The Entropy Barrier: Why Sustainability Demands Space

Павел Абрамович Головинский

ПРЕПРИНТ

Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.

The Entropy Barrier: Why Sustainability Demands Space

П. А. Головинский

2026-03-02

https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3114627

We present a thermodynamic framework for quantifying environmental damage based on the entropy production of open systems. Extending the approach of Golovinski et al. (2023), we derive a universal environmental efficiency coefficient $\eta = C_{\text{market}}/(C_{\text{market}} + C_{\text{entropy}})$, where $C_{\text{entropy}}$ is the cost of compensating the entropy generated throughout the full life cycle of a project. The inequality $\eta < 1$ is shown to be a direct consequence of the second law, analogous to the Carnot limit for heat engines. The methodology is applied to compare solar PV and gas turbine equipment production, revealing that at the manufacturing stage gas turbines appear cleaner ($\eta \approx 0.95$ vs. $0.89$), but full life cycle analysis reverses the advantage in favour of solar, especially under IEA decarbonisation scenarios. We also examine data centre siting: mid latitudes ($\eta=0.79$), polar regions ($\eta=0.88$) and the Moon ($\eta=0.83$); while polar sites are optimal on Earth, only space based centres avoid adding heat to the biosphere, making them globally entropy neutral. Protein production efficiency is compared: beef $\eta \approx 0.10$–$0.15$, poultry $0.35$–$0.45$, plant proteins $0.85$–$0.95$, highlighting the thermodynamic advantage of short trophic chains. Nuclear energy analysis shows that traditional open fuel cycle reactors achieve $\eta \approx 0.68$, whereas the Russian closed cycle “Proryv” (BREST OD 300) reaches $\eta \approx 0.93$ – the highest among all considered technologies. Anthropogenic CO$_2$ emissions are placed in context: they are 140–250 times larger than all volcanic emissions combined, and their continuous growth disrupts Earth’s entropy balance. Two fundamental strategies for dealing with entropic pollution are compared – terrestrial isolation versus active dumping into space. We argue that because Earth’s capacity to absorb entropy is finite, expanding the disposal reservoir into space is not a futuristic speculation but a thermodynamic necessity for sustainable civilisation.

Ссылка для цитирования:

Головинский П. А. 2026. The Entropy Barrier: Why Sustainability Demands Space. PREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3114627

Список литературы

1. [1] Golovinski, P., Diakonova, S., Medvedeva, N. Entropic Environmental Efficiency

2. of Green Energy Transition Technologies. In: XV International Scientific Conference

3. “INTERAGROMASH 2022”. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 574.

4. Springer, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21432-5_162

5. [2] Jakimowicz, A. The role of entropy in the development of economics. Entropy 22,

6. (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/e22040452

7. [3] Bakshi, B.R., Gutowski, T.G., Sekuli´c, D.P. (eds.) Thermodynamics and the Destruction

8. of Resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011). https:

9. //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976049

10. [4] Prigogine, I. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences.

11. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1980)

12. [5] Kondepudi, D., Prigogine, I. Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative

13. Structures. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1998)

14. [6] Nikitenkov, N.N. Synergetics for Engineers. Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk

15. (2009) (in Russian)

16. [7] Schr¨odinger, E. What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge

17. University Press, Cambridge (1944)

18. [8] ScienceDirect. Thermodynamics and Living Systems (2012). https://www.

19. sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/thermodynamics

20. [9] Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge

21. University Press, Cambridge (2000)

22. [10] Plenio, M.B., Vitelli, V. The physics of forgetting: Landauer’s erasure principle and

23. information theory. Contemporary Physics 42, 25-60 (2001). https://doi.org/10.

24. 1080/00107510010018916

25. [11] Fern´andez, J.J. Theoretical optimization of the working properties of spatial thermoradiative

26. cells using the Carnot efficiency. Journal of Applied Physics 125, 103101

27. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5079295

28. [12] Raman, A.P., Anoma, M.A., Zhu, L., Rephaeli, E., Fan, S. Passive radiative cooling

29. below ambient air temperature under direct sunlight. Nature 515, 540-544 (2014).

30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13883

31. [13] Guoqing, L., et al. Ground-mounted photovoltaic solar parks promote land surface

32. cool islands in arid ecosystems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition 1,

33. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rset.2021.100008

34. [14] Ayres, R.U., Nair, I. Thermodynamics and economics. Physics Today 37(11), 62-71

35. (1984). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2915973

36. [15] Smith, E. Thermodynamics of natural selection I-III. Journal of Theoretical Biology

37. 252, 185-220 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.02.010

38. [16] Ludovisi, A. Entropy and ecosystem succession: A theoretical framework. Ecological

39. Modelling 274, 1-11 (2014)

40. [17] Di Maria, F., Sisani, F., Contini, S. Exergy and entropy analysis of waste-to-energy

41. pathways: Towards a sustainable waste management. Waste Management 78, 123-

42. (2018)

43. [18] Ozcan, H., et al. Exergy and sustainability analysis of solar cooling systems. Energy

44. Conversion and Management 276, 116521 (2023)

45. [19] Torres, J.L., et al. Exergy analysis of a gas turbine power plant. Energy Procedia

46. 100, 12-21 (2016)

47. [20] Maalouf, A., et al. Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic panels: A critical review.

48. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 155, 111867 (2022)

49. [21] Sinha, P., et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from photovoltaic and wind electricity

50. generation: A meta-analysis. Nature Energy 9, 45-58 (2024)

51. [22] Nondy, J., et al. Carbon capture and storage costs: A global review. International

52. Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 130, 104012 (2024)

53. [23] IEA.World Energy Outlook 2025. International Energy Agency, Paris (2025). https:

54. //www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025

55. [24] IEA. Energy and AI: Energy Demand from AI. In: World Energy Outlook 2025

56. (2025). https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai

57. [25] ASHRAE. Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments, 5th edn. American

58. Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta (2021)

59. [26] Avgerinou, M., Bertoldi, P., Castellazzi, L. Trends in Data Centre Energy Consumption

60. under the European Code of Conduct for Data Centre Energy Efficiency.

61. Energies 13, 3210 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123210

62. [27] Shehabi, A., et al. United States Data Center Energy Usage Report. Lawrence Berkeley

63. National Laboratory, Berkeley (2016)

64. [28] Gilmore, D.G. (ed.) Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, Vol. I: Fundamental

65. Technologies, 2nd edn. Aerospace Press, El Segundo (2002)

66. [29] Space Exploration Stack Exchange. Cooling electronics on the Moon (2019). https:

67. //space.stackexchange.com/questions/37340 (accessed 2025)

68. [30] Heiken, G.H., Vaniman, D.T., French, B.M. (eds.) Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide

69. to the Moon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)

70. [31] ASCEND. Advanced Space Cloud for European Net zero emission and Data

71. sovereignty (2022). https://www.ascend-h2020.eu (accessed 2025)

72. [32] ISRO. Concept study for space-based data centers. Indian Space Research Organisation,

73. Bangalore (2022)

74. [33] FAO. Pathways Towards Lower Emissions: A Global Assessment of the Greenhouse

75. Gas Emissions and Mitigation Options from Livestock Agrifood Systems. Food and

76. Agriculture Organization, Rome (2023). https://www.fao.org/documents/card/

77. en/c/cc9029en

78. [34] FAO. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agrifood Systems: Global,

79. Regional and Country Trends, 2001–2023. FAO Statistical Yearbook

80. (2025). https://www.fao.org/statistics/highlights-archive/

81. highlights-detail/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-agrifood-systems.

82. -global--regional-and-country-trends--2001-2023/en

83. [35] Joly, F., et al. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from meat production:

84. A gradient from poultry to beef. Science of the Total Environment 804, 150123

85. (2022)

86. [36] Michaelian, K. Entropy production and the origin of life: A thermodynamic perspective.

87. Entropy 24(3), 388 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/e24030388

88. [37] Jennings, R.C., et al. Thermodynamic efficiency of photosystem I: Evidence for nearunity

89. quantum yield and low entropy production. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta -

90. Bioenergetics 1859(5), 345-356 (2018)

91. [38] Ferrari, A., et al. Water footprint and carbon emissions of plant-based proteins vs.

92. meat. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 178, 106078 (2022)

93. [39] EarthShift Global. Life cycle assessment of plant-based meat alternatives: A comparative

94. analysis. Report for Good Food Institute (2024)

95. [40] Habib, N., Khan, M.A. Emission intensity of milk and meat production in Pakistan:

96. A comparative analysis with global averages. Journal of Animal Science 96(Suppl 3),

97. 112-119 (2018)

98. [41] Mavroeidis, A., et al. Soil tillage effects on carbon footprint of wheat and maize

99. cultivation in Mediterranean conditions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

100. 360, 108765 (2024)

101. [42] Rosatom. Proryv Project: Breakthrough Technologies for Nuclear

102. Energy – Update on BREST-OD-300. Rosatom Technical Report,

103. Moscow (2026). https://rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news/

104. rosatom-starts-pilot-operation-of-a-fuel-fabrication-facility-for-the-brest-od-300-(Dec 2025 update; extend to 2026 progress).

105. [43] Szargut, J., Stanek, W. Thermo-ecological cost analysis of nuclear power plants.

106. Energy 117, 369-377 (2016)

107. [44] Stanek, W., et al. Exergy analysis of nuclear power plant within the whole life cycle.

108. Energy 117, 369-377 (2016)

109. [45] Kubi´nski, W.R., Ostrowski, J.K., Fornalski, K.W. Entropy evolution in nuclear fuel

110. rods under deep burnup conditions. Entropy 26(12), 1124 (2024). https://doi.org/

111. 10.3390/e26121124

112. [46] Nuclear Engineering International. The Brest Fast Reactor (2025). https://www.

113. neimagazine.com/analysis/the-brest-fast-reactor

114. [47] World Nuclear News. Fourth Shell of BREST-OD-300 Peripheral Cavity

115. Installed (2026). https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/

116. fourth-shell-of-brest-od-300-peripheral-cavity-installed

117. [48] Koomey, J., Berard, S., Sanchez, M., Wong, H. Implications of historical trends in the

118. electrical efficiency of computing. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 33(3),

119. 46-54 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2010.28

120. [49] Vernadsky, V.I. A few words about the noosphere. Uspekhi Sovremennoi Biologii

121. 18(2), 113-120 (1944) (in Russian) [English translation available in: Vernadsky, V.I.

122. Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon. Nongovernmental Ecological V.I.

123. Vernadsky Foundation, Moscow (1997)]

124. [50] NOAA Climate.gov. Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes

125. or human activities? (based on Gerlach, T., 2011, and Burton et

126. al., 2013). https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/

127. which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities (accessed

128. 2025)

129. [51] Gerlach, T. Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide. EOS, Transactions

130. American Geophysical Union 92(24), 201-202 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1029/

131. 2011EO240001

132. [52] Gerlach, T. Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic CO2: An Example of the Importance of

133. Geoscience Evidence. AGU Fall Meeting Abstract PA21A-06 (2011)

134. [53] Werner, C., et al. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Subaerial Volcanic Regions. In:

135. Orcutt, B., Daniel, I., Dasgupta, R. (eds.) Deep Carbon: Past to Present, pp. 188-

136. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2019)

137. [54] IEA. Global Methane Tracker 2025. International Energy Agency, Paris (2025).

138. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2025

139. [55] NASA. Vital Signs – Methane. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/

140. methane/ (accessed 2025)

141. [56] ESA. Top 10 persistent methane sources (Sentinel-5P data). European Space Agency.

142. https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/

143. Sentinel-5P/Top_10_persistent_methane_sources (accessed 2025)

144. [57] NCEO. Natural methane emissions. National Centre for Earth Observation.

145. https://www.nceo.ac.uk/our-research/atmosphere-and-land-emissions/

146. methane/natural-methane-emissions/ (accessed 2025)

147. [58] MAWEB. How Much Greenhouse Gas Does A Volcano Emit? (2025)

148. [59] Young, J.T. Is the entropy law relevant to the economics of natural resource scarcity?

149. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21(2), 169–179 (1991). https:

150. //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/009506969190040P

151. [60] Daly, H.E. Steady-State Economics: Second Edition with New Essays. Island Press,

152. Washington, DC (1991).

153. [61] Daly, H.E. Ecological Economics in Four Parables. Real-World Economics Review

154. 102, 1–12 (2022). https://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue102/Daly

155. [62] IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution ofWorking

156. Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report (2022). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/

157. sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/

158. [63] USGS. Volcanoes Can Affect Climate: Volcanic CO2 Emissions (2025 update).

159. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

160. [64] Mahmud, M.A.P., et al. Comparative life cycle environmental impact assessment

161. of renewable electricity generation systems. Renewable Energy 192,

162. 55–67 (2022). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/

163. S0960148122006711

164. [65] Smith, B.L., et al. An Updated Life Cycle Assessment of Utility-Scale Solar Photovoltaic

165. Systems Installed in the United States. NREL Technical Report (2024).

166. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf

167. [66] Cassoret, B., et al. Life Cycle Assessments of different electricity production scenarios

168. in France with a variable proportion of nuclear energy. Preprints (2023). https:

169. //www.preprints.org/manuscript/202311.1582/v1

ПРЕПРИНТ

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ

Использование куки-файлов