The effect of new technology on energy consumption

Popp, David

doi:10.1016/s0928-7655(00)00045-2

Cited by 219 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(1) is given by the equilibrium condition: Following Berndt, Morrison and Watkins (1981), Watkins and Berndt (1992), and especially Popp (2001), industry i's normalized RVCF is specified using a quadratic approximation for G: …”

Section: An Econometric Model Of Producer Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linn (2006) identifies this effect using the difference between the energy intensities of incumbent and entrant manufacturing plants, while Popp (2001) uses the cumulated stocks of energy patents in each industry as direct proxy for the intangible output of innovation. The latter approach is attractive because it is the equivalent of specifying a stock of disembodied energy-saving knowledge as a quasi-fixed input in the model, but the absence of data on the use of patents by industry prevented me from implementing this scheme directly.…”

Section: An Econometric Model Of Producer Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I model these forces in the same way as Popp (2001), representing inducement via energy price increases instead of patent counts. 6 Following his eq.…”

Section: An Econometric Model Of Producer Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the remaining sectors, the secular trends in the conditional demands for electricity and non-electric energy are either not significant, or have opposing signs, suggesting an ambiguous overall effect. 23 The magnitude of these estimates is generally small, and their cross-industry distribution is negatively skewed. For both electric and non-electric energy, the average of the significant estimates is negative while the median is positive, reflecting Jorgenson's finding that prior to 1980 the influence of technological change on energy demand was small and positive in many industries, but large and negative in a small number of industries.…”

Section: Elasticities Of Technical Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 However, there is continuing debate over the magnitude of the aggregate impact of these phenomena, with two investigations of its effect on energy use manufacturing sectors reaching very different conclusions. Popp (2001) estimates that one third of the reduction in manufacturing industries' energy-output ratios to the effects of energy-related knowledge embodied in patents. By contrast, Linn (2006) estimates that adoption of energy-saving technology by new manufacturing plants in response to a ten-percent rise in energy prices resulted in only a one-percent reduction in energy demand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Explaining the declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy

Wing

2008

Resource and Energy Economics

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: An Econometric Model Of Producer Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Econometric Model Of Producer Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I model these forces in the same way as Popp (2001), representing inducement via energy price increases instead of patent counts. 6 Following his eq.…”

Section: An Econometric Model Of Producer Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Elasticities Of Technical Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Explaining the declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy

Wing

2008

Resource and Energy Economics

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

First-mover advantages of the European Union's climate change mitigation strategy

Karkatsoulis

Capros

Fragkos

et al. 2016

Int. J. Energy Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThis paper assesses the costs and benefits for the European Union (EU) as a first mover in climate change mitigation. Scenarios of EU and global climate action to 2050 are quantified using the GEME3-RD model, a global multi-sectoral computable general equilibrium model with endogenous technology progress and detailed representation of the clean energy technologies. The model includes two-factor learning curves (stock and research and development funding) for clean energy technologies, such as electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage, and renewable and efficient appliances. Funding of research and development is endogenously derived as a production factor enabling productivity improvement. The scenarios compare stylised climate strategies, which are asymmetric by world region and have different emission reduction profiles over time. Assuming that strong climate mitigation action will be undertaken only after 2030, the scenarios compare two main strategies for the EU: pursuing strong emission reduction unilaterally until 2030 versus deferring action for the period after 2030. Asymmetric climate action by region enables asymmetric innovation and manufacturing of clean energy technologies. The macroeconomic assessment of the climate action strategies does not only depend on costs of clean technologies but also on induced technology progress implying asymmetric effects on manufacturing and trade by region, taking into account spillovers. The model-based projections show clear advantages for the EU as a first mover in climate change mitigation compared with a delaying of climate action until 2030. Delayed climate action until 2030 implies higher gross domestic product losses for the EU compared with unilateral action until 2030. The model finds benefits of early action by the EU driven by activity and progress related to clean energy technologies as the EU can achieve competitive advantages over other world regions pursuing climate action later.

show abstract

The dynamic impact assessment of clean energy and green innovation in realizing environmental sustainability of G‐20

Aneja,

Yadav,

Gupta

2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of the growth and development process, stability in environmental quality has remained a challenging issue to sustainable development, as several environmental problems, such as climate conditions, anthropogenic global warming, deforestation, and escalating degradation of water and air quality, depict a rising trend. In the contemporary materialistic paradigm, attaining a high economic growth rate while ensuring sustainable consumption of natural resources is impossible. The world needs to attain an economic growth rate that confirms sustainability in natural resource consumption and exploitation of resources introduced severe alert about the sustainability of such trajectory progress as an increase in economic growth upsurges natural reserve usage and energy demand, which leads to environmental deprivation. Both theoretical and empirical literature support that green or clean energy sources could significantly sustain environmental quality and foster economic growth. The recent literature assessed the role of green technology in promoting environmental sustainability. It emphasizes that green innovations are the most competent method to carry the competent use of resources, thereby reducing environmental degradation. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to analyze the impact of economic growth, clean energy, technological innovations, natural resources depletion, and green and sustainable technology on the environmental degradation of G‐20 nations in the frame spanning from 1992 to 2018. The results of cross‐sectional‐autoregressive‐distributed lag (CS‐ARDL) model estimation indicate the presence of a long‐run association between economic growth, number of filled applications for patents, development of environment‐related technologies as a percentage of all technologies, natural resources rents (NRR) as a percentage of GDP, renewable energy consumption, trade openness and environment degradation of G‐20 nations. This study re‐confirmed the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis for selected nations. Further, the study's findings revealed that cleaner energy and technological innovations, mainly green technology, play a significant role in sustaining the environmental conditions of these selected countries. Moreover, the degree of natural resource depletion directly impacts environmental degradation (CO₂ emission, total greenhouse gases emission and ecological footprints) in selected nations. The study underscores the importance of promoting clean energy, green technology, and sustainable practices to balance economic growth and environmental preservation and provides policymakers in G‐20 nations with valuable policy recommendations.

show abstract

The effect of new technology on energy consumption

Cited by 219 publications

References 30 publications

Explaining the declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy

Explaining the declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy

First-mover advantages of the European Union's climate change mitigation strategy

The dynamic impact assessment of clean energy and green innovation in realizing environmental sustainability of G‐20

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About