[p2p-research] the net energy factor and the renewables transition, limits to Fernhout's infinite growth paradigm

[Michel Bauwens]

A interesting reply from Jeff Vail, that remained in my backlog for too
long,

Jeff, thanks for this, I personally agree that only an approach which fully
takes into account externalities, can lead to realistic conclusions,

Both scarcity and abundance have to be maintained in dynamic tension and
'managed together'.

Approaches which only take one polarity in account, fail to see the
complexity of the problem and solution.

I'm wondering what you think of the degrowth movement, could that be
characterized as a 'scarcity-only' approach?

Michel

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Jeff Vail <jsvail at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Michel,
>
> Interesting debate, I wish I had time to make this my full time job!
> Briefly:
>
> I agree with the EInstein quote that few people undrstand exponential
> growth, but I think Paul's respones is only proof that he's not appreciating
> the full implications of exponential growth!  For example, if, as he
> suggests, exponential growth in wind power continues, it won't be long
> before the weight of wind turbines exceeds the mass of the Earth!  More
> fundamentally, his critique does nothing to address the issue that
> exponential growth in wind-turbines is inextricably linked to exponential
> growth in general (economic, population, resource consumption, etc.)--he
> does not address how wind can continue to grow exponentially without the
> associated externalities of growth in general.  Additionally, I
> fundamentally disagree with his artificial separation of "growth" and the
> "externalities" that result from growth--I think these are structurally
> linked, and you cannot manage the externalities (symptom) over the long-term
> without addressing the root cause (growth itself).  He proposes that we
> solve this issue by moving toward a "100% recyclability" paradigm.  That's
> nice science fiction, but it is fundamentally contradicted by the Second Law
> of Thermodynamics, which is precisely why organizations are only "moving
> toward" this ideal, but none have actually gotten there.  As we will always
> fall short of 100% recyclability in the industrial economy, all growth will
> continue to generate additional externalities (these can be reduced, but not
> eliminated).  In reality, we haven't even succeeded in minimizing these
> externalities, but only in offshoring them in the form of population growth,
> poverty, geopolitical unrest, and oppression in the developing world (that's
> "how countries like Denmark are doing it").
>
> Finally, on the EROEI issue, all Paul offers is that "it's one guy's
> opinion against what are now well-established numbers in the field."  I can
> just reverse the wording and come up with an equally unconvincing "appeal to
> authority"!  Paul provides only appeal to authority and no actual sources or
> studies to rebut my critique (or that of the published studies I cite
> to)--if he does so, I will be happy to point out how each of these studies
> (if they even reveal their methodology) fail to account for anything even
> approaching *all energy inputs*.  Finally, he fundamentally fails to
> understand the problem when he says that we can still transition even if the
> EROEI is only 2:1.  With an EROEI of 2, the "Renewables Gap" cannot be
> bridged without a true collapse of the global economy (which will probably
> destroy the manufacturing and economic base required to produce those
> renewables with an EROEI of 2:1).
>
> I don't mean to attack Paul personally, and I certainly don't question his
> intent to do the right thing for humanity, but I think his argument that we
> can "just transition to renewables"--a widespread belief--is very dangerous
> because it will prevent the marshalling of the political will to do anything
> meaningful until we realize after-the-fact the flaws in that approach...
>
> Jeff
>
> As he concedes, "Of course, what we usually see in nature is exponential
> growth to a point, and then a plateau. And then, depending on how things go,
> sometimes another phase of exponential growth. And of course, things do
> collapse sometimes."  That's exactly what I'm arguing will happen, as the
> net-energy prospects of wind (and the need for wind to compete on an equal
> playing field once it becomes more than a boutique industry) decline.
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>  Topic: the net energy factor and the renewables transition, response to
>> Paul<http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/t/9b536e3a927cec55>
>> "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> Jan 12 01:27PM -0500 ^<http:///?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=1qygpcgurkovy#126277c46633b562_digest_top>
>>
>> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> > critique for several reasons:
>>
>> > 1. I agree that Paul's faith in simple exponential growth models is
>> > difficult to take seriously.
>>
>> As Einstein said, most people don't understand exponential growth. More
>> proof Einstein was right. :-)
>>
>> "Wind Power Experiencing Exponential Growth Globally "
>>
>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/01/wind-power-experiencing-exponential-growth-globally-54631
>> """
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100208/718a02fe/attachment.html>