Limits to Growth

I wonder if anyone remembers the Meadows study "Limits of Growth", ordered by the Club of Rome in the 70ties? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth

The book says that in a finite world economic growth cannot be infinite. They simulated several scenarios and said that there would be a phase were production and population would go on growing but then there would be a breakdown. They suggested to limit economic and population growth and get a constant economy.

They updated this in 1992 and added the limitation of polution.

Everytime I hear about the economic growth in China (and India ...) this book comes into my mind.

What do you think about it?

In my eyes, it won't end up being a problem because resources are never really 'used up', they're only changed and with enough energy can be changed back again (recycling etc.), so the only constraint to growth, as it has been throughout history, is the amount of energy we can produce.

As resources are used up and become more expensive (supply curve shifting inwards with fixed demand curve), people will be more inclined to explore new ways of extracting that resource that may have been unprofitable before, but now aren't (they're 'on the margin'); for example: oil exploration in Alaska didn't begin until the technology and price were such that it was profitable to do so, likewise there are vast untapped oil reserves in harder to reach places that haven't been exploited because the cost of doing so would be greater than the reveue generated (they are 'beyond/below the margin'). Consequently, it is conceivable, in fact it is almost assured, that when prices and technology rise to a state where it would be profitable to extract carbon from the atmosphere/trees/other plantlife and turn in into oil someone will do it. The same applies for other resources, when it becomes profitable to recycle them, people will.

EDIT: Some will now no doubt be saying that "this isn't growth!", but the the growth would come from the industries doing the recycling and the energy extraction industries (probably mostly nuclear, solar, wind etc.), plus the growth in service and financial industries for the increasing population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrashaholic

In my eyes, it won't end up being a problem because resources are never really 'used up', they're only changed and with enough energy can be changed back again (recycling etc.), so the only constraint to growth, as it has been throughout history, is the amount of energy we can produce.

As resources are used up and become more expensive (supply curve shifting inwards with fixed demand curve), people will be more inclined to explore new ways of extracting that resource that may have been unprofitable before, but now aren't (they're 'on the margin'); for example: oil exploration in Alaska didn't begin until the technology and price were such that it was profitable to do so, likewise there are vast untapped oil reserves in harder to reach places that haven't been exploited because the cost of doing so would be greater than the reveue generated (they are 'beyond/below the margin'). Consequently, it is conceivable, in fact it is almost assured, that when prices and technology rise to a state where it would be profitable to extract carbon from the atmosphere/trees/other plantlife and turn in into oil someone will do it. The same applies for other resources, when it becomes profitable to recycle them, people will.

EDIT: Some will now no doubt be saying that "this isn't growth!", but the the growth would come from the industries doing the recycling and the energy extraction industries (probably mostly nuclear, solar, wind etc.), plus the growth in service and financial industries for the increasing population.

---

Yes, they are looking into extracting oil from around New Zealand now. The only thing stopping that will be the Green Party.

The amount of potential energy that falls on the earth from the sun is immense. The amount that is used effectively is miniscule. OK, so harnessing it all is no easy thing, but it does mean that the potential upper boundry is very high indeed. Then of course further energy could be harvested in space.

Population density is growing. but then if the ppulation density of all the world were that of Manhatten we'd all fit into an area about the size of Texas.

The potential resources in the sea that are seemingly ignored as looking at rocks a long way away is oh so much more interesting is another area where I feel money should be spent. From a source of energy, to food to (stretching things a bit) habitation there is a lot of potential.

One day things will reach a point where growth is not possible, but as time passes the norms will shift which will in turn allow more unexpected growth to occur.

~:smoking:

Energy is unlikely to become a problem. I would advise a quick web-search for something called a Tokamak reactor ... you'll see. It has achieved the proper levels and mixtures for commercially applicable fusion, and with the rising prices of natural energents, it is becoming mighty attractive.

Sure it's expensive to build, but it costs less, apart from some deuterium and tritium it doesn't need any other energents ... and hydogen is, after stupidity, the most common substance in the universe.

Hm, I might have those two mixed up, but it's difficult to know which there is more of, yet.:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Energy is unlikely to become a problem. I would advise a quick web-search for something called a Tokamak reactor ... you'll see. It has achieved the proper levels and mixtures for commercially applicable fusion, and with the rising prices of natural energents, it is becoming mighty attractive.

---

I was of the impression the current reactors could not produce enough energy to sustain themselves.

From what I've read, the Tokamak was able to provide sufficen power for approx. 5000 houses during the experiment using the mixtures required for commercially applicable fusion (namely 50/50 deuterium/tritium, IIRC). Didn't say whether it actually produced enough to sustain the reaction or not, but from what my professor explained, essentially, you need power to start the reaction, and for the magnetic bottle preventing a detonation that would make anyone regreat losing containment (aka, a nuclear device).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

I was of the impression the current reactors could not produce enough energy to sustain themselves.

---

They actually passed the treshhold of producing more energy than the energy required to start the process. I'm not sure how much of that energy they can harness though (it's lower). And I'm not sure if that takes in the energy to maintain the magnetic field.

And they still cannot maintain the process for long.

Quote:

---

, you need power to start the reaction, and for the magnetic bottle preventing a detonation that would make anyone regreat losing containment (aka, a nuclear device).

---

Fusion reactors aren't dangerous for the radiation factor, the radiation is relativly low and the most radioactive parts will be the reactor walls after years of use. The problematic stuff is that the plasma will instantly vaporize anything that it'll come in contact with, until it has cooled down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Fusion reactors aren't dangerous for the radiation factor, the radiation is relativly low and the most radioactive parts will be the reactor walls after years of use. The problematic stuff is that the plasma will instantly vaporize anything that it'll come in contact with, until it has cooled down.

---

Actually, that is exactly how a nuke works. A nuke is simply a fusion reaction unleashed by use of an atomic detonation. Essentially, you strap an A-bomb on a nuke so it can start the chain reaction, which then immediately gets out of control. The residual radiation is from the detonator.

So, we've got the fusion thing down, now only to figure out how to control it properly to prevent ourselves blowing chunks out of the planet every now and then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Actually, that is exactly how a nuke works. A nuke is simply a fusion reaction unleashed by use of an atomic detonation. Essentially, you strap an A-bomb on a nuke so it can start the chain reaction, which then immediately gets out of control. The residual radiation is from the detonator.

So, we've got the fusion thing down, now only to figure out how to control it properly to prevent ourselves blowing chunks out of the planet every now and then.

---

Someone stupid enough to plant the amount of D-T hydrogen needed to get a nuclear blast into the reactor (or very close to it) deserves to die in the blast. I mean expecting to control an energy output of more than 4.184*10^15 watts? Or even 4.2*10^12 watts? 3,5 plants of that size could run the world. ITER is etimated to run with 5*10^8 watts and comercial plants afterwards is planned to run with about 4*10^9 watts, 1000 that's times less energy output.

The A-bomb is only there for the temperature anyway.

I had some lessons about plasma physics some time ago. The fusion is not like a Hiroshima type bomb, it is like a hydrogenbomb. There you have a conventional N-bomb to start the hydrogen reaction.

Cold fusion could supply enough energy and it will be safer and cleaner than the old nuclear plants. However, cold fusion technology is still 20 years from feasibility, and that since 100 years. The more you learn, the more hurdles are found.

The simple basic rule of civilization is that mankind never does anything until we have to. Put in another, more familiar way, necesity really is the mother of invention. Every great paradigm shifting technology has created its own problems which in turn require solution.