This is the third in a series of essays on the importance of potential in the politics of care and economics of hope. The others are listed at the end of this essay.
As with the other essays, I acknowledge the input of my wife, Jacqueline, into this essay.
Energy
Imagine you wake up one morning, and someone tells you that you own enough energy to power your home for the next hundred years.
You would probably think you were rich.
But then they explain. Most of your energy is in a bucket of lukewarm water. The rest is spread through the air around you.
Not a single joule is missing, but you cannot cook with it.
You cannot drive your car.
You cannot charge your phone.
You cannot light your house.
You possess plenty of energy, but you have almost no power.
That is the difference between energy and exergy.
Exergy
Energy never disappears.
Physics insists on this. It changes form. It moves from place to place. But the total amount stays the same.
Exergy is different. Exergy measures how much of that energy can actually do something useful.
A lump of coal has high exergy.
A charged battery has high exergy.
A tank of petrol has high exergy.
The warm air drifting from your radiator does not.
The energy is still there. It has simply become too dispersed to be directed toward any purpose.
Every time we do useful work, we do not destroy energy. We degrade it. We transform concentrated, directable energy into diffuse heat that cannot be gathered back up.
A car engine does not make energy vanish.
A power station does not conjure it away.
They turn what was ordered into what is scattered.
The energy survives. The usefulness does not. And unlike spilt water, dispersed heat cannot simply be mopped up and poured back into the bucket.
That matters far beyond physics.
Potential
Think about people.
A child has enormous potential. So does an adult. So does a whole society.
But potential alone achieves nothing. It has to be organised, educated, supported, and given real opportunity.
Without those things, the potential remains exactly what it was. Present, but inert.
Human potential is rather like energy. It does not disappear when it goes unrealised. But unrealised is precisely what it stays.
Importantly, wasted potential is not simply waiting to be recovered. The child who never learned to read, the adult who never found work that matched their ability, the community stripped of its institutions; something in each of those cases is permanently lost. Like dispersed heat, it cannot be reassembled.
The politics of care is not, then, about creating people. It is about ensuring that what already exists can become something real. It is about preventing the irreversible.
Economies
The same is true of economies.
A country does not succeed because it possesses resources. Many countries possess enormous resources.
However, an economy only succeeds because it can transform those resources into lives worth living. Success depends on high exergy, not the quantity of energy that exists.
The required capacity is to turn possibility into something.
This is important. People often think money creates wealth. It does not.
Money is better understood as a claim on exergy. It is a token that allows its holder to direct effort, mobilise labour, and bring together skills, ideas, and materials towards a purpose.
However, the existence of money is not enough.
Imagine £1,000 in your bank account. You can buy food. Pay your rent. Heat your home. That money has real organising power.
Now imagine the same £1,000 divided into a million pennies, each locked in a separate dormant bank account, inaccessible without spending more to retrieve it than it contains.
The money still exists. Every penny is accounted for. But it cannot, in effect, bring a single thing into being.
That is not quite the same as exergy. Those accounts could, in principle, be consolidated. Dispersed heat cannot be reassembled. But it points toward the same truth.
Money is not valuable because it exists. It is valuable because it can organise. Money that cannot move cannot do that.
Money that is hoarded far beyond any possibility of spending drifts toward the condition of that lukewarm water. Still there. No longer useful.
Conclusion
The universe is full of energy.
Human beings are full of potential.
Societies can create as much money as they need.
None of that, though, is enough on its own.
What has always mattered, in physics and in life, is not what exists.
It is what can still be turned into something.
Other essays in this series
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:

Buy me a coffee!

Compare resource poor South Korea and resource rich Venezuela
Which has done better?
Just met a man back from a campaign with the Tartan Army. He spent £67k total over 4 weeks including friendlies and the group matches of his national team. He wanted to stay on an extra couple of days if by some miracle Scotland qualified for the Knockout Stage but he had to get back to his day job as Director of Inclusion and Regeneration at the local authority.
He got the money for this holiday of a lifetime by hoarding the difference between his income and his spending over 28 years. Worth the wait he said.
I wonder what the concept of hoarding money far beyond the possibility of spending looks like. It does sound like a humanoid haybale.
You do start early in the morning, it’s only 4pm here in Tasmania!
Enough energy for 100 years would imply that I own one f**k-off huge bucket of warm water or a very large fraction of the surrounding atmosphere. I’m actually sitting in a room warmed using heat extracted from the much cooler air around my house but, as mentioned a few days ago, it takes 1KW of electrical (or mechanical) input to provide 4KW of heating. Could I generate that from a low-temperature-differential Stirling engine with one end in the bucket of water and the other cooled by evaporation of some of the water? Could I then start to concentrate the heat from the surrounding air into some of the water with enough efficiency to slowly reduce the entropy of the overall system and produce steam? James Watt did some of the maths on that but I’m not sure what Watt’s answer would be.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way, but only if you still have hope in the face of adversity and don’t lose sight of your/our potential to turn an existing dog’s breakfast into a well ordered buffet serving up exactly what the people want and need.
🙂
This was, I admit, written yesterday, which was a highly productuve one. The pain was under control.
The imagery, the similes, are helpful, I find. The buried talent has more potential than an acre of buried farthings if you don’t have a metal detector,,,
I hope you have a good day.
The exergy available from fossil fuels has been falling consistently over time. It may have now fallen below the level needed to sustain industrial modernity as we know it, and “renewables” cannot even match the exergy currently available from fossil fuels.
So the future is one of an inevitable decline in real material prosperity, no matter the economic policies in place. That being the case, the distribution of prosperity & wealth becomes even more critical. It will no longer be possible to distract people from the size of their slice of the cake by pointing out the cake is getting bigger.
There is not a shred of evidence to support those claims, Matthew. Why not find out why is really possible?
I’m enjoying this new series and its insights. Just one slight nitpick with today’s:
“Now imagine the same £1,000 divided into a million pennies.”
A million pennies actually makes £10,000 unless I’m even worse at maths than I thought?
You are right
I spent 20 years teaching in inner city schools. There was plenty of potential and energy but the energy of students and their parents was needed to overcome the day to day problems of life.
Today saw the publication of a report on white working class children’s education. There were one or two recommendations I could agree with but platitudes galore. Nothing was suggested that addressed the fundamental issues of the inequalities they lived with. It was really hardly worth the paper.
Noted