groundwater

This paper in Water Resources Research is about global groundwater depletion and pollution, and how groundwater can be managed better.

With rivers in critical regions already exploited to capacity throughout the world and groundwater overdraft as well as large-scale contamination occurring in many areas, we have entered an era in which multiple simultaneous stresses will drive water management. Increasingly, groundwater resources are taking a more prominent role in providing freshwater supplies. We discuss the competing fresh groundwater needs for human consumption, food production, energy, and the environment, as well as physical hazards, and conflicts due to transboundary overexploitation. During the past 50 years, groundwater management modeling has focused on combining simulation with optimization methods to inspect important problems ranging from contaminant remediation to agricultural irrigation management. The compound challenges now faced by water planners require a new generation of aquifer management models that address the broad impacts of global change on aquifer storage and depletion trajectory management, land subsidence, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, seawater intrusion, anthropogenic and geogenic contamination, supply vulnerability, and long-term sustainability. The scope of research efforts is only beginning to address complex interactions using multi-agent system models that are not readily formulated as optimization problems and that consider a suite of human behavioral responses.

They get something important right here, which is that if you are formulating a question in a way that the answer can be “optimized”, you have probably defined the question much too narrowly. Water resources are one part of much larger complex natural and social systems. Modeling and technical analysis is important to pare the universe of all possible decisions down to a smaller set where each possible decision is close to “optimal” or efficient in the technical and economic senses. But then this information needs to be fed into a stakeholder or political process where a much wider range of factors can be considered and decisions made.

I am concerned that the current laser focus on “science, technology, engineering, and math” in education is pushing people too far down the path of expecting clear-cut technocratic answers to questions that have messy political and cultural dimensions in reality. All these subjects are good to study, but they need to pared with solid education in planning processes and tools, and an appreciation of systems in general.

Donald Shoup retirement

Here is a nice tribute to Donald Shoup, who is retiring from the University of California.

Shoup’s most notable contribution to America’s planning landscape is in highlighting the consequences of underpricing parking. In The High Cost of Free Parking, he demonstrated that minimum parking requirements artificially inflate building costs by adding the costs of accommodating parked cars to new development and then giving away those benefits to drivers who park for free. These costs can be substantial: As Shoup has pointed out repeatedly, free parking at work is often worth more than if employers filled up their workers’ gas tanks. Shoup highlighted the true price of this invisible subsidy and unveiled new ways for city planners to encourage public transit use and address environmental concerns.

As technology evolved, Shoup folded new innovations into his ideas. In April 2011 San Francisco launched SFpark, a system based on Shoup’s work that adapts the price of street parking spaces to match demand. Adjustments according to time of day, location and day of the week allow smart parking meters to change their prices, with a target of keeping 15% of spaces vacant on any block. Drivers searching for parking can use their smartphones to find a space at a distance from their destination at a price they’re willing to pay. By more closely matching the price of a space with demand, drivers waste less time and fuel circling the block looking for a spot to park. The system has helped the city manage meter occupancy effectively and has reduced circling for parking by 50%, according to a 2014 study, and “smart parking” programs are appearing in Los Angeles and other cities. “His ideas have largely defined what is considered best practice for much of the field of parking management, ideas that increasingly are being put in place in cities around the world,” SFpark program director Jay Primus says.

Removing parking minimums from the zoning code seems like such an easy, obvious step. But what causes political opposition, at least where I live, is the perception that if new developments are built without parking, then people will just buy cars anyway and crowd out on-street spaces for people who already live there. I don’t necessarily buy this. If parking is truly valuable to people, they should be willing to pay more for a development that includes a parking space. If they are not doing this, it tells us that the demand for parking is not actually there. If they can walk safely to work, school, and shopping, and parking is expensive, many people will make the choice not to own cars, especially with options like car share and Uber becoming more accessible every day. Where I live, this is definitely happening.

There is something else happening where I live though. On-street parking is incredibly cheap, and as a result there is more demand for it than supply. People feel incredibly indignant about this, which makes it politically very difficult to limit parking or raise parking prices. There is a legitimate argument that if you raise parking prices, the rich will be able to have cars and the poor will not. If the city provided excellent walking, biking, and public transportation in all neighborhoods though, this would not be a problem.

So here is my solution, right out of an economics textbook: completely deregulate parking prices so it is all market all the time, including street spaces. You might want to do this gradually and limit the fluctuations that can occur, just so it doesn’t get too crazy. Then take the public revenues, tax the private revenues, and invest the proceeds dollar for dollar in pedestrian infrastructure, bike infrastructure, and public transportation, making sure the benefits are highly visible in neighborhoods that need them most. To do this you probably need a single unified agency or authority in charge of parking and all modes of transportation, and under the control of local leaders with some guts. There are a few more policies that might nudge the system even more, like property taxes and stormwater fees that discourage land speculators from turning vacant lots into parking and holding onto them for decades.

photosynthesis

From the journal Cell, here is a long, technical but interesting open source article on photosynthesis. First, it concludes that the current rate of increase in grain yields will not be sufficient to keep up with population and demand growth through 2050. Then they go through a range of biotechnology research avenues that hold promise to boost photosynthetic efficiency by up to 60%. They argue that the pipeline from beginning the research to seeing it pay off could be 20-30 years. With a lag this long, we can’t just wait until scarcity develops and drives up food prices enough to make the investments obviously profitable. Instead, the research needs to start now.

Two questions come to mind. First, is it the right approach to rely on biotechnology to increase yields so that demand can keep growing forever? Or should we be finding smarter ways to reduce waste, modify lifestyles and make do with what we are producing now? If we remove sunlight as a limiting factor, something else may become the limiting factor, such as water or phosphorus.

Second, if we create super-efficient crops is there a chance they will escape into native ecosystems and choke out all our native plants? Maybe the kinds of modifications that help annual crops produce more edible biomass under industrial field conditions won’t help them compete in the wild at all – you don’t hear about genetically modified corn or wheat straying far afield now. But it still seems like the ethics need to be considered.

 

Mr. Money Mustache Strikes Again

My last post on Mr. Money Mustache has proven to be popular. Now he’s back with everything you could want to know about home energy efficiency. For example, how to monitor you energy use:

The Efergy Elite Combo system comes with a very small wireless clamp that sits permanently around the main input wires in my circuit panel and measures power consumption right down to the watt with 10 second resolution. You set it and forget it. This power consumption is then displayed on a wireless unit in my kitchen and also logged permanently online, where I can review graphs from my phone or computer…

By watching the display, I can see how much power it takes it takes when the fridge kicks on, or when I run the dishwasher, or flip on a bank of lights in the kitchen. It also helps me find phantom loads: when you think everything is off, but your household consumption is still over 100 watts, something is wrong. I tracked down three faulty smoke detectors that were burning over 5 watts each and replaced them with units that use under 1 watt. Then I discovered that my Yamaha amplifiers burn 25 watts each if you leave them on, even when there is no music playing. This was bad, because I was often forgetting them overnight.

The benefit of the Efergy is its ability to measure even direct-wired devices: alarms, dishwashers, your central a/c system, or the unwanted pipe heater that the previous owner installed in your crawlspace to prevent frozen pipes.. but then left on for 12 months of the year regardless of temperature (which would cost you $1902 per decade, in case you were curious).

Stellarium

Stellarium is free, open source software that simulates the night sky as it would appear from anywhere anytime (no foolin’ I promise). It’s used by professional planetariums, but you can download it to your Windows, Apple, Linux or Ubuntu machine.

Here’s one more fun thing – a simulation where you can change the mass of the Sun, Earth, or Moon and see how it affects the orbits of all three. If you make the Sun too big, the Earth gets sucked into it, but if you make it too small, the Earth just flies out into space. It just reminds us that we are lucky to be here. There’s also a similar simulation where you can make up your own planets and see how they would orbit a star and each other.

electric indoor compost bin

I’m upset, because I was going to invent this.

Oh well, I suppose I didn’t really have time to invent it, or know how to do it. If it really works as well as advertised, it’s potentially a big advance in closing the loop.

I have to point out that aerobic compost won’t actually reduce carbon emissions compared to landfilling the same waste or putting it down the garbage disposal. But the carbon is the same carbon absorbed when the plants were grown, and in this case you haven’t produced waste at all, but instead turned the carbon and nutrients in your groceries into healthy soil and plants on your own property. You’ve saved a few trips to the Home Depot, which means you saved energy and reduced pollution from the gasoline you would have put in your car, reduced your risk of injury or death in a car crash, reduced the amount of chemical fertilizer produced in natural gas refineries and phosphate mining operations, reduced energy required to truck bags of topsoil and fertilizer around, reduced the risk of death and injury that entails, diverted nutrients from surface water or groundwater (where they are pollution) to your soil (where they are a resource), maybe grown some food, gotten some exercise and squeezed in some precious leisure time out in the garden. Or maybe you gave some compost away, made a friend or even sold the stuff. If there are enough people like you, Home Depot may not need to have such a big parking lot, which would reduce stormwater runoff, urban heat, demand for pavement (which really will reduce carbon emissions), and open up land for more economically or ecologically productive or leisurely uses.

antibiotics on the farm

Here’s a journal article about antibiotic use on farms worldwide. Pigs get the highest doses relative to their body size, followed closely by chickens, then cows as a distant third. Developing countries are expected to increase their use by a lot as their populations grow and demand more meat.

Demand for animal protein for human consumption is rising globally at an unprecedented rate. Modern animal production practices are associated with regular use of antimicrobials, potentially increasing selection pressure on bacteria to become resistant. Despite the significant potential consequences for antimicrobial resistance, there has been no quantitative measurement of global antimicrobial consumption by livestock. We address this gap by using Bayesian statistical models combining maps of livestock densities, economic projections of demand for meat products, and current estimates of antimicrobial consumption in high-income countries to map antimicrobial use in food animals for 2010 and 2030. We estimate that the global average annual consumption of antimicrobials per kilogram of animal produced was 45 mg⋅kg−1, 148 mg⋅kg−1, and 172 mg⋅kg−1 for cattle, chicken, and pigs, respectively. Starting from this baseline, we estimate that between 2010 and 2030, the global consumption of antimicrobials will increase by 67%, from 63,151 ± 1,560 tons to 105,596 ± 3,605 tons. Up to a third of the increase in consumption in livestock between 2010 and 2030 is imputable to shifting production practices in middle-income countries where extensive farming systems will be replaced by large-scale intensive farming operations that routinely use antimicrobials in subtherapeutic doses. For Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, the increase in antimicrobial consumption will be 99%, up to seven times the projected population growth in this group of countries. Better understanding of the consequences of the uninhibited growth in veterinary antimicrobial consumption is needed to assess its potential effects on animal and human health.

gene editing

Here is a long article in MIT Technology Review about gene editing.

“Germ line” is biologists’ jargon for the egg and sperm, which combine to form an embryo. By editing the DNA of these cells or the embryo itself, it could be possible to correct disease genes and to pass those genetic fixes on to future generations. Such a technology could be used to rid families of scourges like cystic fibrosis. It might also be possible to install genes that offer lifelong protection against infection, Alzheimer’s, and, Yang told me, maybe the effects of aging. These would be history-making medical advances that could be as important to this century as vaccines were to the last.

That’s the promise. The fear is that germ-line engineering is a path toward a dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it. Want a child with blue eyes and blond hair? Why not design a highly intelligent group of people who could be tomorrow’s leaders and scientists?…

All this means that germ-line engineering is much farther along than anyone imagined. “What you are talking about is a major issue for all humanity,” says Merle Berger, one of the founders of Boston IVF, a network of fertility clinics that is among the largest in the world and helps more than a thousand women get pregnant each year. “It would be the biggest thing that ever happened in our field,” he says. Berger predicts that repairing genes for serious inherited disease will win wide public acceptance, but beyond that, the technology would cause a public uproar because “everyone would want the perfect child” and it could lead to picking and choosing eye color and eventually intelligence. “These are things we talk about all the time,” he says. “But we have never had the opportunity to do it.”

How far out are practical applications in humans? Reading farther down, some are saying 10-20 years.