Matthew
Griffin:
"We already have the technology to solve the global water challenge,
so what is it and what’s stopping us from preventing future water
wars?"
Scott
Yates: “Right
now, the average apple eaten in the United States has traveled 1,550
miles, and an apple is 84 percent water.”
European
Bioeconomy University:
"The diversity of the knowledge-based bioeconomy extends from farmland
and food production through forests to marine ecosystems, from biowaste
through innovative products to new business models, and from urban to
rural regions."
Lead Article
Our Seafood Technology
Future
By Tony
Hunter
Our seas and oceans are an essential part
of our global ecosystem, but ones that are too often out of sight for
the vast majority of humanity.
These seas and oceans play a vital part in maintaining planetary health,
acting as heat and carbon sinks and moderating our climate. In fact,
71 % of our planet's surface is covered by water, with the oceans holding
96.5 % of all the planet's water.
Covering 71% of the earth's surface it's no surprise that we need to
harvest the oceans for food. But in the Anthropocene humans have taken
things to extremes and overfishing is the primary driver of mass extinction
in our oceans. 1 This is partly being driven by growing global fish
consumption as consumers in industrialised countries realise the health
benefits of fish. The other driving factors are the growing global population,
combined with growing middle classes demanding more protein. All of
this is putting increased pressure on fish stocks with only 65.8% of
fish stocks being fished within biologically sustainable levels (Figure
1). To avoid disaster any significant increase in fish consumption will
have to come from other than wild caught fish.
FIGURE 1
Against this a 70% increase in food production is projected to be required
by 2050, a seemingly impossible increase in sustainable food production,
including fish. Aquaculture has been the major source of increased fish
production for the last three decades or more as can be seen from the
graph in Figure 2 below. How much further aquaculture can grow to meet
the ever increasing demands remains to be seen. Something needs to change.
FIGURE 2
As is the case in global food production generally we need to do more
with less in seafood as well. So how can new food technologies help
address the problems in the seafood industry?
Possible solutions
Feedstock
One major problem of the fish industry is that 69% of fishmeal and 75%
of all fish-oil production from caught fish is used to feed farmed fish.
2 Soybean meal is used to supplement fishmeal, but this brings its own
environmental issues.
One technology showing great promise is the use of insect proteins.
Companies such as Ynsect and Protix manufacture high quality protein
and oils from mealworms and Black Soldier Flies respectively. These
products have been shown to be excellent sources of nutrition for farmed
fish.
However, there are some significant barriers to the increased use of
insect proteins in fish feed; namely legislation, scale and price.
Legislation governing insect use in feedstocks varies around the world.
For instance, in the US insect meal is approved for poultry and salmonid
feed ingredient but not pet food. In Canada, it's approved for pet food,
but not aqua or poultry feed. With the growth of the insect feed industry
and the problems facing the fish industry changes to allow insect meal
as fish feed are expected to accelerate in the coming years.
After legislation, scale is the most significant barrier to increased
fish feed use. Scale requires more manufacturing assets and funding
to meet this need is increasing exponentially in the sector. Scale also
directly effects price, currently another significant barrier to increased
usage. Insect meal prices presently range from USD3,950 to USD6,200
vs historical fishmeal prices of USD1,200 to USD2,000 per ton. Rabobank
expect this to reduce to USD2,800 to USD5,000 per ton by 2030. 3
Other functional attributes offset some of this cost disadvantage with
combinations of insect meal, fishmeal and soybean meal enabling the
creation of better performing aqua feeds.
Another advantage which could soon be realised is resource circularity
of insect feedstocks. This could be achieved with the likely approval
in 2022 of the use of unprocessed food waste containing meat and fish
as insect feedstock. This will improve flexibility and costs in the
industry and even provide an opportunity for negative feed costs. 3
Overall, insect meal could help significantly reduce the pressure on
wild caught fish stocks.
Plantbased fish
Another technology being used to meet the consumer demand for seafood
products is plantbased meat mimics. Advances in protein processing and
plant protein sources are combining to meet the consumer demand for
a more plantbased diet while meeting their desires for conventional
flavour profiles. Far from being a fringe fad major food companies are
now involved in the market. Nestlé has launched Vuna, a plantbased
tuna substitute, designed for salads, sandwiches and pizza and Vrimp,
a plantbased shrimp product. Likewise, Thai Union, one of the largest
seafood producers in the world, has released crabcakes and dim sum in
food service and will launch plantbased tempura shrimp later this year.
That's not to say that there's no room for startups. There's an ever
expanding number of medium and startup sized companies entering the
space. These include Good Catch Foods, Kuleana and Swedish startup Hooked
with their toona product and Netherlands based company Novish with its
range of breaded fishless sticks, bites, burgers, chunks, fillets and
now a tuna alternative.
Can it replace fish? Maybe not, but again it could help fill the protein
hole without endangering the ocean ecosystem.
Cultivated seafood
The most advanced technology is cultivated seafood, where a sample of
cells are taken from an animal and grown in giant stainless steel tanks.
These are then structured into fish fillets, burgers etc.
It may sound like science fiction, but it's now science fact. A terrestrial
chicken nugget version hit the market in Singapore last December and
if you live in Singapore you can have one of three dishes delivered
to your door by FoodPanda!
Aquaculture products are close behind their terrestrial cousins with
BlueNalu commissioning its pilot plant later this year. This will provide
small scale commercial product for sale to the restaurant trade. They're
initially targeting mahi-mahi fillets for cooked products and bluefin
tuna for sashimi.
Wildtype is another company in the sector and they're targeting salmon.
As can be seen from the picture below in Figure 3 it's a pretty convincing
product. They say that they and a restaurant can make a profit if their
product is sold at a high-end sushi restaurant for USD30-40 a plate.
4 So profitable cultivated seafood manufacturing may be closer than
we think.
FIGURE 3 (Photo - Wildtype)
Fish is not the only target seafood with Shiok Meats focussing on shrimp
and lobster. Startups with novel approaches to cultivated seafood production
are appearing almost monthly. Not all will survive, but those that do
will have the strongest technologies.
Similarly to feedstocks legislation is a significant barrier for the
commercial sale of cultivated product. Singapore is currently the only
country which has legislation in place to allow commercial sale of cultivated
meat products. The US may also be close to approval, with approval for
seafood (except catfish) lying solely with the FDA, rather than the
FDA/USDA for terrestrial products.
Scale and price are also significant barriers which will need to be
overcome. To scale to a significant double digit percentage of the conventional
seafood market will likely cost hundreds of billions in USD terms. To
justify expenditure this will require exponential drops in production
costs, particularly in the costs of growth media components.
What will the future hold?
No one can predict THE future, there's too many unknowns. However, there's
definitely some possible futures where these technologies will comprise
a major part our food system.
Insects have a place as caught fish stocks continue to decline or at
best stabilise over the coming decades. They will provide new sources
of performance enhancing aqua feed to help sustainably support the aquaculture
industry.
Plantbased food is no longer a fad, but a fact of the industry, and
driven by consumer demand. It too will have a place, particularly with
major global food and ingredient companies entering the fray.
As for cultivated products the jury is still out. Some reports paint
the industry as the Emperor's new clothes and say it will soon collapse.
Others see a breakthrough technology that is only impossible until it's
not. Which one is true? Call back in 2030 and we'll be much closer to
having an answer.
One thing is for certain, technology is having an unprecedented influence
on the food industry. Technologies from the medical, biotech and synthetic
biology fields are entering the industry and it'll never be the same.
Food is now technology and technology changes exponentially, it's going
to be a fast and furious food future.
Why
strive for a Used Future? Equality vs Equal Opportunity
By Leif Thomas Olsen
Photo by Ivan Samkov
Equality has become a global
concern. 'Equality' nowadays includes equality between East and West,
between the Global South and Global North, between man and women, between
hetero and homo, between able and disable, etc. Yes, this can indeed
be considered 'fair', but it can also lead us astray.
This article elaborates on the difference between 'equality' and 'equal
opportunity'. The difference is far greater than what daily language
suggests. Q: When does 'equality' become social imperialism?
To be 'equal' has turned into a drive to become as equal - i.e. similar
- as possible to those in socio-economic power. This in spite of the
global debate that shies away from the term 'assimilation' - in favour
of the term 'integration'. This although the long-term objective for
both terms is some kind of equality - in terms of being 'equal'. But
equal to what? Are we actually integrating newcomers into our communities?
Or are we, in reality, simply trying to assimilate them? A definition
of assimilation is "the process of becoming similar to something",
while a definition of integration is "the action or process of
combining two or more things in an effective way". Clearly, assimilation
is a one-sided process of change, where the incoming party makes efforts
to become like the party already there. Integration is supposed to be
a two-sided process of change, where both sides make efforts to accommodate
each other.
Those in socio-economic power - whether a part of one's own close-knit
collective or community or a global institution or 'player' - always
define what it means to be equal. This can be in terms of being equally
heard, equally paid, equally respected, and so on. But to be true to
ourselves, has there ever existed a society that treated everybody the
same, i.e. as true 'equals'? No, neither among humans nor in the animal
kingdom. And no matter how hard we try; it will always be those with
strong socio-economic credentials who will shape the definition of what
being 'equal' entails.
In Europe we typically found United States' focus on racial inequality
as racism. All Americans are, after all, 'Americans'. Are they not?
It was not until the European Union refugee crises in 2015 that Europeans
started to view their own societies in the same the way as the Americans
always viewed theirs - as 'us' and (sometimes even versus) 'them'.
The lack of racial integration in the US - where Blacks, Whites and
Hispanics rarely mix - has since generations been excused with 'The
American Dream', i.e. that each generation will have a better material
life than their parents. This has excused their society's huge socio-economic
differences, since even a child of a poor family can improve his/her
material life as compared to his/her parents. But s/he does so from
a far lower level to a (still) far lower level than what the more affluent
part of the same society starts out from - and can achieve. But they
can still claim they lived 'The American Dream'. Only recently has this
dream been crushed, as a result of socio-economic policies and events
which have stopped broad groups in the society from actually achieving
this dream. The middle class is getting smaller and the income-gaps
are getting bigger. And since our societies counts everything in money,
this development can also crush the longstanding common dream of 'equality'.
Even if that equality actually never existed.
In Europe the huge inflow of refugees into the European Union from war-torn
and impoverished societies in the Middle East and North Africa has developed
a similar racial divide. Of course one finds immigrants taking on 'normal'
roles in their host society, such as teachers, medical staff, police
or even politicians. But more commonly they are self-employed, low-wages
workers or dependent on family, friends, and society. Mixed marriages
are still quite rare, and - as we know well from history - will cultural
integration take two or three generations, unless the immigrant makes
an almost inhuman effort to change. There are still China Towns, Little
Italy and Little India in many of the world's larger cities, most Scandinavian
immigrants to the US are still found in the northern states and exiled
Cubans dominate parts of Florida.
A similar pattern - but relationship-wise opposite - can be seen in
many countries popular for Europeans to buy holiday- or retirement-homes.
Germans buy where other Germans already bought, Dutch where other Dutch
bought, Swedes were other Swedes bought and Brits where other Brits
bought. There are no rules for that, and it is not an absolute truth,
but it is common enough to see as a 'common cultural comfort factor'.
The foreign property owners' assimilation- and / or integration-efforts
are minimal (if any at all?) vis-à-vis both locals and 'others'.
Instead they enjoy local hospitality, which they consider themselves
having the right to enjoy since they consider themselves paying for
it. Once again is money the 'equalizer', allowing the paying party to
define the nature of the relationship.
The same goes for 'democracy'. States considering themselves 'Democratic
States' see themselves having the right to define what the term 'democratic'
entails. This (Greek) word is a combination of the two words 'demos'
(i.e. whole citizenry living within the state) and 'kratos', meaning
power (or rule). This word does however not mean a particular kind of
parliamentarian system with (nowadays) one chamber (previously two),
manned by members elected according to a very particular process invented
by some other state's elite a century or two ago. Forcing other societies
to emulate one's own system is nothing but social imperialism, no matter
how good our intentions are and how good we ourselves think our own
system is. But still, many Western countries consider it necessary to
push for, and sometimes even fight wars over, what kind of governing
system other - often far-flung countries - employ. 'Regime-change' in
such far-flung countries has since long been a key to securing the intervening
country's domestic interests, such as control over natural resources,
strategic geo-locations, shipping routes, territorial waters, etc. Such
'regime-change' is typically dressed up as being for the good of 'the
people' of the targeted country, assuming everybody there wants to live
a life as similar as possible to the life the inhabitants of the intervening
country lives. According to this view, those in the targeted country
will now become 'equal'. The Romans did it, the Chinese did it, the
Spanish, Brits, Dutch and French did it (although Western colonial powers
only selected a few locals to be close to 'equal'). And the Americans
and Russians are still doing it.
Futurists call this a 'Used future', i.e. a future used by others in
another place and another time, that is now meant to be applied in 'this'
place at 'this' time - simply because those with socio-economic powers
want that. Not because it equals equality in the particular context
it is to be applied. Again, those with socio-economic powers decide
what equality entails, not those who are supposed to benefit from that
equality. Again, this easily develops into social imperialism, even
if we consider ourselves being the good guys.
Coming back to the European dilemma it must be said that 'equality'
for an immigrant cannot equal becoming a copy of the host-society's
original inhabitants. That is to strive for a 'Used Future'. With a
large influx of immigrants also the host-society is forced to change,
and to outline a 'New future'. One that is equally obtainable for all.
Otherwise will the immigrants - and therefore eventually also the society
at large - fail. Integration cannot be one-sided. Both sides need to
change. Either that or we have to admit that we are still involved in
a process of 'assimilation'.
This relationship is also similar to gender equality, which neither
does nor can mean that all women shall become like men, or all men become
like women. Gender equality means that all genders' traits and capacities
shall be equally honored. Translated into cultural integration-speak,
this means that all cultural traits and capacities shall be equally
honoured. Nevertheless, in both these examples, as well as all other
similar cases, the rule of law must apply equally to all. If murder
is prohibited in the law is a woman or an immigrant who commits murder
of course equally guilty of that crime as is a locally born and raised
man. Here is 'equality' ruled by text. However, in a liberal society
can no such texts on socio-cultural behaviour be of anything but voluntary
guidance. But again, it should be known that not all societies are -
or wish to be - liberal societies. So being 'equal' can only be a dream
for those who have the same preferences and priorities as those with
whom they are supposed to be equal.
If we instead consider the term 'equal opportunity', we see a very different
picture emerge. The key to this is that 'equal' here refers to 'opportunity',
not to a particular kind of equality. So, the question is instead what
the individual or collective wants his/her/their opportunity to lead
him/her/them to?
Just as skin colour, physical gender, sexual identity, physical or mental
handicap, cultural origin, political views, economic status, etc, will
matter not only to ourselves, but also to society at large, such differences
also drive our dreams for a preferred future. Women strive for increased
socio-economic influence, homosexual couples dream of being able and
allowed to marry and/or adopt children, handicapped people dream of
being accepted as they are, people with non-mainstream cultures want
to be able to retain them, political animals dream of being elected
and most people dream of improving their economic status. But 'enough
is never enough', since 'enough' is a subjective state. Had it been
an objective state it had been easy to say that once you reached that,
you had 'enough', whereby society could redirect its efforts to other
areas and collectives. But communism failed, and we still live in a
world ruled by greed.
So, 'equal opportunity' must mean the opportunity to fulfil one's own
dreams and aspirations - as long as they are within the framework of
whatever laws that rule the society you are a member of. It cannot mean
that you have to have the same dream as your neighbour or fellow citizen.
And it can-not mean that only when you have fallen in line with the
dominant (or ruling) way of thinking about socio-cultural and socio-economic
matters, you are entitled to develop, announce, and try to live up to
your own Desired Future. Equal opportunity is simply the right not to
be discriminated against, not a responsibility to become 'equal' - in
the sense of being similar - to those around you. When state governments
strive for equality, they typically mean the possibility to get what
the more privileged groups already have. And then mainly measured in
monetary terms. That is why most of us live in a Used Future. One that
was defined in the past and is lived in the present - but likely to
be outdated already in the near future. A Desired Future must allow
several and parallel opportunities to thrive. Certain things we already
know are important for this. Education and health care are only two
very obvious examples. But all our educational systems are intentionally
different in different societies, intentionally designed to shape the
youth into what that country's older generations (or external social
imperialist forces) believe is necessary. Again we target a Used Future,
here to shape future generations.
Equal opportunity must mean allowing people to get a good enough start
in life to fully understand the options they will have, and a good enough
understanding of how to go about achieving their Desired Future. Educational
systems must therefore prepare students for the challenges ahead, not
feed them with yesterday's solutions. But only when graduates think
that burning coal is like burning money, they will replace coal. Only
when graduates think that war is no better than bullying, they will
stop sending troops. And only when graduates think that empathy is a
more valuable trait than greed will they stop the never-ending rat race
for even more. Or would such globally common values limit the long-term
opportunity of others, denying them their Desired Future?
When individuals come to a new host-country, both the individual and
the host-country must adapt. But when one culture invades another, it
will eventually find that the invading culture only can serve like varnish.
The original culture is still there, like wood under the varnish, and
the varnish will stop the wood from breathing and moving, causing it
to swell and rot from below rather than to live and thrive. Eventually
the varnish will crack up, and the most swollen and rotten bits of the
wood will stick out the most.
To some an 'opportunity' may mean to travel the world. To another it
may mean to seek solitude in a temple or monastery. Both opportunities
shall be equally possible to achieve. Only then do we have true 'equality'.
Leif Thomas
Olsen
Leif is a former management- and management-training consultant turned
property investor. During this millennium he also dedicated around half
of his time to research on cross- / multicultural interaction, and its
socio-economic consequences. A Swede by birth he spent half his life
elsewhere and lived in South-East Asia since 1993. In 2005 he completed
a Master of Philosophy and a Master of International Relations.
Each of its carbon-sucking units is the size of a shipping
container, yet the world’s largest direct air capture machine – the
Orca plant in Iceland – only captures
and stores about 4,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. That’s about three
seconds’ worth of global emissions.
Still, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
reports
that technologies that remove CO2 from the air like this will be needed
alongside deep cuts in emissions to reduce global warming. In fact,
climate scientists modelling pathways
for stabilising warming at 1.5°C (the goal of the Paris agreement)
assume that a carbon removal industry based around one method may need
to be around 40% the size of the current fossil
fuel industry.
There are several ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
One is called bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or Beccs. Here,
vast acres of fast-growing plants are grown and then harvested and burned
to generate electricity or make biofuel for vehicles. Beccs can even
use waste from farms or timber plantations. The carbon normally released
during the burning or fermentation stage is instead captured and pumped
underground in old oil and gas wells or deep rock formations called
saline aquifers. These storage sites can be beneath land (which is common
in the US) or the seabed. There are over 20 years of experience in storing
CO2 under the Norwegian
North Sea, for instance.
Attempts to calculate how much carbon removal is possible
often address how much it will cost, or how much carbon can realistically
be extracted from the atmosphere. This can be done by assessing the
land area available to produce biomass crops, or the size of underground
reservoirs for storing the gas.
But what scientists often overlook when predicting the
future capacity of these technologies is how society will need to change
to accommodate them. For instance, what will a sudden change to how
land is used mean for communities and livelihoods? How can increasing
demand for land to grow food or restore habitat be reconciled with the
need to produce lots of biomass for Beccs? And who should even be able
to make these decisions for them to be considered fair and ethical?
If world leaders at the UN climate summit in Glasgow
fail to address these questions, they run the risk of making overly
optimistic judgments about how much CO2 it’s possible to remove. If
it transpires that the international community cannot rely on these
technologies as much as climate modelling suggests we need to, then
society will need to decarbonise even faster to prevent catastrophic
climate change.
Social and political issues matter
There is only one demonstration Beccs
project operating in the world today, in Illinois, USA. Alongside
other researchers, we
talked to experts working in sectors like forestry and energy
to understand what’s needed to bring this new industry to life.
These experts are aware of large-scale
bioenergy projects, such as those cultivating sugar cane ethanol in
Brazil, which have deprived local people of land and destroyed native
habitat. Many of them worry that a global Beccs industry that developed
from these practices would exacerbate inequality by, for example, reducing
access to food and ultimately fail to remove carbon from the atmosphere
by actually increasing deforestation. The UK’s largest power plant for
generating energy from biomass, Drax, mostly imports wood chips from
North America, while UK farmers grow grass for use in a handful of smaller-scale
power plants. But as the UK develops a Beccs industry, rising demand
for bioenergy could mean the cheapest and most exploitative sources
win out.
The experts were also unsure about whether there is
even enough free land to accommodate expanding bioenergy crops. Many
voiced concerns about the consequences for the rights of people living
in and working on land that is earmarked for Beccs.
Some experts doubted there was sufficient political
support – capable of transcending short-term electoral cycles – to pull
off the necessary innovation to build carbon capture and storage capacity
in the UK. This technology is needed not just for Beccs, but to decarbonise
heavy industry, including steel manufacturing and chemicals.
We found that these social and political obstacles were
rarely represented, if at all, in models of the global potential for
carbon removal. Of course, some of these things can’t be modelled. Models
aren’t usually designed to incorporate the nuances of decision-making
at national, regional and local levels, or the importance of cultural
and spiritual values that people endow landscapes.
World leaders need a more complete picture of the complexity
we know exists in the real world before embarking on the construction
of a global carbon removal industry. Making this happen is as much a
question of who pays to remove the carbon and who has a say in how the
land is managed, as details about technology. If the political and social
limitations are not better understood, then it is hard to imagine how
these carbon removal pipe dreams will get off the ground.
Water Harmony is a concept
initiated by Harsha Ratnaweera, a professor in Water Technology at the
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), and his colleagues. The
vision of Water Harmony is to harmonise water related graduate education
across the globe; to continuously and collectively improve the global
quality of water-related education through sharing of best practices.
In this process, emerging challenges in the water industry and the resulting
research, developments and innovations are also addressed.
Carbfix provides a natural and permanent
storage solution by turning CO2 into stone underground in less than
two years.
The Carbfix process captures and permanently
removes CO2. The technology provides a complete carbon capture and storage
solution, where CO2 dissolved in water – a sparkling-water of sorts
– is injected into the subsurface where it reacts with favourable
rock formations to form solid carbonate minerals via natural processes.
Carbfix is a research and innovation driven technology which has, since
2007, been led by Reykjavik Energy, the University of Iceland and CNRS
in Toulouse, as well as several other universities and research institutes.
The Carbfix process has been applied to significantly reduce CO2 and
H2S emissions from the Hellisheiði Power Plant since 2014, following
successful pilot-scale injections in 2012. The technology can be adapted
to other carbon emitting industries, such as steel, iron and cement
production.
Carbfix has been operated as an independent subsidiary of Reykjavík
Energy since 2019. It has been proven to be an economic and environmentally
friendly solution for the permanent removal of these gases.
The
Real Cost of Nuclear Energy
By
Except Integrated
Sustainability,
Ariana Bain, Industrial and Urban Ecologist, Eva Gladek, Industrial
Ecologist, Marten J. Witkamp, Strategy & Communication, Tom Bosschaert,
Director, Rebecca Blum
October 10,
2011
Nuclear energy has recently
seen national policies and public opinion turn in its favor. Governments
around the world, including Italy and Sweden, are lifting bans on new
plant construction. Not alone in the developing world, India and China
are pursuing ambitious expansions of their nuclear power programs.
According to a
2010 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, 20 countries
without nuclear power plants are expected to have nuclear power on line
by 2030 (1). Headlines such as “Nuclear’s Great Expectations”
(2), “Power up! The rise of the nuclear option” (3) and “Going
Nuclear” (4) attest to a paradigmatic shift from looking at nuclear
(fission) energy as a 20th century problem towards seeing it as a 21st
century solution. In the Netherlands plans to construct two new nuclear
power plants are in an advanced stage, seemingly undeterred by the Fukishima
events.
Stirring the debate
The last
couple of decades have given rise to a powerful coalition of nuclear
industry representatives and environmental lobbyists arguing that nuclear
is our only path forward if we wish to secure a stable energy future
while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.
They point out the shortcomings
of renewable energy sources while insisting that once valid safety concerns
are overstated or even outdated due to advances in technology. Nuclear
energy has the allure of 'the easy way out' to the double bind of climate
change and energy-security challenges.
The public looks inclined
to accept this line of reasoning for lack of a believable alternative.
Fukushima is unlikely to change this, all blame having been placed on
its older plant technology. Because the discussion on the rights and
wrongs of nuclear energy has been held so often, and for so many years,
the public is in danger of conceding to the pro-nuclear lobbying simply
because they are tired of the debate.
That is understandable,
nuclear energy holds a vast promise that warrants serious consideration.
However, nuclear energy plants bear such fundamental risks that decisions
regarding its implementation warrant painstaking investigation, today
as much as 30 years ago.
If we choose to invest
in nuclear power, we should do so with a full understanding of its implications.
This article sets out five critical points of investigation that are
frequently missed or misrepresented, and touches on a long term perspective
on nuclear energy and its alternatives.
1. Climate
The primary 'environmental'
argument for nuclear power hinges on its low greenhouse gas emissions.
While it is true that its emissions are lower than from traditional
fossil fuels, wind and hydroelectric power still produce vastly less
greenhouse gas.
Across the entire life
cycle of producing nuclear energy, typical LWR and HWR reactors lead
to an average of 65 g CO2 per kWh - or, in other words, about 250.000
ton of CO2 per year for 485 MW Borssele. Wind and hydroelectric power
cause on average 20 g CO2 per kWh, while coal and oil lead to 600-1200
g per kWh (5).
With the very challenging
carbon reduction schedules that we have ahead of us, and the life span
of nuclear power plants in mind, is nuclear's lower greenhouse gas emissions
low enough to mitigate climate change?
2. Fresh water
Some of nuclear power's
more serious impacts are found upstream in the fuel life cycle, in the
mining and ore refining stages.
One of the greatest resource
shortages of the coming decades is predicted to be fresh water access.
Nuclear power could exacerbate this issue, particularly in vulnerable
areas, since almost 60% of uranium is mined in drought sensitive nations
- most notably Australia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, and Niger.
During the mining process,
the extraction and purification of the uranium ore requires enormous
amounts of water. Subsequently, during operation, nuclear power plants
consume roughly 2.3 to 2.8 liters of water per kWh (6), or approximately
6-12 billion liters per year for a Borssele-sized plant (7), which is
20-83% more than coal-fired plants.
The direct impacts of
water consumption are augmented by the often overlooked impacts of contamination.
Greenpeace reports that water samples collected near a mine in North-eastern
Brazil, within what is officially termed the “direct influence
area,”, contained uranium levels seven times higher than the WHO-approved
levels (8).
3. Radioactive waste
Despite reports of 'safe
storage' by energy companies, there is no generally accepted method
for dealing with radioactive waste.
Waste-disposal options
have been identified even by supporters of nuclear power technologies
as a serious stumbling block to sustainability. Nuclear energy leaves
behind a radioactive wake at every step of the process, from mining
to reactor operation to plant-decommission. The mining process leaves
behind radioactive dust – tailings – that contain isotopes
with half lives of up to 80,000 years (9).
Mining and milling results
in thousands of tons of tailings. Although much of this dust is unlikely
to cause significant damage to the skin, it is often inhaled, introducing
radioactive material into the body. Mining landscapes hence become unusable
for countless generations.
In most parts of the world,
laws are in place that commits companies that mine radioactive material
to clean and protect contaminated areas for hundreds of years. Interestingly,
mining companies have an unfortunate way of disappearing when the time
comes to start cleaning up. Central Asia and Eastern Europe are littered
with former Soviet uranium mines. Because the former state-owned mining
companies no longer exist, it is impossible to enforce the liability
for clean-up (10).
The problem is not confined
to the former Soviet Union. The United States' largest Native American
reservation, the Navajo Nation, has more than 500 open abandoned uranium
mines currently being assessed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (some estimates put the total number at over 1,000) (11).
The cancer death rate
on the reservation — historically much lower than that of the general
U.S. population — doubled from the early 1970s to the late 1990s,
even while the overall U.S. cancer death rate declined slightly during
that same period (12).
After mining, milling
and enrichment, which produces still more tailings, the story of radioactivity
becomes increasingly grim. Reactor operation results in contaminated
structural components. A typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plant annually
produces about 13 tonnes of medium level radioactive structural material.
Additionally, it results
in highly radioactive spent fuels – the type that is currently
causing much distress in Japan – that must be cooled down, reprocessed
and stored somewhere.
Finally, plant decommissioning
results in about 10,000 tonnes of medium to high level radioactive waste
and an additional 10,000 tons of low to medium radioactive waste, that
again must be disposed of.
4. Costs
The costly long-term commitment
to the storage and handling of radioactive waste is coupled with the
process of plant construction itself. The cost of a reactor is extremely
high, mainly because of measures to improve security.
It also, however, is dependent
on an unreliable supply chain, since the long pause in nuclear reactor
construction has led to a global shortage of sufficiently knowledgeable
and experienced engineers.
A multi-billion new French
reactor currently under construction was recently revised upwards by
twenty percent and faces significant delay. Meanwhile, the commissioning
of the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 reactor was recently postponed from 2009
to 2013, while its estimated price tag ballooned by fifty percent (13).
As Time magazine has so
succinctly summarized, “no nuclear plant has ever been completed
within budget”.
In terms of potential
severity and irreversibility of impact, a nuclear disaster outweighs
almost any other kind of industrial meltdown. For that reason, insurance
companies refuse to take up nuclear power plants as clients.
It has been estimated
that a Chernobyl or Fukushima type disaster in Germany could cost the
country as much as 5 trillion euros, almost twice the GDP (14). Who
is to carry that liability? Indeed, it is the state, who thereby heavily
subsidizes nuclear energy.
While nuclear plants are
certainly designed to never let such a disaster occur, history has shown
us that the unthinkable does happen in industrial management.
5. Nuclear uses finite fuels
Nuclear energy, which is
entirely dependent on the mining and use of a particular uranium isotope,
is not a renewable source of energy.
Estimates vary over how
long the world could keep splitting uranium atoms to keep its nuclear
plants running. If we choose to invest in nuclear power and significantly
increase its output, it is possible that we will fall short of the 200
year depletion projection (15).
Without a doubt, however,
we will be locked into a vulnerable, centralized energy infrastructure
that finds its finite fuel on just a few places on earth and that must
be secured through foreign policy, massive investment, long supply chains
and intensive technological processing. In short, it will lock us into
where we already are.
A long term view
We have spent the last
one hundred years living in a bounty of almost infinite energy. The
fossil fuel bonanza of coal, oil, and natural gas has allowed our global
society to develop at an unprecedented rate, with our population and
consumption booming to match.
It is impossible to ignore
the benefits of concentrated energy. But it is also impossible to ignore
the fact that we will eventually need to adjust our patterns of consumption
to fit renewable energy fluxes. Right now, we are faced with a choice
that will define the next 50 years of energy policy. Do we choose to
invest in nuclear energy, or do we want to invest in renewable energy?
Nuclear energy, although
it emits far less greenhouse gases than coal and gas powered plants,
comes with a high price: the fresh water use, radioactive tailings,
the potential for catastrophic accidents, its radioactive waste and
the permanent need for heavy state subsidies.
Also, it needs a centralized,
costly, vulnerable and politicized infrastructure.
Better than renewables?
Renewable energy sources,
meanwhile, emit similar or even lower levels of greenhouse gas. They
hardly use any water, are not radioactive, can typically cause only
small scale accidents and will only need state subsidies for as long
as coal, gas and nuclear are also still subsidized.
More fundamentally, the
move to renewable energy represents a choice for a more decentralized
energy supply. One that can be harvested anywhere in the world, that
supports local autonomy and that creates a more resilient energy supply
and, consequently, society.
This 'resiliency' is a
major a factor of energy security, therefore while some renewable energy
sources have variable energy output profiles, their society-level security
is higher than any centralized power source, be it gas, coal, fission
or even fusion.
It is clear that the end
of our fossil fuel bonanza poses us difficult questions. How do we want
to go forth from here? Investing in nuclear power is a long-term commitment,
that will tie up limited resources and bind us to a 50 year long path
of action that is risky and costly at best, catastrophic at worst.
Is that really what we
want? The dearth of public discourse surrounding this major decision
is worrisome. Nuclear power is offered as a way to achieve the short
term goals governments have set, but it does not offer long term perspective.
It seems that, if all things
are considered properly, and the true value for society is taken into
account, Nuclear power cannot be seen as a way forward.
Eva Gladek M.E.M., Tom
Bosschaert M.Sc. M.Arch., Rebecca Blum M.Sc., Marten Witkamp M.Sc.,
Ariana Bain M.E.Sc Except
Integrated Sustainability
References:
1 - IAEA, "International
Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power" , Report by the Director
General, 2010,
7 - Guy Woods (Department
of Parliamentary Services), December 4, 2006, "Water requirements
of nuclear power stations", Research Note no. 12, 2006–07,
ISSN 1449-8456 www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2006-07/07rn12.pdf
9 - Peter Waggitt, Residual
Safety in the Uranium Mining Cycle. Waste Safety Section, IAEA, (October,
2007). PDF
10 - Simon Webster and
Jan Vrijen, The Legacy of Uranium Mining in Central and Eastern Europe.
International Symposium on the Uranium Production Cycle and the Environment,
(October, 2000), Vienna, Austria.
We are rushing headlong into a global
water crisis of calamitous proportions. The twin challenges of water
quantity and water quality represent an inexorable planetary disaster.
It may not have the sudden impact of the asteroid, but its ultimate
effect may be just as dire.
However, it is not too
late to prevent catastrophe. In The Future of Water: A Startling Look
Ahead the authors present possible–indeed, probable–scenarios
for the broad trends that will have a significant impact upon future
water challenges–population, economic growth, energy, climate,
pollution, and more. Discover what might be in store for us and how
individuals, water utilities, industries, and countries can change the
future of water.
“Steve Maxwell takes
us straight into the realities of the water crisis that is now spreading
through all parts of the country, and indeed the entire world.”
From the Foreword by Bruce Babbit, former US Secretary of the Interior
Steve Maxwell
Steve
Maxwell
is a semi-retired business executive, writer and journalist, and the
founder of The Outer Line - a media platform which covers the structural,
economic, governance and ethical aspects of professional sports. He
was also one of the founders and original investors in Pocket Outdoor
Media - now known as Outside Communications - the leading media company
in endurance sports, which publishes VeloNews and some 20 other titles
in endurance sports, outdoor activities and healthy living. He remains
a shareholder in Outside Communications, and is a regular editorial
contributor to VeloNews. He is involved with a wide variety of activities
around international cycling, including film-making initiatives, commissions
on women's cycling, and professional race events.
For some 25 years previously,
Maxwell was Managing Director of TechKNOWLEDGEy Strategic Group, a transaction
advisory and management consulting firm serving the the environmental
and water resource industries, and he is still active in water resource
development projects. Before that, he served as VP of Marketing for
the environmental services company USPCI; Manager of Strategic Planning
for Union Pacific Corporation; and Executive VP of Recra Environmental,
an environmental testing firm. Maxwell also worked for several years
as a key advisor to Summit Global Management, a prominent investment
firm and hedge fund operator in the global water industry.
He is the author of "The
Future of Water" (2011) – an in-depth and layman's look at
the future of our global water challenges – "The Business
of Water" (2008) and hundreds of articles on water resources and
environmental issues. He has also written widely on various economic
and political issues surrounding international sport. He serves on various
boards and speaks often at industry conferences.
In 2013, Maxwell became
just the 10th American to successfully complete the legendary cycling
climb Mont Ventoux, in southern France, from all four directions in
one day. He has won his age group category in the Bolder Boulder, the
largest 10K race in the country, and in 2018 he cycled 3,400 miles across
the United States. Maxwell holds Masters Degrees in both Public Policy
and in Geological Sciences from Harvard University, and is a Phi Beta
Kappa graduate of Earlham College. He and his wife Susan have two grown
children and reside in Boulder, CO and Annapolis, MD.
Scott
Yates
Startup founder and mentor,
currently working to fight disinformation. I'm still a Daylight Saving
Time activist, and I'll always be a journalist at heart.
I'm currently leading JournalList.net,
a nonprofit that is the caretaker of the trust.txt framework for identifying
the associations of a news publisher as a signal of trustworthiness.
And I'm also the guy trying
to fix Daylight Saving Time leading the
#LockTheClock
movement.
Before that I started three
companies. I've made money for investors, created new jobs, and solved
what seemed like intractable problems. I love that perhaps most of all.
Before that I was a writer
and reporter, and worked in communications for the state government
and I ran a think tank, wrote a book, served as a ghostwriter for a
governor.
The
EU’s Green Deal: opportunities, threats and risks for South African
agriculture By Wandile
Sihlobo, Stellenbosch University
and Tinashe Kapuya, Bureau for Food and Agricural
Policy
The European Union – among a host of other countries – is seeking to
implement urgent policy measures to combat the effects of climate change.
In its 2030 climate target plan, the EU aims to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 55% from 1990 levels.
To that end, the EU has
crafted the “Farm
to Fork strategy”. Launched in 2020, it is a new approach
that ensures that agriculture, fisheries, and the entire food system
effectively contributes to achieving the target. The strategy is at
the core of a broader initiative, the European
Green Deal. It’s aim is to reduce the environmental and carbon
footprint in the way food is produced and consumed.
The strategy lists 27 actions.
These cover food production, processing, retailing, and waste. They
aren’t expected to be implemented until 2022, to give regulators and
food system actors time to transition into the new policy regime.
It has four broad pillars:
Consumer demand. This
focuses on nutritional labelling and creating a sustainable labelling
framework that covers nutrition, climate, environment and social
aspects of food products. The labelling requirements are intended
to empower consumers to make conscious decisions about health and
sustainability.
Food production. This
sets out the fundamentals for sustainable production by setting
targets that reduce the use of fertilisers and pesticides and the
revision of legislation covering feed additives and animal welfare.
Industry behaviour.
This seeks concrete commitments from agribusiness and other food-system
actors concerning health and sustainability. The EU will develop
a code of conduct on the development of business and marketing practices
and require agribusiness to integrate sustainability into their
corporate strategies.
Trade policy. This
seeks commitment from third countries on the use of pesticides and
animal welfare and the fight against microbial resistance.
The EU is seeking to compel
other countries, including South Africa, to adhere to new regulations
if they want to continue to access its lucrative market. This raises
questions about the capacity and potential for South Africa to adapt,
as well as the risks and opportunities that the regulations present
to future access to the EU market.
The challenges?
South African producers
– as well as those in the rest of Southern
African Customs Union and Mozambique – may face several challenges.
These include:
Regulatory and
policy uncertainty: It might take some time for regulators
and food-system actors to align their policy, regulations, and business
decisions to the emerging requirements of the food system. Policy cycles
and political processes can impose a lag-time of anywhere between 3
and 5 years. This is likely to lead to a transition phase of regulatory
and policy uncertainty.
High costs of compliance:
Over the years, South African agribusinesses have had to conform to
stringent EU regulatory standards. There has also been an ever-increasing
set of private standards. These range from traceability, to exposure
to allergens, good farming practice and child labour, to name just a
few. It also includes various kinds of certification. Resource-poor
farming households can seldom afford such high costs of adopting new
regulations and certification. Without financial support, most smallholder
farmers will inevitably be excluded from participating in export markets.
But there are opportunities
too.
Potential growth points
One area in which there
may be room for South Africa to grow market share is in genetically
modified (GM) foods. South Africa produces some
GM crops. But the EU currently has very tight restrictions
on the GM imports. However, it is currently reviewing
its GM regulations. It has released a
study confirming that new genomic techniques products have
the potential to contribute to sustainable agri-food systems in line
with the objectives of the European Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy.
A change in its policy
could open up new export avenues for South Africa.
Another area of growth
is in high value organically produced food. South Africa has existing
commercially driven export value chains that already conform to emerging
rules in this sector. However, these foods are still targeted at niche
markets in the EU. But the Farm to Fork Strategy seeks to make them
mainstream. This is can be an opportunity for South Africa if farmers
can begin to produce higher volumes at a relatively competitive price.
Another opportunity arises
from projections that global
food demand will increase by as much as 60% by 2050. Few
EU member states can allocate enough land to produce and match supply
to meet this demand. The assumption, therefore, is that the EU will
increasingly depend on food imports.
South Africa has at least
1.3
million hectares of additional cropland that can be sustainably
brought into production.
Against this backdrop,
South Africa can continue to expand its production to meet an increasingly
significant portion of the EU’s food needs. This is especially so if
local food systems adapt and align to standards to meet any new regulatory
standards.
But the country’s agricultural
sector will also have to up its game when it comes to technological
innovation. Technical change will have to involve the adoption of technologies
that will reduce the carbon footprint of the agro-food system as well
as increase yields in a sustainable way.
Part of that process will
be to expand the adoption of high-yielding, drought- and pest-tolerant
genetically engineered crops. These will enable farmers to use less
land to produce more food. This will also allow for more land to be
set aside for preservation and increase the potential for carbon sequestration.
The risks
Increased
inequality: There need
to be deliberate and strategic interventions that support regulatory
compliance. Without these there is a real chance that resource-poor
farmers will be left out of the new “sustainable agro-food system” due
to their lack of financial and technical capacity to conform to new
standards.
This will only serve to
deepen the inequality gap and widen the divergence between the informal
and formal food systems. The first mover advantage for EU value-chain
actors may potentially displace sub-Saharan African exporters in markets
if adoption of regulations takes more time than initially envisaged.
Off-shoring of
“bad production” to South Africa: Food producers who cannot
comply with the provisions of the Farm to Fork strategy could potentially
relocate parts of their value chain to South Africa, targeting exports
to the Middle East, and the Far East and Asia where food standards are
far less stringent. Without any pressure to comply to environmental
sustainability, the types of technologies that will be implemented in
South Africa may hurt the continent in the long run.
Next steps
The four key factors that will drive the
re-set of the food system through the Farm to Fork strategy will be:
technical change;
business model innovation;
growing food demand; and
policy and regulation.
The EU and the private sector may need
to provide significant technical and financial support to facilitate
South Africa’s transition and align its regulatory environment with
the focus on health and sustainability.
In the long run, the expectation is that
with the harmonisation of standards and practices will also come structural
change of the food system in such a way that value chain profits are
not disproportionately accumulated at the expense of farmers. This will
require higher levels of transparency across all parts and aspects of
the South African food system.
Biobased
economy, bioeconomy or biotechonomy refers to economic activity involving
the use of biotechnology and biomass in the production of goods, services,
or energy. ... This includes the application of scientific and technological
developments to agriculture, health, chemical, and energy industries.
The Bioeconomy includes
primary production, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture,
and industries using / processing biological resources, such as the
food and pulp and paper industries and parts of the chemical, biotechnological
and energy industries.
The Bioeconomy represents
market estimated to be worth over EUR 2 trillion, providing 20 million
jobs and accounting for 9 % of total employment in the Union in 2009.
Investments in research and innovation will enable Europe to take
leadership in the concerned markets and will play a role in achieving
the goals of the Europe
2020 strategy and itsInnovation Union and Resource
Efficient Europe flagship initiatives. Managed in a
sustainable manner, the Bioeconomy can also sustain a wide range of
public goods, including biodiversity and ecosystem services. It can
reduce the environmental footprint of primary production and the supply
chain as a whole. It can increase their competitiveness, enhance Europe's
self-reliance and provide jobs and business opportunities. The bioeconomy
can contribute to build a more competitive, innovative and prosperous
Europe.
Every euro invested in
Bioeconomy research and innovation under Horizon
2020 will generate about €10 in value added. It
will also contribute to the Commission's Europe 2020 goal on moving
to a low-carbon economy by 2050 and to the flagship initiatives "Innovation
Union" and "A Resource Efficient Europe".
By closing regional nutrient
and resource cycles, RUN contributes to the sustainability and resilience
of agricultural systems in the bachdrop of urban structures. An essential
element of the project is the estabishment of regional nutrient partnerships
between urban residents and farmers. They shall support the long-term
recycling of nutrients in society.
The structure of the project
is similar to a real laboratory: In the city of Heidelberg, a pilot
plant as well as an information and experience space are planned to
be installed in order to demonstrate the undertaking. In this way, new
technologies can be tested directly under real-time conditions and with
the participation of relevant actors. RUN combines the research of innovative
technologies, the analysis of material flow models, systemic scenario
analysis and socio-scientific participatory methods to develop sustainable
solutions.
The
Helmholtz Association
pursues the long-term research goals of the state and society, including
basic research, in scientific autonomy.
About the Helmholtz Association
Germany’s
largest research organization
Named after Hermann
von Helmholtz (1821-1894), one of the last great scientific generalists
Annual budget of
~ € 4,7 billion
~ 40,000 employees
World-Class science
infrastructure
19 independent research
centers all over Germany
Our research plays
a key role in identifying reliable answers that benefit society,
science, and the economy.
The Helmholtz Association’s
six fields of research focus on the major societal challenges
of our time – such as the digital revolution, climate change,
energy transition, transport in the future and the battle against
severe and widespread diseases – and work on developing sustainable
solutions for the future. In doing so, Helmholtz covers the entire
spectrum from basic to application-oriented research whilst applying
an interdisciplinary approach.
The Helmholtz Association
cooperates with leading research institutions at the national
and international level and is committed to the highest standards
of talent management at all levels and the promotion of early-career
researchers.
New knowledge can
only benefit society and the economy if it is transferred and
therefore made usable. For this reason, transferring knowledge
and technology and promoting innovation are of extraordinary importance
to us.
400 new patents
are filed every year
Approx. 20 new high-tech
spin-offs per year
“Our mission is to contribute to a bioeconomy
that delivers sustainably produced foodstuffs and renewable resources
while also reducing the environmental footprint of the world’s
population.”
It
is one of the key questions that will shape our future: How can we
build a sustainable economy that meets humanity’s needs while
at the same time not putting the Earth’s natural resources under
excess strain? And moreover, how can we achieve this when, in 2050,
there might be almost ten billion people living on our planet? The
answers to these questions could lie in a sustainable bioeconomy and
thus in an intact circular economy. Instead of consuming food, chemicals,
and energy sources based on natural resources to excess, as has been
the case up to now, we must find ways of using natural resources sustainably.
This means handling raw materials and products with care, using them
for as long as possible, and recycling them at the end of their service
life to recover materials or energy. Taking these steps helps ecosystems
to continue to provide their functions and services and reduces the
pressure on the atmosphere, water, and biodiversity.
It is therefore our goal
to develop new technologies in the field of plant genotypes, bioinformatics,
biotechnology, and soil and water management. This means, for example,
studying plant genotypes and agricultural management options that
can be used to increase agricultural yields but at the same time require
less fertilizer and less irrigation. We also want to analyze the genetic
and biochemical properties of microbes and microbial communities,
for example, in order to grow CO2-fixing bacteria or break down biomass
in biorefineries to produce usable raw materials.
(...) One area of focus involves agroecosystems, which, on the one
hand, are important locations for the production of food and, on the
other, have a key role to play in terms of biodiversity. We aim to
develop practical solutions and technologies for these systems that
farmers can use to protect the environment and at the same time produce
sufficient yields from their fields.
(...) Helmholtz is active in the five primary areas: quantum computing,
quantum communication, quantum sensing, quantum materials and basic
research, as well as simulation and numerical methods.
In addition, Helmholtz develops, builds, and operates powerful infrastructures
for researching quantum technologies.
Quantum
technologies will revolutionize the economy and society in the future.
Helmholtz is pooling its expertise in the field and creating a unique
platform.
Thousands of researchers
around the world are working on a gigantic goal: a new kind of computer
that cracks tasks that all classical computers fail at. The bizarre
laws of quantum physics are supposed to help the "quantum computer"
achieve incredible computing speeds. Today, utopian breakthroughs
await, for example in materials research, in the optimization of highly
complex logistics or traffic flows, or in the simulation of chemical
reactions. For example, the quantum computer could provide the key
to a more climate-friendly production process for artificial fertilizers.
Helmholtz Association Cross-Programme
Initiative: Sustainable Bioeconomy
The vision is a natural circle of a sustainable Bioeconomy with the
promise of a worldwide supply of food and an extraction of high qualitative
products out of renewable materials.
The Objectives of SUSTAINABLE BIOECONOMY are
to develop integrated
approaches as the basis for sustainable Bioeconomy routes addressing
the grand challenges mentioned above
to advance the
required knowledge about biological system and the processing
of biobased resource
to develop technical
and socio-economic sound solutions based on scientific knowledge
about biological systems and processing of biomass to develop novel
bio-based products that provide innovative characteristics (e.g.
chemical products, novel bio-based materials) and thus are competitive
on market
to provide resource
stewardship and sustainable and resilient ecosystem function
including mitigation and adaptation to climate change through alternative
options for a fossil based economy
to address national
as well as the global challenges of food security and safety,
provision of non-fossil resources, natural resource stewardship
as well as bioenergy options integrated into a future sustainable
energy mix
The Strategy is to achieve
this by
developing novel
and quantitative key technologies to utilise plants and microbes
as well as their interaction as major bio-resources for a sustainable
bioeconomy
executing analysis
of the impact of practices of biomass production on soil, water
and landscape, and develop options for sustainable provision
of ecosystem services and towards resilient land use system
developing efficient
processing and conversion technologies of biomass (including biobased
waste) for sustainable bioenergy options
developing integrated
approaches along entire value chains aiming at zero- or minimal
waste, cascade and multi-product utilisation of biomass, integrated
biorefinery approaches and closed loop designs of bioeconomy cycles
Structurally this will
be achieved
by integrating
the wide range of scientific expertise within the Helmholtz Association
in the five programs of “Key Technology for the Bioeconomy”,
“Terrestrial Environment”, „Atmosphere and Climate“,
„Renewable Energy" and “Technology, Innovation and
Society” including major contributions from five Helmholtz
research centers. In addition aspects of Bioeconomy and Human Heath
are addressed.
by developing, using
and providing unique technologies and technology platforms
by cooperating
with non-Helmholtz research in universities and non-university
research organization, with industry, policy makers and civil society
Matthew
Griffin, described as “The Adviser behind
the Advisers” and a “Young Kurzweil,” is a world class
futurist and the founder and CEO of the 311
Institute, a global Futures and Deep Futures advisory,
and the World Futures Forum and XPotential University, two philanthropic
organisations whose mission it is to reduce global inequality, in all
its forms, and ensure the benefits of the future are accessible to everyone,
irrespective of their abilities or background. He is also the author
of the futuristic “Codex of the Future” series, and the book
"How to Build Exponential Enterprises."
Regularly featured in the
global media, including the AP, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, Discovery, Telegraph,
ViacomCBS, and WIRED, Matthew’s ability to identify, track, and
explain the impacts of hundreds of revolutionary emerging technologies
on global culture, industry and society, is unparalleled. Recognised
for the past six years as one of the world’s foremost futurists,
innovation and strategy experts Matthew is an international speaker
who helps governments, investors, multi-nationals and regulators around
the world envision, build and lead an inclusive, sustainable future.
Matthew
Griffin: "THERE’S A REASON why we call our planet
the “Blue Planet,” and why NASA astrologists in 1990 called
it the “Pale Blue Dot” when they looked at the iconic satellite
imagery taken from Voyager 1 as it turned one last time to take a photo
of the Earth hanging seemingly motionless against the black void of
space from a distance of over 6 Billion km, or 3.7 Billion miles. It’s
because we’re a water planet."
Source: ESA
The
Future of Water by Futurist Keynote Speaker Matthew Griffin
Can we avoid future Water Conflicts and Water
Wars? Are 5 Billion people destined to be affected by chronic water
shortages? Or do we have solutions today that solve one of the world's
greatest challenges? Read
the report
to find out (and the answer BTW is "Yes we have solutions!")
The Future isn't Digital
by Keynote Futurist Speaker Matthew Griffin
The future of digital and digital transformation
is a top of mind topic for almost every executive in every industry –
from the likes of JP Morgan Chase who are spending $13 Billion a year
on what their Global Head of Strategy calls a “Once in a generation
opportunity,” to the sole proprietors and entrepreneurs who see it
as a way to conduct business anywhere in the world seamlessly and without
borders.
Digital is the business
opportunity – and threat – that noone can ignore so it was
with some aplomb that I chose to tell the distinguished audience that
the future, in fact, was not digital – it’s much, much more.
As we see the adoption
and development of faster computers and cloud and edge computing platforms,
5G, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Twins, Internet of Things, the
Metaverse, as well as Augmented Reality, and Virtual Reality, let alone
so called MXR – sensory immersive reality technologies – the
future isn’t going to be “just” digital. It’s going
to be a coming together – a unification – of the digital,
physical, and virtual worlds. And the opportunities that this gives
rise to – as you can see from the keynote – to change everything
from the way products are designed and sold and beyond, mean that becoming
a digital organisation is only the beginning of a fantastic journey.
Sit back, chat with your
AI companion, get your robot to grab you a beer from the fridge and
rewind and replay the video.
Johanna Forster
Naomi Vaughan
Wandile Sihlobo
Tinashe Kapuya
