Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T00:48:36.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Thoughts on the Application of Thermodynamics to the Development of Sustainability Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

Timothy G. Gutowski
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dušan P. Sekulić
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Bhavik R. Bakshi
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Bhavik R. Bakshi
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Timothy G. Gutowski
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dušan P. Sekulić
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The term sustainability is used frequently now in many different contexts. For example, in the area of engineering, there have been claims of sustainable products, sustainable manufacturing, sustainable designs, and so forth. Although these uses may be well intended, they actually marginalize the term by implying that just getting better in some way is sustainable. Instead, sustainability needs to be connected to a worldview that encompasses how human society can maintain a good quality of life over a long time. Without this worldview framework, these claims of sustainable this and sustainable that ring hollow. In this context, we are inspired by the work of the authors (mostly economists with biological scientists) of the paper, Arrow et al. [1]. By starting with the well-known statement of sustainability from the UN Brundtland Report [2], they developed a measurable and workable (though controversial) criterion for sustainability.

The Brundtland UN Commission statement on sustainability says, “sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This statement brings up many value-laden issues and at first blush seems unworkable. For example, what is a need for one person could be considered excessive consumption for another. Furthermore, who is to speak for future generations and to articulate their needs? In addition, what development means is of crucial importance, in particular, does development require growth, and if so, what kind.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Heal, G., Levin, S., Mäler, K.-G., Schneider, S., Starrett, D., and, Walker, B.Are we consuming too much?,” J. Econ. Perspect. 18(3), 147–172 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
The Little Green Data Book (World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2007).
Daly, H., “Economics in a full economy,” Sci. Am. 293(3), 100–105 (Sept. 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szargut, J., Ziebik, A., and Stanek, W., “Depletion of the non-renewable natural exergy resources as a measure of the ecological cost,” Energy Convers. Manage. 43, 1149–1163 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciubba, E., “A novel exergetic costing method for determining the optimal allocation of scarce resources,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Contemporary Problems of Thermal Engineering (Technical University of Silesia, Institute of Thermal Technology, Gliwice, Poland, 1998), pp. 311–324.Google Scholar
Sciubba, E., “Cost analysis of energy conversion systems via a novel resource based quantifier,” Energy 28, 457–477 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, G. and Gong, M., “On exergy and sustainable development – Part 1: Conditions and concepts,” Exergy Int. J. 1(3), 128–145 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, M. and Wall, G., “On exergy and sustainable development – Part 2: Indicators and methods,” Exergy Int. J. 1(4), 217–233 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, H. T., “Self-organization, transformity and information,” Science 242, 1132–1139 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, H. T., Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making (Wiley, New York, 1996).
Ayres, R. U., “Eco-thermodynamics: Economics and the second law,” Ecol. Econ. 26, 189–209 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, R. U., “On the life-cycle metaphor: Where ecology and economics diverge,” Ecol. Econ. 48, 425–438 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKay, D., Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air (UIT Cambridge Press, 2008).
Ayres, R. U., “The second law, the fourth law, recycling and limits to growth,” Ecol. Econ. 29, 473–483 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, W. A., “Quantifying global exergy resources,” Energy 31 1685–1702 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smil, V., Energy in Nature and Society (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008), p. 73.Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L., A Scientist Audits the Earth (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 2001).Google Scholar
Harford, T., The Logic of Life (Random House, New York, 2008).Google Scholar
Pastres, R. and Fath, B. D., “Exergy use in ecosystem analysis: Background and challenges,” in Thermodynamics and the Destruction of Resources, edited by B. Bakshi, T. Gutowski, and D. Sekulić (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009).Google Scholar
Bejan, A., Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2006).Google Scholar
Huesemann, M. H., “The limits of technological solutions to sustainable development,” Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 5, 21–34 (2003).Google Scholar
Fath, B. D., “Complementarity of ecological goal functions,” J. Theor. Biol. 208, 493 (2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilley, D. R., “Industrial ecology and ecological engineering: Opportunities for symbiosis,” J. Ind. Ecol. 7(2), 13–32 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban, R. A., Baral, A., Grubb, G. F., Bakshi, B. R., Mitch, W. J., “Towards the sustainability of engineered processes: Designing self-reliant networks of technological-ecological systems,” Comput. Chemi. Eng. 34, 9, 1413–1420 (2010).Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Singh, S., and Bakshi, B. R., “Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, Part I: A critical review,” Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 2232–2242 (2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×