About 70% of our (US) energy usage is for transportation and residential/commercial. Heating and cooling mainly. 3rd world countries developing by buying cars, flying, and adding heaters/air conditioning along with moving to office and retail locations requires lots of energy. Hence your graph.
Once in that situation (first world status), energy usage flattens and even shrinks per capita as the US and other data shows...efficiency is a wonderful thing. Yet magically those economies still grow per capita...the energy-economic link doesn’t hold. Amazing feat that.
Not sure why this is difficult to understand...call me crazy that some low level prof from UCSD may not have all the worlds answers and some mental masturbation exercise he did about projecting life hundreds of years out may be a off because of some pretty wrong/dumb assumptions he made. And have at it if you want to mentally masturbate with him...doesn’t magically fix the large holes in his assumptions.
I prefer to hit up my Scotch stash and find some dumb movie to watch...
And don’t get me started on the “planet’s temperature”...
To be clear, I posted some articles that helped put into words something that already was causing some cognitive dissonance for me. You've called the guy (who I don't know, have never met, and neither have you) dumb, wrong, first-year, low-level etc., which is basically doing the same to me at this point, but whatever.
Question: What are your credentials? Are you a doctorate in physics? What major university department do you supervise? Is your Ameritrade account bigger than Pumpeii's? Does this make you a doctorate in physics? You seem awfully confident.
Long story short, I hoped to spark a fun conversation with this thread, but you've seemed to take it personally. I've read every one of your posts pretty carefully, and in every single point you've made, you've either agreed with the premise without realizing it or projected your own argumentative faults onto the articles/me without realizing it (e.g. "you're moving the goalposts").
Either way, if the planet's temperature isn't a concern to you, I'd rather debate a brick wall. At least they often serve a useful purpose.
Look...the guy is a physicist and glancing through his calculations I don't see anything wrong with those.
My problem with all of these types of analysis is that they don't frame themselves as 'hey look...here is an interesting look at the physical limitation of solar energy we can get'. Instead they delve into fear porn in areas way outside of their expertise, and instead of digging into those they just make broad assumptions that aren't valid in order to validate a point of view.
Between 1600s and late 1800s its not like people were growing their energy usage by leaps and bounds...they burned stuff to stay warm and rode horses. Population grew exponentially so the overall "energy production rate" grew exponentially. You take that population curve which is what that chart is based on and project it out it assumes the US population in 2200 is over 500,000,000,000. I've never, ever, in a million years seen any population forecast that comes close to that...if you have I'd love to see it.
The graph falls apart at the tail end when you look at oil being discovered (late 1800s) and population growth slowing down followed by energy use per capita shrinking since the 1970s...you don't notice on the exponential chart but all the driving forces behind energy usage and growth changed dramatically. Add to that energy is no different than any other market...when its cheap it gets used with little efficiency and when it gets expensive it get rationed.
Ignoring all this pretty basic understanding of the overall energy system over time is what bugs me...apologize if you are offended.
So you didn't click the second link I posted and look at it at all. It's an entire article discussing this very criticism (the U.S. energy curve tapering off).
Besides, he flat out says that recent data tapering was ignored specifically to point out the absurdity of continued growth in energy. You keep focusing on limits of solar, which means you keep missing the point: It does not matter what your source of energy is. The USE of energy generates heat. The earth's capacity to radiate this his into space is limited. Exponential energy growth will boil the earth. End of story. There is no debating that. In fact, the author should be applauded for the choice of solar, as it's the most fair choice to critics of this premise: Solar power does not generate more heat than would otherwise hit the surface of the earth, thus the physical limitation of solar is the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth times the efficiency of the panels. The earth only starts boiling in this scenario when gathering more solar energy than available on the planet's surface.
With the notion of the impossibility of endless energy growth established, the next two links discuss the implications. And I keep pointing out that your refutations keep accidentally agreeing with these premises. For example, nobody in this whole discussion has projected impossibly high U.S. or global population. In fact, the premise is the OPPOSITE: "Now that we've established infinite population growth is impossible, let's explore the implications..." Nobody in this whole discussion has projected infinite energy growth per capita. In fact, the premise is the OPPOSITE: "Now that we've established infinite energy growth (per capita or otherwise) is impossible, let's explore the implications..."
This whole thread, it's come across like you agree with his premises on all counts but disagree with the conclusion. Because you seem to be confused about these premises (you stated right from the top that you merely skimmed, and you clearly didn't even click on one out three links), you've failed so support your disagreement.
Let me summarize the argument very simply, and I'm very interested in your response, as you seem pretty passionate about this:
1.) Population cannot grow forever (you've agreed in this thread). 2.) Energy consumption--per capita or otherwise (which becomes the same thing when population stabilizes)--cannot grow forever because physics. This is true for solar, true for some future cold fusion technology, true for magical unicorn farts. _______________________________________ 3.) If 1 and 2 are true, perpetual economic growth is also impossible.
The basis for the conclusion of this argument is that there are also physical limits to efficiency. Eventually, producing ever more goods will require using ever more energy. The only way to avoid this is for the economy to increasingly value non-physical goods. Driving even deeper...
Population stabilizes at, say 10 billion. Since energy consumption per capita in the U.S. has stabilized, let's say that can continue forever. The rest of the world, though, will need to catch up. Every one of the 10 billion people on earth consuming what the average U.S. citizen does brings total global energy consumption up to over five times what it currently is, multiple doublings.
Consuming that much energy with anything other than renewables gets awfully hot, so lets do what the physicist did and say all this energy is produced by solar (who cares, but it's easier to illustrate the point this way). At current panel efficiency levels, that's covering all of Mexico. At double the efficiency (getting into sci-fi territory), that's covering all of Egypt. Either way, that's quite the endeavor.
So the economy grows until all 10 billion or whatever people on earth can consume energy like a modern American, and then what? Energy consumption per capita either starts to increase again (and there are--admittedly high--physical limits) or economic growth unmoors itself from energy growth. For economic growth to continue at that point, the proportion of non-energy-requiring economic activity must proportionally grow and grow and grow until energy becomes a vanishingly small component of the economy. The physicist posits that this is impossible.
Ok...so I guess we can all agree then that the first article is absurd in all aspects? Look...the calcs are interesting I guess but when they are framed the way they were its hard to take anything from it seriously...looking at the 2nd link it looks like it tries to recover for the absurdity of the initial claims.
The last article you linked does much the same...the earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour than the globe produces in a year. Its tiny...a spec. The idea the market can somehow handle generating the amount of energy the US uses for everybody else in any measurable amount of time in insane. The resources in all aspects don't exist, but more importantly the dynamics for how it happened in the US don't translate. If/when energy prices do go up developing countries won't develop the same way the US did (sprawling suburbs, big cars, big houses...all a function of dirt-cheap energy prices and availability for the US the last 80+ years). As an example the Brits use about 1/3 of the energy per capita the US does. Dynamics there are different.
Most importantly, the energy efficiency in developed countries is improving and will continue to improve...energy usage per capita in first world countries is going down. Which will cap the energy usage of developing countries as the same technologies will cascade down. And as energy gets more expensive that trend will accelerate.
The last part makes no sense either...the argument is now an energy/population/economic one in which somehow if global energy usage isn't growing and global population isn't growing than the leap is that we have to have negative growth? This is the weirdest of all which doesn't follow simple logic...the last 50 years showed economic growth in 1st world countries is not coupled to energy usage (and technically statistics would show them being inversely correlated...). If you dig deeper you will find economic growth is correlated to but not dependent up population growth. You can have a stable or even shrinking population with economic growth...as long as the standard of living is improving, worker productivity is increasing, and new products are being developed in a rate that exceed the population stagnation/shrinkage you will see economic growth generated from it.
And if you screw up policy just print lots of money and call it good...
Ok...so I guess we can all agree then that the first article is absurd in all aspects? Look...the calcs are interesting I guess but when they are framed the way they were its hard to take anything from it seriously...looking at the 2nd link it looks like it tries to recover for the absurdity of the initial claims.
The last article you linked does much the same...the earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour than the globe produces in a year. Its tiny...a spec. The idea the market can somehow handle generating the amount of energy the US uses for everybody else in any measurable amount of time in insane. The resources in all aspects don't exist, but more importantly the dynamics for how it happened in the US don't translate. If/when energy prices do go up developing countries won't develop the same way the US did (sprawling suburbs, big cars, big houses...all a function of dirt-cheap energy prices and availability for the US the last 80+ years). As an example the Brits use about 1/3 of the energy per capita the US does. Dynamics there are different.
Most importantly, the energy efficiency in developed countries is improving and will continue to improve...energy usage per capita in first world countries is going down. Which will cap the energy usage of developing countries as the same technologies will cascade down. And as energy gets more expensive that trend will accelerate.
The last part makes no sense either...the argument is now an energy/population/economic one in which somehow if global energy usage isn't growing and global population isn't growing than the leap is that we have to have negative growth? This is the weirdest of all which doesn't follow simple logic...the last 50 years showed economic growth in 1st world countries is not coupled to energy usage (and technically statistics would show them being inversely correlated...). If you dig deeper you will find economic growth is correlated to but not dependent up population growth. You can have a stable or even shrinking population with economic growth...as long as the standard of living is improving, worker productivity is increasing, and new products are being developed in a rate that exceed the population stagnation/shrinkage you will see economic growth generated from it.
And if you screw up policy just print lots of money and call it good...
You call it absurd, I call it a thought experiment that establishes that a boundary does exist, thus removing that from the debate so the more important question of "what next" can happen.
Efficiency is not the magic bullet. There is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Electric motors and electronics are already 90% efficient. Appliances are approaching maximum theoretical efficiency. There is no perpetual motion machine. Improvements in efficiency do not erase the impact of constant growth--an example being demand for gasoline slightly increasing since 2005 alongside a 25% improvement in average fuel economy. Increases in efficiency lead to flat spots or even dips in energy demand trends, but with growth in demand, the curve will always trend up over time.
As for the market not allowing for everyone on a future overpopulated earth not having the same piece of the energy pie that we do now, that's again another agreement with a premise: The resources don't exist, the climate impact would be disastrous, and more efficient societies will have to emerge. There is some limit to the amount of energy we as a species can put to use before physical constraints get in the way. Couple that with hitting limits to efficiency, and you're at a point where we're asking the economy to grow away without the energy budget growing.
Okay, so it's the year 534 ABD (anno-Ballz-Deep, who somehow becomes Global Emperor after the Big Back Revolt of 2056), and you've reached a global energy ceiling of 200 booglieWatts, and the global GEP (Gross Earth Product) sits at 100 Spacebucks, so it takes two booglieWatts to generate 1 Spacebuck. In 535 ABD, scientists have make a major development in crystaldong fission power, doubling the efficiency of the process, so instead of 50% of the booglieWatts being wasted, only 25% are. Holding the same energy consumption, you can now produce 150 Spacebucks worth of goods. In 536, another doubling of efficiency. Now only 12.5% of the boolgieWatts are wasted, and GWP grows to 175 Spacebucks. Another doubling in efficiency for the geeks in 537, but GWP only grows to 187.5 Spacebucks. Then 193.25. Then 196.625. Then 198.3125.
You get the point: Efficiency isn't the magic salve. Producing physical goods requires energy. Eventually, the economy levels out with the amount of physical goods it creates* or we're discussing an increased reliance on non-physical goods having value. If the value of non-physical goods is to maintain perpetual growth while physical goods don't, eventually a song license costs more than a Ferrari. Or other weird things. Not to say it's not possible, but is that where this is going?
*Steady state is different than "negative growth." In my simplified example above, the economy keeps producing shitloads (Spaceshitloads) of goods, it's just that this number doesn't grow every year. It's a steady state economy vs. one of constant growth. Unfortunately, our entire economy as it is depends on perpetual growth, not just activity. A gozillion dollars in economic activity can occur every year, but if it's not a gozillion*1.08 the following year, this is nooooooot good. Multiple factors are allowing for local markets to continue to grow: The world is still on the steep part of the energy consumption curve, the world is still on the steep part of the energy efficiency improvement curve, and--to a lesser extent--the world population is still growing exponentially. All three ingredients to a growth economy still exist. The Petri dish will fill up someday, though. Probably not in any of our lifetims. Except maybe Race.
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry.
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry.
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry.
And yet bothered to come to the end of what is one of the more intellectually interesting threads I've seen on HCH in a very long time and say you didn't read it? I'm sitting here trying to keep up with them, and you besmirch their contributions so? Come on, man?
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry.
Now Benny.
Quoting yourself?
This is what I’m talking about Ben. We’re serious people here. The Mularkey must be limited.
On my phone...can’t type a novel but think you are off in the weeds again thinking up possible scenarios to make what you want to believe true.
I think you severely, severely underestimate the elasticity of energy usage...in the US we are down 20-30% per capita from our peak, and yet the Brits who on average have a lifestyle at least on par with us use about 1/3 of the energy per capita we use. Price electricity 3x higher here than current prices and you’ll see usage drop...price it 10x and you will see it crater. Have a funny story about Griddy down here if you are interested. Same with gasoline. And you can talk about the energy efficiency of electrical motors all you want but the efficiency of the grid supplying the electricity is only ~33%. It’s the ironic comedy of electric cars...gas-powered cars don’t look too bad when you factor that in.
People do not appreciate how cheap energy/electricity currently is...hell we’ve built a trillion dollar pyramid scheme in cryptocurrency off of wasting it because we don’t know what to do with it. Market forces will force efficiency/corrections long before any of these crazy situations this guy thought up would happen. It’s the beauty of the supply/demand curve.
And yes you can still have economic growth in those situations...it’s just the driving forces for generating and valuing it are completely different than those in a dirt-cheap energy scenario where we currently reside.
On my phone...can’t type a novel but think you are off in the weeds again thinking up possible scenarios to make what you want to believe true.
I think you severely, severely underestimate the elasticity of energy usage...in the US we are down 20-30% per capita from our peak, and yet the Brits who on average have a lifestyle at least on par with us use about 1/3 of the energy per capita we use. Price electricity 3x higher here than current prices and you’ll see usage drop...price it 10x and you will see it crater. Have a funny story about Griddy down here if you are interested. Same with gasoline. And you can talk about the energy efficiency of electrical motors all you want but the efficiency of the grid supplying the electricity is only ~33%. It’s the ironic comedy of electric cars...gas-powered cars don’t look too bad when you factor that in.
People do not appreciate how cheap energy/electricity currently is...hell we’ve built a trillion dollar pyramid scheme in cryptocurrency off of wasting it because we don’t know what to do with it. Market forces will force efficiency/corrections long before any of these crazy situations this guy thought up would happen. It’s the beauty of the supply/demand curve.
And yes you can still have economic growth in those situations...it’s just the driving forces for generating and valuing it are completely different than those in a dirt-cheap energy scenario where we currently reside.
The market cannot defy physics. Energy is elastic until it isn't (and we're nowhere near that point). People in England are crammed onto a small island nation and are therefore advantaged when it comes to being efficient. The U.S. would have 2.5 billion people if it had the population density of the UK. Maybe it will some day, and the per capita energy consumption will reach closer to parity. That doesn't mean the UK possesses magic, and also just means they're closer to theoretical limits of efficiency. You price energy as high as you'd like, and maybe people will drive/fly less (and maybe my wife will learn how to turn off a fucking light when she leaves the room), but people are still going to pay what it takes to eat and not freeze, and those two goals are impossible without energy.
Again, though, if market forces put a stop to energy growth before physical limits are reached, great! Once again, you're helping me out! Are you under the impression that anybody thinks we're going to encircle the sun in solar panels (requiring more material to accomplish than exists on Earth)? That situation was meant to be crazy. Once again, the ultimate reason for a transition to steady energy consumption doesn't matter to the argument. Whether economic growth can continue in spite of this matters.
Question: Is it possible for--over a long enough timeline--energy consumption to be reigned in by high price per unit (supply/demand, as you pointed out) while at the same time the economy as a whole experiences compounding growth? Over 100 years, say, energy gets increasingly precious, price goes up, consumption stays flat, but the economy experiences real (not paper printing) growth of x% per year over that same time period? This is well into the future, technology has advanced, so you're not going to pull a magical efficiency rabbit out of your hat that will do enough heavy lifting to get you x%.
Seems like every time there is a sustained hike in the price of a barrel of oil, we find ourselves in a recession, and yet (as you point out) we're nowhere near scraping the bottom the barrel of energy production capability. So how does that above scenario work? How do you increase the price of energy over a long enough period of time without there being a recession? Conversely, if you can infinitely grow the economy without infinitely growing energy use per capita, wouldn't that make energy arbitrarily cheap, not expensive? I mean, what does Bill Gates care about the price of gas when he's filling up his car? You're talking about a fixed population and exponential economic growth, meaning exponential per capita growth: Enough doublings, and everyone's relatively rich.
Germans a better comparison for you? Economy focused on industrial production with a ton of space and they use half the energy Americans do. But they also developed with energy prices higher than the US so they developed on a different path than we did (and they still subsidize industrial electricity prices to companies to help companies compete). One example...suburbs with everyone driving to work don't exist in the same way in Europe as here...even in the outer towns everyone is packed into the town with train service to move you to the city when needed. Families don't have 3 and 4 cars with Jr getting a car when he turns 16. If gas moves to $8/gallon in the US you will see our economy adapt by moving to that type of model.
You have it in your head the economy is defined by making energy-intensive trinkets and everyone is inflexible in how much energy they use...no amount of data is going to convince you otherwise. We have an economy built on cheap energy...the US is fortunate enough to have energy reserves way beyond almost any other country in the world (sans the middle east). When energy spikes of course its going to harm that economy built on cheap energy...it doesn't mean the economy will never grow again. It just means the economy has to adapt to the new conditions.
You are also talking about theoretical energy limitations that are orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude away from where we are...we will run into a lot more market limitations of supply/demand before we hit any of those.
I will agree with you that if you really want to kill the economy you crank up energy prices and allow industries to move to low-cost energy locations (*cough* China *cough*)...doesn't mean your economy will always be in the tank but you will take a massive permanent hit in the loss of those industries.
Germans a better comparison for you? Economy focused on industrial production with a ton of space and they use half the energy Americans do. But they also developed with energy prices higher than the US so they developed on a different path than we did (and they still subsidize industrial electricity prices to companies to help companies compete). One example...suburbs with everyone driving to work don't exist in the same way in Europe as here...even in the outer towns everyone is packed into the town with train service to move you to the city when needed. Families don't have 3 and 4 cars with Jr getting a car when he turns 16. If gas moves to $8/gallon in the US you will see our economy adapt by moving to that type of model.
You have it in your head the economy is defined by making energy-intensive trinkets and everyone is inflexible in how much energy they use...no amount of data is going to convince you otherwise. We have an economy built on cheap energy...the US is fortunate enough to have energy reserves way beyond almost any other country in the world (sans the middle east). When energy spikes of course its going to harm that economy built on cheap energy...it doesn't mean the economy will never grow again. It just means the economy has to adapt to the new conditions.
You are also talking about theoretical energy limitations that are orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude away from where we are...we will run into a lot more market limitations of supply/demand before we hit any of those.
I will agree with you that if you really want to kill the economy you crank up energy prices and allow industries to move to low-cost energy locations (*cough* China *cough*)...doesn't mean your economy will always be in the tank but you will take a massive permanent hit in the loss of those industries.
Or you provide such ridiculous incentives to individuals/companies that they make the choice to move gradually to alternative energy sources. That keeps the current old 'dirty' energy jobs in place to fuel the rest of the economy.
For example, my household actually took down older model solar panels this past year. They were ugly as sin and the marginal amount of $$$ sold to the power grid was just that, marginal. It would have been a whole different deal if the gubmint came in and said, "we'll buy you a super sweet storage system for pennies on the dollar" because in five years, we're going to blow up a few dams on the Columbia for fishies. But they didn't, and the ugliness of the panels won out over the thousands of dollars to buy a battery storage system.
Either way the gubmint is going to print money - to pay for the incentive or to pay for the carnage of the unemployed.
Unfortunately politicians like trying to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime instead of making a gradual turn. Ergo Biden essentially destroying the domestic oil industry this week (sorry, Tug-like....tried to refrain).
Population density of UK: 712 per square mile Population density of Germany: 622 per square mile Population density of United States: 92 per square mile
One of these things is not like the other.
That being said, the point you're making is correct: It's not just population density. It's also that these parts of the world have built their society in a more efficient way. I'll reiterate, though, that this is irrelevant to the discussion. Even their much higher efficiency uses a boatload of energy per capita. Efficiency approaches 100% but never crosses it, so it cannot allow for perpetual growth.
You have it in your head the economy is defined by making energy-intensive trinkets and everyone is inflexible in how much energy they use...no amount of data is going to convince you otherwise.
There is no data that will convince me because no such data exists yet. When the argument is "reaching physical limitations will force change," any data prior to those limitations being reached is moot. We're still in the heyday for growth, like the middle, profitable period in the ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes always reach saturation at some point and fall apart.
Your main criticism of my argument seems to be that I don't perfectly understand the way the market works. I'll concede that I'm not expert, sure. My primary criticism of your argument is your belief that the same conditions that allow for the growth market to function as it has for the last 200 years will exist forever. You can cite nearly endless data to support this, but all of this data can be explained away by conditions that are temporary. Countries like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia are all in the top-25 in the world in GDP per capita. They can show you nearly endless data on how they can manipulate prices and interest rates and whatever to stimulate growth, and it'll look like it could go on forever. That oil and natural gas is going to run out, though, and they'd better think of something else quickly before becoming worthless piles of sand.
As to the first part of the above quote, this is the question I keep asking: To me, the economy seems to be defined by arbitrary assignment of value that make no sense (GameStop?...), but with some faint connection to actual physical goods. The question becomes whether there are limits to this. How wide can the gap between make believe money and real physical goods go before it blows up? With exponential growth, 7% growth per year means a doubling of the economy every decade. With physical limitation to--as you put it--trinket production, the energy required to do such, and our ability to dispose of the waste from such, how many doublings can the economy experience before 99% of it is just Hardcore Husky being valued at a trillion dollars on some exchange?
You are also talking about theoretical energy limitations that are orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude away from where we are...we will run into a lot more market limitations of supply/demand before we hit any of those.
Fantastic point, and one I've conceded multiple times already. We're not talking about today, tomorrow, possibly our lifetimes, just that it's impossible to avoid if growth continues. That being said, exponential curves get really steep really quickly.
But they way they live in both settings (rural and urban) results in half the energy usage per capita...amazing what gas and electricity prices being 2x does for efficiency and people's behavior.
The last 50 years in the US show you don't need energy growth per capita to still maintain economic growth.
People adapt...its the one constant throughout history. Well, that and people reproduce less and less as they achieve 1st world status.
But they way they live in both settings (rural and urban) results in half the energy usage per capita...amazing what gas and electricity prices being 2x does for efficiency and people's behavior.
The last 50 years in the US show you don't need energy growth per capita to still maintain economic growth.
People adapt...its the one constant throughout history. Well, that and people reproduce less and less as they achieve 1st world status.
Agree on all points. Have never disagreed, in fact.
My question is whether the bolded line can go on forever. Or even another 100 to 200 years. Can the gap between economic growth and energy/physical growth spread to a breaking point?
But they way they live in both settings (rural and urban) results in half the energy usage per capita...amazing what gas and electricity prices being 2x does for efficiency and people's behavior.
The last 50 years in the US show you don't need energy growth per capita to still maintain economic growth.
People adapt...its the one constant throughout history. Well, that and people reproduce less and less as they achieve 1st world status.
Agree on all points. Have never disagreed, in fact.
My question is whether the bolded line can go on forever. Or even another 100 to 200 years. Can the gap between economic growth and energy/physical growth spread to a breaking point?
That seems to be the crux of the theory/discussion.
But they way they live in both settings (rural and urban) results in half the energy usage per capita...amazing what gas and electricity prices being 2x does for efficiency and people's behavior.
The last 50 years in the US show you don't need energy growth per capita to still maintain economic growth.
People adapt...its the one constant throughout history. Well, that and people reproduce less and less as they achieve 1st world status.
Agree on all points. Have never disagreed, in fact.
My question is whether the bolded line can go on forever. Or even another 100 to 200 years. Can the gap between economic growth and energy/physical growth spread to a breaking point?
That seems to be the crux of the theory/discussion.
Comments
Who set it? What did they base it on?
Besides, he flat out says that recent data tapering was ignored specifically to point out the absurdity of continued growth in energy. You keep focusing on limits of solar, which means you keep missing the point: It does not matter what your source of energy is. The USE of energy generates heat. The earth's capacity to radiate this his into space is limited. Exponential energy growth will boil the earth. End of story. There is no debating that. In fact, the author should be applauded for the choice of solar, as it's the most fair choice to critics of this premise: Solar power does not generate more heat than would otherwise hit the surface of the earth, thus the physical limitation of solar is the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth times the efficiency of the panels. The earth only starts boiling in this scenario when gathering more solar energy than available on the planet's surface.
With the notion of the impossibility of endless energy growth established, the next two links discuss the implications. And I keep pointing out that your refutations keep accidentally agreeing with these premises. For example, nobody in this whole discussion has projected impossibly high U.S. or global population. In fact, the premise is the OPPOSITE: "Now that we've established infinite population growth is impossible, let's explore the implications..." Nobody in this whole discussion has projected infinite energy growth per capita. In fact, the premise is the OPPOSITE: "Now that we've established infinite energy growth (per capita or otherwise) is impossible, let's explore the implications..."
This whole thread, it's come across like you agree with his premises on all counts but disagree with the conclusion. Because you seem to be confused about these premises (you stated right from the top that you merely skimmed, and you clearly didn't even click on one out three links), you've failed so support your disagreement.
Let me summarize the argument very simply, and I'm very interested in your response, as you seem pretty passionate about this:
1.) Population cannot grow forever (you've agreed in this thread).
2.) Energy consumption--per capita or otherwise (which becomes the same thing when population stabilizes)--cannot grow forever because physics. This is true for solar, true for some future cold fusion technology, true for magical unicorn farts.
_______________________________________
3.) If 1 and 2 are true, perpetual economic growth is also impossible.
The basis for the conclusion of this argument is that there are also physical limits to efficiency. Eventually, producing ever more goods will require using ever more energy. The only way to avoid this is for the economy to increasingly value non-physical goods. Driving even deeper...
Population stabilizes at, say 10 billion.
Since energy consumption per capita in the U.S. has stabilized, let's say that can continue forever. The rest of the world, though, will need to catch up. Every one of the 10 billion people on earth consuming what the average U.S. citizen does brings total global energy consumption up to over five times what it currently is, multiple doublings.
Consuming that much energy with anything other than renewables gets awfully hot, so lets do what the physicist did and say all this energy is produced by solar (who cares, but it's easier to illustrate the point this way). At current panel efficiency levels, that's covering all of Mexico. At double the efficiency (getting into sci-fi territory), that's covering all of Egypt. Either way, that's quite the endeavor.
So the economy grows until all 10 billion or whatever people on earth can consume energy like a modern American, and then what? Energy consumption per capita either starts to increase again (and there are--admittedly high--physical limits) or economic growth unmoors itself from energy growth. For economic growth to continue at that point, the proportion of non-energy-requiring economic activity must proportionally grow and grow and grow until energy becomes a vanishingly small component of the economy. The physicist posits that this is impossible.
The last article you linked does much the same...the earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour than the globe produces in a year. Its tiny...a spec. The idea the market can somehow handle generating the amount of energy the US uses for everybody else in any measurable amount of time in insane. The resources in all aspects don't exist, but more importantly the dynamics for how it happened in the US don't translate. If/when energy prices do go up developing countries won't develop the same way the US did (sprawling suburbs, big cars, big houses...all a function of dirt-cheap energy prices and availability for the US the last 80+ years). As an example the Brits use about 1/3 of the energy per capita the US does. Dynamics there are different.
Most importantly, the energy efficiency in developed countries is improving and will continue to improve...energy usage per capita in first world countries is going down. Which will cap the energy usage of developing countries as the same technologies will cascade down. And as energy gets more expensive that trend will accelerate.
The last part makes no sense either...the argument is now an energy/population/economic one in which somehow if global energy usage isn't growing and global population isn't growing than the leap is that we have to have negative growth? This is the weirdest of all which doesn't follow simple logic...the last 50 years showed economic growth in 1st world countries is not coupled to energy usage (and technically statistics would show them being inversely correlated...). If you dig deeper you will find economic growth is correlated to but not dependent up population growth. You can have a stable or even shrinking population with economic growth...as long as the standard of living is improving, worker productivity is increasing, and new products are being developed in a rate that exceed the population stagnation/shrinkage you will see economic growth generated from it.
And if you screw up policy just print lots of money and call it good...
Efficiency is not the magic bullet. There is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Electric motors and electronics are already 90% efficient. Appliances are approaching maximum theoretical efficiency. There is no perpetual motion machine. Improvements in efficiency do not erase the impact of constant growth--an example being demand for gasoline slightly increasing since 2005 alongside a 25% improvement in average fuel economy. Increases in efficiency lead to flat spots or even dips in energy demand trends, but with growth in demand, the curve will always trend up over time.
As for the market not allowing for everyone on a future overpopulated earth not having the same piece of the energy pie that we do now, that's again another agreement with a premise: The resources don't exist, the climate impact would be disastrous, and more efficient societies will have to emerge. There is some limit to the amount of energy we as a species can put to use before physical constraints get in the way. Couple that with hitting limits to efficiency, and you're at a point where we're asking the economy to grow away without the energy budget growing.
Okay, so it's the year 534 ABD (anno-Ballz-Deep, who somehow becomes Global Emperor after the Big Back Revolt of 2056), and you've reached a global energy ceiling of 200 booglieWatts, and the global GEP (Gross Earth Product) sits at 100 Spacebucks, so it takes two booglieWatts to generate 1 Spacebuck. In 535 ABD, scientists have make a major development in crystaldong fission power, doubling the efficiency of the process, so instead of 50% of the booglieWatts being wasted, only 25% are. Holding the same energy consumption, you can now produce 150 Spacebucks worth of goods. In 536, another doubling of efficiency. Now only 12.5% of the boolgieWatts are wasted, and GWP grows to 175 Spacebucks. Another doubling in efficiency for the geeks in 537, but GWP only grows to 187.5 Spacebucks. Then 193.25. Then 196.625. Then 198.3125.
You get the point: Efficiency isn't the magic salve. Producing physical goods requires energy. Eventually, the economy levels out with the amount of physical goods it creates* or we're discussing an increased reliance on non-physical goods having value. If the value of non-physical goods is to maintain perpetual growth while physical goods don't, eventually a song license costs more than a Ferrari. Or other weird things. Not to say it's not possible, but is that where this is going?
*Steady state is different than "negative growth." In my simplified example above, the economy keeps producing shitloads (Spaceshitloads) of goods, it's just that this number doesn't grow every year. It's a steady state economy vs. one of constant growth. Unfortunately, our entire economy as it is depends on perpetual growth, not just activity. A gozillion dollars in economic activity can occur every year, but if it's not a gozillion*1.08 the following year, this is nooooooot good. Multiple factors are allowing for local markets to continue to grow: The world is still on the steep part of the energy consumption curve, the world is still on the steep part of the energy efficiency improvement curve, and--to a lesser extent--the world population is still growing exponentially. All three ingredients to a growth economy still exist. The Petri dish will fill up someday, though. Probably not in any of our lifetims. Except maybe Race.
I like the printing press idea, though.
Benny, we tried to make it work. I don't think you're cut from the right cloth to be one of us. It was a good effort; a good try. Hearts were in the right place.
But alas, I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to hang with the Finance bros and sista. Sorry.
I think you severely, severely underestimate the elasticity of energy usage...in the US we are down 20-30% per capita from our peak, and yet the Brits who on average have a lifestyle at least on par with us use about 1/3 of the energy per capita we use. Price electricity 3x higher here than current prices and you’ll see usage drop...price it 10x and you will see it crater. Have a funny story about Griddy down here if you are interested. Same with gasoline. And you can talk about the energy efficiency of electrical motors all you want but the efficiency of the grid supplying the electricity is only ~33%. It’s the ironic comedy of electric cars...gas-powered cars don’t look too bad when you factor that in.
People do not appreciate how cheap energy/electricity currently is...hell we’ve built a trillion dollar pyramid scheme in cryptocurrency off of wasting it because we don’t know what to do with it. Market forces will force efficiency/corrections long before any of these crazy situations this guy thought up would happen. It’s the beauty of the supply/demand curve.
And yes you can still have economic growth in those situations...it’s just the driving forces for generating and valuing it are completely different than those in a dirt-cheap energy scenario where we currently reside.
Again, though, if market forces put a stop to energy growth before physical limits are reached, great! Once again, you're helping me out! Are you under the impression that anybody thinks we're going to encircle the sun in solar panels (requiring more material to accomplish than exists on Earth)? That situation was meant to be crazy. Once again, the ultimate reason for a transition to steady energy consumption doesn't matter to the argument. Whether economic growth can continue in spite of this matters.
Question: Is it possible for--over a long enough timeline--energy consumption to be reigned in by high price per unit (supply/demand, as you pointed out) while at the same time the economy as a whole experiences compounding growth? Over 100 years, say, energy gets increasingly precious, price goes up, consumption stays flat, but the economy experiences real (not paper printing) growth of x% per year over that same time period? This is well into the future, technology has advanced, so you're not going to pull a magical efficiency rabbit out of your hat that will do enough heavy lifting to get you x%.
Seems like every time there is a sustained hike in the price of a barrel of oil, we find ourselves in a recession, and yet (as you point out) we're nowhere near scraping the bottom the barrel of energy production capability. So how does that above scenario work? How do you increase the price of energy over a long enough period of time without there being a recession? Conversely, if you can infinitely grow the economy without infinitely growing energy use per capita, wouldn't that make energy arbitrarily cheap, not expensive? I mean, what does Bill Gates care about the price of gas when he's filling up his car? You're talking about a fixed population and exponential economic growth, meaning exponential per capita growth: Enough doublings, and everyone's relatively rich.
You have it in your head the economy is defined by making energy-intensive trinkets and everyone is inflexible in how much energy they use...no amount of data is going to convince you otherwise. We have an economy built on cheap energy...the US is fortunate enough to have energy reserves way beyond almost any other country in the world (sans the middle east). When energy spikes of course its going to harm that economy built on cheap energy...it doesn't mean the economy will never grow again. It just means the economy has to adapt to the new conditions.
You are also talking about theoretical energy limitations that are orders upon orders upon orders of magnitude away from where we are...we will run into a lot more market limitations of supply/demand before we hit any of those.
I will agree with you that if you really want to kill the economy you crank up energy prices and allow industries to move to low-cost energy locations (*cough* China *cough*)...doesn't mean your economy will always be in the tank but you will take a massive permanent hit in the loss of those industries.
For example, my household actually took down older model solar panels this past year. They were ugly as sin and the marginal amount of $$$ sold to the power grid was just that, marginal. It would have been a whole different deal if the gubmint came in and said, "we'll buy you a super sweet storage system for pennies on the dollar" because in five years, we're going to blow up a few dams on the Columbia for fishies. But they didn't, and the ugliness of the panels won out over the thousands of dollars to buy a battery storage system.
Either way the gubmint is going to print money - to pay for the incentive or to pay for the carnage of the unemployed.
Unfortunately politicians like trying to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime instead of making a gradual turn. Ergo Biden essentially destroying the domestic oil industry this week (sorry, Tug-like....tried to refrain).
Population density of Germany: 622 per square mile
Population density of United States: 92 per square mile
One of these things is not like the other.
That being said, the point you're making is correct: It's not just population density. It's also that these parts of the world have built their society in a more efficient way. I'll reiterate, though, that this is irrelevant to the discussion. Even their much higher efficiency uses a boatload of energy per capita. Efficiency approaches 100% but never crosses it, so it cannot allow for perpetual growth. There is no data that will convince me because no such data exists yet. When the argument is "reaching physical limitations will force change," any data prior to those limitations being reached is moot. We're still in the heyday for growth, like the middle, profitable period in the ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes always reach saturation at some point and fall apart.
Your main criticism of my argument seems to be that I don't perfectly understand the way the market works. I'll concede that I'm not expert, sure. My primary criticism of your argument is your belief that the same conditions that allow for the growth market to function as it has for the last 200 years will exist forever. You can cite nearly endless data to support this, but all of this data can be explained away by conditions that are temporary. Countries like Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia are all in the top-25 in the world in GDP per capita. They can show you nearly endless data on how they can manipulate prices and interest rates and whatever to stimulate growth, and it'll look like it could go on forever. That oil and natural gas is going to run out, though, and they'd better think of something else quickly before becoming worthless piles of sand.
As to the first part of the above quote, this is the question I keep asking: To me, the economy seems to be defined by arbitrary assignment of value that make no sense (GameStop?...), but with some faint connection to actual physical goods. The question becomes whether there are limits to this. How wide can the gap between make believe money and real physical goods go before it blows up? With exponential growth, 7% growth per year means a doubling of the economy every decade. With physical limitation to--as you put it--trinket production, the energy required to do such, and our ability to dispose of the waste from such, how many doublings can the economy experience before 99% of it is just Hardcore Husky being valued at a trillion dollars on some exchange? Fantastic point, and one I've conceded multiple times already. We're not talking about today, tomorrow, possibly our lifetimes, just that it's impossible to avoid if growth continues. That being said, exponential curves get really steep really quickly.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/455825/urbanization-in-germany/ Germans 22.6%
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html US: 19.7%
But they way they live in both settings (rural and urban) results in half the energy usage per capita...amazing what gas and electricity prices being 2x does for efficiency and people's behavior.
The last 50 years in the US show you don't need energy growth per capita to still maintain economic growth.
People adapt...its the one constant throughout history. Well, that and people reproduce less and less as they achieve 1st world status.
My question is whether the bolded line can go on forever. Or even another 100 to 200 years. Can the gap between economic growth and energy/physical growth spread to a breaking point?