Year..Energy(mtoe)..delta..GDP (billions)...delta
1973....1788.0....................$17,365.60
1974....1739.1.....-2.73%...$17,278.00.....-0.50%
1975....1691.6.....-2.73%...$17,244.90.....-0.19%
1976....1781.7......5.33%...$18,163.70......5.33%
1977....1823.1......2.32%...$19,002.20......4.62%
1978....1863.6......2.22%...$20,060.10......5.57%
1979....1886.1......1.21%...$20,693.80......3.16%I got the energy consumption figures from the 2007 BP Statistical Review , and the GDP numbers from Data 360 . GDP figures are in constant 2000 dollars.
You'll notice that contrary to your assertions American energy consumption did grow, and the American GDP did not rise continuously over this period. In fact, in the years when energy consumption dropped, so did GDP. This small sample doesn't illustrate Kummel and Ayres' contention that there is a 0.7:1 ratio between GDP and energy, but it does show that the directionality of the model is consistent.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - For Jim Pearce - USA Energy and GDP 1973 to 1979 - GliderGuider 06:16:32 06/13/07 (8)
- There is no substiute of liquid petroleum fuels - jedinvest 12:37:47 06/13/07 (2)
- Coal Liquefaction - rditmars 12:59:00 06/13/07 (1)
- RE: Coal Liquefaction - middleground 15:03:54 06/13/07 (0)
- Here is an interesting summary of the effects of oil price increases from the CBO in 1981 GG. - Jim Pearce 06:43:29 06/13/07 (4)
- Actually, that period makes a lousy test for models - GliderGuider 07:06:08 06/13/07 (3)
- How unusual for global circumstances to be unusual. - Jim Pearce 07:20:24 06/13/07 (2)
- We're not talking here about a global dataset - GliderGuider 08:46:12 06/13/07 (1)
- If you want to do something useful GG... - Jim Pearce 09:05:43 06/13/07 (0)