Inventing to Meet Water Needs

It amazes me how almost all companies in the water business have at least one page explaining global water needs.  It's like everyone tries to sell the same product in exactly the same way in the water business.  I can memorise some of the more oft quoted statistics, mostly taken from the UN World Water Development Reports. 

The funny thing is that half these companies are not really doing anything to solve these problems.  Yes, everyone is indeed looking into cheaper, alternative ways of treating water and wastewater, and when the costs get low enough, the poor will eventually benefit.  But the poor are a "by the way".  It is clear what the target markets are -- the rapidly growing markets of China and the Middle East, where people who can afford present technologies may be willing to pay top dollar for the latest technologies. 

I have always wondered if it were possible to align the needs of the poor and the high-tech developments in the water industry -- I have been repeatedly told that altruism is an idealistic concept for the NGOs.  But more and more, I'm beginning to realise that it is possible.  And India may be leading the way. 

The Economist recently did an article on the new business models in emerging markets.  One of the business models is described as "reverse innovation", or the stripping of all the bells and whistles of modern innovation to the bare essentials that people need, and then toughening them up for the rough environments that they will be used in.  Like Nokia's mobile phones to India, which apparently have flashlights (frequent powercuts), multiple contact lists (several people share a phone), and rubberised keypads. 

I also stumbled upon Acumen Fund, a non-profit venture fund that invests in companies who provide affordable, critical goods and services.  It sounds a bit like the development banks (eg. Asian Development Bank, World Bank), except the fund actually provides venture "patient" capital to early-stage for-profit companies who are developing products for the poor, and they're willing to take on quite high risk companies.  I'm not sure how all of this actually works out in reality, but I'm hopeful that the availability of such funding will encourage more product development aimed at the poor.  Maybe after these products are developed, companies can reverse the "reverse innovation" again, and produce nicely packaged, yet still affordable versions of these products to the richer countries! 

Above: An affordable reverse osmosis system by Environment Planning Group Limited 

Source: Acumen Fund Website  

Money for Water

I tried to do a search of the venture capital (VC) investments in the water industry, and based on findings from Greentech Media, put together a chart of the level of VC investment over the last six years. 

I couldn't find any data on 2007 -- apparently different sources have wildly different opinions on the level of VC funding for that year -- so that's been left blank.  In general, the level of VC funding has fluctuated from year to year, and I think it might be slightly premature to conclude any real trend.  But if 2010 continues to grow at the same rate as in Q1, it may indeed look like the VCs are finally showing interest in water. 

The water industry has traditionally been accused of having a relatively low level of VC funding.  With the water industry estimated at over US$400bil, VC funding works out to about 0.03%.  According to Wikipedia, VC funding for the dot com industry was about 0.06% in 1994, rising to 1.09% in 2000, before crashing to 0.16% in 2003.  I suppose the water industry is nowhere on that scale yet, but neither have I seen anything about the IT industry's level of VC funding being the optimal level. 

Indeed, I couldn't find much information on what an optimum level of VC funding for any industry should be.  I guess the criticism is in comparison to our alternative energy sisters -- solar energy itself saw US$1.4bil of VC funding in 2009 despite a market size of far less than US$100bil.  But the estimated growth rate of the solar PV industry is staggering.  CAGR estimates range from the high 20s up to 40%!  The global water industry, on the other hand, is looking at a more conservative 7%. 

Anyway, assuming the "experts" are right about VC funding being low for the water industry, a google search threw out these possible reasons:

1. 
   
   No "game changing" solutions
2. 
   
   Low returns and long gestation periods
3. 
   
   Water problems can be solved by legislation without the need for technology
4. 
   
   Poor understanding of the water industry
5. 
   
   Water is too cheap -- it is not seen as a profitable industry
6. 
   
   Competition from other cleantech industries seen as more promising and exciting

All the reasons cited are somewhat related.  The fact that water is so cheap and that it is considered a human right by some, means that it is unlikely to ever be very profitable.  And as long as it is not seen as very profitable, it will be difficult to attract much interest and understanding of the industry.  With less interest and competition in the industry, there is a lower likelihood of "game changing" solutions being developed, and there would be no impetus to shorten the long gestation periods.  At the end of the day, it seems easier to legislate water restrictions than to develop new and cheaper water sources. 

As many people have pointed out, water needs to be priced more attractively to pique investors' interest.  Then again, water is an important resource in many industries and allowing the price of water to rise may inflate the prices of many other goods and services.  Perhaps governments should take on the responsibility of rewarding innovation in this industry.  After all, they are the ones who have to ensure an adequate supply of water at an affordable cost.

Energy Self-Sufficiency in Wastewater Treatment Plants

While much of water R&D has been focused on the production of potable water, there has been a growing interest in the generation of energy from wastewater.  Scientists believe that wastewater contains up to 9 times the energy needed to treat it.  This means that wastewater treatment plants could potentially be energy self-sufficient, while producing excess clean energy for other uses. 

Tapping energy from wastewater is not a new concept.  Many modern wastewater treatment plants use the biogas released by the decomposition of organic material to supplement their energy needs.  Energy is also produced in the incineration of the sludge produced at the end of the decomposition process.  But the total energy produced through the current processes is less than 5% of what is estimated to be in there. 

Since the energy is stored in the organic material, R&D has unsurprisingly been centred about improving the efficiency of decomposition (and energy recovery in the process), and microbial fuel cells appear to be leading the charge.  Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) are based on the anaerobic decomposition of organic substances in wastewater, which produces electrons that when sent through a conductor, results in the flow of electricity.  A slight modification of the MFC produces the microbial electrolysis cell (MEC), which produces hydrogen gas.  The hydrogen gas can be used as an energy source in place of natural gas. 

Both MFCs and MECs are still some way from large scale implementation, but some innovative wastewater treatment plants have already managed to achieve energy self-sufficiency! Check out the San Diego Point Loma wastewater treatment plant, which not only produces enough energy for its own needs but also supplies energy to the power grid.  Its energy sources? 

• 
  
  Biogas from the digesters that breakdown the organic compounds is used to power generators
• 
  
  Waste heat from the generators keeps the digesters at an optimum temperature
• 
  
  Hydroelectricity -- the plant happens to be located on a cliff, 90ft (27m) above its ocean outfall, and a hydroelectric plant captures the energy when the treated effluent flows down to the sea

Above: A microbial desalination cell developed by Tsinghua University and Penn State University -- a slight modification on the basic MFC

Source: Bruce E Logan Laboratory, Penn State University

Main sources:
Turning Wastewater Into Clean Energy
Bruce E Logan Lab Research into Bioenergy

National Geographic -- Israel's Water Rights (Part 2)

I've always been slightly sympathetic towards Israel.  Maybe a little because they're meant to be God's "chosen people", but also because of their historical plight.  First, they get persecuted for no apparent reason but one mad man's racial issues.  Then, they are awarded land in the middle of a desert as "compensation", amidst their biblical enemies.  And now they seem to be embroiled in eternal conflict with their neighbours. 

It would be too simplistic to conclude that all of Israel's present day disputes are because of water, but water does feature significantly in Israel-Palestine talks.  The numbers by a 2009 World Bank report put Israel in a less than flattering light: Israeli supposedly uses 4 times as much water per person, as Palestine.  (Israel says they only use twice as much.)  And the difference in lifestyles of the West Bank Israelis and Palestinians is quite stark -- in Israel, swimming pools, lawns, and agriculture feature strongly; on the Palestinian side, they are only allowed to dig shallow wells and get water from natural springs or rain.  In summer, the Palestinians have to buy water from Israel. 

What probably smarts most is that most of West Bank Israel's water comes from a shared aquifer that runs under both countries.  However, due to a treaty signed in 1995, Israel has rights to more than 80% of that water.  Israel provides 40MCM (approx 24mgd) of water to Palestine annually, which works out to about 77% of Palestine's annual water needs.  Considering that Palestine has a population of 2.3million people, this is extremely little water -- it works out to a fifth of the per capita water consumption in Singapore!  Palestine also argues that the treaty was only meant to be an interim agreement, but it has dragged on for more than a decade.  Israel's defense is that Palestine's water problems are due to mismanagement and poor planning. 

Knowing Singapore and Malaysia's own water disputes, I wouldn't dare cast strong accusations either way.  I am sure both countries are justified in their arguments to some extent.  And surely, fighting for your own survival is a basic human instinct.  I leave with this picture of an Israeli and Palestinian arguing over the ownership of land and water, against the backdrop of a trickling water channel through barren land. 

Source: National Geographic 

Main Sources: 

Parting the Waters  

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

National Geographic -- Water Scarcity (Part 1)

Where National Geographic really stands out is in its photos.  Remember that Afghan girl shot?  I've seen it a million times, but it never fails to get me every single time.  There were some interesting articles in this special issue on water, but it's the pictures that really stood out, so I'm reproducing some of them here.  Hope I'm not infringing any copyright issues!

Part 1: Extreme Water Scarcity

Water scarcity is not something many people in the developed world understand.  Most of the solutions that are being developed will be effective in rich nations, but despite lower costs than before, they are nowhere near the prices that the poor can afford. 

But how do we convince rich countries to work on technologies that will actually solve problems for the poor?  There are no completely altruistic countries.  NGOs and IOs need to understand this when campaigning politicians and governments for money.  It is no use showing pictures and videos of lots of poor people dying from thirst unless they are from the politicians' own electorate.  Politicians are only mandated to save their own people, not the world.  And unless they can see some benefit to their own people -- present or future -- from helping these poor countries, you really can't blame them for trying to be half responsible towards tax payers' money. 

Don't get me wrong, though, I do feel strongly that we should help the poor in whatever personal capacity we can.  And such reminders are a sobering alarm that water scarcity is a real issue.  It is something I tend to forget, living in a developed country, where an efficient public service sometimes makes water scarcity feel like a mere government construct.  Anyway, on to the pictures...

The picture on the right is a scene in a Northern Kenyan village.  This is a water tank that is re-filled weekly by a government truck.  Although it was just filled a day ago, so much water has been withdrawn that the water level is below the level of the tap.  The villagers are now trying to get whatever little water there is left. 

This picture shows some women and children from Foro, Ethiopia, carrying water home.  Everyday, they travel 50 minutes down this steep slope to get to a polluted, almost-dry river, to get water.  Each jerry can holds between 10 and 20 litres of water.  To get enough water for the whole family, several trips must be made to the river each day.  Everyday, more than 8 hours of a woman's day are spent collecting water. 

During the dry season, this is all the water that Ethiopian women can get from the Arayo River. Although the water is not safe for drinking, they have no choice.

Main source:

The Burden of Thirst

Fighting to Find Bacteria

Water safety is extremely important, but sometimes, I do wonder if we go overboard with it.  Yes, I'm sure various bacterias cause all sorts of stomach upsets and skin problems, and that we should try our best to prevent them.  But after awhile, we just seem to be chasing a growing list of bacteria, viruses, and other contaminants.  I've seen control rooms where multiple sensors are blinking red, and the operators tell me, "It's no problem -- those sensors are always red anyway.  We're actually only concerned with these ones [gestures to 10 parameters out of the more-than-100 parameters being monitored]".  At the end of the day, a sensor is only as effective as the operator monitoring it. 

My personal gripes aside, there seems to be a race to develop sensors that can detect bacteria in water quickly.  Last year, Singapore's Environment & Water Industry Development Council (EWI) issued a research challenge for proposals to detect a certain strain of bacteria in drinking water in under an hour.  Three research proposals were eventually awarded the grant.  One proposal used sound waves combined with nanoparticles, another was a filtration method with DNA identification, and the third was based on the bio-optical signature (somewhat equivalent to fingerprinting) of the parasite. 

UCLA claims to have yet another method -- using magnetism and a light-emitting enzyme.  Granted UCLA's method was designed to test water quality at beaches and to protect swimmers, while EWI's projects look at drinking water for large quantity consumption.  Nevertheless, I'm sure each method could probably be modified to address the other's concerns. 

The technologies seem to be there.  But how big, really, is the market for such sensors?  Maybe along those Californian poster beaches, where the authorities are constantly harassed by conspiracy theorists and the rich in turns.  For the rest of us, we might be better off teaching our operators the importance of each of those 101 sensors already in place!

Above: Rapid detection kit developed by UCLA fits in a small car

Source: UCLA Newsroom

Main sources:

UCLA Engineers Develop Faster Method to Detect Bacterial Contamination in Coastal Waters

EWI Awards 2nd Challenge Call on Breakthrough Technologies for Rapid Microbial Detection

Disinfection by Candle Light

I'm not sure whether the light from a candle is sufficient to disinfect any significant amount of water via this new photocatalyst, but the implications of such a material could revolutionise household water filtration. 

Today, many people have simple carbon-based water filters in their homes.  These are fairly effective against heavy metals, certain chemicals, and some microorganisms.  To be sure that your water is completely free from bacteria and viruses, however, reverse osmosis or UV disinfection are necessary.  But these systems tend to be bulky, energy intensive, and expensive. 

A photocatalyst that works under normal visible light would mean that you could just leave a jug of water with the filter submerged on a table in the open, and voila, bacteria-free water! What's more, the photocatalyst is said to be able to retain its disinfecting abilities for up to 24 hours after being exposed to light.  So if you've left said jug of water exposed to light for a short while, you can stuff it in the fridge and it'll continue the disinfection process. 

That said, I'm not convinced that all this purification is truly necessary.  Perhaps in certain rural or developing countries where water is sourced directly from rivers and wells, which could be contaminated.  Or in old houses where water pipes may not have been used in a long time, resulting in the growth of bacteria.  But for the most part, if those glowing water quality reports from our utilities are to be believed, I'm not sure what else our small little home systems hope to achieve.  If you must, do at least try to get a sample of the water from your tap analysed by a certified laboratory before investing heavily in some expensive water treatment system that the friendly saleslady insists is vital for your health. 

 Above: Visible Light Photocatalyst by Professor Jian Ku Shang

Source: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, News Bureau

Main source:
New Visible Light Photocatalyst

Micro Desalination Units

Yesterday, I mentioned that Siemens was fast tracking its desalination system.  And I guess I now know why.  It seems there're a whole lot of promising desalination technologies hot on its tail.  Just over a month ago, I saw an exciting demonstration of a suitcase unit from Canadian Saltworks Technologies (though their low energy requirements are largely a result of tapping waste heat and solar energy).  And now, there is this -- a desalination device that could fit in my handbag!

MIT scientists have come up with a new method of desalination, known as ion concentration polarization.  Basically, an ion-selective membrane that repels all salts and microbes is placed in the salt water so water that does flow through is clean.  This means no high energy costs of forcing water through membranes like in reverse osmosis, and no membrane fouling since the salts are repelled from the membrane. 

And it gets even better.  A 20cm diameter wafer can hold enough of these units so that 360L/day of water can be produced.  Here in Singapore, people use about 155L of water everyday for all their daily needs including showering and cooking, so this would comfortably provide 2 people's supply of water in a handy portable device! 

Nevertheless, there are some downsides to this system.  Uncharged contaminants, mostly industrial pollutants, can't be removed by this method, so the unit has to be connected to some other filtration system.  The scientists think a simple charcoal filter would work too.  And the energy consumed, while definitely lower than a reverse osmosis system of the same capacity, would still be higher than the unit production cost of a full scale plant. 

The scientists estimate it'll be another 2 years before this little unit hits the shelves.  They're thinking of disaster relief applications.  I think it might actually be a huge hit for beach events.  No more cartons and cartons of mineral water bottles.  Just a few of these nifty desalination units. 

Above: A single unit of the desalination device.

Photo from MIT News Office.

Main Source:

A System that's Worth its Salt

Queensland and Coal-Seam Gas Water

Over the last two years, Queensland, Australia's water situation seems to have been growing from strength to strength. Abundant rainfalls have helped to bring reservoir levels up from a low of 16% in 2007 to more than 90%. And now, there is the strong possibility of a new water source: coal-seam gas water.

Coal-seam gas, also known as coalbed methane, is natural gas that is found in the cracks in coal. Water is a by-product of coal-seam gas extraction, and in Queensland, up to 420megalitres per day (approx 90mgd) of brackish water is expected to be produced if proposed coal-seam gas operations go ahead. The Queensland government has reportedly legislated against simple evaporation of this water, so companies have been looking into various methods of treating it.

One option has been to treat the water to potable standards by reverse osmosis. This could contribute close to 15% of Queensland's daily water needs. However, there have been strong protests from farmers concerned that the extraction of water could draw down the water table and pollute the underground aquifers that they currently get their water from. With the 2008 demise of water reuse plans due to strong public opposition still fresh on people's minds, one cannot help but wonder how this will pan out.

Perhaps in anticipation of the public outcry, Santos, one of the coal-seam gas companies, is going in a slightly different direction. They are spending A$50mil to plant 2 million Chinchilla hardwood gum trees on a piece of land close to the gas site. These trees are particularly tolerant to the brackish water, and could later be harvested or used for carbon sequestration. More importantly, Santos estimates that this will cost about half that of an equivalent reverse osmosis plant.


Main Source:
Gas Boom's Watery Legacy

GWI Newsletter -- Siemens' Silver Bullet (Part 4)

Siemens' target of 10% growth in water, twice the rate at which the market is expected to grow, made headlines in this article.  What interested me more, however, was the update from Chuck Gordon (CEO of Siemens Water Technologies) himself that Siemens intended to have a demonstration unit of its revolutionary desalination plant ready by next fall.  Seeing as he comes from the Northern hemisphere, I suppose that means September 2011, which is really really soon!

In 2008, Siemens won a challenge call by Singapore's Environment and Water Industry Development Council, to develop a system that would half the energy requirements for desalination.  Desalination is notoriously energy intensive which means high costs and poor environmental image, hence most countries see it as an option of last resort.  Today's energy solutions for desalination are largely centred about the effective harnessing of alternative energy sources and clever ways of configuring the system so energy usage is optimised.  Using electro-deionisation (EDI), Siemens believe they have a truly disruptive technology on hand that will reduce the gross energy consumption. 

I'm not very sure what exactly this game changing technology of Siemens' is, since EDI in and of itself is not unfamiliar to the water industry.  I understand that lab tests have gone very well to show that the technology works, though costs are still a slight challenge. That could be a real problem especially if all the energy savings just end up paying off the high cost of the system.  On the plus side, Siemens is certainly well ahead of schedule -- they were only due to finish their lab tests by mid 2011, but I hear they intend to wrap that all up by SIWW 2010.  Just two years to develop a disruptive technology?? I thought that was only in the digital media industry.  Maybe those water innovators are finally rousing from their slumber. 

Main sources:
Siemens Targets 10% Growth in Water
Siemens to Develop Innovative Seawater Desalination Technology

GWI Newsletter -- Israeli Government to Blame for Water Crisis (Part 3)

Israel would rather be known for its technical innovations, but recently, it has been getting in the news for all the wrong reasons.  International relations aside, the state now lacks 15.2bil m3 of water in its reservoirs due to over extraction of water. This is more than five times Israel's annual water demand! A government-appointed committee puts the blame squarely on several government agencies:

• Water Authority -- lacked public transparency, failed to coordinate with other government agencies, did not warn of the crisis in time, took no action to prevent overproduction, and did not adequately explain the consequences of a delay in implementing desalination on the necessary scale
• Finance Ministry -- delayed the desalination plan asking that conservation and water reuse be done first, but provided insufficient resources to do so

Cliched as it maybe, every cloud has its silver lining, and companies can now look forward to the rolling out of a large number of projects, ranging from large desalination plants and major network expansions, to groundwater protection measures.

Bank-rolling these projects, though, may be more of a challenge. Tariff hikes of just over 40% have already been scheduled for this year, but it is estimated that tariff rates will have to rise by at least 60% to cover the full cost of these projects. The Finance Ministry is, obviously, facing difficulties in raising tariffs any further, and are likely to have to allocate funds from the state budget. Honestly, can they afford not to?

Main source:
Report Reveals Israel's Crisis of Confidence

GWI Newsletter -- Spotlight on Libya (Part 2)

Libya is not afraid of big projects. Just take a look at its massive US$11bil 4,000km Great Manmade River (GMMR) project to supply groundwater from the South to the Northern agricultural areas. In spite of this, Libya is still anticipated to face a shortfall of 2mil m3/day of water, which will worsen to 11mil m3/day by 2025. Moreover, there are signs that the water sources feeding the GMMR are being drawn down too quickly.

Initially wary of desalination, an extensive network of desalination plants has now be planned for the next 10 years. And specifically, they are only interested in reverse osmosis technology, which the highest echelons of the Libyan government are convinced is the best method, despite alternative technologies proposed by potential developers. Many international desalination developers have been knocking at Libya's doors, including Singapore's Hyflux, who inked a Memorandum of Agreement (something similar to pre-qualifying for a tender) at SIWW 2009 for two desalination plants in Libya.

But as with any country's forays into new areas, Libya has its share of difficulties. In this case, it is the procurement model. Even after two years, the General Desalination Company is still undecided on its procurement strategy.  International companies are hopeful for a privately-financed Build-Operate-Transfer model, but a recent EPC tender for a desalination plant suggests that international companies may be better off sourcing good local contractors as partners in the short term.

Main Sources:
Libya Weighs Up its Water Supply Options
A New Look for Desal in Tobruk
Libya's $11 Billion Water Lifeline
Hyflux in JV to Develop 2 Seawater Desalination Plants in Libya

GWI Newsletter -- Gates Bet on Non-Piped Sanitation (Part 1)

I'm a big fan of GWI's reports as I think they give a balanced review of the water business and technologies, and in terms that most laymen can understand.  As usual, this issue is a fantastic summary of everything that happened in the water world in the last month, and I've picked out some things that really caught my attention. 

To me, technology is to Bill Gates what the stock market is to Warren Buffett.  So when the Gates Foundation recently upgraded the status of water, sanitation and hygiene to full programme status, and announced that they would be focusing on "non-piped sanitation", I thought I ought to pause and think about it. 

Decentralised sanitation -- actually decentralised anything -- is somewhat of a sacred cow in Singapore. People seldom dare suggest it.  We are very proud of the low unit costs we have managed to achieve due to the economies of scale of centralised rainwater harvesting, used water treatment, and water recycling.  And perhaps rightly so, seeing as we're so densely packed and piping costs are probably only a small proportion of total costs.  

Very recently, though, we are recognising that there is a large and growing global demand for decentralised systems, and that we'd better get in on the act.  And so decentralised systems have been proposed on Jurong Island and at the Cleantech Park (kudos to JTC), both of which are located in the far West of Singapore, where sanitation services are a tad bit more sparse.  But the actual systems that will eventually be tested are probably going to be just miniature versions of tried and tested technologies like the membrane bioreactors.  GWI argues this is not truly a non-piped solution since it doesn't include the capturing of used water. 

The ultimate non-piped solution, I suppose, would be a treatment device that can be attached to all water fittings and connected to the potable water network so that the used water is literally recycled on-site.  But that makes me ever so squeamish.  I'm not so sure I'm ready for direct and continuous consumption of recycled water.

Main Source: Gates Goes Down the Pan