This book, connect with the work of French economist Gaël Giraud http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1961-a-French-economist-explain-GdP-growth-is-mostly-energy/?postID=7735#post7735
*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. 2015-09-22 22:46 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > I wrote: > > >> Eventually, after cold fusion is established, there will be market niches >> that demand somewhat more efficient mechanical conversion, such as >> aerospace engines and other mobile applications. This will probably not be >> needed for automobiles, ships or railroad locomotives. Conventional >> automobiles have only 20% efficient engines, this can probably be achieved >> with conventional steam turbine or Stirling engines. >> > > With cold fusion, what you want is a high power to weight ratio. A 5% > efficient engine producing 10 kW per kilogram of engine is much better than > 20% efficiency with 1 kW per kilogram. That seems odd from our present > perspective. With a liquid fuel chemical engine, the fuel itself weighs a > great deal. A 5% efficient engine would have to carry 4 times more fuel > than the 20% engine. For a long range vehicle such as a ship, the fuel > would outweigh the engine. With cold fusion, no matter what the efficiency > is, the fuel weighs nothing. The only problem with an inefficient cold > fusion engine is that you have to have a large radiator. When you get down > to around 3% you end up with something like a 19th century steam tractor, > which is all engine: > > > http://de.geoview.info/19th_century_umrath_steam_engine_still_up_and_running_at_the_2010_langenpfunzen_tractor_fair,38612696p > > Here is a useful textbook, partly available on line: > > "The Economic Growth Engine: How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity" > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=nLfJKVK9uJsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false > > See the discussion starting on page 101. > > - Jed > >
