[p2p-research] two excellent graphs on China's exponentially-growing car culture

[Michel Bauwens]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Jeff Vail <jsvail at gmail.com> wrote:

> Related to this discussion, two excellent graphs on China's
> exponentially-growing car culture:
>
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D9-JNTtRKgs/S0vdasrQxuI/AAAAAAAAAQA/0hh_ByHwoe0/s1600-h/Picture+527.png
>
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_D9-JNTtRKgs/S0vrB3QViKI/AAAAAAAAAQQ/CcvvGCPg-9U/s1600-h/Picture+529.png
>
> Even assuming no limits to growth, the pertinent question becomes "can
> wind/pv (supply) growth keep pace with demand growth"?
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:25 AM, 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
>>> """
>>> The study explores four different scenarios for power consumption and
>>> wind
>>> generation which see, should the growth of the last ten years continue,
>>> the
>>> potential for global wind power generation (accompanied by solar) to
>>> match
>>> that of conventional generation by 2025.
>>> Scenario A: High power consumption and high wind power growth sees
>>> renewables exceed 50 percent of global electricity provision before 2025
>>> with a total demand of 37600 terrawatt-hours (TWh) and wind generation
>>> capacity of 7,500,000 megawatts (MW) worldwide, producing 16400 TWh. Wind
>>>
>>> energy, alongside with solar, would conquer a 50 percent market share of
>>> global new power plant installations by 2019. Global non-renewable power
>>> generation would peak in 2018 and could be phased out completely by 2037.
>>> Scenario B: High power consumption and moderate wind power growth (15.2
>>> percent per year, half the rate historically observed 1998-2007) sees
>>> renewables at 23 percent of global electricity provision in 2025, with a
>>> total demand of 37600 TWh and a wind generation capacity of 1,837,000 MW
>>> worldwide, producing some 4023 TWh (including a non specified amount of
>>> solar). As a result, wind energy would conquer a 50 percent market share
>>> of
>>> global new power plant installations by 2033, alongside with solar.
>>> Scenario C: Moderate power consumption growth (1.8 percent per year) and
>>> high wind power growth sees renewables exceed 65 percent of global
>>> electricity provision in 2025, with a total electricity demand at 27430
>>> TWh
>>> and a wind capacity of 5,212,000 MW worldwide, producing 11,414 TWh. As a
>>>
>>> result, wind energy will conquer a 50 percent market share of global new
>>> power plant installations by 2017, alongside with solar.
>>> Scenario D: Moderate power consumption (1.8 percent per year) and
>>> moderate wind power growth (15.2 percent) sees renewables exceed 31
>>> percent
>>> of global electricity provision in 2025, with a total electricity demand
>>> of
>>> 27430 TWh and a wind generation capacity of 1,837,000 MW worldwide,
>>> producing 4023 TWh. As a result, wind energy will conquer a 50 percent
>>> market share of global new power plant installations by 2026, along with
>>> solar.
>>> """
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But look at this fact:
>>> "US renewable electricity generation hits 13% in April"
>>>
>>> http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2009/07/us_renewable_el.html
>>> "According to Paul Gipe's new book, Wind Energy Basics 2nd Edition, it
>>> would
>>> be entirely plausible for wind power to fully replace all fossil fuel
>>> electricity generation by (approximately) 2025 -- and that allows for an
>>> increase in total electric generation sufficient to convert most of motor
>>>
>>> transport from gasoline to electric vehicles. (Conflict of interest
>>> alert: I
>>> work at Gipe's publisher, Chelsea Green Publishing.)"
>>>
>>> These people have been helping people move to renewables for a long time:
>>> http://www.homepower.com/home/
>>>
>>> Another portal:
>>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/home
>>>
>>> > Perhaps more importantly, though, it is
>>> > precisely this kind of faith in perpetual growth that is at the root of
>>> the
>>> > problems we're currently facing.
>>>
>>> A complete misunderstanding of my point. The growth of renewables to
>>> replace
>>> other things has little to do with economic growth and may even come
>>> about
>>> during a period of decreasing GDP. Was it Kevin Carson who pointed out
>>> first
>>> on the P2P list that a move to sustainability could look like an economic
>>>
>>> collapse?
>>>
>>> > increase in renewable generation will continue *assumes that the
>>> current
>>> > rate of general global economic expansion and increase in energy
>>> consumption
>>> > will continue.
>>>
>>> No, it has little connection. Why should it? I'm talking about real
>>> hardware. Jeff is talking about the false fiat dollar economy. They have
>>> at
>>> best a tenuous connection.
>>>
>>> > new technology was made possible by the general environment of
>>> > growth--precisely the environment that we cannot continue if we ever
>>> hope to
>>> > transition to sustainability.
>>>
>>> This is fuzzy thinking. It now is painting all "growth" (in terms of
>>> change)
>>> as negative. Should the people in materially poor countries not have
>>> access
>>> to telecommunications? Basically, the logical fallacy is working from the
>>>
>>> assumption "growth is evil", without talking about what kind of growth in
>>>
>>> what directions and for whom with what externalities.
>>>
>>> What does "sustainability" even mean? It sounds nice, but not when it is
>>> just used as a defense of a rich/poor status quo, or one that it is high
>>> risk of all sorts of other disasters (asteroid strikes, nuclear war,
>>> robots
>>> out of control, plagues, etc.)
>>>
>>> If we transition to a model of 100% recyclability, as NIST is working
>>> towards (as are many others):
>>> "Sustainable and Lifecycle Information-based Manufacturing"
>>> http://www.mel.nist.gov/programs/slim.htm
>>> then we can produce lots more stuff and recycle it, all "sustainably".
>>>
>>> But, to do that, people need access to tools and information, but it is
>>> the
>>> very access to tools and information like via cell phones that Jeff seems
>>> to
>>> be decrying.
>>>
>>> While the video "The Story of Stuff" makes some good points, it misses
>>> the
>>> idea that better technology that is more energy efficient or more
>>> recyclable
>>> can do more with less (why moving to a new computer monitor from an old
>>> one
>>> -- decried in the video -- might actually save resources, because all of
>>> our
>>> technology has operating costs like electricity or human effort that add
>>> up).
>>> http://www.storyofstuff.com/
>>>
>>> The thing to complain about is negative *externalities*, not "growth" or
>>> "change" by itself.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
>>>
>>> But, I get the feeling this is veering into trying to debunk a religion.
>>>
>>> My credentials in relation to sustainability:
>>> * I helped run an organic farm certification program for NJ in the 1980s.
>>> * I studied stuff on energy and politics in the 1980s.
>>> * I was in a PhD program in ecology and evolution in the early 1990s.
>>> * My wife and I put more than six person years into building a garden
>>> simulator in the 1990s that we gave away for free with source code, to
>>> help
>>> people learn to build their own food.
>>>
>>> I'm not Mr. "Rah Rah" business-as-usual. And to try to paint me as such
>>> is a
>>> complete misunderstanding of the situation.
>>>
>>> > While this is the theoretical fallacy of
>>> > Paul's reliance on exponential growth,
>>>
>>> A claim with absolutely no evidence. Even a brief study of the renewable
>>> field shows this exponential growth has been happening for decades.
>>>
>>> > balance it has enjoyed over the past several decades). This assumption
>>> is
>>> > faulty precisely because the great net-energy levels provided by past
>>> fossil
>>> > fuel production is rapidly declining.
>>>
>>> According to Lester Brown's site, fossil fuel use has essentially
>>> plateaued
>>> over all in the USA and is slightly declining (in relation to the
>>> recession). Fossil fuel use is, unfortunately, still expanding in some
>>> other
>>> countries (like China, burning coal). Renewables still continue to grow
>>> exponentially. See:
>>> "The End of an Era: Closing the Door on Building New Coal-fired Power
>>> Plants
>>> in America "
>>> http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2009/update81
>>>
>>> Anyway, we have centuries of coal we could burn at current rates, so this
>>>
>>> argument in general is misinformed, confusing oil, coal, and natural gas.
>>> As
>>> long as we are willing to tolerate the pollution, we could burn lots of
>>> coal. But, as I said, within twenty or so years at current exponential
>>> growth rates, we will be running almost entirely off of renewables.
>>> Already
>>> there is public sentiment in the USA against new coal plants, as Lester
>>> Brown points out. China is making a major push to renewables. So this
>>> argument about running out of fossil fuel is just silly.
>>>
>>> Further, it takes more electricity to make a gallon of gas than it would
>>> take to make a good electric vehicle go the same distance as as internal
>>> combustion car burning the gas, so overall our electricity use would go
>>> down
>>> if we switched to electric cars and we would not need the oil at all.
>>> http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
>>>
>>> > It's one thing to increase global
>>> > renewable generation by 50% each year when this increase is fueled by
>>> 100:1
>>> > net energy oil and natural gas.
>>>
>>> Energy payback for renewables and energy efficiency ranges, but can be on
>>>
>>> the order of 10 to one to 60 to one. So, even ignoring that we have
>>> centuries of coal, renewables could power their own growth. There are
>>> already renewable energy producers who use renewable energy to make their
>>>
>>> solar panels.
>>>
>>> > It's entirely different to suggest that we
>>> > can continue to maintain these levels of increase when we're relying on
>>> much
>>> > lower net energy fuels, as we are today (approaching 10:1 and
>>> decreasing).
>>>
>>> Again, base on completely flawed premises and analysis.
>>>
>>> > misery, starvation, etc. as the ultimate and indisputable
>>> unsustainability
>>> > of any system predicated on perpetual growth can only "succeed" in
>>> pushing
>>> > the problem on to later generations (a clear moral wrong, in my
>>> opinion).
>>>
>>> Again, just rhetoric and no serious attempt to address the points I
>>> raise.
>>>
>>> Look at the numbers. Freeman Dyson did. Gerard K. O'Neill did. These are
>>> award winning physicists, who say this is possible. Who should I believe,
>>>
>>> award winning physicists saying things that may cause them career
>>> problems
>>> (seeming kooky) or professional doomsters ?
>>>
>>> Basically, if there is not some commercial angle in promoting doomster
>>> thinking, is the author in deep despair? If so, I recommend:
>>> "Vitamin D"
>>> http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
>>> "Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's
>>> Ordeals"
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Nights-Soul-Finding-Through/dp/1592400671
>>> "Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and
>>>
>>> Community in a World Gone Crazy"
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Americas-Depression-Epidemic-Community/dp/1933392711
>>>
>>> But there are also lots more things one can do to improve one's life or
>>> local community (good sleep, eat organic, go vegetarian, fast
>>> occasionally,
>>> meditate, develop new relationships or renew old ones, and so on).
>>>
>>> > these numbers are completely unsupported, and suffer from a number of
>>> > additional methodological flaws. It's important to note that, if these
>>> > unsupported numbers are off, then so is his entire critique.
>>>
>>> OK, it's one guys opinion against what are by now well established
>>> numbers
>>> in that field.
>>>
>>> > A) First, he provides no support for these numbers. while I don't
>>> > think it's fair to expect him to footnote his email,
>>>
>>> People complain when I do, and then they complain when I don't. :-)
>>>
>>> In any case, even if EROI is only 2, that is enough to go all to
>>> renewables.
>>>
>>> > extract and process raw materials, used to transport materials and
>>> finished
>>> > systems, used by the labor, engineering, etc. at each point along the
>>> way,
>>> > etc.
>>>
>>> Oh come on, these are often accounted for in studies. Wind power is
>>> pretty
>>> straight forward to analyze, as most of the energy cost is concrete for
>>> the
>>> pedestal or for making metal or composite turbine blades and structure.
>>>
>>> Here is one discussion on the site you post on it suggests high energy
>>> gains
>>> for wind:
>>> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863
>>>
>>> Here are low/high estimates for PV and those are for *older*
>>> technologies:
>>> http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219
>>> The one called "FLATCON" in 2005 had an EROI approaching 60.
>>>
>>> My estimate of 60 was for thin films with an EROI of about six months, so
>>>
>>> with thirty year life, you get a 60 times payback.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback
>>> "Generally, thin-film technologies - despite having comparatively low
>>> conversion efficiencies - achieve significantly shorter energy payback
>>> times
>>> than conventional systems (often < 1 year).[^ K. L. Chopra, P. D.
>>> Paulson,
>>> and V. Dutta (2004). "Thin-film solar cells: An overview Progress in
>>> Photovoltaics". Research and Applications 12: 69–92.]"
>>>
>>> But you can argue against the extremes, but the factor of thirty or so is
>>>
>>> well established for PV collectors. Now, you may argue the rest of the
>>> system takes energy too, but that payback is so large, and PV can be
>>> mounted
>>> on *existing* structures, so there are lots of places you can get close
>>> to
>>> that 30:1 payback, like on the roofs of homes or commercial buildings.
>>> Structurally integrated PV has been under development, and with a
>>> turnover
>>> in buildings every forty years or so, we can move most of our buildings
>>> to
>>> integrated PV production over the next couple decades at very little
>>> extra
>>> cost as these production technologies improve. Example:
>>> http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=74
>>>
>>> > full "long tail" of energy inputs, and the fact that thin-film still
>>> costs
>>> > more per KWh produced suggests to me that there are great amounts of
>>> > "hidden" energy represented by that cost that have not yet come to
>>> light...
>>>
>>> Well, if you know of no studies, then, what proof do you have that these
>>> costs are significant?
>>>
>>> Besides, as above, wind power seems pretty easy to analyze.
>>>
>>> > arguments of strucutral bias are conclusive, it's my view that, if
>>> anything,
>>> > they tend to exaggerate the EROEI of renewables, though they must be
>>> > evaluated on a source-by-source basis...
>>>
>>> Well, that may be true.
>>>
>>> Again though, the energy embodied in concrete and steel (or whatever a
>>> windmill or solar thermal system uses) seems pretty straightforward to
>>> calculate. And, we already have lots of metal refined that we can melt
>>> down
>>> and reuse for less energy than extraction. We have a massive economy that
>>>
>>> already has lots of materials available to it. The production of newer
>>> lighter cars is making the automotive industry a net *producer* of steel
>>> for
>>> example.
>>>
>>> > C) Third, he fails to account for societal EROEI or Jeavons'
>>> > paradox. Neither wind nor solar energy can plug directly in to our
>>> current
>>> > energy grid and directly displace current fossil fuel consumption.
>>>
>>> Then how are countries like Denmark doing it? Also, their is compressed
>>> air
>>> storage, reverse hydroelectric pumping, and battery banks, not no mention
>>>
>>> many other technologies under development.
>>>
>>> > liquid fuels, substituting renewables requires significant energy
>>> investment
>>> > in grid and point-of-use transition (e.g. converting oil-powered cars,
>>> > ships, trains to electric, building new support infrastructure, etc.).
>>>
>>> Within ten years, almost all cars are turned over. There is about no
>>> extra
>>> cost switching our cars over. We have something like twenty million
>>> unemployed or underemployed people in the USA; there is no shortage of
>>> people who want to do this.
>>>
>>> > current electricity consumption, substituting renewables for coal/gas
>>> > generation requires significant investment in storage, smart-metering,
>>> and
>>> > grid upgrades to balance out intermittancy of generation.
>>>
>>> OK, so labor is involved. What is ignored is that millions of people are
>>> already involved in the energy industry one way or another, and millions
>>> more are looking for work to do. The scale of the resources we have to
>>> solve
>>> these problems is vast.
>>> --
>>> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100208/54799f29/attachment.html>