Incredible Sahara Forest Project to Generate Fresh Water, Solar Power and Crops in African Desert

Phenomenal project, but you make a huge mistake in the caption of your photo. "orientated" is NOT a word, at least not among intelligent people. The correct word is "orient" ... why must you punish us with extra syllables?

Your sniffing tepped me. I mean "Oriented"

Why put it in the Sahara? Wouldn't it be easier (and more profitable) to build this sort of thing in the Southwestern US?

Or near the Dead Sea in Israel?

They have salty water, expensive electricity, and tree and water shortages, just like the Sahara, but they also have much more stable governments, functioning economies, and easy access to skilled labor.

This is a pie in the sky project.

A great idea. How much does it cost? Seems more likely to be implemented in oil-rich countries than the poor nations of north africa.

I should think there's a risk of soil salinization, although I know little of the Sahara water table. If its at all like the Fertile Crescent, the problem isn't lack of water, it's water in the wrong place, ie a high water table conducting salt from the bedrock into the topsoil, rendering it sterile. This is also happening in the Central Valley of California.

Also, would this cut down further the world's albedo?

I can't help thinking this project sounds awesome, like something out of Dune!

But, on the other hand, how is it that totally altering or wiping out desert ecosystems counts as "green?" Protecting the natural world also should include preserving the parts of it that are not so comfortable or desirable for human inhabitation.

Where does all the salt go?

Sorry, but I think John Taylor is right on the money. This is an extremely expensive project, and I see little reason why rich European nations would build it, and African nations simply don't have the money. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that European countries will pay for CSP only to provide themselves with power. That alone will cost them hundreds of billions of euros, with little left over to help Africa build the remaining infrastructure.

There are already projects that have been implemented to stem the rising poverty of African nations like this, minus the CSP and seawater green houses. One of them is called the Keita project. It was implemented in the Keita valley in Nigeria in the Sahel region of Africa (the semi arid region just south of the Sahara). The project reclaimed 5000 sq km of degraded land through reforestation and soil management techniques, improving the quality of life for those living there in a sustainable way. It took 20 years to complete and was fairly successful in its goals. The problem is that it cost $100m in a country where the yearly salary is $800, and getting outside funding was hard. If such a modest project was unable to be implemented in large scale during the boom years of the western nations, I fail to see how a project costing several orders of magnitude more could be during a period of declining and expensive energy production while having to deal with various global warming-induced disasters (heat waves, floods, etc.).

Population control must also enter into the conversation here. Let's assume for a moment that we could wave a magic wand and build hundreds of these across Africa. The rising populations of these countries would overwhelm their ability to provide food, water, and power in a decade or two.

I agree with what's been said ...

I've also found another oversight: their plans haven't provided adequate housing for all the child soldiers.

When we start seeing some political stability in Africa (not saying that we shouldn't have a bigger hand in this), then I think we can start investing in expensive-collaborative projects. Firth things first.

A lot of people commented on stability on the African region. I just want to point out that abundant electricity, food (from the vegetation) and fresh water could very well help provide stability, especially if it is administered equitably.

Fascinating project but microgeneration is a more efficient, closer to home and feasible than this mega-renewable plants projects.

There's this idea of localized large power plant that has to be surpassed...

With minor modifications, most of this project has already been put into motion:

http://www.desertec.org/index.html

So, either these guys copied it, or they had no idea about it (which does not reflect all that well on them, since it has been backed by the Club of Rome and President Sarkozy).

The solar greenhouse thing is a new twist, but you can already use the waste heat from the solar thermal plants to desalinate seawater.

Can I imagine this? Yes I can. IN every scientific, technological, and engineering sense, it is possible, though there will certainly be be hurdles to clear. Economically, too: it would be expensive, but would pay for itself by encouraging economic growth in one of the world's poorest regions. The only really big challenges, as with eliminating GHG emissions globally, are political.

Very inspiring and fascinating. The first major project of its kind that has appealed to me.

However.

I can't help but think of an article in the NYT last year that talked about how some certain country was having rather amazing success with the desert simply by throwing some seeds out in it, or something to that effect.

Fantastic idea, just always comes down to funding.

Great idea, however I see it being implemented in the UAE before Africa, all down to the money!

WOW, I went to the site for further detail and the process is even more ingenious than it seemed at first:
They humidify incoming hot air and then it heats up even further until it goes through a condenser that removes moisture and stores it. The seawater is moving continuously and finds its way back to the ocean (so the salinity is a bit higher when it returst, but hey, it's just a drop in the ocean) The air inside the greenhouse is humid (relative humidity at 90 %). That mean they lose substantially less water for evaporation and plants need a lot less to thrive.
And of cource whole thing is made from fully recyclable materials and most of the construction can use improvised and locally available stuff. So at least the greenhouse part can be made by workers and engineers with limited know-how.
The power plant is a little bit more high tech of cource, bu it would make sense to use them together, as the greenhouse needs some electricity for pumps and fans. And the solar-thermal plant needs water.

This is a sexy project... It's so refreshing to see something like this.

The rich countries insist that third world countries must develop eco-friendly if they themselves are to be held accountable for their environmental records, which is hypocritical on many levels... But it is awesome to see something that might enable Africa to industrialize in a green way. :)

Although people have made legitimate concerns... It's expensive, the area is politically unstable, etc... But have some optimism people! As treehugger.com-visiting, green-obsessed environmentalists, we should encourage such projects! This is the kind of solution that could break the cycle of violence and starvation that defines Africa. Why do we only think people are worth investing in when they're already living in an industrialized country instead of helping them get to that point? Although... that is quite the investment... But be optimistic, people! :)

I think that their may be still more improvements available. Along with the jatropha shrubs, ruminants could quickly improve the soil through intensive rotational grazing on improved pasture, sequestering carbon in new topsoil while replacing desert with savannah species. Shade the pasture with solar panels that contribute irrigation water and desertification may become reversible. Then you have a concentrated brine which might be a source of minerals for self-replicating nanomachines.
Any coastal arid region would be a candidate; So. Cal., Baja Mexico, Texas.
We humans need to look at such projects as ecosystems in their own right and we may continue to find more solutions than we have questions.

Great looking project.

Orientated:

Orientated actually IS a word; it is the British English term for the American English word 'oriented'. Saying it is NOT a word among intelligent people sounds a tad ignorant.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutgrammar/oriented

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_States

Chambers Dictionary:

orientate verb (orientated, orientating) 1 to orient. 2 intrans to face the east; to be oriented.
ETYMOLOGY: 19c.

orient noun 1 (the Orient) the countries in the east, especially those of E Asia regarded as culturally distinct from western countries (the Occident). 2 poetic the part of the sky where the Sun rises. Compare occident. verb (oriented, orienting) 1 to place something in a definite position in relation to the points of the compass or some other fixed or known point. 2 to acquaint (oneself or someone) with one's position or their position relative to points known, or relative to the details of a situation. 3 to position something so that it faces east. 4 to build (a church) so that it runs from east to west.

I've heard a couple of really obtuse comments here, ie bringing "growth" to Africa, and suggesting that western developed economies are a more appropriate model for Africa right now that the system they've got.

Now the system they've got has many problems, no doubt, but we've seen what happens when we try to just turn Africa into an economic annex for Europe. (Groundnuts in Senegal, anyone?). Sometimes these projects, by upsetting traditional subsistence systems already in place, without providing adequate fallback, wind up causing malnutrition and social unrest. (And in a post-September 11 world, causing social unrest is a bad thing.)

So figure in the costs of a fallback subsistence program too.

The scientific and technological principles behind this technology are so simple and so ancient that if they were useful for Africans, they probably would have found a way to use them already.

After all, the coast of North Africa has been intensively cultivated for thousands of years. There already is a way to expand the usefulness of the desert regions beyond plant agriculture, it's called grazing.

Result - this project should only be as large as the immediate needs of the people within walking/bus driving distance.

Dear All

Thank you for the comments above to which, as a member of the design team, I am happy to respond.

Location: Yes, SW USA, The Dead Sea and Australia are being considered

Soil salinisation: These problems normally occur when ground water is extracted from aquifers and gradually turns saline as it becomes recharged with seawater. Our proposal uses completely desalinated water so will not result in salinisation of the soil and even has the potential to restore soils that have been damaged through salinisation
Cost / Pie in the sky: The two technologies (CSP and Seawater Greenhouse) are both proven technologies and already commercially viable and are commercially viable under current economic conditions. As the cost of oil rises, the economics will swing further in our favour. The CGI may give the impression of expensive / high technology but it is actually very simple technology using fairly straightforward materials.

Impact on desert ecosystems: Within recorded history, large areas of what are now deserts around the world were forested. For instance, great areas of the Middle East were covered with thick cedar forest in the 3rd century BC and were devastated by Emperor Hadrian. During the evolution of planet earth, the growth of plants is primarily responsible for creating the moderate climate that we enjoy. The converse is also true: the loss of vegetation is exacerbating problems of climate change. There is very little to be gained in terms of global biodiversity and a huge amount to lose from increasing desertification. Certainly desert ecosystems are fragile and for obvious reasons the greatest biodiversity exists around oases – something that we would effectively be creating. We believe that reversing desertification (while preserving some deserts as wilderness areas) would be of great benefit in boosting biodiversity, reducing resource-based conflicts and combating climate change through increased photosynthetic activity, natural carbon sequestration in soils and other mechanisms that are well-described in a document prepared by a group of Slovak scientists and available for download here: http://www.vodnaparadigma.sk/indexen.php?web=./home/homeen.html

Salt: We have looked into applications for the salt and it is clear that there are plenty of malign applications (such as PVC manufacturing) that we intend to avoid and some benign uses that we will be looking into in greater detail.

Desertec scheme: We are well aware of this project and applaud it. Desertec focusses mainly on energy generation with desalination as a possible extra using conventional methods of desalination which are a lot more energy intensive than our proposal. The key difference between Desertec and The Sahara Forest Project is that the addition of Seawater Greenhouse technology adds very significant synergistic benefits and would produce far more fresh water with less energy input.

Political stability: We are already witnessing increasing incidences of wars fought over resources such as energy and water. This scheme has the potential to create large amounts of fresh water in some of the most water-stressed parts of the world and provides a model for one way in which we can make the transition from a carbon economy to a solar economy. This will be a difficult transition but one that we have to do: everything has to go closed loop and run on current solar income.

Ruminants: Thank you for the comments regarding ruminants improving the soil. We have looked into permaculture approaches and will be doing further work on this during the next stage.

I hope this has adequately addressed the comments above but if not please comment and I will respond.

Regards
Michael Pawlyn, Exploration

I 'save' trees before the landscapers here can
mow / cut them, put them in pots and get them
good homes when they are stable. Tiny effort,
but rewarding.

BUT trees grow slowly. How about KUDZU -
for several years I've been trying to interest
agricultural people in it - grows a foot a day and
could be valuable animal feed. Would require a
water source ( well ) and being sited high enough
and fenced to keep out wildlife, cattle, goats, etc.
which could wipe it out in the twinkling of an eye
if it was not protected by a sturdy fence. Besides
valuable green feed, it is useful for making paper,
and other uses.

Mimi

JUst another terroist target for the arabization of Africa.

Dear All

Thank you for the comments above to which, as a member of the design team, I am happy to respond

Location: Yes, SW USA, The Dead Sea and Australia are being considered

Soil salinisation: These problems normally occur when ground water is extracted from aquifers and gradually turns saline as it becomes recharged with seawater. Our proposal uses completely desalinated water so will not result in salinisation of the soil and even has the potential to restore soils that have been damaged through salinisation

Cost / Pie in the sky: The two technologies (CSP and Seawater Greenhouse) are both proven technologies and already commercially viable under current economic conditions. As the cost of oil rises, the economics will swing further in our favour. The CGI may give the impression of expensive / high technology but it is actually very simple technology using fairly straightforward materials.

Impact on desert ecosystems: Within recorded history, large areas of what are now deserts around the world were forested. For instance, great areas of the Middle East were covered with thick cedar forest in the 3rd century BC and were devastated by Emperor Hadrian. During the evolution of planet earth, plant growth is primarily responsible for creating the moderate climate that we enjoy. The converse is also true: the loss of vegetation is exacerbating problems of climate change. There is very little to be gained in terms of global biodiversity and a huge amount to lose from increasing desertification. Certainly desert ecosystems are fragile and for obvious reasons the greatest biodiversity exists around oases – something that we would effectively be creating. We believe that reversing desertification (while preserving some deserts as wilderness areas) would be of great benefit in boosting biodiversity, reducing resource-based conflicts and combating climate change through increased photosynthetic activity, natural carbon sequestration in soils and other mechanisms that are well-described in a document prepared by a group of Slovak scientists and available for download here: http://www.vodnaparadigma.sk/indexen.php?web=./home/homeen.html

Salt: We have looked into applications for the salt and it is clear that there are plenty of malign applications (such as PVC manufacturing) that we intend to avoid and some benign uses that we will be looking into in greater detail.

Desertec scheme: We are well aware of this project. They have focussed on energy production and are considering desalination as an extra using conventional methods of desalination which are a lot more energy intensive than our proposal. The key difference between Desertec and The Sahara Forest Project is that the addition of Seawater Greenhouse technology adds very significant synergistic benefits and would produce far more fresh water with less energy input.

Political stability: We are already witnessing increasing incidences of wars fought over resources such as energy and water. This scheme has the potential to create large amounts of fresh water in some of the most water-stressed parts of the world and provides a model for one way in which we can make the transition from a carbon economy to a solar economy. This will be a difficult transition but one that we have to do: everything has to go closed loop and running on current solar income.

Ruminants: Thank you for the comments regarding ruminants improving the soil.

I hope this has adequately addressed the comments above but if not please comment and I will respond.

All the best

Michael Pawlyn, Exploration

Hi All - what a great project - my vision is to Turn Deserts into Forests and goes along with what this is going to do In fact my vision board has the Sahara Forest as its theme. I am approaching it from a different angle however. We wish to actually GREEN the deserts by growing trees - using species such as Jatropha which will give us the new order BioFuel (21 million sq kilometres of oil field). How do we water the trees using a product Green Desert Gel'Leau which will water the trees for up to 90 or 120 days with one application. We intend to teach the poverty stricken population how to grow their own food and in return they will plant the trees. Imagine the empowerment, employment and poverty reduction in these African countries, They will be able to not only feed themselves sustainably but also make an impact on the biofuel market and global warming! I would love to speak with the designers of this project more seriously if posible

Michael,
Thank you for your feedback. I have to say it is refreshing that someone like Treehugger.com first of all keep the news coming but secondly (and more importantly) those responsible for some of the genuine good stuff reported are also prepared to talk with us mere mortals.
Please keep us informed (that includes those who have negative thoughts as well), as to progress. If it gets knocked back then don't give up.
Brilliant use of technology and also a way to use up some of that scrap material that we all see so keen to throw into the landfill sites.......plastic is what I mean. Why we don't recycle more of it I'll never know.
Kev Coleman

" As treehugger.com-visiting, green-obsessed environmentalists, we should encourage such projects! This is the kind of solution that could break the cycle of violence and starvation that defines Africa. Why do we only think people are worth investing in when they're already living in an industrialized country instead of helping them get to that point? "

omg.. i totally agree. i've been reading tree hugger for a year or so sometimes ppl can be so negative.. to a point i was starting to feel like there's alot of depressed ppl in the environmental mvmnt.. people who likes to take the opposing view point jsut to oppose.

yes. sometimes you have to give ppl economic incentive before they'd be will be willing to put down arms. b/c if they have economic security . they would less likely to want to go to war. in alot of poor/unstable regions ppl become soldiers b/c they have no other alternative.

i think this type of project should be encouraged. and it's true eurpoe prob' won't fund this if not for the power they can garner from it. why is that bad.. that's why any country would want to spend money on another country in the first place anyway. any type of good business relationship alwyas have a mutally beneficial aspects to it. why?? b/c when both parties benefits both parties will keep coming back and want to do better.

also.. someone comments why they don't do this in US south west or dead sea?? maybe b/c in north africa it's closer to europe therefore easier and less costly and more green for them tranport that power??

There is plenty of deserts where this could be applied. The use of Seawater Greenhouse technology could help counter spreading deserts. Also growing vegetables this way can be made completely carbon neutral (i.e. use of locally grown biofuels to transport the food to the market).

“Enough fertile land could turn into desert within the next generation to create an “environmental crisis of global proportions,” (1)

‘Ghana and Nigeria currently experience desertification; in the latter, desertification overtakes about 1,355 square miles (3,510 km2) of land per year.” (2)

Taking into account what is happening in the next 25 years:

Increased urbanisation (people stop growing their own food), 1.7 billion people more in 2030. (3)

Climate change (more deserts). (4)

Growing populations (more food needed), 2.5 billion more people in 2030 (5), and these populations are are all relatively close to areas where Seawater Greenhouse technology can be used successfully. (6).

Seawater Greenhouse technology may be one of the least invasive ways of producing food when applied correctly. I think we should be clear on that we need this type of integrated thinking in the next 25 years.

Disclosure: I work with Charlie Paton, Seawater Greenhouse.

(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/world/28deserts.html
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanisation
(4) http://www.ipcc.ch/
(5) http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html
(6) http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/regions.htm

Hi all...
some legitimate concerns raised here..sure..but
lets be positive and back all these efforts to restore
the deserts to lush gardens. I live in South Africa..
which also experiences water shortages and desertification.
We are globally in a crisis where bold plans and progressive thinking need to be encouraged and supported.
All genius needs refinement and tweaking before it is perfect so use your criticism positively please.
Would Namibia and our own northern cape not also
be a great place for this technology? we are a mostly stable regeon with all the right environmental factors and have the skills build such a facility?

Tom:

So, because the problem is bad, we should back the program? The burden of proof is on the proponents to show that the program works. And it has pie-in-the-sky written all over it with a broad brush.

Are you aware that investment capital is a scarce thing?

This is beautiful and intellligent. Where can I sign up to be part of this? There's so many smart solutions staring us in the face we should be reading about this on the front page of major newspapers.

plants could also serve as niches for the small animals and insects that already live in the dessert , no? that`s also nice