Integral Energy: Uniting Mulitple Perspectives on our Thermodynamic World

[DavidM58]

Obviously the title of this discussion is a playful plagiarism of the book on Integral Ecology by Esbjorn-Hargens and Zimmerman. I do believe that the subject of gross physical energy has been woefully under-discussed in the integral community.

A great place to begin is a recent essay by Richard Heinberg that has been received to high acclaim over on the Resilience.org website, which is operated by the Post Carbon Institute, for which Heinberg is a senior analyst. Heinberg has been writing about energy for 12 years, and is the author of books such as Cloning the Buddha: The Moral Impact of Biotechnology; The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies; Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World; Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines; Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis; The End of Growth: Adapting to our New Economic Reality.

In his latest essay, Our Renewable Future, Heinberg demonstrates that he is what I would call an energy realist. He does not demonize the fossil fuel industry, but he clearly lays out the formidable challenges we face as the climate crisis worsens and as easy access to these fuels continues to recede.  Nor does he communicate as would a lobbyist for the renewable energy industry, hyping the benefits and downplaying the problems in this field.

Instead, Heinberg approaches the problems from multiple perspectives and honestly conveys his own biases, and encourages us to broaden our thinking:

I consider myself a renewable energy advocate: after all, I work for an organization called Post Carbon Institute. I have no interest in discouraging the energy transition—quite the contrary. But I’ve concluded that many of us, like Koningstein and Fork, have been asking the wrong questions of renewables. We’ve been demanding that they continue to power a growth-based consumer economy that is inherently unsustainable for a variety of reasons (the most obvious one being that we live on a small planet with finite resources). The fact that renewables can’t do that shouldn't actually be surprising.

What are the right questions? The first, already noted, is: What kind of society can up-to-date renewable energy sources power? The second, which is just as important: How do we go about becoming that sort of society?

As we’ll see, once we begin to frame the picture this way, it turns out to be anything but bleak.

I believe this to be an extremely important essay, and the embedded links provide even more depth, providing a great resource for essential 21st century energy literacy.

- David

Our Renewable Future

by Richard Heinberg, originally published by Post Carbon Institute  | Jan 21, 2015

Or, What I’ve Learned in 12 Years Writing about Energy

(7000 words, about 25 minutes reading time)

Folks who pay attention to energy and climate issues are regularly treated to two competing depictions of society’s energy options.* On one hand, the fossil fuel industry claims that its products deliver unique economic benefits, and that giving up coal, oil, and natural gas in favor of renewable energy sources like solar and wind will entail sacrifice and suffering (this gives a flavor of their argument). Saving the climate may not be worth the trouble, they say, unless we can find affordable ways to capture and sequester carbon as we continue burning fossil fuels.

On the other hand, at least some renewable energy proponents tell us there is plenty of wind and sun, the fuel is free, and the only thing standing between us and a climate-protected world of plentiful, sustainable, “green” energy, jobs, and economic growth is the political clout of the coal, oil, and gas industries (here is a taste of that line of thought).

Which message is right? Will our energy future be fueled by fossils (with or without carbon capture technology), or powered by abundant, renewable wind and sunlight? Does the truth lie somewhere between these extremes—that is, does an “all of the above” energy future await us? Or is our energy destiny located in a Terra Incognita that neither fossil fuel promoters nor renewable energy advocates talk much about? As maddening as it may be, the latter conclusion may be the one best supported by the facts.

If that uncharted land had a motto, it might be, “How we use energy is as important as how we get it.”...

Read the full essay here.

[Ambo Suno]

I think you all might appreciate this succinct 9 minute TED talk about creating a natural environment at home or work in a holistic, ecological-system-honoring way. David M may particularly feel resonance with permacultural principles and sensibilities.

Shubhendu Sharma explains how to build a forest in your back yard - perhaps in 10 years an environment similar to a 100 year old system.

Maybe partly because the speaker is another articulate and clear thinking Indian, I am reminded of Vandana Shiva.

The camera that occasionally pans the audience shows people who are enthralled by this presentation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/shubhendu_sharma_how_to_grow_a_forest_in_y...

[DavidM58]

Thanks Ambo! It might take me a while to get to the video...I still haven't watched the Jonathan Haidt one all the way through yet. But I took a brief look at Sharma's website, and it looks like a very worthwhile project!

In Permaculture, wild forest definitely has value. We talk in terms of zones and sectors, and call this "the wild zone" or "zone 5" - usually located on the outer perimeters of one's property. The zones closer in to the central living area tend to be more cultivated, but we try to apply principles observed in more naturally growing environments to help engender systems that help support one another, much like a forest ecosystem does, but these systems also support humans.  Hence there is often an emphasis on "Edible Forest Gardens."

Just minutes ago my wife took these photos of me with our abundant peach crop. Fortunately no branches have yet broken from the weight of the heavy fruit.

There's an excellent Permaculture documentary entitled "Inhabit" which I highly, highly recommend!

[Ambo Suno]

Great pics, David. Especially cute, you peaking through the leaves and branches and peaches.

I'll watch that video soon. Thx.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I miss the taste of a fresh peach ripe off the vine, grown organically so no fear of pesticides. My mouth waters for one of those.

[Edward theurj Berge]

We are discussing this again on FB IPS in this thread. The topic of that thread is this article: "Peer to peer and the Commons - A matter, energy and thermodynamic perspective."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Solar is the cheapest electricity ever in any technology. And this is the unsubsidized version.

"In April 2016, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) reported that the record low unsubsidized solar energy price was 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), in a March 2016 contract in Mexico. This month, every single bid that Saudi Arabia received for its 300-Megawatt (MW) Sakaka solar project was cheaper than that. The lowest bid price was 1.79 cents/kWh. For context, the average residential price for electricity in the United States is more than six times that, 12 cents/kWh."

[Edward theurj Berge]

Frank Visser's FB thread has a good discussion of this IW article. Following are some posts from that thread:

Brian Eddy: I'm not really interested in critiquing KW on this anymore. I mentioned Wicken's work to him about 12 yrs. ago and he basically dismissed it. The problem for KW is NET (non-equilibrium thermodynamics) throws a big monkey wrench in his larger narrative. I imagine it's a tough place to be after decades of work and to garner such a following....the 'correction' will need to come from elsewhere.

James Moss: Much agreed, its very disappointing he can't take an openness to creative or evolutionary solutions with NET or Wicken, instead of rehashing dogmatic involutionary proposals.

Eddy: Yes, I agree. It's even more disappointing that he misses the opportunity for find something even richer are more exciting than what he's been working with.

NET does not invoke anything related to involutionary givens as KW does, nor even the word 'involution' for that matter. Nor is it an attempt at a TOE as IT is. It is essentially limited to how matter and energy work throughout evolution from a chance/necessity standpoint (i.e. 'Entropy'). In this sense, I like to refer to it as the 'backbone' of evolution. In my onw interpretation and comparison with KW's IT - I cannot see how there can be 'involutionary givens' the way KW uses them - that would make the Kosmos ultimately deterministic and too rigid for playfulness and creativity. Where KW refers to evolution as the 'bottom-up' holonic process feeding into 'involutionary givens' (the top-down pre-given forms), what makes more sense to me is that 'involution' is the collective/social dimension/dynamic of evolution (i.e. not 'top-down' - but outside-in). This would fit with NET and leave room for creativity, playfulness, and chance, within the local thermodynamic constraints entropy (necessity).

[DavidM58]

I think the shortest way of explaining the ground-breaking contribution of  Nobel prize winning physicist Ilya Prigogine is to quote from Fritjof Capra's "The Web of Life," with my additional comments in brackets and at the end.

"In open systems, Bertalanffy [seminal author of "General System Theory"] speculated, entropy (or disorder) may decrease, and the second law of thermodynamics may not apply. He postulated that classical science would have to be complemented by a new thermodynamics of open systems. ...It was the great achievement of Ilya Prigogine, who used a new mathematics to reevaluate the second law by radically rethinking traditional scientific views of order and disorder, which enabled him to resolve unambiguously the two contradictory nineteenth-century views of evolution.

"In open systems, Bertalanffy [seminal author of "General System Theory"] speculated, entropy (or disorder) may decrease, and the second law of thermodynamics may not apply. He postulated that classical science would have to be complemented by a new thermodynamics of open systems. ...It was the great achievement of [Nobel prize winning] Ilya Prigogine, who used a new mathematics to reevaluate the second law by radically rethinking traditional scientific views of order and disorder, which enabled him to resolve unambiguously the two contradictory nineteenth-century views of evolution.

Bertalanffy correctly identified the characteristics of the steady state as those of the process of metabolism, which led him to postulate self-regulation as another key property of open systems. This idea was refined by Prigogine thirty years later in terms of the self-organization of "dissipative structures." "

Prigogine was the author (along with co-author Isabelle Stengers) of some excellent books, such as Order Out of Chaos, From Being to Becoming, and The End of Certainty. Prigogine has been the key inspiration for non-equilibrium thermodynamics (N.E.T.), currently gaining scientific support, and popularized in the book Into the Cool by Schneider and Sagan.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/739368.html

[DavidM58]

Howard T. Odum was a pioneer thinker, a key voice in the development of "systems ecology."  He was able to connect the dots between Energy, Ecology, and Economics, and formed the foundation for the field of "Biophysical Economics," which takes Ecological Economics to the next logical step. He was also a foundational influence on some of the underlying concepts of Permaculture. The books Odum wriote for general audiences are highly recommended: "Energy Basis for Man and Nature" (1976) and "A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies" (2001).

Another of his powerfully influential books was "Environment, Power and Society: The Hierarchy of Energy," first published in 1971. A new edition was completed by some of his top students after Odum passed away from brain cancer in 2002: "Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century" (2007).

From the forward: "Most important, however, Environment, Power, and Society helped many of us to understand the interrelationships of energy and environment and their importance to the well-being of humanity and the planet. His goal was always to gain understanding through unifying rather than dissecting, through aggegating rather than disaggregating. In his life he was constantly engaged in a zealous search for truth and understanding regardless of where that search carried him. H.T. often wrote of his desire to simplify to increase understanding...

[Odum wrote,] "If the bewildering complexity of human knowledge developed in the twentieth century is to be retained and well used, unifying concepts are needed to consolidate the understanding of systems of many kinds and to simplify the teaching of general principles" (Odum, Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology, 1994).

Classic H.T. Odum is condensed in the attached article first published in 1973: "Energy, Ecology, and Economics."  Re-published the following year in 1974 in Mother Earth News to great acclaim: "We had only to glance at this extraordinary document to realize that the paper (originally written at the request of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) is one of the most concise — yet most sweeping — examinations yet made of the real problems of the world. Read it and see for yourself."
Energy%2C%20Ecology%2C%20and%20Economics.pdf

[DavidM58]

The work of Peter Pogany has been discussed numerous times in this thread. I've put together a compilation document that summarizes, in his own words, Pogany's thoughts on the thermodynamic unfolding of recent world history in the sub-epochs he calls Global System 0, Global System 1, Global System 2, and Global System 3. See attachment.

The heart of the document, World History as the Synoptic Narrative of Thermodynamic Unfolding, came originally as part of a 2010 paper called “What’s Wrong with the World? Rationality! A critique of economic an....” It was later published as Appendix B in the book “Havoc: Thy Name is Twenty First Century,” (2015). This paper is based mostly on the last edit printed in “Havoc,” with some additions that come from the original 2010 paper…and various additional quotes at the end.

The potential third global system that Pogany projected as a possibility was thus characterized:

"Long-term world equilibrium -- GS3

 

The thermodynamic interpretation of global history predicts a halt to population and economic expansion for purely physical reasons. This general condition requires a new global system: GS3 – two-level economy/strong multilateralism/mostly government money (maximum reserve banking).

 

Legally binding international agreements on the use of nonrenewable energy and material resources, as well as on harmful emissions, would enlarge the government’s role in economic affairs since administrative methods would be needed to ensure national compliance with globally determined goals. The implied strong multilateralism would split national economies (hence, the world economy) into a free-market and a public authority-dominated sector. While carrying on the best traditions of constructive entrepreneurship, businesses in the first domain would bid for resources and emission rights; joint private-public ownership would prevail in the second one. The state’s substantial holding of private shares would eliminate most, if not all, income taxation.

 

The monetary system would be based on a global currency issued by the global central bank. The world currency would combine the discipline GS1’s gold standard vouchsafed and the flexibility GS2’s fiat money has provided (without the fractional reserve system, which, as will become obvious during the first half of the 21st century, is wholly incompatible with any consciously pursued economic steady state.) Much along the lines proposed by Keynes at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, an international clearing house would keep cross-border trade in equilibrium.

 

Maximum bank reserves would restrict the ability of banks to extend loans. Just as under the prevailing minimum reserve system, some banks in some instances may keep no reserves at all; under the maximum reserve system some banks in some instances might be required to keep 100 percent reserves. While such an arrangement may not eliminate the creation of money through debt, it would certainly change its nature. The consent of depositors would be required to make loans, making financial intermediation once again the modest helper that draws together scattered household savings in order to place them into the hands of bona fide entrepreneurs. “Enterprise,” in the Keynesian sense, would squeeze out “speculation.”

 

The economic role of grass roots communities would increase significantly."

See the attachment for the complete summary paper. 

Michel Bauwens and Jose Ramos also have a very good short summary of Peter Pogany here:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Pulsation_of_the_Commons#Pogany:_the...

Also see my Peter Pogany page at my website:
https://integralpermaculture.wordpress.com/peter-pogany/