The empirical evidence from a growing body of academic literature clearly suggests that oil price increases and volatility dampen macroeconomic growth by raising inflation and unemployment and by depressing the value of financial and other assets. Surprisingly, this issue seems to have received little attention from energy policy makers. In percentage terms, the Oil-GDP effect is relatively small, producing losses in the order of 0.5% of GDP for a 10% oil price increase. In absolute terms however, even a 10% oil price rise. and oil has risen at least 50% in the last year alone. produces GDP losses that, could they have been averted, would significantly offset the cost of increased RE deployment. While we focus on renewables, the GDP offset applies equally to energy efficiency, DSM and nuclear and other non-fossil technologies. This paper draws on the empirical Oil-GDP literature, which we summarize, to show that by displacing gas and oil, renewable energy investments can help nations avoid costly macroeconomic losses produced by the Oil-GDP effect. We show that a 10% increase in RE share avoids GDP losses in the range of $29.$53 billion in the US and the EU ($49.$90 billion for OECD). These avoided losses offset one-fifth of the RE investment needs projected by the EREC and half the OECD investment projected by a G-8 Task Force. For the US, the figures further suggest that each additional kW of renewables, on average, avoids $250.$450 in GDP losses, a figure that varies across technologies as a function of annual capacity factors. We approximate that the offset is worth $200/kW for wind and solar and $800/kW for geothermal and biomass (and probably nuclear). The societal valuation of non-fossil alternatives needs to reflect the avoided GDP losses, whose benefit is not fully captured by private investors. This said, we fully recognize that wealth created in this manner does not directly form a pool of public funds that is easily earmarked for renewables support. Finally, the Oil-GDP relationship has important implications for correctly estimating direct electricity generating cost for conventional and renewable alternatives and for developing more useful energy security and diversity concepts. We also address these issues.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by University of Sussex, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research in its series SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series with number
129.
Find related papers by JEL classification: Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy E2 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomics: Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)