On a French research institution journal (CNRS) I found an article about an economist,Gaël Giraud, who dissent with most economist, in that he explain that most of GdP growth is linked to the capacity to use energy
Chief Economist at the French Development Agency and Director of the Chair "Energy and prosperity," you are known for your critical models and assumptions used by the "orthodox" economists, particularly their inadequate consideration of energy issues . Can you tell us on what basis the strong link that you establish between energy consumption and growth?
How do you measure the dependence vis-à-vis the GDP energy?
GG: To identify and evaluate this dependence, economists speak rather of elasticity of GDP relative to energy: most believe the next 8-10%. Yet the analysis of long time series of primary energy consumption over thirty countries shows that in fact it is permanently and structurally close to 60-70%. To be more specific, when the primary energy consumption increases by 10%, GDP tends to grow 6-7% on average, with a possible delay of up to eighteen months. Of course, this finding must take into account that many other variables stir together the energy consumption, which also have an influence on GDP. We must therefore interpret this with caution. Moreover, the ratio of 60% varies between countries and over time: it is lower today in Europe and the United States, and it is weaker today than before the two oil shocks of the 1970s . But one thing is certain: our economies are much more dependent on energy than "orthodox" economists want to admit.
How economists can they neglect the impact of energy?
GG: Not all economists, especially those from the mainstream neoclassical! For physicists, it is clear that nothing on Earth happens without intervention, to a place or another, energy. Yet this triviality is not accepted by all neoclassical economists. Most of them continued use of small highly questionable reasoning to justify their lack of interest and energy of all natural resources. These "small arguments" are precisely those that deconstructs Steve Keen in his book Economic Deception 1. The non-energy commodities are also a huge issue, first and foremost minerals, which largely confirms the research that I I started with Olivier Vidal, of the Institute of Earth Sciences 2 in Grenoble.
Using classical vision I have long imagined that LENR, dividing energy cost by 10x, with today's 10% of GDP being energy, would free 9% of GDP to create growth. Not so much over 30 years of the transitions.
This new vision let me propose another model, probably naive :
10% of GDP is energy.
with LENR this energy could cost 10x less.
everybody could afford 10x more energy, which would imply 900% increase of energy consumption... which should imply 540% growth in non energy GDP.
of course those numbers are abusive... I should use exponential, not linear , and spread over 30 years of a revolution.
spreading 10x over 30 years, make a rate of 8% of energy increase every year which lead to GDP increase of 5% for 30 years
note that the 10x production increase over 20 years (maybe it will start very fast like 3x/10year , then slow down at 3x/20years) imply 12% increase of power every year with a GdP growth of 7%...
I need an economist