Fundamental Energy Constraints on Continued Growth in Economic Activity as measured by GDP be recognised
Nathan Surendran
Public
Seen by 40
Q1 – Why do we need growth? A: To service interest payments on money lent into existence as debt. http://bit.ly/1rfcumz
Q2 – Why is the economy moribund? A: Because we’ve hit diminishing returns on capital and energy in many spheres, as the expansion in economic activity and natural resource throughput of the last couple of centuries bumps up against planetary boundaries. http://bit.ly/1qhWoXB
Q3 – What is a realistic view of the global future? A: De-growth of economic activity, energy consumtion, natural resource exploitation rates, population, until we get back inside the sustainable capacity of the planet. http://bit.ly/1qhWluX and http://bit.ly/1z69MSK
Source: http://bit.ly/1jHEBDi
For another approach to this, see this chart: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/humans_energy_timeline.jpg
> The above graphic shows a three-tiered time history of our planet, starting with the top black line being geologic time. The tiny black sliver on the far right, is enlarged in the second line, and the sliver on its far right is again enlarged on the bottom line, where the last 12,000 years are shown. We, both our environment, and ourselves, are products of this evolutionary history. Our true wealth originates from energy, natural resources and ecosystem services, developed over geologic time. Our true behavioral drivers are a product of our brains being sculpted and honed by 'what worked' in all 3 eras of this graph (but mostly the top 2). The dark line on the bottom is human population, but just as well could be economic output or fossil fuel use, as they have been highly correlated over this period.
> The economic ‘theories’ underpinning our current society developed exclusively during the short period labeled 'A' on the graph, on a planet still ecologically empty of human systems and when increasing amounts of extraordinarily powerful fossil energy was applied to an expanding global economic system. For decades our human economies seemed to follow a pattern of growth interrupted by brief recession and resumption to growth. This has made it seem, for all intents and purposes, that growth of both the economy and aggregate individual wealth was something akin to a natural law –it is certainly taught that way in business schools. The reality is that our human trajectory –both past and future - is not a straight line but more like a polynomial - long straight stretches, up and down, with some wavy periods in the middle, and ultimately capped. Our present culture, our institutions, and all of our assumptions about the future were developed during a long 'upward sloping' stretch. Since this straight line period has gone on longer than the average human lifetime, our biological focus on the present over the future and past makes it difficult to imagine that the underlying truth is something else.
> Evidence based science in fields like biology and physics has been marginalized during this long period of 'correlation=causation'. This oversight is not only ubiquitous in finance and economics but present in much of the social sciences, which over the past 2 generations have largely conflated proximate and ultimate explanations for individuals and societies. In nature geese fly south for the winter and north in the spring. They do this based on neurotransmitter signals honed over evolutionary time that contributed to their survival, both as individuals and as a species. "Flying north in spring" is a proximate explanation. "Neuro-chemical cues to maximize food/energy intake per effort contributing to survival" is an 'ultimate' explanation. In business school I was taught, 'markets go north' because of invention, technology and profits, an explanation which seemed incomplete to me even though it has appeared to be valid for most of my life. Social sciences have made great explanations of WHAT our behavior is, but the descriptions of WHY we are what we are and HOW we have accomplished a vast and impressive industrial civilization are still on the far fringes of mainstream science. Economics (and its subset of finance) is currently the social science leading our culture and institutions forward, even if now only by inertia.
Source for the above: http://bit.ly/1jAAzMS
Relates to my calls for economic reform in the economy group, and also my proposal to support the 'Wise Response' appeal (already has Labour and Green backing): http://bit.ly/wr-facebookappeal
Marc Whinery Sun 13 Jul 2014 10:22AM
@nathansurendran Number of what? The amount of solar energy that strikes the earth is easy to find. The efficiency of solar panels is also easy to find. Are you unclear about the surface area of buildings and roads?
Usually when people demand "numbers" they are really looking to punish anyone holding a different opinion. Why should I bother to do a simple series of searches to find numbers? In my experience, anyone so lazy as to not be curious enough to look them up themselves, wouldn't believe then when they are presented.
But go ahead, tell me what number you would like to know. But proving a whole energy scheme, just to have some close minded contrarian waste my time is a waste of time.
Did you even think about the answer, or how to find it before you challenged me to do it all for you?
Nathan Surendran Sun 13 Jul 2014 11:04AM
I'm interested in the actual figures you use to get to your 10x claim? By saying 'do a series of simple searches to get figures', you admit you haven't based it on real numbers?
Then, I'm interested if you understand the capital, environmental, and maintenance costs involved in covering everything in PV panels and then sustaining it over it's lifespan. Can we afford the capital costs now? At the end of it's projected lifespan, do you understand the capital, energy, decommissioning costs in replacement? Do you think we'll be able to afford those costs at that time, 30+ years from now? Will we have the fossil fuels to assist with the manufacture then? What about the time after that?
I'm interested in solutions that won't just kick the can down the road so we can maintain our lifestyles; and that bear in mind that we have well overshot the planet's carrying capacity; and that at some point sooner or later, we have to come back within biophysical limits. I'm saying I'd rather do that now, as the Wise Response appeal states:
~ Mo tatou, a mo ka uri a muri ake nei ~
“For us and our children after us.”
- and their children, and theirs...
An aside: I notice from your comment "The amount of solar power that hits man-made structures in NZ is well over 10x the amount of electrical consumption." where you demonstrate fixation with elec generation. You don't even seem to be thinking about solar thermal panels, which, by not entailing energy conversion losses, is a much more efficient use of solar energy. It can reduce a typical residence's water heating bill by half or more, especially when combined with low flow fittings, heat reclaim from shower waste water, etc. This has a much lower payback that solar PV, and potentially a much greater impact on overall resource consumption, having lower embodied energy and a similar lifespan, and also saving water, and yet you don't seem to be conscious of it in your response? I think this belies a bias in your argument, whereby you're fixating on a simplistic view of our energy problems, and a techno-utopian view of the future. Both of which are wrong. Sorry.
Marc Whinery Sun 13 Jul 2014 7:52PM
@nathansurendran "I’m interested in the actual figures you use to get to your 10x claim? By saying ‘do a series of simple searches to get figures’, you admit you haven’t based it on real numbers?"
I used real numbers. I told you what numbers I used. I just didn't cite every individual number I used to get to the result. "cite the result."
No.
Do with that what you will.
"yet you don’t seem to be conscious of it in your response?"
I have it (a solar hot water heater on the roof above me right now). I'm conscious of it.
You see one perceived hole and and get all excited about proving me wrong, without any discussion of the facts.
You use the "fact" that I didn't mention solar water heaters as "proof" that my numbers on PV that you don't like are bad.
And you wonder why I don't waste time giving you more details you obviously aren't interested in hearing so you'd have more "fuel" to attack me for things I didn't say.
" I think this belies a bias in your argument, whereby you’re fixating on a simplistic view of our energy problems, and a techno-utopian view of the future. Both of which are wrong. Sorry."
OMFG, you didn't mention wet-back pre-warming of solar water heaters!!! That's proof that you are fixated on the wrong things, thus everything else you said is 100% wrong. Or are you now going to assert that your "logic" (as you'd call it, even if nobody else would) doesn't apply against you, only against others?
Virginia Toy Fri 22 Aug 2014 9:24AM
Hi guys. I've never personally 'done the math' on energy resources but did attend an interesting talk at the recent Australian Earth Science Convention in Newcastle, Oz, by a guy called Peter McCabe (http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/mccabep/) entitled 'fossil fuels for the future'. He showed some data about various energy sources and world energy demand given current and projected useage. The message I came away with was, if we continue to use energy as we do in modern society then we need to double our energy resource in the next 10 years... and half of that 'new' energy has to be from sustainable sources... and that this is about as much as we can expect to get from renewables. If we wanted to fully transition to renewable energy sources we'd need to reduce energy consumption!
Bruce Kirk Tue 26 Aug 2014 9:02AM
Id like to see someone continue the work of Nikola Tesla without being shut down.
Somebody show Kim dotcom a Tesla coil
Im sure he'd like to build one, (a really big one!). If by chance it got tuned right we would have free power for miles! -(I have done this on miniature scale & sent wireless power to a light almost 2 meters away).
Nathan Surendran · Sun 13 Jul 2014 9:23AM
And the follow up article: http://bit.ly/TOULDQ - This series is a work in progress, with part 3 available this week (hopefully). I'd be interested to know your response @marcwhinery - Just saying "More capturable energy hits the roofs of buildings in this country than we use. More capturable energy hits the roads than we use." is not enough.
And I'd love to hear more about these storage systems I apparently haven't heard of?