Solving energy and food problems as a career

[Artus]

Hello.

Perhaps everyone here have heard about Peak Oil. This theory is about the future oil scarcity and their consequences in Economy, Food production, and Energy. There are actually other options in Energy like Sun, Wind, and Biodiesel. The problem is they use Oil to make parts, and transport their products. Besides Oil, we have scarcity problems with other resources like:

Hellium:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/future-these-will-cost-100-each

Water:

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/water/en/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3747724.stm

http://www.source.irc.nl/page/49876

http://247wallst.com/2010/10/29/the-ten-great-american-cities-that-are-dying-of-thirst/2/

Cocoa:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/553203/201011091817/Cocoa-scarcity-price-hikes-seen.aspx

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ocolate-worth-its-weight-in-gold-2127874.html

Phosphorus:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311092124.htm

http://eartheasy.com/blog/2009/01/peak-phosphorus/

http://machineslikeus.com/news/phosphorus-scarcity-threat-world-food-security


The demand in Food, Energy, and Water is increasing with a growing population living in a finite land with finite resources. How well prepared is Science to cope with that? Do we have enough ideas to fix these scarcities with available technologies? Apprently these problems are a career oportunity, but a hard one, in big science. Solutions are not easy and Governments might fail in implementation plans. Maybe guys in EE, Chemical Engineering, some Branches of Physics, and Biology are going to be in charge of the problem, but we really need of Government and citizens to solve them.

 

[Shackleford]

http://slopeofhope.com/2010/03/okay...oilprice-and-others-about-the-dangers-of.html

The only problems are avarice and corrupt governments in certain parts of the world.

However, I certainly advocate diversifying energy supplies. That's always a good idea, to make them more affordable, more efficient, and so forth.

 

[Astronuc]

There are numerous programs around the world to look at these issues.

For example - http://www.bioversityinternational.org/

http://www.cgiar.org/
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development.
Bioversity International is a partner. See more partner links at the bottom of the CGIAR page.

UN Development Program - http://www.undp.org/

Search Google for "west african water initiative" and one finds many government and NGO participants.
Or read this - http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/water/wwf3.factsheets/wawi_2006.pdf

The above are just a few of the many programs around the world.

A big problem is government corruption, illiteracy and maldistribution of resources.

 

[turbo]

A big problem is government corruption, illiteracy and maldistribution of resources.

Probably the biggest problem at the local (country/regional) level.

At the source level, the most potent threat may be the propensity for agricultural giants to push hybridized varieties of food seeds to poor countries. Seeds that cannot be saved and re-planted from subsequent crops because they will not breed true. Such business practices are an assault on poor people all over the world. In the US, we have access to all kinds of seed companies that will sell gardeners heirloom seeds that have bred true for 100 years or more. Poor people in Africa or Asia have no such friends in US agriculture businesses. And the big agri-businesses have friends in government and can horn in on aid packages, guaranteeing that this next year's crop and the next will be unsustainable, and will require more aid in the form of seeds that will not breed true.

 

[twofish-quant]

The demand in Food, Energy, and Water is increasing with a growing population living in a finite land with finite resources. How well prepared is Science to cope with that? Do we have enough ideas to fix these scarcities with available technologies?

I think so. I worked in oil and gas for a few years, and it's a *really* high tech industry. If we had to rely only on oil and gas which is available with 1970 technology, we'd already be in a mess. Most of the easy oil has already run out, and what's left will disappear over the next few decades. The fact that no one has noticed our oil running out says something about the huge amount of science and technology that is in the industry.

The big oil companies realize this so they are trying to become diversified energy companies that still run the world once the cheap oil disappears.

Also, it's not so much growing population that is the problem, but growing standards of living. You have 2 billion people in China and India that want to live like Americans and 2 or 3 billion people after them.

Figuring out how to do that is going to be one of the major challenges of the 21st century.

Solutions are not easy and Governments might fail in implementation plans.

Which is a good reason why we should have more people with science background in politics. If you want to fix things like energy and food, you just can't confine yourself to technology, otherwise you have good but useless technology.

Most of the time, the problems aren't technological.

Maybe guys in EE, Chemical Engineering, some Branches of Physics, and Biology are going to be in charge of the problem

Hope not, unless they have good political skills. Physics doesn't provide you with that much training that is relevant for politics. Acting does, and it won't hurt a physicist that is interested in politics to take some drama classes or to try to sell a used car from time to time.

 

[twofish-quant]

One other thing. One problem with engineers is that they tend to be focused on "solving" problems. I think that can be self-defeating, because most of the time you find that the problems are unsolvable. First of all you'll find that in order to fix the problem, you have to do something that can't be done, or at least can't be done quickly. Second, any "solution" is going to cause new problems.

China's problem in 1975 was lack of economic growth. That problem has been "solved" but now we have a dozen new problems (social inequality, obesity in kids, pollution, corruption in that it's harder to be corrupt when no one has money).

I think it's better to think in terms of managing problem. Sure country X's political system is corrupt, but since we don't have magic wands, then let's think about how to make it less corrupt or to make the corruption less damaging.

 

[Artus]

...A big problem is government corruption, illiteracy and maldistribution of resources.

I believe illiteracy is the biggest threat. Some farmers got land to work, but they lack knowledge of Agricultural Engineers so they can plan sustainable agriculture. I think commerce should be more local, so farmers grow only endemic crops without forcing production and stop pretending to produce the same crop all the year.

Probably the biggest problem at the local (country/regional) level.

At the source level, the most potent threat may be the propensity for agricultural giants to push hybridized varieties of food seeds to poor countries. Seeds that cannot be saved and re-planted from subsequent crops because they will not breed true. Such business practices are an assault on poor people all over the world. In the US, we have access to all kinds of seed companies that will sell gardeners heirloom seeds that have bred true for 100 years or more. Poor people in Africa or Asia have no such friends in US agriculture businesses. And the big agri-businesses have friends in government and can horn in on aid packages, guaranteeing that this next year's crop and the next will be unsustainable, and will require more aid in the form of seeds that will not breed true.

I don't like the Monsanto model of business, but I think biotech has a lot ot offer. Astronuc brought this link:

http://www.cgiar.org/

They're groups working with some countries to plan sustainable development. Maybe they need more economic focus so farmer get teached about basic finances and negotiation.

I think so. I worked in oil and gas for a few years, and it's a *really* high tech industry. If we had to rely only on oil and gas which is available with 1970 technology, we'd already be in a mess. Most of the easy oil has already run out, and what's left will disappear over the next few decades. The fact that no one has noticed our oil running out says something about the huge amount of science and technology that is in the industry.

The big oil companies realize this so they are trying to become diversified energy companies that still run the world once the cheap oil disappears.

Besides, some of them did not put money before in alternative energy. Oil is still profitable and maybe they feel they have still time.

Also, it's not so much growing population that is the problem, but growing standards of living. You have 2 billion people in China and India that want to live like Americans and 2 or 3 billion people after them.

I agree. I was thinking about that when I wrote the post.

Figuring out how to do that is going to be one of the major challenges of the 21st century.

Especially when we're running against time and Thermodynamics.

Which is a good reason why we should have more people with science background in politics. If you want to fix things like energy and food, you just can't confine yourself to technology, otherwise you have good but useless technology.

Most of the time, the problems aren't technological.



Hope not, unless they have good political skills. Physics doesn't provide you with that much training that is relevant for politics. Acting does, and it won't hurt a physicist that is interested in politics to take some drama classes or to try to sell a used car from time to time.

Scientific literacy is a plus, but that shouldn't be a problem. World Goverments should have more Scientists and Engineers if not as Ministers, at least as advisors. Obama has Steven Chu, let's see if he works on this problem.

One other thing. One problem with engineers is that they tend to be focused on "solving" problems. I think that can be self-defeating, because most of the time you find that the problems are unsolvable. First of all you'll find that in order to fix the problem, you have to do something that can't be done, or at least can't be done quickly. Second, any "solution" is going to cause new problems.

China's problem in 1975 was lack of economic growth. That problem has been "solved" but now we have a dozen new problems (social inequality, obesity in kids, pollution, corruption in that it's harder to be corrupt when no one has money).

I think it's better to think in terms of managing problem. Sure country X's political system is corrupt, but since we don't have magic wands, then let's think about how to make it less corrupt or to make the corruption less damaging.

I find the biggest obstacle in citizens. Government could bring some kind of rules to waste less energy, but some people still buys SUVs, use air conditioners the whole day, leave their rooms with TV, computers, and other devices turned on.

THe challenges for Scientists and Engineers are improving Energy sources, creating more efficient devices, and creating a culture of minimum waste.

 

[Delong]

I certainly agree with the point that technology itself cannot solve most of the energy and food crises of this modern day. Often times technology will add more problems or solve one problem and introduce another. Many of the causes of our energy and environmental crises are that our interests are beyond what is naturally sustained. Everything we want has to take energy that we ultimately derive from nature (plants, fossil fuels, water etc) and we can't solve that by making more energy efficient products. If we still use those products heavily we will still use up energy unsustainably and be in the same trap. At some point there needs to be a mass lifestyle change where we simply need to learn how to want less and enjoy with less.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe illiteracy is the biggest threat. Some farmers got land to work, but they lack knowledge of Agricultural Engineers so they can plan sustainable agriculture. I think commerce should be more local, so farmers grow only endemic crops without forcing production and stop pretending to produce the same crop all the year.

It's a complex socio-political problem. Education in rural areas of under-developed nations is very poor.

Here's an example of one program - http://www.eden-foundation.org/

or

Bottlebrush polymers filter water (for clean water)
http://www.asminternational.org/por...toid=5875c8b8ec17e210VgnVCM100000621e010aRCRD

And then there are problematic states like Afghanistan and Somalia, where some factions are hostile to an independent and educated society.

Even with developing nations, one has to get passed a corrupt customs or border control.

 

[Artus]

I certainly agree with the point that technology itself cannot solve most of the energy and food crises of this modern day. Often times technology will add more problems or solve one problem and introduce another. Many of the causes of our energy and environmental crises are that our interests are beyond what is naturally sustained. Everything we want has to take energy that we ultimately derive from nature (plants, fossil fuels, water etc) and we can't solve that by making more energy efficient products. If we still use those products heavily we will still use up energy unsustainably and be in the same trap. At some point there needs to be a mass lifestyle change where we simply need to learn how to want less and enjoy with less.

We're running against Thermodynamics, and Science is not able to solve the problem. We're running out of Oil, Uranium-235, and other resources. We must be prepared to lower our living standards, maybe trying to learn from countries like Cuba -even they're having oil because of Venezuelan donations- and trying to figure a less expensive scenario. The more important things are:

Food production.
Water Supply.
Health Care Systems.
Basic services (Drainage, Garbage recollection,...)

Scientists and Engineers must work on ideas so we can satisfy this needs without an oil supply. A biggest challenge than Space travels.

It's a complex socio-political problem. Education in rural areas of under-developed nations is very poor.

Here's an example of one program - http://www.eden-foundation.org/

or

Bottlebrush polymers filter water (for clean water)
http://www.asminternational.org/por...toid=5875c8b8ec17e210VgnVCM100000621e010aRCRD

And then there are problematic states like Afghanistan and Somalia, where some factions are hostile to an independent and educated society.

Even with developing nations, one has to get passed a corrupt customs or border control.

Some of this countries are not going to find a solution. There is a point where helping others means hurting yourself. That's the coming perspective.

 

[Delong]

Were you disagreeing with what I said or agreeing with it?

Also I too am rather interested in helping solve major food/health/environmental problems from a strong science side. What fields of science should I pursue? I want to study as much math and physics possible so any that involves those two the most would be desirable.

 

[Artus]

I agree with you.

I have not the right answer to your second question. Agricultural Engineers, Physicists, EE, ME, and other people are working about solving Food and Energy problmas, but I'm afraid the don't have the best solutions. We need cheap and recyclable materials as an alternative to plastics and other oil-based materials. We also need to develop medical devices and Water treatment plants with non oil-based products. It's not easy to see that our civilization is mostly based in oil and there is going to be less in the future.

 

[mayonaise]

What I think about these "problems" is that we humans will always push ourselves to a point where we have these problems. I don't think it is ultimately solvable by science and technology. Changing people's ideas, either through education or religion, could be more effective.

Similar to what Delong said.

 

[Sowill]

As energy is neither can be produced nor it can be destroyed, the total amount of energy in universe remains same. so if any energy like helium potash or in a nutshell chemical energy has dispersed in environment so we only need to do is just search and combine those energies again into the required form but again the question arises is about how to do it and it depends on technology...

 

[Delong]

Interesting thank for your input everyone.

 

[Artus]

Time is another important factor. We can't process matter to get energy and then changing our paradigm with celerity. The change from Oil to biofuels or another kind of energy is going to be expensive and it's going to take time to get it done.

 

[Delong]

I see thx.