The mathematical realities of economic growth

[Hermit]

The levelised cost of wind energy ranges fro 3 to 5 cents per kWh. For photovoltaic energy the range is 15 to 22.

OK, but it may still be that, in terms of the mass of material required, it comes out ahead...

Could be. I never looked into that. What I do know that the life expectancy of photovoltaic equipment is very short in comparison to wind turbines. That would have to be part of the equation in any resource requirement per kWh produced.

[JimC]

The levelised cost of wind energy ranges fro 3 to 5 cents per kWh. For photovoltaic energy the range is 15 to 22.

OK, but it may still be that, in terms of the mass of material required, it comes out ahead...

Could be. I never looked into that. What I do know that the life expectancy of photovoltaic equipment is very short in comparison to wind turbines. That would have to be part of the equation in any resource requirement per kWh produced.

20 years is the usual expectation for PV panels, which is pretty good, although I imagine well-maintained turbines should last longer. However, that last point is important - over a lifetime, PV panels require much less maintenance than any other form of electricity generation.

[pErvinalia]

PV panels will actually go longer than that. The 20-25 yr guarantee is for a minimum efficiency (about 80%, I think). After that point you'd do a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it was worth upgrading. The reality is, most people will upgrade their systems well before that, as the growth in performance and reduction in price of new PV is significant.

Anyway, the point Hermit is making is that all these technologies still require base resources and a fair bit of activity (therefore resource use) to construct and maintain. Couple that with the maths in the OP article, and you can see that the mathematics of sustainability show that "sustainability" isn't as clear cut as popularly believed. I haven't actually read the full article yet, I'm only just up to the point where he starts going on about a zero-growth economy. This is usually the point where we turn to fantasy, and hence is why I am an ultimate pessimist. Looking at the comments section, it seems that he envisages a zero-growth model working under capitalism. That's really fruitcake stuff, and makes Mac's "non-predatory" fantasy look like a sensible prediction.

[JimC]

I wonder if the author is discounting the increasing rate of recycling and re-use that is a much bigger phenomenon than it was when I was younger...

[pErvinalia]

Jeez, Jim. Read the article. Same problem as Mac. He specifically does sums on recycling percentages and efficiency increases. This is the eye opening thing about the article. It puts the reality to the 'touchy feeliness' of recycling and efficiency increases and moving to new planets etc. Because of compound growth, most efficiency etc gains are lost very quickly. It only slightly delays the inevitable.

[JimC]

You are getting Scumplesque in your old age, Hanrahan...

[pErvinalia]

[Hermit]

You are getting Scumplesque in your old age, Hanrahan...

Unlike Scumple, rEv has something to go on. Zero growth is not going to happen until the shit hits the fan in a big way. People keep wanting stuff. There are billions of them aspiring to the sort of affluence we in the west take for granted, and looking at the burgeoning economies of the two most populous nations with an equally burgeoning mass of people who are beginning to earn money that is actually better than subsistence level, they'll want their cars, TVs, bigger homes and so forth. That is perfectly understandable.Unfortunately, that means ever increasing depletion of non-renewable resources. Take cars, for example. In order for China and India to equal the per population ownership of cars, 2 billion units must be manufactured.

Yes, they'll keep getting smaller and more efficient, but would you care to calculate how much smaller and more efficient they'll have to be for zero growth to happen, or even just "sustainable growth"? Do keep in mind that the figure for vehicles rolling around in the entire world only just topped the 1 billion mark in 2010 and that the most conservative world population prediction is that it will level out at almost twice the size it is now.

The technologies may be there to fix everything, maybe, but even if it is, implementing on a sufficient scale will take a lot longer than we have available before there'll be drastic and still increasing resource scarcities. Our generation will probably be dead by the time those scarcities will begin to really bite. I doubt the same thing can be said of the next generation or the one after.

[rainbow]

The levelised cost of wind energy ranges fro 3 to 5 cents per kWh. For photovoltaic energy the range is 15 to 22.

OK, but it may still be that, in terms of the mass of material required, it comes out ahead...

Could be. I never looked into that. What I do know that the life expectancy of photovoltaic equipment is very short in comparison to wind turbines. That would have to be part of the equation in any resource requirement per kWh produced.

20 years is the usual expectation for PV panels, which is pretty good, although I imagine well-maintained turbines should last longer. However, that last point is important - over a lifetime, PV panels require much less maintenance than any other form of electricity generation.

You are crazy

Manufacturers don't want things to last. They want them to need replacement, so they can make and sell more.

[macdoc]

. I doubt the same thing can be said of the next generation or the one after.

they said that about whale oil

[macdoc]

For many things...local 3d printing will do to "things" what iTunes did to music.

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/edag-3-d-printed-car/

With an electric power plant .....well you get the picture.

and nearer term

Urbee 2, the 3D-Printed Car That Will Drive Across the Country
It may look like a bean, but the hybrid car Urbee 2 can get hundreds of miles to the gallon—and it's made mostly via 3D printing. In two years, it could become the first such vehicle to drive across the United States.

and



http://bgr.com/2014/05/28/3d-printing-a-house/


and



I'm cautiously optimistic. I see Japan as ahead of the curve with population plummeting, rewilding and highly automated

The trick will be not to kill the ocean and atmosphere in the transition.

[Hermit]

Thanks, Macdoc, but nothing there I don't already know. "We have the technology."

[cronus]

Capitalism is based on endless growth but it is growth which is not substrate dependant. You can buy and sell software/music and other creative stuff which would grow the economy without needing any untoward material consumption. Where some folks go wrong is to imagine it is all about stuff. Then they are often closet Marxists.

[macdoc]

Capitalism is based on endless growth

Completely unwarranted assumption

There are many steady state situations that employ capital and require no growth or expansion to be successful and use capital as a business component

[JimC]

Capitalism is based on endless growth

Completely unwarranted assumption

There are many steady state situations that employ capital and require no growth or expansion to be successful and use capital as a business component

However, "endless growth" has been the dominant model in the past, and largely still is. I still think it is possible for economic growth to occur without much in the way of increasing use of materials and energy, if smart, high-tech solutions are pursued. Whether such a possibility will occur in a real-world future us a different matter...