The Science of Leds

Colin Humphreys Department of Materials University of Cambridge The Science of LEDs

UK CEUG, NCR-101 and ACEWG 2012 Cambridge, 10 September 2012 LEDs

• Light emitting diodes • Made from solids that emit light • LEDs last 100,000 hours (electronics 50,000) • Light bulbs (incandescent) last 1,000 hours • LEDs fail by slow intensity decrease • Light bulbs fail totally and suddenly Efficiency of a Tungsten Light Bulb • 5%

• 95% lost as heat – stays near the ceiling

• Light bulbs are 95% inefficient

• 79% of global lamp sales by volume

Efficiency of a fluorescent tube and a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) • 25% for long tube

• 20% for compact fluorescent lamp (CFL)

• CFLs are 80% inefficient and contain Hg – CFLs rapidly replacing tungsten light bulbs – Walmart sold 100 million CFLs in 2011

Efficiency of light sources

Incandescent light bulb = 5% (15 lm/W)

Fluorescent tube (long) = 25% (80 lm/W)

Fluorescent lamp (CFL) = 20% (60 lm/W)

White LEDs (350 mA) = 30% (100 lm/W)

White LEDs (in lab) = 60% (200 lm/W)

Sodium lamp (high P) = 40% (130 lm/W)

The Potential of LED Lighting

• Electricity generation is the main source of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions • Lighting uses one-fifth of its output • LEDs are poised to reduce this figure by 75% • Lighting will then use 5% of all electricity • Save 15% of electricity

• Save about 15% CO2 emissions from power stations (d) US DoE Report

• By 2025 Solid-State Lighting using GaN-based LEDs could reduce the global amount of electricity used for lighting by 50%

• No other consumer of electricity has such a large energy-savings potential as LED lighting

Global Impact of LED Lighting

• 560 full-size power plants could close –If 40% of worlds lighting was LEDs

HOW DO LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LEDs) WORK? Main light-emitting materials (d)

Internal quantum efficiency (IQE)

InGaN/GaN quantum-well LED How to make white light

High-power LED package

Some LED Applications

Kitchen with LED luminaires

Kitchen lighting requirements: 1. >130 lm m^-2 on work surfaces. 2. Good colour rendering – food looks natural and see when food is cooked or gone bad Requirements for Home and Office Lighting

• High efficiency

• Excellent colour rendering

• Long life

• Low cost What limits the efficiency of GaN LEDs?

• Dislocations?

• Point defects?

• Efficiency droop at high power Electron micrographs of GaN LED on sapphire

Lattice mismatch 16% for GaN and sapphire. Dislocation density 5x10^9 cm^-2 Threading Dislocation Reduction

2 µm 4th

3rd

2nd

1st

WBDF TEM image, g = <11-20>, edge + mixed TDs Scandium nitride interlayer -- Multiple SiN interlayers -- x dislocation density reduced to dislocation density reduced ~ 107 cm-2 from 5 x 109 to 5 x107 cm-2 Efficiency droop

Efficiency vs current density (470 nm LED)

0.20

0.15

0.10 Peak

Efficiency Efficiency (a.u.) Efficiency Onset of 0.05 Auger-dominated recombination

0.00 0.1 1 10 100 Current density (A/cm2) What effect correlates with the onset of efficiency droop? • Does some change in the localisation of carriers?

• Does the onset of Auger-dominated recombination?

• Does carrier leakage from the active region?

The Key Issues for SSL in Homes and Offices • Cost – 75 W-equivalent LED costs $40 • Efficiency • Thermal management – Higher efficiency helps • Lifetime – Not a problem for the best manufacturers • Colour rendering Cost of LEDs

• Current costs for a white GaN LED – 10 cents for cheapest low power – US$3 for the brightest high power – LED replacement light bulb for 40W incandescent has about 8 LEDs, costs US$30, but saves US$200 in electricity over 50,000 hours

• Current costs per klm of LED white light – $20 or more – Cost target for widespread adoption: $5

High-efficiency InGaN/GaN LEDs on Large Area Silicon Substrates Why grow GaN on 6-inch Si? • Compatibility with Si processing techniques using a Si foundry – Should give improved automation and yield – Compare with “hand” processing with sapphire • Lower cost substrates • Growing on 6”, 8” and larger substrates will offer increasing cost reductions • Ease of removal of Si substrate • Lower cost LEDs and other devices

Processed full LED on 6-inch Si wafer Processed full LED on 6-inch Si wafer Processed full LED on 6-inch Si wafer

LEDs grown on large size Si can provide a low-cost manufacturing route for GaN based solid-state lighting. –Cost reduction 5-10 times Commercial Exploitation • CamGaN set up in Cambridge in November 2010 to exploit GaN on 6” Si LEDs • Plessey Semiconductors acquired CamGaN in February 2012. Hired 3 of my post-docs. • Plessey will manufacture GaN on 6” Si LEDs at their factory in Plymouth: millions of LEDs per week • A UK success story – should reduce the cost of LEDs

Global CO2 Emissions from Lighting • Lighting is one of the biggest causes of greenhouse gas emissions

• 1,900 Megatonnes of CO2 emissions per year (from power stations for lighting)

• 70% of the global CO2 emissions of all cars • 3 times more than emissions from aviation – (International Energy Agency Report, 2006)

Title

Text

The Science of LEDs

Colin Humphreys University of Cambridge

UK CEUG, NCR-101 and ACEWG 2012

Cambridge, 10 September 2012

Growing value with LEDs in horticulture controlled environments

Philips Lighting Horticulture Esther Hogeveen-van Echtelt 10th of September 2012 CEUG

We enable health and wellbeing with light

“Enrich peoples access to quality plants through timely introduction of meaningful and sustainable innovations in the lighting domain’’

“In horticulture where business complexity is increasing day by day we will take the lead to bring ‘sense and simplicity’ with new lighting solutions and beyond to improve the business of the grower’’

1 The LED revolution

18%

2011

82%

50% 2015 50%

Traditional lighting

LED lighting

*Source: Philips Lighting global market study 2009, updated for 2010 Oliveira Bridge, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Key characteristics LED technology

Light Emitted Forward

Plastic Lens

Sillicone Encapsulent

Chip Cathode Lead

Solder Connection Gold Wire Reflector Cup Heatsink Slug

Heat

High power Rebel LEDs High POWER LUXEON LEDs

2 No LED is the same

Anybody can buy a LED, but can they build a good LED light system?

• Every type of LED has his own design rules, disrespect the design rules and the LED system will fail after several hours • Data sheet of a LED for details

Key characteristics LED technology

The performance of LEDs is determined by: • Heat management • Lifetime (related to light output) • LED type and quality • Binning

3 The Philips GreenPowerLED product difference

GreenPowerLED Products

Enable our HortiLED Solutions.

• Best system efficacy • Stable light output, high LED quality • Best in class driver performance * • Long lifetime, clear min. light levels over time • Global Supply Certifications (UL, CSA, CE etc.) • Reliable specification, we set world standards • Cost competitive, Philips LED synergy & volume

*High Power factor, low total harmonic distortion Warranty 3 yrs RoHS ISO 9001-2000 ISO 14001 Bio Photo biological safety

The value for you

X(tra profit) Factors Most effective use of μmol Positive effect LED on other growth factors

Value for the grower

μmol/W €/m2 Grow light Installation cost efficiency

4 New possibilities with LED Lighting

LED adds growing power using less energy AND

LED brings additional benefits (X-factors) on top of energy saving vs traditional lighting • better growth as LED light is used more effectively by plants • plant development per crop and growth phase e.g by tuning spectrum • cost savings (temperature, water etc.) because it generates less heat • more plants on less m2 by using layers with light closer to the plants

What is a light recipe?

A light recipe is an instruction based on knowledge on how to use light to grow a certain crop under certain circumstances to obtain a certain business result Combining: • Lighting aspects: Light level, spectrum, required uniformity level, position and time • Boundary conditions for which the recipe is valid like climate conditions etc. • Results: X-factors besides energy saving found and/or expected

5 Finding recipes for plant growth - Step by Step

1st test setup Analyze, adjust Scale-up Fine-tune on and 2nd test best treatment production scale

We deliver value with LEDs for growers

Vegetables Cut flowers Tuning flowering

Potted, Bedding Leafy Vegetables & Plants and Flower Bulbs herbs Perennials

12 Seeds and young Tree Tissue Culture plants nurseries

6 We deliver value with LEDs to research institutes

Climate rooms Climate Greenhouse cabinets

Our approach: Step by step to your solution

Step 1. What is your need?

Step 2. Light recipe our know-how and Step 3. Product, installation and application network for your solution Step 4. Business case and Financing

Step 5. Agreement, delivery and installation

Step 6. Implementation check

Step 7. Follow up 14

7 Case: Kreuk- Tulips – multilayer in greenhouse

Goal: Increase production capacity Solution: Extra cultivation layer in greenhouse with proven LED recipe. Tulips move in 2 weeks from dark  LED  daylight  LED Benefit: * 3400 m2 cultivation area on 1500 m2 ground area * Improved plant quality (darker green and more elongation) * Lower costs/stem

GreenPower LED production module 15

Case: Lutz- Strawberry – control flowering and stem elongation

Goal: Induce early flowering and good stem elongation Solution: GreenPower LED flowering lamp Benefit: * Good, reliable elongation of first leaves and trusses and good quality first production * Easy to install * Energy saving (~85%)

GreenPower LED flowering lamp

8 Case: Delissen- Lettuce young plants in multilayer

Goal: Constant year round production with good quality of young lettuce plants Solution: 4153 m² Nett production area on 800 m² floor space: 4 growth chambers, 7 layers with a dedicated LED recipe Benefit: * Controlled constant production with high quality * Increased production capacity

GreenPower LED research modules In new installation GreenPower LED production modules 17

Case: Uman – tomato production with LED interlighting

Goal: Increase production in an energy efficient and profitable way Solution: GreenPower LED interlighting on 6250 m2 combined with HPS on top Benefit: * Higher production with less energy compared to only HPS * Improved fruit quality * Higher light use efficiency of crop

GreenPower LED interlighting 18

9 Case: Vreugdenberg and Queen Kalanchoe

Goal: Vreugdenberg: production young kalanchoe in multilayer (increase production capacity), Queen: increase speed of production and improve quality Solution: 2 different dedicated light recipes based on GreenPower LED production modules under cultivation layer and on internal transport lane Benefit: * Increase production * More constant production and quality * Faster cultivation up to 20% * Less growth regulators

GreenPower LED production module at Kwekerij Vreugdenberg

GreenPower LED production module at Knud Jepsen – Queen Kalanchoe 19

Case: Bailey nurseries - rooting of cuttings (lilacs, hydrangea)

Goal: Improve rooting of cuttings Solution: Multilayer cultivation with GreenPower LED production module Benefit: * Better controlled growth * Higher rooting percentages * Less labour (no watering needed) * Improved quality

GreenPower LED Production module

10 Case: Radboud University Nijmegen – Arabidopsis and tomato

Goal: To grow plants under same conditions with one parameter changed (in this case often temperature) Solution: Climate cabinet with GreenPower LED production modules build in Benefit: * No difference between upper and lower layer climate * Possibility to switch between 2 light levels, cabinet suitable for Arabidopsis and Microtom

GreenPower LED production module

Other examples of research facilities with LEDs

University of Hasselt (Belgium) Shanghai Jiaotong University (China)

Stockbridge Technology Center, (UK) University of Groningen (The Netherlands) 22

11 We combine knowledge and deliver the value

Our competences find & deliver the X-factor

Key Account Manager

Application Plant expert Engineer

Dedicated specialists in the team support with advice, test setup, light plans and installation

Our Partner network

We work with selected partners: - Installation partners - Plant Recipe partners

Growers can benefit from the Philips Network for the best - solutions for their crops in their circumstances - installation quality - service nearby

12 Thank you for your attention!

For more information: www.philips.com/horti

13 LEDs from a Plant Scientist’s Point of View

Cary A. Mitchell Department of Horticulture & Landscape Architecture Purdue University

[email protected]

2012 International Meeting on Controlled Environment Agriculture Session 1: Light in Controlled Environments

Cambridge University Downing College

September 10, 2012 Why LEDs for Plants? (>20 years ago)

• Historical basis in the space program: Wisconsin and KSC • Plants shown to grow under red LEDs only • Plants grown under red + blue light usually do better • Solid state = robust, long lived, low mass • Waveband selectable • Massive ballast and high voltage not required • Promise to reduce ESM requirement for space life support • Much interest in LED applications for CEA LEDs popular for plant applications because…

• photon-emitting surfaces are not hot – waste heat is removed remote from photon emitters • LEDs can be placed quite close to plant surfaces • desired photon flux requires less electrical power – inverse square law (Ι α d-2) is not a factor as for hot HID lamps • luminous efficacy of LEDs is improving rapidly – blue LEDS 49-50% efficient at nominal drive current – 615-nm and 630-nm red LEDS 30% efficient at 350 mA – 660-nm red LEDS 38% efficient at 350 mA • potential for advances in light distribution – system architecture, luminaires, shade avoidance, etc.

One 2007 ASHS One of the most Workshop on highly read/cited LEDs Issues in ASHS in Horticulture literature

John Sager LEDs in Plant Photobiology Research

• Replace diffraction gratings • Less need for broad-band sources, multiple filters – Cutoff filters, heat filters, safelights

• challenge to get LEDs with desired peak emissions – Bin selection, custom fabrication

• Will base of emission spectrum be as narrow as desired? – May be an issue with long irradiance times or high irradiance responses – Will cutoff filters have to be used with LEDs to determine contributions of different photoreceptors?

Image courtesy of A.J. Both, Rutgers University 1.0

Blue LED

0.8 Red LED

0.6

0.4

0.2 Normalized Photon FluxPhoton Normalized

0.0 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 Wavelength (nm)

Phytochrome photoreversible forms overlapping absorption spectra Image courtesy of Daedre Craig and Erik Runkle, Michigan State University Folta & Childers, 2008. HortScience 43(7): 1957-1964. From work by Gioia Massa and Cary Mitchell, Purdue University

‘Triton’ Pepper

Overhead Lighted

Intracanopy Lighted

Plants look OK under red + blue LEDs But under white light….

It is much easier to diagnose plant health under broad- spectrum white light than under monochromatic light, such as for these ‘Triton’ pepper plants suffering necrosis resulting from intumescence Image from work of Massa and Mitchell, Purdue University Image from work of Celina Gomez and Cary Mitchell, Purdue University Kim, H. et al. 2006. Acta Hort. 711: 111-119. Examples of less efficient LEDs

“White” LED = Blue LED + phosphor Screw-in LED lamp <50% as efficient as the blue LED) (probably 85% as efficient as hard-wired) Contemporary Lighting Technologies for Plants

• Light-emitting diodes - waveband selectable

• Sulphur lamps - broader band than LEDs

• Plasma lamps - broader band than LEDs

• Induction lamps - broader band than LEDs The importance of actively heat sinking high-output LEDs • Critical for performance and lifespan – Forced air for dense clusters of LEDs ≥ I watt – Recirculating water for very high output/densities • Makes light-emitting surfaces “touchable” • Permits intracanopy distribution of light – Overcomes mutual shading within foliar canopies – Prevents premature senescence, abscission – Enables higher photosynthetic productivity

Massa & Mitchell

Purdue University

Lightsicle design by ORBITEC Printed-Circuit LED “Light Engines”

2.5 cm

ORBITEC Light Engine

• 1 row of sixteen 440 nm blue • 4 rows of sixteen 640 nm red • 2 rows of ten 520 nm green • 2 photodiodes Intracanopy LEDs Overhead LEDs Close-canopy lighting saves electrical energy because of close LED placement to plants

From work by Lucie Poulet and Cary Mitchell, Array design by ORBITEC Purdue University Smart LED Lighting for Major Reductions in Power and Energy Use for Plant Lighting in Space and for Terrestrial CEA

• “Smart” LED lighting systems could avoid lighting empty spaces prior to canopy closure • Automation of plant detection and LED switching would save labor • Smart lighting could be adapted for intracanopy (vertical) as well as overhead (horizontal) LED lighting systems • Smart lighting could conserve considerable energy beyond just taking advantge of the unique properties of LEDs

Detection: How it works Targeted lighting of widely spaced lettuce seedlings using close-canopy LED lighting

Empty spaces between plants are not lighted LED Applications for the Greenhouse Industry

Technologies, protocols, best practices, guidelines – For LED photoperiod lighting of ornamental crops – To replace INC and CF lamps for night-interruption treatments – To determine R/FR ratios for efficient flower induction/crop development – For propagation and finishing of transplants – Vegetable – Ornamental – End-of-day lighting – Daylength-extension (DLI) lighting – For supplemental lighting of vegetable crops – Daily light integral (DLI) – Off-season local production – Energy savings – Designing arrays, fixtures, luminaires – Minimize blockage of sunlight – Apply supplemental LED light efficiently and effectively

Image courtesy of Erik Runkle and Daedre Craig, Michigan State University Images courtesy of Christopher Currey, Michael Ortiz, Wesley Randall, and Roberto Lopez , Purdue University

Pelargonium ‘Bullseye Scarlet’ HPS 100% R 85% R 70% R 15% B 30% B Images courtesy of Ricardo Hernandez and Chieri Kubota, University of Arizona

Solar PPF = 345 mmol m-2 s-1 LED PPF = 55 mmol m-2 s-1

Hernández & Kubota Technology developed by ORBITEC

Image from the work of C. Gomez and C. Mitchell, Purdue University Intracanopy LED Lighting Towers Technology developed by ORBITEC Image from the work of C. Gomez and C. Mitchell, Purdue University Point-of-View Summary

• LEDs will contribute to basic plant photobiology – Narrow spectrum light – Less cumbersome than classic photobiology equipment • LEDs will be useful for whole-plant research – Scalable, selectable waveband, high-output, long duration • Translation to commercial application – Systematic proof-of-concept testing required – Multi-disciplinary teams required • LEDS may not be best choice for all plant applications

Orbital Technologies Corporation Acknowledgements SCRILED Project

• Dr. A.J. Both, RU UA = • Mike Bourget, ORBITEC • Daedre Craig, MSU • Chris Currey, PU • Celina Gomez, PU MSU = • Ricardo Hernandez, UA • Dr. Chieri Kubota, UA • Dr. Roberto Lopez, PU PU = • Dr. Gioia Massa, PU • Dr. Bob Morrow, ORBITEC • Michael Ortiz, PU RU = • Lucie Poulet, PU • Wesley Randall, PU • Dr. Erik Runkle, MSU

Plasma Lighting Technology

J. Sager (Retired - NASA, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, USA) and R. Wheeler (NASA, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, USA)

Presented in “CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS: TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE”, Session 2 - LIGHT IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS (Chair: B. Bugbee) The 4th International Conference of the UK CEUG, the North American NCERA-101 and the Australasian ACEWG Downing College, Cambridge, UK

9 September 2012

Plasma Lamp Technology • Plasma lamps are part of the family of electrodeless lamps including fluorescent induction, sulfur plasma and solid state plasma lamps. – Nicola Tesla demonstrated the concept with wireless transfer of power to electrodeless fluorescent and incandescent lamps ca. 1894 (United States Patent 454622). – A plasma lamp system contains an electrodeless bulb and an excitation source, such as a magnetron (microwave generator-2.45 GHz) or radio frequency (RF) generator. – A plasma lamp emits light from the excited plasma of sulfur or halides and generates a continuous spectrum. • Currently both the sulfur plasma and the solid state plasma lamps are used in limited horticultural applications.

Maltani Lighting sulfur lamp Luxim solid state lamp (LEP) Sulfur Plasma Lamp

• The sulfur lamp has an evacuated quartz bulb partly filled with an inert gas, e.g., argon (Ar), a small amount (mg) of sulfur (S), and, perhaps, some other compounds such as InBr, CaBr2 or other halides to enhance the output spectrum in the red (600 to 700 nm) or far-red (700 to 740 nm) regions of the spectrum. • The sulfur plasma lamp was developed by Michael Ury and Chuck Wood of Fusion Lighting Systems, Inc. in 1980 and they commercialized several versions from 1995 to 1999. – In the United States, development of the lamp was supported by NASA Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase 1 and Phase 2 contracts from 1992 to 1995. – In 1997 Fusion Lighting was awarded a NASA SBIR Phase 1 contract for development of an RF excited plasma lamp and developed a prototype. The company went bankrupt due to failure of the magnetron circuitry in the sulfur plasma lamps before completion of the contract.

Sulfur Plasma Lamp

• The bulb or the microwave excitation field, as is the case with the Maltani (Taewon) Lighting Co. circularly polarized microwaves (CPM) design, must be rotated to maintain uniform plasma flow and high irradiance. – This rotation uniformly heats the plasma, avoids melting the bulb and increases the luminous efficiency obtained at a given power, e.g., the efficiency of the SOLAR-1000 lamp went up form 50 to 100 lm/W. – Radiative efficiency is very high; up to 70% of power coupled into the plasma can be emitted as (visible) light. • The application of the sulfur plasma lamp to crop production was investigated throughout the world (North American, Europe, Australia and Asia). • “Light pipes”, initially developed by Loren Whitehead (TIR) using 3M materials, have been used in warehouses, parking lots and museums.

Sulfur lamp - Light pipe, 2 m to 12 m length, and ~0.3 m diameter Sulfur Plasma Lamps

Sulfur Plasma Bulbs Plasma International - AS1300 Failed bulb on right courtesy of Dennis Wildman Sulfur Plasma Lamp Specifications Initial (Old)*

Manufacturer Model Input Lumen Photon CCT CRI System Notes (W) Efficacy Efficacy (K) (Ra) (lm/W) (µmol/J) Fusion Solar 1000 1425 96 1.4 6000 86 22 kg, Lighting (Light Drive rotating lamp 1000) Hutchins VBL-3400E 5000 89 1.3 6700 85 RS-232 cont’l, International (white) rotating lamp Ltd. (Fusion HIIQ-LI) LG Electronics PLS-PSH07 730 54 1.4 6400 85 19 kg, rotating lamp * Manufacturer/models named are for example only, listing is not inclusive. Sulfur Plasma Lamp Specifications Current* Manufacturer Model Input Lumen Photon CCT CRI System Notes (W) Efficacy Efficacy (K) (Ra) (lm/W) (µmol/J) H&K PLS- KPSH 730 54 1.4 6500 80 20 kg, 700RI rotating lamp Plasma Plasma - i 1360 100 1.3 6000 86 22 kg, International AS1300 rotating lamp Plasma LGE PLS 730 54 1.4 6100 90 rotating lamp International 700 Maltani SolaRay 1100 62 2.0 5300 96 Non-rotating Lighting Co. lamp (CPM) (Taewon ) * Manufacturer/models named are for example only, listing is not inclusive.

Solid State Plasma Lamp • A radio-frequency (RF) signal is generated, amplified and guided into the ceramic resonator, called the “puck”. • The puck concentrates the RF field, delivering energy to the fully-sealed quartz lamp, ionizes the gasses and metal halides in the lamp - creating an intense source of white (broad spectrum) light. • The back of the lamp is a highly reflective material to reflect light in the forward direction. • The color of the light is tailored by the fill chemistry inside the lamp to provide a naturally white and high color rendering light.

Solid State Plasma (LEP) Lamps

Gavita PRO 300

Luxim Light Emitting Plasma (LEP) System

Chameleon Solar Genesis Solid State Plasma Lamp Specifications*

Manufacturer Model Input Lumen Photon CCT CRI System Notes (W) Efficacy Efficacy (K) (Ra) (lm/W) (µmol/J) Luxim GRO-40 280 50 1.1 5300 94 Source (puck) (LEP) only

Gavita PRO 300 300 60 1.0 5600 94 11.7 kg (LEP)

Chameleon Solar 301 56 1.0 5600 95 8.6 kg Genesis (LEP) Stray Light Grn-house 295 51 1.0 5300 95 8.6 kg Grow (LEP) * Manufacturer/models named are for example only, listing is not inclusive.

Comparative Lamp Specifications* Type lamp Model Input Lumen Photon YPF/ PPS System Notes (W) Efficacy Efficacy PPF (%) (lm/W) (µmol/J) ** *** Sulfur Plasma Solar 1000 1425 96 1.4 0.86 78 22 kg, rotating lamp Solid State PRO 300 300 60 1.0 0.90 79 11.7 kg, single Plasma (LEP) est. est. puck Fluorescent F54T5/ 54 93 1.3 0.89 83 - 841/HO Metal Halide MH1000/ 1080 108 1.2 0.90 80 - Ceramic CDM-T 340 105 1.9 0.91 81 - Metal Halide Elite Agro High Pressure LU1000 / 1060 123 1.5 0.95 85 - Sodium LED (Illumitex) Surexi F3 314 - 1.3 0.93 85 strip array x 6, est. est. 54 LEDs LED (Lighting VividGro 300 50 1.3 0.90 82 rectangular Science Grp.) est. est. array, 64 LEDs * Manufacturer/models named are for example only, listing is not inclusive; ** YPF = yield photon flux; *** PPS = phytochrome photostationary state ; (YPF/PPF & PPS data from B. Bugbee and G. Deitzer) Sulfur Lamp Crop Growth Comparisons Crop DAP PPF Sulfur MH or Fluor- Solar Reference (days) (µmol m-2s -1) Lamp HPS escent Lettuce 26 525/250/ 3.13g 2.70g 1.77g --- Both et al. (Ostenata) 250/ - (dw) 1993 Lettuce 28 250/250/ 2594g 2440g 2120g --- Goins et al. (Waldmann’s 250/ - (fw) 2000 Green) Cucumber 14 500/500/ 902g 691g ------Krizek et al. (Poinsett) - / - (dw) 1998 Cucumber 13 100/100/ 1001g 611g 440g --- Hogewoning (Hoffmann’s 100/ - (dw) et al. 2010 Giganta) Rice TO 1000/ - / 95.1g ------38.4g Kozai et al. (4 x day HARVEST - /~1000 (dw) 1995 neutral 37.3g 18.6g cultivars) (rice) Radish 28 250/250/ 852g 690g 720g --- Goins et al. (Cherry Belle) 250/ (dw) 2000 Solid State Plasma Lamp Crop Growth Comparisons Observed plant responses - Solid State Plasma vs Fluorescent /Tungsten* (240 µmol m-2s -1, 14 p-p, T-day = 20C / T-night = 15C, RH = 65 %) Barley: Plants similar - slightly taller and denser under plasma. Grain formed under fluorescent, but not under plasma. Pea: Plasma plants smaller with smaller leaves and less pods than fluorescent. Lettuce: Plasma plants taller and more open leaf structure, neither forming a heart. Grass: Plasma plants slightly denser. Carrot: Plasma plants a bit taller (drawn) and roots smaller. Clover : Plasma plants poorer.

Barley Pea Lettuce Carrot

*Observed data from Allan Sim, The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie Dundee, Scotland Solid State Plasma Lamp Crop Growth Comparisons Use of Light Emitting Plasma (LEP) Lamps As a New Source of Artificial Light in Growing Lettuce and Tomato* • Four cultivars of lettuce (Butterhead, Iceberg A, Little Caesar, and Simpson Elite) were grown under LEP, high pressure sodium (HPS), and metal halide (MH) lamps with approximate PPF levels (350–400 µmol·m-2·s-1). – The biomass yield was similar under the three different lamps. – However, the architecture of lettuce plants grown under LEP was more desirable than that obtained under other lamps. • Four tomato cultivars (Cobra, Geronimo, Masada, and Trust) were grown under LEP and HPS lamps. – The plants grown under LEP were shorter and more compact than those grown under HPS, while showing higher biomass yield. – The solid content of fruits harvested was slightly higher for plants grown under LEP lamps compared to HPS lighting. – LEP lamps consumed about 25% less electricity than HPS lamps for the same wattage lamps producing similar PPF levels. – Both LEP and HPS lamps allowed the production of commercial quality tomato fruits when used as sole sources of artificial lighting.

* C. W. Lee, Ju Ho Choi and L. Brower, North Dakota State University (Poster, 31 July, 2012 ASHS Meeting, Miami, FL)

Plasma Lamps Pros

– Continuous spectra – Positive response in most plant growth tests – Environmentally friendly bulb fill, no Hg (Some metal halides may contain Hg) – High lumen and PAR efficacy results in energy savings – High irradiance, point source requiring optimal luminaire design for uniform distribution – Adaptable to “light pipes” – Rapid start times; < 1 minute – Fast re-strike times; < 2 minutes – Dimmable units are available – Minimal spectral changes with age – Fill niche horticultural applications

Plasma Lamps Cons – Unit life and reliability have not reached expected life time • The bulbs last for years, but the magnetron and the motor(s) have failed in a short time (1st generation units had 50% of the magnetrons burn out within 3-6 months). • The lamps operate at very high temperatures (900-1200 C). These high temperatures lead to a break down in the luminaires and high infrared radiation emission to the crop canopy or plastics used nearby, e.g., lenses. – The sulfur spectrum is noticeably green; people and plants do not “like” greenish light – EMI shielding must be maintained for safety and proper communications maintenance – Solid State Plasma (LEP) bulbs are position sensitive and must be oriented for intended operating position – Limited choice of lamp manufacturers and lamp wattages • Sulfur lamps ; > 700 W • LEP lamps ; < 300 W – Longevity of Manufacturers (?)

Acknowledgements: • My co-presenter, Ray Wheeler, for providing numerous references and editing the presentation. • Donald Krizek for editing the presentation. • Allan Sim for sharing his observations with LEP lamps. • Sulfur lamp failure example courtesy of Dennis Wildman, Ecotron Electronics Engr., Imperial College London. • Kevin Lucks, Lighting Consultant, for sharing his plasma lamp portfolio. • The CEUG organizing committee for their support. • Lynton Incoll for his quest for new CE technology and the invitation to make this presentation.

Thank You!

QUESTIONS? LED’S GROW! GREENHOUSE REPLACEMENT TISSUE CULTURE ....PLUS VITRO PLUS 3000 m2 GROWTH CHAMBER 2003 VITRO PLUS GROWTH 1 PERSON CHAMBER 2010 FOR 20 MILLION PLANTS USP 60.000 MINI GREENHOUSES NEW BUSINESS MODEL USP ULTRA CLEAN CONDITIONS PATENT: DOUBLE FOIL TECHNOLOGY THINK INSIDE THE BOX CASE: SOFT FRUIT STERILE PLUGS PRODUCTION CASE: SOFT FRUIT REPLACES GREENHOUSE PRODUCTION PRODUCTION CASE: SOFT FRUIT GREENHOUSE REPLACED PRODUCTION PHILIPS PARTNERSHIP WE TESTED 6 DIFFERENT RECEIPTS ViVi AUTOMATION LABOR 2030????? ViVi FOOD POSSIBILITIES SAFE CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONCLUSIONS ViVi PRESENTATION

• INVESTMENT OF €400 / M2 IS GREENHOUSE COMPETITIVE

• SAVING ON ENERGY

• SAVING ON LABOR

• SAVING ON WATER

• SAVING ON NUTRIENTS

• NO USE OF PESTICIDES

• WORLD-WIDE COPY/PASTE

• PREDICTABLE GROWTH RESULTS Challenges of Comparative Light Measurement

SpectraPartners BV Frans van der Meij

- Conventional or LED? - How to compare the effective energy? - Measurement parallel : plant & human eye - ‘Simple’ measurement checklist

The general measurement of LED’s required new definitions and measurement solutions

NEW RECOMMENDATION: CIE 127-2007 Measurement of LED’s

Photopic Response Curve & Photosynthesis Response Curve

TYPICAL WHITE LED +/- 440 nm 2007/2008 LED’s in General & Public Lighting

Sodium +/- 590 nm LED +/- 440 nm

6-7 billion cones : - 65% red sensitive (564 nm) - 33% green (534 nm) - 2% blue (420 nm) Sodium +/- 590 nm LED +/- 440 nm

120 billion rods peek at 507nm CIE 191-2010

This report deals with visual task performance based approaches to mesopic photometry, with a major aim to establish appropriate mesopic spectral sensitivity functions to serve as the foundation of a system of mesopic photometry. - CIE draft standard Characterization of the performance of Illuminance & luminance meters - TC2-46 CIE/ISO Standards on LED intensity meqasurements - TC2-50 Measurement of optical properties of LED clusters and arrays - TC2-58 Measurement of LED radiance & luminance - TC2-63 Optical measurements of High Power LED’s - TC2-64 High speed testing methods for LEDs - TC2-71 CIE standards on test methods for LED Lamps luminaires and modules - TC4-47 Application of LEDs in transport signalling and lighting - TC6-55 Photobiological Safety of LEDs

What does this all mean for you?

- TC 6-42: Lighting Aspects for Plant Growth in Controlled Environments - TC 6-61: Measurement of radiation using the phytometric System for plant application A ‘SIMPLE’ CHECKLIST?

Light source spectral distribution Detector spectral sensitivity? Detector calibration Detector cosine response Measurement error spectral distribution light source commonly used light sources HPI-T High Pressure Metal Halide SON–T GP High Pressure Sodium Vapour

1,2

0,8

HPI-T 0,6 SON-T GP

Relative Output Relative 0,4

0,2

380 399 418 437 456 475 494 513 532 551 570 589 608 627 646 665 684 703 722 741 760 779 Wavelenght in nm spectral distribution light source Standard Sulpher Plasma Lamp

spectral distribution LED example led source

1,20000E+00

1,00000E+00

8,00000E-01

6,00000E-01

Relative Output Relative 4,00000E-01

2,00000E-01

0,00000E+00

380 397 414 431 448 465 482 499 516 533 550 567 584 601 618 635 652 669 686 703 720 737 754 771 Wavelenght in nm spectral distribution LED example led source with extended red

1,20000E+00

1,00000E+00

8,00000E-01

6,00000E-01

Relative Output Relative 4,00000E-01

2,00000E-01

0,00000E+00

380 397 414 431 448 465 482 499 516 533 550 567 584 601 618 635 652 669 686 703 720 737 754 771 Wavelenght in nm TYPICAL DAYLIGHT FLUORESCENT TUBE NON TYPICAL DAYLIGHT : ‘SATURDAY SUNLIGHT AT TEATIME IN CAMBRIDGE’ A ‘SIMPLE ‘ CHECKLIST

Light source spectral distribution Detector spectral sensitivity? Detector calibration Detector cosine response Measurement error

Photosynthetic Active Radiation

Calculation of photosynthetic photon irradiance  E hc 2 E  Q  E  E()d phot Q   1 E – Irradiance, Q – Photon energy

Ephot characterizes the number of photons per time and area in a selected wavelength range

1 2 E  E( ) d phot hc  1

Unit : µmol/[m2.s] (1 Mol = 6.02·1023 photons = 1 Einstein) Photosynthetic Active Radiation

1 2 E  E() d phot hc  1

You can also add a wave length depended response :

2 E  E() s()d Action spectrum: s() biol  1

1 2 E  E() s() d photbiol hc  1 Ideal PAR sensor Spectral sensitivity PAR-detector

- Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR, definition CIE 106 paragraph 8) - Units in µmol / [m2.s] - photosynthetic photon flux density (when measured with a flat/hemispherical sensor) - Radiation within the range of wavelengths 400 to 700 nm - Energy of a blue photon is ± 1,75 higher than a red photon - Photosynthese : blue & red photons are equal - Detector: diffusor, filter , photoconductor & electronics - Photoconductor : GaAsP or Silicon GaAsP Sensitivity Silicon Sensitivity GaAsP Drawback Silicon Drawback PAR sensor examples

Sensor response PAR sensor examples PAR sensor examples PAR RESULTS

GaAsP

GaAsP PAR RESULTS

PAR SENSOR RESPONSE RED + FAR RED

1,20000E+00

1,00000E+00

8,00000E-01

6,00000E-01

spectral based Output Relative 4,00000E-01

2,00000E-01

0,00000E+00

380 397 414 431 448 465 482 499 516 533 550 567 584 601 618 635 652 669 686 703 720 737 754 771 Wavelenght in nm

detector based A ’SIMPLE’ CHECKLIST

Light source spectral distribution Detector spectral sensitivity? Detector calibration Detector cosine response Measurement error

Detector Calibration

- Calibration determines accuracy!! - Which light standards are used?

PAR1 PAR2 PAR3 A ’SIMPLE’ CHECKLIST

Light source spectral distribution Detector spectral sensitivity? Detector calibration Detector cosine response Measurement error

Cosine Response by means of a diffusor

The irradiance or illuminance falling on any surface varies as the cosine of the incident angle. The perceived measurement area orthogonal to the incident flux is reduced at oblique angles, causing light to spread out over a wider area than it would if perpendicular to the measurement plane.

To measure the amount of light falling on plant leaves, you need to mimic the plants cosine response. Since PAR-filter rings restrict off-angle light, a cosine diffuser must be used to correct the spatial responsivity. Cosine Response restricting of angle light Cosine Response Why is it important? Cosine Response Why Important? Cosine Response Why Important? A ’SIMPLE’ CHECKLIST

Light source spectral distribution Detector spectral sensitivity? Detector calibration Detector cosine response Measurement error

Are you influencing your measurements? Are you influencing your measurements?

Light source spectral distribution Detector spectral sensitivity Detector calibration Detector cosine response Measurement error

IS THIS STILL A ‘SIMPLE’ CHECKLIST? Just do it simple…. use a spectroradiometer!!

no issues concerning light & sensor ideal (software) PAR response optional plant specific correction spectra one instrument to measure all reference instrument

Warning : a spectrometer is not a spectroradiometer!

The characteristic of the spectroradiometer used for testing will impact the accuracy of the measurements. For best results, the CIE recommends that : ‘For practical LED measurements, a bandwidth of 5nm or less is acceptable and recommended. Bandwidths of larger than 5 nm are generally not recommended for LED measurement.’ CIE 063-1984 The spectroradiometric Measurement of Light Sources

SPECIFICATIONS - wavelength range : 350 – 800nm - UV : double monochromator only! - bandwidth : < 5 nm - remote control - low stray-light level - auto-calibration routines - automated dark current measurement - stable readings at ΔT - calibration certificate - EASE OF USE!!! Need any help? [email protected] TEL+31 62269 3218 Angus Padfield Development Director Unigro The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

The Traditional application of Thermal Storage The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Thermal Energy Stores:  lower energy rates - off peak or cogeneration  increased compressor efficiency  reduced refrigeration system capacities  reduced volumes of refrigerant – lower GWP

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Source: City of Melbourne Information The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Coolth Tanks for CEs should provide not only:  lower energy rates, cogeneration  increased compressor efficiency  reduced refrigeration system capacities  reduced volumes of refrigerant But also:  Free Cooling to both the Coolth Tank and inline coolant  provision of 100% capacity as a reserve  reduced infrastructure – chillers, services and generators

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Subdivided Contained Controlled Environment Greenhouse with a Coolth Tank, Free Cooler and site Absorption chiller with off peak capacity

Capital cost reductions:  chiller capacity reduction 210-135kW  single chiller required, not run & stand-by (n+1)  Reduced generator specification on power failure  Reduced electrical infrastructure and peak demand  Reduced maintenance costs of mechanical plant Approximate capital outlay reduction £49,000

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Subdivided Contained Controlled Environment Greenhouse with Coolth Tank, Free Cooler and site Absorption chiller with off peak capacity

Additional Capital Costs  Coolth Tank & associated infrastructure £62,000 Running Cost and maintenance cost savings from Free Cooler & Absorption Chiller c. £14,800

Payback period Year 1

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Further cost saving opportunities with beneficial control systems and Coolth Tanks

 Utilising off peak electricity from site CHP reducing substantially the electrical running costs

 Modulating the use of the chiller to avoid exceeding contractual periodic electrical limits And lastly as a revenue stream......

The Concept of Free Cooling and Coolth, and use in energy conservation

Load Shedding with Coolth Tanks......

Via BMS, reduce energy consumption by chillers and S.L. In CE Glass on demand or prearranged and receive payment on the highest level contracts with the National Grid for this flexibility.

Via non-linked consortiums, organised and run by contractors, not limited by individuals reduction capacity, up to c. £35k pa per MW

15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Innovative Structures and methods for operating closed systems at high ambient temperatures

Dr.-Ing. Martin Buchholz Watergy GmbH, Berlin

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

1 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

2 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

RH gh RH ext 100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0 R H [%]

50.0

40.0

30.0 21/11/2005 26/11/2005 01/12/2005 06/12/2005 11/12/2005 16/12/2005 21/12/2005 26/12/2005

3 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Tst max Tst min Tst

45.0

40.0

35.0

30.0 T[ºC]

25.0

20.0

15.0 19/05/05 24/05/05 29/05/05 03/06/05 08/06/05 13/06/05 18/06/05 23/06/05 28/06/05

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

T [ºC ] 25

15 Max T inside greenhouse

10 Max T outside greenhouse

5 08/04/05 28/04/05 18/05/05 07/06/05 27/06/05 17/07/05 06/08/05 26/08/05 15/09/05

4 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

5 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

High costs for heat exchanger, tower construction

Abundancy to (cold) night time temperatures

Limitation according to high day time temperatures

Limitied performance of air de-humidification, results to low evaporation rates

6 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Exotherm Exotherm

Endotherm Endotherm

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

7 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

8 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

9 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

10 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Watergy, Berlin

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH Seasonal heat storage Berlin Prototype

12. Dez

11 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

12 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

13 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

14 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

30 Annahmen: Einstrahlung 250W/m²;Tu=-5°C;Kollektorfläche=50m²;A0=0,82;A1=4,2;A2=0,034

15 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Jourda, Perraudin, Institut Mont Cenis

16 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Schlaich, Bergermann, Partner, Klimahüllen f. Gewerbegebiete

Buckminster Fuller, Dome

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Buckminster Fuller, Geodesic Dome

17 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH

Grimshaw, Eden Project

18 15/01/2013

Dr. – Ing. Martin Buchholz, Watergy GmbH Applications „air de-humidification“ „Applications desiccant regeneration“

Regeneration at Greenhouses Power station Large scale production greenhouses Pipeline around power stations

Industrial drying Food, Wood , Paper, Textile, Desiccant storage Laundry etc.

Building exhaust air heat recuperation Residential, Swimming pools, Sport facilities, Kitchen, etc. Building supply air humidification Office buildings , Hospitals, Cleanrooms, Building supply air dehumidfication Printing shops, etc. Space cooling Decentral ground heat exchangers Building dehumidfication Non aerated space, cellar rooms etc. Aquifer storage

Urban greenhouses Solar air collectors (summer) Rooftop- and Facade greenhouses

19 Part of the ADAS Group of Companies

Renewable Energy Options for Controlled Environments

Chris Procter

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Overview

 The Issue

 Why Renewable Energy?

 The Technologies

 Wind

 Solar PV

 Anaerobic Digestion

 Other Technologies

 What Next?

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk The Issue

 High energy use environments

 Very high costs

 Drive from industry to reduce CO2 emissions and demonstrate sustainability

 Need to improve competitiveness

 EU directive – 20% of all energy from renewables by 2020

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Why Renewable Technologies?

 Incentives

 Feed in Tariffs (FiTs)

 ROCs

 Reduced CO2

 Reduced costs

 Improved Sustainability

 Positive PR

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Wind Energy

 Small Scale <50kW

 C.50m total height

 Medium Scale <500kW

 Typically 1.5-2 MWh / annum

 75m high

 Large Wind 2MW+

 Can be 1 or many Turbines

 Various heights

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Wind Energy

 Funding Options

 Self Investment - £250k - £3M+

 Returns 15-20%

 Developer Investment

 Example - 500kW Turbine

 No risk

 Site owner no costs

 Income per annum of £40k

 Cheap electricity

 20 years, index linked

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Wind Energy

 But…..wind isn’t easy

 Constraints

 Objections

 Planning regulations

 Wind speed

 Access

 Grid

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Solar Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Solar Thermal

Solar photovoltaic systems Solar thermal systems heat produce electricity water for hot water supply

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk

PV Advantages

 Limited planning requirements

 Short project timescales

 Reliable, established technology

 Clear investment proposal

 35+ year lifetime (20 years + of incentives)

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk PV Projects

Lakes Free Range Egg Company • 100 kWp system

• 91,800 kWh annual yield

• 50kWp Roof mounted on pitched metal-roof

• 50kWp Ground mounted

• Provides over 12% ROI for client

• Provides Green Credentials to satisfy Supermarkets

• Future – proofing of energy price hikes

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Large Scale Solar

 Located in a good solar irradiation area

 35 to 75 acres of land

 33kVa power lines within close proximity (approx 1.5km)

 Planning “friendly”

 HGV access required

 Legal ability to agree 35 year lease term

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Anaerobic Digestion

 The digestion of organic materials

 Produces:

 Gas

 Digestate

 Generate electricity and heat, or;

 Inject gas into grid

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk The concrete cow

METHANE

MANURE FEED IN

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Perhaps not that simple?

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Example costs and potential revenue 250kW

Cost to build £1.2m Cost to grow 5,000t of maize/yr £125,000 FiT payments/yr £290,000 Electricity export sale £120,000 Plus value of free fertiliser? Heat energy; RHI?

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Other Technologies

 Ground Source Heat Pumps

 Air Source Heat Pumps

 Solar Thermal

 Wood Chip Boilers

 Hydro

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk

What next?

 Assess suitability  Carry out feasibility studies

 Identify suppliers

 Develop a business plan

 Identify funding sources

 Carry out planning works

 Submit planning

 Order & build

 Rewards www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Register at www.re-solved.co.uk

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Questions

 Chris Procter

 ADAS UK / REsolved Renewables

 Tel: 07778955069

 Email: [email protected]

www.adas.co.uk www.re-solved.co.uk Environmental Impacts 1 : Materials and Structures

Buildings that provide plants with an appropriate environment in which they can thrive require the building’s façade to be able to perform the task of separating the internal and external spaces whilst still providing other expected functional requirements. The list of those functional requirements has lengthened with the inclusion of sustainability related obligations leading to the possible choice of a number of organic based construction materials. This presentation focuses upon the moisture related performance of straw based materials and the range of methodologies that can be used to judge the condition of organic materials used in the walls of buildings. Different building technologies, locations and environments are related to the moisture performance of a number of straw bale walls. Drivers for sustainable building and construction

• Buildings • Global warming Regulations • Cost reductions • Ozone layer depletion related to energy - UV radiation increase use • Code for • Our relationship with the sustainable planet homes Sustainable buildings - Potable water • Government - Agriculture related targets in - Sea levels / Flooding specific specialists - Social issues areas. • Client pressure • Energy Dependency • BREEAM and - National security (energy & other financial environmental rating systems Sustainable building and construction

• Culture, Heritage and Built Form • Transport and Mobility • Housing and Amenity • Education and Employment • Health and Well Being • Inclusion • Global, Local and Internal Environments • Land and Water • Biodiversity and Ecology • Waste management • Energy • Use of Materials Energy

Planning Massing Detailing System design Renewables

Orientation Form Build tight Control Heat Site potential Room depths Vent right Metering Hot water Natural daylight Room layouts Service right Management Cooling Natural Ventilation Façade Risk Power Wind Insulation Rain capture Isolation

Passive design Efficient use Materials • Select appropriate materials- higher quality materials for long lifespan elements and lower quality materials for shorter lifespan elements. • Re-use and re-cycle materials from the existing site if possible. • Use materials with low life-cycle impact for example:

. Independently certified renewable timber • Heavyweight materials only where thermal mass is required. • Avoidance of the use of materials with a high embodied energy http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/research/sert/ • Re-cycled and/or organic thermal and acoustic insulation • Wood or steel framed windows as opposed to UPVC or aluminium • Flooring made from natural materials • Paints which are water or vegetable oil based. Embodied energy

According to Bath University’s ICE data base http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/research/sert/

Material EE. mJ/kg Virgin aluminium 218 Recycled aluminium 28.8 Rock wool 18.11 Vermiculite 3.97 Cork 4.0 Straw 0.024

Insulation

Another reason why straw or other similar buildings materials might be appropriate to use in the outer skin of controlled environments

The thermal insulation reference value for wheat straw bales varies with certain variables such as density and straw with a density of 100 kg/m³ has a thermal conductivity of l= 0,0456 W/mK, slightly higher than many fibre based building insulations. (R. Wimmer, H. Hohensinner, L. Janisch, M. DrackHeat Insulation Performance of Straw Bales and Straw Bale Walls GrAT - Center for Appropriate Technology / Vienna University of Technology) A History of Straw bale buildings There are three main factors that came together to lead to the building of the first straw bale house. The second important factor was the lack on timber suitable for building in this specific area.

A typical Nebraska ‘Soddy’. From http://www.nebraskastudies.org/

The third important factor was the already accepted method of building homes leant its self to using bales where the soil properties were not applicable to building ‘Soddies’. BaleHaus’ a pioneering building using ModCell panels. From http://www.modcell.co.uk/. (Accessed: Sep. 2011). Two main Construction techniques. Head

Stem & Leaf

Root Nebraskan style – load bearing Infill - Non-load bearing Why monitor moisture? • Buildings are often the largest investment made by building occupants.

• Degradation due to moisture related decay is one of the major ways in which the building’s performance and that investment maybe impaired. It has been suggested that the ideal moisture content of a straw-bale wall is 14%, as this is below the level that is believed to allow biological activity to begin (Steen et al ).

This is echoed by Still ‘At 20% moisture content most organic material starts to degrade such as grains, wood and straw.’ (Still). Straw bale construction in a temperate maritime climate

Koppen climate classification Cfb: C = Temperate f = Without a dry season b = Warm summer Moisture and straw

Danger area Where might the moisture come from?

Moisture from exterior sources •Through the vertical outer protection •Through horizontal outer protection

Moisture from interior sources •From moisture in the air travelling through the structure •Liquid water from internal sources, leaks etc

How to measure moisture? In-situ moisture measurement

1) Gravimetric Analysis

2) Relative Humidity

3) Agricultural Probe

4) Woodblock Probe 5) Thermographic imaging

Necessary attributes of moisture measurement methods

To enable straw bale buildings to be monitored the obvious methodology is to allow house-holders to monitors their own buildings.

This will allow the main stakeholder in the process to be central in checking their building’s ‘health’.

To do this the monitoring technique needs to be;

•Inexpensive •Simple to use. •Not unduly disruptive •Has a pleasing appearance for the householder. Necessary attributes of moisture measurement methods

• Gravimetric too disruptive

• RH temp probes, can be delicate and expensive in large numbers.

• Agricultural probes can be accurate but are expensive and multiple openings are needed to access the relevant parts of the wall.

• Embedding a timber sensor is inexpensive and easy to measure but is it accurate enough? Wood block or disc probe Laboratory work and case studies

To allow the appropriate use of the moisture probes a regime of case study and laboratory based measurements needed to be undertaken.

The accuracy and repeatability of the chosen technique needed to be ascertained aligned with the previously described attributes

Laboratory work First case study Workshop, Holne Dartmoor

Case study dwelling Melrose Scotland

Where do you put your probes?

East Straw-Clay

East WoodChip-Clay

West Unheated West Heated

Case study mobile straw dwelling, Yorkshire Development of an improved probe Followed the stipulation of BS EN ISO 12571

During the straw isotherm tests, specimens of Pine, European Oak and Ramin, three distinctly different timber species, were also placed in the environmental chamber, alongside the straw for direct comparison Totnes Calibration building

Measuring the case study buildings Testing of new probes

PROTOTYPE PROBES IN WALL RH and Temperature probe 28 100

26 96 Balemaster probe 24 92

22 Wood block probes 88

20 84

18 Timbermaster meter 80 DRY PROBE (T)

16 76 RELATIVE HUMIDITY(%) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) CONTENT MOISTURE WET PROBE (T)

14 BALEMASTER (T) 72 TES RH (%) 12 68

10 64 15-Jan-08 25-Jan-08 4-Feb-08 14-Feb-08 24-Feb-08 5-Mar-08 15-Mar-08 25-Mar-08 4-Apr-08 DATE Comparison of the moisture content reading from the probes with isotherm curves and bale-master measurements Current Projects? Local Authority homes in Lincolnshire

House at Loch Tay case study; Genesis

Genesis Straw bale studio

References

Bath University’s ICE data base http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/research/sert/ accessed Aug 2012

Steen, A.S., B. Steen, and D. Bainbridge, The Straw Bale House. 1994, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, pp 297

Long Branch Environmental Education Center Straw bale housing technical paper Straw Bale Housing: Appropriate for Eastern North America, or Long-Term Potential Health Concern? and Still, D. Our straw Bale dorm: 2 years later. URL: http://www.longbrancheec.org/pubs/strawbale.html1997 accessed Aug 2012

Thank you

Any Questions? The road to environmental friendly production in greenhouses

Leo Marcelis Wageningen UR, The Netherlands, Leo.Marcelis @wur.nl -Teamleader Crop management, Physiology & modelling -Professor Crop production in low-energy greenhouses

General trends

. Citizens: no environmental impact (licence to produce) . Consumers: health, safe, quality, sustainable Supermarkets are leading (licence to deliver) Cucumber . European and 80

) +107% national legislation -2 . Precise production 60 control +125% 40 Tomato . Tremendous yield increase

Production (kg m Production (kg 20 +94% Sweet pepper 0 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year Pictue: nasa Environmental issues

. Energy, CO2 . Water . Nutrients . Pesticides . Light emission . waste Aims for energy saving

(CO2 emission; from 1990 to 2020)

Dutch glasshouses: 48%

EU: 20-30%

USA 4% Recent years many developments

. Co-generation heat and power . Geothermal heat . Coverings: high insulation, anti reflection, diffuse . LED lighting . (semi-)closed greenhouse . Next generation cultivation

Next generation cultivation

Aim . 40-50% energy saving, same production

Approach . Isolation . Follow nature (flexible temperature set points) . De-humidify by controlled inlet air

. Humidification . Heat harvest= cooling Inlet outside air for dehumidification

Aanzuigbuis kaslucht

BuitenluchtSucking aanzuigingoutside air

Drydroge warm warme air lucht

LuchtbehandelingskastAir treatment unit (10 per ha)

. More homogenous air humidity . Therefore higher humidity is possible . Screens kan be kept closed longer Energy saving tomato: facts

. Reference: 40 m3 gas per m2 per year ● Later planting: 2,5 m3 ● More screen hours: 1 m3 ● Double screen 3,7 m3 ● Temperature control: 4.2 m3 ● Humidity control: 2,5 m3

● humidification: efficient cooling -> higher CO2 ● Air circulation: more homogenous climate . Total saving 12 m3 . Air treat unit +WP+aquifer: replace 12 m3 gas by solar radiation . Total: 16 m3 gas per m2 per year needed Bron: Poot et al CO2 consumption of a greenhouse crop

40 kg/(m² yr)

5 kg/(m² yr) 10 kg/(m² yr)

5 kg/(m² yr) 45 kg/(m² yr)

From F. de Zwart Light in greenhouses

. Use natural light (efficiently): it is for free!! . High light transmission greenhouse

Light in greenhouses

. Use natural light (efficiently) . High light transmission greenhouse . Make the light diffuse (5-10% higher production) Clear glass Diffuse glass Light flecks regular lighted

Potplants may like more (diffuse) light

High light intensity: keep other growth . Experiment on Anthurium factors in balance (RH, T, watering) . In practice: 5 mol m-2 d-1 PAR . When 7.5 mol m-2 d-1 plants ready in 16 in stead of 22 weeks. . Diffuse 10 mol  additionally 20-30% larger plants

7.5 7.5 10 7.5 10 16 mol m-2 d-1 clear screen screen glass glass fresnel LEDs Unpublished data S.W. Hogewoning et al.

Response crop ≠ single1.0 leaf Assumption: crop consists of identical green leaves

Leaf: low absorptance green0.8 light Crop: also absorptance of the green light (deeper penetration in

canopy) 0.6

1.2

Relativeflux quantum 1.00.4 Crop (modelled) reddish rose leaf real sunlight 0.8 artificial sunlight artificial shadelight 0.6 0.2 Single leaf (observed) 0.4

0.2 Relativequantum yield 0.0 Incident light 0.0 400400 450 450 500 500 550 550 600 600 650 650 700 700 750 750 WavelengthWavelength (nm) (nm) Water scarcity Greenhouse is key factor to minimize water use

40 Water use Water

litre litre per tomato) kg (

0 Israel & Spain, Spain, Israel, Spain, Holland, Holland, as at Holland, field unheated unheated unheated climate- left, with re- "closed" plastic "parral" glass "parral", controlled use of drain greenhouse regulated glass, CO2 water ventilation enrichment

From Stanghellini Irrigation trends Water and nutrients are coupled factors . 1980’s, 1990’s: optimizing plant nutrition and plant water status . 2000 onwards: Improving sustainability Irrigation trends Water and nutrients are coupled factors . 1980’s, 1990’s: optimizing plant nutrition and plant water status . 2000 onwards: Improving sustainability ● Water scarcity ● N and P emissions ● Pesticide emission . EU (Water Framework Directive): “Good chemical and ecological quality of surface water and groundwater by 2015 (or 2027)” . 2027 NL Goals: no emission of N and P

Substrate: Water re-use and discharge Reasons for discharge  Sodium accumulation  Growth inhibitors  First flush (start cultivation)  Rinsing of filters Disinfection  Diseases  Technical malfunctions  Nutrient irregularities  ...

Rainwater + suppletion

Fertilization

From E. Beerling Towards a zero-emission in substrate crops

Water treatment

Breakdown growth inhibitors

Rainwater + suppletion

Optimize fertilization

From E. Beerling Modern irrigation systems

. Complete recirculation . fertilizers and irrigation water without Na . control per individual nutrient . Water and each nutrient supplied in proportion to crop demand . water purification (organic, ion selective, pesticides) . Pesticides IPM, biological control . Climate and ferti-irrigation computer integrated

Control of water and nutrient supply

Climate control, Fertigation control

Sensors Model

Substrate / Soil

Supply, recirculation Pesticides usage (kg per ha)

Flowers

Vegetables

From: CBS Biological control

Usage of natural enemies Fruit vegetables 100% Pot plants 80% Cut flowers 65% Leafy vegetables 0% Ban pesticides by optimal biological control

. Breeding for resistance . Hygiene, scouting . Insect netting . Resilience, climate control . Suppressiveness of soils/substrates . Standing army: good ecosystems for natural enemies Light pollution

. Light tight screens . Problem of high temperatures . LED? Waste

Conclusions

Greenhouse horticulture . Intensive production system with many inputs . High ambitions to reduce environmental impact . This requires precise monitoring and control Thank you for your attention Area IPM Sweet pepper (ha), NL

1400

1200 chemicals only 1000 integrated control

800

600

400

200

0 1975 1985 1995 2005 CO2 concentration depends on ventilation. Semi-closed greenhouse: The more cooling, the more closed, the more CO2

Supply capacity: 230 kg/ha/hr From Dieleman et al. Legislative effects on the use of Pesticides in Controlled Environments

Julian Franklin Rothamsted Research • What is a pesticide. • Legislation affecting usage of pesticides. • Pesticide Legislation and Controlled Environments. • Other Legislative Impacts on use Of Pesticides in Controlled Environments. • Alternatives for Pest and Disease Control in Controlled Environments.

What is a pesticide

• The term “pesticides” covers insecticides, acaricides, herbicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, rodenticides, biocides and veterinary medicines. Pesticides are chemical compounds used to: • Kill, repel or control pests to protect crops before and after harvest; • Influence the life processes of plants; • Destroy weeds or prevent their growth; • Preserve plant products. • http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_protection_products/ index_en.htm

Legislation affecting usage of pesticides. • Europe – Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to regulate plant protection products in Europe.

Legislation affecting usage of pesticides. • UK – The Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012 come into force on 18 July 2012 (subject to completion of Parliamentary process), replacing the previous UK legislation governing the use of pesticides Legislation affecting usage of pesticides. • United States – EPA regulates the use of pesticides under the authority of two federal statutes: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). – The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides the basis for regulation, sale, distribution and use of pesticides in the U.S. – The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 establishes pesticide registration service fees for registration actions in three pesticide program divisions: Antimicrobials, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention, and the Registration Divisions. – The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) authorizes EPA to set maximum residue levels, or tolerances, for pesticides used in or on foods or animal feed. – The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) amended FIFRA and FFDCA setting tougher safety standards for new and old pesticides and to make uniform requirements regarding processed and unprocessed foods. FQPA: Pesticide Legislation and Controlled Environments. • Product has to be approved for use • Application methodology has to be approved • Training • Storage

Implications for UK Pesticide Users

• Product has to be approved for use – The product must be approved for use on the crops to its to be applied to and the pest/disease that is to be targeted. Implications for UK Pesticide Users

• Application methodology has to be approved – Labelling, concentrations, application technology to be used, safety precautions, limitations, situational, timing protective wear, environmental considerations all have to be approved. Implications for UK Pesticide Users

• Training – Anyone who uses a professional pesticide product should not use that pesticide or give instruction to others on its use unless they have received adequate instruction, training and guidance in its correct use. – In addition users of pesticides must hold a Certificate of Competence if using a professional pesticide product if they: – were born after 31 December 1964; or – are providing a commercial service e.g. contractors or anyone spraying on land that is not his or his employers. – Anyone who is required to hold a Certificate of Competence can only use pesticides without a Certificate if they are supervised for the purposes of being trained by someone who does hold a certificate. – Obtaining a Certificate of Competence is the best way of demonstrating that you are trained to use specific types of equipment, even if under the legislation you are not currently required to have one. – After 26th November 2015 everyone who uses a professional pesticide product must have a ‘specified certificate’ (i.e. currently a certificate of competence). Currently, the recognised Certificate of Competence for the use of pesticides is issued by City and Guilds Land Based services or NPTC (National Proficiency Tests Council) and the Scottish Skills Testing Service. Implications for UK Pesticide Users

• Storage – Storage must be appropriate, properly signed and be secure, ensuring there is no environmental risk from leakage or deterioration. Other Legislative Impacts on use Of Pesticides in Controlled Environments.

• COSSH • BIOCIDES • CHIP • REACH • DETERGENTS

COSHH

– Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 – COSHH is the law that requires employers to control substances that are hazardous to health. You can prevent or reduce workers exposure to hazardous substances by: – finding out what the health hazards are; – deciding how to prevent harm to health (risk assessment); – providing control measures to reduce harm to health; – making sure they are used ; – keeping all control measures in good working order; – providing information, instruction and training for employees and others; – providing monitoring and health surveillance in appropriate cases; – planning for emergencies. – Most businesses use substances, or products that are mixtures of substances. Some processes create substances. These could cause harm to employees, contractors and other people. – Sometimes substances are easily recognised as harmful. Common substances such as paint, bleach or dust from natural materials may also be harmful.

BIOCIDES

• Biocides – Biocidal Products Regulations (BPR) implement a European-wide scheme (the Biocidal Products Directive 98/8/EEC) that covers a very diverse group of products, including disinfectants, pest control products and preservatives. – Biocides Regulation (EU) 528/2012 From 2013

CHIP

– CHIP - protection by information – CHIP refers to the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009, which came into force on 6 April 2009. These regulations are also known as CHIP 4. – CHIP is the law that applies to suppliers of dangerous chemicals. Its purpose is to protect people and the environment from the effects of those chemicals by requiring suppliers to provide information about the dangers and to package them safely. – CHIP requires the supplier of a dangerous chemical to: – identify the hazards (dangers) of the chemical. This is known as ‘classification’; – give information about the hazards to their customers. Suppliers usually provide this information on the package itself (eg a label); and package the chemical safely. – NOTE: Safety data sheets (SDS) are no longer covered by the CHIP regulations. The laws that require a SDS to be provided have been transferred to the European REACH Regulation – ‘Supply’ means making a chemical available to another person. Manufacturers, importers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers are all examples of suppliers. – CHIP applies to most chemicals but not all. The details of the scope are set out in the regulations. Some chemicals, such as cosmetics and medicines, are outside the scope and have their own specific laws. – The CHIP regulations will gradually be replaced by the European Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of – New – European CLP Regulation – On the 20 January 2009 the European Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures came into force in all EU Member States, including the UK. The Regulation is often referred to as the CLP Regulation or just CLP. The CLP Regulation is directly acting in all EU Member States. – The CLP Regulation adopts the globally harmonised system on the classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) throughout the EU. The Regulation is subject to transitional arrangements which will run until 1 June 2015, when it will replace the CHIP regulations. REACH

– Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & restriction of CHemicals (REACH) – REACH is a European Union regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & restriction of CHemicals. – REACH legal text (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 ; Corrigendum version, 29 May 2007) Detergents

• Detergents – Regulation 648/2004 on Detergents – As a Regulation (as opposed to a Directive) 648/2004 is “directly applicable” and applies throughout the European Union on its own, without the further need for domestic United Kingdom (UK) legislation. – The Detergents Regulations 2010 – Regulation (EU) No 259/2012 imposes a restriction on phosphates in domestic laundry and dishwasher detergents. The UK is currently considering the process of transposition. Legislative Impacts on use Of Pesticides in Controlled Environments. • Limitations as to products usable in controlled environments. – Controlled environments enclosed. – Not field use. Not approved use. – Very small volumes used. – No natural predators, organisms that compete with pests. Pest problems exagerated.

• Loss off effective compounds – Usually due to safety considerations both for people and the environment. Toxicity, carcinogenic properties.

Alternatives for Pest and Disease Control in Controlled Environments. • Temperature control • Humidity Control • CO2 control • Light Quality • Truly safe application possible. • Steam. • Appropriate build quality for controlled Environments

Summary

• Introduction of EU encompassing Biocides legislation. • Increasingly limited armoury of effective pesticides. • Alternatives are available

Acknowledgements

• Rothamsted Research • Organisers of this meeting

V G e r And Plant Factories r e t e i n c h a o l u Is the Emperor wearing s any new clothes??? e s

UK International Greenhouse Conference Lou Albright, Professor Emeritus Biological and Environmental Engineering Cornell University www.cornellcea.com arious proposals related to hi-tech agriculture have been equently based on growing food crops with no natural light, or ry little natural light. ant factories and vertical greenhouses are today’s examples. The current handbook of vertical farms and closed food production systems

“… we know how to proceed – we can apply hydroponic and aeroponic farming methodologies in a multistory building and create the world’s first vertical farms.” The current handbook of vertical farms and closed food production systems

However, the author acknowledges that….. “No ecosystem can exceed the limits of biomass production, which is strictly limited by the total amount of incoming energy period ” The current handbook of vertical farms and closed food production systems

For many people, rivers of doubt overflow their banks about providing sufficient photosynthetic energy in a closed system. The current handbook of vertical farms and closed food production systems

The easiest doubt to tackle is to examine the list of suggested potential crops, which includes: Greens and herbs Vine crops Sllfit The current handbook of vertical farms and closed food production systems

Let’s first examine the claim that crops such as wheat are possible and farmland can be returned to its primordial state. Economic viability of CEA wheat production is Useful engineering analysis process

engineering analysis

reality checks

reasonability limit checks checks

what sales etc etc etc income can be he world record for outdoor wheat production was et in 2010 in New Zealand with 1.567 kg m-2 t the other extreme, as part of a NASA study

OTOSYNTHETIC EFFICIENCY OF WHEAT IN HIGH IRRADIANCE ENVIRONMENTS uce G. Bugbee and Frank B. Salisbury nt Science Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-4820

NOTE: Ithaca max = 64 45kgm-2 @ c 150 mol m-2 d-1 t the other extreme, as part of a NASA study

OTOSYNTHETIC EFFICIENCY OF WHEAT IN HIGH IRRADIANCE ENVIRONMENTS uce G. Bugbee and Frank B. Salisbury nt Science Department, Note:Utah State Outdoor University, values Logan, Utah 84322-4820

c. April 20 c. August 8

(outdoors)

NOTE: Ithaca max = 64 45kgm-2 @ c 150 mol m-2 d-1 So we have two candidates for yields that might be possible in a closed plant factory:

record field high intensity growth production chamber production

1.567 kg m-2, 2.0 kg m-2 one harvest -2 -1 per harvest At 55 mol m d yearly (775 µmol m-2 s-1 For 20 hours day-1)

four harvests, make generous growth assumption chamber yields

4*2 = 8.0 kg m-2 yearly What is it worth? Example wheat prices:

Month $/metric ton $kg-1 Dec 2011 $269 $0.269 Jan 2012 $275 $0.275 Feb 2012 $278 $0.278 Mar 2012 $284 $0.284 Apr 2012 $266 $0.266

Source: World Bank Tk $0 275 k 1 GROSS YEARLY INCOME:

($0.275 kg-1)(8.0 kg m-2 yr-1) = $2.20 m-2 yr-1 Or approximately £1.45 m-2 yr-1

• and this is gross income!

• Conclude? Any crop considered must be much more valuable than any commodity. • Corn, wheat, etc., can not be possible crops. Income is one perspective. Cost is another. What is the cost of just the electricity to run the lights to grow the wheat?

Assume efficient lighting: HPS or good LEDs ncome is $2.20 m-2; what is the electricity bill? pecific question: What will be the electricity cost in a loaf of bread if the heat is grown using only electrically-generated light? Baking some bread

Makes 3.7 loaves of bread rt with 1 kilogram wheat

Yi ld 13li DLI = 55 mol m-2 d -1 (every day)

55*365 = Cornell data for 20,000 mol m-2 yr -1 400W HPS

6,667 kWh m-2 yr -1 3 mol kWh -1

assume wheat productivity electricity cost: electricity at 8.0 kg m-2 yr -1 $667 m-2 yr -1 $0.10 kWh -1 @ DLI = 55

$23/loaf to pay 29.6 loaves of 1 kg produces the electric bill bread in a year c. 3.7 loaves Well, commodities won’t pay, so…. Consider a non-commodity crop such as utterhead lettuce. Model for discussion can be the CEA lettuce reenhouse near Ithaca now operated by Challenge Industries as “Finger Lakes Fresh”. FLF demonstrated productivity

Production capacity is 1245 heads/day, Equal to 760 heads/m2-year DLI 17 mol m-2 d-1 6205 mol m-2 yr-1 Data from the 30% 100% inger Lakes Fresh supplemental supplemental light light reenhouse, located ear Ithaca, NY. efficacy 3 mol / kWh otal closure emands an 2068 kWh m-2 yr-1 6205 kWh m-2 yr-1 dditional input of more than 5 productivity 760 heads m-2 yr-1 Wh/head. Conclude?

Hydroponic vegetable production is already marginal in many situations.

Adding the cost of more than five additional kWh per head of lettuce, for example, seems not viable economically today, nor in the foreseeable future. Is there a solution to the light problem?

Compensating light sources have been suggested, such as HID luminaires, LEDs, concentrating (or other) mirrors, photovoltaic panels, and high-cost items such as fiber optic or light pipe networks. Can this work? Is it sustainable? Must we violate the laws of physics to make it work? Start by considering electrically-generated light in general. Planck's Avogadros Planck's Law constant number

wavelength of speed of light the light theoretical maximum efficacy

instantaneous integrated over time

µmol s-1 W-1 = mol/kWh = wavelength in wavelength/119.6 OR nm wavelength/33.2 nm, 10-6 m

electrical losses real world thermal losses efficiency

optical losses

Philips LumiLED: Result is a wall plug Blue 26 to 47% Example efficiency of perhaps 20% Green: 11 to 15% for HPS and 25% for LEDs Red: 18 to 36% Or real-world Conclude about LEDs? LED technologies are improving and their costs are shrinking. However, claims that today’s commercial LEDs are much more efficient are not justified by data. Current LED arrays are typically compared to ncandescent lamps, which are notoriously nefficient. HID luminaires and T5 fluorescent fixtures are also much more efficient than incandescent bulbs, with efficiencies approaching the best Next, consider another reality check…

What is the carbon footprint associated with obtaining sufficient light to grow a food crop with 100% supplemental light ??? DLI productivity 17 mol m-2 d-1 760 heads m-2 yr-1 6205 mol m-2 yr-1 f all light is from head weight efficacy uminaires 150 to 160 g 3 mol kWh-1

yearly lettuce mass 2068 kWh m-2 yr-1 Production data is from 118 kg m-2 yr-1 he Finger Lakes Fresh ydroponic greenhouse, 17.5 kWh kg-1 haca, NY) f all supplemental lighting…

DLI productivity 17 mol m-2 d-1 760 heads m-2 yr-1 6205 mol m-2 yr-1

head weight efficacy 150 to 160 g 3 mol kWh-1

yearly lettuce mass 2068 kWh m-2 yr-1 118 kg m-2 yr-1

at power 17.5 kWh kg-1 station Continues the 0.46 kg kWh-1 previous slide How about in an Ithaca greenhouse?

DLI productivity 17 mol m-2 d-1 760 heads m-2 yr-1 6205 mol m-2 yr-1

head weight efficacy 150 to 160 g 3 mol kWh-1

yearly lettuce mass 70% from the sun 620 kWh m-2 yr-1 118 kg m-2 yr-1 30% from the utility In cloudy Ithaca at power 5.3 kWh kg-1 station 0.46 kg kWh-1 onclude?

Growing with all supplemental light adds c. 8 kg CO2 to the atmosphere at the power plant, per kg lettuce. If growing in a greenhouse in Ithaca, the added CO2 is 2.42 kg per kg of harvested lettuce.

This is still not wonderful, but the closed growing system, with all supplemental lighting, adds 8.05/2.42 = 3.33 times more CO2 to the atmosphere. Is this sustainable agriculture?

This disregards the additional carbon footprint from the embedded energy in a large, multi-story building rather than a greenhouse. Other Considerations … What about photovoltaics???

e can conclude the PV panel area must be many times the growing area t mirrors to direct sunlight into a vertical m greenhouse/plant factory have been ggested.

ncentrating mirrors to direct sunlight into a tical farm greenhouse/plant factory have en suggested. Flat Mirrors???

thaca KT values Nov: 0.324 Dec: 0.337 Jan: 0.351 Another flat mirror consideration: Directing solar light from the side???

1 Single plant canopy in a vertical greenhouse or plant factory s 2

m -2 -1 200 µmol m s 3 m µmol

000 2

30 m Focusing Mirrors???

focus

absorbing surface IMPORTANT: Solar angles in summer are very different from solar angles in winter, making tracking of any sort difficult and expensive. IMPORTANT: Reflectivity goes up sharply for incident angle > 50 degrees away from normal. But, ending on a somewhat more positive note… Possible Alternative: Peri-urban agriculture ???

Peri-urban: Immediately adjoining an urban area; between suburbs and the countryside

Considerations: • Less expensive land and lower construction costs (greenhouses compared to skyscrapers). • Access to infrastructure for energy, water, and ready transport to produce markets • Can be located away from the air pollution Are there scenarios where complete closure of plant production systems might make sense………

• When water recapture is far more valuable than electricity. (Middle East?) • The world runs almost solely on renewable energy for electricity production. • The world runs almost solely on fission nuclear energy for electricity production. But, except for possible water recapture benefits, these scenarios are unlikely in our lifetimes. Conclude?

So, is the emperor wearing any new clothes?

Do numbers lie?

Can we violate the laws of physics?

You decide. Thank You ! Extras………………………. Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Only high value crops can be grown with any hope to make a profit.

Most Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Large areas of land now in agriculture will not be returned to primordial state, for commodity crops are not suitable for vertical farms or plant Reclaim factories Land Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

To build a closed plant production facility with multiple floors can be 10X as expensive as a greenhouse.

$$$ to build Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Energy needs are high due to requirement for c. 100% supplemental light.

Energy $$$$$ Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Sustainability is open to serious question when one considers the

CO2 added to the atmosphere to generate the electricity to run the lights. Carbon Credits Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Dreams of capturing sunlight and transporting it effectively and in sufficient quantity to the inside of a closed plant production system is magical thinking. Natural sunlight Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Capturing renewable energy in sufficient quantity to operate the lights would be costly and unlikely to be effective.

NOTE: Doing so would not reduce the Renewable carbon footprint of energy Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

Transportation needs may increase, not decrease, due to lack of access to transportation infrastructure.

“Last mile” Transport advantage Conclude? Vertical farms and plant factories

In the city center, ozone and other air pollutants can suppress growth.

Good growth

The physics of light, energy, photons, and quanta

Planck’s Law: e = hc/λ e: joules per photon h: Planck’s constant, 6.626 E-34 J s c: speed of light, 2.997 E+17 nm s-1 λ: wavelength, nm And … 6.022 E+23 photons mol-1 reduces to e, in J µmol-1 = 119.6 / λ, or efficacy µmol J-1 or µmol s-1 W-1 = λ / 119 6 For Those Interested……. Calculating µmol s-1 W-1 from Planck’s Law e = hc / λ, energy (J) per single photon

= 6.626E-34 J s = 2.997E+8 m s-1 in air = 2.997E+17 nm s-1 in air = wavelength, nm per mol of photons = (6.626E-34) (2.997E+17) (6.022E+23) / λ = 119.6E+6 / λ per µmol photons = e per mol*1E-6 = 119.6 / λ, J µmol-1 fficacy, µmol s-1 W-1,theinverse= λ / 119.6 1 ame as 1 W‐1

U R S E U G A I L O N

Efficacy rises with wavelength because a lower XXXXXXX matches the red and blue output of 1000‐Watt HID lights and 70% less energy. The XXXXXXXX doubles the red and blue PAR output of 1000‐Watt HID lights and uses 40% less energy. e LED Grow Light is man's latest creation for owing plants indoors. A XXXX LED Grow Light ll produce at least double the grams per watt mpared to HPS, while consuming far less wer and producing far less heat. Unlike HID CFL, a LED Grow Light emits narrow avelengths of light which can be tailored to a ant's specific requirements. It's for this ason that a LED Grow Light is the best Grow h b HPS spectrum

RQE, McCree as detailed by Sager Fig. 2. Average efficacy of light delivery by three growth chamber lighting systems. Can hope counterbalance reality??

“Green enthusiasm for vertical farms shows that no one is untouched by magical thinking. No one is immune to it; in some respects it is the foundation of our lives. Magical thinking is a universal affliction. We see what we want, deny what we don’t. Confronted by uncomfortable facts, we burrow back in the darkness of our cherished beliefs.”

G Monbiot The Guardian 17 August 2010 “Towering Lunacy” NOTE: For this presentation, light will be expressed in •mol m-2 d-1 (DLI, Daily Light Integral) •or µmol s-1 (source radiance) •or µmol m-2 s-1 (photon irradiance) • or mol kWh-1 (efficacy) •or µmol s-1 W-1 (efficacy) of PAR photons, not lumens, not foot-candles, not lux Example wind rose (Ithaca, NY) Seldom from the NE

Best choice: Locate greenhouse to the SW of the city to avoid air pollution most days of the year Wall plug efficiency? ef: Dr. Mark Rea, Director, Lighting Research Center, RPI, Troy, NY) start with no‐loss efficiency…….

PS: Reflector and ballast: 30 to 40% loss

D: Optical, thermal and electric: 25 to 40% loss nother view of LEDs: What are appropriate efficiencies?

Red 640 Blue, 466 HPS lamp Green nm nm ectric 400 W 0.711 W 1.1 W ower* o-loss 33.5% 43.2% 51.9% -- ficiency* fficiency -- lative to 100% 129% 155% PS lamp* xample 18% to 36% 26% to 47% 11% to 15% ED o, let’s talk about energy. pecifically, let’s talk about light. t the other extreme, as part of a NASA study

OTOSYNTHETIC EFFICIENCY OF WHEAT IN HIGH IRRADIANCE ENVIRONMENTS uce G. Bugbee and Frank B. Salisbury nt Science Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-4820

NOTE: Ithaca max = 64 45kgm-2 @ c 150 mol m-2 d-1 Is $0.10/kWh reasonable/conservative?

2010 Average Commercial Sector Retail Electricity Price Utility Average ₵/kWh NYC Con Edison 20.38 NYS Electric & Gas 10.21 Niagara Mohawk 13.69 NJ Public Service Electricity & Gas 13.86 Connecticut Light & Power 17.30 Philadelphia PECO Energy 12.81 Boston NSTAR 16.39 ore of the Story … ay from Ithaca, DLI productivity a year with a 17 mol m-2 d-1 760 heads m-2 yr-1 of 17, and a 6205 mol m-2 yr-1 Where it matters dern enhouse, 85% head weight efficacy he light is from 150 to 160 g 3 mol kWh-1 sun, not 70%. s brings the yearly lettuce mass 85% from the sun 310 kWh m-2 yr-1 o up to 118 kg m-2 yr-1 15% from the utility 5/1.2 = 6.7

at power 2.6 kWh kg-1 station 0.46 kg kWh-1 et More of the Story …

Where it matters ded CO2 makes DLI productivity t more efficient. 17 mol m-2 d-1 760 heads m-2 yr-1 ornell patent for 6205 mol m-2 yr-1 rdinated light CO2 properly CO2 control is head weight efficacy controlled reduces 150 to 160 g -1 mated to save 6 mol kWh light need by c. half % of the plemental light. yearly lettuce mass 85% from the sun 155 kWh m-2 yr-1 s raises the ratio 118 kg m-2 yr-1 15% from the utility plant factory to enhouse CO 2 at power ssions to 1.3 kWh kg-1 station 5/0.6 = 13.4 0.46 kg kWh-1 ng what we What about photovoltaics???

The base case is the greenhouse itself. How efficiently does it transfer light from outdoors to the plants? et More of the Story …

ut can supplementing CO2 also be used to dvantage in a plant factory?

erhaps, with air conditioning. The quantity of ghting needed in a confined space will lead to ontinual venting or refrigeration for temperature ontrol, which likely will make supplementing

CO2 impractical, and electricity use even higher. “CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS: TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE”

4th international conference of UK CEUG, North American NCERA-101 & Australasian ACEWG

10 - 12 September 2012 Downing College, Cambridge, UK

“NOVEL APPLICATIONS IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS”

G. Giacomelli, P. Sadler, R.L. Patterson, M. Kacira and R. Furfaro The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA ([email protected]) Sadler Machine Company, Tempe, Arizona, USA

Ralph Steckler/ Phase I Forum, University of Arizona, Tucson NOVEL APPLICATIONS IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS

G. Giacomelli, P. Sadler*, R.L. Patterson, M. Kacira and R. Furfaro

The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA ([email protected]) *Sadler Machine Company, Tempe, Arizona, USA

An international and interdisciplinary science and engineering research and development program with focus on the design and evaluation of bioregenerative life support for surface systems, as well as for Earth agricultural food production applications has been in progress at the University of Arizona, Controlled Environment Agricultural Center for more than twelve years. The focus has been on hydroponic crop production, nutrient delivery, environmental control, and automation and management systems. The deliverables have been operational systems, including the Mars and Lunar Prototype Greenhouses, the South Pole Food Growth Chamber (SPFGC), and several test stands for lamp and hydroponic developments. Also developed are specific hardware components including the Sadler water-cooled HPS lamps for semi-closed crop production; light-weight hydroponic nutrient delivery systems for crop production; telepresence platforms for operations management and control; and other proprietary systems engineered and tested for production, management, control, and outreach.

The presentation will include design, production and operations experiences for vegetable crop production at the SPFGC, Prototype Lunar Greenhouse, and Earth applications of greenhouse food production. In addition, insight to remote operations support of more than seven years telepresence experiences will be described. Current developments for telepresence for outreach, education and research will also be included.

“NOVEL APPLICATIONS IN CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS”

Combining Hydroponics and Controlled Environments

to grow a product, or

create a better quality of life, or

establish an outreach/educational opportunity

Prototype Lunar Greenhouse South Pole Food Growth Chamber

Ralph Steckler/ Phase I Forum, University of Arizona, Tucson Most isolated location on Earth Accessible only by airplane

AMUNDSEN-SCOTT SOUTH POLE STATION SOUTH POLE STATION MODERNIZATION PROJECTS

For The Day: June 09, 2004 Ambient Conditions: -61 oC /-81 oC (wind-chill)

From +38 oC in Tucson To -73 oC at South Pole!

South Pole where all points are North

Frozen arid desert! 3 Rooms of the South Pole Food Growth Chamber Utility Room Entrance Entrance Access Door

Enviro-Room Plant Growth Room

Access Door South Pole Food Growth Chamber

South Pole Food Growth Chamber Amundson-Scott Research Station

Standing inside the Enviro-Room, Looking directly ahead intoEnter the the Plant EnviroRoom Growth Room, Looking right to see the Hobby Hydroponics System The Game Plan

Design, Construct, Test build, Educate, Document, Dismantle, Pack, Ship

Reconstruct for commissioning at South Pole Nov. 2004

Support operations 2004 - present

F %RH PSI kPa South Pole 100- 10 10.5 72 Tucson, AZ 100+ 10 13.4 93 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Controlled Environment Agriculture Center Tucson, AZ

Contract with Raytheon Polar Services Company Colorado Mr. Tim Briggs, contact for deployment

Operating Contractor for Office of Polar Services US National Science Foundation

Mr. Martin Lewis and Mr. Andy Martinez, Contacts for Operations RPSC 2004 – 2011 Lockheed–Martin 2012

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA  Controlled Environment Agriculture Center Tucson, AZ

Sub-Contract with Sadler Machine Company Tempe, AZ Mr. Phil Sadler

Creativity & Vision Craftsman Experienced ‘on the ice’

Sadler Manufactured: nutrient delivery system, HVAC system water-cooled lamps, plant growth trays

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Controlled Environment Agriculture Center Tucson, AZ

The UA Design and Construction (and Research) Team

Lane Patterson - student helper, liaison to RPSC Stephen Kania – Staff engineers Neal Barto Engineering & systems design, Instrumentation & control Merle Jensen – Plant Sciences Faculty Hydroponics & nutrition Chieri Kubota – Plant Sciences Faculty Plant microclimate (Phil Sadler) - sub-contractor Gene Giacomelli – PI, put out fires

Expectations of Deliverable

SP Food Growth Chamber shall include:

Fresh vegetable production (FRESHIES) Energy efficiency Resources conservation User-friendly operation & maintenance Turnkey operation Minimum assembly Therapeutic passive use Green space visibility Integration with Amundsen-Scott Station Station Hallway Tall crops EnviroRoom 4.3x3.1m; 14x10ft Tomato, pepper, cucumber Production Room 4.3x5.5m; 14x18ft PR Starter Trays Seedlings, Volume: herbs

57 m3 Leafy crops 3 Upper troughs; 2000 ft (raise/lower)

PR Leafy crops Lower troughs; Area: (translate)

23 m2 250 ft2

South Pole Food Growth Chamber Lettuce, herbs, greens 20 lb/week harvest Potential for 60 lb/wk

Tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers South Pole Station

Design Solutions

Production Room (PR) Food production Flexible tray NFT hydroponic Environmentally controlled

Enviro-Room (ER) Relaxation / therapeutic Gardening CO2 buffer

Interface Wall View into PR from ER Access doors Utilities Conduit from PR to Utility room

Design Solutions

Separate utility room safe, secure storage of consumables location of systems hardware

Remote monitoring & control system access via internet to monitor operations support for production production troubleshooting

Three-year support program successful implementation operations & maintenance manuals educational training classes

Design Solutions

Component & Process Developments

1. Advanced technology water-cooled HID lamps for plant growth cooperation with NASA-JSC food production in space program through Space Act Agreement at Univ. Arizona

2. Double Pass Growing Tray modular crop production unit integrated with Station facilities three independent NDS

3. Automated monitoring & control system appropriate for volunteer staff robust for automated operations Plant Growth Room

HPS Lamps Bi-axially Symmetric 2 rows of 6 lamps Distribution of 12 kW water-jacketed lighting to green 1000 W lamps surfaces

400 µmol m-2 s-1 PAR

Location of HPS Lamps South Pole Food Growth Chamber Fixed Upper Troughs

Sliding Lower Troughs

Floor Troughs

Bi-Axial Lighting Symmetry for plant surfaces within CURRENTSouth Pole STAGE Food OF CONSTRUCTIONGrowth Chamber Paper Number 2003-01-2455

Development and Evaluation of an Advanced Water-Jacketed High Intensity Discharge Lamp

Gene A. Giacomelli and Phil Sadler Randy Lane Patterson Sadler Machine Company University of Arizona Daniel J. Barta NASA Johnson Space Center

Presented at the 33rd ICES Conference Vancouver, B.C. Canada July 8, 2003 Support Frame

1000 Watt HPS Lamp

Double-walled annular water-jacket Sadler MC

Figure 13. PPF and Irradiance measurements for

Bulb only -- without the glass jacket

Bulb + Jacket + Coolant Water

1600 1000

900 1400 PPF PPF 800 1200 700 Reduction:PPF 1000 - 2 W m 600 W m- 2 9.3% PPF- 2 800 W m 500

second 400 600 8.6% W m-2 300 400 Wattsmeter square per But 60% removal 200 200

of heat from lamp 100 Micro Micro moles ofmeter square photons per per 0 0 Bulb Bulb onlyonly BulbJacket+bulb + Jacket JacketBulb + Bulb + Jacket + Water + Water Utility Room

Fixed Upper Troughs

Door Walkway or Lower Troughs

Tall Fruiting Crops

Walkway or Lower Troughs Door

Fixed Upper Troughs Phil Sadler, Sadler Machine Co

Bio-Regenerative Life Support System Development for Lunar/Mars Habitats

Overall Technical Objective

Establish the technical merit and feasibility of a high fidelity membrane structure (Prototype LGH) and its food production system (Cable Culture) by demonstrating and evaluating performance

Ralph Steckler/ Phase I Forum, University of Arizona, Tucson 2.1 m Lunar Greenhouse Greenhouse Lunar Providesall oxygen& water for one person per day and 50%food calories Prototype

21 m 2 m VAC/h = 0.15 3.5 VAC/day 3 HVAC 3 LGH + End view of LGH when in current full production indicating Growing Areas EndPerformance view of LGH whenBased in on current Input fulland productionOutput to the LGH indicating Growing Areas Input: Output:

energy oxygen water water nutrients biomass

CO2 labor Steckler Phase I LGH Life Support Production Results

Oxygen (kg) Biomass (kg) Water (kg)

Change in growth after 10 days (kg) (kg) ( ) kg The Steckler Collaboration

+16 total; 7 students, 3 USA and 1 Italian faculty 6 International collaborators from 2 companies Thales Alenia Space-Italia, Torino and Aero-Sekur, Aprilia 1 USA small business (Sadler Machine Co, Arizona) AeroSekur TAS-I Recyclab Team

University of Naples

UA-CEAC Team

Collaborative Exchange Design Targets

Bioregenerative Life Support • Per Person Basis

. 0.84 kg/day O2 . 3.9 kg/day H2O . 50% of 11.8 MJ/day [BVAD Values, 2006]

•2000 Cal/day diet •Buried habitat •Six month crew change duration •Solar for energy supply •Autonomous deployment •South Pole Antarctic analog Measured Production/Consumption Metrics

Average daily biomass increase 0.06 ± 0.01 kg m-2 day-1 (ww) Average daily water production 21.4  1.9 L day-1.

Average daily water consumption 25.7 L day-1 -1 Average daily CO2 consumption 0.22 kg day Average daily elec. power consumption 100.3 kWh day-1 (361 MJ)

Measured Biomass Production Output per Energy Input

24 ± 4 g biomass (ww) per kWh, or (83 g biomass (ww) per MJ) edible + non-edible biomass

Measured Labor Demand 35.9 min day-1 labor use for operations Biomass Production Capability

22 kg / m2 / yr (3-D, 37 m2) or 73 kg / m2 / yr (1-D, 11 m2)

LGH System Operations Food Production Capability

Total Total Biomass Biomass Total Total Interval ( kg m-2 ( kg m-2 Biomass Growing Closure (d) closure-1) d-1) (kg) Area.(m2) C1 15 0.85 0.06 31.7 37.15 C2 15 0.79 0.05 29.3 37.15 C3 8 0.53 0.07 20.1 38.08 C4 57 3.30 0.06 125.7 38.08 image courtesy M Jensen

LGH Energy balances and production efficiency

Total Total Biomass Electricity Biomass Electricity Electricity (d) (kWh) (kg) (kg kWh-1) (g kWh-1 m-2) C1 14 1404 31.7 0.023 0.6

C2 14 1404 29.3 0.021 0.6

C3 7 702 20.1 0.029 0.8

C4 59 5918 125.7 0.021 0.6 SPFGC vs Lunar Greenhouse Prototype Comparisons

•Lighting system •Nutrient delivery system •Telepresence system and procedures •Multi-cropping system

Edible biomass produced by SPFGC 10 g/kWh vs. 13 g/kWh LGH Polyculture Inter-Planting Crop Production End view of LGH when in current full production indicatingLettuce, tomato/cucumber, Growing Areas sweet potato, and strawberry or cowpea.

Volume space utilization. Radiation intercepted. Biomass production per area (or volume) per unit time (kg/m2/24hr, or kg/m3/24hr).

8 cable culture rows.

Plant within row spacing is 15 cm for lettuce, 20 cm for strawberry and cowpea, 20 cm for sweet potato, and 30 cm for tomato or cucumber.

Row-to-row spacing is 20 cm, for all rows, and a 45 cm walkway.

Tomato/cucumber crop on perimeter up to the overhead lamps. Sweet potato vines grow at the cable level and downward beneath rows of cable culture. Strawberry or cowpea, and lettuce at cable level (1 m above floor). End viewPolyculture of LGH when Inter-Planting in current full Crop production Production indicating Growing Areas Environmental Conditions Photoperiod/darkperiod air temperature and relative humidity average 20.5 oC / 65% and 18.5 oC / 70%, respectively.

Atmospheric CO2 is elevated to 1000 ppm during 17 h photoperiod at 300 Mol m-2 s-1 at the cable level.

6, SMC water-jacketed, 1000W high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps.

Nutrient solution (modified one-half strength Hoaglands solution) 6.0 pH and 1.8 mS cm-1 EC for the lettuce and strawberry, 6.5 pH and 1.8 EC for the sweet potato and tomato.

In situ plant biomass continually monitored and evaluated for intervals of 7 or 14 days of growth, by weighing entire LGH, with load cell measurement system.

Single Plant Production System Operational In a Closed System

Plan View of Lunar Prototype Lab

Utilities

Greenhouse

Composter

Hydroponics access Sealed

Controls Lunar Greenhouse Prototype

Collapsible for transport

Deployable

Expands to 4.5 times its stowed volume Cable Culture Recirculating Hydroponics and HPS water-cooled lamps (Dan Barta and NASA Space Grant) Modified Energy Cascade Model adapted for a Multicrop Lunar Greenhouse Prototype G. Boscheric, M. Kaciraa, L. Pattersona, G. Giacomellia, P. Sadlerd, R. Furfarob, C. Lobascioc, M. Lamanteac, L. Grizzaffic TAS-I personnel

Objective Develop an energy cascade model for a multi-crop lunar greenhouse system, validate its performance, and identify the sensitivity of the model outputs to the input parameters.

Model Predicted Values Biomass produced Net O2 produced Water condensate produced Water consumed Net CO2 consumed Fertilizer consumed Remote Experts Network Decision Support System (RENDSys) Dr Murat Kacia and David Story

Decision Support System for LGH Climate and Crop Monitoring and Control Information acquisition, monitoring, and continuous control for operations Plant health and growth, non-invasive and autonomous

Machine Vision Guided Monitoring and Evaluation System Computer vision-guided crop monitoring system of a multi- camera and sensor platform crop signatures in the: visible; infrared; near-infrared

Evaluate the canopy temperature; vegetation indices (NDVI, NIR/Green and NIR/red), and crop morphology

LUNAR GREENHOUSE RENDSys Welcome Giacomelli [Logout]

LGH System Overview  Graphical Data  Resource Input/Output Live Imagery Alarms Blog

Starting Date Report Output 33 L/day 11/09/2010 To Screen Excel Number of Days PDF 1

Resource Inputs Water (g/hr) Nutrients (g/hr) Carbon Dioxide (g/hr) 5 min/day (Lane) Energy Use (kWh) 4 min/day (Brandon) Crew time (min/day)

Resource Outputs Water Condensate (L/hr) Oxygen generated (g/hr) Biomass (g/day) View Data LUNAR GREENHOUSE RENDSys Welcome Lane [Logout]

LGH System Overview  Graphical Data  Resource Input / Output  Live Imagery  Alarms  Blog

Date 11/09/2010

Crop Monitor Database Biomass production RGB Texture [Energy, Entropy, Homogeneity] [Still] [Live] [Still] [Live] [Crop Health] Thermal Image [Stresses] Temporal

Model Databases Neural Network Mechanistic

View Data See most recent Lunar Greenhouse update by video presentations: http://cealive.arizona.edu/LGHWebsite/MidReviews.aspx

or go to http://ag.arizona.edu/lunargreenhouse

or search Lunar Greenhouse Arizona

Ralph Steckler/ Phase I Forum, University of Arizona, Tucson Acknowledgements Thank you! Ralph Steckler NASA Space Grant

Arizona Space Grant Consortium Tim Swindle (Lunar and Planetary Lab Director) Susan Brew (Program Manager)

Dr. Raymond Wheeler (NASA KSC Technical Monitor)

Dr. John Hogan (NASA-AMES)

Dr. Daniel Barta (NASA JSC)

Phil Sadler (Sadler Machine Co.)

Marzia Pirolli, Roberta Remiddi, Silvio Rossignoli (Aero-Sekur, SpA)

Cesare Lobascio, Giorgio Boscheri (Thales-Alenia Spacio – Italia, SpA)

University of Arizona – faculty, staff, students, facilities support Student education and Outreach to world Lunar Greenhouse – Outreach & Teaching Module (LGH-OTM) Lane Patterson, hosting student tour from inside Lunar Greenhouse

San Diego County Fair (June 5 – July 4, 2012) Student education and Outreach to world

Lunar Greenhouse – Outreach & Teaching Module (LGH-OTM)

End View Side View

Chicago Museum of Science & Industry (July 24, 2012 – January 15, 2013)

Acknowledgements for LGH-OTM Thank you!

Desert Rain Research, LLC

Hungry Planets, LLC

Mr. Michael Munday

Lane Patterson, Phil Sadler, Neal Barto

Museum of Science & Industry - Chicago

San Diego County Fair

Alex Kallas, AgPals

Maria Catalina, Astronaut Teachers Alliance “Technology Challenges Now and in Future for CEA”

Applying knowledge of Lessons learned from Mars/Moon

As we learn from studies to support human presence within extreme conditions & on other planets, we can apply such knowledge to improving the water, energy and labor efficiency to food production and life support on planet Earth

For Further Information

Dr. Gene Giacomelli Director CEAC, [email protected] +1 520 626 9566

Prof. Gene Giacomelli is a faculty member within the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering at The University of Arizona, and Director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center. Giacomelli has gained international reputation through his pioneering work and expertise in the area of protected crops. Growing food on other planets is one of the collaborative international projects that he is leading, which is supported by the NASA Space Grant Consortium at the University of Arizona. The focus is efficient use of water, energy and other resources for implementation of a food and life support system for Moon/Mars. The results from this project will be applied to Earth protected agriculture food production systems."

For Further Information

Media contact: Michael Munday

Michael F. Munday Editor & Managing Director Desert Rain Research & Communication P.O. Box 42707 Tucson, AZ 85733 [email protected] 520-991-9591 (cellular) 520-881-8064 (message)

See the video about CEAC 2011: “Beyond the Ordinary” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ZPOyeU1dU For Further Information The CEAC (Controlled Environment Agriculture Center) and The University of Arizona are dedicated to development of CE (Controlled Environment) technologies and worldwide applications, and for educating young people about the science and engineering of CE and hydroponic food support systems, and the other CE applications. We will implement an interactive outreach and educational program to promote the benefits of CE for food production for modern agriculture, as well as, the new technologies of CE for enhancing, restoring, and maintaining critical earth life systems and human quality of life scenarios. CE systems will be developed to help feed the world, while utilizing energy, labor and water resources effectively, and CE will become the platform for applications of new technologies using plant physiological processes [biomass fuels]; for space colonization life support [recycling all resources]; for remediation of air [carbon sequestration] and water [salts, heavy metals]; and for phytochemicals and plant-made pharmaceuticals [lycopene, vaccines]. Australian Plant Phenomics Facility

Tony Agostino CSIRO Plant Industry Canberra, Australia

[email protected] http://www.plantphenomics.org.au/

Australian Plant Phenomics Facility

• “Phenomics”

• DEF : “ The study of how the genetic makeup of an organism determines its appearance, function and performance”

• Phenotype = • Morphology • Development • Biochemical/Biophysical properties • Behaviour

Australian Plant Phenomics Facility

What is the Australian Plant Phenomics Facility ?

• Provides infrastructure based on automated image analysis to enable the phenotypic characterisation of plants

• Controlled environments for growing plants across a range of growth conditions ( Glasshouses and Growth Chambers)

• Digital imaging technologies to measure plant characteristics and performance in real time

Two Node Facility

• High Resolution Plant Phenomics Centre, Canberra, ACT

• Plant Accelerator , Adelaide, South Australia

High Resolution Plant Phenomics Centre From growth cabinet to the field

Model Plant Module (HTP) Crop Plant Shoot Module (MTP) Crop Plant Root Module (MTP) Crop Plant Field Module (HTP)

High Resolution Plant Phenomics Facility – Canberra, Australia

• Small Model Plant Module.

• High throughput growth and phenotyping of Arabidopsis in trays and other small seedlings using digital growth and morphological analysis, pulse modulated chlorophyll fluorescence and infra-red thermography for photosynthetic measurements under controlled environmental conditions (light, CO2 and humidity).

• Crop Plant Shoot Module.

• 3-D imaging for plant architecture and growth analysis, allowing multiple images to be overlayed. Hyperspectral reflectance for plant chemical composition and stress detection, pulse modulated chlorophyll fluorescence imaging and gas exchange for non-invasive estimation of photosynthesis, infrared thermography and carbon isotope discrimination for water use efficiency screening. High Resolution Plant Phenomics Facility – Canberra, Australia

• Root Module.

• Comprises optical, infra-red and electromagnetic detection of root morphology, structure and function in soil in controlled environments and in the field. Access to MRI and X-ray tomography is available through collaborations nationally and internationally.

• Gateway to Field Module.

• Extension to the field is an important part of validating controlled environment screening technologies and provides a powerful high throughput set of tools. Plant growth and composition in field plots are remote sensed by stereophotography, laser radar and hyperspectral reflectance, combined with thermography, radiative / radar root detection and other developing technologies. These technologies are integrated into spatial, climatic and precision agricultural data bases.

Phenomics Analysis Modules

Fluorogro-scan TrayScan / PlantScan RGB / FIR in-Cabinet

• Growth and morphology •IR screening for leaf temperature • Photosynthetic performance (Chl • Automated destructive sampling Fluor) under defined environmental for metabolites, protein, DNA and conditions RNA, delta13C

Target plants : Arabidopsis, Tobacco, Cotton, Brachypodium and seedling screens Field Measurements : Phenomobile, Imaging Tower, Airborne Blimp

• Infra-Red 2-4m • Hyper-spectral • GPS enabled

15m 30-100m High Resolution Plant Phenomics Facility – Canberra, Australia

Facilities

• 1200m2 floor space – Imagining laboratories – Growth cabinet facilities – Instrumentation development laboratory – Plant growth support (media preparation, soil storage, autoclaving etc) – High-throughput Arabidopsis screening laboratory – Staff interaction areas, tele-conferencing facilities – Collaborating scientists offices, labs High Resolution Plant Phenomics Facility – Canberra, Australia

Plant Growth Chamber Facilities

• Conviron Chambers – Reach-in Growth Cabinets • PCG20 (x10) • PGC20-Low Temp (x2) • ATC60 – multi-tiered (x3) • PGC20- Tall Plants (x2) – Adaptis cabinets • A1000PG – multi-tiered (x5) • A1000AR – single level (x5)

High Resolution Plant Phenomics Facility – Canberra, Australia

Plant Accelerator Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia

• High through-put plant growth and automated imaging facility

• Located in Adelaide, South Australia

• Applications – Screening of mapping and mutant populations – Trait selection – GM, Non-GM Quarantine applications

Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia

Plant Accelerator – Overview • 2000m2 of Glasshouse Space – Static glasshouse space (1500m2) – 4 “Smarthouses” (500m2) • 20 Controlled Environment Chambers • Laboratories • Water re-cycling • Co-gen power generation

Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia

• “Smarthouses”

• For transgenic and non transgenic plant

• Each “smarthouse” consists 2 glasshouses accommodating up to 2,400 plants at one time

• Automated Conveyor System

• Imaging suite – Far infra-red (leaf temperature) – Near infra-red (leaf water content) – Near infra-red ( root / soil water content) – Visible light –RGB – shoot mass, leaf number, shape, angle, leaf colour and senescence – Fluorescence imaging (Plant health, photosynthesis, disease)

Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia

• Static glasshouse space • 1500m2 greenhouse space – Compartments from 24m2, 50m2 & 72m2 – Separate transgenic / non transgenic/ Quarantine facilities – Evaporative cooling or refrigeration control – Temperature control 15oC to 30oC +/- 2oC – Thermal curtains – Humidity control

Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia

• Glasshouse Cladding • Long process to select cladding material • Key drivers – Need for some transmission of UV light – Safety & regulatory compliance • Fire rating • Impact resistant • Light-weight structures

• Options : Polycarbonate, Glass, “Plexiglass”

Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia

• Cladding selection;- • “Plexiglass” Alltop 16mm cladding (Degussa- Germany) – UV transmission – Light – 5Kg/m2 – V. good thermal properties (16mm air gap) – High impact resistance – Light transmission > 90% – Fire : Low flammability - smokeless – Longevity : 30 years

Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Plant Accelerator – Adelaide, Australia Future Developments

• National Field Simulation Facility –”Cropatron” – Canberra

• Re-development of the Controlled Environment Facilities – Canberra Phytotron (50th Anniversary, September 2012)

Acknowledgements:

• Dr Bob Furbank : Scientific Director – HRPPC

• Professor Mark Tester : Director - APPF

Defence Priming and Integrated Management Practice

Geoff Holroyd

Plant Cell and Molecular Signalling Systems Integrated Management Practice • Multi component – Internal environment • Temp, humidity, gaseous enrichment – External environment • Solar load, temperature, humidity, – Species – Crop status ……

Increasingly complexity Integration of even more components to the system

− Plant physiological properties − Light recipes − Nutrient tuning − Closed system environments − Growth media technology − Novel orientation − PLANT HEALTH AND DEFENSE Plant defences • Cuticles – waxy, dense, thick • Trichomes • Thorns • Sticky exudates • Alkaloids

All influenced by environmental variables Systemic Defence Mechanisms Systemic Defence Mechanisms

• Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) prior exposure providing subsequent enhanced defence • Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR) enhanced defence as a result of rhizobacteria effect. Broad spectrum not requiring prior exposure • Systemic Resistance Priming enhanced defence by exposure to activator

Two key defence pathways

SA pathway JA pathway • Herbivore defence • Biotroph defence • Necrotroph defence • Hypersensitive response HR (cell death) • Abiotic stress

Normal

JA deficient Why not just switch on defences?

Cartoon by Marieke van Hulten

• Defence comes at a cost • Phytotoxicity • Practicality and cost • SA to JA/Et Antagonism • Non target effects –yield, productivity, flavour, quality

Resistance Priming Conrath et al 1992

• Charging or Conditioning of defences against subsequent attack – Increase ability to respond to attack • speed of response • reduced delay to ‘full’ defence • reduced damage • minimal yield effect

Priming Agents

ABA Linolenic Acid

NaCl CaCl2 KCl Priming Agents

ABA Linolenic Acid Brassinolides

NaCl CaCl2 KCl Jasmonic acid dependent processes • Herbivory Response • Necrotrophic Pathogens • Pollen development • Trichome development • Senescence • Growth effects Application of Priming Agents

• Foliar application • Soil/root drenches • Seed treatment

University Patent on seed treatments Licenced to Becker Underwood Used as part of a crop improvement product Seed treatments vs. foliar application • Pros • Cons – Reduced toxicity – Target tissues don’t exist – No action required by growers. Labour – Seeds are & damage limitation dormant: no biochemical – Lower cost activity (?) – Environmental – Longevity post impact reduction treatment unknown Spider Mite on Tomato African armyworm on wheat

) 70 2 60 50 40 30 20

Leaf Area eaten (cm eaten Leaf Area 10 0 Control JA Treatment Aphids on sweet pepper

60 Control

50 treated

20 Number of aphids Numberof

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Days after introducing aphids Effect of JA treatment on infection of tomato by the Botrytis cinerea Effect of JA treatment on infection of tomato by the fungal wilt Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici

Pathways affected by BABA

• SA - Biotrophic pathogen attack, • JA – Necroptrophic pathogens, herbivory • ABA – interactions with both SA and JA/Ethylene pathways and abiotic stress.

Effect of JA and BABA or in combination against mildew infection of tomato WHY?

• Integrated pest management (IPM) application • Pesticide residue reduction • Production cost benefits • Environmental impact benefits • Enhanced yield and productivity

Induced Resistance Priming as a component of IPM

Biocontrol

species Damage threshold

Pest population Population

Pest population With seed treatment

Time Current work Investigating the Mechanism of JA and BABA Priming in Tomato

• Expression characteristics of key defence genes over time following infection

• Time course Microarray analysis to look at priming on a genome wide scale. Transcriptional responses to Botrytis infection

JA seed treated plants Control plants

Early activation of ALLENE OXIDE SYNTHASE –JA biosynthesis

Mid-phase activation of PROTEIONASE INHIBITOR II –JA responsive defence gene

Late-phase activation of pathogenesis-related gene PR1b1 –JA responsive defence gene 6 hour PI BABA Future Work • Developing application strategies • Epigenetics – ChIP analysis – Evidence suggesting priming is affected at a chromosome level even before genes are expressed. DNA modification

• Trans-generational priming – Inherited priming from parental exposure

Acknowledgements

LANCASTER ROTHAMSTED SHEFFIELD Dawn Worrall Toby Bruce Jurriaan Ton Mike Roberts John Picket Estrella Luna-Diez

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS Jane Taylor (LU) Jason Moore (Formerly LU) Nigel Paul (LU) Janet Martin (RR) Phil Nott (LU) Lesley Smart (RR)

Rob Jacobson (Consultancy)

The work has been supported by funding from DEFRA and BBSRC

Stress

• Abiotic stress − Water − Temperature − Light − Chemical stress • Biotic stress − Pests − Pathogens − Other plants

Science of Growing Media CEUG conference Cambridge 2012

Neil Bragg Chairperson, Horticultural Development Company Growing media development

• 1930 –1960 Dominated by JI Mixes – Work by Lawrence and Newall • 1960 – 1970 Dominated by All peat mixes – Work at GCRI following Baker, at UC in USA • 1980 – 1990 Some additives – e.g. Bark – Margaret Scott work at EFFORD EHS • 1990’s Environmental auditing of peat use: – Outcome; reduction of use in specific areas, e.g. soil improvement & mulches

Growing media development

• 1990 – Peat and it’s alternatives – HDC • 1990 - The Peat alternative manual – FOE • Conclusions on Peat use: • UK 1980 2.0 million m3 • UK 1990 2.7 million m3 – split as 1 m m3 for commercial Growers, 1.2 m m3 for retail/hobby and the rest as amenity, » Holland 2.0 m m3 » Germany 11.5 m m3

UK use of resources

• Situation by year 2000 • Total UK Peat consumption – 3.0 m m3 • Of which retail/hobby market used 2.0 m m3 • Commercial Growers used 1.0 m m3 • There were additionally 2 m m3 of other materials used as soil improvers and mulches.

– According to RHP in Holland peat use reached 3.0 m m3 for commercial Growers and 0.5 m m3 for the hobby market.

Situation in 2011

• Total peat use in UK still at around 3.0 million m3 – Amateur market 2.2 million m3 • Retail MP substrates dominant but generally between 20-80% Peat reduced – Commercial growers 0.8 million m3 • Substrate mixes 10-50% peat reduced

Problems with container growth

• Physical requirements – Container size • This determines the max grade of material for ease of filling • Subsequent settlement • AFP and WHC Modern containers Physical requirements contd:

– Irrigation systems: • Grade of material needs to be selected and meet needs of the system, e.g. overhead watering quite different from ebb-flood, – Type of plant: • Seed, cuttings (soft V hard) transplant or germinated, potting –on?

Types of peats available to Growers • Sphagnum to Sedge – Age of peat • Very young sphagnum • Frozen black sphagnum • Middle aged Irish sphagnums • Very old black sphagnums • Sedge peats Materials other than peats 1990

• In 1990 the alternatives available included: – Coir, – Wood wastes, - barks – conifer and pine, – Mineral wastes - clays, lignite, – Food bye products, - hops, grain, rice, coffee, – Spent mushroom compost, - plus other straw product, – Sewage products and animal wastes, – Municipal solid wastes and paper wastes, Materials 2003

– Timber and wood derived bye-products, • Barks – saw logs 718,000 m3/yr » Small round wood 1.1 m m3/yr • Sold mainly into the hobby retail market and also the amenity/landscape sectors, • By 2010 – 2 X volume of products available from maturing forests, – Problems: competiveness, » forests in relation to the market,

Materials 2003

– Chipboard residues • Only select materials which have used urea- formaldehyde glues, • Industry currently produces 15% waste per annum, • Estimated total UK resource 300,000 m3 – Problems: competitive uses, » Recycling of waste Materials 2003

– Green Compost – Bio – residues • 1 m m3 available, but only 25% plus suitable for substrate inclusion, • Estimates are for up to 15m m3 by 2015 – Problems: • Density and consistency • Waste stream separation – problems with ‘sharps’ Materials 2003

– Coir, • Currently 40,000 m3 used in the UK, • Very good for propagation mixes, – Problems: • Non – indigenous material, • Quality of water used to win the material, • Reliability of supply, • Need for OM in 3rd world Materials 2003

• Other materials: – Sewage – perception problem, – MSW – possible contaminants – virus, ‘sharps’, – SMC – very high lime if ‘casing’ included, and very high NH4-N – Hop waste – limited quantities, competitive uses, – Coffee bean waste – now being used as a fuel, – Cocoa bean waste – very good as a mulch, – Paper waste - massive amounts available – fresh and recycled. Materials in use 2012

• Peats – good or bad? – Problems: habitat disturbance • Coir- – Problems: harvest volume and international competition for product, • Barks- – Economic collapse of building market, – Competition for use- fuel

Materials 2012

• Woodfibres – No real definition of what is fibre and what is chip- Source is important- new or used. • Composted Green Waste – Pas100- but still issues over variability of materials and contaminants – chemical and physical-e.g. Chlorides and glass 2010 trials

60% Woodfibre mixes IFR trials IFR trials Challenges

• White Paper on the Natural Environment – Vol Targets for England only at present – 2015 all government contract peat free – 2020 all retail (hobby) products peat free – 2030 all commercial Hort peat free • Other EU members taking more pragmatic approach- e.g. Holland- looking at sustainable use of peat in Horticulture Trials 2012 Simple recipe suggestions

• Seeding mixes: – Peat or coir (0-8mm grade) – Plus vermiculite or fine perlite (20%) – Base fertilizer –YARA 15-10-20 or 14-12-18 at 0.5kg/m3 – Lime to pH range 5.5-6.0 – wetter SRC 2

• Potting on mixes: 1-2 litre pots – Peat, coir or pine bark mixes (5-20mm) – Perlite Med grade (25%) – Possible addition of ‘clay’ at 5% – Base fertilizer Yara 15-10-20TE 1.0kg/m3 – Lime for pH range 5.5-6.0 – Wetter

Thank you for your attention

• Questions and discussion • Please CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT QUARANTINE FACILITIES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES

Presentation to the 4th International Meeting of the UK CEUG, NCERA-101 and ACEWG – Controlled Environments: Technology and Practice.

Cambridge,September 2012

Sara Redstone, Plant Health & Quarantine Officer Royal Botanic Gardens Kew [email protected]; 02083-325525; www.kew.org

Background

Kew is a “non-departmental public body “ of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The 121 hectare site in southwest London became a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2003. The institution employs more than 700 people and is a global centre for plant conservation, research and education. Kew and Wakehurst welcome around 2 million visitors each year.

Kew’s mission is “to inspire and deliver science-based plant conservation worldwide, enhancing the quality of life”.

Background

1759 is considered to be the year of Kew’s birth, as it saw the employment of William Aiton as the first curator of the “physick garden” of Princess Augusta (Princess of Wales’ and mother of George III)’. This appointment was the culmination of a decade of horticultural activity by the Princess, aided by Lord Bute and William Chambers. In 2009 Kew celebrated her 250th birthday.

More than a quarter of a millennium of growing and sharing plants (and gardeners and botanists) with the world has helped to make Kew itself a global biodiversity hotspot.

Background

Kew’s Living Collection is the largest in the world, with around 180,000 accessions, including representatives of more than 1 in 8 of all flowering plant species.

The Millennium Seed Bank stores in excess of a 1.6 billion seeds, with a duplicate collection in many partner countries. This covers over 27,000 species from at least one population.

In addition we have more than 7million herbarium specimens of plants and 1.25 million fungi plus an extensive economic botany collection in addition to art and archives.

Iconic CE at Kew Statutory obligations

Under the Heritage Act 1983 RBG Kew’s Trustees have a statutory duty to maintain and develop the living collections in line with scientific and research needs and to provide a quarantine service.

Kew operates 3 plant health licences issued by the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) and the Forestry Commission – . the insectary, . the MSB quarantine laboratory and . the plant quarantine unit.

The functions of plant quarantine at Kew 1. A SINGLE POINT OF ENTRY FOR INCOMING PLANT MATERIAL, regardless of source, origin or type 2. Quarantine of imports of controlled or prohibited plant material destined for Kew’s Living Collections 3. Growing on plants from seed of prohibited species imported by the MSB (to enable verifications) 4. Providing a service for seizures made under CITES or plant health legislation 5. Isolation and treatment or destruction of uncontrolled material imported to Kew (from the UK/ EU, from wild, cultivated and commercial sources) – where issues are identified on inspection.

Plant quarantine at Kew – the recent past... • Built in 1979 • By 2007/8 the building was becoming uneconomic to maintain and operate to an acceptable standard • Conventional glasshouse design • Conventional ventilation – with insect mesh screens • Single glazed • Poor climate control • No specific area to handle, or manage arriving packages • No waste water disinfection – sump and specialist disposal

The new plant reception & quarantine unit

The criteria: • To meet Kew’s current and future needs ! • To meet the licensing criteria of FERA and the FC – and mindful of HSE standards • Containment appropriate to the risks being managed • Reasonable levels of environmental control for plant growth • Efficient use of resources – including manpower • Affordable to operate and maintain

Developing a new facility for Kew • World Heritage Site • Thames Landscape Strategy • Kew’s Landscape Masterplan • ISO 14001 • Archaeology • Planning requirements • Environmental impact • Poor or no understanding of the role and needs of and for plant quarantine • Limited resources available in the public domain to aid in developing plant quarantine • Few companies with the requisite knowledge and expertise • “BREEAM-type” evaluation • architects

Identifying the right location

• behind the scenes • close to services – ie power, gas, water • convenient for staff and government agencies • lowest flood risk • archaeological impact • environmental and landscape impact

Kew’s design priorities • PRIMARY • SECONDARY • Containment, • Flexibility of use containment, • Possible strengthening of containment licence conditions • Biosecurity/ hygiene • Health and safety issues • Maintenance costs • Risk management • Affordable to run • Reliable/ robust • Efficiency of operation – • Measurable inputs – limited staff and resources water use, power, gas, • Potential commercial use heat.

FERA criteria for the new facility

For those of you who deal with known pests and pathogens , FERA’s approach may seem rather unusual, but it’s driven by the precautionary principle, as we are dealing with unknown risks. The criteria specified were:- 1. Containment to be risk appropriate 2. No use of silicone sealant as primary seals - as this is prone to dry, become brittle and shrink, causing loss of containment 3. Areas capable of isolation and fumigation using formaldhyde The project timeline

• detailed user requirements and outline plans • Negotiations with planners began June 2009 • Application submitted October 2009 • Planning permission granted April 2010 • Contract awarded April 2010 • Work on site began 4th July 2010 • Building licensed August 2011 • Building officially launched 14th September 2011 • “softlandings” process (to fine tune the building and its operation and use ) Layout

Cordon sanitaire Inspection area •good lighting •robust and easy to clean •biological safety cabinet • resin bonded floor •sealable room - fumigation •adjacent to incinerator bay

Water management Waste management

• Waste management systems that can be validated – including the sterisinks • Record of all waste generated and its disposal routes Energy management

• CHP installed as part of the project – surplus heat used to heat the adjacent tropical nursery. Electricity used on site and surplus sold to the Grid. • Heat recovery – heat sink tank, coolth tank, hot water. • Integration of heating, cooling, shading and lighting via BMS. • HPS lights individually switched, deliver minimum 150 micromol per m2.

Temperate containment

• glazed roof • external shading • thrip-proof mesh “walls” • hand or automatic irrigation • secondary containment options • often used for “uncontrolled “ temperate material -ie no legal requirement for quarantine

High containment

• double glazed; 8 bays • external shading • polycarbonate internal walls • temperature range 18 – 35C • negative air pressure (40Pa) • HEPA filtered air – safe filter changing • supplementary lighting • fogging • automatic irrigation option • smoke tested to check seals

Kew’s Plant Health Licence • Strict Standard Operating • Relates to legal Conditions governing requirements about how Operation and maintenance of the building the quarantine facility is Preparing and packing operated and maintained shipments • Includes a Letter of Notification of shipments Authority (LoA) – enabling Inspection import of a wide range of Containment controlled or prohibited Release of plants from plant material from quarantine outside the EU Management of waste • Release of plants from quarantine is controlled by

PHSI

What work can Kew do under it’s licence? Kew can:- Kew CANNOT:- • Augment the living • Subculture plant collections for conservation pathogens and research • Undertake botanical research • Propagate rare plants • Move germplasm and breeding material safely • Provide a commercial quarantine service

Recommended reading C. M. Brasier, Plant Pathology (2008) 57, 792–808 LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants.

Useful resources www.ceug.ac.uk wwww.fera.gsi.gov.uk – alerts, PRAs, protocols www.plantnetwork.org.uk - handbook on quarantine practices for BGs www.eppo.org – European Plant Protection Organisation

Acknowledgments: Defra Prof Tim Entwisle - RBG Kew Julian Franklin – Rothamsted Research Martin Deasy – Kew Diploma student Martin Ward, Sam Bishop, Ray Cannon & Jane Morris at FERA Mike Robinson – PHSI, FERA Derek Carley & the project team Angus Padfield & colleagues - Unigro

THANK YOU !

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH Dr. Caroline Elliott-Kingston University College Dublin, Ireland What is PÉAC?

Programme for Experimental Atmospheres and Climate (péac means ‘to sprout’ in gaeilge)

• Established in 2007

• Eight CONVIRON BDW40 walk-in growth rooms - 3.7m2

• Simultaneously and rigorously control any climate, light and atmospheric environment past, present or future

• World first facility for simultaneously controlling atmospheric oxygen, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide

Eight CONVIRON BDW40 walk-in growth rooms

with capacity to simultaneously monitor and control O2, CO2 and SO2

Aisle space between chamber pairs.

Independent Low Oxygen Alarm Breathing Air Ports Outside and Inside

PP Systems WMA-4 CO2 Analyzer and OP-1 O2 Probe in Control Panel Automated Fresh Air Inlet Damper is closed: •above 800 ppm CO2 or Doors are kept •above 300 ppb SO2 or locked with only Image courtesy of Conviron •below 21% O2 trained persons allowed keys. Compressed air-driven molecular sieve-based N2 generator Injection of 99% pure N2 to reduce atmospheric [O2] to as low as 7%

Image courtesy of Conviron Outline of presentation

• Research – key results to date

• Technical and practical challenges

• Future PÉAC

Plants grown for research purposes in PÉAC include ferns, cycads, conifers, angiosperms and grasses

Stomata from plants grown under varying atmospheres are examined

Athrotaxus laxifolia stomatal density counts Sciadopitys verticillata stomatal band imaged using epifluorescence microscopy using cryoscanning electron microscopy

Osmunda regalis using bright field microscopy Osmunda regalis using epifluorescence microscope Research Three publications below represent a selection from PÉAC research into plant responses to varying atmospheres

• Elevated CO2 (1500 - 2000 ppmV)

• Sub-ambient O2 (9 - 21%)

• Elevated SO2 (2000 ppbV)

Elevated carbon dioxide (1500 ppmV)

The stomatal CO2 proxy does not saturate at high atmospheric CO2 concentrations: evidence from stomatal index responses of Araucariaceae conifers M. Haworth, C. Elliott-Kingston, J.C. McElwain Oecologia 167:11-19 (2011)

Sub-ambient atmospheric O2 (9-21%) and elevated CO2 (2000 ppmV)

Limits for combustion in low O2 redefine paleoatmospheric predictions for the Mesozoic C.M. Belcher and J.C. McElwain Science 321:1197-1200 (2008) Elevated CO2 (1500 ppmV) and elevated SO2 (2000 ppbV)

Stomatal index responses of Agrostis canina to CO2 and SO2: implications for palaeo-CO2 using the stomatal proxy M. Haworth, A. Gallagher, C. Elliott-Kingston, A. Raschi, D. Marandola, J.C. McElwain New Phytologist 188:845-855 (2010) Start Start Ambient Ambient 2 2 High CO 2 2 High SO

Irish (left) and Mefite (right) plants after 30 days Technical and practical challenges

Lamp loft overheating

Corrosive effects of SO2

Maintenance issue

Ethylene build-up Lamp loft overheating addressed by attaching ducting and in-line fans to all chambers Corrosive effects of sulphur dioxide salts block chamber drains Interior of non-SO2 chamber Interior of SO2 chamber Chamber maintenance issues

• Must remove irrigation tubes, plants, trolleys to clear drip tray • Plants out of experimental conditions for several hours

• Drainage hole constantly blocked in SO2 chambers • Occasionally blocked in the other chambers • Solution: make drainage hole bigger? • Solution: clear drip tray and drainage hole from outside?

Ethylene (ethene) build-up

• Plants produce ethylene naturally – plant stress hormone • Sunlight breaks down ethylene gas • Not possible in sealed chambers • Need to install ethylene scrubbers in each chamber

Future PÉAC

• Collaborate with UCD CLARITY - Centre for Sensor Web Technologies

• CLARITY integrates sensor data from the physical world with information processing and artificial intelligence techniques from computer science

• PEAC + CLARITY : development of sensor network for individual plants within growth rooms & soil sensors within a 3-foot-deep soil monolith Future PÉAC

• Collaborate with UCD CASL – Complex and Adaptive Systems Laboratory

• CASL: computer-generated climate models

• PÉAC + CASL : take climate model output from CASL and programme into growth rooms to simulate year 2020, 2050 & 2100 climate for plant growth / physiology / ecosystem experiments Future PÉAC

Double size of PÉAC

Incorporate control and monitoring of additional trace gases: ozone (O3)

Sub-ambient CO2 – retrofitting of CO2 scrubbers to each chamber

Above-ambient O2 - development of appropriate safety protocols due to risk of combustion

Wish list

• Reduction of noise in chamber room: improved insulation of lamp loft motors and evaporator fan motors

• Efficiencies in energy consumption to reduce operating costs

Thank you for listening Thanks also to: Professor Jennifer McElwain UCD Aidan Holohan & Dr. Maria Sala UCD Matthew Gilroy, Conviron, UK Conviron, Winnipeg, Canada Aidan Blake, Aaron Refrigeration

Controlled Environments in Ecosystem Research

Alexandru Milcu What is an Ecotron ?  An ecotron is a cluster of highly contained growth chambers for the manipulation and real-time measurement of complex ecological processes under controlled and replicated conditions.

 Designed for replication at the chamber level !

European Ecotron of Montpellier

The Ecotron Biodiversity - Ecosystem functioning research in the CNRS Ecotron

European Ecotron of Montpellier The Facility

Flexible platform for ecosystem research

• 12 units of 40m3 each /up to 12 tonnes monolith • Control of air RH & CO2 • Natural light, including UV • Online measurements of NEE & • Temperature range (-10°C - +40°C) 13 • evapotranspiration, C-CO2, • Realistic soil temperature gradient soil humidity and temperature, etc.

Pure CO2 injection Gas sampling CO2 measurements DP Differential pressure measurement Mass flow controller

Mass flow measurement Fan and air flow controller Manifold Air flow (12 outlets) 3 Dome DP 40 m

DREF Isotopes CO High precision mass 2 H2O CO2 13 15 flow controller d C d N E N

Plant INLET OUTLET D E DS Outside air Soil 160m3/h CE C Air conditioning S DCOND Buffer volume Unit ~80 m3/min

CO2 24 inlets

13 d C CO tank -40‰ 2 Manifold Automated gas analysis system : + IRGA 1 and 2 The CO2 and water vapor mole fraction of the inlet and outlet of each dome is measured every 12 minutes. Biodiversity - Ecosystem functioning experimental approaches

1992 Cedar Creek Montpellier Silwood Park Biodepth Ecotron Ecotron Jena Experiment Main hypotheses  H1: Increased soil C & N storage in more diverse plant communities is correlated with increased niche partitioning with respect to water and nitrogen uptake

H2: Increased ecosystem C storage is explained by increased photosynthetic efficiency and reduced ecosystem respiration.

 H3: Background NOx is a significant source of N uptake by plant communities and its acquisition increases with plant diversity.

Bringing soil monoliths from Jena in the Ecotron

 Two diversity levels (4 & 16) with 6 replicates per level

 Emulated the climate recorded in Jena in 2007 Testing the nice complementarity hypotheses

13 15 82  Utilisation of multiple tracers ( C, N, Se & D2)

15 15 NH4 NO3 10cm

Se82 60 cm

D2O Soil sapling

100 cm Macrofauna, 20 cm

Microbial biomass, 5 cm

Root biomass, 4 cm 10 cm 10 P P Phytometer

P 65 cm Soil 15N, 1 cm

Soil water, 1 cm

PLFAs, 5cm PP Soil N, 1,5 cm PP

10 cm

0.6 m2

Infiltration experiment Clarifying the C budget

NEE as affected by plant diversity 25

10 Average 4 species Average 16 species

5 NEE (ppm NEE(ppm CO2) 0

-5

15:19:16 14:14:49 15:43:08 17:11:25 18:39:46 20:11:11 21:39:31 23:07:48 00:36:08 02:04:27 03:32:46 05:01:04 06:29:24 07:57:42 09:26:02 10:54:19 12:22:39 13:50:56 16:47:35 18:15:54 19:44:10 21:15:37 22:43:56 00:12:15 01:40:32 03:08:52 04:37:09 06:05:30 07:33:47 09:02:07 10:30:24 11:58:44 13:27:01 14:56:19

-10 Les plateaux ECOTRONS

Ecosystèmes complexes, réalistes, grande taille

Ecosystèmes simplifiés, +/- artificiels, petite taille Materially Closed Ecological Systems The facility

• Designed specifically for community and ecosystem studies

• ‘Half-way house’

• Complex enough to be realistic but simple enough to elucidate mechanisms

• Climate controled - can emulate real weather data (temperature, humidity, water table and light)

• Precise assemblages of microbes, fauna and plants

• Type of ecosystems: grasslands, peatlands and agro-ecosystems

The facility 16 chambers

Controlled per bank: • temperature 4 – 35oC • humidity 40 - 85% RH

• gaseous concentrations (CO2)

Controlled per chamber: • light • rainfall

One large mesocosm

Several smaller microcosms

Why materially closed systems? Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–1999) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1,shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is for the experiment where concentrations were held constant at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range assessed for the six scenarios

P. Meir, P. Cox, J. Grace, Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 254 (2006). Greenhouse gasses <-> warming?

• Contemporary data and natural archives

• Empirical evidence – e.g. FACE

(Free-Air CO2 Enrichment)

• Digital models – General Circulation Models (GCMs) A different approach

 closed systems are ideal for mass balance analysis and simulating feedbacks

The Global Carbon Cycle (Pg C and Pg C/yr)

AtmosphereAtmosphere 730730 Accumulation + 3.2 Accumulation + 3.2 Net terrestrial Fossil fuels & uptake Net ocean cement production 1.4 uptake 6.3 1.7

Atmosphere land Atmosphere ocean exchange exchange 120 90

Vegetation 500 Runoff Soils & detritus 1,500 0.8 Ocean store 38,000 Fossil organic carbon and minerals Burial 0.2

(1 Pg = 1015 g) Need for materially closed systems for climate change research- Milcu et al. 2011 – Climatic Change How important is the carbon balance in a closed system?

The Global Carbon Cycle (Pg C and Pg C/yr)

AtmosphereAtmosphere 730730 AccumulationAccumulation ++ 3.23.2

Net terrestrial Fossil fuels & uptake Net ocean cement production 1.4 uptake 6.3 1.7

Atmosphere land Atmosphere ocean exchange exchange 120 90

Vegetation 500 Runoff Soils & detritus 1,500 0.8 Ocean store 38,000 Fossil organic carbon and minerals Burial 0.2

(1 Pg = 1015 g)

Biosphere 2 Source Estimated Carbon amounts (g) in preindustrial the 100L analogue carbon stocks (Gt) systems Atmosphere 450 0.0136 Vegetation 900 0.0276 Soil and 2011 0.0609 detritus Ratio 1: 2 : 4.5 1 : 2 : 4.5 1: 100: 5000 Challenges

2 years Engineering challenges • Materially closed but energetically open – completely airtight

• Continuously measure CO2, O2, RH, pressure, soil moisture, lights • Very precise temperature control

Biological challenges • Difficulty in achieving the ratio for plant C • Difficulties associated with the growing substrate.

Detailed methodology available online in Methods in Ecology and Evolution (doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00059.x) CO2–Temperature Feedbacks

More +2oC CO2

Warming

• Positive feedback is a feedback loop system in which the system responds to perturbation in the same direction as the perturbation

• GCMs only recently introduced the C cycle (Cox 2000, Nature) in the modelling and the associated biotic feedbacks such us soil and plant responses to elevated CO2 and temperature. Biotic C feedbacks

1) Control – Isothermal 15oC

o 2) CO2 emissions (IPCC scenario) & Isothermal 15 C

3) CO2 emissions + feedback (ΔT2=3)

 CO2 climate sensitivity = equilibrium change in global mean surface

temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration

5 ΔT2=3 4 ΔT2=5

T(Cº) ΔT2=2 3

ppm CO2 Milcu et al. 2012 - Nature Climate Change

 Short-term biotic responses could potentially buffer a temperature increase of 2.3°C without significant positive feedbacks to atmospheric CO2.

 Our findings suggest that such closed system research represents an important new form of test-bed for model validation and parameterisation of plant and soil biotic responses to environmental changes.

 Materially closed biological systems continuously and simultaneously allow for the two- way feedback loop between the biotic and abiotic components to take place. Acknowledgements

Jacques Roy

Thank you for your attention !

Dennis Wildman Guidelines for Measuring and Reporting Environmental Parameters for Experiments in Greenhouses International Committee for Controlled Environment Guidelines “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatis- factory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.”

Quote from Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in 1883. Our Committee and its Activities:

 At the 2001 international CE meeting (Norwich, UK) the idea was discussed to develop a set of minimum guidelines for experiments in growth chambers  They were published in 2004 (Brisbane, AU)  At that meeting, we decided to develop guidelines for tissue culture facilities  Those were published in 2008 (Cocoa Beach, USA)  In 2008 we decided to develop greenhouse guidelines

 Various people contributed. For committee membership visit: http://www.ceug.ac.uk/

The Greenhouse Guidelines sub-committee received input and feedback:

 2009 GreenSys meeting in Quebec City, Canada  2011 NCERA-101 meeting in Ames, Iowa  2012 Distributed an advanced draft among the NCERA-101 and UK-CEUG membership Greenhouse Guidelines Content:

 Compliance and quality assurance  Definitions  Instruments and sensors (Table 1)  Parameters to monitor and report (Table 2) . Radiation . Temperature . Gases (including water vapor) . Liquid water . Nutrients . Structures, growing and control systems  Reporting example  Bibliography Challenges:

 Participation Development phase  Consensus  Photographs/images  Publication  Adoption

Greenhouse Guidelines Unresolved Issues:

 Calibration: report or record?  Instruments: precision and accuracy or just accuracy?  Quantum sensors: precision ±1%; accuracy ±10%?  Temperature: precision ±0.1°C; accuracy ±0.2°C. Is this possible using thermocouples?  pH and EC: continuous/hourly measurements excessive?  Is the irrigation water temperature important? Should it be replaced with root zone temperature?  Other?

Low A, High P High A, Low P High A, High P Interchangeable: Radiation and Irradiance?

Radiation a. The process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves. b. The complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body. c. The energy transferred by these processes.

Examples used in the Greenhouse Guidelines: Unit Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) µmol m-2 s-1 Radiation integral (DLI) mol m-2 d-1 Spectral radiation µmol m-2 s-1 nm-1

Irradiance W m-2 Incident flux of radiant energy per unit area

Photon irradiance µmol m-2 s-1 Incident photon flux per unit area One hundred and twenty-eight years ago:

"You, in this country [USA], are subjected to the British insularity in weights and measures; you use the foot, inch and yard. I am obliged to use that system, but must apologize to you for doing so, because it is so inconvenient, and I hope Americans will do everything in their power to introduce the French metrical system. ... I look upon our English system as a wickedly, brain-destroying system of bondage under which we suffer. The reason why we continue to use it, is the imaginary difficulty of making a change, and nothing else; but I do not think in America that any such difficulty should stand in the way of adopting so splendidly useful a reform."

Quote by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) from a lecture titled “Wave Theory Of Light” delivered before the Academy Of Music, Philadelphia, under the auspices of The Franklin Institute, 29 September, 1884, printed in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, November 1884, 118: 321-341. Thank you for your contributions to this important endeavor! Lynton was one-of-a-kind. He was energetic and dedicated, and not afraid to speak out for the good of the cause. He cared deeply about CEs and radiated his passion towards his colleagues. He published extensively in our field and was known for his detail- oriented work. He was an excellent organizer: He chaired the organization of our first international meeting in Norwich in 2001, and contributed to all following international meetings. At the time of his death he was again serving a central role in the organization of the fourth international meeting in Cambridge. He was also the driving force behind the development of the Guidelines for Growth Chambers, Tissue Culture Facilities, and Greenhouses. In 2008, the NCERA-101 Committee awarded him the Significant Contributor Award. Lynton Incoll (1937-2012) Greenhouse Guidelines Unresolved Issues:

Low A, High P High A, Low P High A, High P Interchangeable: Radiation and Irradiance?

Examples used in the Greenhouse Guidelines: Unit Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) µmol m-2 s-1 Radiation integral (DLI) mol m-2 d-1 Spectral radiation µmol m-2 s-1 nm-1

Irradiance W m-2 Incident flux of radiant energy per unit area

Photon irradiance µmol m-2 s-1 Incident photon flux per unit area Theory and Observation:

The zig-zag path to knowledge

Theory Observation

Bruce Bugbee Utah State University The High Energy Award

For excellence in conference organizing:

Peter Gill, Colin Denston, Julian Franklin, Geoff Holroyd, Mick Fuller, Gary Taylor, Graham Pitkin, Alan Morgan, Erik Runkle, Stephen Andrews, Guy Holmes-Henderson

100,000 Watt Lamp

Designed and built by Westinghouse in 1930’s to simulate full sunlight Lynton Incoll 1937 - 2012 Three Challenges of Controlled Environment Research

(with increasing level of difficulty)

Alter the environment: 1. to grow healthy plants 2. to predict field responses 3. to create precise levels of stress A mantra for controlled environment research:

“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment”. Ernst Rutherford Nobel prize in chemistry, 1908 • Everyone believes a measurement, except the person who made it.

• No one believes a model, except the person who made it. Bob MacElroy, NASA 1939 – 2004

When asked about approaches to studying plant growth for long term space missions:

Would you start with a model or a measurement? Theory Theory precedes observation in science

Observation Observation is a theory laden undertaking

N.R. Hanson Patterns of Discovery Cambridge University Press 1958

Green: 11 to Green: 11 15% Philips LumiLED: Philips Red: 18 36% to Red: Blue 26 to 26 47% Blue speed of light speed constant Planck's instantaneous thermal losses thermal Courtesy of Lou Courtesy Lou of Albrecht Example wavelength/119.6 µmol s µmol -1 W -1 for HPS and 25% for LEDs 25% for HPS and = efficiency of perhaps 20% 20% efficiency of perhaps Result is a wall plug plug wall a is Result Planck's Law Planck's theoretical theoretical real world world real maximum efficiency efficacy nm wavelength/33.2 nm mol/kWh = mol/kWh integrated over time integrated Avogadros Avogadros optical losses optical electrical losses electrical efficacy, near 3 near efficacy, number wavelength of wavelength Or real-worldOr the light the mol/kWh

wavelength in in wavelength nm, 10 nm, -6 m

Theory

Observation Courtesy of John Courtesy John of Sager

Theory is what allows us to extrapolate to other environments The Myth of The Scientific Method

1. Observe and describe some phenomenon. 2. Form a hypothesis to explain it. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments and observations. 5. If the hypothesis is false, refine it and retest.

Copernicus didn’t use the method described above, nor did Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin.

Great theories rarely start with the laborious process of formulating and modifying a hypothesis.

They usually emerge in sudden moments of inspiration. No description of scientific method can be broad enough to encompass all the approaches and methods used by scientists.

Paul Feyerabend

The only principle that does not inhibit progress is “Anything goes”. Sir Paul Nurse President of the Royal Society

“The USA has a strong work ethic, and you keep a close eye to the cutting edge. We are a bit lazier. We drink more. But sometimes the science we produce is rather quirkier and more innovative.”

The Nine Cardinal parameters radiation temperature wind

Humidity (VPD) CO2

Root-zone Nutrients temperature Oxygen water The relationship between the actual plant response (YPF) and the defined quantum response (photosynthetic photon flux, PPF)

Yield Photon Flux (YPF) Courtesy of Leo Marcelis Green Light Drives single Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficiently than Red Light at high PPF levels

Terashima, et al. 2009 Plant Cell Physiol. 50: 684–697 Green Light penetrates deeper than red or blue light

 Sun et al (1998)  Terashima et al (2009) Kim, Goins, Wheeler, and Sager (2004) found that adding 24% green light to Red/Blue LEDs increased lettuce growth by 50% when both treatments were maintained at the same PPF. Sulfur Lamp Crop Growth Comparisons Crop DAP PPF Sulfur MH or Fluor- Solar Reference (days) (µmol m-2s -1) Lamp HPS escent Lettuce 26 525/250/ 3.13g 2.70g 1.77g --- Both et al. (Ostenata) 250/ - (dw) 1993 Lettuce 28 250/250/ 2594g 2440g 2120g --- Goins et al. (Waldmann’s 250/ - (fw) 2000 Green) Cucumber 14 500/500/ 902g 691g ------Krizek et al. (Poinsett) - / - (dw) 1998 Cucumber 13 100/100/ 1001g 611g 440g --- Hogewoning (Hoffmann’s 100/ - (dw) et al. 2010 Giganta) Rice TO 1000/ - / 95.1g ------38.4g Kozai et al. (4 x day HARVEST - /~1000 (dw) 1995 neutral 37.3g 18.6g cultivars) (rice) Radish 28 250/250/ 852g 690g 720g --- Goins et al. (Cherry Belle) 250/ (dw) 2000

Courtesy John Sager

Fritz Went, 1957 The Experimental Control of plant growth

Dougher and Bugbee, 2001 Evidence for yellow light suppression of lettuce growth Photochemistry and Photobiology 73:208-212

*(580 – 600 nm) 2007

Green Light: A signal to slow down or stop

Kevin Folta and Stefanie Maruhnich Jour. Exp. Botany 58: 3099-3111 Green Light Induces Shade Avoidance Symptoms

Tingting Zhang, Stefanie Maruhnich, and Kevin Folta Plant Physiology 157:1528-1536 November 2011 RBG RB R B G WW Neut CW

Growth was reduced 21% with added green light Challenges with LED’s

1. Reduced thermal radiation 2. Reduced UV radiation 3. Reduced far-red radiation 4. Reduced green radiation We need models to predict the future.

Models to predict the future climate of our planet.

Models – and observations - to predict global warming.

Models and measurements to effectively invest in alternative energy technologies. Green Light

0% 40% 50%

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 TotalDry Mass (g) PPF 500 0.0 PPF 200 0 10 20 30 40 Relative Green Light (% of Total PPF)

Kevin Cope, Utah State University Effect of Plant Morphology

meristem

Erectophile Planophile most monocots most dicots

Monocots appear to be less sensitive to light quality, Perhaps because their meristem in protected below several leaf layers Biological effects of UV radiation Generally accepted UV response curve for whole plants

Erythemal response curve (predicts skin cancer and sunburn) Erythemal responsecurve

Irriadiance (W m-2 nm-1) Irriadiance (W m-2 nm-1) Irriadiance (W m-2 nm-1) 0.010 0.015 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.000 0.005 280 300 Metal Halide High-Pressure Sodium 320 Wavelength (nm) Fluorescent UV radiation UV Biologically effective have the most CWF lamps may 340 360 380

400 420

Biological effects of UV radiation

New curve

Increased blue light fraction causes decreased cell expansion, reduced radiation capture, and reduced growth

but makes plant morphology more like the field

High pressure sodium Metal Halide 4.4 % blue 22.2 % blue

10.0 g 8.9 g

Dougher and Bugbee, 2002 Green Light Stimulates Early Stem Elongation, Antagonizing Light-Mediated Growth Inhibition

Kevin Folta Plant Physiology 135:1307-1416 2004

Green Light: A signal to slow down or stop

Kevin Folta and Stefanie Maruhnich Jour. Exp. Botany 58:12 3099-3111 2007

The interaction between theory (models) and knowledge is like

Models or climbing to a roof with one foot on each of two ladders.

theory if one step at a time is taken on each ladder. Progress Progress is most efficient

measurement

Stem elongation is decreased by blue light.

Sunlight has 25% blue light.

Shorter plants are Coolmore like Neutral field grown Warm plants Fluorescent PPF = 96.9 78.6 95.8 31.4 YPF = 82.7 68.9 86.6 28.0 PPE = 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.83 Volts = 12.0 12.0 12.0 28.0 Amps = 0.62 0.63 0.80 1.02 Watts = 7.44 7.56 9.6 28.56 YPF/PPF = 0.853 0.877 0.903 0.891 % Blue = 28.7 19.5 11.8 20.8 PPF Efficiency = 13.0 10.4 9.98 YPF Efficiency = 11.1 9.11 9.02 cool white neutral warm white

24.2 % 17.0 % 9.4% Blue light Leaf expansion is also decreased by blue light.

Thicker leaves are more like field grown leaves

cool white neutral warm white

24.2 % 17.0 % 9.4% Blue light Ceramic Metal Halide lamp (CMH)

9 cm

Available in multiple wattages. The 315 Watt is shown above Available in double wall bulb (protected) Rated average life: 20,000 hours 14 to 17 % blue light; ample green light The spectral output, lamp efficiency, and lamp life are in between HPS and MH lamps.

USU Crop Physiology Lab Effect of green light on grand rapids lettuce

CWF WWF RB RGB

Cope et al. 0.92 1.06 1.12 0.89 LSD= 0.07

Kim et al. 0.78 0.68 1.0 LSD=0.10 Ceramic metal halide spectral output

USU Crop Physiology Lab USU Crop Physiology Lab USU Crop Physiology Lab Spectral Characteristics of Lamp types for Plant Biology

UVB UVA Blue Weighted YPF/ Red/ (%) (%) (%) Radiation source UV PPF PPE Far Red 287- 320- 400- 287-390 Ratio Ratio 320 400 490

Sunlight 0.47 8.5 4.3 24.5 0.90 0.72 1.03

HPS 0.01 0.8 0.3 4.4 0.95 0.87 3.3

Metal Halide 0.10 7.4 2.8 20.8 0.90 0.80 2.5

CWF (T 12) 0.55 2.7 3.0 20.7 0.89 0.83 8.6

LED’s Cool 0 0 0 28.7 0.85 0.82 6.1 Neutral 0 0 0 19.5 0.88 0.84 5.4 Warm white 0 0 0 11.8 0.90 0.84 5.0 Effect of radiation quality on soybean morphology

CWF CWF only CWF plus supplemental UV plus incandescent Far-red light effects on photomorphogenesis In soybeans: slight elongation

MH + HPS MH + HPS + INC

From: Jack Downs, 1994, Intl. Lighting in Controlled Environments Workshop effects UV Biological spectral weighting functions

Stephan Flint Martyn Caldwell Utah State University 2004

Biological effects of UV radiation

Erythemal response curve Biological effects of UV radiation

New curve

Stem Length 1.0

0.8 wheat

0.6

0.4 soybean

0.2 lettuce

Relative Stem Length 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Blue Light Fraction (%)

Dougher, T. and B. Bugbee. 2002. Effect of Blue light on plants. Photochem. Photobiol. 126:323-329

Blue Light 20 35 50 µmol m-2 s-1

5 TotalPlant Height (cm) 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Absolute Blue Light (µmol m-2 s-1) Blue Light 11% 20% 28%

0.6 ) -1

g 0.5 2

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Specific Leaf Area (m Area Leaf Specific

0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Relative Blue Light (%of Total PPF) These results confirm those of Dougher and Bugbee (2001).

Photosynthetic spectral efficiency is remarkably similar among species

McCree, 1972: 22 species Plasma Lamps Pros

Plasma Lamps Cons – Unit life and reliability have not reached expected life time • The bulbs last for years, but the magnetron and the motor(s) have failed in a short time (1st generation units had 50% of the magnetrons burn out within 3-6 months). • The lamps operate at very high temperature (900-1200 C). These high temps lead to a break down in the luminaires and high infrared radiation emission to the crop canopy or plastics used nearby, e.g., lenses. – The sulfur spectrum is noticeably green; people and plants do not “like” greenish light – EMI shielding must be maintained for safety and communications maintenance – Solid State Plasma (LEP) bulbs are position sensitive and must be oriented for intended operating position – Limited choice of lamp manufacturers and lamp wattages • Sulfur lamps ; > 700 W • LEP lamps ; < 300 W – Longevity of Manufacturers (?)

Evaluating PPF conversion efficiency of LED lamps

Power Total PPF PPF per % Watts Lamp Type Factor (over 4 m²) watt Efficiency

HPS 1000 w 1060 0.98 1008 0.94 20.6

HPS 400 w 475 0.97 447 0.91 20.4

LED 192 0.96 154 0.77 17.4

Theory precedes observation in science. The relationship between phytochrome photoequlibria and Red: Far-red ratio

Electric lights w/o incandescent

from: Harry Smith Univ. of Leicester 1992