Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

i think the bunker is pretty far above sea level, grg, so it will be some time before the ocean is lapping at your door. my home is at elevation 42 feet. i don't think the ocean will get here in my lifetime.

42 feet should be plenty of height this century even calculating for storm surge.

[jk]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Certainly good enough for our current discussion.

The point I will again try to make while avoiding either a political or global warming argument is that the current ~3% rate of increase in energy use itself will boil the surface of the planet in roughly another 350 years. That's simply a thermodynamic issue. Pick your power source, solar, nuclear or coal, clearly we're toast long before that time.

For me, there are a few simple takeaways:

• Growth in energy consumption has a, human scale, finite limit.
• At current growth rates I suspect we'll reach that limit this century.
• With amazing gains in efficiency possibly we'll gain another generation or two.
• If we continue to burn coal and oil at current rates we'll likely have to deal with this a generation or two more soon.

So if we are coming to the end of our period of exponential energy growth, how do we grow the economy? Or do we grow the economy? Do we settle in to a steady state or only incremental growth based on gains in efficiency?

i think we should start with the title of this thread: does gdp growth require proportionately increased energy use? i don't see why it should. to assume that it is true requires the belief that the value of a good or service is a relatively simple function of its energy input. i guess the question this raises for me is whether a high value, low energy input good will necessarily have its production increased until it reaches its marginal cost. that's possible, but even if that's the case energy needn't be the input which drives marginal cost. is it only scarcity goods - e.g. high cost designer dresses - that are not subject to this rule? take computers/tablets/smartphones: how much of their value is derived from the energy inputs? i realize we have to include the energy for mining the metals, shipping the sub-components, lighting the factories and so on, but offhand i am skeptical that energy is a major driver. oops, just found this. it's a little outdated with its reference to crt monitors, but it sure doesn't support what i just wrote. perhaps the creation of intellectual property is a cleaner example. writing a piece of software or a phone app doesn't consume much energy. using that software or app does consume some energy, running the server farm that's accessed by the software consumes energy, so this circles back to the original question. i'm stumped for a quick answer.

querying google, the first hit is this article, by an actuary who got interested in these issues from the perspective of risks for property-casualty insurers, and became a contributor/editor of the oil drum. it's a good article and concludes that it would be difficult indeed to decouple gdp growth from the growth of energy utilization.

as you suggest, santa fe, we need to question our desire, even commitment, to everlasting "growth." the happiness research [see here and here] says that life satisfaction doesn't increase once incomes are sufficient to meet basic needs and provide a modicum of comfort. we've all read that experiences provide more satisfaction than material goods because experiences are less subject to hedonic adaptation. happiness seems also to be a function of comparative social position- greater inequality produces less happiness. otoh, relative wealth and status produces more happiness for those who can feel superior. perhaps we can foster the choice of voluntary poverty by a corps of the socially conscientious, so that the rest of the population can enjoy their superiority.

[BK]

Re: Global warming - lobotomy - there is always an expert!

Global warming is the equivalent of the Lobotomy from the 1950s.

There were lots of experts explaining what a great procedure the lobotomy was.....
https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,5203730&hl=en

When Dr Alvarez passed away in the 1980s his Lobotomy promotion was whitewashed from his story line of his life.

[jk]

Re: Global warming - lobotomy - there is always an expert!

Global warming is the equivalent of the Lobotomy from the 1950s.

There were lots of experts explaining what a great procedure the lobotomy was.....
https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,5203730&hl=en

When Dr Alvarez passed away in the 1980s his Lobotomy promotion was whitewashed from his story line of his life.

i suggest to all that this information-free, dataless but nonetheless opinionated post be ignored, rather than divert the discussion.

[BK]

Re: Global warming - lobotomy - there is always an expert!

NOAA believe we were entering an Ice Age in the 1970s and in the 1980s the Ice Age threat was used to request funding for Space shuttle.

JK, I love science. I was representing in 1999 my fathers good friend who had invented software that could understand english language commands, but I saw a future where computers would need to understand English commands (Microsoft acquired the tech in 2004). Also in the late 1990s I represented two men who created software to share an Internet Protocol Address and I was able to get Microsoft to understand that it was valuable and MSFT bought it.

I understand science and I understand fraud. You believers in Global Warming like to paint the non-believers as Luddites.

Look at all the stock market illusions that flow from Global warming - Global warming has been a gold rush for Wall Street and Government officials.

[Jam]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

A quick google just now finds a reputable source noting that incoming solar over the U.S is about 1.6 watts/ sq meter.
If you divide total U.S. annual energy consumption over the same land area, you get 0.3 watts/ sq meter.

UPDATE:
My "reputable" source grossed over a very important detail, which I found digging back to source documents.
That 1.6 w/sq meter is NOT total sunshine. It 's the estimated contribution of greenhouse gases.
The total sunshine (insolation) is 100 times that much,

Wikipedia says 1000 W/m².

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

[BK]

Re: Global warming - stock issue bonanza for WallStreet-head to ZERO

Take a look at a subset of all the publicly trade companies which went public in the name of saving the World from Global Warming.

All of these stocks are headed to ZERO! Global Warming another way to take cash from the little people and send it to Wall Street.

$SCTY $ENOC $TSLA $SUNE and many more...

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Wikipedia says 1000 W/m².

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

Thanks Jam.
You number is as good as any for our purposes here.
I was just checking my "reputable" sources data, and when I found it was off by orders of magnitude, I stopped looking at the details.

Here's the insolation map from the Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab that I checked.
Like anything else technical, the exact answer changes depending on the details of the exact question being asked.
Location matters. Month of the year matters. Time of day matters. Usable wavelength definitions matter. The cutoff levels at both ends of the day matter.

Your number is as good as any for general magnitude because it's a nice round number, easy to remember, and in the ballpark for peak midday insolation.
This link has dozens of variations of such maps http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html

Note the unit of measure. I guess it's a sort of power flux rate, handy to convert to either power or energy if you know the time of exposure and area of collection.
It's not, strictly speaking, an energy flux rate in W/m^2.

Our friend santafe2 worked in the solar power industry and has much greater skill with this stuff than me.
But I am willing to stand by my conclusion that the total commercial energy consumption of the north american continent is pretty small compared to the total energy falling on the continent by sunshine.
No need to worry that we're warming the planet directly with petroleum, coal, or nuclear.

[llanlad2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

i think we should start with the title of this thread: does gdp growth require proportionately increased energy use? i don't see why it should. to assume that it is true requires the belief that the value of a good or service is a relatively simple function of its energy input. i guess the question this raises for me is whether a high value, low energy input good will necessarily have its production increased until it reaches its marginal cost. that's possible, but even if that's the case energy needn't be the input which drives marginal cost. is it only scarcity goods - e.g. high cost designer dresses - that are not subject to this rule? take computers/tablets/smartphones: how much of their value is derived from the energy inputs? i realize we have to include the energy for mining the metals, shipping the sub-components, lighting the factories and so on, but offhand i am skeptical that energy is a major driver. oops, just found this. it's a little outdated with its reference to crt monitors, but it sure doesn't support what i just wrote. perhaps the creation of intellectual property is a cleaner example. writing a piece of software or a phone app doesn't consume much energy. using that software or app does consume some energy, running the server farm that's accessed by the software consumes energy, so this circles back to the original question. i'm stumped for a quick answer.

querying google, the first hit is this article, by an actuary who got interested in these issues from the perspective of risks for property-casualty insurers, and became a contributor/editor of the oil drum. it's a good article and concludes that it would be difficult indeed to decouple gdp growth from the growth of energy utilization.

as you suggest, santa fe, we need to question our desire, even commitment, to everlasting "growth." the happiness research [see here and here] says that life satisfaction doesn't increase once incomes are sufficient to meet basic needs and provide a modicum of comfort. we've all read that experiences provide more satisfaction than material goods because experiences are less subject to hedonic adaptation. happiness seems also to be a function of comparative social position- greater inequality produces less happiness. otoh, relative wealth and status produces more happiness for those who can feel superior. perhaps we can foster the choice of voluntary poverty by a corps of the socially conscientious, so that the rest of the population can enjoy their superiority.

I think the last paragraph is the way things are headed. Experiences will be the way to feel "superior". Robbery and crime have gone down in the West because (nearly) everyone has a Smart TV, connection to the Internet and a fully equipped kitchen. This alone gives you more than the richest man had 30 years ago. Entertainment (music, films, TV shows) is practically free and unlimited. Millionaires have to sign up for a one way trip with Richard Branson or Elon Musk to the stars to impress their friends now! I think additionally "communism" in its original sense is making a come back. Friends, relationships, family and free time are becoming valued. Free time will become the must have "status symbol" rather than consumer goods for the next generation. The leisure society is happening but 100 years later than predicted perhaps. I'm in my mid 40s and semi-retired and know lots of people (men and women) who work only 2,3 or 4 days a week out of choice who aren't interested in saving up for a trip to Mars.

As for energy growth and GDP- aren't the major economies utilising less per capita each year? Even Germany which is a massive manufacturer saw energy production decrease and CO2 production decrease more.

2004	82.5	4,048	1,582	2,509	580	849
2007	82.3	3,853	1,594	2,344	591	798
2008	82.1	3,899	1,560	2,453	587	804
2009	81.9	3,705	1,478	2,360	555	750
2010	81.8	3,807	1,528	2,362	590	762
2012	81.8	3,626	1,444	2,315	579	748
2012R	81.9	3,635	1,435	2,321	585	755
2013	82.1	3,694	1,400	2,411	576	760
Change 2004-2010	-0.9 %	-5.9 %	-3.4 %	-5.9 %	1.7 %	-10.3 %
Mtoe = 11.63 TWh, Prim. energy includes energy losses that are 2/3 for nuclear power[7]

And what about that other export led economy - Japan? Doesn't this graph suggest a decoupling is possible? Especially since the 2000s.

[llanlad2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Just come across this as well. Ok it's not a measure of energy but is somewhat connected to the argument. I guess a key question going forward will be related to whether virtual goods and services can be successfully monetised as one poster suggested "Material consumption will be replaced by virtual consumption. We have barely even started on the digital consumption path. Monetization of virtual good s and services is only just getting started."

UK consumes far less than a decade ago – 'peak stuff' or something else?
From crops to energy and metals, average material consumption fell from 15 tonnes in 2001 to just over 10 tonnes in 2013

Households no longer buy resource-intensive goods common in the recent past, such as metal-heavy video recorders.

Patrick Collinson and Adam Vaughan
Monday 29 February 2016 18.02 GMTLast modified on Tuesday 1 March 201 The amount of “stuff” used in the UK – including food, fuel, metals and building materials – has fallen dramatically since 2001, according to official government figures.The Office for National Statistics data released on Monday reveals that on average people used 15 tonnes of material in 2001 compared with just over 10 tonnes in 2013.
The figureslook at the total amount of biomass (crops and livestock fodder, wood and fish), coal, oil and gas, metal and non-metallic minerals such as construction materials used in the UK every year.

Drop in UK consumption of goods and materials.

Some of the biggest decreases have been in metal ore consumption, in part because the amount of metal required to manufacture modern domestic goods such as fridges and washing machines is far lower than in the past.
UK households have also abandoned buying many resource-intensive goods common in the recent past – such as metal-heavy video recorders and hi-fi systems, vinyl records, CDs and books – as they shift to digital consumption.
In 2000, British households bought 126m CDs but this tumbled to just 54m last year, while cassettes are heading for the history books, with sales falling 99.9% since 2000.
DVD chain Blockbuster, which once operated 528 stores on Britain’s high streets, closed the last ones in 2013, pushed out by the rise of digital services such as Netflix.
The figures will spark fresh speculation that Britain and other developed economies have hit ‘peak stuff’, although some critics question whether consumption is really going down.
In January, Ikea said the appetite of western consumers for home furnishings had reached its peak and consumption of many familiar goods was at its limit.
Household spending on physical goods, including furnishings, clothing, cars and gadgets, decreased between 2002/03 and 2014, said Chris Goodall, an author of books on climate change. Households now spend more on services than physical goods, he said.

“Part of the reason for the reduction in UK material use is the growing impact of digitisation. But we are also tending to eat less food and use less water, for example.

The stories you need to read, in one handy email




Read more

“And across a wide range of industries, the economy is tending to use a smaller weight of materials as a result of better efficiency and because homes and offices now have pretty much all the equipment they need,” he said.
Consumption of paper and cardboard began to decline in 2001, the amount of household waste produced by each person in the UK began to fall in 2003, and consumption of water began to go down from 2004, all at a time of rising population and GDP.
The ONS figures suggest that consumption of raw materials per head in Britain is now among the lowest in Europe, behind only Spain. But Goodall added that countries across the globe are using less.
“We’re beginning to see the same in China. Steel and cement – by far the most important inputs to the economy in terms of weight – have peaked. And since China represents about 50% of world steel consumption, this has a global impact.”
Even the total weight of biomass consumed in the UK has fallen, despite a rising population. The ONS said that in 2000 the UK chomped and burned its way through 188m tonnes of crops, fish and wood, compared with 172.5m in 2013, the last year for which figures are available.
Fossil fuel consumption peaked in 2001 at 283m tonnes. In 2012 it was 249m tonnes, although this was an increase on the lows of 2008-09.
But the country’s environmental accounts can be interpreted in many ways. The switch to a service-based economy rather than a manufacturing one means Britain consumes far fewer materials and energy for every unit of economic output compared with economies such as Germany.

Why I'm buying nothing for a year – no clothes, no holidays, no coffee ...




Read more

The amount of materials and energy that goes into making, say, an Adele music download or a shipping insurance policy in Britain are tiny compared with making a car in Germany, so it means that for each unit of economic output Britain uses relatively fewer material resources.
The ONS suggested that the link between material consumption and economic growth is “decoupling”, with Britain having become more efficient at increasing output while using fewer resources.
The ONS said: “Over the 2000 to 2013 period, resource productivity (the relationship between economic activity and material consumption) in the UK has positively increased, rising 59.4% from £1.87 per kg in 2000 to £2.98 per kg in 2013, reflecting the shift away from manufacturing towards financial and other service industries.”

But other data show British households gorging on consumer goods. Car saleshit an unprecedented 2.63m in 2015, while Primark’s UK sales have accelerated to more than £5bn as shoppers load their baskets with skinny jeans and playsuits. So are the British really consuming less?
One expert said the amount the UK consumed has increased since the turn of the millennium, citing his extrapolation of data from the UN environment programme.
“There are indications of saturation in some markets, such as with Ikea on furnishings. You do see these micro trends of peak stuff, but the idea we’re living in a peak stuff world is nuts,” said Tim Jackson, professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey.
A closer analysis of the ONS figures shows a big drop in consumption of non-metallic minerals used by the construction industry, such as sand, gravel, limestone and gypsum. This collapsed from 321m tonnes in 2000 to 212m in 2013. It may be that part of the decline in overall raw material consumption stems from Britain’s chronic inability to build enough homes more than anything else.
The physical weight of goods imported into the UK has actually risen over the past 13 years, while the amount exported has fallen. “More materials are imported than exported and the gap between imports and exports has widened over the 2000 to 2013 period,” said the ONS.
“This suggests that we are becoming more reliant on the production of materials in other countries, which may be related to the reduced cost of sourcing some products from abroad.”

But the UK’s environmental accounts attempt to factor in the way goods are now made abroad. The ONS said that the per-capita consumption of raw materials in the UK is 8.9 tonnes per year, but after imports and exports are taken into account the figure rises to 10.3.

• This article was amended on 1 March 2016 to remove comments from Tim Jackson that said the ONS counted metal used to make cars but not metal in finished cars. The ONS said it counts both.

[Southernguy]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

What about the hundreds of million of decent housing needed in third world (err developing) countries?
Without checking, no less than 11% of world population is still hungry, (including perhaps more than that if you refer to children). https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
One in 10 lack safe water. One in 3 do not have a toilet.
Nearly one billion people live in urban slums, etc.

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

as you suggest, santa fe, we need to question our desire, even commitment, to everlasting "growth." the happiness research [see here and here] says that life satisfaction doesn't increase once incomes are sufficient to meet basic needs and provide a modicum of comfort. we've all read that experiences provide more satisfaction than material goods because experiences are less subject to hedonic adaptation. happiness seems also to be a function of comparative social position- greater inequality produces less happiness. otoh, relative wealth and status produces more happiness for those who can feel superior. perhaps we can foster the choice of voluntary poverty by a corps of the socially conscientious, so that the rest of the population can enjoy their superiority.

Or possibly more people will want to simply volunteer, work with those in need, etc. to bring out their superior self.

As EJ has identified, virtual reality will be huge. I don't think it will be more than a decade before one can virtually experience almost any place on earth or a software developers mind, and do it in ways a human cannot. It will take energy to do that but not as much cost or as much energy as it takes to fly to a distant location.

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Possibly I can use the map below to clearly explain solar insolation, or how much average sun energy one can expect in a certain location. As you said, the 1000 W/m2 that Jam posted is a good round number to start with. It's important to understand that that number can only be achieved in a really excellent location with the sun perpendicular to our subject square meter of earth.

The average intensity of insolation is effected by latitude, altitude and average cloudiness among other factors. As you can see from the map, in a location like shiny!'s hades, insolation is really excellent. NREL estimates that Arizona receives on average 6.5kWh of energy per square meter per day.

Let's use 12 hours of sunlight as an example day. The sun comes up and our square meter averages 200 W/m sq. in the first hour, (or .2kWh). The level goes up all day and peaks at 1000 W/m sq., going back down the rest of the day. For the entire day our square meter receives 6.5kWh of energy and our average day time insolation is 542 W/m sq. If we want the daily average, just divide in half for this example, (since there's no insolation at night).

Hope that helps.

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

As for energy growth and GDP- aren't the major economies utilising less per capita each year? Even Germany which is a massive manufacturer saw energy production decrease and CO2 production decrease more.

Partially true but don't forget that the Western societies are exporting their production requirements to Asia. At this point it may be more useful to calculate worldwide energy use and GDP to understand the ratio of economic growth to energy required to support that growth.

Germany is a special case as they've adopted renewable energy more quickly than any other country.

[Ellen Z]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Recently some fruitful discussions on iTulip have flamed out due to over-politicization.

jk said:
it would be possible to start a thread titled "FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BELIEVERS ONLY" in which such discussions could be held, with an agreement in the first post that denial posts WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO, but ignored.....i think that might work..... it is interesting to note, however, that the need for such rules in such a thread is testimony to the terrible polarization of our society.

Shiny said
I'd support such threads, jk. Why not start them?
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...067#post302067
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...069#post302069

This current thread didn’t start out with that sort of explicit, ALL CAPs announcement... but it seems to me the general principle applies. There’s a lot of interesting information here... but this thread is vulnerable to that same sort of polarization.... I hope we can stay focused on topic.

I don't have any training in science, so I really appreciate it when the people who do share their thinking. Please pursue the data... I am listening on the edge of the conversation.