Folke Günther [email protected] Holon Ecosystem Consultant Ruralisation Will ecology show a pathway...

Folke Gü[email protected]

Holon Ecosystem Consultantwww.holon.se/folke/

Ruralisation

Will ecology show a pathway to sustainability?



Part I

The dont’s

Rules for sustainability




1.You can not be dependent on storages



Why is that?

A society that is dependent on a storage will not survive longer than the storage

• Typical examples of storage dependency:– Fossil energy– Phosphorus



Ultimately found

Used

Fossil energy



Different utilization modes of remaining resources:

Rule: You can not use what is not found

A: The Bush/Cheney mode

(Same amount)

(Estimated amount)

B: Unprobable mode

(Estimated amount)

(Same amount)

C: Probable mode

(Estimated amount)

(Same amount)

Efforts to increase or delay the peak vill make the downsloap steeper



Liquid fossil fuels, actual and forecasted production, the Peak

1% annual increase in demand

We

are

her

e

6,300 nuclearreactorsto fill the gap

2031:

520 new per year

IEA: 1.6%



Other storages that support our society

Plant nutrients !

Why plant nutrients ?

Without plant nutrients, no food !



The constituents of an animal (or vegetable) body:HHOOCCNNSSPPNaNaKKCaCa……6464

PP

HHOOCCNNSS

NaNaKKCaCa……6464

With gaseous phases — can be transported by the air

Without gaseous phases — must be transported as solids or liquids

More common in the Earth crust than in the body

Nutrients

– phosphorus is the most important nutrient !

PP 10 times more common in the body than in the Earth crust



Nutrients

Will energy price affect phosphorus

availability?

– phosphorus is the most important nutrientPP



Extraction horizons of phosphorus

At higher energy price: ?? years

100 – 150 yearsAt current energy price:



Will phosphorus availability constrain the

population?

This problem was encountered by the first terrestrial ecosystems, 400 million years ago

They found a solution:

Recycling of phosphorus!



Ancient newspaper, found in the Devon –Carbon geosynclinal in SW England



Part II

The must’s




2.To survive, you must have a supportive function on your support system



Cell

Assume you are a cell (subsystem) in a body (supersystem)

Body



Cell

The cell receives a lot of free and beneficial services from the body

BodyA nice

temperature: 37°

Good pH: 7,4Sugar for nutrition

Oxygen

Waste removal sevices



To keep all these services, the cell (the subsystem) can only behave in

three fundamentally different ways towards the body (the supersystem)



Cell

Body

+Positive influence

– Negative influence

±0 No influence at all1

23



The cell has a negative influence on its supersystem. It will, for example, develop a

cancer

Survival strategy 1



Cell

Body

By that, the body will be less able to deliver its free services

--

As a survival strategy for the cell, it sucks

Either, the macrophages will find the cancer cell and destroy itOr, the body will die

Survival strategy 1: The subsystem has a negative influence on the supersystem



The cell is perfectly neutral towards its supersystem

It doesn’t cause any harm, neither it does anything that is

useful to the body

Survival strategy 2



Cell

BodyThe capacity of the body to deliver its free services is not affected by the actions of the cell

As a survival strategy for the cell, it is, at least, risky!

The cell is invisible to the body

What will happen if there is a tidying-up drive ?

Survival strategy 2, no harm, no use

±0

The cell might be eliminated, but this will not affect the body



The cell does something (little) that makes it useful to the body

Survival strategy 3, better to be there

This makes it easier for the body to deliver services to the

cell



Cell

BodyBy that, the body will have an increased ability to deliver its free services

+

This is the only reliable survival strategy for the cell

The cell fulfils some function that makes the body more able

Therefore, it is somewhat better for the body that the cell is there, than not

+

+




This goes for any

subsystem


For example humans in an ecosystem !



What is ’good’ for an ecosystem?



Ecosystem dynamics

A crasch course

Interlude



Ecosystem

Exergy consuming processes, ’life’

Ecosystems, like all self-organizing processes, thrive on energy with high exergy content

Sunlight with high exergy content

Low temperatureradiation with lowexergy content

The ’life’ processes consume exergy

The energy with consumed exergy content must be expelled, otherwise the system will ’choke’



The driving force is a corollary of the Second Law

This is reflected by the spontaneous change of ecosystem;

their maturation processes



Ecosystem maturation

A v a i l a b l e s o l a r e x e r g y

Immature system• Low diversity• Annual plants• Competition• Parasitism• Nutrient leakage• Export• Fast change• Water export by drainage

Mature system• High diversity• Perennial plants• Co-operation• Mutualism• Nutrient circulation• On-site consumption• Slow change• Water export by evaporation

All these changes increase the exergy consumption capacity of the ecosystem

Mat

urat

ion

Mat

urat

ion



PO4

DNA

Urine

Consumption

Recycling

Reconstruction

The regenerative cycle, basic for living systemsecosystem level:



PO4

DNA

Urine

Consumption

Recycling

Reconstruction

The regenerative cycle at ecosystem level, summing up:

High exergy

Low exergy



This is typical for a natural ecosystem



In fossil fuel powered systems, the general ecosystem

principles are seldom enforced

…which leads to devastating faults



HHamperedamperedEEffluentffluentAAccumulationccumulationPProcessrocess

The HEAPHEAP trap



PO4 PO4

AgricultureAgriculturePO4

Food

Urine

PO4

Urine

PO4

PO4

Food

City

Mining industry

PO4 PO4

Long-range transportation makes recycling practically

impossible



FoodFood

PO4 PO4PO4 PO4

PO4

PO4PO4PO4

City

PO4PO4

The HEAP-effect, in a saturated system

When saturated, the system leaks at the same rate as it is

loaded

With effiecient waste water treatment

methods (P precipitation),

this state is attained faster



Linear flows

HEAP

HEAP

A linear flow from sources to seaPO4

Energy demanding and unsustainable

Fossil fuel demand

Resource depletion

Fossil fuel demand

Fossil fuel demand

Fossil fuel demand

Fossil fuel demand

Fossil fuel demandResource depletion

Resource depletion

Fossil fuel demand

Fossil fuel demand

Fossil fuel demand

PO4

Feed

PO4 Food

PO4

Food

Urine



The HEAP effectThe HEAP effect-- diffuse nutrient leakage

• Is an inevitable effect of urban agglomerations

• Is an inevitable effect of deficient nutrent recycling

• Can be solved by a changed settlement infrastructure– (or an extremenly expensive transportation system)



Balanced agriculture with its inhabitants

─ a possible model for a nutrient recycling settlement



Balanced agriculture: Animals are fed with

plants growing from their manure ─ about 80%

circulation of nutrients .. 3-4 kg of the phosphorus is exported as food products

.. these nutrients must be returned if the

system is to be sustainable

The 3-4 kg amounts to the P content of the excrements from 5 persons

With source-separating toilets,

these nutrients can be recycled

PO4

Feed Urine

Food

Urine

PO4

= 0,2 ha/pers



Energy use of an everyday family



Assume: Four persons living in a house

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

House Car Food

En

erg

y u

se,

kWh

/yea

r

Potential for efficiency increase

about 8 000 kWh/yr

Super-isolated house

Conventional house (according to ’Byggnorm 80’)

Increasing the energy efficiency of a settlement

17 000 kWh/yr



Assume: Four persons living in a house

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

House Car Food

En

erg

y u

se,

kWh

/yea

r

about 8 000 kWh/yr

Heavy car (10-12 l/100 km)

Light car (5-7 l/100 km)

about 6 000 kWh/yr

Potential for efficiency increase



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

House Car Food

En

erg

y u

se,

kWh

/yea

r

Super-isolated house Light car

(5-7 l/100 km)about 8 000 kWh/yr

about 6 000 kWh/yr

Metabolic needs:About 4000 kWh/yr

Food system (in)efficiency: About 0.1

Energy needed for food: About 40 000 kWh/yr

Assume 4 000 kWhfor local management

Saving potential forlocal production and management of food:About 32 000 kWh/yrStrongly associated with vulnerability to high energy prices

Four persons, applying energy conservation



We are in troubleCheap energy will soon be a

memory of forlorn times

1. Whithout cheap energy, phosphorus need to be recycled

2. Whithout cheap energy, supply lines need to be short

3. Whithout cheap energy, we have to rely on ecosystem services



Therefore, we need a lifeboat



The eco-unit, a small population maintained by a permaculture

agricultureBalanced agriculture

Providing most of the human foodand all of the animal fodder

Area: 50 ha for 200 inhabitants

• High diversity• Perennial plants• Co-operation• Nutrient circulation• On-site consumption

•Nutrient reclaim•Landscape diversity•Predator habitat•Lee – planting•Biomass production

Open ditches

Nutrients from the settlement is recycled to agricultural land

Balanced agriculture,aimed at the

support of thelocal population

Small population,about 200,

supported by the

agriculture



The eco-unit

Biological greywater treatment plant (wetpark)Clean water is returned to

the households

• High diversity• Perennial plants• Co-operation• Mutualism• Nutrient circulation• On-site consumption• Water export by evaporation

Feed

PO4FoodPO4



The eco-units might work as lifeboats



# The rules are:You can imagine the most ridiculous thingsBut you have to render a statement of the effects

# A scenario is an imagination made by a scientist

The ruralisation scenario



The ruralisation scenario – start point

In this scenario, the following is assumed:

4. They decide that, instead of building new houses on the same place as the old ones were torn down, they will build eco-units in the periphery of the town.

At start point, the centre of the municipality has a population of 33 000The periphery: 3 000 1. The city is inhabited by decision-makers who have the

capacity to make far-sighted and strategic decisions

3. Furthermore, they understand that the city is not static, but dynamic. Old houses are torn down and new are built. (The average life-time for a house is supposed to be 60 years, which gives the city a

rate of change of 1,6%)

2. They have the same knowledge of limiting resources, ecology and the rules for long-term survival as you.



Ruralisation – after 12 years

The town center: 24 000The periphery : 12 000

Groups of four Eco-unitsEach group is inhabited by 800 people

Local parks replacing the old houses




The town : 12 000The periphery : 24 000

Reversed ditching:Underground streams are brought to the surfaceCleaner water




The endpoint of the ruralisation process: The municipality : 3 000The periphery : 36 000

Area with 5,600 inhabitants in eco-unitsPopulation density closing to 500/km2

• High diversity• Perennial plants• Co-operation• Mutualism• Nutrient circulation• On-site consumption• Slow change• Water export by evaporationBy changing into a more

resilient and less fuel dependent state, the ecological maturity of the area is considerably increased

May be, the human impact on this area has changed from a parasitic to a supportive type



Economy



In this calculation, it is not possible to account for sudden, non-linear energy price changes that might occur after the Peak .

Therefore, continuous, steady changes of energy price are assumed.

The economy of ruralisation

Several different energy price change scenarios were calculated. However, only one will be demonstated:

5% annual increase in price for industrial energy, and 2% for renewable energy sources are assumed

All the other scenarios showed the same general trend



In the scenarios, energy cost for a town with a constant population was compared with the same population in ruralisation


Only energy costs were accounted for, like:

•food production and delivery

•housing

•sanitation and water purification

Other costs, like mobility changes and changed mechanization in agriculture, were not accounted for




The energy costs of a rural person was assumed to be less than those of an urban due to:

• Less energy demand for food production and delivery

• Less energy demand in the sanitation system

• Larger amount of renewable energy sources

The energy costs of a rural person was assumed to be higher than those of an urban due to:

• Larger amount of single family houses



Assumed annual energy cost increase:Industrial energy: 5%, Renewable energy: 2%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Years from now

WW

T m

aint

enan

ce a

nd e

nerg

y co

st, M

SE

K/y

ear

Ruralisation Unchanged town

Annual expenditure difference 2 000 MSEK


Ruralisation

Unchanged town2,000,000,000 SEK difference

Initial price difference: Very small

Increased building costs equals diminished food transport R$ 1,000,000,000



Total energy investment: about 40.000 kWh / 4 pers

Energy delivered to household: about 4.000 kWh/ 4 p.

The energy economy of food production

Energy invested in agriculture: about 4.000 kWh/ 4 p.

Energy invested by middlemen: about 36.000 kWh/ 4 p.



0 kr

15 000 kr

30 000 kr

60 000 kr Annual consumer cost for food (four person Swedish family)60.000 SEK (about R$ 30.000)

Payment to producer, less than 25%

Trade, distribution and processingabout 75% of the total price

Producer cost (fuel, interests etc.)80% of producer payment

Producer salary, about 3.000 SEK (5% of consumer cost)

The economy of food production



Assume a group of consumers subscribe for food from a local farmer



They will drive the industry out of the market by paying the double industrial price (half of the consumer price)



0

15 000

30 000

45 000

60 000

Expenses

Salary

Distribution and trade

Traditional system

Because of the increased food diversity produced, the expenses are assumed to increase with 50%

..but the remaining is the salary, which will increase from 3.000 to

12.000, 400%

The consumer cost for the food has decreased by 50%

13.000

18.000

60.000

30.000

12.000

3.000



Let’s hope that the consumers will usetheir saved money to invest in the agriculture…

Cheaper food

Saved money

Folke Günther [email protected] Holon Ecosystem Consultant Ruralisation Will ecology show a pathway...

Documents

Transcript of Folke Günther [email protected] Holon Ecosystem Consultant Ruralisation Will ecology show a pathway...