[p2p-research] Scientific American: Does Economics Violate the Laws of Physics?
Tere Vadén
tere.vaden at uta.fi
Thu Oct 29 20:04:57 CET 2009
Here's a great table on EROEI:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/EROImajorfuelsv4.png
The crux of peak oil, as I see it, is that when we compare the EROI of
fossils (oil, coal) to the EROI of solar and nuclear, we see that in
order to gain the same amount of energy profit that we get from fossils
(EROI upwards of 20, even historically close to 100), we will have to
devote a huge amount of labour to solar/nuclear (EROI much less than 10,
mostly less than 5). (I know, the EROI calculations are very shaky and
the EROI of solar can improve.) I personally believe that the EROI of
nuclear is below 1, i.e., it is a way of using, not producing, energy;
if we have to store the waste safely for millenia, the EROI goes through
the floor. (Plus the massive amount of concrete and steel needed to
build a reactor housing pretty much destroys the supposed positive
effect on climate change). One estimate is that we would need 2500
nuclear power plants running without interruption for a year to replace
oil, alone, for a year. Given that it took over 15 years to complete the
last reactor that came online, in 2007, the task seems practically
impossible.
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> I don't mind playing the bad guy...but in fairness, I've never said peak
> oil is bull. I've read the eponymous blog for 3 or more years and am
> definitely a believer.
>
> I do doubt Lovins on nuclear. But I am increasingly of a mind that peak
> uranium is a problem. Regardless, I remain pro-nuclear because the
> greatest threat to humanity is climate change...I am starting to think
> seriously about changing my number one threat to the loss of meaningful
> work...but I make a poor luddite. There are more computers in my house
> than beating hearts...and I have fish.
>
> I don't know how to get at this big issue Paul has really brought to my
> attention...but I think it is real. It is really the obsolescence of
> humanity.
>
> I don't know of Hazel, but anyone who is a friend of ethical markets is
> a friend of mine.
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Michel Bauwens
> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com <mailto:michelsub2004 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Interesting exchange here,
>
> Ryan says, Peak Oil is bull, because Amory Lovins has studied the
> issue; Stan said a few weeks ago, Amory Lovings is bull.
>
> If Amory is bull, then Peak Oil isn't,
>
> If Amory is not bull, then he is right about nuclear energy too,
> that he has studied even more
>
> My take: the difficulties in transitioning towards renewable
> energies are real and have been well studied, also based on the
> historical record of technological progress and energy conversion,
> so descent will likely go faster than re-ascent, leading to a series
> of crises in the transition period. We cannot have a simple magical
> belief that the market and technology will solve this in an easy
> way. And Amory Lovins, while right in my opinion about nuclear
> energy, is over optimistic on the capacity of capitalism to solve
> this fundamental problem.
>
> And indeed, neoclassical economics violates the laws of physics,
> because it assumes infinite growth in a context of unlimited
> resources, or, that the market will magically solve them, and both
> are fundamentally mistaken.
>
> So I must agree with the Scientific American and the author here,
> and I'm sure Hazel Henderson, who has deeply studied the limitations
> of neoclassical economics, would agree, though I think Hazel is
> quite optimistic about the potential of ethical green business, see
> her engagement with the Climate Prosperity Alliance
>
> (quote from Hazel: "
>
> /“Marking the 20th Anniversary of SRI in the Rockies offers more
> than an opportunity to review the hard-won progress of investors to
> prove that socially responsible investing is viable and now clearly
> out-performs traditional mainstream investing. Since the credit
> crises of 2008-2009, we can now assert with confidence that
> investing for long-term sustainability and taking ESG factors as
> material to asset valuation could have actually helped avert these
> crises. We investors are now winning the paradigm battle and cite
> the evidence to show that the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) is
> bunk and by the same token show that the Modern Portfolio Theory
> (MPT), the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and, yes, even the
> sacred tenets of the “rational investor” and the Black-Scholes
> Merton Options Pricing Model will soon be part of history.")/
>
> //
>
> /Michel/
>
>
> Michel
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Paul D. Fernhout
> <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com
> <mailto:pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com>> wrote:
>
> Ryan Lanham wrote:
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-economics-violate-th
>
>
> Too bad I did not know in advance. It was only a couple hours
> from where I live. It might have been interesting to go.
> Although I'd probably end up arguing about abundance being more
> likely if we innovate in a Buck Fuller or Jacque Fresco or other
> way, including move into space in the long term. :-)
>
> But yes, we need a better economics that reflects cybernetic
> principles, and that includes some connection with real current
> resource limits, not some mythical thing called "capital" which
> while including land and machinery, also includes fiat dollars
> of which an infinite number can easily be printed or magicked up
> in the computer.
>
> I totally agree with this from there: "For instance, if a
> squirrel burns energy eating nuts, those nuts had better give
> the squirrel more energy back then it expended, or the squirrel
> will inevitably die. It is a rule that lies at the core of
> studying animal and plant behavior, and human society should be
> looked at no differently, as even technologically complex
> societies are still governed by EROI."
>
> The same thing can be said for tool wear, for energy going into
> making solar panels, and so on.
>
> However, I would dispute the peak oil issue, as per my "Peak
> Whale Oil" post a while back, which would cause endless
> arguments, no doubt, same as here. :-) They are ignoring the
> *exponential* growth of alternative energy, which is why Peek
> Oil will be a non issue, same as Y2K was a non-issue, even if it
> in theory might have ended or greatly harmed industrial
> civilization (like with exploding nuclear plants, or accidental
> weapons launches or the collapse of the power grid and so on)
> had people not spent years working to fix all those bugs before
> the year 2000. But, people did spend those years and all that
> money, because all people are not totally stupid all the time.
> :-) So, one can expect the same for energy alternatives,
> although it might be rougher.
>
> But what is said in that article is:
> ""
> And no amount of technology can fix the problem. Hagens points
> out that oil extraction has evolved by leaps and bounds since
> the early 1900s, and yet companies must expend much more energy
> to get less and less oil than they did back then.
> "It isn't that there's no technology," Hall said. "The question
> is, technology is in a race with depletion, and that's a whole
> different concept. And we think that we can show empirically
> that depletion is winning, because the energy return on
> investment keeps dropping for gas and oil."
> The most pessimistic of the biophysical economics camp sees the
> oil-fueled world economy grinding to a halt soon, possibly
> within 10 years. They are all working to get the message out,
> but not all of them believe their peers in other professions
> will listen.
> """
>
> And that's probably why it was a good thing I did not go. :-)
>
> So given that, the attitude Hall outlines there, like Catton's,
> is IHMO dysfunction, harmful, and unreasonable given the facts
> if people really studied the subject of renewable energy, like
> Amory Lovins' and Hunter Lovins' work in Brittle Power.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
> "Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982
> book by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared
> originally as a Pentagon study, and re-released in 2001
> following the September 11 attacks. The book argues that
> domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption,
> by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil.
> According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible,
> costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is
> rejected by U.S. policy. the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins
> explains that these themes are still very current."
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> Research: http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think
> thank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens;
> http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens;
> http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org <mailto:p2presearch at listcultures.org>
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan Lanham
> rlanham1963 at gmail.com <mailto:rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
> P.O. Box 633
> Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
> Cayman Islands
> (345) 916-1712
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list