negatively to a run-up in food prices.

What do you think about producing ethanol from corn?

Fight Over Biotech Beets

Back in 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted an environmental assessment of sugar beets that had been genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup. They concluded that the new beets would have “no significant impact” on the environment, and therefore a full environmental impact statement would not be required. With that ruling, the beets were approved for widespread planting.

The new beets have been popular with farmers, and plantings have soared. But watchdog groups like the Center for Food Safety are not convinced that the Department of Agriculture should have approved the new beets so quickly. They have challenged the Department of Agriculture in court, and recently they won the first round; a Federal District Court judge in San Francisco has ruled that the Agriculture Department should have done an environmental impact statement before approving the beets for widespread planting. The judge in the case will decide on the correct course of action next month. But the plaintiffs have already said they would ask for a total ban on the biotech beets, according to an article in the New York Times this week.

Most consumers don’t seem to care; sugar is sugar.

Dwindling Arctic Sea Ice

The summer of 2009 marked an historic first; the first time that ships traveled from Asia to Europe via the Arctic Ocean. A short route from Europe to Asia has been the dream of sailors since Columbus set sail for Southeast Asia from Europe over 500 years ago. Two ships completed the first trip via the Arctic route in September of 2009, according to a news article on the Web site of the German shipping company, Beluga Shipping GmbH.

In 2009 there was only a short window of opportunity before sea ice closed the route again for the year. But in 30 years the trans-Arctic shipping season could last for three months or more. The new Arctic route cuts nearly 40% off the distance traveled via the usual more southerly routes through either the Suez canal or the Panama canal.

Global warming, dwindling sea ice; good for shipping, bad for polar bears.

Measuring Groundwater Depletion

Scientists are using satellite data to measure changes in the amount of water in underground aquifers. How do they do it? Satellite speed is affected by the pull of gravity, which is partly determined by how much water is underground near Earth's surface. As the first of two satellites approaches a region of the Earth with a large underground aquifer, the pull of gravity increases and the satellite speeds up briefly, increasing the distance between it and a trailing satellite. As the second satellite passes over it too speeds up briefly, closing the gap again. By measuring the changes in distance between the two satellites as they pass over the aquifer and then comparing those distances from year to year, scientists can determine changes in the pull of gravity over time and then estimate how much water has been gained or lost.

Using this technology, scientists have discovered that in just six years, one of the largest aquifers in India has lost a volume of water equal to a lake 30 feet deep and nearly 5,000 square miles in surface area. Most of the groundwater consumed in the region is used for agriculture. Nobody knows how large the aquifer really is or how long it would take to deplete it, but losses of this size just are not sustainable in the long run.

We can expect more of this kind of useful information as the satellite technique becomes more sophisticated. But will we choose to change our water use practices as a result of what we learn?

Bioswale

On Friday I thought I'd post something about the bioswales at Manzanita village that I briefly mentioned in class. However I couldn't actually find any particularly good links online.

Today I open 93106, the weekly faculty and staff newspaper to find an article about the restoration project and the bioswales - Restoration Project Provides Model for Future Environmental Efforts.

The principal challenge of the restoration was creating an ecologically functional habitat in such close proximity to an urban environment. If untreated, fertilizers from the courtyard lawns and seagull guano from the residence hall roofs are washed into the ocean and nearby lagoon during rainstorms. This can cause algal blooms that are unsightly and can smother the fish.

CCBER used the excess nutrients in the water to its advantage by creating bioswales — vegetated channels that use plants to purify water runoff before it flows into the nearby lagoon. More than 1,300 feet of bioswales treat some 75 percent of Manzanita’s storm water runoff.

Food Shortages and World Stability

Will the world ever simply run out of food? A recent article in Scientific American suggests that it won’t be that simple. The article’s author postulates that local or regional food shortages will be followed by starvation, which in turn could result in the collapse of governments and a rise in terrorism in poor countries and refugee problems in neighboring countries. Countries most likely to become the first failed states include Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Chad, according to several international peace groups. Destabilization of governments could eventually spread worldwide, if food prices rose beyond the means of less wealthy nations.

Could such a scenario be prevented? The article goes on to say that in the long run, maintaining the world’s food supply will require drastic action, including solving the global warming problem, conserving fresh water, and stopping the current rate of topsoil losses. Otherwise, we may all be fighting each other for the last scraps of food sooner (perhaps in just hundreds or thousands of years) than we think. It’s something to think about.

Reference: “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?” Scientific American pp. 50-57, May, 2009.

Earth's Dwindling Arctic Sea Ice

A news article in Science last week (Science Mar. 27, p. 1655) suggests that polar ice may disappear entirely from the Arctic Ocean during the summer in less than 30 years. According to the article, scientists narrowed 23 different climate models down to the six that best fit the data for the ups and downs of sea ice from winter to summer in the past. They then used the models to predict when the summer ice would disappear completely from the Arctic Ocean. The best estimate is somewhere around 2037.

You may live to see polar bears become nearly extinct in the wild. On the bright side (if there is one), marine shipping could occur between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Arctic Ocean during the summer months.

From Gene Flow to Genetic Pollution

Maize field grown in one of the 15 communities known to be contaminated by genetic pollution spread over 3 states of Mexico. From Greenpeace.org

The seemingly innocent concept of gene flow, the movement of alleles from one population to another, has become a bit of a hot topic in environmental circles since the author Jeremy Rifkin used the term 'Genetic Pollution' in 1998 to describe undesirable gene flow into wild populations. Although this often refers to the flow from genetically modified organisms to wild populations, conservation biologists have also used it to describe the undesirable flow of genes from any captive population to wild populations (eg from salmon in fish farms to local salmon populations).

Greenpeace, for example, have a page specifically about genetic pollution. Yet some people question the use of this term

"If you take a term used quite frequently these days, the term “genetic pollution,” otherwise referred to as genetic contamination, it is a propaganda term, not a technical or scientific term. Pollution and contamination are both value judgments. By using the word “genetic” it gives the public the impression that they are talking about something scientific or technical--as if there were such a thing as genes that amount to pollution.

They use it in terms of GM and in their anti-salmon farming and anti-aquaculture campaigns. If, for example, a fish escapes from a farm and interbreeds with a wild fish of the same species, they call that genetic pollution. They don’t realize that what they are saying in terms of science would be the same thing as saying that if a white person married a Chinese person, that would be genetic pollution."

What's Wrong with the Environmental Movement: an interview with Patrick Moore Competitive Enterprise Institute staff, Environment News 2004 published by The Heartland Institute.

It's an interesting discussion that makes you think about the way that words are used and abused.

Bren events next week

I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving. Don't forget tomorrow is Buy Nothing Day:

Now in its 17th year, Buy Nothing Day is celebrated every November by environmentalists, social activists and concerned citizens in over 65 countries around the world. Over the years, Buy Nothing Day (followed by Buy Nothing Christmas) has exploded into a global movement, inspiring the world’s citizens to live more simply and buy a whole lot less.

On a slightly related note, the Bren school of Environmental Science and Management has two environmentally themed seminars next week:

Tuesday, Dec. 2, 200812:30 - 1:30 p.m. in Bren Hall 1414
Professor Ramprasad Sengupta
Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University , New Delhi , India
High Economic Growth, Equity, and Sustainable Energy Development of India.

Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. in Bren Hall 1424
Miriam Haran, PhD
Former Director General, Israeli Ministry of the Environment Head, MBA Environmental Management Program Ono Academic College Kiryat Ono, Israel
Financial Meltdown Does not Slow Global Warming: The Environment in Israel

Dumb eco-questions you were afraid to ask

Not directly CCS Biology related but since sustainability is the theme du jour I thought I'd post this here in the hope that somebody might learn something. At UC Berkeley I worked with a lot of students on recycling projects as they investigated an interesting variety of topics from the economics of single stream versus mutliple stream recycling to the contribution of the homeless to the recycling industry. The message I came away with is that recycling is a complicated, constantly changing and sometimes counter intuitive industry.

For example single stream recycling (where all recycling is collected in one bin) is becoming increasingly popular because collection costs are lowest and new technology allows some quite efficient sorting of materials at the depot. However recycling agencies discovered that the less restrictive you make the instructions - the more you collect. ie if you say 'All plastics' you collect a lot more (of ALL kinds of plastics) than if you say only 'Plastics #1 and #2' and if you say something like 'Only #1PETE and #2HDPE blow molded plastic jugs and bottles' you collect least of all because people get confused and end up chucking a lot more in the garbage. But the truth is that in many areas there is ONLY a market for the aforementioned #1 and blow molded#2. So they collect everything but then end up chucking away everything else so that they can get more of #1 and #2. Confused? Try persuading your friends that in most cases they are better off throwing away plastics (at least of #3 and greater), even if their recycling company collects them, because putting them in the recycling devalues the value of the recycling.

This does differ a bit from place to place and depends on your local collection agency and what the local market is for recycling products. I was reminded of this because New Scientist had an article this week on 'Dumb eco-questions you were afraid to ask' that covers a few of these recycling issues. Including the popular, and much debated pizza box question. I'm not sure why they call them dumb though, most of these are pretty good questions.

Coincidentally Popular Mechanics had an article on 'Recycling Myths: Popular Mechanics Debunks 5 Half Truths about Recycling' this month which contains some useful ecomomic information about the recycling industry.