Advertisement

Energy Economics

  • David Hafemeister

Abstract

The quotes on the “dismal science” of economics by early theorists, Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, are relevant today. Thus far, Smith’s vision leads in the debate. Malthus’s prediction has been headed off, somewhat, as new technologies have increased our capacity to support increased populations. The powers of the marketplace rode supreme in both Eastern andWestern Europe as Marx was buried a second time, and it continues to do so, however imperfect it is. Energy markets have had dramatic failures in such things as the lack of progress on energy-efficient cars and household appliances, until regulations were introduced. Smith’s hidden hand corrects inefficiencies, but consumers can be apathetic when casually purchasing energy technologies. Hopefully, Malthus’s frightening theory can be buried along side Marx, but long-term questions on Earth’s sustainability persist when seen against a backdrop of increasing global consumption.

Keywords

Interest Rate Discount Rate Demand Elasticity Payback Period Supply Elasticity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Brown M.A., M.D. Levine, J.P. Romm, et al. (1998). Engineering-economic studies of energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Opportunities and challenges, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 23, 287–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchholz, T. (1989). New Ideas from Dead Economists, Penguin, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Daneke, G. (Ed.) (1982). Energy, Economics and the Environment, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Dargay, J. and D. Gatoly (1995). Response of world energy and oil demand to income growth and changes in oil prices, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 20, 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutch, J. and E. Moniz (Eds.) (2003). Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Joskow, P. and D. Marron (1993). What Does Utility-Subsidized Energy Efficiency Really Cost? Science 260, 281–370.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. LeBel, P. (1982). Energy Economics and Policy, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  8. Levine, M., et al. (1995). Energy efficiency policy and market failures, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 20, 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levine, M., et al. (1985). Economics of efficiency improvements in residential appliances and space conditioning equipment, in Energy sources: Conservation and Renewables, D.Hafemeister, et al. (Eds.), AIP Press, NY.Google Scholar
  10. National Research Council (1986). Electricity in Economic Growth, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council (1993). Issues in Risk Assessment, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Pirog, R. and S. Stamos (1987). Energy Economics: Theory and Policy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Rosenfeld, A. (1999). The art of energy efficiency: Protecting environment with better technology, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 24, 33–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Samuelson, P. (1967). Economics: An Introductory Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Stobaugh R. and D. Yergin (Eds.) (1979). Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  16. US Energy Information Administration (2003). Annual Energy Review, EIA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. White House (2003). Economic Report of the President, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Wilson, R. and E. Crouch (2001). Risk-Benefit Analysis, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Hafemeister
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsCalifornia Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations