Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2024/10/30 19:42] – [About Growth] wfeist
+++ grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2024/10/31 11:09] (aktuell) – [(2) The role of efficiency factors] yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
@@ Zeile 29: / 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 53: / 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!)).\\ \\