Posted on

Market Snapshot: Digital Twins

As technology increases in complexity, companies need a way to test a product before it exists in the real world. A digital twin is a virtual representation of a real-world object or process, used to simulate how something will function in the real world—a digital prototype. It’s a computer program that replicates the performance of an equipment, system, person, or process in real-time. However, unlike a simulation, a digital twin is a virtual environment designed around a two-way flow of information. The output of which can be significantly improved with the use of machine learning, artificial intelligence, and big data.

According to MarketsandMarkets, the global digital twin market is projected to reach $73.5 billion by 2027, up from $4.5 billion in 2021, which is a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 60.6%. The North American region is projected to lead the market as most of the digital twin providers are located in that region. Industries that benefit from this technology include aerospace, automotive, and biomedical among others. It is also useful in military, aeronautical, and maritime applications. Key players include General Electric, Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM. American aerospace companies, like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, also heavily invest in the technology for their R&D.

Major companies and research institutes, as well as start-ups, are getting involved in digital twin technology for various applications. Recently, researchers at Harvard and NTT Research announced a three-year joint effort to advance cardiac care using a cardiovascular bio digital twin model. Other researchers are working to create a digital twin of the immune system. There are also some environmental applications underway. Lockheed Martin and NVIDIA will build an AI-driven Earth Observations Digital Twin for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In Sweden, ClimateView has released an upgrade to its ClimateOS, which is essentially a digital twin for a city. The start-up’s SaaS platform will help planners effectively model efforts towards city decarbonization as countries transition to a net zero future.

Michael Grieves will speak at the IOT Solutions World Congress in early 2023. Grieves is generally recognized as the creator of the digital twin concept. Other events in 2023 include the Digital Twin Consortium’s free public forum, New York Build Expo’s event in March, and a conference for Oil & Gas Operations at the end of the year.

Posted on

Market Snapshot: Autonomous & Semi-Autonomous Vehicles

While we might not be the ones physically driving our cars in the future, rapid advancements in enabling technologies are already driving the automotive industry towards autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle systems. For example, radar, vision and lidar sensors; the expanding capacity and capability of microcontrollers; faster-responding actuators and controllers; and the promise of machine learning via complex, artificial-intelligence driven software are all moving driverless vehicles ahead. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that the continuing goal of automotive technology is to deliver increasing safety benefits and Automated Driving Systems (ADS) where fully automated cars and trucks will drive us, instead of us driving them. Enabling technologies have been incrementally introduced and accepted ranging from cruise control to lane assist technology.

According to MarketsandMarkets, in terms of volume, the number of semiautonomous cars was estimated to be 20.3 million units in 2021 and is expected to reach 62.4 million units by 2030, at a CAGR of 13.3%. Additionally, there are approximately 1,400 self-driving cars in the U.S. – these differ from semiautonomous that include only one or more autonomous features such as RADAR, LIDAR, cameras or ultrasonic sensors. When quantified from a revenue perspective, Allied Market Research reports that global autonomous vehicle market size is forecast to be valued at $76.13 billion in 2020, and is projected to reach $2,161.79 billion by 2030, at a CAGR of 40.1% from 2021 to 2030.

While sensors play many roles in the automotive market, autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are a driving force in their use. These vehicles combine sensors and software to control, navigate, and drive the vehicle, and use LiDAR and RADAR sensors for its operation. The majority of self-driving systems create and maintain an internal map of their surroundings, based on a wide array of sensors. BCC Research reports that the global market for automotive sensors should grow from $25.9 billion in 2020 to $78.9 billion by 2025, at a CAGR of 13.4% from 2020 to 2025.

Regionally speaking, by 2030, Asia Pacific is estimated to account for the largest market share of the semi-autonomous vehicles market, followed by Europe and North America. With respect to the North American region, semi-autonomous vehicles volumes have increases in recent years, with OEMs catering not only to the domestic demand but also to the overseas demand. Moreover, in 2025 the region is likely to lead the autonomous vehicles market in terms of volume followed by Europe and Asia Pacific, as key technology innovators such as Google, Microsoft, and Delphi automotive are significantly investing in and testing the technology to commercialize the same.

However, barriers in this market include the lack of infrastructure to support autonomous cars in developing nations, concerns regarding cyber security and safety of the personal data of the users, and consumers’ hesitation to accept fully autonomous cars are some of the restraints that might hinder the growth of autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. Frost & Sullivan reports that while technology development and the lack of a robust regulatory framework are the greatest obstacles in this market today, the need to understand consumer demand and the use of data for generating revenues will be the key challenge to address for OEMs in the future. To achieve this, analysts believe that OEMs will need to focus on developing flexible, autonomous platforms capable of providing multiple vehicle types for specific use cases to be successful in the future.

To address these future needs several groups have put together roadmaps, in 2021 the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) developed the Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan to advance the Department’s work to prioritize safety while preparing for the future of transportation following the 2020 publication of the USDOT and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy  Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies: Automated Vehicles 4.0 (AV 4.0). Energy use and savings is also a key factor in any discussion of autonomous vehicles, as such Sandia National Laboratory formed a working group of academic, government and commercial partners, including engineers from the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University, Arm, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel Corp. and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research. The group identified four areas seen as critical to energy-efficient computing in automated vehicles, including computer chips, sensors, system architecture, and algorithms, all of which need to be considered when trying to improve computational energy efficiency. The group’s The Energy Efficient Computing R&D Roadmap Outline for Automated Vehicles  identifies areas of R&D necessary to attain the high computational performance with low power consumption that will be required to achieve automated driving in retail vehicles.

Posted on

Market Snapshot: Agricultural Decarbonization

The agricultural sector contributes nearly 10 percent of carbon emissions in the United States, which is helping to drive the development of technologies for a cleaner agricultural sector. Technologies of interest include converting biomass into cost-effective, low carbon biofuels and bioproducts, irrigation modernization and opportunities for hydropower, advanced waste reduction and utilization technologies, and soil carbon storage technologies. The need to reduce livestock associated emissions and farm waste are driving government and private funding for new research and technology development to ease carbon emissions. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s budget request includes $24 million for bioenergy solutions for decarbonizing agriculture, $13 million for healthy forest management, sustainable agriculture and biogenic carbon drawdown, and $10 million for organic waste management.  

MarketsandMarkets reports that the Regenerative Agriculture Market was valued at $8.7 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow to $16.8 billion by 2027. Regenerative farming is a technique to help increase biodiversity and make the soil more resilient to the effects of climate change. Regenerative farming techniques are also useful in removing carbon from the atmosphere to store it underground. One of the drivers of the market is the increased funding from different organizations and government agencies to lower the carbon footprint from the agricultural industry. However, a lack of knowledge of these regenerative techniques among farmers is a restraint to growth in this market. One of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases from the agricultural sector is cattle. One cow can produce as much as 220 pounds of methane per year. Scientists are working on ways to mitigate this problem by adding seaweed to the cows’ diet to improve digestion and reduce emissions. Frost & Sullivan explores the opportunities for growth in decarbonizing agriculture. The agricultural and food industries are tied closely together, and Frost & Sullivan provides the greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies of stakeholders across the food and beverage value chain. The top 20 players in the market are classified based on their GHG emission reduction targets.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is investing in climate-smart farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners. The $1 billion investment will finance projects that create a market for climate-smart technologies and techniques for the agricultural industry. The USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture has a Sustainable Agriculture Programs sector that offers competitive grants for sustainable agriculture practices that foster profitable farms that are environmentally sustainable and enhance the farmers’ quality of life and that of their communities. The USDA also funds the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program which provides competitive grants to advance agricultural innovation in promoting techniques for environmental stewardship.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has published a progress report on smart agriculture and forestry in May 2021. The report explored feedback originally requested on the efforts to conserve natural resources and address climate change and develops strategies for partnering with landowners, farmers, and Tribes. In August of 2021, USDA also published an action plan for climate adaptation and resilience. The plan outlines how the USDA will provide information, tools, and resources to its partners to address the challenges associated with climate change especially for farmers, ranchers, forest landowners, and resource managers.

Agricultural conferences in 2023 are listed below:

Posted on

Market Snapshot: Produced Water Management

Oil and gas drilling currently yield a lot of waste, including produced water. However, new technological solutions could potentially transform produced water into a resource. Produced water is the byproduct of oil and gas extraction, which, depending on the chemistry of  the underground rock formations containing the trapped petroleum, can be 10 times more saline than seawater. It can also contain varying amounts of oil residue, debris, bacteria, and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). However, with technological advancements, produced water could become a resource. It has the potential to be reused in drilling operations, which would lessen the industry’s dependence on freshwater for oil and gas exploration. If successfully treated, produced water could be used to replenish groundwater aquifers where water is scarce.

As drilling increases so does the generated volume of produced water, and in some cases an increase in earthquakes. In 2017, the total U.S. volume of produced water was 24,392,000,000 bbl (23,816,000,000 bbl generated by onshore wells and 576,000,000 bbl for offshore wells). The state which contributed 41% of the national total was Texas. Other states with high produced water volumes included California, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas. More recently, in 2021, the Produced Water Consortium estimated the quantity of produced water in the Permian Basin alone was approximately 170 billion gallons per year. For more information, the U.S. Geological Survey maintains a helpful database of produced water compositions across the United States.

With so much volume, what happens to produced water? Presently, the cost of disposing produced water ranges from $0.40-$1.00/bbl, and the treatment costs range from $2.55 to $10 per barrel. The market for produced water treatment is forecast to reach $14.86 billion by 2030, up from $9.10 billion in 2021, which is a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 5.2%. The produced water treatment market has three main drivers, which are the increase in oil and gas drilling, the depletion of freshwater sources, and the rising population. Bringing the market discussion back to Texas, there is significant market potential in the Lonestar state. In the Permian Basin alone, there is approximately a $12 billion market for the disposal and treatment of produced water.

Key players in the produced water treatment market include Siemens Energy AG (Germany), Schlumberger Limited (France), CETCO Energy Services Company LLC (U.S.), TechnipFMC plc (U.K.), Halliburton (U.S), Ovivo (Canada), Enviro-Tech Systems (U.S.), Suez S.A. (France), and Sulzer (Switzerland).

Finding environmentally friendly ways of reusing and disposing of produced water is a technical challenge that innovative technology could potentially address. One challenge is the presence of NORM. According to the EPA, many states with oil and gas production facilities are currently creating their own NORM regulations. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently sought low-cost water treatment technologies to recycle produced water. Among the ways that produced water could potentially be reused, DOE listed power generation, vehicle and equipment washing, fire control, and even non-edible crop irrigation.  Other initiatives include the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) collaboration with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Their $5 million initiative seeks a framework for the beneficial reuse and positive environmental impact of produced water, called PARETO (Produced Water Application for Beneficial Reuse, Environmental Impact and Treatment Optimization). Moreover, a recently published model seeks to increase sustainability by incorporating the reuse of treated produced water in agriculture and a constructed wetland, as well as aquaculture production, and biogas and compost production.

To learn more about the future of produced water, take a look at the upcoming Produced Water Society Annual Seminar hosted by the Produced Water Society. A prominent feature is networking opportunities with produced water experts to discuss the existing solutions as well as technological innovations to ensure sustainable oil and gas production. The Produced Water Society Annual Seminar is currently accepting abstracts.

Posted on

Market Snapshot: Blue Economy

Approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, 96.5 percent resides in the oceans. The ocean’s resources provide countries with a myriad of economic opportunities—in fact over 3 billion people rely on the ocean for their livelihood. It makes up a significant portion of the Blue Economy. The World Bank defines the blue economy as “the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and jobs while preserving the health of ocean ecosystems.”

The global blue economy is valued at $2.5 trillion annually, and is projected to double in size by 2030 when compared to 2010 figures. Numerous industries are included in the blue economy such as offshore renewable energy, maritime transport, sustainable seafood, and oceanographic research. Fisheries and aquaculture, provide about 260 million jobs and contribute approximately $100 billion per year to the global economy. The blue economy also has a positive impact on climate change by supporting green energy with various forms of offshore renewable energy.

In the U.S., NOAA reports that the American blue economy contributed approximately $373 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product and supported 2.3 million jobs in 2018. In June 2022, the White House announced its first-ever Ocean Climate Action Plan, with recommended steps to improve the conditions of the ocean. More recently, the concept of the New Blue Economy has been introduced, which improves upon the traditional blue economy by harnessing the power of big data.

Innovative technologies that can drive the blue economy have caught the attention of various U.S. agencies and national labs. NOAA, for example released its Blue Economy Strategic Plan (2021-2025), which focuses on five sectors: marine transportation, ocean exploration, seafood competitiveness, tourism and recreation, and coastal resilience. The DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is interested in exploring the blue economy as it relates to marine energy, and sees many potential market opportunities in desalination, isolated power systems, aquaculture, and more.

Interested in learning more? A variety of conferences focusing on either the ocean economy or blue economy will be held in 2023. In February, Portugal will host the 10th annual World Ocean Summit & Expo. Then in March, Duke University will hold its second-annual Blue Economy Summit. Also, the annual Our Ocean conference, which began as a U.S. Department of the State initiative, will take place in Panama in March.

Posted on

Market Snapshot: Direct Air Capture and Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Chemical Products

The pursuit of technologies that can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is becoming more crucial. Findings from the Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), show that as of 2020, there can only be an additional 500 gigatons (Gt) of CO2 emitted to have a chance of preventing warming from exceeding 1.5o C. Therefore, industries such as the chemical industry, which produce widespread carbon dioxide emissions are being charged with finding new ways to limit the carbon footprint of the industry. One potential solution is direct air capture (DAC), which involves carbon-neutral or negative methods for producing commodity chemicals. DAC systems are a potentially viable option to be combined with conversion to green commodity chemicals.

According to MarketsandMarkets, the carbon capture, utilization, and storage market size is $2.4 billion in 2022 and is predicted to reach $4.9 billion by 2027 with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15.1%. The increase in the number of environmental regulations is driving the need for carbon capture technologies. One of the major challenges of storage technologies is the possible leakage of CO2, which can cause contamination of water and acidification of soils, as well as leakage through wells. Frost & Sullivan also provides market information for carbon capture technologies and their short term applications including coal-fired power plants, cement manufacturing, iron and steel, and chemical production. Direct air capture systems will help to have a larger impact on decarbonization strategies long term.

The Institute for Global Sustainability at Boston University published a market scan for direct air carbon capture and storage. The cost estimates for Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) systems range from 100-1,000 $/tCO2 captured depending on the technological readiness and scale of deployment. The needs of direct air capture technologies include a verification system for the amount of CO2 that is permanently stored, and an accounting framework for the net reduction in atmospheric C02. However, it cannot be used as a substitute for emissions reduction, and it needs to be incorporated into regulatory schemes for emissions reduction compliance while not exacerbating energy and environmental inequities in marginalized communities. There is currently no city or municipality using direct air capture as a part of their climate action plan, but new federal initiatives could accelerate the use of direct air technologies. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act specifies credits of $180/metric ton for DACCS projects using geological storage.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is supporting regional direct air capture hubs to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The four large-scale hubs will involve carbon dioxide removal projects including the widespread deployment of direct air capture technologies. The DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) is investing in research of DAC technologies and helping bring them to market. More than $1 billion has been invested by government agencies and private investors for these technologies and over $350 million has been invested in the National Carbon Capture Center where scientists are working on developing DAC systems. The office also provides an interactive diagram for carbon management provisions which provides funding opportunities and fact sheets for the different subsections of carbon management, that can be accessed here.

Some of the upcoming conferences on carbon in 2023 are listed below with links to the events included.

Posted on

Don’t Kill the Golden Goose!

Don’t Kill the Golden Goose!

By Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D.

In July 2022 Congress passed the sweeping Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing Act[1] to ensure U.S. competitiveness and dominance in this critical technology. This need harkens back to the 1970’s when the same concern regarding U.S. competitiveness gave rise to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. However, the response today is different – in 2022, Congress is heading towards the potential lapse of the SBIR/STTR programs due to its inaction!

What is so unnerving is that Congress apparently doesn’t know the role that the SBIR/STTR programs have already played in strengthening the domestic semiconductor industry – through a small, SBIR-funded company called Arkansas Power Electronics International (APEI) which was acquired by Cree (NASDAQ: Cree) in 2015 and today is known as Wolfspeed.  The future of the semiconductor industry lies with wide band gap materials – SiC and GaN and Wolfspeed is the world leader.

SiC Wafer Market Share

2% 4% 5% 13% 14% 62%
  • Wolfspeed has long-term stable market share of >60%
  • Wolfspeed is recognized as a technology leader in the industry
  • Wolfspeed is leading supplier to world's largest power semiconductor IDMs
  • Wolfspeed continues to add materials capacity to maintain market leadership
  • Wolfspeed
  • II-VI
  • SiCrystal
  • SK Siltron
  • TankeBlue
  • Others

Source: Wolfspeed, pg 80.

At the time APEI was acquired in 2015, the Executive Vice President of Cree stated,

“Adding this expert team of innovators and portfolio of patents will enable us to further disrupt and expand the market,” said Frank Plastina, executive vice president, Cree Power and RF. “Extending our research and development capabilities with APEI, a leader in wide bandgap power R&D, will help us accelerate delivery of a full spectrum of SiC power modules to meet customer requirements for performance and cost.”[2]

Two days ago Wolfspeed announced a ”$5 Billion investment in Chatham County, largest in NC History”[3] to build a new semiconductor plant.

To put the role of the SBIR program in perspective here are a few data points. Arkansas Power Electronics International was founded in 1997 and between 2002 and 2015 received 59 Phase I and Phase II awards which included: 29 awards from the Department of Defense; 13 awards from the Department of Energy, 14 awards from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, one award from the Department of Transportation and one award from the National Science Foundation. This level of support for revolutionary technologies by the SBIR/STTR programs is necessary. To simply assume that providing multiple awards to a small business is a waste of tax-payer money or that this practice prevents other companies from winning SBIR/STTR awards is simply false.  

This is one of the many SBIR/STTR successes that goes unheralded as federal agencies lack sufficient funding and tools to track the success of SBIR/STTR awardees over an extended timeframe.  Since 1982, many successful technologies funded though the SBIR/STTR programs have enhanced U.S. competitiveness, created jobs, and commercialized new products. Congress needs to take appropriate measures immediately to keep the SBIR/STTR programs in place. To let this program lapse will hinder U.S. competitiveness – which is the reason the SBIR program was initially created [4] and should be allowed to flourish!

[1] H.R. 6359 – Investing in Domestic Semiconductor Manufacturing Act

[2] Wolfspeed. “Cree Acquires APEI (Arkansas Power Electronics International, Inc.”  July 09, 2015.

[3] WRAL News. Wolfspeed announces $5 billion investment in Chatham County, largest in NC history”, September 9, 2022.

[4]  Public Law 97-219 – July 22, 1982.

Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D. is the President and Founder of Dawnbreaker, a woman-owned small business located in Rochester, NY which has provided commercialization assistance to SBIR/STTR awardees since 1990.

Email
Twitter
LinkedIn
Posted on

Why SBIR/STTR should be reauthorized NOW

Why SBIR/STTR should be reauthorized NOW

By Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D.

Small, advanced technology firms have suffered enough! What they don’t need now is a death blow from the federal government. During COVID these firms weathered delays in their research due to supply chain issues and illness in their staff. Today, many contend with the loss of employees to large enterprises that view firms funded by the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs as ripe for harvesting qualified, experienced staff. Now is NOT the time to orchestrate the demise of these programs and put at risk the survival of the companies nurtured by participating agencies. Delays in reauthorization of the SBIR/STTR programs and the uncertainty regarding funding will severely damage this vital sector of the U.S. economy.

Let me address some misinformation that is being bantered around.

Some maintain that potential, new entrants to the SBIR/STTR programs fail to secure awards because these are gobbled up first by frequent award winners. Indeed, the threshold for winning an SBIR/STTR award is intentionally high. After all, funding for these programs comes from each participating agency’s extramural R&D budget. Solicitation topics vary widely and are directed at each agency’s mission. Awards are made with taxpayer money and those responsible for making award decisions critically evaluate each proposals’ goodness of fit with the solicitation topic, as well as the ability of the proposed team to conduct the research. Because the threshold is high, new entrants to these programs often need support in preparing their first SBIR/STTR applications. Agencies such as the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health have therefore instituted a Phase 0 program to assist new applicants in proposal preparation. The results indicate that such programs have a positive impact on assisting new applicants to win SBIR/STTR awards.

Then there’s the “elephant in the room.” Is money being wasted by giving multiple SBIR/STTR awards to frequent award winners? All different types of companies apply for SBIR/STTR awards. There are start-ups with one or two employees. There are small businesses that have between 10-15 employees who have just heard about these programs for the first time. There are companies that have been around since the 1980’s which have applied to the SBIR/STTR program since that time and have less than 500 employees (threshold for small business). All of these companies win SBIR/STTR awards. However, the infrastructure of each of these firms differs greatly. A start-up with one or two employees is not going to have a laboratory, or the facilities to engage in low-rate production.  True start-ups don’t have differentiated departments and lack considerable business expertise. There are a myriad government programs, many funded through the Small Business Administration designed to assist such companies to develop their infrastructure. The SBIR/STTR programs are for R&D and although it will pay some of a company’s overhead, the small business has to find its own way to secure funding for business growth from other sources. In response some companies seek equity investment, while others pursue other government contracting vehicles and do whatever they can to grow their business engine.

Some of the agencies that participate in the SBIR/STTR programs are actual customers for the technologies that the SBIR/STTR awardees develop. They need the small businesses to be capable of delivering what they are contracted to develop. This leads contracting agencies such as the Department of Defense to focus on the ability of the company to deliver the technology/ solution/product that it is funding in an expeditious manner. By comparison, granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the United States Department of Agriculture are NOT customers for the R&D that they fund. The mission and the criticality of what is being produced are different in contracting and granting agencies. The SBIR/STTR programs are dynamic and appropriately vary in implementation at the agency level.

Commercialization success comes in all shapes and sizes – some are small successes, while others are large and have tremendous impact. It is short-sighted of those who sit in judgment of the SBIR/STTR programs to expect and mention only large commercialization successes. This is after all “seed funding” – the earliest stage of funding, often avoided by venture capital, and a niche which the SBIR/STTR programs have uniquely filled. All commercialization successes should be tracked, celebrated, and publicized. However, there is often insufficient funding for the SBIR/STTR program offices to employ the staff to make this a priority. The successes that truly exist, large and small are under-counted and need to be tracked over an extended period.

Procurement by the federal government of SBIR/STTR funded technologies through the Phase III award mechanism remains a gap. The FY20 NDAA Sec 880 added language to the Small Business Act (15 USC 638) which indicates that Senior Procurement Executives, Procurement Center Representatives (PCR) and Directors of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) should, “consult with appropriate personnel from the relevant Federal agency to assist SBCs participating in a SBIR or STTR program particularly in Phase III…” However, how to do that remains unclear.

It is important to the U.S. economy that support continues, without interruption for advanced technology firms providing needed R&D solutions through the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. It has taken decades to grow and mature these programs. As we emerge from the struggles which everyone had endured with COVID, this fragile and valuable program could be destroyed with a single blow. Re-authorize the SBIR/STTR programs by whatever means possible. Small business innovation depends on it!

Jenny C. Servo, Ph.D. is the President and Founder of Dawnbreaker, a woman-owned small business located in Rochester, NY which has provided commercialization assistance to SBIR/STTR awardees since 1990.

Email
Twitter
LinkedIn
Posted on

Market Snapshot: Space Mining

It’s not difficult to imagine miners panning for gold during the 1800s, but what exactly would mining in space look like? That is one area that NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) is looking to develop.

Missions like the Lunar Prospector, Chandrayaan-1, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), and the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) have taught us that ice, referred to as “water ice” exists on the poles of the Moon, and it is present in permanently shadowed regions (PSRs), where temperatures are low enough to keep water in a solid form despite the lack of atmospheric pressure. However, unsurprisingly, there are a few challenges that come with mining on the moon. For example, desorption and sublimation can occur at temperatures as low as 150 K, and the inverse challenge exists with water collection – unless the water vapor is under pressure, extremely cold temperatures will be necessary to capture it. To address this, NASA is seeking methods to acquire lunar water ice from PSRs and, oxygen from lunar water. While a lunar water prospecting mission is needed to fully understand the utilization potential of water on the lunar surface, NASA recognizes the need to make progress on the technology needed to extract oxygen from dry lunar regolith – a blanket of dust, broken rocks and other superficial deposits layered on the rock surface of the moon.

Mining in space isn’t just interesting to read about, the market potential for this area is growing. MarketsandMarkets reports that the space mining market was valued at $0.49 billion in 2017 and is expected to reach $2.84 billion by 2025, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.6%. The US is expected to grow at the highest CAGR due to the upcoming space exploration and mining missions by NASA and private players in the U.S., such as Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources, increasing investments by private players in asteroid mining companies, and growing number of government initiatives to boost space exploration activities. The U.S. government updated commercial space legislation with the passage of the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (SPACE) Act of 2015 (also known as Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act) in November 2015, which explicitly allows US citizens to engage in commercial exploration and exploitation of space resources, such as water and minerals. Additionally, the U.S. Space Force (USSF), the newest branch of the Armed Forces, was established in December 2019 with enactment of the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act.

In addition to lunar water ice from the PSRs, data from NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft uncovered new evidence that the Moon may be rich in metals such as iron and titanium. The hypothesis is that large meteors hitting the Moon have excavated these metal oxides from beneath the Moon’s surface – suggesting concentrations of the metal underground. Previous research and geological surveys have shown than the Moon contains three crucial resources: water, helium-3, and rare earth metals. While enabling technologies are still under investigation, one technique that has recently generated interest is “ablative arc mining,” which is part of a project led by Amelia Greig, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the Aerospace Center at the University of Texas in El Paso. Dr. Greig’s project was recently chosen as part of the Phase I Fellows program for NASA’s Institute for Advanced Concept (NIAC). Other innovative ideas are likely to emerge during Lunabotics, NASA Kennedy Space Center’s robotic mining competition, which is one of NASA’s Artemis Student Challenges – when registration closed in September, more than 50 teams had registered to compete in the 2021 challenge. 

Today, major players and space agencies in the space mining market include Deep Space Industries (US); Planetary Resources (US); Moon Express (US); ispace (Japan); Asteroid Mining Corporation (UK); Shackleton Energy Company (SEC, US); Kleos Space (Luxembourg); TransAstra (US); OffWorld (US); SpaceFab.US (US); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, US); European Space Agency (ESA, France); Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA, Japan); China National Space Administration (CNSA, China); and Russian Federal Space Agency (ROSCOSMOS, Russia).

Looking ahead, Earth & Space 2021: Engineering for Extreme Environments will be held VIRTUALLY April 19-23, 2021 and will include a symposium on Exploration and Utilization of Extra-Terrestrial Bodies. The Space Resources Roundtable (SRR) and the Planetary & Terrestrial Mining Sciences Symposium will hold their 11th joint meeting virtually the week of June 7-11, 2021.

 

Posted on

Market Snapshot: On Farm Natural Resources and Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is a popular topic these days with new users and application areas maturing in all sectors. As agriculture begins to incorporate renewable energy into everyday operations, innovative technologies and initiatives can help promote energy efficiency and conservation. The use of renewable energy in agriculture holds the promise of reducing operation costs, increasing energy efficiency, and increasing profits while utilizing natural resources. Given the availability of resources in this sector – wind, solar, geothermal energy, and other feedstocks – the potential to create scalable solutions that serve multiple and individual farms is increasing.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of U.S. farms fell sharply until the early 1970s after peaking at 6.8 million farms in 1935. However, while the number of U.S. farms has continued to decline since the 1970s, the rate of decline has slowed. In the most recent USDA survey there were 2.02 million U.S. farms in 2019 utilizing 897 million acres of land. The average farm size was 444 acres, which is slightly greater than the 440 acres recorded in the early 1970s. In 2019, family farms, commonly defined as a farm where the majority of the business is owned by the operator and individuals related to the operator, accounted for nearly 98 percent of U.S. farms, and small family farms accounted for 90 percent of all U.S. farms. By contrast, large-scale family farms, make up about 3% of farms but 44 percent of the value of production.

So, what does the number of farms mean for energy use? The EPA reports that agriculture accounts for 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and that doesn’t include land and water usage. This sector both uses and produces energy, which makes energy an expense as well as a source of potential income. On-farm renewable energy generation is seen as offering the opportunity to diversify farm business and offset emissions from other farm activities while reducing energy costs. To realize these goals, farmers are tapping into the wide range of options for renewable energy generation. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, the number of farms with renewable energy producing systems increased from 57,299 in 2012 to 133,176 in 2017.

While not every option will be suitable for every farm, the following list provides a brief overview of some of these sources.

  • Bioenergy: Biomass energy can be made up of sugars and oils from plants and used to make fuel for vehicles (Biofuel or Biodiesel). Additionally, the burning of biomass for heat or electricity is simply called Biopower. Both of these offer the potential for generation and use in the agricultural sector and beyond.
  • Geothermal: Geothermal energy can be expensive to set-up, but reports indicate that the long-term benefit makes this cost worthwhile to farmers. In this case, farm buildings could use geothermal heat pumps to exchange air temperature and ground temperature year round, keeping buildings cool in summer and warm in winter.
  • Solar: Agricultural applications of solar energy can take many forms, some of which have been used for years. For example, the sun’s energy can be used for passive heating of greenhouses or as solar thermal heating for hot water systems. With photovoltaics (PV) solar energy can be used to produce electricity. Farm-produced solar energy can be sold as a commodity or used to power the farm itself.
  • Wind: With wind energy, turbines produce electricity from wind, and can provide a large portion of the average power needed by a farm. However the turbines must be located in high wind areas and typically require at least one acre of land to produce enough energy.
  • Hydropower: Hydropower is also dependent upon the farm’s location – for this form of renewable energy the force of fast moving, falling, or flowing water is used to produce or capture energy. In agriculture, on-farm hydropower generation can be used to power the farm directly, or it can be connected to the electrical grid to offset electricity consumption.

The USDA offers a variety of links and resources for this topic and provides information on work being done in this area by other agencies as well as by individual states. A listing of agriculture conferences scheduled for 2021 is available here.