Where Is the Water Industry’s Silicon Valley

Published on by in Technology

Where Is the Water Industry’s Silicon Valley

As somebody who is relatively new to the water industry with a background in information technology, I’m surprised why limited progression has taken place, compared to other industries, in such a key space.

Silicon Valley is recognized as the innovation “epicenter.” Their products consume my generation’s interests in shaping self-validating social media profiles or awing at the convenience of ordering dinner from a smartphone app. With that, it asks the question: Why aren’t we seeing a technological revolution at this level in other places?

The movement in nanotech and membranes is truly amazing, but there’s more to be done elsewhere. It seems that it takes DIY, self-funded innovators to develop problem-solving tech independently, but they are impeded by the lack of support, become demotivated and move on. Where’s the financial support in the water industry? It rears its head in the face of crises, but how much could we, the world, save through investing more in R&D with foresight?

On a macroscale, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that if we halved the number of people with limited access to clean water it would lead to an average global reduction of diarrhea episodes of 10%. Of the 1.1 billion that currently make up this statistic, their target equates to 555 million people. The value of these savings, spread over the entire population, would amount to US $12 billion saved a year. Dividing the US $12 billion cost for 555 million people is $21 per person—can’t our great, human minds address this problem with a fraction of that budget? And dare we put a price on the opportunity that protecting one human life holds?

On average, the 25 poorest countries in the world spend 20% of their GDP on water. Using their budget of 30 cents per day per person as a baseline, scaling up global population growths, there’s up to four billion people by the year 2030. The market is worth $1.2 billion a day and there’s huge commercial interest in sustainably addressing this problem.

The global population is set to hit nearly 10 billion by the year 2050, with the biggest growth change forecast in Africa (+108.9%). Nigeria’s population will reach 413 million, overtaking America as the world’s third most-populous country. Congo and Ethiopia will increase to more than 195m and 188m, respectively, which is more than twice their current numbers. There will be future unrest in these nations if basic physiological resources are not made more available.

68.7% of the world’s freshwater is locked in the polar ice caps and, unfortunately, we need them. Therefore the next solution is a salt one. Seawater covers the majority of our planet but it isn’t drinkable. There is no shortage of seawater as ice caps in the north melt and sea levels rise. On average this has been +2.6 mm and +2.9 mm per year, ± 0.4 mm, since 1993.

As the world’s population increases and ice caps melt, can we really afford to wait until it’s too late? Am I sounding too cliché or do I still have your attention?

The evidence indicates that there should be an enormous fund towards increasing the percent of the world’s fresh water that is accessible for direct human use.

I’d like to share some objectives for building a commercial enterprise with positive social and ecological side effects:

Again, the price of the future of human life cannot be quantified. Where we predict inclement population booms in nations outside of our own, we need to work together in acting with our resources and investing to create something sustainable and substantial.

Since embarking on my career change, I’ve had conversations globally, from MIT engineering students to recipients of innovation prizes in Africa, leading water charity NGOs to UN community contributors. I’ve assembled a small team and we have confidence that we’re closing in on something, but it’s still going to take a greater push to get there.

Next year I will run a Seawater Desalination pilot at a coastal farm in sub-Saharan Africa as proof we can increase the availability of affordable, potable fresh water at source and inland, both in terms of energy consumption and byproduct disposal.

This might not be the all-encompassing answer, but it’s my commitment and endeavour to try. And I believe that this industry as a whole can demonstrate innovation and increase funding to support efforts to attract the brilliant young minds that we’re losing to solve “first-world problems” in Information Technology. Let them not forget that producing a single smartphone requires 240 gallons of water across its entire production. A leading smartphone brand just sold 13 million units of their new product in the first week. Everybody and everything needs water.

I’m looking for people, at all levels and ages, who want to smash the Malthusian quandary. Who’s with me?

Source: Our Water Counts

Media

Taxonomy

2 Comments

  1. Good luck. As far as your comment on innovation, there is plenty of innovation going on in the industry, though it's split between developed country solutions and developing country solutions. Wisconsin is a hot bed of water innovation for the developed country solutions, see thewatercouncil.com. The Gates Foundation is one of the more famous, large investors for water innovation in the developing world. 

    Also, as you know, you won't find a Silicon Valley in terms of amount of funding available because there isn't the same potential for return on investment for creating a technology to deliver clean drinking water or sanitation to developing countries as there is in making an app.

    5 Comment replies

    2. Finally looked up your Aguagen ISI technology. Having AD first will definitely help the overall energy demand associated with treatment, of course, in a typical municipal application, this should include screening, grit removal and likely flow equalization upstream of the digesters, not to mention thickening, to keep the CAPEX and OPEX down. 

      Photosynthetic algae are very promising, however, some of the issues holding back the economics of full scale algae reactors is the efficient phase separation (removing the algae from the final effluent), the space requirements (footprint) for treating large flows, and a need for a light source to treat flows around the clock. There are other types of algae systems (phagotrophic for example), that are being introduced as well. Good luck with the Aquagen system, I believe algae will be a key technology for treatment of wastewater in the (hopefully near) future. 

    3. I agree about the silos and that being the problem. These silos are trying to be addressed in the developed world, but as you can imagine, generations of institutions being built within these silos makes it challenging to integrate. That doesn't mean it isn't something that must be done, I'm just addressing the reality that developed countries that have decades and trillions of dollars invested in these silo assets and institutions aren't going to tear them down, instead they are trying to bridge the gap between these silos, and coordinate. This is inefficient and not optimal, but it's the only realistic near term solution in developed countries. Developing countries however should be incorporating systems that address water, energy, data and communications together...we now know better and the (relatively) blank canvas of developing countries should use these best practices. 

    4. Brian, do you have a website for this Center for Planetary Restoration I can peruse?

    5. The problem is inherent in this discussion.  The discussion is a prefect example of the dysfunctional dynamic.  We view the "water" industry as a separate world than the other utility functions where they are just a utility of a different resource.  The industry evolved in a "silo" which prevents convergent utility planning and efficiency.  And we have just perpetuated the dysfunctional dynamic.   Yet our communities around the world are struggling to deal with wastewater, energy, data and communications and water and our industry consultants are as fragmented as the matrix because that is the way it had always been done,  We cannot afford this any longer, in particular in the developing world.   On Cape Cod, we have developed the worlds first fully integrated sustainable utility infrastructure system, as a value proposition in our algae based convergent utility based planetary restoration system.   We cannot stay with the fragmented model if we are to progress as a society and prevent a planetary crisis that is looming in the not very distant future.    It's not just about the water, it's about the future and the sustainability of our communities and villages.  If we do not grasp the need for integrated holistic solutions on a planetary basis, we are doomed.    This is the purpose of the Aquagen ISI technology.  We on Cape Cod are bringing about a Center for Planetary Restoration in South Yarmouth, Massachusetts to help people learn how to do this.   

  2. Good question. Water technology was stagnant from about the 1920's to 1960's. The Clean Water Act of 1972 really pushed wastewater treatment research and improvements. The Safe Drinking Water Act and the  discovery of THMs started the ball rolling on technology for drinking water and desalination got started in the 60's-70's in the Middle East. There is a lot of research work now but it is not well coordinated between government, university and water organizations, and sometimes duplicative. One good step was consolidation of WERF and Water Reuse Foundation into WE&RF.  AWWA RF (WRF) should join so that the research will be be more efficiently managed. One major problem is that water and wastewater plants are expensive and they run many years so the introduction of new technology is slow. Also, state sanitary engineers and consulting engineers are very risk averse so it takes a long time for new technology to be  accepted.