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.

[andrew]

Here is a link to their platform: 

http://www.vancouversun.com/liberal+platform+excerpts+point+what+go...

Hopefully I can transition out of my own small painting business and gain employment in one of the legal pot industries . However, I would not be surprised if Trudeau's bosses nix this election promise . Also, unfortunately, there are no accountability laws ; anyone can lie through their teeth to get elected . 

The election from Kenny's meme perspective which I find useful for analytical purposes only ; certainly never to be used in the field, especially in the middle east ! There was a rejection-rightfully so, of toxic blue ; a massive appeal to healthy orange although I don't think we will get it ; an almost complete rejection of green values (we want our toys at any cost and if orange rejects green then orange will fail at being healthy) ; and the odd integrally minded spiritualist commentary (past orange in Canada one only sees New Age woo-woo being asserted ). 

[andrew]

Oh BTW., in Vancouver , if I do get a job in one of the new pot shops I may make enough money to live on the streets ! I am soooooooo excited :))))))

[DavidM58]

Andrew,

Thanks for the link to the Visser article. I'm reading it now - very much relevant to my project regarding Patterns for transition to a world in energy descent. I'm also excited to see Visser linking to another of his articles ("The Two Greatest Experiments of Life: Metabolism and Morphology"), referencing Nick Lane's book "The Vital Question," which I just finished reading.

http://www.integralworld.net/visser88.html

I think all of this fits well under a panentheist umbrella - I share your viewpoint.

andrew said:

I'm hopeful in the short term . If Canada was the only population on earth I would be ecstatic. Anyway, back to Integral ( the meme that is centuries away) here is another thermodynamic discussion: 

http://www.integralworld.net/visser89.html

I clearly see the Integral Schism at play here : Kenny's spiritual pantheism juxtaposed to Visser's spiritual atheism. And as an Integral panentheist i might argue for something like integral theistic emergentism (woohoo). Also arguing philosophically that an intelligent designer doesn't need to be active in matter the way Wilber posits; but possibly completely distinct(transcendent) from matter . Where god might come into play philosophically is at the level of human consciousness; how humans got here is better explained by natural processes that don't need god per se ; or in the way Wilber posits ( his type of immanence ) . Granted , my positing in more akin to the western theological tradition where Wilber is embedded  within the eastern theological tradition with its involution /evolution pantheism.

[Ambo Suno]

Andrew, ditto on David's appreciation of visser's article. Good evocative info and ideas.

[DavidM58]

Yes, I appreciate Visser bringing emphasis to the role of energy, such as this statement: "the origin of complexity cannot be explained without looking carefully at what energy exchanges occur."

There still seems to be a little lack of clarity of the distinction between open, closed, and isolated systems. Note that he quotes Clausius using the "isolated system" term, but then discusses systems as if open and closed are the only alternatives. This topic was discussed earlier in this thread, where I wrote: 

"Everything I've seen on the subject of thermodynamic systems points to the following three classifications: 1) an open system is one that allows both energy and matter to flow into and out of the system. 2) A closed system allows energy to flow in and out, but matter does not flow in or out.  3) An isolated system does not allow either energy or matter to flow in or out.

A human organism is an example of an open system - we take in food, water, and air, and we excrete waste out of our system.  The earth, with energy flow, but no material flow (except for the occasional asteroid, etc.) falls into the "closed" category."

This definition may sound intuitively incorrect, which is why I think people get confused - how can you call it a closed system if energy can flow in and out? Well, I guess this is why we also have the category of isolated - the "fully closed" system.  To confirm, this is what the UC Davis ChemWiki says: "A closed system is a system that exchanges only energy with its surroundings, not matter."

Someone told me the best way to be clear is to use the phrase "in regards to," which I suppose helps those who do not already have a clear understanding of the difference between these three types of thermodynamic systems.  Hence, the human organism is an open system in regards to energy and materials.  The earth is an open system in regards to energy, but closed in regards to matter.

Moving on, I appreciate Visser's full discussion of entropy in relation to Wilber's concept of the Eros emphasis on the winding UP of the universe.  Tim Winton had a very intriguing discussion of this in his paper on The Meaning of Planetary Civilization, where he made a more naturalistic argument of energetic realism, putting Howard T. Odum's concept of the Maximum Power Principle (the winding up) as a proposed fourth law of thermodynamics as a first cause, with the 2nd law of entropy as a consequence, not a driving force. 

I like where Tim is going here, but I argue that one of these isn't over and above the other, but that they act as a kind of polarity/continuum, regulating the expansion and contraction of the universe together as a kind of combined first cause. I briefly mention this in my Navigating Patterns of Transition paper, and flesh it out more fully in the uncompleted alternate paper I did not submit to ITC.

[DavidM58]

There are some who make the argument that the Earth is an open system, because technically, it does exchange matter. However, since the exchange of matter is rare and miniscule (the rare asteroid, etc.), the earth has generally been considered a closed system, not an open system. Some have recently challenged this idea considering " the topics of mass extinctions, transpermia, interplanetary dust and micrometeorites, delivery of complex pre-biotic organics molecules from space, ice ages, small comets and panspermia (Brieterman, Considering the Earth as an Open System).

For most current practical considerations, however, I would still argue we should consider the earth as a closed system.

Why is this important? Because we need to be aware that the earth's resources, for all practical purposes, are finite, and our economic structures tend to approach resources as if they were infinite. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. Also, the earth is not an infinite sink or garbage disposal. All the resources we dissipate accumulate - hence the problems of pollution, greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere, etc

Peter Pogany even argues that we should treat the earth as if it were an isolated system. He realizes this is not technically correct, but makes this argument:

"Economics will eventually have to absorb apodictically that regardless of scientific-technical development and the intensity of entrepreneurial drive, the aggregate, long-run supply of telluric substance-borne free energy is on a path of declining elasticity. To hasten recognition, it would be helpful to consider the Earth an isolated, rather than a closed thermodynamic system. From the perspective of its evolutionary potential, the world is indeed Under the Dome."

[andrew]

Hi David, I don't think you can answer this but I want to put it out there anyway . It concerns Visser's stance on Wilber . Visser must know that in reality science can only remain neutral on questions it is not equipped to answer . Although I have absolutely no problem with any individual coming to personal conclusions about the nature of reality ; I do feel that Visser is being unfair to Wilber in this context . Technically, Wilber could be right about  his spiritual assertions ; but those assertions would always be religious assertions and where I find Wilber problematic in that regard is that Wilber's ideas are better framed in a faith matrix and not asserted dogmatically ( Wilber can't prove spiritual teleology ) . I've also pointed out many times that Wilber's position is more akin to a 'neo-religious metaphysics'. Certainly not post-metaphysical in that regard . 

[DavidM58]

Yes, I think I can agree with this: "Wilber's ideas are better framed in a faith matrix and not asserted dogmatically ( Wilber can't prove spiritual teleology ) ."

And I think Visser brings up some worthwhile criticisms of Wilber, and is also sometimes unfair to Wilber, and sometimes seems too biased against spiritual expressions. I think Wilber is, perhaps even more so, unfair to Visser (Wild West Wyatt Earp episode). 

That's my take, but I haven't read that much of Visser (including the early criticisms that Wilber was responding to).

[andrew]

Thanks man:) Now onto thermodynamics ! It's endlessly frustrating to me to see so many varied interpretations of scientific laws . Visser on one side of a thermodynamic argument and Wilber on another ( winding up ) . I'm persuaded that thermodynamic theory cannot answer the bigger questions on the nature of reality but could and should be one of the foremost education points on the global scale with all the economic and resource limitations that are implied by this science .

How do we get the economic elite to take this seriously ? 

[andrew]

Oh BTW : on this issue Wilber seems to want his cake and eat it too! In big picture thermodynamics he argues one way , but then on the global scale seems to ignore thermodynamics and posits all this 'super' stuff that is able to circumvent this law . 

[DavidM58]

Here's an extended quote from Tim Winton's 2013 ITC paper:

"We will take a slightly different view and propose the so-called 4th law of thermodynamics as an alternative source of naturally situated final causes. In the early twentieth century, when the study of energy in life systems was starting to be explored, Alfred J. Lotka (1922 pp. 147) noted that

It had been pointed out by Boltzmann that the fundamental object of contention in the life-struggle, in the evolution of the organic world, is available energy [energy gradients]. In accord with this observation is the principle that, in the struggle for existence, the advantage must go to those organisms whose energy-capturing devices are most efficient in directing available energy into channels favorable to the preservation of the species.

Now we have a view that is less about the dissipation of energy gradients as an end in itself and much more about how well the organizational forms of dissipative systems (their energy quality or complexity) is suited to compete in the niche specified by an available energy flow (gradient). In order to exist, dissipative systems are driven to continually invest their harvested energy in complexifying (increase their energy quality) in order to maximize their rate of continuing to harvest that energy flow. Their very evolutionary persistent existence (sustainability) depends on it. Howard T. Odum, founder of the discipline of systems ecology, called this requirement the Maximum Power Principle and proposed it as the 4th law of thermodynamics. (Odum, 1995) For Odum, the evolutionary competition to increase the complexity (quality) of dissipative systems was a principle in itself. He coined the term Emergy to denote, and provide a basis for measuring, the total quantity of low-grade energy it takes to create a higher-grade more complex form. Emergy (with an ‘m’) stands for energy memory. 

Rather than viewing the tendency of the universe to seek thermodynamic equilibrium (2^nd law) as a final cause, and thereby making the continued energy transformaties into more and more complex dissipative structures (including, biological, mental, subtle, and causal structures) an enabling byproduct of this process, could we not look at it the other way around?  Could it not be that the fundamental tendency of the cosmos is to expand a huge amount of energy quantity that will transform into smaller but more complex scalar holarchies of evolving energy quality? This makes more logical sense as the expansion comes before the need to reinstate equilibrium. What if the tendency to equilibrium and the entropy so generated is simply the price for winding up complex holarchies? Or, to shift our perspective a little more, what if the 4^th law specifies the habit the cosmos has developed for completing the grand semiotic arch through increasing orders of signification back to its own nondual ground? Could the ‘aliveness’ of energy and its proclivity to ‘wind up’ not be our source of telos or final cause, which is ultimately to return to its own nondual source?"

-          Tim Winton, 2013 (The Meaning of Planetary Civilization: Integral Rational Spirituality and the Semiotic Universe, p. 34-35)

Now here is a teaser from my ITC 2015 paper, somewhat hidden in a footnote (emphasis added): 

"The loss in total quantity of energy for any system or organization to entropy is the price paid for higher quality energy components that represent greater complexification and a resultant ability for increased power. Odum identified this as the Maximum Power Principle[i] of increased order and complexity that allows a system to be competitive in its niche and to accomplish its goals – “maximizing the work rate to the extent that the energy flow will support,” in Winton’s words (2012a)." 

---

[i] Odum proposed that his Maximum Power Principle (MPP) be considered as the 4^th law of thermodynamics (Odum and Odum, 2001). In his ITC 2013 paper on The Meaning of Planetary Civilization, Winton argued that this MPP be considered a final cause in the Aristotelian formation. In a future paper I intend to argue that the MPP and the Maximum Entropy Production Principle (MEPP), connected with the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, be considered together as a final cause, as expressed in the Polarity Patterns of Expansion/Contraction, Concentration/Diffusion, and Order/Chaos. Recognition of such a final cause might help us accept and adapt to a world in energy descent, if we’re able to overcome the challenges associated with final cause arguments (Freeman, 1969).

 

-          David MacLeod, 2015 (Patterns for Navigating the Transition to a World in Energy Descent, p. 6)

[andrew]

From the article I am linking : 

In 1905, French physicist and thermodynamicist Pierre Duhem, a devout Catholic, argued that to draw cosmological or religious consequences from thermodynamics was unjustified. [15]

I quite agree ! 

http://www.eoht.info/page/religious+thermodynamics

I really have no problem with anyone asserting anything about the nature of reality and the kosmos ; but I do find it problematic when people assert theories and ideas based on ones preconceived spiritual and religious notions . Any Integrally ( integrity) informed person must concede preconceived bias where it is applicable when proposing ideas about the nature of things . 

I am in no way suggesting that this is what Odum or David is doing here . Simply stating what I consider an important truism .