Passipedia EN

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: Passipedia - The Passive House Resource » Basics » Energy and ecology » About Growth
basics:energy_and_ecology:about_growth

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
basics:energy_and_ecology:about_growth [2024/10/31 11:04] – yaling.hsiao@passiv.debasics:energy_and_ecology:about_growth [2024/10/31 11:14] (current) – yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
Line 7: Line 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: 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:
  
-((As is always perceived with exponential growth: from a certain point onwards it looks like an explosion ". Meanwhile, in reality, it has always been exponential - but because the absolute values initially seemed small, no one cared at the beginning.))  The historical analysis: Even past growth has not been exponential at all over extended periods.\\ +(1) The historical analysis: Even past growth has not been exponential at all over extended periods.\\ 
-((Of course only if we do not fall victim to a hyper-hype of exaggerated, ill-considered 'quick-quick' interventions))  The role of efficiency factors (such as product lifespans)\\ +(2) The role of efficiency factors (such as product lifespans)\\ 
-((it doesn't work anyway))  Some elementary mathematics: The sum of the infinite geometric series converges - but what does that have to do with growth?\\ +(3) Some elementary mathematics: The sum of the infinite geometric series converges - but what does that have to do with growth?\\ 
-((because it doesn't exist anyway))  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 ====+==== The historical analysis: Even in the past growth has not been exponential over extended periods ====
  
-[{{ :picopen:economic_growth_germany_real_01.png?500|Growth in the past has not been exponential at all; it was pretty much linear. That takes the edge off quite a bit! }}]+[{{ :picopen:economic_growth_germany_real_01.png?550|Growth in the past has not been exponential at all; it was pretty much linear. That takes the edge off quite a bit! }}]
 Percentages are usually communicated regarding economic growth. That's easy to understand - and there's nothing wrong with it. However, the fact that the percentage once measured must then be continued year after year at the same level - that of course does //not follow// from this type of information. This is at the end a question of empirical research: its results exist and are even easily accessible to the general public (given by the statistical offices). An important point must of course be taken into account: for reality, both in terms of prosperity and the required material resources, it is not the nominal gross domestic product (GDP), but rather the inflation-adjusted one that is decisive. The statistical offices are aware of this, which is why the data is available as GDP number series in //real values// [Statista 2023]. The graphic shows this using Germany as an example for the period after World War II. And there are already two surprises: Percentages are usually communicated regarding economic growth. That's easy to understand - and there's nothing wrong with it. However, the fact that the percentage once measured must then be continued year after year at the same level - that of course does //not follow// from this type of information. This is at the end a question of empirical research: its results exist and are even easily accessible to the general public (given by the statistical offices). An important point must of course be taken into account: for reality, both in terms of prosperity and the required material resources, it is not the nominal gross domestic product (GDP), but rather the inflation-adjusted one that is decisive. The statistical offices are aware of this, which is why the data is available as GDP number series in //real values// [Statista 2023]. The graphic shows this using Germany as an example for the period after World War II. And there are already two surprises:
 +
   - Yes, there has been **steady and sustained growth** - except for a few (well-known) short-term dips.   - Yes, there has been **steady and sustained growth** - except for a few (well-known) short-term dips.
   - But that was by no means exponential, but, with a surprisingly convincing correlation, **linear**!\\   - But that was by no means exponential, but, with a surprisingly convincing correlation, **linear**!\\
Line 26: Line 27:
  
  
-====(2) The role of efficiency factors ====+==== The role of efficiency factors ====
  
 Here I am only talking about material and energy efficiency, which is important in this context. The topic of energy efficiency is dealt with in detail on the Passipedia pages, e.g. [[https://passipedia.org/efficiency_now/the_big_picture|here]]. I will therefore take up the topic of material efficiency here. It is often argued that there is “not much to be had” because a certain minimum amount of material for a given task is obvious. Even that is by no means as clear as it seems at first glance. But there is another consideration: namely the length of time that a material once obtained remains in use for this task. It can be very different in length. 'Any' different length? That would be a pretty philosophical discussion: the Voyager space probes, for example, have been on the move since September 1977; and they're still running! I dare to make the bold thesis here: For the practical questions of today, the useful life can be extended 'virtually' arbitrarily, as long as it is not a consumable material. This requires careful consideration - and as a rule the avoidance of any form of "consumption" that does not rely solely on renewable raw materials. As has been shown again and again using the example of energy: Improve efficiency at least to the point that the rate of renewable raw materials is sufficient to cover the consumptive part of sales ((just like every year in the fields as much cabbage grows back as we eat)) . \\  Here I am only talking about material and energy efficiency, which is important in this context. The topic of energy efficiency is dealt with in detail on the Passipedia pages, e.g. [[https://passipedia.org/efficiency_now/the_big_picture|here]]. I will therefore take up the topic of material efficiency here. It is often argued that there is “not much to be had” because a certain minimum amount of material for a given task is obvious. Even that is by no means as clear as it seems at first glance. But there is another consideration: namely the length of time that a material once obtained remains in use for this task. It can be very different in length. 'Any' different length? That would be a pretty philosophical discussion: the Voyager space probes, for example, have been on the move since September 1977; and they're still running! I dare to make the bold thesis here: For the practical questions of today, the useful life can be extended 'virtually' arbitrarily, as long as it is not a consumable material. This requires careful consideration - and as a rule the avoidance of any form of "consumption" that does not rely solely on renewable raw materials. As has been shown again and again using the example of energy: Improve efficiency at least to the point that the rate of renewable raw materials is sufficient to cover the consumptive part of sales ((just like every year in the fields as much cabbage grows back as we eat)) . \\ 
  
-How good is “good enough”? \\ +//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=.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  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 
Line 39: Line 40:
  
  
-====(3) Some math: The sum of the infinite geometric series converges! ====+==== Some math: The sum of the infinite geometric series converges! ====
 This is not new, almost everyone has had it at some point in school - of course not discussed with the practical implications that it has; As is often the case with mathematical findings: Many of them are much more relevant than the mostly dry mathematics lessons make it seem; This can be really exciting in many places!\\ \\ This is not new, almost everyone has had it at some point in school - of course not discussed with the practical implications that it has; As is often the case with mathematical findings: Many of them are much more relevant than the mostly dry mathematics lessons make it seem; This can be really exciting in many places!\\ \\
 First the facts: Let $q$ be a factor with an absolute value smaller than 1. Then the 'infinite sum' (called: geometric series) is\\ \\  First the facts: Let $q$ be a factor with an absolute value smaller than 1. Then the 'infinite sum' (called: geometric series) is\\ \\ 
Line 46: Line 47:
  
 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 [[:basics:energy_and_ecology:about_growth:cholocate_sharing_game|page linked here]]. \\ \\  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 [[:basics:energy_and_ecology:about_growth:cholocate_sharing_game|page linked here]]. \\ \\ 
-{{ :picopen:geometric_row_04.png?400|}}+{{ :picopen:geometric_row_04.png?350|}}
 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:\\ \\ 
 $\;\displaystyle { \sum_{n=0}^\infty {q^n} = \frac{1}{1-q} } \;$ \\ \\  $\;\displaystyle { \sum_{n=0}^\infty {q^n} = \frac{1}{1-q} } \;$ \\ \\ 
Line 58: Line 59:
 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? ====+====  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!)) . \\  \\ Furthermore, there is already empirical experience that we have already highlighted here for two application sectors, namely [[https://passipedia.de/energieeffizienz_jetzt/einfache_dinge|traffic (German)]] and [[https://passipedia.de/energieeffizienz_jetzt/brach_liegende_potentiale|Heating (German)]]. 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!)) . \\  \\ Furthermore, there is already empirical experience that we have already highlighted here for two application sectors, namely [[https://passipedia.de/energieeffizienz_jetzt/einfache_dinge|traffic (German)]] and [[https://passipedia.de/energieeffizienz_jetzt/brach_liegende_potentiale|Heating (German)]].
basics/energy_and_ecology/about_growth.1730369082.txt.gz · Last modified: by yaling.hsiao@passiv.de