Packing

Starting to come together:

Photo

Coloured bulbs are fixed to an iron frame for use as a circus decoration on the outskirts of New Delhi in India.

source: bbc news

Ramifications of Rural Renewables

                The readings for this week discussed the status, current situation, and future viability of renewable energy in India. Global support for renewable energy is growing as concerns over atmospheric carbon accumulation and climate change become increasingly urgent. Before pouring all of its efforts into renewable energy, however, it seems prudent that India stop to consider its largest developmental obstacles. These are generally accepted to be the poverty consuming over 40 percent of its population, and the poor quality of health and education that accompany that. Are the benefits of clean energy isolated to the long-term environmental realm, or are they immediately relevant to these people trying to improve their quality of life?

                According to a 2010 report by the US Department of Energy, over 400 million people in India, including 47.5% of those living in rural areas, did not have access to electricity. India’s national electricity policy of 2005 recognized electricity as an essential requirement for all facets of life and as a basic human need.  It also states that electricity supply to rural India is essential for India’s overall development[1].

                A 2008 report by the World Bank elaborates on human impacts of electrification. When homes receive electricity, its primary impact is lighting. Effective lighting beyond the natural cycle of the sun generally improves life by allowing for extended hours of productivity. The main benefits are to small businesses which can operate for extended hours and to school children which who have been found to study for longer hours[2].   

                Air quality provides another realm where electricity can make big improvements. Emissions from kerosene lanterns often exceed WHO indoor air quality when burned for multiple consecutive hours[3]. Biomass, which is used as the primary cooking fuel by 90% of the rural homes in India, causes severe respiratory hazards for the women preparing food[4], and often costs women up to 8 hours a week of gathering time[5]. Simple electric appliances could alleviate these widespread health and time burdens.

                The most surprising part of the World Bank report for me was that television constitutes the second biggest use of newly-available rural electricity. Interestingly, TV exposure corresponds to improvements in many aspects of health. Though not on drastic levels, lower fertility and mortality rates have been linked to better nutritional and contraceptive habits that results from information gained from television. Electricity is also used for a variety of other applications, like pumping water for irrigation, powering medical equipment and running refrigerators for food storage.

                The DOE report touts the advantages of renewable for electrification of remote areas with decentralized energy grids. Renewables provide an advantage over traditional fossil fuel sources because, especially in the case of solar power, they exist in discrete production units that can be purchased and utilized on the scale of a single household’s financial resources and electrical demand.   In recent years, the Indian government has initiated multiple programs designed to utilize this advantage for rural electrification, and has since provided free power to more than 12 million people below the poverty line in 90,00 villages[6].  

                Such a welfare approach, however, obviously lacks the financial sustainability required of potential solutions for bringing power to 400 million new consumers. The World Bank report conveys some unfortunate trends in the economically viable rural electrification projects it finances throughout the world. Basically, the majority of electrification benefits do not reach the poor. Even in villages connected for 15-20 years, 25% of households commonly remain unconnected, mostly due to issues for the poor with getting sufficient finances to buy the service. Remote, off grid locations generally imply higher energy costs, which is the reason renewable like solar become competitive there. Although these remote projects often include better financing options for the impoverished, they still don’t approach universal accessibility[7].

                The World Bank also found that lighting and TV generally account for 80% of power use in rural areas. Electrified rural areas rarely utilize the resource for cooking, which misses a large chunk of the possible health benefits. The availability of refrigeration for vaccines apparently has no effect on immunization rates.

                I am genuinely confused by the prevalence of TVs in electricity consumption. Even if the TV is all you can afford, why wouldn’t you buy a clean-heating stove instead? I suspect that maybe gender roles affect this phenomenon. The males may not appreciate the burden of traditional cooking techniques on their wives. If the husbands control all purchasing decisions, maybe they see no value in changing a system that seems to work fine from their perspective. Also, without basic medical education, maybe neither party understands the health benefits associated with many different appliances in the same price range as a television.

                So what should India do? Are renewable energy sources really worthwhile in their contributions to human society? In their current state, I don’t think so. If taxpayers want to foot the bill for rural power, the government’s current course is fine. In economically sustainable schemes, however, electricity still misses large groups of the rural poor. Even the people receiving it, it seems, are missing a lot of its potential benefits. If the structures of implementation were modified to include better information about beneficial applications and maybe partially subsidized prices for the most impoverished, renewable electrification could look a lot better. Until then, though, more basic health and educational approaches seem like riper fields for progress.   

                        

               

---

[1] Arora, D. S., Busche, S., Cowlin, S., Engelmeier, T., Jaritz, H., Milbrandt, A., 
     & Wang, S. (2010, October). Indian Renewable Energy Status Report (J. Baur, 
     P. Gilman, & M. Lukkonen, Eds.). Springfield, VA: REN21 Secretariat. 

[2] Hurlburt, W., & Dittbrener, H. (Eds.). (2008). The welfare impact of rural 
     electrification: an assessment of the costs and benefits. Retrieved from 
     The World Bank website: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTRURELECT/ 
     Resources/full_doc.pdf

[3] Hurlburt, W., & Dittbrener, H. (Eds.). (2008). The welfare impact of rural 
     electrification: an assessment of the costs and benefits. Retrieved from 
     The World Bank website: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTRURELECT/ 
     Resources/full_doc.pdf

[4] Arora, D. S., Busche, S., Cowlin, S., Engelmeier, T., Jaritz, H., Milbrandt, A., 
     & Wang, S. (2010, October). Indian Renewable Energy Status Report (J. Baur, 
     P. Gilman, & M. Lukkonen, Eds.). Springfield, VA: REN21 Secretariat. 

[5] Hurlburt, W., & Dittbrener, H. (Eds.). (2008). The welfare impact of rural 
     electrification: an assessment of the costs and benefits. Retrieved from 
     The World Bank website: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTRURELECT/ 
     Resources/full_doc.pdf

[6] Arora, D. S., Busche, S., Cowlin, S., Engelmeier, T., Jaritz, H., Milbrandt, A., 
     & Wang, S. (2010, October). Indian Renewable Energy Status Report (J. Baur, 
     P. Gilman, & M. Lukkonen, Eds.). Springfield, VA: REN21 Secretariat. 

[7] Hurlburt, W., & Dittbrener, H. (Eds.). (2008). The welfare impact of rural 
     electrification: an assessment of the costs and benefits. Retrieved from 
     The World Bank website: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTRURELECT/ 
     Resources/full_doc.pdf

Photos

We start with a photograph by Kshitija Pande of artists creating designs with coloured powder on the streets of Pune, India, during the annual Ganesha Festival.

The monsoon rains are once again causing havoc on the subcontinent. Flood waters have finally begun to recede in parts of northern India - to the evident relief of residents

The cost of living was the chief concern for many others in India, with official figures showing the wholesale price index measure of inflation rose to 9.78% in August.

source: bbc news

Elements: The Full Story

I was very engaged by this week’s readings on phosphorus. As a senior chemistry major, I have encountered many theories about the structure and interactions of a wide range of elements in various situations. Most chemistry classes, however, view the world through a rather abstract, decontextualized lens. We learn many reactivity details, and often the technological applications of these phenomena, but we rarely look beyond chemical suppliers for the origins of the elements we manipulate.

 For this reason, I have really liked learning about global element cycles, the ways humans impact these cycles, and why they do so. In chemistry classes, we label many reactions as “industrially relevant,” which means people will pay you to do them, but we don’t often discuss the motivations or global ramifications of such transformations. I have really liked seeing data on how elements move naturally through the environment, and which industries manipulate them on what scale.

 In general, I have found that environmental context becomes more relevant in real-world chemistry research. I spent two summers researching the chemical origins of life on earth, which invoked many questions of paleoclimate and paloegeochemistry. When life started forming billions of years ago, it had to work within the constraints of which elemental building blocks existed in significant quantities on earth. As the Elements article states, phosphorus was indeed an odd choice, though I didn’t realize until now the actual degree of its scarcity[1].

 Our arsenic readings have also been fascinating, because they highlight the weakness of human biology in its susceptibility to something in such abundance on planet earth. Understanding arsenic intolerance in humans adds to the novelty of a recent report from a California astrobiology lab of bacteria that could actually replace phosphates with arsenates in many biomolecules[2]. Lead author Felisa Wolfe-Simon comments that “toxicity is in the eye of the beholder[3]”.   I find this a useful phrase to remember when considering environmental hazards to biological systems. It makes me wonder more about the arsenic distribution at the time when life was first evolving. Did a lesser presence possibly contribute to our apparent lack of defenses against exposure?

Returning, though, to human interaction with the global phosphorus cycle, I was primarily intrigued by the “story of phosphorus” article[4]. The most important use of phosphorus is fertilizers for food production. Excreta and decaying organic matter were the original phosphate sources. Bird and bat droppings provide a particularly good source, which I first discovered while visiting Carlsbad Caverns, NM this summer and learning of early mining operation there. I didn’t realize, though, that such droppings constituted a major global source.   A better grasp of bio and geo chemistry led to the utilization of mineral sources like rock phosphate. Current world reserves are concentrated in China, the US, and the Western Sahara[5].

I was startled by the estimation that only 50-100 years of global reserves exist. First, I never realized phosphorus was a non-renewable resource. I assumed that, like nitrogen, it was fairly available, but I guess that is only true because atmospheric abundance and the development of the Haber process for artificial fixation. Aside from eutrophication, I have never encountered any concern over phosphorus depletion. I was surprised again to learn that no coherent organization exists for the monitoring and management of the overall phosphorus cycle.

The article offers several approaches to prevent disastrous phosphorus depletion. First, some have suggested more aggressive exploration and exploitation of the planet for potential reserves. This however, produces dangerous byproducts, consumes large amounts of energy, and only offers a short-term solution. A more viable option involves the recycling of waste. Since close to 100 percent of consumed phosphorus is excreted, we can potentially recycle all that we need[6].

This solution, however, is greatly impeded by the aforementioned lack of cohesion in phosphorous management. Modern sanitation systems are not designed for any significant waste reclamation, so extensive changes would have to occur in that sector. The primary challenge is separating nutrients from the chemical and biological hazards that also exit our bodies. Urine is the easiest type of waste to manipulate, and also the safest. A promising case study from Sweden shows that it can be safely stored for significant time periods and used as fertilizer with reasonably simple domestic waste engineering[7].

The last approach is to simply reduce demand. Certain food types require more nutrient input than others. One convincing statistic is that meat eaters require nearly three times the phosphorus inputs of vegetarians. Nutrition should also be considered in our alternative fuel choices, since biofuels will definitely add to the phosphorous burden. Agricultural techniques are another important consideration. Organic techniques and careful monitoring to apply phosphorus only where needed are two strategies that will increase sustainability[8].

I am struck by the parallels between phosphorus and energy conservation. They both require alternative, more difficult sources coupled with a reduction in demand. Multiple approaches exist for these two goals in each sector. I think this highlights a fundamental law of nature that is crucial to our survival as species. Basically, we can never avoid the finite nature of our planet. If we must consume, we must mitigate this consumption in every way possible. We can’t rely on a technological silver bullet in one part of the system to erase the problem. The connectivity of the natural world simply doesn’t allow it, so we have to educate everyone until they can understand the world on a comprehensive scale. 

 

                 

---

[1] Filippelli, G. (2008, April). The global phosphorus cycle: Past, present,
future. Elements, 4, 89-95. doi:10.2113/gselements.4.2.89

[2] Wolfe-Simon, F., Blum, J., Kulp, T., Gordon, G., Hoeft, S., & Stolz, J. (2010,
December 2). A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of
phosphorus. Science Express, 1-9. doi:10.1126/science.1197258

[3] Flatow, I. (Speaker). (2010). Talk of the nation. NPR. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/03/131785452/
Arsenic-Eating-Bacteria-Challenge-View-Of-How-Life-Works

[4] Cordell, D., Dragert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global
food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change , 19,
292-305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009

[5] Cordell, D., Dragert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global
food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change , 19,
292-305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009

[6] Cordell, D., Dragert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global
food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change , 19,
292-305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009

[7] Cordell, D., Dragert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global
food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change , 19,
292-305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009

[8] Cordell, D., Dragert, J.-O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global
food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change , 19,
292-305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009

Photo

A fisherman uses a net to catch fish in Budhabudhi village in northeast India on Sept. 12. Although fish are caught throughout the year in Assam state, catching rates are highly seasonal and are related to water levels that fluctuate during the flooding season.

source: msnbc

Development Worth Pursuit

Prakash Shetty’s article “Nutrition Transition in India” brings up a very interesting issue that we haven’t yet encountered in such clarity: development isn’t always good. Of course we’ve seen examples of progress that benefits one sector but degrades another, like economic versus environmental concerns. The environmental side effects, though, would never be misread as development in their own right. I think “Nutritional Transition” broaches a qualitatively different subject; one where the perils actually look like benefits to the inexperienced eye. These sorts of issues, while rarely the most urgent, are definitely the most difficult to overcome.
           The specific profile of a person’s caloric intake may seem insignificant in the face of so much poverty, but it warrants attention even in the midst of much more dire crises. The issue of obesity still plagues the most advanced societies in the world, and carries serious consequences for the future. As a nation moving towards the largest population on earth, India would do well to attack this issue early. Especially since eating habits are largely a socio-cultural phenomenon, the momentum of the world’s largest nation will be exceedingly difficult to redirect if it drifts in a problematic direction.
          The article’s data is not altogether surprising. It indicates a trend of urbanization, which was on track to exceed thirty percent in 2001, so is probably significantly higher by now. Urbanization often implies increasing income, which carries with it the luxury of reduced manual labor and increased leisure time. The leisure time is generally devoted to sedentary activity, which, coupled with reduced exertion at work, translates to greatly reduced daily caloric expenditure. With more funds available for food, developing families will buy more and pricier ingredients, which causes a shift from vegetable to animal products. As daily calorie intake grows, so does the relative contribution from fats. Dietary and lifestyle changes combine to raise incidence of non-communicable disease and obesity[1].
         India’s demographic trends accentuate the potential issues with an excessively fatty diet. Non-communicable diseases often manifest themselves later in a person’s life. India’s elderly population is slated to increase not just in absolute terms, but also in its relative size by roughly five percent by 2026[2]. An aging population of any type will place great strain on the working class supporting them, but the emergence of chronic, nutrition-related diseases will certainly increase this burden. Therefore, the country would do well to invest in any possible early prevention, as it will definitely cost more to deal with health issues later.
          I also find it worth questioning the sustainability of a meat-focused diet. The environmental impacts of the meat industry are numerous, but a recent New York Times article lists just a few of them succinctly: “Assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests [3].”
          The developed world uses significantly more of the earth’s resources per capita than the developing world. In light of the resource shortages that are already occurring with respect to land, food and water, we should consider the consequences of converting hundreds of millions of people to a highly consumptive lifestyle. As we have discussed at length, India is already feeling backlash from the demand it puts on its own resources, especially in the realm of agriculture. As the same article mentions, “an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production[4].” This number includes the land used for growing feed grain. Considering the large caloric loss with each step up the food chain, it might make more sense to feed people the grains directly, greatly reducing the nutrient and space demands of meeting our collective caloric needs.
          Wasteful use of grain also looks bad in light of global malnourishment. Admittedly, food shortages generally result from inequalities in distribution rather than inadequacies of global production levels. Perhaps, however, the reduction of the meat industry would reduce demand sufficiently to lower world grain prices. Many of the world’s poor work in agriculture, but more commonly for subsistence purposes than for profit in the global markets. Lowered commodity prices should therefore have a net positive effect on their access to food.
          The problem of nutrient transition holds special relevance for us because it isn’t unique to India or even the developing world. In fact, since it accompanies development, it may be more our responsibility than anyone else’s. We live in a society at the peak of global development, and we’ve had more time to encounter and understand the associated issues than a nation like India. We should therefore have an advantage in finding a solution. Some might argue (as with similar issues like CO2 emissions), that it isn’t our responsibility to fix. In reality, however, we have assumed the position of a global role model. People looking for prosperity and happiness will strive for a lifestyle similar to ours. Like it or not, we need to set an example that will be sustainable for everyone to emulate. Otherwise, considering the globalized nature of climate, health, and economics, we will definitely share in the consequences.

---

[1] Shetty, P. S. (2002). Nutrition transition in India. Public Health Nutrition, 
     5(1A), 175-182. doi:10.1079/PHN2001291

[2] Shetty, P. S. (2002). Nutrition transition in India. Public Health Nutrition, 
     5(1A), 175-182. doi:10.1079/PHN2001291

[3] Bittman, M. (2008, January 27). Rethinking the meat-guzzler. The New York Times. 
     Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/ 
     27bittman.html

[4] Bittman, M. (2008, January 27). Rethinking the meat-guzzler. The New York Times. 
     Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/ 
     27bittman.html

GERs and Arsenic

We have read and discussed this week to considerable lengths on the problem of arsenic poising in Bangladesh and Western Bengal. Arsenic originates naturally from the composition of the earth's crust in the Himalayan region, and is dissolved into freshwater aquifers by the hydrological cycle. The element tends to remain at depths of at least forty feet, thereby not affecting surface water, the standard water resource for human society¹.

Recently, however, water-intensive farming practices have depleted much of the region's surface water resources. The temporal variability of rainfall, linked to the South Asian monsoon, has also decreased the reliability of surface water for agricultural and domestic use. This fact, paired with the relatively low prices of fuel and electricity in the early 1970's, encouraged the drilling of many new wells for access to underground water reserves. Over a twenty year period, groundwater extraction in West Bengal and Bangladesh increased sixfold and fourteenfold, respectively¹. This has caused relatively isolated arsenic contamination to spread throughout underground water sources. 

     Poorer social classes, especially manual laborers, are disproportionally affected by arsenic exposure. They are less likely to maintain a properly balanced diet, and more likely to drink directly from contaminated irrigation wells while working in the fields. The symptoms then affect their ability to perform physicals tasks, so they quickly become ineffective employees. Arsenic contamination spreads quickly through the food chain, occurring at significant levels in milk and grains produced in affected regions.

Treating the arsenic problem raises a plethora of difficult issues. Filtering water to remove arsenic is a feasible option, but that requires advanced technology that many rural households and government agencies do not understand how to implement properly. Sarkar reports a survey of large-scale arsenic treatment facilities, which found the majority of them to not function properly after two years of operation. This is basically an issue of untrained, unregulated employees. The same hold true of home-sized filtration systems, which require periodic basic maintenance. Families attempting to use the filtration systems rarely have the requisite education to do so correctly.

Instead of fixing the groundwater, some advocate a switch back to surface water, through preserving and replenishing those natural reserves. They suggest a system of small dams on rivers and streams to hold fresh water a little longer after the monsoon rains disappear, which would simultaneously replenish shallower, uncontaminated aquifers. The collection of roof runoff is another potential clean water source, but the grass thatching material typical of the region is incompatible with this technique. The implementation of less water-intensive crops provides a good way to reduce water demands, as does drip irrigation technology¹.

Sarkar suggests that the arsenic problem is surmountable through a concerted effort employing all of the aforementioned approaches, and laments the disjointed, uncooperative action currently occurring. In the end, he places primary responsibility on the Indian government, though emphasizing the need for the general population to become concerned about the issue. He thinks a successful effort will require that everyone become informed and work cooperatively at the particular solution most relevant to their skillset. The government is the party most capable of enabling this scenario.

I completely agree with his suggested collaborative approach. I think it speaks to a much larger theme faced by any society trying to bring about a change. I recently spoke about improving public health issues to a friend in a global health program in her first year of medical school. She mentioned that a large number of her classmates are very invested in public health issues, but the more I consider these types of problems, the less important doctors seem to be in their prevention. Instead of treatment, the real issue in the arsenic problem, and many others like it, is the home lifestyle, which consists of an incredibly complex web of social, technological environmental, educational, and economic factors.

When professionals rigidly aligned with any of these fields attack the problem, they can only advance a limited distance before stalling, because the other interdependent factors have not advanced sufficiently to support their progress. I have only recently realized the extent to which this holds true, and I think it speaks to the difficulty I have experienced while choosing a major at Furman, and the value I find in a liberal arts education. As cliché as it sounds, one of my major career goals is to understand and contribute to some process that appreciably changes the world for the better.

I have struggled to find any academic field capable of such an achievement singlehandedly. Ideally, I should become an expert in most fields, and combine them to fix the planet. But humans don’t have that capacity. We must specialize to reach cutting-edge expertise in any realm, which returns us to the problem of collaboration. This why I think Princeton University is on to something with its statement that “The University requirements for graduation transcend the boundaries of specialization and provide all students with a common language and common skills².” Though I found several statements about well-rounded people in the Furman course catalog, it never quite addressed such a collaborative capacity for its graduates. I think we do a fine job of practicing this, but we would do well to acknowledge its significance.

 I suppose the conclusion of this post is an encouragement of collaboration, but with a special warning against overspecialization. Effective collaborations will come from actors with specific, limited skillsets, but who understand the other relevant fields well enough to accommodate and complement those primary concerns when solving a problem. Maybe a Furman system can produce a few of those actors. I’m betting about 200 grand on it.

---

[1] Sarkar, A. (2009). Sustainable Solutions to Arsenic Contamination of Groundwater . In U. Pascual, A. Shah, & J. Bandyopadhyay (Eds.), Water, Agriculture, and Sustainable Well-Being (pp. 73-92). Oxford University Press

[2] Mathews, J. (2004, May 18). Learning the Value of Liberal Arts. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/‌wp-dyn/‌articles/‌A35939-2004May18.html