Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2023/12/14 12:45] – [(4) Is it all just theory?] wfeist
+++ grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2024/10/31 11:09] (aktuell) – [(2) The role of efficiency factors] yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
@@ Zeile 1: / Zeile 1: @@
-=====About Growth=====
+===== About Growth =====
 Most economists love growth: economic growth. Wealth must increase so that there is more to distribute, because people's desires are insatiable. Because this whole connection is, so to speak, the core belief of the branch.
@@ Zeile 6: / Zeile 7: @@
 Here I will present a few points of view that point to a concrete solution to this dilemma. A solution that can be developed and implemented as a transformation in continuation of a process that is already underway. The analysis has several parts:
 (1) The historical analysis: Even past growth has not been exponential at all over extended periods.\\
 (2) The role of efficiency factors (such as product lifespans)\\
 (3) Some elementary mathematics: The sum of the infinite geometric series converges - but what does that have to do with growth?\\
-(4) Is it all just theory? A few concrete implementation approaches; Viewed in light: There's actually quite a lot going on!\\
+(4) Is it all just theory? A few concrete implementation approaches; Viewed in light: There's actually quite a lot going on!
 ====(1) The historical analysis: Even in the past growth has not been exponential over extended periods====
@@ Zeile 27: / Zeile 29: @@
 //How good is “good enough”?// \\
-Here we are in for the next surprise: This is a purely mathematical question. If a task is currently completed with a system of useful life $t_N$ and the growth is $p$((factor $(1+p)$ in the service quantity; e.g. $p=$2.5% , then $1+p= $1.025 )), then the new lifespan of new systems of this type only now needs to last more than $(1+p)\cdot t_N - t_N = p \cdot t_N$ longer; let's say the new lifetime is $(1+\epsilon)$ times $t_N$, then $(1+\epsilon)$ is a typical efficiency factor. The fact that it can be "multiplied" every year is undeniable at the beginning - in the long run, of course, worth discussing ((On the question about this "duration": Here Worries about time periods in "200 years" are now irrelevant; within 200 years were will be even wiser solutions again. Youu can't say this for a period of just 10 years - which is why, for example, 'solutions' with previously unresolved disposal problems are to be banned, as long as the disposal has not been resolved.))((There is certainly an objection here from growth policy: Of course, the longer lifespans reduce the growth measured in GDP (and also the material sales). Nevertheless, the overall growth can be //p//, there can be more systems sold - the inventory then increases accordingly. This means that it is actually a real increase in value - while the reduced sales as a result of longer lifespans are in reality only a replacement purchase; in an economic sense, too, the shortening of lifespans is actually not real growth: It simply causes occupational therapy in the treadmill to maintain the status quo maintained - just with more effort. Extending lifespans therefore also means an increase in prosperity economically, because the working time gained can be used for more useful issues or, depending on social priorities, can also be additional free time. This is a typical example of how higher self-interest (namely increased sales of an individual company generated by short lifespans) is not identical with higher benefit for everyone, but on the contrary, it can be counterproductive. This does not have to apply to all the cases at the individual level; only: There is no automatism. Therefore, legal requirements regarding warranty periods and repairability do make sense. //Growth through shortened lifespans is actually false growth, even loss of value. Creating political incentives for this reduces the overall performance of the affected economy.// **This example also shows that GDP, as it is currently measured, is the wrong measure of the actual increase in prosperity, even from an economic point of view. When shorter lifespans are pursued for a growth goal, the result is actually quite the opposite.**)). The amount of material required to be eyploited each year then develops according to \\
+Here we are in for the next surprise: This is a purely mathematical question. If a task is currently completed with a system of useful life $t_N$ and the growth is $p$((factor $(1+p)$ in the service quantity; e.g. $p=.5% , then  +p=  .025)) , then the new lifespan of new systems of this type only now needs to last more than $(1+p)%%\%%cdot t_N - t_N = p %%\%%cdot t_N$ longer; let's say the new lifetime is $(1+%%\%%epsilon)$ times $t_N$, then $(1+%%\%%epsilon)$ is a typical efficiency factor. The fact that it can be "multiplied" every year is undeniable at the beginning - in the long run, of course, worth discussing ((On the question about this "duration": Here Worries about time periods in "200 years" are now irrelevant; within 200 years were will be even wiser solutions again. Youu can't say this for a period of just 10 years - which is why, for example, 'solutions' with previously unresolved disposal problems are to be banned, as long as the disposal has not been resolved.)) ((There is certainly an objection here from growth policy: Of course, the longer lifespans reduce the growth measured in GDP (and also the material sales). Nevertheless, the overall growth can be p , there can be more systems sold - the inventory then increases accordingly. This means that it is actually a real increase in value - while the reduced sales as a result of longer lifespans are in reality only a replacement purchase; in an economic sense, too, the shortening of lifespans is actually not real growth: It simply causes occupational therapy in the treadmill to maintain the status quo maintained - just with more effort. Extending lifespans therefore also means an increase in prosperity economically, because the working time gained can be used for more useful issues or, depending on social priorities, can also be additional free time. This is a typical example of how higher self-interest (namely increased sales of an individual company generated by short lifespans) is not identical with higher benefit for everyone, but on the contrary, it can be counterproductive. This does not have to apply to all the cases at the individual level; only: There is no automatism. Therefore, legal requirements regarding warranty periods and repairability do make sense. Growth through shortened lifespans is actually false growth, even loss of value. Creating political incentives for this reduces the overall performance of the affected economy. This example also shows that GDP, as it is currently measured, is the wrong measure of the actual increase in prosperity, even from an economic point of view. When shorter lifespans are pursued for a growth goal, the result is actually quite the opposite.)) . The amount of material required to be eyploited each year then develops according to
 $\;\displaystyle q=\frac {1+p}{1+\epsilon} < 1 \;$ \\
@@ Zeile 37: / Zeile 39: @@
 First the facts: Let $q$ be a factor with an absolute value smaller than 1. Then the 'infinite sum' (called: geometric series) is\\ \\
 $1+q+q^2+q^3+...$ \\ \\
-a **finite value**. \\ \\
+a **finite value**. If you find the following box with the formulas too challenging, you can skip the box for now and find a more elementary illustration in the [[A_Shoko_sharing_game|page linked here]]. \\ \\
 {{ :grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:geometric_row.png?360|}}
 For this the notation with the sum sign $\sum$ has become common in mathematics:\\ \\
@@ Zeile 51: / Zeile 53: @@
 <WRAP lo> Of course it is clear to me that this does not suit any of the two "camps": not the growth apologists, because they see everything below eternal exponential unlimited growth as unsexy; and not the growth critics, because suddenly a moderate further increase in 'prosperity' seems at least conceivable((What might be quite important if we consider folks on planet Earth, who do still not have access to enough food, clear water and decent education. There is no question that to improve the supply for them will need a growing economy at that site on the planet.)).\\
-Let’s approach these questions with an open mind. It would not be the first time that a simple mathematical analysis actually solves a question that has long been considered 'unsolvable' ((An example is the "squaring of the circle" by Archimedes. Or quantum mechanics of the atomic shells; or the relativistic formulation of mechanics; ... could be continued.)). Yes, technical progress does exist; However, it cannot be forced and we have to use it responsibly. I could always put efficiency gains right back into excessive waste - that's what some people seem to want; It must be clear that this only goes as far as $q<1$ remains valid. But that doesn't mean a "standstill" ((It goes without saying that the sellers of consumables (oil, gas but also cement and steel) would rather sell more rather than less - we shouldn't expect anything else. Not that we should grant all the wishes of that lobby unlimited freedom of interpretation on the questions concerned. Of course, these lobbyists would prefer to see efficiency gains eaten away again and again by additional demand: these larger, heavier cars are an example. That's not an inevitable 'rebound' - it is the result of a hard-working lobby and willing politicians.)). We can grow as much as we honestly and sustainably deserve - and then no non-renewable resources have to be exploited beyound limists. This is sensible economics in the generalized sense; and that is honest prosperity that is sustainably earned. But let's not kid ourselves: we are currently still a long way from such an equilibrium economy - the excessive increase in consumption based on substance has been driven forward for too many decades; We are only gradually becoming aware of this. The change will be strenuous, but it can be done - and we use relevant examples to show how.   </WRAP>\\ \\
+Let’s approach these questions with an open mind. It would not be the first time that a simple mathematical analysis actually solves a question that has long been considered 'unsolvable' ((An example is the "squaring of the circle" by Archimedes. Or quantum mechanics of the atomic shells; or the relativistic formulation of mechanics; ... could be continued.)). Yes, technical progress does exist; However, it cannot be forced and we have to use it responsibly. I could always put efficiency gains right back into excessive waste - that's what some people seem to want; It must be clear that this only goes as far as $q<1$ remains valid. But that doesn't mean a "standstill" ((It goes without saying that the sellers of consumables (oil, gas but also cement and steel) would rather sell more rather than less - we shouldn't expect anything else. Not that we should grant all the wishes of that lobby unlimited freedom of interpretation on the questions concerned. Of course, these lobbyists would prefer to see efficiency gains eaten away again and again by additional demand: these larger, heavier cars are an example. That's not an inevitable 'rebound' - it is the result of a hard-working lobby and willing politicians.)). We can grow as much as we honestly and sustainably deserve - and then no non-renewable resources have to be exploited beyound limists. This is sensible economics in the generalized sense; and that is honest prosperity that is sustainably earned. But let's not kid ourselves: we are currently still a long way from such an equilibrium economy - the excessive increase in consumption based on substance has been driven forward for too many decades; We are only gradually becoming aware of this. The change will be strenuous, but it can be done - and we use relevant examples to show how.   </WRAP>
 ====(4) Is it all just theory?====
 No! This is already in many applications common practice today((The problem is, it's not been followed consequently.)). There is already a lot available on Passipedia: namely, concrete descriptions of the measures that go down to the "construction instructions" that prove to be implementable in practice, at least in the area of the energy system: [[https://passipedia.org/efficiency_now/immediate_measures|efficiency measures]]. The fact that the goals are actually achieved is shown in detail there((It can also be checked with a short rough calculation: the efficiency of the overall system must increase by around 2% per year. That is around 75% savings for the individual measure given if the complete conversion does not take longer than around 50 years. The most important thing is that the individual measure leads to a truly comprehensive improvement: This is the case, for example, when switching to e-traction in vehicles, the specific electricity consumption is then at around 15 kWh/(100 km) and therefor by more than a factor of 4 below today's average consumption (namely over 60 kWh/(100 km) for petrol or diesel). The situation is similar with the change in heating: heat pumps alone bring at least a factor of 2 (electricity generation in winter already included through backup, therefore not 3 or 3.5), the step by step renovations of the buildings bring at least another factor of 2. And, all of this can be completed within around 25 to 35 years get over. If we want it!)).\\ \\
@@ Zeile 61: / Zeile 63: @@
 The rapid expansion of renewable energy is of course part of this: so that the falling demand curve and increasing renewable generation can meet, and not just in 2100((that would be too late)) but around 2050((it is always better to achieve it even faster. Many other useful measures can contribute to this.)).\\ \\
-To offer a little more positive perspective: From around 2050 onwards, 'renewable overproduction' of energy will be possible in this way (beyond the need for services). We could then, for example, put them back into "even faster cars", but I don't think that's the best idea. It is better that we then use this energy surplus to actively remove more CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere; It has long been demonstrated that this is also possible (so-called “direct air capture”, DAC). This will be necessary in order to correct the sins of the past that have already been committed: Today we have already emitted more CO<sub>2</sub> than is good for sustainable development on the planet. If we then make a little more effort, we can still achieve the 1.5°C target by 2100: It would be irresponsible to rely onnly on decisions that won't be made for another 25 years ((Because one thing is also clear: a surplus of renewable energy will only be available from 2050 if the generation is expanded very quickly and if at the same time the efficiency is improved to the extent shown here. DAC will always be a quite small contribution, the main share will have to be increased by efficiency and renewables. This will only work if we **start consistently today** and then stick with it for three decades. Only then, from 2050 onwards, even the small potentuial of DAC will then offer us the chance to change the situation to further improvement.)). However, this consideration shows one thing: solutions that enable a transition to sustainable development do exist. It's not 'all lost' yet.\\ \\
+To offer a little more positive perspective: From around 2050 onwards, 'renewable overproduction' of energy will be possible in this way (beyond the need for services). We could then, for example, put them back into "even faster cars", but I don't think that's the best idea. It is better that we then use this energy surplus to actively remove more CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere; It has long been demonstrated that this is also possible (so-called “direct air capture”, DAC). This will be necessary in order to correct the sins of the past that have already been committed: Today we have already emitted more CO<sub>2</sub> than is good for sustainable development on the planet. If we then make a little more effort, we can still achieve the 1.5°C target by 2100: It would be irresponsible to rely onnly on decisions that won't be made for another 25 years ((Because one thing is also clear: a surplus of renewable energy will only be available from 2050 if the generation is expanded very quickly and if at the same time the efficiency is improved to the extent shown here. DAC will always be a quite small contribution, the main share will have to be increased by efficiency and renewables. This will only work if we **start consistently today** and then stick with it for three decades. Only then, from 2050 onwards, even the small potential of DAC will then offer us the chance to change the situation to further improvement.)). However, this consideration shows one thing: solutions that enable a transition to sustainable development do exist. It's not 'all lost' yet.\\ \\
-<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 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 more than that - and we //can/// always do it: It's just a question of will. </WRAP>
+<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>
-<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, electric traction, countercurrent ovens, longer service lives, ability to repair, prevention instead of accepting damage and much more. This means that within just a few decades we will be diving below the limit that must be reached for sustainable economic activity. From then on, further growth in prosperity, if we want it, can follow the increase in renewable generation; Maybe we'll have found so much fun with the efficiency approaches that we'll continue with them and then create even more room for further growth ((Mind: at the moment, increasing efficiency cannot only be channeled into material increases in sales; after all the above, we now have to come down from the excessive exploitation of nature that has occurred. By the way, the danger of a so-called rebound does not exist in reality: We have already had the topic [[https://passipedia.org/efficiency_now/the_big_picture#rebound_effect|Rebound effect]], but I will create a more general version later. )). For the next 30 to 50 years, the time that matters, the efficiency potential for around 3% efficiency gain every year has already been proven and demonstrated in practice: We have already built houses whose heating energy consumption is negligibly low - and vehicles that can reach 100 km/h using muscle power alone. And we can always improve with all of this, there is no fundamental “best value limit”.</WRAP>\\ \\
+<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, electric traction, countercurrent ovens, longer service lives, ability to repair, prevention instead of accepting damage and much more. This means that within just a few decades we will be diving below the limit that must be reached for sustainable economic activity. From then on, further growth in prosperity, if we want it, can follow the increase in renewable generation; Maybe we'll have found so much fun with the efficiency approaches that we'll continue with them and then create even more room for further growth ((Mind: at the moment, increasing efficiency cannot only be channeled into material increases in sales; after all the above, we now have to come down from the excessive exploitation of nature that has occurred. By the way, the danger of a so-called rebound does not exist in reality: We have already had the topic [[https://passipedia.org/efficiency_now/the_big_picture#rebound_effect|Rebound effect]], but I will create a more general version later. )). For the next 30 to 50 years, the time that matters, the efficiency potential for around 3% efficiency gain every year has already been proven and demonstrated in practice: We have already built houses whose heating energy consumption is negligibly low - and vehicles that can reach 100 km/h using muscle power alone. And we can always improve with all of this, there is no fundamental “best value limit”; or if, that one is extraordinarily small.</WRAP>\\ \\
 \\
+Related: Find an analysis to the so called "Fermi-Paradox": [[A connection to the so called Fermi-Paradox|"Why don't we see highly advanced aliens everywhere around us in the milkyway?"]].
 ====Sources====
-[Statista] Statistisches Bundesamt, dokumentiert in 'statista', Internet-Abruf am 13.12.2023  [[https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1502/umfrage/indexiertes-bruttoinlandsprodukt-der-deutschen-wirtschaft/|Index des Bruttoinlandproduktes bis 2022]]
+[Statista] Statistisches Bundesamt, documented in 'statista', Internet last approached 13.12.2023  [[https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1502/umfrage/indexiertes-bruttoinlandsprodukt-der-deutschen-wirtschaft/|Index of GDP up to 2022 (German)]]