Fuel use and fuel quality (plus smaller factors) can predict GNP to 97% over the enormous range of 1890 to 1980.

More recent work by Ayres (1,2) suggests the link is 70% with exergy, which is the amount of useful work derived from the input energy source (meaning 10btu of coal can provide 0-10btu of exergy, depending on how efficiently you use it). It's similar to "fuel quality", in some sense.

He also notes that the exergy-based analysis explains much more of GDP growth than energy-based analyses, so it's likely that the "smaller factors" you mention were pretty significant.

Do you know if they have done similar studies since the mid 1980's that might show that fuel and GNP have decoupled in any way?

You can see it for yourself in the EIA's data on energy intensity of the economy. The amount of energy required to produce a dollar of GDP fell only 20% from 1949 to 1980, but has fallen by about 45% since then -- nearly triple the previous rate.

You can see it for yourself in the EIA's data on energy intensity of the economy. The amount of energy required to produce a dollar of GDP fell only 20% from 1949 to 1980, but has fallen by about 45% since then -- nearly triple the previous rate.

You think that might have something to do with the offshoring of US industry?

You think that might have something to do with the offshoring of US industry?

That's certainly a factor, but far from the only one. Indeed, the tales of US manufacturing's demise are greatly exaggerated.

See also here or here. US manufacturing is still 20% of the world's manufacturing, commensurate to the US economy's 20% share of the world economy.

Of course, it's worth noting that the world's energy intensity (btu/$ of GDP, inflation-adjusted) has fallen 7-15% in the last 10 years (same EIA data, 15% based on PPP, 7% based on market exchange rates), so it's not like the energy consumption has simply been pushed elsewhere.

Thanks! Good links. I had meant to read that paper by Ayres. He does not quote Hall, Cleveland, Odum, or Constanza in any of his references. It seems he discovered the relationship independently. He found the link between quality and GNp but does not have the two other correction factors that they discovered: product mix and household use. I need to read the longer paper. Thanks again!

It's an interesting paper, but obviously it's only one look at the situation. I imagine that both his "exergy" approach and the earlier "quality, product mix, and use" are attempts to quantify the fact that a fixed amount of energy can be used in very different ways to produce very different amounts of things. It's a key thing to examine, but I'm not sure how best to do so.

At any rate, you're more than welcome - finding, exchanging, and disseminating information is, IMHO, the most important (and bestest) function of the internet.