Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
34. The issue is energy quality, and work
Sat Feb 16, 2013, 08:44 PM
Feb 2013

Algae use straight single-level photosynthesis - low energy density is the primary hallmark of low energy quality. This is were the issues of emergy analysis and transformity come into play. In order to increase the energy quality it needs to be transformed by successive levels of processing and concentration. A typical empower transformity flow looks like this: sunlight => algae => coal => electricity => computer-driven information.

The higher up the empower scale the system climbs, the more structure is needed to control the work process. Algae don't need much structure, while civilizations need a lot. The (energetically) cheapest, most effective way for a system to gain large amounts of structure and control is to organize as a hierarchy. Hierarchies have limited spans of control at each level, so it's easy for each level to exercise tight control over the energy transformation process of the level below. If every level in the hierarchy exercises control over the operation of the level below (that is, people at every every level buy into the same story of control) the whole enterprise runs more efficiently. And tight hierarchical control = authoritarianism.

This is why H-G societies get by with little structure. They mainly use low-quality energy sources, primarily the direct result of photosynthesis and natural animal growth. As a result they need a lot of territory for the sunlight to do its work. Then agriculture enters the picture and suddenly you need control over things - there are fences to mend, fields to tend, grain to store, animals to herd, food reserves to protect and distribute. So you get the beginnings of hierarchy - farmers, merchants, an authorized-force class to protect the surplus, and somebody to direct the whole operation - like a chieftain or king.

When coal-driven industrialization enters the picture the hierarchy gets deeper and wider: you add factory laborers, managers, factory owners, bankers, more police, merchants, people to transport raw materials, finished products and waste, and whole host of specialties. Dozens of new levels of hierarchy spring up, and the level of control becomes more draconian at each level. Each level lower in the hierarchy gets squeezed harder to maximize their work (or more technically their power production - the transformation of energy per unit of time), while the upper levels who exercise the control avail themselves of the surplus wealth.

It's actually hard for me to see how a large power-maximizing system could work any other way. We could have a system that worked differently, but it wouldn't maximize power. That goal would have to be discarded, and since it's the engine of the whole enterprise, right back to to algae and thunderstorms, it's going to be hard to do. I think it's impossible unless you're prepared to enforce a loss of coherence in the system, which for a complex system means dissolution.

The goal of this system is not to make a good life for people, but to turn as much fuel as possible into work, waste products and waste heat as fast as possible. Over the last 10,000 years the system has evolved into an extremely efficient entropy-maximizing engine, and the last two hundred years have been spectacularly successful in this regard. It sucks to be us, but it is what it is.

Brand is not an authority on this topic kristopher Feb 2013 #1
Of course he's an authority... and he absolutely demolished Jacobsen FBaggins Feb 2013 #9
AGREED!! PamW Feb 2013 #23
I also agree. dumbcat Feb 2013 #43
xkcd... gcomeau Feb 2013 #2
nice phantom power Feb 2013 #3
I'm down for that wtmusic Feb 2013 #5
He is 100% correct dbackjon Feb 2013 #4
No, he isn't. kristopher Feb 2013 #6
I will take your disapproval as a sign I am correct dbackjon Feb 2013 #7
Now that's not fair FBaggins Feb 2013 #12
I like a lot of what Brand has to say, but he's wrong about nuclear. diane in sf Feb 2013 #20
H. T. Odum had something to say about situations like this. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #8
Wouldn't it be great if we could maximize power intake wtmusic Feb 2013 #10
I frankly don't think it's possible. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #11
Energy is available to both of us right now wtmusic Feb 2013 #13
Good questions. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #17
I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful answer wtmusic Feb 2013 #19
One of the most cogent posts I've seen in a long while. Thanks. n/t appal_jack Feb 2013 #21
All of us see the world and try to construct a mental analog, wtmusic Feb 2013 #27
I'll make a strong claim for the simplicity of this framework. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #28
I think that's a bit wonky GG. joshcryer Feb 2013 #14
The global economy is expanding. The world population is still growing. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #15
Yeah, that's the paradox of capitalist development, though. joshcryer Feb 2013 #18
I respectfully disagree. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #22
Capitalism required inequitible development globally. joshcryer Feb 2013 #24
How do you get a scenario where every country grows at the same rate? GliderGuider Feb 2013 #25
Smart primitivists realizing private property is a scam. joshcryer Feb 2013 #29
Wishing up scenarios is one thing. Real life is quite another. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30
There are examples. See the Aka. joshcryer Feb 2013 #31
Remnant low-energy cultures like the Aka, !Kung, Pirahã and Penan GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32
It's hard for me to see how high energy equates authoritarianism. joshcryer Feb 2013 #33
The issue is energy quality, and work GliderGuider Feb 2013 #34
It sucks to be you? wtmusic Feb 2013 #37
Tell it to the laws of thermodynamics. nt GliderGuider Feb 2013 #38
Thermodynamics says nothing about goals wtmusic Feb 2013 #39
OK, how about "ultimate end state"? GliderGuider Feb 2013 #40
How are you defining "waste"? wtmusic Feb 2013 #41
Waste heat = an increase in system disorder = entropy GliderGuider Feb 2013 #42
By the way, thanks for your comment about language. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #44
"low energy density is the primary hallmark of low energy quality" kristopher Feb 2013 #45
Sorry - it's actually low energy "transformity" that's the hallmark of low quality. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #46
Someone, somewhere, will do it cheaper and dirtier with the same energy sources . . . hatrack Feb 2013 #16
Stewart Brand...hadn't heard that name in a while. HooptieWagon Feb 2013 #26
Stewart Brand is a nutjob that makes money bilking RW nutjobs jpak Feb 2013 #35
Thanks for kick wtmusic Feb 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Stewart Brand: Why Enviro...»Reply #34