Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:growth_discussion [2023/12/14 12:35] – 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 '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 51: @@
 <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?===
+====(4) Is it all just theory?====
-No! This is already common practice today. 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!)).\\ \\
+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 [[/energieeffizienz_jetzt/einfache_dinge|traffic (German)]] and [[/energieeffizienz_jetzt/brach_liegende_potentiale|Heating (German)]].
 |{{:grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:spec_cars_germany.png?366|}}\\ The specific energy requirement of passenger vehicles in Germany from 1990 to 2019 is the measure of the technical in-efficiency of the cars. Until around 2008, efficiency was actually improved by around 1 tenth of a liter per 100 km annually. Since then, practically nothing has happened. This would be a relatively convenient way to solve many problems at the same time.** $q=$0.99 < 1 in this case.** This is technically possible - a battery-electric car only 'needs' around a quarter of the final energy; If the inefficiency of the still existing share of fossil electricity generation is taken into account, consumption is still reduced by more than 50%; The more renewable energy is expanded, the more this approaches less than 30%. And in the end, this 30% can easily be generated completely renewable. |{{:grundlagen:energiewirtschaft_und_oekologie:spec_energy_space_heating_germany.png?366|}}\\ Before 2010, the thermal protection measures introduced in the German building stock were quite successful, as the green dashed trend line 2000-2010 shows. During this period, we averaged around 5 kWh/(m²a) in reduction each year, which was more than 2.7% (annually!); **$q=$0.973 < 1 in this case.** This is technically and economically possible in any case: A properly carried out EnerPHit renovation reduces the heating requirement in each individual case to less than 33 kWh/(m²a), which is on average a reduction to one quarter. Even if we spread these improvements over around 30 years, that's enough to achieve the stated quota - and we obviously did it successfully at exactly this pace between 2000 and 2010.|
-In fact, we have successfully realized $q<1$ in each of these two sectors for over a decade. By the way, each with reduction factors smaller than 100% - 1%. That would then take around 30 (building) or 100 (car) years "alone" - but because sustainable energy production is also being ramped up at the same time, the improved curves for "renewable generation" and "consumption reduced through efficiency" will meet each other in the meantime; This can be achieved within 25 to 30 years - if we make a concerted effort to achieve it. It worked until the lobbyists successfully persuaded us that none of this was necessary ((Attention, cynicism: because Russian gas is so cheap and environmentally friendly <taxonomy!> )). .\\ \\ //So we have already proven that this can be done successfully, even for an entire economy.// However, it is also clear that this does not happen completely automatically and by itself, we have to actively initiate it and then actually carry it out. It's possible - we've already done it successfully once.\\ \\
+In fact, we have successfully realized $q<1$ in each of these two sectors for over a decade. That would then take around 30 (building) or 100 (car) years "alone" - but because sustainable energy production is also being ramped up at the same time, the improved curves for "renewable generation" and "consumption reduced through efficiency" will meet each other in the meantime; This can be achieved within 25 to 35 years - if we make a concerted effort to achieve it. It worked until the lobbyists successfully persuaded us that none of this was necessary((Talking points hat been: "Russian gas is so cheap" and it is "environmentally friendly" <taxonomy!>. Both turned out to be wrong. )). .\\ \\ //So we have already proven that this can be done successfully, even for an entire economy.// However, it is also clear that this does not happen completely automatically and by itself, we have to actively initiate it and then actually carry it out. It's possible - we've already done it successfully once.\\ \\
 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)]]