[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Re: Towards a P2P Thermoeconomic Theory

[marc fawzi]

Discussion re: P2P Thermoeconomic theory

Emlyn (Open Manufacturing):

<<

>
> I think the thrust of your post was that everything ultimately has an
> energy cost.


This doesn't mean that energy can't be so abundant as to be free for
> all practical intents.


>>

There is also the energy cost of maintaining and adapting your energy
production (you CAN forget sunk costs but you cannot orget recurring costs
of maintenance and adapting to meet future needs, i.e. absorbing cost of
R&D, e.g. making upgrades.)

But a lot more profoundly than maintenance and upgrade costs, as you connect
your energy production infrastructure to a Common Grid (SmartGrid) you
absorb part of the cost of maintaining and upgrading the grid.

Or is the world static? does it stop progressing when we feel we had enough?
Do we ever have enough? Do we stop the arrow of progress?  I assume that
progress is part of our struggle against the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and
I'm not sure we're will be ultimately successful unless we continue to
evolve, which brings us to the energy cost of our evolution as a species, on
all levels, which is substantial.

<<

>  Or someone gets local fusion right.
>
>>

Per the thermodyanmic model of the world (as explained above) every piece of
technology has maintenance (up keep) cost as well as adaptation cost (i.e.
R&D cost becomes cost of upgrades)

<<

> I just don't see thermodynamic constraints as being the defining
> feature of a technological economy in our lifetimes. As we learn to
> better harness the energy sources we do have, and better harness the
> sun, it'll look like just the opposite.
>
>>

The argument that I have attempted to make is that we (and everything else)
have a continuous struggle against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you get
your energy from fusion you will still need energy to maintain the fusion
technology, and while that energy can come from the fusion reactor itself
(since it's so efficient) you still need to move that energy to the farmer
who makes the food for the scientist who does the maintenance and upgrades
to the reactor. It's the flow of energy that has to be enabled between all
nodes within an economy, and the idea of tokenizing a universal form of
energy (i.e. electrcity), as we have in the latest P2P Social Currency model
(fyi: the concept of energy tokenization has been made as clear as possible
in v0.76.0 in Common Energy Bank section) allows us to enable energy to flow
from one node to another alongside the flow of goods and services (e.g.
fusion reactor maintenance service is paid for with tokenized electric
energy that the maintenance crew can exchange with the farmer for food)


The issue in P2P theory as far as Thermodynamic is concerned is how do we
assure the flow of energy through all nodes of the economy in such a way
that we get maximum "globally sustainable" productivity from every node. My
thesis is simple: in order for nodes to have maximum "globally sustainable"
productivity they must give and take in equal amount, i.e near unity for
exchange ratio (in energy: e.g. providing service, which costs energy, and
getting paid back in tokenized form of universally utilitarian energy, e.g.
electricity)





> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<openmanufacturing%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20081229/4920249c/attachment.html>