grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion
Unterschiede
Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.
Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste Überarbeitung | Vorhergehende Überarbeitung | ||
grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2023/12/14 12:51] – [(4) Is it all just theory?] wfeist | grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2024/01/10 13:22] (aktuell) – wfeist | ||
---|---|---|---|
Zeile 37: | Zeile 37: | ||
First the facts: Let $q$ be a factor with an absolute value smaller than 1. Then the ' | First the facts: Let $q$ be a factor with an absolute value smaller than 1. Then the ' | ||
$1+q+q^2+q^3+...$ \\ \\ | $1+q+q^2+q^3+...$ \\ \\ | ||
- | a **finite value**. \\ \\ | + | a **finite value**. If you find the following box with the formulas too challenging, |
{{ : | {{ : | ||
For this the notation with the sum sign $\sum$ has become common in mathematics: | For this the notation with the sum sign $\sum$ has become common in mathematics: | ||
Zeile 65: | Zeile 65: | ||
<WRAP box lo>To come back to the introductory analysis of the gross domestic product, which in reality only grows linearly (the diagram under (1)): Anyone who has followed and recalculated (2) and (3) will find that both will still hold //without// the assumption that there is no such thing as long-term exponential growth; Even in (2) a constant percentage growth $p$ was still used. For (2) and (3) it only matters that the percentage efficiency gain $\epsilon$ is greater than this percentage growth $p$. However, the empirical finding that real GDP growth is not exponential but //linear// is practically relevant: Since the improvement in efficiency (at least for the next 1000 years or so) can correspond to the descending geometric sequence, it always catches up with any linear increase at some point. Real growth in GDP in Germany e.g. is currently on average around 1.25% per year. This is already intercepted with an $\epsilon$ of the same height (1.25%/a); We've already done better than that - and we //can/// always do it again: It's just a question of will. </ | <WRAP box lo>To come back to the introductory analysis of the gross domestic product, which in reality only grows linearly (the diagram under (1)): Anyone who has followed and recalculated (2) and (3) will find that both will still hold //without// the assumption that there is no such thing as long-term exponential growth; Even in (2) a constant percentage growth $p$ was still used. For (2) and (3) it only matters that the percentage efficiency gain $\epsilon$ is greater than this percentage growth $p$. However, the empirical finding that real GDP growth is not exponential but //linear// is practically relevant: Since the improvement in efficiency (at least for the next 1000 years or so) can correspond to the descending geometric sequence, it always catches up with any linear increase at some point. Real growth in GDP in Germany e.g. is currently on average around 1.25% per year. This is already intercepted with an $\epsilon$ of the same height (1.25%/a); We've already done better than that - and we //can/// always do it again: It's just a question of will. </ | ||
- | <WRAP box hi>What is important: **All efforts to improve energy and material efficiency!** This includes, among other things, thermal protection, heat recovery, heat pumps, low-flow shower heads, efficient electronics, | + | <WRAP box hi>What is important: **All efforts to improve energy and material efficiency!** This includes, among other things, thermal protection, heat recovery, heat pumps, low-flow shower heads, efficient electronics, |
\\ | \\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Related: Find an analysis to the so called " | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
====Sources==== | ====Sources==== | ||
- | [Statista] Statistisches Bundesamt, | + | [Statista] Statistisches Bundesamt, |
grundlagen/energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie/growth_discussion.txt · Zuletzt geändert: 2024/01/10 13:22 von wfeist