Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lund 29th October 2009 The Growth Engine Warr
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Lund 29th October 2009 The Growth Engine Warr

514
views

Published on

The Economic Growth Engine Ayres and Warr

The Economic Growth Engine Ayres and Warr

Published in: Education

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
514
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Lund 29th October 2009 Dr Benjamin Warr INSEAD Social Innovation Centre The Economic Growth Engine
  • 2. The problem How to avoid an economic collapse while simultaneously cutting carbon- emissions?
  • 3. Summary • Access to energy is essential for prosperity • Understanding the role of efficiency for growth is critical • Some problems with neoclassical growth theory • Overview of resource exergy utilisation analysis • An example of modelling economic growth with useful work as a factor of production • Forecasts using the Resource Exergy Services (REXS) model
  • 4. Energy, Exergy and Useful Work • Energy is conserved, except in nuclear reactions. This is the First Law of thermodynamics. • But the output energy is always less available to do useful work than the input. This is the Second Law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the entropy law. • Energy available to do useful work is exergy. • Capital is inert. It must be activated. Most economists regard labour as the activating agent. • Labour (by humans and/or animals) was once the only source of useful work in the economy. • But machines (and computers) require another activating agent, namely exergy. • The economy converts exergy into useful work
  • 5. Tracking energy use and emissions by task Sources: WRI, CAIT, IPCC – data for 2000
  • 6. Exergy input share by source, (UK 1900-2000) 100% 80% Biomass 60% Renewables and Nuclear 40% Gas Oil 20% Resource Substitution From Coal, to Oil, Gas then Renewables and Coal Nuclear 0% 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 year
  • 7. Exergy to Useful Work, via efficiency 3 1 2 EXERGY INPUT x EFFICIENCY USEFUL WORK WASTE EXERGY (OFTEN LOW QUALITY HEAT OR POLLUTION) THIS FRACTION IS NOT PRODUCTIVE EXCLUDE IT FROM PRODUCTION FUNCTION
  • 8. Exergy conversion efficiencies (US 1900-2005) 40% 35% Electricity Generation 30% High Temperature Heat Efficiency (%) 25% Mid Temperature Heat 20% 15% 10% Mechanical Work 5% Low Temperature Heat Muscle Work 0% 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005 Year
  • 9. Useful work by type (US 1900-2005) 100% Muscle Work Non-Fuel 80% 60% share (%) Mechanical Work 40% Electricity 20% High Temperature Heat Low Temperature Heat 0% 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005 year
  • 10. Economy • Since the first industrial revolution, human and animal labour have been increasingly replaced by machines powered by the combustion of fossil fuels. • Technological progress in mechanisation increases the work output per unit exergy consumed. • MORE WORK FOR THE SAME EFFORT • This strongly suggests that useful work should be factor of production, along with conventional capital and labour.
  • 11. Economy-wide exergy to useful work conversion efficiency Evidence of stagnation – 25% Pollution controls, Technological barriers High Population Density Ageing capital stock Industrialised Socio- Wealth effects 20% ecological regime Japan Resource limited efficiency (%) 15% US 10% UK Low Population Density Industrialised New 5% World Socio-ecological regime Resource abundant 0% 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005 year
  • 12. Exergy Intensity of GDP Indicator 60 •Distinct grouping of US countries by level, but 50 similar trajectory •Evidence of convergence in EJ / trillion $US PPP 40 latter half of century UK •Slowing decline 30 20 Japan 10 0 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005 year
  • 13. Useful work Intensity of GDP Indicator 3,5 3 US 2,5 EJ / trillion $US PPP 2 UK 1,5 1 1970 to 1973 structural Japan change stimulated by price 0,5 spike, but with continuing effect, despite subsequent price decline. 0 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 2005 year
  • 14. CO2 intensity of useful work CO2/useful work [tC/TJ] 500 USA Japan UK Austria 400 300 200 100 0 1900 1915 1930 1945 1960 1975 1990 2005
  • 15. Problems with growth theory • No link to the physical economy, only capital and labour are productive. • Energy, materials and wastes are ignored. • Unable to explain historic growth rates. • Exogenous unexplained technological progress is assumed, hence growth will continue. • Endogenous growth theory based on ‘Human knowledge capital’ is unquantifiable – there are no metrics.
  • 16. Neo-classical estimates of GDP exponents at factor cost (US 1900-2005) 35 empirical estimate 30 Multiplier effect or technological progress accounts for 1.5% per 25 annum, in 2005 technology has a GDP index (1900 = 1) multiplier effect of 4.8 78% of 20 Solow “technological observed development will be the motor for growth is 15 economic growth in the long run”. unexplained BUT IT IS UNDEFINED AND 10 UNMEASURABLE The Solow Residual 5 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 year
  • 17. Exergy-Efficiency-GDP Feedbacks Learning Exergy Intensity Exergy Demand -by-doing of GDP and Production Capital accumulation Efficiency GDP growth Improvements Useful Work Consumption
  • 18. Ayres-Warr Estimates of GDP 60 35 Japan USA 30 50 25 40 GDP (1900=1) 20 empirical 30 estimate 15 20 10 10 5 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 year
  • 19. What effect policies to reduce energy intensity of GDP? 30 Historical rate of decline in 25 exergy intensity of GDP is r/gdp 1.2% per annum e/gdp 20 index 15 10 5 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 year
  • 20. What effect policies to reduce energy intensity of GDP? 120 For Business-as-Usual, 1.2% per annum (1.2% decay rate) – by 1.3% per annum 100 2025 GDP doubles and 1.4% per annum 1.5% per annum exergy inputs increase empirical by half over 2008. 80 With a 1.4% decay rate GDP (1900=1) output doubles ~10 years 60 later, but for much reduced total energy use. 40 20 0 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 year
  • 21. Coal, technical efficiency experience curve, US 1900-2000 0,4 0,35 0,3 technical efficiency (%) 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 empirical logistic 0,05 bi-logistic 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 cumulative primary exergy production (eJ)
  • 22. Petroleum technical efficiency experience curve, US 1900-2000 0,18 0,16 0,14 technical efficiency (%) 0,12 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 logistic bi-logistic 0,02 empirical 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 cumulative primary exergy production (eJ)
  • 23. Gas technical efficiency experience curve, US 1900-2000 0,2 0,18 0,16 0,14 technical efficiency (%) 0,12 0,18 0,16 technical efficiency (%) 0,1 0,14 0,12 0,08 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,06 0,04 logistic 0,04 0,02 0 bi-logistic 0 100 200 300 0,02 empirical cumulative primary exergy production (eJ) 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 cumulative primary exergy production (eJ)
  • 24. Aggregate technical efficiency experience curve, US 1900-2000 0,18 0,16 0,14 technical efficiency (%) 0,12 0,1 0,08 0,06 0,04 empirical logistic 0,02 bi-logistic 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 cumulative primary exergy production (eJ)
  • 25. Efficiency Scenarios Possible trajectories for conversion efficiency 0.35 Efficiency growth 0.3 low mid Low 0.4% p.a. high Mid 0.72% p.a. 0.25 technical efficiency (f) empirical High 1.2% p.a. 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 year
  • 26. Resulting trajectories for GDP 70 Efficiency growth GDP growth (2030) 60 low Low 0.4% per annum -2.0% mid high High 1.2% per annum 2.2% 50 empirical GDP (1900=1) 40 For efficiency growth smaller than 1% p.a. we observe a 30 future decline in GDP, where the historical rate is ~1.1% p.a. 20 10 0 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 year
  • 27. Summary •Neoclassical growth theory does not explain growth •If useful work as a factor of production past growth can be explained well. •Economic growth need not be a constant percentage of GDP. It can be negative. •Future sustainable growth in the face of peak oil depends on accelerating energy (exergy) efficiency gains. •Future efficiency gains may be inexpensive if existing double dividend possibilities are exploited • But strong evidence of stagnation
  • 28. US mid-range abatement curve 2030 Source: McKinsey & Co.