“For the world’s more full of weeping than you can understand”

Humans can walk at an average speed of 5kph. Apparently, we have been walking this way for 1.5 million years. In the Developed World we walk less than our ancestors, average annual walks per capita in the UK declined from 292 to 245 in the ten years to 2005 but total per capita travel distance increased five fold in 50 years. Europeans walk about 380kms per annum while Americans walk about 140kms. A woman seeking and carrying water and food in Africa will walk about 2,200kms per year. She will carry about 20kg of water on her head for about 1,200kms per year. Women, men and children are beasts of burden who carry up to 35kg “human head haulage” (wood, crops and grains, and family food) over distances reaching 12kms per day.

Through semantic progression, the English word “walk” derives from an old Saxon word “wealcan” meaning to roll. As it happens, rolling is a highly efficient means of transporting mass (weight). The wheel may be the most important human invention. The Mesopotamians are credited with inventing, or more likely adapting, it for transport (apparently somebody by design or accident turned a potter’s wheel on edge and had a “eureka” moment). In addition to their ubiquitous use in transport machines, wheels are essential to almost all industry, gear and leverage systems, domestic machines, computer technology and all kinetic alternative energy technologies.

Moving about the Planet

Our ability to travel and to access transport vehicles strongly reflects our economic status and defines much of our life quality. But vehicles and transport infrastructure are concentrated in the Developed World. The US has 828 vehicle per 1,000 residents and has a total of 250 million vehicles. This can be contrasted with Africa where 20 vehicles serve 1,000 people. The EU has over 5,000,000kms of paved roads. Excluding South Africa, less than 200,000kms of Africa’s roads are paved. About 70% of Africa’s rural population lives at least 2kms from an all-season road. In consequence, this blog is about a project to produce a wheeled vehicle to transport people, water, food, aid, education, e.t.c. along those initial off road kilometres “The First Mile”.

“In Sao Paulo, … the average daily travel time for the poorest quintile is four hours and 25 minutes, compared to three hours and 50 minutes for the middle quintile. Workers are returning to their homes quite exhausted from the arduous travel alone. In Harare, Zimbabwe, the poor spend on average 70 minutes per day traveling, while for the wealthy the average commute time is only 55 minutes. It is also fairly typical for the poor to spend between 25 percent and 35 percent of their disposable income on transport. These averages mask the fact that many of the urban poor are elderly, children, women taking care of children, disabled, or otherwise do not work regularly, and therefore spend no time on long-distance commuting, so the average tends to under-represent the size of the travel burden on the working poor.” Urban Transportation and the Millenium Development Goals, Walter Hook PhD.

“the “mobility gap” between developing and industrialized regions remains substantial. In 2000, residents in North America, the Pacific OECD (Japan, Australia, and New Zealand), and Western Europe traveled 17,000 PKT [Passenger Kilometres Travelled] per capita on average, five times as much as people in the developing world. These differences are even larger on a world-regional scale. Residents of North America, the region with the highest level of mobility, traveled 25,600 km per year, while people in sub-Saharan Africa (not including South Africa) traveled just 1,700 km.” Long-Term Trends in Global Passenger Mobility, Andreas Schäfer.

“Because the poor are unlikely to own the motorized vehicles for which most urban roads are designed, they are underrepresented among the beneficiaries of road investments. At the same time, they are over-represented among the victims of the adverse impacts that these road investments frequently cause.” Walter Hook, PhD.

“In 1998, developing countries accounted for more than 85% of all deaths due to road traffic crashes globally and for 96% of all children killed. Moreover, about 90% of the disability adjusted life years lost worldwide due to road traffic injuries occur in developing countries.” The neglected epidemic: road traffic injuries in developing countries, Vinand M Nantulya & Michael R Reich.

“Roads are not generally designed for safe travel by non-motorized means, but rather to increase vehicle speeds. Around 1.2 million people die each year in road traffic accidents, and another 50 million are seriously injured. Once injured, a low-income person is likely to be disabled, and trapped in poverty. According to the World Health Organization, in developing countries road accidents tend to be ranked second to sixth among the leading causes of death for people between the ages of 15-60. The majority of the victims of traffic accidents tend to be low- and moderate-income pedestrians.” Walter Hook PhD.

When humans can afford to pay for their transport, donkeys and bicycles are initially acquired. There are about 40 million donkeys on the planet of whom 38 million live and work in Developing and Under Developed regions. They live, work and die bearing the excesses of fortune and misfortune meted out to and by their owners and employers. Horses, oxen, elephants, camels, dogs and other animals are also harnessed to carry loads, pull ploughs and turn mill wheels. Were they the panacea to raise whole societies from subservience, they would have achieved that by now. In fact, as societies advance, their donkey and working animal populations decline, an indicator that, like human beasts of burden, donkeys and other animals merely maintain a status quo and do not advance society.

There are about 1 billion bicycles operational on the planet. They are a unique, hybrid vehicle in that they are a transport machine powered by humans, for a speed and energy expended gain over walking and hauling on foot. In Developing Countries studies have suggested that bicycle use can advance income by up to 35%. Bicycles are cheap but have limited carrying capacity and require healthy cyclists, adequate road surface and a bicycle aware driving public. “Road traffic injuries are responsible for 1.2 million deaths annually; low- and middle-income countries bear 90% of the death and injury toll. Degradation of the built urban and rural environment, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, has been cited as a key risk factor” WHO

About 200 million motorbikes are in use worldwide. Some 120 million are used in Developing and Under Developed countries, reflecting both population density and the poor purchasing power of those who need vehicles. But motorbikes bring risks, especially in the Underdeveloped World. “A total of 1032 road traffic injuries were reported during the study period. Motorcycle traffic injuries accounted for 37.2% of all traffic injuries.” Motorcycle injuries as an emerging public health problem in Mwanza City, north-western Tanzania, Phillipo L. Chalya, et al.

Regular access to internal combustion engined vehicles can dramatically increase quality of life throughout Under Developed regions. Rough undulating track roads, heat and dust, rain and mud, irregular servicing and a dearth of replacement parts degrade the abilities of the toughest vehicles. However, even where suitable vehicles are available, several factors affect their usefulness. A regular fuel and lubricant supply is essential, vehicle replacement parts and skilled vehicle mechanics must be available. As refined oil products and vehicle parts are generally imported, a well oiled commercial and infrastructural system is imperative. Reputable foreign exchange banking, proper purchasing and bidding skills, a complex system of storage and transport facilities, employing skilled professional personnel, must be in place. Unfortunately, in many regions the importation and procurement of fuels and lubricants is concentrated within the ambit of an elite with little or no incentivisation to meet market needs or keep costs within bounds. Refineries are often old, have limited capacities and are not serviced or maintained regularly. Inadequate storage infrastructures limit distribution flows making fuel supplies almost impossible to secure in rural areas. Vehicle parts may not be available or may take weeks to be delivered and when delivered the necessary knowhow to fit them may not be available, parking a vehicle and  denying its users valuable, sometimes urgent, service.

The most fundamental need

Every day a human requires a minimum of about 10 litres of water to drink, wash and cook with. Every day about 850 million Europeans use an average of 200 litres of water, while every day in Africa and Asia 885 million people do not have access to a minimum 10 litres of clean water. Every day worldwide 4,000 children die from thirst or the consumption of contaminated water. Every day women and children worldwide spend a combined 200 million hours transporting water.

“African women may walk over six kilometres per day in search of water, spending as much as eight hours collecting water. In most countries, girls often are given the task of collecting water, carrying 15 to 20 litres of water from the water point home. Access to water and sanitation is therefore related to the time that girls need to attend school, and can be the reason why they are kept out of school. In many developing countries, furthermore, girls are often not permitted to attend schools that do not have latrines out of concern for their privacy and modesty. Therefore, access to fresh water and sanitation does not only improve the health of a family, but it also provides an opportunity for girls to go to school, and for women to use their time more productively than in fetching water.” UN Commission on Social Development.

The Transport Counter-Revolution

The dawn of the 21^st Century brought with it a rebirth of a 19^th Century technology and an urgency to respond to the consumptive excesses of the 20^th Century. If alternative energy technologies achieve anything of socio-strategic value it will be the distribution (the scattering) of energy resources to the four corners of the planet. And, electric vehicles can make access to meaningful transport ubiquitous. The 21^st Century can witness the energisation of the energy-less, the “democratisation of energy”. Subsistence will give way to productivity, knowledge, communication, commerce, education, better health, equalised opportunity, leisure time.

“The new era will bring with it a reorganization of power relationships across every level of society. While the fossil fuel-based First and Second Industrial Revolutions scaled vertically and favored centralized, top-down organizational structures operating in markets, the Third Industrial Revolution is organized nodally, scales laterally, and favors distributed and collaborative business practices that work most effectively in networks. The “democratization of energy” has profound implications for how we orchestrate the entirety of human life in the coming century. We are entering the era of “Distributed Capitalism”". The Third Industrial Revolution, Jeremy Rifkin.

Conversely and incongruously, vehicles powered by electricity which are having a difficult time gaining traction in the Developed World can be a natural beast of burden when “First Mile” transport is required in the Under Developed World. Electric vehicles powered by electricity which has been harvested from the sun, the wind, biomass, a river, e.t.c. can transport, haul, carry, move and roll the crucial 6 to 10 kilometres between village and roadside, village and river, village and farmland, village and medical clinic, village and school. Water gets to village, goods get to market, people get to work, children get to school, the sick get to hospital.

In remote regions, the advantages of electric vehicles far outweigh their disadvantages. In contrast to refined oil and biofuels which have to be transported in, electric vehicles can be fuelled in situ. The single dominant advantage of an electric vehicle is the universal potential to generate electricity as transport fuel. Electric motors can outperform all combustion engine technologies in terms of efficiency, torque and power. Electric vehicles are simpler to drive and maintain than internal combustion engined vehicles. An electric vehicle can have fewer parts and require less servicing than an internal combustion engined vehicle. In remote regions, a broken gearbox or transmission, a boiling radiator or contaminated diesel can park a vehicle for months. An electric vehicle’s only critical components are motors and batteries. Motors can operate for 500,000 kilometres between servicing. Poor battery density and short battery life are the only disadvantages of an electric vehicle. But, these disadvantages are being steadily diminished by advances in energy storage technology and the evolution of new forms of electrical transmission.

The First Mile

Over 70% of people in South Asia and 66% of people in Africa dwell in rural areas.

“By far the majority of transport and travel activity in sub-Saharan African countries occurs in rural areas. The greater part of transport in rural areas — in terms of both distances and amounts carried — is usually off-road. Almost all this transport, in turn, is non-motorized — in fact, nonwheeled — and dominated by head-carrying by women and children of loads of up to 30 kg.”  Intermediate Means of Transport In Sub-Saharan Africa, John D. N. Riverson and Steve Carapetis, The World Bank.

In Burkina Faso about 60 % of the villages are more than 3 kilometres away from a main road. Villagers must haul their produce to local markets with the least mobile arriving last, losing competitiveness to earlier sellers with product degraded by the long and arduous journey. (Office of the United States Trade Representative).

The Load

“Based on carrying, each day, two head loads of approximately 30 kg over an average distance of 5 km, it would require 15 person-days to move cocoa (900 kg/ha), and 167 person days to move cassava and palm fruits (10,000 kg/ha) from a 1-hectare (1-ha) field to a nearby village or the roadside” Riverson & Carapetis.

Water is carried, on average, a distance of 6kms and crops are carried (“head delivery”) on average 4kms to main road collection points. Additionally, as distance from home increases, it becomes increasingly impractical to cultivate land. Walking to work in fields which are 4kms from home diverts precious energy and reduces work time by 25%.

Why an Electric Transporter?

The purpose of the Eridanos Project is to replace the “first mile” (i.e. up to 10kms) human transport of water, crops, food, school children and labour with energy efficient and time saving transport solutions.

The Eridanos Transporter can replace the daily haulage work of 15 women and cut the time involved from over 3 hours to less than 30 minutes. It can do the work of 10 head delivery hauliers moving 900Kg cocoa from field to roadside and reduce total trips from 30 to 3. It can make the cultivation of land up to 10km from home feasible.

A Vehicle for the Under Developed World

With the exception of South Africa, African, South Asian and South East Asian vehicle markets (though they are home to 3 billion people) are of little consequence to the major vehicle manufacturers who target the bulk of vehicle design and production at buyers who have available credit and roads to drive upon. When vehicles are built to “off road” specification they are directed at a leisure market and are among the most expensive produced. The challenge therefore is to build a practical utility vehicle at a cost that will ensure it is deployed where needed regardless of purchasing power.

The Eridanos Transporter must be tough enough to survive the considerable stresses of African and Asian terrain and climate. It must be simple enough to be serviced and repaired at the roadside or in the fields. It must avoid any components or appendages that are unnecessary, require excessive maintenance, are vulnerable to the elements, or add excessive costs to the vehicle’s delivery price. The Eridanos must be “fit for purpose”.

The Eridanos Transporter is designed to move African and Asian villages and communities from subsistence agriculture and all family hard labour to market participation and some family leisure time. Alleviating simple but debilitating manual work will allow women to become more active in the economy of the village and to spend more time being educated and in educating their children. Children will have greater opportunity to attend school and to be children. Men, women and children will move from hand to mouth survival to a better quality of life.

Energy Required

Given the purpose of the project, “First Mile” criteria are not seriously hindered by battery range or recharge times.

Assume that the Eridanos Transporter is driven hard over unforgiving terrain and carries a heavy payload for 60% of its working day. A peak electricity consumption of 25kWh per 100km (or 0.25kWh per km) can be assumed. Some water ferrying runs, a couple of trips to deliver produce and a school run, involving a combined distance of 50km, will consume 13kWh. A round trip of 12km (50% of journey laden) will at most consume about 3kW/h electricity. Generating this electricity will not tax alternative energy generating technologies (e.g. Solar PV, CSP, Biogas or wind) unduly. The weight of batteries to store this much electricity will range from 100kgs with standard Lead Acid to less than 20kg for today’s most advanced battery technologies. The batteries can be swapped between trips. Batteries on standby can be charged for the next run. Energy storage and distribution technologies are advancing rapidly with the promise of higher densities, greater distances and lower costs. By the time the first Eridanos is “road ready” in 2013, we anticipate some further energy storage and energy transmission advances and lower costs.

The Future

The Eridanos project (and eco-village projects generally) will need international support and some good fortune. It does, however, present an excellent opportunity for inventors, academics, universities, electric vehicle component developers, schools, NGOs, e.t.c. to test and assess the performance, durability, practicality and efficiency of a range of alternative energy technologies over time in “the waters and the wild”.

Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

1. Introduction

Water is life. With sunlight and water in equilibrium human civilisation manages to thrive on Earth. Today we are experiencing a change of climate and a simultaneous depletion of our water and consequently our food resources. The Planet’s climate has changed before. There have been ice ages, tropical periods and medieval freezes. But, until now, human activity was not responsible, the Planet recovered its equilibrium. Until now the Planet did not support 7 billion people.

The Planet is moving out of equilibrium. Sea levels are rising incrementally, drowning low lying areas, beginning with Pacific coral islands. Well drenched areas (e.g Western Europe, Bangladesh) are experiencing increased rainfall. Dry regions (e.g. Australia, India, East Africa and China) are getting drier. “The the percentage of Earth’s land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s” National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). The World’s major rivers, the Yangtze, the Ganges and the Salween in Asia; the Danube in Europe and Rio Grande in North America are drying up (WWF report). Perversely, when rains do visit, the parched land is unable to recover. The rain water runs away on the hardened surface carrying the vestiges of the naked soil’s nutrition with it.

Dams, dikes, and the expanding extraction of water for human use (industry and agriculture) are major causes of localised drought. Active extraction of water, as in the Indus river, High Plains Aquifer and the Murray Darling basin takes its toll. Bangladesh, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, India, Thailand and Vietnam all accuse China of taking water from their farms and villages to fill its hydroelectric dams. Water conflicts are becoming more prevalent. See http://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/. The Middle East is a water flashpoint simply because 5% of the World’s population must share 1% of the World’s potable water.

In the Kapit region of Borneo, Malaysia, villages are deprived of water because it has been diverted to the Bakun hydro-electricity dam (whose lake sits atop 7002km of sunken tropical forest) to supply a questionable electricity need on the Malaysian Peninsula. This causes drought and also prevents transport along the now drying riverbeds. Schools will remain closed as they have no water. A whole society is under threat because of an energy need hundreds of kilometres away.

Drought never travels alone. Hunger, disease, malnutrition, reduced productivity and conflict accompany it. Rain failures have again impacted the lives of 12 million people in the Horn of Africa. Famine is spreading as crops fail. People and animals die in their thousands for want of water and food. Where water is scarce, it is also usually of poor quality. Diarrhoeal diseases morbidly infect over 1 billion people and kill over 3.3 million people each year. See http://www.worldwater.org/data19981999/table22.htm. More than 80% of Ethiopians live in rural regions, where 24% of the population can access drinking water. Women in water deprived areas, on average, walk 6km and carry approximately 20 litres (20kg) of water to their families per day. At least “40 billion work hours are lost each year in Africa specifically to the long-distance gathering of drinking water,” WHO.

2. Today’s Approach

The almost universal response to the depletion of life supporting water is conventional and wrong. Societies consume the World’s fresh water reserves to supply increasing agricultural, industrial and transport energy needs, in addition to sustaining the Planet’s growing population. The fallacy is obvious but ignored. About 14% of the World’s total corn production is used to make ethanol. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute calculates that one person could be fed for an entire year on the amount of grain used to fill a 25-gallon (95 Litres) SUV gas tank with ethanol. More crucially, that ethanol tank consumed 456,000 litres of water while it grew as corn. Ethanol production is concentrated in regions with little water to spare, principally the USA, Europe and China. Finally, trust in biofuel alternatives appears to have been misplaced. The net result after a decade of expanding biofuel production is minimal or no carbon gain, food cost increases, aquifer depletion, river pollution, estuary dead zones, low level ozone, accelerated deforestation and people displacement. Biofuels are an expensive drive up a “cul de sac”.

And, so back to basics

3. What the World Needs Now is…..

3. a) Food

Humans consume an average of 2,700 Calories per person per day. Admittedly some societies and individuals consume more than others. Agronomists calculate that at least 0.5 hectares of arable land per person are needed for a productive agriculture which produces a varied diet of plant and animal products. The CIA World Factbook states that the World’s arable land today comprises about 1.6 billion hectares. With a planet population of 7 billion, that equates to 0.23 hectares per person. The World’s population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050. The U.N. reports that nearly 800 million people are undernourished. About 400 million women of childbearing age are iron deficient, exposing their babies to numerous birth defects. 100 million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency, a leading cause of blindness. Clearly, the World is not enough. India has enough arable land to provide each person in the country with approximately 0.2 hectares or less than half of the recommended average. In Ethiopia, each person could have 0.3 hectares of arable land if drought and conflict were overcome. The USA has about 0.85 hectares of arable land per person, more than it needs for food alone but not enough to support a bio-fuel industry in addition. The US, the World’s leading corn exporter (62% of world exports of corn in 2007) has already begun to cut back its corn exports, the corn is sold instead to US ethanol producers. By 2009, thanks to Bush era subsidies (US$6 billion annually), 25% or 104 million tonnes, of US corn was diverted to ethanol production. That year the number of people officially starving exceed 1 billion for the first time. The Earth Policy Institute calculates that the US corn diverted to ethanol annually could feed “feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels”.

3. b) Water

We need more water than we think. All land based animals, including humans, plants and crops must have access to fresh or potable water. A loss of more than 2.5% of body weight due to dehydration corresponds to a 25% loss of functioning efficiency. Dehydration causes blood to become thicker and have less volume. The heart must work harder to pump blood. In a critical situation, losing 25% of physical and mental abilities can be fatal.

Hydrologists consider 2,650 litres of water per day (including water for adequate food production) to be the minimal per person requirement for human needs. Most crops require at least 1,000 litres of water per kilogram of product. Rice requires about 2,000 litres per kilogram. A kilogram of wheat consumes 1,350 litres of water. It takes from 15,000 to 70,000 litres of water, to produce one kilogram of beef. An average Australian barbecue represents several hundred thousand litres of consumed water, not including the swimming pool and the beer. In short, we need a lot of fresh potable water.

Climate change is universal. Australian farmers have been forced to abandon their farms. Droughts in the USA and Australia have impacted aquifer reserves which in turn intensify drought impact. Meanwhile farmers drill ever deeper to source water for corn and soya bean production. Artesian wells either dry up or become saline. But, this pales beside the misery of drought in developing and under developed regions. Today 1.1 billion people (15% of World population) have no access to safe drinking water. About 2.6 billion people (37% of World total) lack access to basic sanitation. Almost all of Africa suffers from inadequate water quantity and quality. From Africa to China droughts cause starvation, force migration, cause conflict, damage health, slow societal progress and punish the most vulnerable everywhere. Ultimately, where climate change is most keenly felt, i.e. Kenya, Sudan, Palestine, India and Pakistan among others, the people and their governments lack the resources, political will and skills to implement resolutions. This predicament will intensify as the anticipated World population iapproaches 9 billion by 2050. Most of this increase will be located predominately in water deprived regions.

The drive to biofuels exacerbates World water problems. About 4,800 litres of water is consumed to produce one litre of ethanol. Canola (genetically modified rape seed) consumes 1,700 litres of water to yield one litre of biodiesel. In addition, 0.4 hectares are required to grow enough corn or wheat to produce 1MT ethanol while one hectare is required to grow 1MT bio-diesel. Electric vehicles, if they gain viable market share, in addition to reducing emissions, can help prevent ongoing environmental damage by bio-fuel producers.

4. An Alternative and Contrarian Approach

Before any type of food can be produced, water must be available. It is even possible to grow food without earth but not without water. Societies have abused and destroyed their water resources. While very little water is permanently removed from circulation (i.e. it is not consumed in the same manner as oil, coal or gas), human activity does cause the flux of water from a potable state to a non potable state, effectively depleting the volume of potable water. Pumping well water to irrigate grain and crops depletes aquifers, the plant absorbed water is used to grow the plant, which is then ingested, surplus water simply flows to the sea. Depleted aquifers are more vulnerable to ingress of saline water and polluted water. Using nitrogens to fertilise crops and grains, pollutes ground water and rivers, killing marine life and altering eco-systems. See http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/

The single resource that humans have minimally exploited is seawater. While human activity has destroyed ocean ecosystems, made the Irish Sea radioactive and depleted ocean life, the water itself, in volume terms exceeds human capacity to destroy. If the planet is to support up to 9 billion people, wide-scale desalination and purification of seawater (and other non potable water) must commence soon.

4. a) The Seven Seas

While the seas have been plundered for food and energy and used as a dumping ground for waste, their most precious resource remains largely un-exploited by humans. The seas cover 70% of the Earth’s surface and hold over 97.5% of its water. Even where drought is is at its worst, the ocean is at most hours away by motorised transport. Only 2.5% of the planet’s water is fresh water, about 70% of which is frozen in the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland. Most of the remainder exists in soil moisture, or in deep underground aquifers not accessible to humans. Less than 1% of the World’s fresh water (0.007% of all water on the planet) is accessible to humans, land animals and cultivated crops.

Global desalination processes today provide less than 0.1% of all drinking water for humans, animals and flora. Even a substantial desalination programme would have little or no impact on saltwater reserves. Castro and Huber (in their book Marine Biology) state that salt comprises only 3.5% of seawater. Salt is a general term for a number of useful chemicals, including Chloride (55%) and Sodium (31%). Other interesting elements found in seawater include Sulfate (7.7%), Magnesium (3.7%) Calcium and Potassium each comprising just over one percent of salts.

Having repeatedly landed people on the Moon, put exploratory craft on Mars and circled Saturn, the Earth’s people have the capacity and are belatedly finding the motivation, to address urgent Earth bound requirement for potable water. Desalination technologies are advancing. Capital costs remain stubbornly high and the energy required to operate a desalination plant is prohibitive in most of the regions where water is in short supply.

And, what use is desalinated water if it cannot reach or be afforded by the people of Kenya, Somalia or Ethiopia? Yes desalination and water transport will cost money and involve political risks. But the costs have not been evaluated and quantified against the urgent human need. The transport of oil and gas over thousands of kilometres on land and undersea by pipeline and ship is accepted as a normal and necessary. Research shows that the costs of desalination and transport can be achieved at lower cost and less environmental impact than any oil or gas recovery and transport. More importantly, the capital costs of desalination and water transport can be dramatically reduced by employing new technologies and processes which work with the natural environment, not against it.

4. b) Technologies

Commercialised desalination is a complex and expensive process. The two dominant technologies are summarised as follows:-

4. b) (i) Thermal Distillation

Variations include Multi-Stage Flash Distillation (MSF), Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) or Vapour Compression Distillation (VCD). Distillation is achieved by phase separation. Water is heated to produce water vapour. The vapour evaporates, leaving salt and unwanted materials behind and is then condensed to freshwater. Generally the water is tanked in a partial vacuum to make the water boil at temperatures below normal boiling point. This effectively saves energy. Energy is also saved by interchanging the heat of condensation and heat of vaporisation within the system. A lot of energy (electricity) is used to heat the feed-water to make it vaporise.

Distillation is a very reliable process. There are relatively few moving parts. The purity of the water is consistent with no decrease in quality over time. Capital costs are very high.

4. b) (ii) Membrane Desalination

Membrane Desalination includes Electrodialyis (ED), Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR), and Reverse Osmosis (RO). In the standard Reverse Osmosis (RO) process, pressurised saline water is forced through a permeable membrane which separates pure water from salts, metals and other materials. Passage of water through the membrane is helped by the creation of a pressure differential between the feed-in side and the out-flow side of the system. The remaining feed-water is diverted from the pressurised side of the system as brine and disposed of. No heating or phase change takes place. Substantial energy is used to pressurise the feed-water. For brackish water desalination the operating pressures range from 250 to 400 psi, and for seawater desalination from 800 to 1,000 psi. Today 60% of desalination plants use RO technology. RO systems are cheaper to build than distillation systems and are more versatile but maintenance is higher and plant life can be short.

4. c) Issues and Problems with Traditional Desalination Technologies

Desalination is not a panacea.

4. c) (i) Capital and Maintenance Costs

While local geographic and climate conditions affect capital costs, they are generally high. Maintenance costs include electricity (64% of maintenance costs), chemicals, membrane replacement and labour. Repairing the corrosive impact of seawater and unclogging filters and membranes is a permanent requirement. Membranes in particular are subject to contamination and easily damaged. Site-specific factors, e.g. plant capacity, energy sources and the salt and other material content of the feed-water impact on costs.

4. c) (ii) Energy Costs

Both traditional desalination processes are energy intensive, requiring upwards of 4.5kW per cubic metre of water produced. Plants generally are land based and occupy substantial real estate. Desalination plants have short lives and equalisation costs are unattractive. While many considerations have an impact, seawater desalination can cost upwards from €1.50 per 1,000 litres. This may seem moderate but fresh or potable water is not simply required for humans to drink. It must also feed animals and crops, provide sanitary washing and laundering, clean industrial equipment, e.t.c.

4. c) (iii) Brine Disposal

The residue of all desalination processes is brine, a dense salty liquid. Brine volumes can exceed the freshwater volumes produced. Brine is hostile to most life forms including humans. It is corrosive and will destroy natural habitats. Normally, brine must be taken out into deep water and dumped, where the sea will reclaim it and dilute it to its former density of seawater. Brine disposal is a necessary part of desalination in large commercial plants where huge volumes of water are treated. Some brine is disposed of in coastal waters, often with harmful outcomes.

A strategy to build a series of small desalination plants spread along a shoreline would diminish the problem. Additionally, a parallel business to collect and process salt and other brine material would avoid accumulation of salts and materials in local waters.

4. c) (iv) Desalinated Water and Corrosiveness

Desalinated water is usually also de-mineralised. Distribution via pipes and storage tanks is restricted because the water will leach metals and other materials from pipes and other plumbing materials. Desalinated water corrodes concrete and metals in general (e.g. iron distribution pipes). Accelerated corrosion will reduce life of distribution infrastructure. Dissolved miscellaneous metal ions and particles are absorbed by the water, reducing its quality.

4.  c) (v) Desalinated Water and Health

Desalination produces water lacking calcium, magnesium and other minerals. Without minerals, water has poor taste and thirst-quenching characteristics. Magnesium, calcium and other minerals should be reintroduced to desalinated water. Magnesium, in particular is costly to reintroduce. WHO publishes guidelines which recommend adding Magnesium and Calcium to desalinated water. Magnesium in water is essential to combat Magnesium deficiency in humans.

Studies conducted on human volunteers by the WHO (1980) concluded that the consumption of low mineral water increased diuresis (by 20%). Other symptoms observed by WHO included increased water retained by body, increased serum sodium concentrations, decreased serum potassium concentration, increased sodium elimination. Other research has flagged, slower physical development, growth abnormalities and increased levels of bone fracture in children (Verd Vallespir et al.1992), pre term birth and low weight at birth (Yang Ch.Y. et al. 2002).

4. c) (vi) Boron (boric acid)

Boron in seawater is proportional to salinity and averages about 5 mg/l. While RO membranes will successfully block charged particles (e.g. borate ion) they are less effective with neutral molecules like boron (efficiency is between 75% and 90% and 95% with special purpose membranes). WHO recommends that drinking water contain less than 0.5 mg/l boron. About 5 grams of boron if ingested, will cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and blood clotting. Over 20 grams can be lethal. Boron irritates skin and eyes. Even showering in boron water can be dangerous. Boron may also be a factor causing arthritis.

Seawater with high salinity will have a correspondingly high boron content. Hot climates (e.g. the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Caribbean Sea. At high water temperatures (e.g. 30oC) boron removal is less effective. A specific boron removal process is necessary. This usually involves special filters.

5. Solutions

5. a) Solar desalination and purification

The deployment of desalination technologies is becoming increasingly urgent. Desalination must be made affordable to the poorest countries. The energy requirement to operate desalination plants must be minimal as villages and communities in the poorest countries have neither access to water nor electrical energy. The most practical solution is the employment of solar desalination technology which has finally come of age. The advantages of solar desalination are high efficiency, low or no energy consumption and low capital and maintenance cost.

In larger population centres and in areas with no potable water access, low cost solar desalination technology can be deployed. This will clean large volumes of water (both saline and contaminated, e.g. Arsenic in Bangladeshi water supply). Solar desalination (land based) will use less than 1.5kW electricity per m3 pure water whereas reverse osmosis systems require in excess of 4.5kW per m3 water. Solar desalination systems (land based) can be installed at a cost of less than €750,000 and will purify in excess of 230,000 litres of water per day. Larger ocean based solar desalination systems will use no electricity and can effectively supply a whole city’s water needs. Water production costs are about €0.11 per m3 for the land based system and about €0.06 per m3 for the sea based system

The much larger sea based systems (designed but not built) will cost up to €50 million for a city supply system producing 500 million litres potable water per day. These costs will still be substantially lower than a reverse osmosis system and will require no external electricity supply. The system can in fact be a net producer of electricity. As it is sea based (½ hectare) the sea based system will not require much expensive coastal real-estate.

5. b) Other Water Recovery Technologies

At a much smaller scale water can be recovered from the surrounding air. Even in hot arid areas, the air often contains recoverable water as moisture in humid air. In the Atacama Desert, villagers set down huge nets along hills which trap the fog that sweeps across the desert. The fog condenses and falls into troughs and then runs through pipes that lead down to the villages below.

Some researches argue that the relentless advance of the deserts could be halted and even reversed by the capture and grounding of airborne moisture. See http://wanderinggaia.com/2010/09/20/reforesting-the-desert/

Several companies have developed methods to improve on the desert nets. Some use chemicals to attract water vapour. Others use wind turbines to suck in the air, condense it and extract potable water. See http://dutchrainmaker.nl/products/air-to-water/. The costs of these technologies vary but the viability of several water recovery technologies has been established.

Other interesting, but as yet unproven, solutions have been proposed. Prof. Steven Salter (inventor of the World’s first wave energy technology called “Salter’s Ducks”) has proposed the use of wind turbines to literally spray sea water into the air when an onshore wind blows. As the water is sprayed upwards, the salt crystals fall back into the sea. The water, now vaporised is carried by winds over barren and desert lands. It encourages existing moisture to fall to earth and adds to moisture in low floating air, which is absorbed by trees and plants. The costs of testing this proposal are not prohibitive.

Research and development in seeking solutions to water shortages, outside the borders of rich countries, is minimal. Several water recovery and conservation technologies and processes deserve implementation but languish on scientists desks or in inventors’ garages.

5. c) Water Transport

Assuming that water has been recovered and purified or located in reservoirs, it must be transported to where it can be used by humans, animals and plants. Water can be transported along canals for about €0.06 per m3 per 100kM. Piped water transport will cost over €0.20 m3 per 100kM. Horizontal transfer of water is not energy intensive. Elevating water over hills and mountains is. It is understood that it will cost ten times more to lift water 100 metres than transport it horizontally 100 kilometres. Water is already transported hundreds of kilometres by pipeline in the USA, Europe, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Water transport is taken for granted in rich countries.

In poor countries, water is carried for several kilometres every day in 20 litre containers by women and children. Simple transport machines (e.g. purpose built, low cost, electric tractors) could obviate this. Even if water cannot be found locally, solar desalination plants can be deployed at coastal sites and at contaminated water sources inland. Much of Darfur lies at about 600m above sea level. The overland route to the coast is about 500km. Water can easily be piped or moved by canal (with the added advantage of building a water transport system) that distance. To reduce water transport and lifting costs, low maintenance wind turbines and CSP systems can be installed at elevation changing stations. The South African developed “Concrete Hard Road” technology can be utilised to build weather proof heavy transport resistant roads, canals, rail track and storage pools at low cost.

In emergency situations, where thousands of people and animals are dying of drought, the Road/Rail hybrid technology BladeRunner (http://www.silvertipdesign.com/) could be deployed to deliver huge payloads of emergency water and food supplies. The BladeRunner can use existing rail and road to transport large volumes of water (75 m3 per transporter) or 100 tonnes of food to points of urgent need at speeds of up to 100kph. The BladeRunner can also transport animals, people and goods along road and on varying rail gauge tracks, facilitating transport to and from all African countries. In the longer term the BladeRunner will prove to be the ideal transport vehicle for all Africa. It requires no points, sleepers or ballast. Track can be laid at a fraction of the costs associated with today’s rail systems and where there is no track, BladeRunner can drive on roads or tracks.

5. d) Water Storage

When water is recovered and stored, it has a limited shelf life. Bacteria and algae quickly predate on still water. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that up to 80% of all diseases and 33% of deaths in poor countries are caused by the consumption of contaminated water. On average, 10% of human productiveness is lost to water-related diseases. Diarrhoeal diseases are a primary cause of morbidity and mortality in infants and young children in poor countries. WHO estimates that 1.8 billion episodes of childhood diarrhoea occur annually, mostly in poor countries leading to the deaths of 3 million children and 1 million adults every year.

Disinfecting and keeping water potable is essential to reduce disease and save lives. The more common methods are:

5. d) (i) Chlorination

Chlorination has been used to disinfect water in many countries for many decades. Disinfection by chlorination can be problematic, in some circumstances. Chlorine can react with naturally occurring organic compounds found in the water supply to produce compounds known as disinfection byproducts (DBPs). Common DBPs are trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs). Because of the carcinogen potential of THMs and HAAs, health authorities in rich countries mandate regular monitoring of their concentration in municipal water systems. The World Health Organization has stated that the “Risks to health from DBPs are extremely small in comparison with inadequate disinfection.” This approach is best understood as a recommendation of the least harmful, lowest cost, known solution rather than wholesome endorsement of chlorination of drinking water.

The long term deployment of chlorine has led to the evolution of chlorine tolerant pathogens. Higher levels of chlorination are required to regain precedence.

In the 1990s the Iowa Women’s Health Study undertook an extensive project and monitored 28,237 post-menopausal women. The results, were published in 1997 by Timothy Doyle et al, the Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota. They provided conclusive evidence that women who lived in communities with higher levels of chloroform (a THM) in drinking water, were at “significantly increased risk of cancer, particularly colon cancer”.

In 2000 at Imperial College London a group of statisticians, led by Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, “reviewed relevant toxicological and epidemiological evidence on the potential role of chlorination by-products in the induction of adverse reproductive effects. Effects that have been associated with chlorination by-products include spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, reduced birth weight and survival, developmental disabilities and congenital malformations of the cardiovascular and neurological systems (e.g. neural tube defects such as spina bifida).” .. “ exposures from showers, baths, drinking water, drinks and foods caused significant absorption of chlorination by-products and these may contribute to increased risk of a diverse range of adverse reproductive effects.” The report does say that the results are inconclusive and sometimes contradictory.

5. d)  (ii) Similar to reverse osmosis desalination processes, micro membrane filtration processes can purify small volumes of drinking water. They are expensive and most require both electrical energy and maintenance.

5. d) (iii) Sand filtration is a simple process where water is allowed to percolate through layers of sand which filters out contaminants.

5 d) (iv) A recent project reliably demonstrated the purification of water by pouring it through ground banana skins. Several other processes both traditional and modern can be employed with varying degrees of effectiveness.

5. d) (v) Ozone disinfection is widely used in Europe and is effective though it can produce bromate, a suspected carcinogen.

5. d) (vi) Ultraviolet light is an effective disinfection process. Both Ozone and Ultraviolet treatments consume energy, are not long lasting and must be repeated or the water must be kept pure by adding a chemical treatment in the water.

5. d) (vii) Another way

A South African invention, Aqua Salveo (http://www.aquasalveo.com/index.html) has been proven to purify and keep water contamination free for months. Aqua Salveo purifies water without introducing chlorine or any other harmful chemicals into the water. It is tasteless. Tiny mounts can disinfect thousands of litres in an hour. Little or no energy is required to administer it. Its ingredients are the ions of silver, zinc and copper. These are generally beneficial to the human body. Its benign effect, low cost and ability to purify large volumes of water make it suited to treat village, municipal, hospital, school, farm and other water supply systems.

Crops, fruits, meats and flowers can all be sprayed with Aqua Salveo and they will stay fresh for longer without any chemical treatment. It has been certified by South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) to be effective in eliminating the most dangerous pathogens, including E.Coli, Cholera, Streptococci, Dysentery, Candida, e.t.c. It is particularly useful as a drinkable treatment to destroy ingested pathogens. It has also been demonstrated, in South America, to have the ability to kill parasites in rice grains while they are growing, substantially improving the rice yield.

Aqua Salveo has a role as a disinfectant in a desalination, water transportation and storage solution.

6. Summary

This blog has about 4,900 words. While you have been reading (assume it took 15 minutes), about 60 people died of a water deficiency or disease. 54 of them were children.

Drought and Famine can be overcome. Where there is a will there is a way.

Water is life. Is some life more valuable because of geography and climate?

Why every village, town and community should have its own biogas facility!

Biogas technology is very advanced in scientific and engineering terms in Europe. It bears little resemblence to domestic biogas for cooking in rural India and is far more advanced and efficient than the failed US biogas industry of the 1970′s. It is a gas but is not recovered by drilling as with oil and natural gas. Biogas is not the same as and is far more efficient than incenerator, steam boiler type technologies and unlike them, does not pollute. It is much more efficient (about 85% when electricity and heat are co-generated) than wind turbine technology (about 30%) and enjoys a “capacity factor” in excess of 80% which is over 3 times that of wind energy. Biogas technology should not be confused with ethanol or biodiesel technologies and while crops, grasses and trees can be specifically grown to feed a biogas plant, it can also use and nutralise slurries, sewage, municipal waste, paper, whey and general biomass, (e.g. crop waste, bagass, forest residue, algae, silage, seaweeds), e.t.c. About 5,900 biogas plants with an installed electrical capacity of 2,300 MW are operational in Europe and 3,000 new biogas plants with an electricity generating capacity of more than 1,700 MW will be completed by 2013. In Germany alone there are over 4,500 commercial biogas plants with 1,650MW capacity. Germany is the World leader in biogas technology and in electricity produced by biogas fermentation. German biogas companies directly employ over 10,000 people. It is German Government strategy to generate up to 20% of its electricity requirement from biogas by 2020. The average EU biogas plant capacity is about 500kW. Biogas is conservatively estimated to be capable of generating 530MW electricity and over 1,500MW of heat in Ireland and can create lasting jobs and enterprise on Ireland’s farms, in its villages, towns and cities.

The process of anaerobic digestion (biogas fermentation) involves the breakdown of organic waste by bacteria in an anaerobic (i.e. without air) environment, leading to biogas production. This can occur naturally, in bogs, landfills, in lakes, swamps, oceans or in the stomachs of animals. Biogas consists of methane (50% to 75%), carbon dioxide (25% to 45%), water (2% to 7%) and trace gases (sulphur, oxygen, nitrogen, ammonia and hydrogen). Uncontrolled biogas release (e.g. by the melting of tundra permafrost or the excavation of bogs to e.g. build foundations for wind turbines) will release these gases to the atmosphere and will add to Global emissions of greenhouse gases. Methane, the dominant component of biogas is considered to be 21 times more global warming than carbon dioxide. Both are released by uncontrolled anaerobic digestion.

Farm, municipal or industrial anaerobic digestion plants ferment waste material to produce biogas. Organic waste feedstock is pumped into a closed vessel or tank (digester) with biogas generating bacteria. Anaerobic conditions are maintained in the vessel and the temperature is held at a value which varies depending on the bacteria used and the stage of fermentation. Biogas is usually combusted on site to generate electricity and heat. The biogas can be upgraded to pure methane gas for use in transport, by stripping out the CO2.

The methane content of biogas is the most energetic component of the gas. A cubic metre (m3) of methane has an energy content of 9.97 kilowatt hours (kWh) or 36 Megajoules (MJ). A cubic metre of biogas with a methane content of 55% contains about 21 MJ and in an engine generator will generate 2 kWh electricity. Recent technological developments promise to increase generation output. A cubic metre of biogas has approximately the energy of 0.55 litres of heating oil. Co-products (heat and fertiliser) add value to biogas production. Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits, premium in the case of methane destruction, help to defray capital costs. But, biogas benefits go beyond financial returns.

Biogas production directly offsets the use of non-renewable resources (e.g. coal, oil, and fossil fuel-derived natural gas), with corresponding emissions reduction and energy security benefits. It consumes waste organic materials thereby cleaning the environment and reducing odours. It directly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by preventing methane release to the atmosphere. Biogas has a high “capacity factor” and a facility can operate as a reliable, standalone, diversified energy supply for towns, villages, communities and urban areas. Gas can be stored to increase electricity production at peak demand. Biogas production creates jobs and benefits the local economy. The residue slurry is a high quality, nutrient rich, inert, fertiliser.

Methane is a renewable transport fuel. In Europe some 1.3 million vehicles can run on methane fuel. It is relatively simple to adapt a vehicle to run on methane. Today methane can be carried on board vehicles as fuel in pressurised tanks. Research is ongoing to develop low cost gas separation systems and low pressure storage (e.g. nanosponge) for methane powered vehicles. It can be more profitable for a biogas plant to produce purified methane for transport vehicles, than generate electricity. However, in the Developing and Under Developed Worlds, the provision of electrical energy is a basic societal requirement.

A biogas facility can cost up to €2,500 per kW nameplate capacity, though the host economy dictates infrastructural, structural and construction costs, i.e. roads, concrete, steel, land, silos, labour, e.t.c. Taking capacity factor into account, capital costs compare favourably with wind turbines, the poster children of the alternative energy sector. A biogas plant usually must exceed 100kW in size to achieve economy of scale. It requires a constant supply of feedstock. A 500kW biogas plant will consume between 8,000MT and 15,000MT substrate per annum, depending on the energy content of substrate used. A well managed biogas facility will account for this and will vary substrates and make provision for silos. European biogas systems usually produce electricity at a cost of about €0.08 per kilowatt hour (kWh).

Methane is explosive and odourless, consequently safety precautions are essential.

Electricity production is limited by engine inefficiencies. The best biogas engines are about 40% efficient but secondary electricity can be generated by harnessing engine heat to increase overall electrical efficiency.

Bacteria can only access the sugars and starches which are relatively unprotected by the plant. Even after passing through the stomach and intestines of an animal, much of the energy in plantlife remains inaccesble. Plants are protected by lignin, a tough fibre which blocks predator access. Scientific research continues into ways and means to weaken lignin integrity and open more biomas sugars and starches to the bacteria.

Unlike wind, hydro, photovoltaic and fuel cell technologies, biogas has a range of useful co-products. In addition to electricity, an average biogas plant will produce a large volume of thermal energy which can be used in greenhouses, dwellings, public buildings, hospitals, schools, swimming pools, milking parlours, workshops, etc. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is also produced. CO2 is often piped into greenhouses to raise air CO2 content by about 10% boosting plant growth and discouraging pests and vermin, obviating the requirement for pesticides. CO2 can also be frozen and used as a sandblaster (without the sand) to strip paint from ships, large vehicles, steel bridges e.t.c. and grime from stone buildings, statues, pavements, CSP panels, e.t.c.

The residue of the fermentation process is inert fertiliser, which can be spread on farmland or dried and sold as fertiliser to market gardening enterprises. The biogas process actually destroys pathogens in farm biomass and slurry. It also destroys seeds and spores so that unwanted plants will not grow when the fertiliser is spread on land. Biogas fertiliser enriches the soil with protein, cellulose and lignin, not normally delivered by inorganic fertilisers. Humic matter and humic acids present in the residue help reduce soil erosion (by rain or wind) and increase nutrient supply and soil hygroscopicity. Humic soil content is essential to low-humus soils often found in tropical regions. Properly managed, biogas effluent reduces the risk of surface or groundwater contamination.

A biogas process can form part of a co-generation facility. Even fossil power plants can co-generate with biogas and reduce their emissions.

Biogas systems reduce the growth of landfill volumes by diverting all organic materials to biogas fermentation. The residues are then used as fertiliser not filling up landfills. Landfill gas comprises an uncontrolled combination of gases which, in addition to methane and CO2, contain toxic chemicals (benzene, toluene, chloroform, vinyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1 trichloroethane). Many are halogenated compounds (i.e. they contain chlorine, fluorine, or bromine) which when burned in the presence of hydrocarbons, can recombine into highly toxic compounds (e.g. dioxins, a carcinogen with no safe exposure level and furans) some of the most toxic chemicals identified. Tritium and mercury which cannot be destroyed by combustion, have been found in landfill outflows.

Sometimes, biogas recovery systems are installed into existing landfills. Even in a well managed landfill gas recovery system, over 50% of landfill gases will never be recovered. The International Panel on Climate Change calculates that, on average, only 20% of gas in landfills is actually collected. A landfill’s gas recovery lifetime is limited unless the landfill is continuously being filled, something we do not recommend. Once the readily available gas is depleted, the biogas machinery becomes redundant, electricity is no longer generated and must be sourced elsewhere. The facility is then usually shut down. However, a closed landfill will continue to generate gases and contaminants long after the gas recovery process is abandoned.

The costs of recovery and capture of secondary landfill gases and chemicals is a drag on profits and it may be tempting to simply release these gases to the air and put chemicals back to the landfill or into the engines. Regulation and control of exact landfill gas and chemical content and volume is difficult as, by its nature, a landfill contains an unknown volume and variety of gases, liquids, solids, chemicals, metals, e.t.c.

In contrast, a biogas facility can continue indefinitely, with no undisposable residue, landfill material, noxious smells, pollution or uncontrolled gas release. It will help to clean up the surrounding environment, provide valuable electricity, heat and fertiliser.

In summary, biogas fermentation is a holistic environmental technology which supports socio-environmental cohesion. It offers benefits to most sectors of society, environmental protection, energy, fuel, project contracts, enterprise opportunity, direct and indirect labour, farm and gardening fertiliser. Biogas should form an important part of every plan to develop villages, towns, communities and cities in harmony with their environment.

Note: Terraintegra is working with BioBit GmbH a Bavarian leading biogas expert company, partnering academia with commerce, to bring biogas technology, electricity and “quality of life” to villages in Africa and Asia.

New Ireland, (Niu Ailan, meaning New Island in Tok Pisin) Papua New Guinea is a paradise in the Pacific Ocean, considerably sunnier and warmer than its namesake. It is an eco-traveller’s delight. Waves to test the best surfers, corals shelter the hulls of the ships and aeroplanes of World War. Climbs of 2,000 metres to high plateaus lie within 10 kilometres of golden beaches. But, Papua New Guinea, thanks to geography and poverty, can only deliver electricity to 5.5% of its people. Terraintegra has been invited to prepare a Feasibility Study on a project to bring electrical energy to the Province of New Ireland and its 149 islands. The Province’s electrification can be quickly and relatively cheaply addressed by decentralised electrical generation. By installing electrical generation stations in villages and communities, we can avoid long distance electricity transportation costs. We can harness local rivers (there are many), the Sun (there is lots of it) and geothermal heat (New Ireland is close to a seismic zone but not itself seismically active). For the larger towns (Kavieng and Namatanai) we suggest biogas facilities. The islands are rich in biomass and urban areas have domestic, industrial and agricultural waste and slurries to dispose of. Better to neutralise the pathogens and toxins in a biogas fermentation process and achieve useful methane for electricity production, than let the biomass decay (releasing the methane to the atmosphere)’ the waste and slurry pour into landfills or worse, flow into the Bismarck Sea. So, we hope that our eco-villages will finally see sunlight among the idyll islands of New Ireland.

Old Ireland (Eire) offers a salutary tale about energy and electrification. It is an environmental fable about how not to do things. It all began with great promise. Early Irish independence witnessed extraordinary grand scale projects which captured the imagination of its people. The Shannon Scheme, Ardnacrusha (Ard na Croise) hydro-electricity project, built by Siemens, switched on in 1929 and provided 86% of Ireland’s electricity needs for some time. Shannon Airport emerged from the marshes of the Shannon River estuary in 1942 to become one of the World’s most renowned airports. Following WW2, Shannon Airport, strategically placed at the outer edge of Europe and for some years the furthest a European bound US flight could travel “on a tank”, became internationally recognised as the gateway between Europe and the Americas and for its famous hot coffee with whiskey and cream (aka Irish Coffee).

Ireland’s first public electricity supply system had been established in Dublin in 1880 by the Dublin Electric Light Company. By 1882 three coal fired generating stations, at Schoolhouse Lane, Liffey Street and Fade Street, fed about 114 arc street lamps. In 1882 the system was taken over by Dublin’s gas utility, the Alliance Gas Company, and operated by it until 1888 when Dublin’s electricity undertaking passed to Dublin Corporation. Provincial cities and towns followed a similar pattern. By 1922 about 160 electricity undertakings (effectively distributed electricity stations) operated in the Irish Free State employing a variety of technologies including hydro, coal, peat, gas and wind. This was a hit and miss affair and only one-third of the dwellings in Dublin and about 3% nationally had access to electricity by 1925. But, electricity deployment was evolving in a similar manner in England, Germany, the USA and elsewhere.

The population of the Irish Free state hovered at about 3 million (Dublin 500,000) throughout the 1920′s. By 1928 there were about 33,000 vehicles (26,327 cars, 6,496 commercial vehicles and 718 buses) travelling on 4,388 miles of Irish roads. About £3 million was spent on road improvement and repair in 1928. Passenger train miles totalled 9,150,000 in 1928 and trains carried 10.5 million passengers (averaging 27 miles per rail journey) on 2,705 miles of rail track. 718 Intercity buses carried 2,170,000 passengers. Dublin’s 330 electrified trams ran on 97kms of track. The Dublin tram system was internationally renowned for its technological innovation and remained profitable until eclipsed by the competing urban bus system in the 1930′s. Remarkably, 16% of all goods hauled were transported by Ireland’s internal waterways in 1928. Not calculable are the bicycle, horse, donkey and pedestrian journeys made. Ireland was unknowingly about to become a leading alternative energy producer and had one of the smallest per capita CO² footprints among western economies.

For its own sense of self worth (“an experiment of great sociological value” De Valera) and to generate electricity for the new state, the Government initiated the innovative (and controversial at the time) “Shannon Scheme” electricity project. Work began in 1925 as the last acts of the civil war played out. In a country with big political and economic problems, the Shannon Scheme represented a vision of the future and more practically, work and pay for impoverished labourers. Thousands travelled to Parteen to apply for jobs. Locals fleeced the misfortunate. Lodgings cost upwards of two shillings, sometimes a pound, per week as local people cashed in on the boom and rented any type of shelter. The rip-off became international news. Papers printed anecdotal stories; of a man who earned a shilling an hour, slept with his wife on straw in a pigsty attached to a labourer’s cottage; 14 navvies occupied a stable. Those who failed to find work or were fired could be at risk of starvation. Co. Clare councillors had concerns of starvation, even death. They called on the Government to save people from living like “mere swine”. Labourers’ wages were set at 32 shillings (£1.12s.) a week for a 50 hour week and “free lodgings”. Siemens was prepared to pay more but the Government, concerned about cost over-runs, insisted. During the same period (1924 to 1929) craftsmen were paid about 180 pennies (15s) and unskilled labourers 138 pennies (11s 6d) per day in Southern England. National minimum wage in UK was £1 10s 1d for 51.0 hours work between Oct 1924 – Sep 1925. So, the Government controlled pay to effectively match the minimum UK wage.

During construction, 5,000 men were employed, more than 7.6 million cubic metres of earth and 1.2 million cubic metres of rock were moved, 65 miles of railway were built, four major bridges were constructed and nine rivers and four streams were diverted. The Shannon Scheme was officially opened at Parteen Weir on 22 July 1929. Its 86MW capacity initially supplied over 95% of the Free State’s power. At the time, it was the largest hydroelectric station in the World, (the Hoover Dam, completed in 1936, was to be bigger). It subsequently served as a model for large-scale electrification projects worldwide. On the 75th anniversary of the founding of the ESB, Ardnacrusha was presented with the International Milestone and Landmark awards, by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Following Ardnacrusha, Ireland did continue for a while with hydro electric stations. Ardnacrusha itself had a Kaplan turbine commissioned in 1934. And, though 6 Francis turbines had originally been planned only 3 were installed. New hydro stations were built at Poulaphouca (30MW), Golden Falls (4MW), Leixlip (38MW), Clady (4MW), Cliff and Cathleen’s Fall County Donegal (65MW), Carrigadrohid (4.5kW) and Inniscarra (9kW), County Cork. All were completed by 1949. As the Free State morphed into a Republic, it abandoned its exploitation of local resources and began a massive importation of foreign fossil fuels (oil and coal) and exploitation of its own non renewable CO² emitting fuels (peat and gas).

The Shannon Scheme did set in motion a new strategic approach to Ireland’s electrification, that of centralised generation. Diversified generation was abandoned and a single body, the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) established in 1927, took over responsibility for all of the State’s electricity supply including the building and maintaining of a centralised grid. New demand was to be met by the construction of the country’s two largest power stations. Poolbeg (oil and gas) in 1971 and Moneypoint (coal) in 1979. Poolbeg has a capacity of 1015MW and Moneypoint can produce 915 MW. In 2002 and 2003, new independent stations were constructed. Huntstown Power, Dublin (747MW) and Dublin Bay Power, Ringsend, Dublin (400MW). Common to all is a dependency on fossil fuels and imported technologies. Indigenous innovation (with few exceptions) was abandoned in relation to alternative energy as it was in relation to the manufacturing and service sectors. Ireland became an importer of fuels, technologies, skills and companies. It had also become an importer of culture. The term ‘manufacturing’ was often used to describe what was little more than wrapping and packaging services for US manufactured goods. Banks parked their “back office” departments in Dublin to avail of low corporate taxes and relaxed regulation. Call centres proliferated. Indigenous industry and enterprise was allowed to die. And, when the “good times” came to an inevitable (long predicted) end, Ireland was technologically, industrially and in its skills, bankrupt (banca rotta).

Ireland’s per capita CO² emissions have risen from less than 1MT in the 1930′s, cruised through 3.94MT in 1960, accelerated to 11.61MT in 2001 and has throttled back to about 10.6MT today, due to some fudging of wind energy’s emission calculations. Ireland has become one of the World’s leading CO² emitters. Fossil fuels provided 96% of Ireland’s energy by 2006. Electricity production comprises 22% of all emissions. In addition to CO² emissions, by using coal, oil and gas to produce electricity the surrounding Irish environment is perfumed with heavy and toxic metals, volatile organic compounds, particulates, gases and other unhealthy elements. The pendulum had travelled to its fullest extent.

Alternative energy potential was largely ignored until the proliferation of wind farms after the year 2000. Ireland’s countryside is now home to about 1,000 wind mills on 146 wind farms in an “all eggs in one basket” approach to alternative energy. 500 more wind mills are under construction, the grid is being specially upgraded and extended to tolerate intermittent large scale wind generated electricity and a Government strategy sees Ireland’s electricity demand met by wind energy in 20 years. That would require more than 10,000 wind mills and a constant reliable south-westerly. Over 70% of Ireland’s wind farms are built on blanket bogs, betraying Government and enterprise ignorance of real environmental concerns and displaying recklessness about structural stability and safety.

Terraintegra has long argued that while wind energy has a role to play, it can only be a support player to other technologies with higher capacity factors. Ireland has not innovated or diversified to support diverse alternative energy technologies. An unfriendly regulatory environment which favours mega over micro, grid inadequacy and pervasive public ignorance about alternatives, stymie micro innovation and experimentation. Biogas, conservatively estimated to be capable of 530MW electricity and over 1,500MW of heat (a valuable energy in Ireland) and more importantly, the capacity to generate lasting jobs on Ireland’s farms and in its cities, has little support. Tidal and wave energy, conservatively thought to be capable of 300MW, are not seen as a solution. Smaller hydro-electrical (run of river and tidal stream) stations receive no regulatory and financial backing and no rights to grid access as is the German case.

Terraintegra argues that Ireland can still become an alternative energy leader by harnessing all of its natural resources. We do not add support to the mushrooming of wind mills on every hill but do advocate a diverse decentralised energy strategy which supports the generation and conservation of every watt that can be produced and saved by planet equilibrating means.
And so on to New Ireland’s new adventures, with one eye on the past.

Would the 1.6 billion people in the world without electricity prefer to see some more technological research on energy or would they prefer to acquire a working machine providing real electricity to their homes and villages?

I am at times surprised by the large funds available in the US and EU to pursue research into technologies that are either not necessary to society or will be obsolete by the time they reach (if ever) commercialisation.  I am not referring here to military (sorry defence) funding. Cryogenic electric machines (i.e. electric generators and motors which give highly efficient work at -150C) spring to mind. With several electric machine typologies already over 90% efficient at ambient temperature, how can designing a machine that keeps itself at very low temperatures to squeeze a few more efficiency points be worth expending valuable funds. How much of the gained efficiency will be re-lost to provide the sub-zero temperatures. What will be the cost of manufacturing and servicing such a machine. Yet these projects receive millions. Bio-fuels (with the honourable exception of bio-gas) represent the widest technological “cul de sac” boulevard known. Why pursue “cellulosic ethanol” when ethanol is a flawed bio-fuel, presently doing more environmental damage than environmental good.  Why pursue cellulosic ethanol when a better, more adaptable, more powerful bio-fuel known as butanol (butyl-alcohol) is already viable and can already employ the so called “cellulosic materials” as for the record, can bio-gas. But, further millions are given to various institutions to encourage the misguided pursuit of cellulosic ethanol. Can this be because agricultural and industrial groups benefit from the system as it exists? Why study the genetic modification of so called “super bugs” to make our future fuels when we will be using electricity to power our transport system and these bugs are today outperformed by natural  bacteria doing what comes naturally? Furthermore, there is ample evidence that genetically modifying an organism triggers unpredictable results. Who are the cheerleaders for deployment of genetically modifyied organisms? Why, the patent owners of GMO’s, silly me!

Enough research, it’s time to get on with it!  Our point is simple – we can commercialise and employ today, at competitive costs, the technologies and processes to energise all of the Earth’s people, improve quality of life everywhere. Several viable electricity generating and using technologies have been developed by intrepid inventors and developers, often poorly funded. These technologies can “hit the ground running”.  Neither the World or its 1.6 billion occupants without energy can afford to wait any longer for delivered wattage. The “Fully Loaded” costs of energising the Under Developed World is €2,000 or so per person which compares favourably with US and EU electricity delivery costs.  Research should be used in its supportive role; not a raison d’être in itself.  If adequately funded and supported, within 12 months, eco-villages can be springing up like mushrooms throughout the dark and energy-less World. Or, perhaps that is not what is wanted by the Developed World? What will happen to the super states of the USA and EU if Africa, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Chile, Peru and rural China make their own technological long marches into empowerment?

On a wet and cold Tuesday evening in October I had the privilege of attending (as a guest of my good friend Ern Schumacher) a presentation by Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank and other Grameen enterprises. Both Mr Yunus and the bank were awarded the Nobel prize for Peace in 2006.

Mr. Yunus’s understated objective is “to achieve lasting peace by eradicating poverty”. The UN has in place an almost unreported plan to eradicate 50% of all poverty by 2015 (Millennium Development Goals). That being achieved, Mr. Yunus logically suggests a continuance until all poverty is eradicated.  His strategy is empowerment by means of micro loans to the poor to grow enterprise. With a delinquency rate that western banks can only dream of, over 8.3 million loans have been made and assumedly repaid. The children of the Grameen poor are the immediate beneficiaries as schooling and health become real options for them. These children seem, to me, to be the true focus of the Grameen philosophy. They have shown a propensity to fully exploit the education system and many make it to university.  So, crunch time has arrived for the Grameen project.  Will the children of the Grameen bank’s customers themselves continue the Grameen way, or will they be enticed by cash and bonus offers to serve the tarnished capitalist system of the western world.  I find myself hoping that the new Grameen generation will carry the uprising to all corners of the planet.  I sincerely hope they do not disappear into middle Asia just as the Hippie generation of the 1960′s disappeared into middle America.

In my Energy for Life (Eco village Concept) paper I describe a world within a world. The eco-villages with their own interlinked economies and value systems would emerge as an independent, hopefully moral, universe.  Mr. Yunus has activated a world within a world via Grameen’s bank loan and repayment vehicle. It is barely believable that the Grameen structure with 26,000 employees, lending new loans totalling $100 million every month, survives and thrives. Margins by European standards are wafer thin. But Grameen marches to a different drum and its beat is getting louder.

Grameen, recognising the need for some energy generation, has also moved into the alternative energy sector by producing small solar light systems for individual buildings. Terraintegra contends that widespread adequate electricity generation is a cornerstone of poverty eradication and Grameen may be moving in the same direction. Grameen focuses on alternative energy production (photovoltaic, bio-gas, low energy cooking stoves, e.t.c.). For the continued wellbeing of the planet, as Grameen succeeds and energises its vast community, it must successfully lead its community in parallel to deploy alternative energy generation.

Later in the evening, Mr. Anton Brender, Chief Economist at Dexia, with a teacher’s instinct, took the audience through a world of charts and graphs of which he is master. Mr. Brender did an admirable review of a turbulent capital system that is becoming increasingly unpredictable and unsure. The world he describes plods to a fluctuating drumbeat that is muted and confused. Mr. Brender is, however, confident of the future, a mood shared by Mr. Yunus.  Can both be right? Do they “share a single garment of destiny”? Can Grameen glide by, unruffled by the peaks and troughs of European and American finance. Perhaps?

If Grameen is to survive and thrive, it must continue to live within and expand its world. That world is already expanding, but not yet at the expense of the capitalist world. It gathers together the world’s poor and underprivileged, those unwanted by the capitalist world. But, the great unwanted will become empowered by such inclusion. As the world’s poor become enfranchised, they will muster the capability to re-direct both worlds. How will these, many million, children of beggars, farmers, basket weavers and scrap dealers respond? The two worlds will collide.  If poverty is to be eradicated in the time allocated, that collision will come soon.

Mr. Yunus spoke (unprompted as far as I was concerned) directly to the 1,000 or so bankers and bank customers in the vast and beautiful Philharmonie in Luxembourg. He was not daunted. He was also a banker, if of a different hue.  His image was projected on a large screen behind him and during the evening he seemed to grow to fill the large image. His compassion, conviction, energy and optimism shone through every sentence. His drawing, in the mind’s eye, of a doctor daughter and illiterate mother was particularly powerful. His realisation that the mother could have been a doctor too if poverty had not blocked her route, was especially moving. He said “poverty is not created by poor people, poverty is created by the system”. He is on a mission. Eradicate all poverty and bring peace to the world by 2030. Not quite impossible!

Monday 4 October 2010.

Those of you with young children will understand our circumstances. Maintaining a blog (weblog) on a regular basis has proven difficult with a mini tornado on the loose about the home and office. But we, and probably most parents, would not have it any other way: blog, business or other obligations notwithstanding. And, so to a first post…..

How many wars are we fighting these days? Apart from the obvious and convenient wars on terror that western leaders seem to be fighting astride their armchairs (perhaps with a Wii in hand), there are the wars for civilisation, holy wars, god’s wars, technology wars, wars on poverty, war on global warming, wars against disease, wars on drugs, alcohol e.t.c. The maxim “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill” has few western adherents these days.  Written over 2,500 years ago, translated into many languages, a military classic, obligatory reading on many military curricula, with over a million copies sold, Sun Tzu’s “art of war” seems to be gathering dust in the libraries of our western leaders.

So, I am unfashionably careful to describe Terraintegra’s efforts in non combative terms. Terraintegra will not wage war on the energyless or surge the grid, collaterally damage the environment or extraordinarily render its resources. We seek not enemies but collaborators. Without enemies there can be no war. Terraintegra is about building peaceful equilibrium between civilisation and environment. Ironically, I must borrow a military quote to make my point. Napoleon, the type of leader who actually faced his enemy on the battlefield, may have said “La soupe fait le soldat” (if he did he probably borrowed the expression from Carmontelle). As I write, 960 million people are hungry, 150 million toddlers are underweight and malnourished and they are almost universally among the 1.6 billion without any access to electrical energy. There but for the grace of geographic circumstance, go we. Poverty & hunger need not be. From the era of European colonialism to today our embargoes, tariffs, quotas, charity, concerts, debates and lectures have hindered, not helped, development. Why? Usually because we put a band-aid on an infected wound, a surface superficial repair which leaves the wound festering underneath. Terraintegra argues that the World’s ills must be tackled from the inside out. The repair must be driven by energy within the patient. Common to all impoverishment is absence of access to energy. Energy is the “soupe” of civilisation.  It is Terraintegra’s raison d’etre to deploy technologies to generate electrical energy in every village Wordwide. (See Terraintegra – Energy for Life.pdf).

To the argument that says the energisation of all the planet’s human residents will bring change and peace, dropping slow only over generations, we ask how many generations are already lost, how many more will endure before memories of drone strikes, shock and awe, spent uranium munitions, extraordinary rendition, deceit, theft and collateral damage fade?  As for costs, Terraintegra estimates that the total budget to electrify all corners of the planet and bring “quality of life” essentials to work, at a cost of €3,200 per person who will benefit. Total planetary cost is about €5.12 trillion, equivalent to the costs of about 4 years of war. Terraintegra believes that the roll out of diversified electrical energy is movement in the right direction which over time will help reduce human suffering and obviate the causes of many wars. If there is an antagonist it is time, there is not enough of it.

” La stratégie, affirme-t-il, est la science de l’emploi du temps et de l’espace. Je suis pour mon compte moins avare de l’espace que du temps. Pour l’espace, nous pouvons toujours le regagner. Le temps perdu, jamais”.  ’Strategy is the science of making use of time and space. I am, for my part, less concerned about space than time. Space we can always recover, time lost, never.’ Napoleon again.

Yes! Achieving efficiency in production, conversion, transportation, subdivision and storage of energy is the key to Planet survivability. A coal fired power plant will transfer about 35% of the coal’s energy into electricity. Then about 10% of the surviving electricity is lost in transit over long distance lines. Once the electricity arrives at the point of use, it must be subdivided and converted to useful work. It can be efficiently or wastefully used. Finally, the machines we choose to do our work can be efficient users of electricity, i.e. they can convert the electrical current into useable energy without excessive losses or heat and to maximum desired effect.

Of equal importance is our ability to conserve energy so as to reduce the electrical energy requirement and to make the electricity supplied more effective. Our domestic buildings alone consume more energy and emit more emissions than our cars. Passive building design (including retro fit of existing buildings) and phase change materials offer demonstrably better energy solutions.

The short answer is yes! We have available over 120 petawatts at least 8,000 times the energy we require to meet our needs. The solar constant (i.e. all solar radiation has been calculated at 1,366 watts per M². Africa has tapped about 5% of its hydro potential, Asia (40%) and Europe (80%). Biogas (methane) fermentation and generation could provide electricity to every city and biomass growing rural region Worldwide. Biogas fermentation will also reduce the emission of so called “greenhouse gases” to the atmosphere. The challenges are appropriate, cost effective technologies to harness the energy, efficient energy storage and transport technologies and the Planet’s cooperation in providing and distributing where required the solar and kinetic energy to drive our generators and to charge our batteries.

Coal was introduced as a 16th Century alternative to excessive wood burning which had depleted Europe’s forests to exhaustion. Petroleum first appeared as a cheaper more easily harvested alternative to whale oil as whale stocks were depleted by hunting.

Incumbent technologies are the more obvious oil, coal, and so called natural gas. Hydro and nuclear are also incumbent. Are they Alternative? Oil and coal have done civilisations work for over 100 years why is everybody so anxious to replace them with alternatives?

For clarity’s sake we must identify those technologies that we must replace because they harm the planet when we use them. Technologies that burn coal, oil (both called fossil fuels because of an un-proven supposition that they are formed from the corpses of multi million year old plants and animals), wood and turf (peat) are on the anti planet side because they are depleting resources, they pollute the atmosphere and (prima facie) heat it up. But ethanol (a favourite alternative fuel of the Green lobby) causes Ozone, has polluted the Mississippi river delta and is depleting aquifers. Can ethanol really be on the side of the planet? Biodiesel made from palm oil is the direct cause of deforestation on a vast scale. Can palm oil biodiesel really be pro planet?

Today all alternative energy technologies combined contribute about 10% of World energy needs. The dominant alternative is hydro which meets about 3% of World energy needs. Wind meets less than 0.5% oe energy needs.

Can we really abandon the fossil fuels?