tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post6537998463197462151..comments2023-08-02T08:34:25.773-07:00Comments on Nephologue: The global economy, heat engines, and economic collapseNephologuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02527992193035047074noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-89622383872052058892019-01-28T19:54:23.195-08:002019-01-28T19:54:23.195-08:00Definitely not silly. It seems so counterintuitive...Definitely not silly. It seems so counterintuitive I think because we have become so accustomed to living in a capitalist society that we can't imagine a world without economic production that isn't tallied with currency. <br /><br />But yes, even if the GDP is constant from year to year, the power capacity would still grow. The P in GDP really does stand for something. And whatever is produced has no value without continuous energy consumption to maintain the circulation that connect it to everything else.Nephologuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527992193035047074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-20710803289429121262019-01-22T00:24:44.194-08:002019-01-22T00:24:44.194-08:00Thanks. I think I'm closer to an understanding...Thanks. I think I'm closer to an understanding now. It was the "added" that was throwing me. So, in my example, ignoring the energy needed to create the first $2000 of GDP, to sustain that first year's $2000, the second year's power capacity need to be 14.2 watts. In the third year, another 14.6 watts would need to added to the previous year's capacity, making 28.6 watts (plus whatever is needed to create new GDP). Is that right?<br /><br />Sorry if this seems silly, just trying (and previously failing) to understand what your work shows.sofistekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182009148535883429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-33091338881874806222019-01-20T15:39:48.525-08:002019-01-20T15:39:48.525-08:00The first statement is the first derivative of the...The first statement is the first derivative of the second with respect to time.<br /><br />The equations in the paper pointed to are most precise. But simply, the GDP is production, and production adds. Even if there is no GDP growth, as long as there is the existence of the GDP there is fabrication of new materials and societal connections that represent an addition to total civilization wealth. Wealth does not exist in and of itself but only insofar as it can sustain all the back-and-forth of civilization's activities. These circulations require energy. <br /><br />So every dollar of GDP adds to wealth and requires and additional 7.1 additional Watts of power capacity.<br /><br />Every dollar of wealth - accumulated through past production - requires 7.1 Watts of power capacity<br /><br />Key to the calculations is inflation adjustment which accounts thermodynamically for decay<br /> Nephologuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527992193035047074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-11988312767700460642019-01-18T01:20:28.438-08:002019-01-18T01:20:28.438-08:00"every 1000 dollars of year 2005 inflation-ad..."every 1000 dollars of year 2005 inflation-adjusted gross world product requires 7.1 additional Watts of power capacity to be added"<br /><br />I'm not clear on this wording. The paper you point to seems to say something slightly different, "7.1 ± 0.1 Watts of primary energy consumption is required to sustain each $1000 of civilization value"<br /><br />Can you explain this a little more? What is the 7.1 watts "added" to? Perhaps a simple example of, say, a GWP of $2000 in one year (call it year 1 of a civilization) and $2006 the next, might help, or would that be too simple?sofistekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07182009148535883429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-58660759558597740462018-10-03T16:09:38.908-07:002018-10-03T16:09:38.908-07:00Nate Hagens makes the valid point that all "g...Nate Hagens makes the valid point that all "growth" these days is really paid for by debt. However, in the civilization thermodynamics sense, that doesn't matter. It's still spending in service of taking things to a lower entropy form that must then be forever supported against decay. So yeah. Not only do we get stuck with the energy bill for this, but gotta repay the principal and interest since we're borrowing it from future generations. Maybe the "good" news is that they may not survive to hound us for collection! What a world we live in.Stainless Steel Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14939150018530362598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-1118171789835343392018-10-03T16:03:47.718-07:002018-10-03T16:03:47.718-07:00yeah, except the fascists will enforce austerity n...yeah, except the fascists will enforce austerity not for OUR collective survival but to support THEIR kleptocracy. If your point is that they may commandeer this argument as a means to justify instituting fascism, at this point nothing would surprise me.Stainless Steel Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14939150018530362598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-86423077039084927172018-09-09T15:58:23.839-07:002018-09-09T15:58:23.839-07:00"So, even if sunlight and wind is seemingly i..."So, even if sunlight and wind is seemingly infinite, our planet Earth is not. Any short-term material gain of ours is a loss for the world around us. Renewables only accelerate this process."<br />More excellent, honest work from Tim Garrett who Professor Guy McPherson often quotes.<br />I've added this to the comments section my blog post on the same subject;<br />https://kevinhester.live/2016/05/14/sustainabilitys-place-in-killing-the-living-planet/comment-page-2/#comment-2410Kevin Hesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17544649247126017710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-57229335128261595032018-09-06T08:36:00.287-07:002018-09-06T08:36:00.287-07:00Roughly. Your argument is strictly true if the goa...Roughly. Your argument is strictly true if the goal were to return CO2 to its original form as a fossil fuel. If it is converted to another solid or liquid form, then the chemistry can allow for this being done using less energy than was obtained during the initial release. Either way, the amount of energy is significant enough as to likely be prohibitive economically.Nephologuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527992193035047074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-89259710027449971592018-09-06T05:22:28.366-07:002018-09-06T05:22:28.366-07:00It seems that returns to capital are being fabrica...It seems that returns to capital are being fabricated by financial institutions to give the impression of growth. Even though things may be slowly collapsing even now in certain areas, central banks blowing asset bubbles and media propaganda can give the impression of "all is well". Of course, most people on the ground will experience some dissonance between their real lives and the message. You may find some discussion at www.megacancer.com interesting, but it's not peer reviewed and if it had to be, it wouldn't exist. Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11463557491631604390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-40052755259046842152018-09-05T20:35:41.721-07:002018-09-05T20:35:41.721-07:00As far as I understand thermodynamics, though, the...As far as I understand thermodynamics, though, there is no "pushing CO2 back where it came from" without expending even more energy than that which was obtained from its release.<br /><br />I'd be interested to learn differently.Lidia17https://www.blogger.com/profile/07282311239366828612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-78995484581071687742018-09-05T00:56:08.151-07:002018-09-05T00:56:08.151-07:00From a thermodynamics perspective, isn't civil...From a thermodynamics perspective, isn't civilization just like Mr. Creosote? He is a monstrously obese restaurant patron who is served a vast amount of food in a Monty Python film. After being persuaded to eat an after-dinner mint, he explodes. Did Mr. Creosote have any other way out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-8707673921877027152018-09-04T14:39:06.585-07:002018-09-04T14:39:06.585-07:00From a thermodynamics perspective, civilization is...From a thermodynamics perspective, civilization is an open system that survives by converting high potential energy (or low entropy) density fuels into low potential (or high entropy) density waste heat. It is the continual conversion of one to another that sustains all that we do, including our thoughts, thereby defining our wealth - our collective capacity to think and do. Nephologuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527992193035047074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-32404241788564835532018-09-03T11:09:02.107-07:002018-09-03T11:09:02.107-07:00i'd like you to explain why your theory uses w...i'd like you to explain why your theory uses watts (energy as flow) vs joules, (Energy as quantity), W = J/sec of course. <br /><br />For why TG's theory has gotten so little traction in 10 years, see Ugo Bardi on the Peer Review process and his own description of the travesty he endured when he first submitted his papery. Bardi at https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2018/08/so-you-think-science-will-save-world.htmlIan Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975374352244687491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-7086582964706762612018-08-20T10:17:09.336-07:002018-08-20T10:17:09.336-07:00I'm only half joking when I say I expect to se...I'm only half joking when I say I expect to see an abrupt shift towards fascism as a means for enforcing the austerity required for collective survival. Surely there are historians who have explored whether and how political systems reflect resource availability and environmental conditions.Nephologuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527992193035047074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4268081350629009912.post-54878942282769049902018-08-17T16:38:09.615-07:002018-08-17T16:38:09.615-07:00Is there a way out? The usual response from eco-fr...Is there a way out? The usual response from eco-friendlies is "Sure! We just convert to renewables and climate will not collapse us!". My response to them is - sounds great... but the numbers just don't pencil out. Nature's laws are not normative, their quantitative. And they are absolutely inviolate. Converting to renewables itself takes energy and when you attempt to factor that in, given the bloated fossil fueled civilization that we are stuck with as our t=0 initial conditions, then it looks pretty darn hard to find a graceful exit. It's possible perhaps, but only if we become different animals than we seem to be. The qualitative difference between what is needed, and what is the usual assumed path, is that what's needed is a big dose of Civilization Pain, and THAT we absolutely won't tolerate voluntarily. So it looks like it'll instead be involuntarily. It is physically possible for all 7 billion of us "get religion" and immediately go on a massively Spartan lifestyle change diet, meanwhile diverting every spare dollar to decarbonizing. But will we? Very hard to imagine it actually happening. Instead, we elect demagogues and "strong men" who will tell us what we would rather hear, rather than the Truth. And meanwhile, the sequestered carbon in soils, vegetation, the ocean, the permafrost... will be re-awakening and re-emerging to make up for the carbon we imagine we'll stop burning. We'll now have to built massive infrastructure and consume new energy (solar? wind?) to air-capture CO2 and push it back down from where it came from, and quickly, to shut off these feedbacks.<br />Stainless Steel Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14939150018530362598noreply@blogger.com