# a French economist explain GdP growth is mostly energy...

• 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

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

• Jed Rothwell have noticed that american book

Quote

The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity
by Robert U. Ayres,Benjamin Warr

• Next Big Future publish an article on thet subject,

as far as I understand the articles, best example is China, and GdP is simply linear with energy consumption.

My intuition is that if energy increase is done not by just building more powerplant, but by improving technology, bigger changes happens.
It is probably what Gaël Giraud have seen in his results.

• I complete the reference to Gaël Giraud with that article in french
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr…istes-a-changer-de-dogme/ (bing translated)

Note first that for him, the increased corelation between growth and energy is a reason to assume secular stagnation to come. He is clearly not assuming increase in energy availability.

The definition of the 10/60% is said there

Quote

In other words, if energy consumption increases by 100%, conventional economic theory predicts that the induced increase in per capita GDP will limit less than 10%. According to Gaël Giraud, empirical observation shows that the increase is actually 60%, not less!

Here is english slides about that postition
http://fr.slideshare.net/Pauli…istes-a-changer-de-dogme/

note that Neil Craig article propose something like 100% in China, and 50% in Soviet union in 1920-30

• An article in french explaing that probablye lack of energy led to 2009 crisis, and started round 2006

translated:

Quote

It is therefore very likely that the lack of energy played an important role in the so-called financial crisis of 2008. Figure 2 shows the evolution of US oil consumption from 1965 to 2015, similar to that of the others. rich countries. It can be seen that it peaked in 2005 and started to decline in 2006, before the onset of the crisis, which corroborates the idea that the lack of oil has led to the crisis. World oil production also stabilized from 2004 to 2008, as shown in Figure 3. The economic crisis of course caused a drop in demand, which combined with the arrival on the market of non-oil conventional, significantly lowered prices in the following years. For how long ?