Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

[Ellen Z]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

"Material consumption will be replaced by virtual consumption. We have barely even started on the digital consumption path......
“And across a wide range of industries, the economy is tending to use a smaller weight of materials ....."
The amount of materials and energy that goes into making, say, an Adele music download or a shipping insurance policy in Britain are tiny
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.

I think "digital consumption" or "an Adele music download" have significant material and energy inputs most of us ignore. When I decide what music I’m going to listen to tonight, I don’t have a vivid picture in my mind of all the factors that led to my ability to search for a particular song, effortlessly find five versions, and download them from Amazon prime for free.

It takes programmers and server farms to keep the Internet functioning. It takes a lot of energy to keep the servers running and to cool them down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_farm
When I buy a cassette or CD I know I'm buying a physical object. When I download a song, I don't realize that I'm buying one-100,000th of a server.

I don’t know how to calculate the metals and electricity and other inputs needed to build the servers and the transmission lines that bring "Acadian Driftwood" to my computer this evening but they are significant.

Also, pounds of minerals used seems like a very rough measure. We may be using less sand, gravel, and steel than in the past, but we are using more lithium, and lithium is rare compared to sand and gravel. (How many lithium-ion batteries do we all have?) http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...-Ion-Battery-M

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.... as they shift to digital consumption.

On the other hand, an awful lot of people buy a new smart phone every two years. They are treated as disposables.

[shiny!]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Thanks jk.
I have honestly never considered waste heat as important at all.
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.
That means waste heat is 18% of sunshine across a continent.
To me, that's significant.
As you point out, thermodynamics insists that all energy eventually becomes heat.

That's a damn startling revelation to me.

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, so we are, in fact, back to negligible for waste heat.
Check and verify, check and verify....
Rather than just deleting this post, I leave it as a reminder to us all to be careful what we accept as fact.

This is an important lesson, and why I've had trouble knowing what to believe when it comes to global warming, global cooling or climate change in general. There are reams of opinions on both sides, all backed by data. Without having more than a rudimentary education in the sciences, every opinion, rebuttal and rebuttal to the rebuttal sounds convincing to me. Given that science is supposed to be based on incontrovertible facts but the two sides of this issue are so polarized, I can only assume that important factors are being left out of the equations. Whether this is deliberate or because of only a partial understanding of all the science involved, this eternal newbie has no idea... but hopes to learn!

I'm very grateful for this non-political thread and the intelligent, civil people participating in it. Like Ellen Z, I hope it doesn't stray from jk's original purpose. I've read enough opinions over the years. I want facts without cherry-picked data. If I ask any questions it's not to debate the theory that climate change is real, but to better understand it.

[BK]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

My response was out of frustration because people won't read history. Man as always struggle with the unpredictability of weather and there is always some well meaning person to step forward to explain it or offer a solution. Did you know Thomas Jefferson wrote about the inability to take winter sleigh rides as previous generation had. Here is a news article from 1907 when Climate Change was considered certain and makes reference to Thomas Jefferson climate change belief.
article from 1907 https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,1627849&hl=en

Did you know that during the Civil War it was widely believed that cannon fire caused rain. The very smart people of the day noticed that in the afternoon after a battle there was often a rain shower. The US Government spent money trying to create rain with cannon fire.

There is very little that we gabble with today that hasn't confounded previous generations. Humans are wildly optimistic and open to charlatans to make life better.

Here is a great read : Fixing the Sky...http://www.amazon.com/Fixing-Sky-Che.../dp/0231144121

Best Regards.

[Ellen Z]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Given that science is supposed to be based on incontrovertible facts...

My understanding is that science isn’t so much about incontrovertible facts, but more about developing the best possible hypothesis at the current time. Constantly checking the data, and recognizing that of course our understanding will change (and hopefully improve) over time.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06



_ _to post.gif

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

My understanding is that science isn’t so much about incontrovertible facts, but more about developing the best possible hypothesis at the current time. Constantly checking the data, and recognizing that of course our understanding will change (and hopefully improve) over time.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06

Science uses both Ellen Z. For example Newton's law of gravity, (Law of Universal Gravitation), tells us how gravity works and what to expect from the mathematics describing the force. It's pretty cool because it allows us to understand how this force will act when we know the mass of two objects and the distance between them. Newton used it to describe the motion of the planets and moons in the solar system. But a law like Newton's doesn't help us understand why the force works this way or why it doesn't work the same way in exceptional circumstances. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity tells us why gravity works the way it does - space and time are connected and in the case of massive gravitational pull like one sees near a black hole, interesting phenomena occur that Newton's law cannot accurately describe.

So with regard to global warming we have laws that describe how additional C02 in the atmosphere will cause additional long wave radiation to be reflected back to earth and we have theories based on that law, (and many others), that describe how much and how quickly the earth should warm. Those theories are not wrong but they're not exact. So, for example, we know that since the last great El Nino event in 1998 we've been pumping massive amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere and there's been very little observable atmospheric warming.

This leads folks inclined to not think GW is true, to say, told you so and those who think it's so to say wait and see.

Well, 2016 is the wait and see year, global warming is increasing massively. But why? The why is much more interesting than the "it's not happening" or "it's the end of the world" arguments. It's been in the ocean and the massive El Nino we're in the middle of is releasing the accumulated heat and at the same time a longer term cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, (PDO), is in the part of it's cycle where we would expect it to release additional heat. This is going to be a big cycle.

So for the next year or two, the atmosphere is going to heat much more quickly, (in fact it did last year). Some people on the left are going to light their hair on fire and proclaim the end of the world but then the El Nino will end, the PDO cycle will reverse course over additional time and we should have another long period where atmospheric warming moderates for a while. Fun stuff.

[shiny!]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Well, 2016 is the wait and see year, global warming is increasing massively. But why? The why is much more interesting than the "it's not happening" or "it's the end of the world" arguments. It's been in the ocean and the massive El Nino we're in the middle of is releasing the accumulated heat and at the same time a longer term cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, (PDO), is in the part of it's cycle where we would expect it to release additional heat. This is going to be a big cycle.

So for the next year or two, the atmosphere is going to heat much more quickly, (in fact it did last year). Some people on the left are going to light their hair on fire and proclaim the end of the world but then the El Nino will end, the PDO cycle will reverse course over additional time and we should have another long period where atmospheric warming moderates for a while. Fun stuff.

How large of a role does sunspot theory have in this equation? Also, what about the theory that rising CO2 levels are an effect of warming, not the cause? The latter sounds convincing when I read about it but I have no idea if the proponents of the theory are leaving out something important.

Again, I'm not challenging you. I'm just trying to understand.

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

How large of a role does sunspot theory have in this equation? Also, what about the theory that rising CO2 levels are an effect of warming, not the cause? The latter sounds convincing when I read about it but I have no idea if the proponents of the theory are leaving out something important.

Again, I'm not challenging you. I'm just trying to understand.

Not a problem shiny!. Let's look at both issues.

Do sunspots effect temperature, yes. When the count is high, the earth tends to warm but only slightly and more important, only cyclically. When the sunspot count is low the earth tends to cool. The cycles are also not even. Sometimes the cycles are quite weak for an extended period of time. The most famous is the Maunder Minimum, also known as the Little Ice Age. That of course begs the question, what is the sun doing today? And the answer is that there are almost no sunspots. Activity is as low as it's been in 100 years but 2015 was the hottest year on record and, although it's early, scientists are saying 2016 will break the 2015 record.

Does evidence show that warming causes a rise in CO2? Yes, again that is true. The explanation is complex so forgive my over simplified explanation here. As we come out of an ice age, fresh water floods the ocean, ocean currents are disrupted and CO2 is released into the atmosphere. And 10-15,000 years ago we saw this for the fourth time in 400,000 years. No one disputes that this is the way the glacial cycle works. And again, that begs the question, is that what's happening today? The answer is no, the oceans are actually taking on, (it's called uptake), a significant portion of the CO2 we emit burning carbon.

What would happen if we stopped burning carbon tomorrow? All of it. Atmospheric CO2 counts will begin to fall and the ocean will begin releasing the massive amounts of CO2 it's taken on, into the atmosphere. And...voila, CO2 again becomes an effect of warming. Long term it's not great news for coastal cities but that is the way it's going to work when we begin moderating our use of fossil fuel.

Or, we can simply use the earth as our petri dish and do nothing until we have 500PPM CO2 in the atmosphere. At current rates of growth, that will be around 2060.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

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

Irene was only a category 1. Storm tide along long island sound peaked at 8.24m (27ft). Storm tide for the storm peaked in Eastport, ME at 12.08m (40ft), although they normally get the higher tides out that way. Never underestimate the drink. A category 3 will cross the 42' mark around good chunks of New England no problem. Probably lead to 60' plus as you head towards Fundy. And it's the increased strength and intensity of the storms that's the bigger concern than the overall level rise.

Here are some pictures of what 20 or so feet looks like off a category 1 from 5 years ago:

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Irene was only a category 1. Storm tide along long island sound peaked at 8.24m (27ft). Storm tide for the storm peaked in Eastport, ME at 12.08m (40ft), although they normally get the higher tides out that way. Never underestimate the drink. A category 3 will cross the 42' mark around good chunks of New England no problem. Probably lead to 60' plus as you head towards Fundy. And it's the increased strength and intensity of the storms that's the bigger concern than the overall level rise.

Now that's just depressing. My wife and I spend time on the Bay of Fundy in St. Andrews NB every summer. I guess we'll just stick with Marriott and Airbnb.

[llanlad2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

I think "digital consumption" or "an Adele music download" have significant material and energy inputs most of us ignore. When I decide what music I’m going to listen to tonight, I don’t have a vivid picture in my mind of all the factors that led to my ability to search for a particular song, effortlessly find five versions, and download them from Amazon prime for free.

It takes programmers and server farms to keep the Internet functioning. It takes a lot of energy to keep the servers running and to cool them down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_farm
When I buy a cassette or CD I know I'm buying a physical object. When I download a song, I don't realize that I'm buying one-100,000th of a server.

I don’t know how to calculate the metals and electricity and other inputs needed to build the servers and the transmission lines that bring "Acadian Driftwood" to my computer this evening but they are significant.

Also, pounds of minerals used seems like a very rough measure. We may be using less sand, gravel, and steel than in the past, but we are using more lithium, and lithium is rare compared to sand and gravel. (How many lithium-ion batteries do we all have?) http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...-Ion-Battery-M

Found an article which certainly supports what you wrote above. The energy inputs are indeed significant. In fact they are quite an eye-opener for me and this was written in 2013.

The Surprisingly Large Energy Footprint of the Digital Economy

Our computers and smartphones might seem clean, but the digital economy uses a tenth of the world's electricity — and that share will only increase, with serious consequences for the economy and the environment. ..........As the cloud grows bigger and bigger, and we put more and more of our devices on wireless networks, we’ll need more and more electricity. How much? Mills calculates that it takes more electricity to stream a high-definition movie over a wireless network than it would have taken to manufacture and ship a DVD of that same movie.

[shiny!]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Mills calculates that it takes more electricity to stream a high-definition movie over a wireless network than it would have taken to manufacture and ship a DVD of that same movie.

That's amazing! Who'd have guessed that by being cheap, buying used CDs and DVDs rather than paying for streaming services, I was actually saving the environment? Heck, pretty soon people will come around to my way of thinking and ditch their smartphones for simple phones that just make phone calls. How much electricity would be saved by charging phones every week or two instead of every night?

[flintlock]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

There is enough energy and yes, the world can keep growing. The real questions should be, "Should it grow? or "What will this do to the eventual quality of life?" If we want growth purely for financial reasons then maybe we should rethink that.

[Woodsman]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Irene was only a category 1. Storm tide along long island sound peaked at 8.24m (27ft). Storm tide for the storm peaked in Eastport, ME at 12.08m (40ft), although they normally get the higher tides out that way. Never underestimate the drink. A category 3 will cross the 42' mark around good chunks of New England no problem. Probably lead to 60' plus as you head towards Fundy. And it's the increased strength and intensity of the storms that's the bigger concern than the overall level rise...

Isn't it funny, dc? The idea that if we just squirrel away enough dosh, build a big enough bunker, find the furthest island, buy the biggest arsenal, or dig the biggest moat, well then surely we will be saved.

Nope, ain't happening.

In the words of the great decider, if this sucker could go down, y'all are going down with it no matter how high a hill you've built your castle.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

There is enough energy and yes, the world can keep growing. The real questions should be, "Should it grow? or "What will this do to the eventual quality of life?" If we want growth purely for financial reasons then maybe we should rethink that.

While opinions may differ as to the timeframe, everyone who is rational and gives adequate attention to the question must agree that limits to growth are eventually (and perhaps some of the limits may have already been) reached. What difference does it make if growth continues or not? According to this article in the Atlantic, not much. As has been alluded to in earlier posts in this thread, the answer depends on what flavor of growth we're considering. Here's an example on this point from the article.

First off, it's just false that growth requires infinite resources. Economic growth comes in two flavors: (1) "extensive," where we use more inputs; (2) "intensive," where we use inputs in a more clever way to do more interesting stuff. The former must eventually hit a wall. The limits of the latter are completely unknown. Deride the "information economy" all you want, but it makes people happy and it sucks up a lot less energy than what came before it.

[santafe2]

Re: Can the world economy grow without equivalent energy requirements

Found an article which certainly supports what you wrote above. The energy inputs are indeed significant. In fact they are quite an eye-opener for me and this was written in 2013.

The Surprisingly Large Energy Footprint of the Digital Economy

I'm not contradicting this point of view because while I use data centers in my business life, I'm not a data center expert with regard to energy use. I know they use a lot of energy but I'm not sure how to quantify it per user and/or per type of use. I have attempted to size solar PV systems for a few data centers and found that the only systems that make sense have a huge back yard. There is no way the roof over a data center provides the space to offset a meaningful amount of their energy use.

However, I found this report from Netflix, published last year. It states that one hour of video streaming uses .0013 kWh of energy. That's not a misprint, Netflix says the supply side of the streaming equation works out to 1.3 watts per hour. That makes your fancy LED light look like grandma's incandescent. I'm sure this doesn't include the delivery portion, (anything outside their walls), or the consumption side of the equation which will be much higher. But their point is clearly made, reading a book will use more energy. It's an unfair comparison because you'll still be using the same or more energy consuming their product, but again, they claim to use almost no energy per hour streaming video to you.

So let's compare this to driving to the local Red Box. If you drive 2 miles to the Red Box kiosk for a DVD and another 2 miles back you've used the equivalent of ~6.6 kWh of energy assuming your vehicle gets 20 mpg and you don't have to walk too far to the front door. Now let's assume your movie is two hours long so your delivery system only used 3.3 kWh of energy instead of .0013 kWh Netflix claims. The math is ugly. You could watch 2500 movies on Netflix for the same amount of energy use.

http://techblog.netflix.com/2015/05/...efficient.html