Talk:Thermoeconomics

Why does this article exist?

It appears that both of the vociferous advocates for this article, Sadi Carnot and skip sievert have been blocked. I read through the comments, and I am in agreement with the consensus opinion of many others over the past SEVEN years, e.g.

• "This article is a mess and should be deleted entirely. You just can't pick up an obscure term and then reconstruct a theory / invent a field / pick scientists and name them as participants to the field / just to fill an article. The pity is that people reading this and quoting this will be horribly confused."Seinecle
• "it's completely false to say that Samuelson is a "dominant researcher" in thermoeconomics. He never ever claimed that societies could be considered thermodynamic systems, etc." Rinconsoleao

Also, the Carnegie-Mellon University link has no relevance here, the one that Skip Sievert added. It is a fine web page, explaining basic measurements of time and energy associated with electric power generation, and associated costs. The title of the webpage is "Energy Accounting", and it mentions nothing, nowhere, the word or concept of "Thermoeconomics".

Next, Georgescu-Roegen's work was "back fitted" to support this article:

• "I can't find any evidence that Georgescu-Roegen ever used the term "thermoeconomics". It seems more likely that his work has been claimed, retrospectively, as a foundation for thermoeconomics." per JQ and
• "I have just done a google scholar search, and I would agree with your assessment. The advent of 'thermoeconomics' as defined in this article, seems to have come after Georgescu-Roegen's work, therefore, he could not have been a supporter of 'thermoeconomics'. per User:Lawrencekhoo

Both BillGosset and Hubbardaie raise legitimate and as yet, un-addressed concerns about the suitability of this topic for a Wikipedia article, citing lack of notability.

I removed the designation for the Wiki Physics project, as it is embarrassing to include it, and is unarguably misleading.

Any thoughts, suggestion, about this article? --FeralOink (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a necessary page, and hope it is not deleted. Whether a topic is accepted by academia is not always relevant, as has been shown many times in the past. Many (maybe even most) of the great advances in science and technology were done outside of, or in spite of, academia. This topic is particularly important now that we are approaching the end of the petroleum age, when we don't even know yet if it is thermodynamically feasible to create a substitute energy source like it on the same global scale, although many keep trying with batteries, synthetic fuels, bio-fuels, and the like. A better understanding of the potential futility of that would be great for focusing the world on cutting energy consumption while maintaining or improving the standard of living, instead (another thermodynamic challenge, actually).

What I am driving at is petroleum was created as a relatively low entropy (high availability) substance chock full of portable energy, over millions of years, while the accompanying increase in entropy required by the 2nd Law to create it was also spread out over the same period of time, a lot of which is manifested in folded and crushed geologic formations, the source of the pressure that was part of the creation process. What's the physical effect of the entropy increase (presumably all on the surface of the earth now) if we try to replace petroleum with batteries, biofuels and windmills on a global scale over 1 year, 10 years, or even 1,000 years, orders of magnitude shorter periods of time? If the answer to that isn't directly pertinent to the field of economics, I don't know what is. Please, let's keep the page, and let's expand on it, too. --Old engineer 2 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thermoeconomics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

In my opinion, this article should be suppressed because it does not correspond to any "field" identified in physics or economics. This can be easily seen by a search on a database of scholar journals such as J-Stor (0 hits), and a search on Google will return a vast mix of engineering literature with no unity. THe matter it pretends to cover is already covered in articles such as "thermodynamics" and scattered (as it should be) in others. Seinecle 11:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) In my opinion, you are correct. This article has no basis for existing. The citations don't support it. They refer to other non-traditional forms of economics, or environmental science, or physics. Some are rather very non-traditional, but they exist, have scholarly journals, and various degrees of legitimacy. THIS, however, does not seem to exist as a discipline anywhere, not from what I can discern. It certainly should not be part of the Wiki Physics project, as that is just embarrassing. --FeralOink (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent WP:PROMO additions by IP

Content taken down without justification by user with previous questionable issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Attic_Salt#Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_closure_of_RfC_by_involved_editor_.2B_alteration_of_others.27_talk_page_comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:9184:6E6F:3252:F8EA (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

As per this edit by user:WeakTrain: [1], this material appears to be self-promotional. The link the IP editor provides, asserting "issues with an administrator" is not about my behaviour, as can be checked. Attic Salt (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thermoeconomics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922072349/http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/thermoec.html to http://www.complexsystems.org/abstracts/thermoec.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325075446/http://www.eco.uni-heidelberg.de/ng-oeoe/research/papers/Baumgaertner%202004%20ModEE.pdf to http://www.eco.uni-heidelberg.de/ng-oeoe/research/papers/Baumgaertner%202004%20ModEE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging this page with Econophysics. As far as I can tell, Econophysics is a slightly more general treatment of the same concept. 96.227.134.54 (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Bad idea. Econophysics is not really the same concept, which purports to use models in physics to study problems in economics. Thermoeconomics appears to want to work in the commodity of energy and its consumption as an affect on economics, which is conceptually a different approach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.47.218 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)