research topics on energy economics

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Energy economics articles from across Nature Portfolio

Latest research and reviews.

A comprehensive city-level final energy consumption dataset including renewable energy for China, 2005–2021

• Guanglei Yang
• Guoxing Zhang

Decommissioned open-pit mines are potential geothermal sources of heating or cooling for nearby population centres

The provision of residential heating and cooling by using the geothermal potential of decommissioned open pits can be economically competitive, especially at higher pit temperature, according to a techno-economic assessment of open pits in Australia and Germany.

• Mauricio Carcamo-Medel
• Raul Fuentes
• Guillermo Narsilio

Comparing costs and climate impacts of various electric vehicle charging systems across the United States

Results show meaningful variations in electric vehicle costs and emissions benefits across the United States, differing by vehicle category and charging systems: Direct Current Fast Charging, Battery Swapping, and Dynamic Wireless Power Transfer.

• Noah Horesh
• David A. Trinko
• Jason C. Quinn

A geographically disaggregated approach to integrate low-carbon technologies across local electricity networks

Increased deployment of electrification through solar power, heat pumps and electric vehicles requires power-network upgrades, but their full impacts are unclear. Few et al. take a local-level approach to examine network upgrade needs, finding large regional variations, and explore how flexibility can minimize impacts.

• Sheridan Few
• Predrag Djapic
• Chiara Candelise

Effects of emissions caps on the costs and feasibility of low-carbon hydrogen in the European ammonia industry

Decarbonizing the European ammonia industry: Less stringent emissions caps for electrolytic hydrogen production can significantly reduce costs and land use while still achieving more than 90% reduction in emissions relative to fossil-based hydrogen.

• Stefano Mingolla
• Paolo Gabrielli
• Zhongming Lu

Climate change will impact the value and optimal adoption of residential rooftop solar

Climate change will affect the adoption of residential rooftop solar photovoltaics by changing the patterns of both electricity generation and demand. This research projects that climate change will increase the future value and optimal capacity of household rooftop solar across the United States.

• Michael T. Craig

News and Comment

Tourist donations.

• Silvana Lakeman

Small-scale decentralized ammonia production could become cost-competitive by 2030

With centralized production, the price of ammonia-based fertilizers is affected by the volatility of the fossil fuel market, complex supply chains and long-distance transportation costs. Now, an analysis of the cost-competitiveness of decentralized low-carbon ammonia production suggests that a substantial fraction of the global ammonia demand could be cost-competitively supplied by small-scale technologies by 2030.

Energy demands of water distribution

Shipping policy forecast, evidence of discrimination, regulatory barriers, quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Topic Information

Participating journals, topic editors.

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Energy Economics and Sustainable Development

Dear Colleagues,

The world has been undergoing the third energy transition toward sustainable development, the core of which is to resolve the contradiction between economic growth and the deteriorating environmental, climate, and security issues. Different from previous ones, this round of energy transition is not a spontaneous change but a controlled process, which is certainly a long and difficult process requiring joint efforts of the governments, enterprises, and households. Although many governments have been promoting the transition by designing effective mechanisms and formulating relevant policies, there are still many obstacles related not only to the characteristics of low-carbon energy technology itself but also to its dissemination environment and the market mechanism. Thus, determining how to drive the energy transition economically and efficiently is a key issue that all countries need to urgently solve. To this end, the Topic of “Energy Economics and Sustainable Development” is being proposed. It welcomes original research papers and review articles that cover but are not limited to the following areas:

• Energy transition practices
• Challenges in the energy transition process
• Green innovations of enterprises
• Green consumption behaviors and concepts
• Green finance and sustainable development
• Digital green innovation and sustainable development
• Development of the carbon market and green certificate market
• Suggestions for the green sustainable development

Prof. Dr. Cuihong Yang Dr. Xiuting Li Dr. Zhuoying Zhang Dr. Xuerong Li Topic Editors

• climate change
• energy security
• energy transition
• energy sustainability
• energy inequality
• energy conservation
• green finance
• digital green innovation
• Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
• environmental regulation

• Immediately share your ideas ahead of publication and establish your research priority;
• Protect your idea from being stolen with this time-stamped preprint article;
• Enhance the exposure and impact of your research;
• Receive feedback from your peers in advance;
• Have it indexed in Web of Science (Preprint Citation Index), Google Scholar, Crossref, SHARE, PrePubMed, Scilit and Europe PMC.

Published Papers (43 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Submit your Manuscript

Submit your abstract.

Create an account

Create a free IEA account to download our reports or subcribe to a paid service.

A new energy economy is emerging

• Executive summary
• Key themes of WEO 2021
• Introduction
• Scenario trajectories and temperature outcomes
• Keeping the door to 1.5 °C open
• Energy consumers of tomorrow
• Mobilising investment and finance
• People centred transitions
• Phasing out coal
• Prices and affordability
• Energy security and the risk of disorderly change
• Fuels: old and new

Cite report

IEA (2021), World Energy Outlook 2021 , IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021

Share this report

• Share on Twitter Twitter
• Share on Facebook Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn LinkedIn
• Share on Email Email
• Share on Print Print

Report options

There are unmistakeable signs of change. In 2020, even as economies sank under the weight of Covid-19 lockdowns, additions of renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar PV increased at their fastest rate in two decades, and electric vehicle sales set new records. A new energy economy is coming into view, ushered forward by policy action, technology innovation and the increasing urgency of the need to tackle climate change. There is no guarantee that the emergence of this new energy economy will be smooth, and it is not coming forward quickly enough to avoid severe impacts from a changing climate. But it is already clear that tomorrow’s energy economy promises to be quite different from the one we have today.

Electricity is taking on an ever-more central role in the lives of consumers and, for an increasing number of households, it promises to become the energy source on which they rely for all their everyday needs: mobility, cooking, lighting, heating and cooling. The reliability and affordability of electricity is set to become even more critical to all aspects of people’s lives and well-being.

Electricity’s share of the world’s final consumption of energy has risen steadily over recent decades, and now stands at 20%. Its rise accelerates in future years as the pace of transitions picks up. In the NZE, electricity accounts for around 50% of final energy use by 2050 (around 30% in the APS). Given that electricity delivers useful energy services with better efficiency than other fuels, the contribution of electricity is even higher than these numbers would suggest.

The rise of electricity requires a parallel increase in its share of energy-related investment. Since 2016, global investment in the power sector has consistently been higher than in oil and gas supply. The faster that clean energy transitions proceed, the wider this gap becomes, and as a result electricity becomes the central arena for energy-related financial transactions. In the NZE, investment in power generation and infrastructure is six-times higher than in oil and gas supply by 2030.

Clean technologies in the power sector and across a range of end-uses have become the first choice for consumers around the world, initially due to policy support but over time because they are simply the most cost-effective. In most regions, solar PV or wind already represents the cheapest available source of new electricity generation. Based on total costs of ownership, the case for electric cars in many markets is already a compelling one.

In the new energy economy, the huge market opportunity for clean technology becomes a major new area for investment and international competition; countries and companies jostle for position in global supply chains. We estimate that, if the world gets on track for net zero emissions by 2050, then the annual market opportunity for manufacturers of wind turbines, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, electrolysers and fuel cells grows tenfold to USD 1.2 trillion by 2050, around 3.5-times larger than in the STEPS. These five elements alone would be larger than today’s oil industry and its associated revenues. 

The new energy economy involves varied and often complex interactions between electricity, fuels and storage markets, creating fresh challenges for regulation and market design. A major question is how to manage the potential for increased variability on both the demand and supply sides of the energy equation. The variability of electricity supply will be affected by rising shares of wind and solar PV, putting a huge premium on robust grids and other sources of supply flexibility. The variability of demand will be shaped by increasing deployment of heat pumps and air conditioners (the latter especially in developing economies, where current ownership levels are low), and could be exacerbated by poorly sequenced recharging of EV fleets or by cold snaps, heat waves or other extreme weather events. Without effective policies to prepare for and manage these fluctuations, the daily variation of demand could increase on the basis of announced pledges to 270 gigawatts (GW) in the European Union (from 120 GW today) and over 170 GW in India (from 40 GW) by mid-century.

Digital technologies play crucial roles in integrating different aspects of the new energy system. Sectors that have hitherto operated largely independently (such as electricity and transport) become connected in new ways with the rise of electric mobility, and grids need to cope with a much greater diversity and complexity of flows as many new players, including households, enter the arena as producers. Managing the platforms and data required to keep this system operating effectively becomes a central part of the new energy economy, as does mitigating associated cybersecurity and data privacy risks.

Clean electrification is the dominant theme in the early phases of the transformation of the global energy economy together with the quest for improvements in efficiency. Over time, however, continued rapid deployment in these areas needs to be accompanied by clean energy innovation and the widespread use of technologies that are not yet readily available on the market. These technologies are vital to decarbonise areas such as heavy industry and long-distance transport that are not readily susceptible to electrification for one reason or another, and they include advanced batteries, hydrogen electrolysers, advanced biofuels, and new technologies for the capture and use of CO 2 , including direct air capture. Building these additional pillars of the new energy economy requires early and sustained investment in energy R&D and an accelerated programme of demonstration projects.

These changes redirect global flows of trade and capital . The combined share of hydrogen and critical minerals (such as lithium, cobalt, copper and rare earths elements) in global energy-related trade rises to one-quarter of the total in the APS, and takes a dominant share in the NZE as the value of fossil fuels trade declines significantly. This completely upends the present dynamics of international energy-related trade, and it is accompanied by a major shift in energy-related financial flows: the decline in the value of trade in fossil fuels causes the dollar-denominated revenues accruing to producer economies from oil and gas exports to decline significantly over time.

The new energy economy depicted in the NZE is a collaborative one in which countries demonstrate a shared focus on securing the necessary reductions in emissions, while minimising and taking precautions against new energy security risks. However, the APS highlights the possibility of new divisions and fragmentation as countries proceed at different speeds through energy transitions. By the 2030s, for example, the APS sees the production of “green” steel in economies that have pledged to reach net zero alongside the continuing use of traditional emissions-intensive methods elsewhere, deepening tensions around trade in energy-intensive goods. There could be a gulf too in international investment and finance: increasingly stringent disciplines applicable to financial flows may mean that capital from the “net zero” world does not flow very freely to countries undergoing slower transitions. Successful, orderly and broad-based transitions in which countries enjoy the benefits of global trade will depend on finding ways to lessen and manage the potential tensions in the international system that are highlighted in the APS.

Sizing the market opportunity for clean energy

Achieving net zero emissions requires an unparalleled increase in clean energy investment. In the NZE, annual investment in clean energy rises to USD 4 trillion by 2030, more than tripling from current levels. Mobilising such a large investment will be challenging, but the investment required to secure clean energy transitions offers an unprecedented level of market opportunities to equipment manufacturers, service providers, developers and engineering, procurement and construction companies along the entire clean energy supply chain.

In the NZE, the combined size of the market for wind turbines, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, electrolysers and fuel cells represents a cumulative market opportunity to 2050 worth USD 27 trillion. At over 60% of the total, batteries account for the lion’s share of the estimated market for clean energy technology equipment in 2050. With over 3 billion electric vehicles (EVs) on the road and 3 terawatt-hours (TWh) of battery storage deployed in the NZE in 2050, batteries play a central part in the new energy economy. They also become the single largest source of demand for various critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt.

Estimated market sizes for selected clean energy technologies by technology and region, 2020-2050

Advanced economies and China have been building up their research and development (R&D) programmes and increasing spending on clean energy innovation, but patterns of spending will change as deployment expands everywhere in the world. In the NZE, the Asia Pacific region is home to 45% of the estimated market for clean energy technologies by 2050, and the share of the market accounted for by North America and Europe is lower than it was earlier in the period.

Many countries are seeking to develop manufacturing expertise and capabilities that would allow them to use some locally produced products to meet domestic demand, and also to participate in global supply chains and to license related intellectual property. Energy start-up companies have an important part to play in this. Despite the pandemic, record-breaking levels of capital have flowed to clean energy technology start-ups, with investment in 2021 expected to surpass the USD 4 billion in early-stage equity raised in 2019, which was the previous peak year. The United States still accounts for around half of the capital being invested, but Europe was the only major region to increase investment in 2020 and China’s share of the market has risen from 5% in the 2010-14 period to over 35% in the last three years.

Governments everywhere are also actively seeking to attract additional talent. India and Singapore have launched government initiatives to support international clean energy entrepreneurs. China, Japan and United States have recently made high-level commitments to energy R&D and innovation, framing it as a critical area of technological competition in coming years. In Europe, public initiatives like the European Battery Alliance are actively seeking to create new value chains. There is a momentous opportunity for the best innovators to capture a share of emerging value chains that have huge future potential.

Subscription successful

Thank you for subscribing. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of any IEA newsletter.

Articles on Energy economics

Displaying 1 - 20 of 28 articles.

Known unknowns: controversy over CSIRO’s electricity report reveals an uncomfortable truth

Bruce Mountain , Victoria University

Why cheap renewables are stalling

Jack Marley , The Conversation

If the first solar entrepreneur hadn’t been kidnapped, would fossil fuels have dominated the 20th century the way they did?

Sugandha Srivastav , University of Oxford

3 reasons US coal power is disappearing – and a Supreme Court ruling won’t save it

Rebecca J. Davis , Stephen F. Austin State University

As the world moves away from fossil fuels, Canada’s energy security may be at risk

Noha Razek , University of Regina

Climate change: how economists underestimated benefits of action for decades

Dimtri Zenghelis , University of Cambridge

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants

Jeremiah Johnson , North Carolina State University and Joseph F. DeCarolis , North Carolina State University

The nuclear industry is making a big bet on small power plants

Scott L. Montgomery , University of Washington

To slow climate change, the US needs to address nuclear power’s dismal economics

Tim Profeta , Duke University

Macron’s pledge to wipe out coal is just as meaningless as Trump’s plan to revive it

Jay L. Zagorsky , The Ohio State University

Why OPEC’s gambit to raise oil prices might not work

Gürcan Gülen , The University of Texas at Austin

BP’s extreme climate forecast puts energy giant in a bind

Roger Dargaville , The University of Melbourne ; Annabelle Workman , The University of Melbourne ; Changlong Wang , The University of Melbourne ; Dimitri Lafleur , The University of Melbourne ; Dylan McConnell , The University of Melbourne ; Martin Wainstein , The University of Melbourne , and Ryan Alexander , The University of Melbourne

Mexican energy reform may be a bridge to a low carbon economy – or a fossil fuel past

Baltazar Solano Rodriguez , UCL

Energy efficient homes could help Treasury balance the books

Grant Wilson , University of Sheffield

Those crying Not Under My Back Yard must not call the shots on fracking

Mark Shackleton , Lancaster University

US-style fracking success far from guaranteed on British soil

Andrew Aplin , Durham University

Do solar power subsidies benefit rich homeowners at the expense of the poor?

Christopher Emmott , Imperial College London

Back to the CEGB? Greater central control of UK energy may be inevitable

John Rhys , University of Oxford

British hi-tech engineering is more successful than you think

Jim Platts , University of Cambridge

Budget 2014: short-term gains for business, bad news for the environment

Jim Watson , UK Energy Research Centre

Related Topics

• Carbon emissions
• Climate change
• Fossil fuels
• Natural gas
• Renewable energy
• Solar power
• Wind energy

Top contributors

Senior Research Associate, Renewable Energy & Energy Systems Analyst, UNSW Sydney

Director Monash Energy Institute, Monash University

Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

Professor Emeritus, Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University

BHP Billiton Professor, The University of Western Australia

Associate Professor of Politics, University of Oxford

Professor in Climate Change Economics, University of East Anglia

Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

Visiting Lecturer, Research Fellow at City University London, Harvard University

PhD Student and research associate at the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Department of System Analysis and Technology Assessment, German Aerospace Center

Associate Professor, Energy Systems and Data Group, Birmingham Energy Institute, University of Birmingham

Visiting Research Associate, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, University of Oxford

Professor of Energy Policy and Director of the Institute of Sustainable Resources, UCL

Lecturer in Manufacturing Engineering Tripos, University of Cambridge

Mervin Bovaird Professor of Energy Business and Finance (retired), University of Tulsa

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

• Explanations
• Institutions

The data presented here are experimental. They are based on a sample of the research output in Economics and Finance. Only material catalogued in RePEc is considered. For any citation based criterion, only works that could be parsed by the CitEc project are considered. For any ranking of people, only those registered with the RePEc Author Service can be taken into account. And for rankings of institutions, only those listed in EDIRC and claimed as affiliation by the respective, registered authors can be measured. Thus, this list is by no means based on a complete sample. You can help making this more comprehensive by encouraging more publications to be listed ( instructions ) and more authors to register ( form ). For more details on the various rankings that are available as well for documentation, follow this link .

More services and features

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Corrections.

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

• Faculty of Arts and Sciences
• FAS Theses and Dissertations
• Communities & Collections
• By Issue Date
• FAS Department
• Quick submit
• Waiver Generator
• DASH Stories
• Accessibility
• COVID-related Research

Terms of Use

• Privacy Policy
• By Collections
• By Departments

Essays in Energy and Development Economics

Citable link to this page

Collections.

• FAS Theses and Dissertations [6566]

Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)

Show Statistical Information

Energy, Economy, and Climate Interactions: Challenges and Opportunities

Loading... Editorial 16 October 2023 Editorial: Energy, economy, and climate interactions: challenges and opportunities Chuanbao Wu , Xander Wang  and  Lirong Liu 550 views 0 citations

Original Research 25 April 2023 Research on the risk evaluation of enterprises' carbon compliance failure Xu Wang ,  1 more  and  Wei Li 1,138 views 1 citations

Loading... Review 23 February 2023 The development of green finance under the goal of carbon neutrality: A review from China’s perspective Yawei Xue ,  2 more  and  Yingying Ma 3,197 views 6 citations

Original Research 20 February 2023 Evolution trend and hot topic measurement of climate migration research under the influence of climate change Bing Liang ,  3 more  and  Min Zhou 3,284 views 2 citations

Original Research 19 January 2023 Embodied carbon transfers and employment-economic spillover effects in China’s inter-provincial trade Dewei Yang ,  7 more  and  Weijing Ma 1,651 views 0 citations

Original Research 19 January 2023 Green urbanization efficiency of 18 urban agglomerations in China: Evidence from spatial–temporal evolution Xiaofei Lv  and  Lu Wang 751 views 0 citations

Original Research 13 January 2023 Carbon footprint of black tea products under different technological routes and its influencing factors Congguang Zhang ,  2 more  and  Xiong Yang 2,438 views 2 citations

Original Research 13 January 2023 A characteristics analysis of carbon emission based on multi-dimensional carbon emission accounting methods and structural decomposition analysis: A case study of Beijing, China QingHua Li  and  Cong Chen 1,241 views 2 citations

Original Research 06 January 2023 Exploring the wicked problem dilemmas and driving mechanism of green transition: Evidence from the Yellow River Basin, China Weiwei Xie ,  1 more  and  Tianlin Jin 806 views 0 citations

Original Research 04 January 2023 Development of greenhouse gas emissions baseline and identification of carbon offset cost for maritime vessels of a developing country Basra Semab ,  2 more  and  Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq 1,996 views 1 citations

Loading... Original Research 14 September 2022 Does the growth of the digital economy boost the efficiency of synergistic carbon-haze governance? evidence from China Bin Zhou ,  3 more  and  Jiawei Liu 3,024 views 17 citations

Original Research 25 August 2022 Spatial imbalance and factors influencing carbon emission efficiency in China’s transport industry Qifei Ma ,  1 more  and  Haibo Kuang 1,396 views 3 citations

• Future Energy Systems Center
• Studies and reports
• Funding opportunities
• Carbon Management
• Electric Power
• Energy storage
• Low-carbon Fuels
• Transportation
• Undergraduate education
• Graduate & postdoctoral
• Online education
• Education research
• Current members
• Energy Futures
• In the media
• Affiliations

Five Energy Topics That Will Be Key To The World’s Future

Mit energy conference 2015 brings together key energy innovators.

Leading CEOs, academics and entrepreneurs in global energy converged on MIT this past weekend for the tenth annual MIT Energy Conference, which explored “Global Energy Shifts.” Panels delved into four key areas: power and renewables, fossil fuels, global collaboration, and sustainable development.

Key speakers over the two day gathering included Thomas Siebel, Founder and CEO of C3 Energy, Bill Colton, Vice President of Corporate Strategic Planning at ExxonMobil Corporation, Ahmad Chatila, President and CEO of SunEdison, Dirk Smit, Chief Scientist at Shell Global, David Danielson, Assistant Secretary of Energy at the DOE, and William A. Von Hoene, Jr., Chief Strategic Officer at Exelon Group, among others.

MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) director Robert Armstrong delivered opening remarks to a packed auditorium. Armstrong lauded the conference’s ability to consistently touch upon the most pressing energy issues of our time, and to foster an atmosphere conducive to solving challenges in a creative and efficient way.

“There are five topics in particular that are going to be of importance in the energy world in the near future,” said Armstrong. “Solar is the first.”

“Though solar is admittedly difficult, because it’s a resource that’s not concentrated in one place, it also is an easily and cheaply manufactured technology, which will help widen its reach.”

Armstrong next pointed to both energy storage and then the grid. “Energy storage is essential for large scale incorporation of renewables on the grid. The grid’s size, resiliency, reliability, security and adaptability need to be taken into account if the full potential of emerging energy technologies is going to be achieved.”

MITEI’s director also urged his audience to pay attention to emerging technologies in two areas: nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS.

“In a truly balanced energy ecosystem, nuclear needs to be part of the solution.  Leaps forward in affordable and predictable nuclear will change our energy landscape for the better.”

Armstrong has similarly high hopes for carbon capture and sequestration. Citing the projection that global energy demand will double by midcentury, he observed that fossil fuels will have to be a part of that equation.

“The need to remove carbon from the atmosphere is very real, and CCS technology will play a critical role in solving this problem.”

Armstrong’s vision for the MIT Energy Initiative within the energy landscape is clear –  “The MIT Energy Initiative has at its heart – just as the MIT Energy Club does – a goal of bringing all the talents of MIT together to bear on these very real challenges.”

The rest of the conference’s panels kept this solution-oriented spirit alive.

At an afternoon panel on fossil fuels called “Unconventional Resources: Present to Future, U.S. to Global,” Christopher Knittel , the William Barton Rogers Professor of Energy Economics at MIT Sloan and a MITEI-affiliated researcher, led a group of experts in a discussion of the future of shale gas drilling.

Another panel approached the issue of how to promote a different kind of unconventional resource: renewable energy. In the session “Securing the Future of Clean Energy Through a Stronger Transmission Backbone,” panelists from across the clean energy sector approached the issue of how to better integrate renewables into the grid.

In all, the sold-out conference featured over fifty speakers participating in over fifteen panels and keynotes tackling key global energy issues.

For more information about the day, visit the MIT Energy Conference’s website .

Press inquiries: [email protected]

The Precourt Institute for Energy is part of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability .

Research Areas

Main navigation, renewable energy.

• Fusion Energy
• Renewable Fuels

Energy Conversion & Storage

• Large-Scale Storage

Global Carbon Management

• CO2 Capture & Sequestration
• CO2 Conversion & Use
• Direct Air Capture
• Methane Leakage
• Natural Climate Solutions

Electric Grid Modernization

• Digitization, Control, & Optimization
• Grid Reliability
• Power Electronics
• Superconductors

Policy, Economics & Society

• Energy Equity & Just Transitions
• Finance, Markets, & Business Models
• Legislation, Regulation, & Taxation
• National Security
• Public Opinion

Environmental Impacts

• Air Quality
• Human Health

Energy Efficiency

• Energy-Efficient Computing & Electronics
• Human Behavior & Energy Use
• Water Systems

Industrial Decarbonization

• Additive/3D Printing
• Circular Economy

Sustainable Transportation

• Electric Vehicles
• Heavy-Duty Transport

Conventional Energy

• Natural Gas

Energy Systems

• Energy Systems Analysis
• Energy Transition Pathways
• Zero-Emission Energy Solutions

Office of Population Research

Topics in Economics: Energy Economics

Examines the economics behind many issues related to energy use, including the investment and use of renewable and non-renewable resources, energy conservation, deregulation of energy markets, transportation, and energy independence. Current policy options are discussed.

Featured Topics

View the  Entrepreneurship Working Group  page.

Econometrics

Microeconomics, macroeconomics, international economics, financial economics, public economics, health, education, and welfare, labor economics, industrial organization, development and growth, environmental and resource economics, regional and urban economics, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

The Relationship Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: Panel Data Analysis by Country Groups

• Open access
• Published: 05 July 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Okyay Uçan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5221-4682 1 ,
• Ecem Turgut 1 &
• Ayberk Nuri Berkman 2  

50 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This study aimed to analyze the relationship between energy consumption ( EC ) and economic growth ( EG ). Mostly, the relationship between energy and economic growth has been analyzed in certain country groups, whereas in this study, three different country groups were considered and compared. To this end, countries were categorized into three different groups, such as low-income developing, emerging market, and middle-income, and advanced economies. Thus, it was revealed whether the results varied across country groups. Ten country samples from each country group and a total of 30 country samples were utilized. The data of both EG and EC obtained over the period 1990–2022 were utilized. A panel LM test was performed to analyze the relationship between variables. As a result of the test, although a cointegration relationship existed between EG and EC in low-income developing countries, no cointegration relationship was found in emerging markets, and middle-income, or advanced economies. Therefore, it was concluded that the relationship between EC and EG might have varied according to the development levels of the countries. In addition, empirical evidence confirmed that a unilateral causality from EG to EC was determined only in low-income developing countries. These empirical insights are of particular interest to policymakers as they help to build substantial economic policies to sustain economic development.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy resources has attracted a great deal of attention due to the increasing worry regarding climate change stemming from the consumption of coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels. On the other hand, the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol were enacted. These developments, while simultaneously sustaining economic growth ( EG ), are aimed at fighting against climate change and enhancing sustainable energy usage (Ivanovski et al., 2021 ).

The experiences in which high energy prices prevailed and the Kyoto protocol for the reduction of carbon emissions caused the revival of debates on the implementation of energy-saving policies. Policies aiming to reduce energy needs gradually should take into account the association between EG and energy consumption ( EC ) (Tsani, 2010 ).

Climate change, which manifests itself in the modern world, and its impact on the environment are undoubtedly among the most crucially controversial issues. EC through human activities, especially the most recent ones, is among the main causes that have an impact on the environment. One of the most important ways to cope with the significant and adverse changes that may occur in the environment involves bringing forth a modification in energy production technologies. Along with the comprehension of the detriments of conventional production techniques such as coal burning on the environment, countries have turned to renewable, environmentally friendly production techniques such as solar and wind on an international scale. In this respect, especially developed countries loom large in encouraging renewable resources to strengthen energy supply security and control greenhouse gas emissions (Inglesi-Lotz, 2016 ).

The energy factor is the main source of EG , industrialization, and urbanization, which may lead to higher amounts of energy usage, especially commercial energy. Therefore, the interaction between these two variables is also inevitable (Paul & Bhattacharya, 2004 ).

Upon examining the literature on the relationship between EC and EG , two distinct views emerge. According to the first one, energy usage occurs as a constraint factor for EG . According to the second view, the energy factor is neutral for EG . This view is the “neutrality hypothesis,” which argues in the literature that energy costs involve merely a small proportion of GDP . It is accepted that the impact of EC on EG would vary depending on economic structure of the countries and the phase of EG . Accordingly, as the economy grows, it is expected that the production structure will shift towards services that are not energy-intensive activities (Mehrara, 2007 ).

Although developed countries dread that their lifestyles would be adversely affected due to the decline in EC , developing countries consider this a brake on growth. EG is one of the most crucial factors to be taken into account in predicting changes in EC around the world. The association between EC and EG has been an issue that has been studied frequently. In other words, whether or not an interaction occurs between EG and EC has aroused a great deal of interest. The direction of causality between the two variables has begun to attract attention since it contains important policy implications. For instance, since EC is an important component of EG , energy-saving policies reducing EC may adversely affect the real gross domestic product. Nonetheless, a unilateral causality from EG to EC indicates a less energy-dependent economy (Eggoh et al., 2011 ).

If such causality exists, energy conservation policies can be implemented with almost no impact on EG . However, if a unilateral causality running from EC to income exists, a reduction of EC may result in a decline in income (Paul & Bhattacharya, 2004 ).

The economic theory contains uncertainties pertaining to the direction of causality. Because opposing theoretical notions assert that EC predates EG and vice versa. The ecological economic theory claims that energy resources are essential factors of production, just as EC orients EG . However, the Neoclassical growth models suggest that demand for energy is derived, and thus, EC stems from macroeconomic conditions. The main arguments of the Neoclassical Theory’s supporters emphasize the role of technological progress and substitution possibilities in improving resource scarcity (Bartleet & Gounder, 2010 ).

In the context of the points mentioned above, the development levels of countries are also important. The terms underdeveloped, developing, or developed country are used to distinguish between industrialized and non-industrialized countries, or, more simply, rich and non-rich countries. Underdevelopment is used to characterize countries that are relatively low in world rankings in terms of economic, industrial, political, and sociocultural aspects. The most important criteria for the developed level are the industrialization level of the countries, their economic situation, and their integration into the world economy. In simpler terms, data such as national income per capita, unemployment rate, share of exports in the economy, and employment rate in agriculture and industry are taken into account. The economies of underdeveloped countries are generally based on imports rather than exports, or since these countries lack processing capacity, they can only export their natural wealth as raw materials. As the development status of countries increases, the situation becomes the opposite. If a country is integrated into the world economy and has a certain geopolitical weight, it is considered developed (Şentürk, 2022 ).

Energy policy development has important theoretical implications for economic growth due to its impact on innovation and knowledge. Important considerations include innovation and technological developments, knowledge spillovers, resource allocation and investment, and global competitiveness. Energy policies can stimulate innovation in renewable energy sources, energy efficiency technologies, and sustainable practices. These innovations can lead to the development of new industries, job creation, and increased productivity, all of which contribute to economic growth. Energy policies that encourage research and development in the energy sector can lead to knowledge spillovers into other sectors. This cross-pollination of ideas and technologies can stimulate overall economic growth by increasing competitiveness and productivity in various sectors. Effective energy policies can influence resource allocation by encouraging investment in clean energy technologies. Allocating resources to sustainable practices can bring long-term economic benefits, such as reduced environmental costs and increased resilience to energy price volatility. Energy policies that promote sustainability and innovation can increase a country’s global competitiveness. By positioning a country as a leader in clean energy technologies, it can attract investment, create export opportunities, and strengthen its economic position in the global market. In sum, developing energy policies that prioritize innovation and sustainability can have far-reaching theoretical effects on economic growth by promoting technological advances, knowledge sharing, resource efficiency, and global competitiveness (Şahin & Ucan, 2023 ).

It is aimed to analyze the association between EC and EG by the development levels of countries. So, countries are examined by dividing them into three subgroups such as low-income developing, emerging market and middle-income, and advanced economies. Thus, it is analyzed whether or not the development differences across countries are also effective in the association between the variables. It is the distinguishing feature of this study. Studies conducted on this issue in the literature are reviewed, and thus, a general perspective on the issue is introduced in the second part. In the third part, firstly, the dataset, countries, and variables in question are mentioned, and the methodology employed in empirical practice is explained. Lastly, while yielding empirical results, the study is finalized with recommendations.

Along with the development of industrialization and urbanization, EC comes to the fore, and its impact on EG becomes a frequently discussed issue. The claim that the associations between EC and EG vary by the development levels of countries has caused an empirical discussion on this issue. In this part of the study, studies on this subject in the literature are included.

A group of researchers diagnosed that a bilateral causality was found between EC and EG (Apergis & Payne, 2010 ; Belke et al., 2011 ; Paul & Bhattacharya, 2004 ; Saidi et al., 2018 ; Sekrafi & Sghaier, 2018 ; Wang et al., 2011 ). Some of the studies emphasized that renewable EC did not have a significant impact on EG in developed countries, while it had a positive and significant impact on EG (Chen et al., 2020 ; Shahbaz et al., 2020 ; Gozgor et al., 2018 ; Gozgor, Bhattacharya et al., 2016 ; Tang et al., 2016 ). Some of them found that a long-term equilibrium relationship between EC and GDP was determined (Eggoh et al., 2011 ; Bartleet & Gounder, 2010 ; Ozturk et al., 2010 ; Oh & Lee, 2004 ; Hondroyiannis et al., 2002 ). Some discussed the relationship between EG and EC within the context of long-term causality. It was suggested that a long-term relationship existed. Nevertheless, no causality could be determined in the short run (Lee & Chang, 2008 ; Ozturk & Acaravci, 2010 ).

As a result of the literature review, 18 studies are included in this part. Most of them were based on panel data analyses using multi-country samples. These studies consist of Chen et al. ( 2020 ), Shahbaz et al. ( 2020 ), Gozgor et al. ( 2018 ), Bhattacharya et al. ( 2016 ), Belke et al. ( 2011 ), Eggoh et al. ( 2011 ), Wang et al. ( 2011 ), Apergis and Payne ( 2010 ), Ozturk et al. ( 2010 ), and Lee and Chang ( 2008 ). Although Wang et al. ( 2011 ) conducted panel data analysis, it was distinguished from other studies based on provinces in China. In other words, panel data analysis was performed for merely a single country sample. Besides, a vast number of studies consisting of a single country sample were determined, but the country sample differed from each other. For instance, such examples as Tang et al. ( 2016 )—Vietnam; Bartleet and Gounder ( 2010 )—New Zealand; Ozturk and Acaravci ( 2010 )—Turkey; Paul and Bhattacharya ( 2004 )—India; Oh and Lee ( 2004 )—South Korea; and Hondroyiannis et al. ( 2002 )—Greece were utilized. Ozturk et al. ( 2010 ), however, investigated the subject of analysis by categorizing country groups by income levels, similar to this study.

Dataset, Methodology, and Empirical Analysis

It is aimed at analyzing the relationship between EC and EG by the development levels of countries. Thus, in this study, it is checked whether the relationship between the two variables tends to vary based on the development levels of the countries. Therefore, country groups are evaluated by categorizing them into 3 subgroups, such as low-income developing, emerging market and middle-income, and advanced economies, and the data of 30 countries are analyzed. Information on the countries is presented in Table  1 .

In each country group presented in Table  1 , 10 country samples are utilized separately. Besides, the data on EG , EC , and labor force data obtained over the period 1990–2022 are used. Thus, the number of observations is determined to be 33.

The GDP variable represents EG and is considered the dependent variable in the study. The GDP variable represents the gross domestic product relative to buyer prices. The GDP at buyer prices is the sum of the gross value added of all resident producers in the economy plus all product taxes and minus all subsidies not included in the value of products. It is calculated without deducting the amortization of fabricated assets or the depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current USD. The USD figures for GDP are converted from local currencies using the official exchange rates. Renewable EC is the share of renewable energy in total EC . Lastly, the labor force includes individuals aged 15 and over who are employed for the production of goods and services within a certain period, including already employed individuals and job seekers. But it does not include every employed individual. The size of the labor force varies throughout the period as seasonal employees enter and exit workplaces. The data on the variables are obtained from the World Bank in Table  2 . Furthermore; various econometric software programms are utilized to conduct the analyses.

Cross-sectional Dependence (CSD)

Upon considering the standard panel data model (De Hoyos & Sarafidis, 2006 ):

In Eq. ( 1 ), \({x}_{it}\) is a K  × 1 vector of regressors and \(\beta\) is a K  × 1 vector of parameters to be estimated. \({\alpha }_{i}\) denotes time-invariant individual parameters. \({\mu }_{it}\) is assumed to be independent and identically distributed across cross-sectional units and over periods under H 0 hypothesis. Under H 1 , the assumption of no serial correlation is accepted. So, the relevant hypotheses are as follows:

Here, \({\rho }_{ij}\) is the correlation coefficient and given as in Eq. ( 2 ):

In the context of seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) estimation, Breusch and Pagan (1980) proposed an LM statistic for fixed N as T → ∞:

Here, \({\widehat{\rho }}_{ij}\) denotes the sample estimate of the pairwise correlation of the residuals.

\({\widehat{\mu }}_{it}\) is an estimate of \({u}_{it}\) . The LM is asymptotically distributed as χ 2 with N ( N  − 1)/2 degrees of freedom under H 0 . Nonetheless, this test is to display significant distortions once T is finite and N is large since the LM statistic is not centered for T , and the bias tends to be worse off. Pesaran ( 2004 ) suggested an alternative as follows:

It indicates that under H 0 implying no CSD, CD  →  N (0, 1) for N  →  ∞ and T is large enough. The CD statistic has a zero mean for fixed values of T and N , under panel-data (homogeneous/heterogeneous dynamic) models, as well as nonstationary models. The CD test is still valid, since the FE/RE residuals would have zero means, assuming that the distortions are symmetrically distributed. Pesaran ( 2004 ) proposed a slightly modified version of Eq. ( 5 ) for unbalanced panels as follows:

Here, \({T}_{ij}\) = #( \({T}_{i}\) ∩ \({T}_{j}\) ). That is, the common time series number consists of observations across units i and j .

Here \(\overline{{\widehat{\mu } }_{i}}\) is shown as follows:

Homogeneity Test

Another concern in panel data analysis involves determining the homogeneity of the slope coefficients. Upon assuming that the panel is homogeneous without testing, the country-specific features cannot be noticed. Pesaran and Yamagata ( 2007 ) proposed the standardized distribution statistics to test homogeneity (Bedir and Yilmaz, 2016 ):

Under H 0 with the ( N , T ) → ∞ condition, the \(\overline{\Delta }\) test has an asymptotic standard normal distribution. The \(\overline{\Delta }\) test can be developed for small samples, using the revised version:

In Eq. ( 10 ), \(E\left({\overline{z} }_{it}\right)=k\) and \(\text{var}\left({\overline{z} }_{it}\right)=2k\frac{(T-k-1)}{(T+1)}\) .

Second-Generation Unit Root Test

Whether the series contains a unit root was determined by the bootstrap-IPS unit root test, which was created by Smith et al. ( 2004 ), utilizing a filter sampling process through bootstrap blocks and allowing CSD. In this analysis, the findings of the t ̅ test statistic are taken into account based on “ H 0 : unit root.” In the analysis, it is stated that once H 0 is rejected, there is stationarity for the series in question in at least one economy (Uğur & Kütükçü, 2022 ).

Smith et al. ( 2004 ) developed stronger variants of certain panel unit root tests, thus allowing for generic forms of CSD. The first two are standard IPS tests. The t -bar statistic is calculated as the average of t -statistics independent of ADF specifications, i.e., \({\overline{t} }_{NT}={N}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}{t}_{i}\) , where i  = 1, …, N and t  = 1, …, T which represent the number of panel members and their time slots, respectively. The following are the standardized statistics (Romero-Ávila, 2008 ):

\(\text{Var}\left({t}_{i}\right)\) and \(E\left({t}_{i}\right)\) are the expected values of the variance and the mean, respectively. IPS also developed the Lagrange multiplier ( LM ) test statistic, which has the following form after normalization:

Here, \({LM}_{i}\) is the individual LM test, and \({LM}_{NT}={N}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}{LM}_{i}\) . Smith et al. ( 2004 ) also developed a certain panel version of the univariate ADF t -statistics, namely, the Max test, \({\text{Max}}_{i}\) , regarding forward and reverse ADF regressions:

Here, \({\text{Max}}_{NT}={N}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\text{Max}}_{i}\) . The weighted symmetric test \({WS}_{i}\) is as follows:

Here, \({WS}_{NT}={N}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}{WS}_{i}\) and also the minimum LM statistic, \({\text{Min}}_{i}\) , is as follows:

Here, \({\text{Min}}_{NT}={N}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\text{Min}}_{i}\) . Smith et al. ( 2004 ) proposed a modified bootstrapping version to calculate p -values that are robust to small sample bias and CSD. For large negative values, \({{\uppsi }_{\overline{t} },\uppsi }_{\text{Max}}\) , and \({\uppsi }_{WS}\) reject H 0 . For \({\uppsi }_{LM}\) and \({\uppsi }_{\text{min}}\) , however, for large positive values, H 0 is rejected.

Panel LM Cointegration Test

In panel data analysis, testing the long-term relationships using the cointegration method has been frequently performed. The panel bootstrap cointegration test developed by Westerlund and Edgerton ( 2007 ) is performed to analyze cointegration. The test has H 0 of cointegration. This test uses the bootstrap feature to allow correlation between and within cross-sectional units. It is based on a sieve sampling scheme and simulation results indicate that it reduces distortions in asymptotic tests. Moreover, it is concluded that it has good performance in small samples (İnançlı et al., 2016 ). To illustrate the scalar variant, \({y}_{it}\) (Westerlund & Edgerton, 2007 ):

Here, i  = 1, …, N and t  = 1, …, T denote the cross-sectional units and time-series, respectively. \({x}_{it}\) contains regressors that involve in a pure random walk process and has dimension K . \({z}_{it}\) is given as follows.

Here, \({\eta }_{ij}\) is an identically distributed and independent process with variance var ( \({\eta }_{ij})={{\sigma }^{2}}_{i}\) and zero mean. \({w}_{ij}\) = ( \({u}_{it}\) , Δ \({{x}{\prime}}_{it}\) ) ' is a satisfactory linear process.

Here, \({e}_{it}\) denotes the mean zero errors across t . It should be noted that since \({\alpha }_{ij}\) varies with respect to i , this model allows heterogeneous serial correlation. The aim of this study is to test H 0 versus H 1 ; this is equivalent to testing H 0 : \({{\sigma }^{2}}_{i}\) = 0 for all i versus H 1 : \({{\sigma }^{2}}_{i}\) > 0 for some i .

Dumitrescu–Hurlin (D-H) Panel Causality Test

Unlike a standard Granger causality approach, D-H causality analysis assumes that all coefficients tend to vary across the cross-sections. Also, even in the presence of CSD, this test fits well enough over a relatively short data range. Dumitrescu and Hurlin ( 2012 ) considered the following model (Dogan et al., 2017 ):

H 0 and H 1 are established as follows:

More specifically, H 0 supports a homogeneous Granger causality, whereas H 1 assumes the presence of at least one causality.

Empirical Analysis

One of the most important problems is whether or not the series is interdependent. Because under normal conditions, most countries have trade openness, a shock that appears in one country also influences others. Nonetheless, in many studies, the CSD is neglected, and analysis is conducted in this regard. However, the analysis should be performed by taking into account CSD. Because subsequent analyses would be conducted depending on whether or not CSD occurs. For this purpose, in this study, firstly, CSD is investigated for each country group.

In Table  3 , the CSD results for each country group are analyzed separately for each variable. As a result of the investigation, it is seen that the probability values of the GDP , EC , and LF variables are lower than the 5% significance level. This indicates that H 0 implying no CSD should be rejected and H 1 implying CSD should be accepted. In short, in this study, all variables are dependent, and other countries are also affected by a shock that occurs in one country. It indicates that a second-generation unit root test should be performed to determine the level at which these variables are stationary, and second-generation tests should be performed to analyze the relationship between variables. Nevertheless, a new problem arises at this point. This is to determine whether homogeneity or heterogeneity is valid. Because according to the obtained results, it would be decided which second-generation tests should be performed. In this study, the delta homogeneity test is performed to detect the homogeneity of the variables.

The homogeneity test results for each country group are presented in Table  4 . Upon examining the obtained results, it is seen that both delta and adjusted delta probability values are lower than the 5% significance level. Since H 0 is based on the homogeneity of the slope coefficients, it is rejected and H 1 implying heterogeneity of the slope coefficients is accepted. Therefore, in the next step, a second-generation unit root test that allows heterogeneity assumption should be performed to determine the level at which the variables are stationary. The Boot-IPS unit root test is chosen as the second-generation test.

Upon evaluating the results obtained from Table  5 , it is seen that the GDP , EC , and LF are not stationary at the level in all countries, whereas they are stationary at the 5% significance level at the first difference. Therefore, the cointegration relationship should be considered in the case where all the variables are I (1). In this study, the Westerlund and Edgerton (W-E) Panel LM test is performed to test the cointegration.

In Table  6 , two types of results are revealed using panel LM test. One of them is bootstrap and the other is the asymptotic value. In case of CSD, attention should be paid to bootstrap results. In this study, bootstrap values are examined and analyzed since they are cross-sectional dependent. Upon evaluating the results, the probability value exceeds the 5% significance value in low-income developing countries. This means accepting H 0 implying the existence of cointegration. In emerging markets and middle-income and advanced economies, the probability values are lower than the 5% significance level. Therefore, H 0 is rejected and H 1 implying no cointegration is accepted. Although a cointegration relationship exists between EG and EC in low-income developing countries, there is no cointegration relationship in emerging markets and middle-income and advanced economies. Some studies like ours found that a long-term equilibrium relationship between EC and EG (Eggoh et al., 2011 ; Bartleet & Gounder, 2010 ; Ozturk et al., 2010 ; Oh & Lee, 2004 ; Hondroyiannis, Lolos, and Papepetrou, 2002).

Therefore, it is concluded that the relationship between EC and EG is likely to vary according to the development level of the countries. Furthermore, upon examining LF, which is considered a control variable, all probability values exceed the 5% significance level. Therefore, the presence of a cointegration relationship is accepted. In compliance with these results, D-H test is performed to detect the causality. However, the important point in D-H causality test is that the variables are stationary at the level. By taking the first differences of the variables, they are rendered stationary at the level and the analysis is conducted. After the first differences of the variables are taken, they are shown as DGDP , DEC , and DLF . Prior to performing D-H Panel causality tests, another important problem involves the determination of the appropriate lag length. Therefore, firstly, the appropriate lag length is determined.

Five different information criteria have been used to determine the appropriate lag length in Table  7 . The SC information criterion is used. In this context, upon examining the results, it is determined that the appropriate lag length is 2 in low-income developing and emerging market and middle-income countries, whereas it is 1 in advanced economies. Within the scope of these lag lengths, D-H panel causality test is performed.

Upon examining the direction of the causality according to country groups, a unilateral causality from GDP to EC is found only in low-income developing countries, whereas no causality is found between EG and EC in emerging markets and middle-income countries and advanced economies. On the other hand, although a bilateral causality is found between EG and the labor force in low-income developing countries, a unilateral causality from the labor force to EG is detected only at a 10% significance level in low-income developing countries. In advanced economies, however, no relationship is found between any of the variables. In Table  8 , results indicate that the relationship between the variables is likely to vary by the development levels of the countries. Unlike us, a group of researchers diagnosed that a bilateral causality was found between EC and EG (Saidi et al., 2018 ; Sekrafi & Sghaier, 2018 ; Belke et al., 2011 ; Wang et al., 2011 ; Apergis & Payne, 2010 ; Paul & Bhattacharya, 2004 ). Some of the studies emphasized that renewable EC did not have a significant impact on EG in developed countries, while it had a positive and significant impact on EG (Chen et al., 2020 ; Shahbaz et al., 2020 ; Gozgor et al., 2018 ; Gozgor, Bhattacharya et al., 2016 ; Tang et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, like our study, some discussed the relationship between EG and EC within the context of long-term and causality. It was suggested that a long-term relationship existed. Nevertheless, no causality could be determined in the short run (Lee & Chang, 2008 ; Ozturk & Acaravci, 2010 ).

The reason why the results differ according to the development level of the countries is that as countries develop, export rates increase and production amounts increase in parallel. Specifically, as countries develop, their exports or production increase, which creates a parallel increase in energy consumption and an increasing trend in gross domestic product. On the other hand, since underdeveloped countries have a structure based on imports rather than exports, they purchase the products and services they need from other countries, which shows that production is less and provides evidence that energy consumed less. All these factors explain why causality varies across country groups.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

All production activities carried out in a country require a certain level of energy usage. Especially with the development of industrialization and urbanization, certain levels of increased energy usage appear. Therefore, the relationship between EC and EG is inevitable. Particularly, this interaction differs by the development levels of the countries. In this regard, the interaction between EC and EG in the literature has been the subject of ongoing examination in different country samples. It is aimed at examining the relationship between EC and EG for different country groups. To this end, the countries are categorized into three different country groups such as low-income developing, emerging market and middle-income, and advanced economies. Thus, it is revealed whether the relationship between EC and EG varies according to the development levels of the countries. This situation distinguishes the study from other studies. In the study, while the EG variable is considered the dependent variable, the EC and labor force variables are considered the independent variables. The data of the variables between 1990–2019 are utilized.

In the study, the empirical part begins by testing CSD and determining whether each variable contains CSD separately. As a result, it is understood that CSD occurs. It is indicated that a second-generation test should be performed to determine the levels at which these variables are stationary, and a second-generation cointegration test should be performed to determine the cointegration. However, to determine which of the second-generation tests would be appropriate, the delta homogeneity test is performed. In this regard, the Boot-IPS second-generation test is performed to detect the level at which the variables are stationary and it is determined that the variables such as EG , EC , and labor force are found to be stationary at the first difference. Therefore, the W-E Panel LM test is found as the most suitable method for determining the cointegration. These test results indicate that while cointegration exists between EG and EC in low-income developing countries, there is no cointegration relationship in emerging markets and middle-income, and advanced economies. Therefore, it is concluded that the relationship between EC and EG may vary by the development levels of the countries. Lastly, D-H test is performed to detect the direction of the causality, and a unilateral causality from EG to EC is detected only in low-income developing countries. The results of this study, contradicting the findings of Ozturk et al. ( 2010 ) regarding the existence of cointegration relationships in each country group, are distinguished from the study. It is recommended to develop policies by examining the development level and characteristics of each country. In future studies, it is recommended to analyze the impact of EC on environmental pollution.

The findings of this study reveal how countries should follow policies according to their development levels in the context of sustainable development, and that following the same policies for each group of countries will lead to erroneous results. Therefore, each country should follow a separate policy implementation method according to its level of development.

However, if the environmental effects of the EC and EG relationship, which is of critical importance in the era of climate change and sustainability goals, are evaluated, the increase in energy consumption brings with it significant environmental problems. Emissions from energy create air, water, and soil pollution. It threatens human health, nature, and biodiversity. The only solution to the problem is the use of renewable energy sources. The increasing demand for energy every day causes important environmental problems to arise. Emissions from energy cause air, water, and soil pollution threaten human health, nature, and biodiversity. Excessive energy consumption leads to the use of all kinds of energy resources, while the negative impacts on the environment increase. Therefore, meeting the increasing energy needs in the long term requires establishing a permanent and effective relationship between energy needs, ecological balance and environmental protection, and the use of environmentally friendly energy sources.

Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy, 38 (1), 656–660.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bartleet, M., & Gounder, R. (2010). Energy consumption and economic growth in New Zealand: Results of trivariate and multivariate models. Energy Policy, 38 (7), 3508–3517.

Bedir, S., & Yilmaz, V. M. (2016). CO2 emissions and human development in OECD countries: Granger causality analysis with a panel data approach. Eurasian Economic Review, 6 (1), 97–110.

Belke, A., Dobnik, F., & Dreger, C. (2011). Energy consumption and economic growth: New insights into the cointegration relationship. Energy Economics, 33 (5), 782–789.

Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S. R., Ozturk, I., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Evidence from top 38 countries. Applied Energy, 162 , 733–741.

Chen, C., Pinar, M., & Stengos, T. (2020). Renewable energy consumption and economic growth nexus: Evidence from a threshold model. Energy Policy, 139 , 111295.

De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The Stata Journal, 6 (4), 482–496.

Dogan, E., Seker, F., & Bulbul, S. (2017). Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: A panel study of OECD countries. Current Issues in Tourism, 20 (16), 1701–1719.

Dumitrescu, E., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29 (4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014

Eggoh, J. C., Bangaké, C. and Rault, C. (2011). Energy consumption and economic growth revisited in African countries. Energy Policy, 39 , 7408–7421.

Gozgor, G., Lau, C. K. M., & Lu, Z. (2018). Energy consumption and economic growth: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy, 153 , 27–34.

Hondroyiannis, G., Lolos, S., & Papapetrou, E. (2002). Energy consumption and economic growth: Assessing the evidence from Greece. Energy Economics, 24 (4), 319–336.

İnançlı, S., Altıntaş, N., & Veysel, İN. A. L. (2016). Finansal gelişme ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: D-8 örneği. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (4), 36–49.

Google Scholar  

Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2016). The impact of renewable energy consumption to economic growth: A panel data application. Energy Economics, 53 , 1–19.

Ivanovski, K., Hailemariam, A., & Smyth, R. (2021). The effect of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Non-parametric evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286 , 124956.

Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2008). Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian economies: A more comprehensive analysis using panel data. Resource and Energy Economics, 30 (1), 50–65.

Mehrara, M. (2007). Energy consumption and economic growth: The case of oil exporting countries. Energy Policy, 35 (5), 2939–2945.

Oh, W., & Lee, K. (2004). Energy consumption and economic growth in Korea: Testing the causality relation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 26 (8–9), 973–981.

Ozturk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14 (9), 3220–3225.

Ozturk, I., Aslan, A., & Kalyoncu, H. (2010). Energy consumption and economic growth relationship: Evidence from panel data for low and middle-income countries. Energy Policy, 38 (8), 4422–4428.

Paul, S., & Bhattacharya, R. N. (2004). Causality between energy consumption and economic growth in India: A note on conflicting results. Energy Economics, 26 (6), 977–983.

Pesaran, M.H. (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Dİscussion Paper Series. IZA, 1240, 1–39.

Pesaran, M.H., & Yamagata, T. (2007). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (1), 50–93.

Romero-Ávila, D. (2008). A confirmatory analysis of the unit root hypothesis for OECD consumption-income ratios. Applied Economics, 40 (17), 2271–2278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600949447

Şahin, E. E., & Ucan, O. (2023). The future of renewable energy in developing countries. Nigde Omer Halisdemir University Journal of Social Sciences Instutute, 5 (2), 142–153.

Saidi, K., Mbarek, M. B., & Amamri, M. (2018). Causal dynamics between energy consumption, ICT, FDI, and economic growth: Case study of 13 MENA countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9 (1), 228–238.

Sekrafi, H., & Sghaier, A. (2018). Examining the relationship between corruption, economic growth, environmental degradation, and energy consumption: A panel analysis in MENA region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9 , 963–979.

Şentürk, R. (2022). Az Gelişmişlik. Tübitak Bilim ve Toplum Başkanlığı Popüler Bilim Yayınları, Sosyal Bilimler Ansiklopedisi,123–142.

Shahbaz, M., Raghutla, C., Chittedi, K. R., Jiao, Z., & Vo, X. V. (2020). The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Evidence from the renewable energy country attractive index. Energy, 207 , 118162.

Smith, V.S., S. Leybourne, T.H. Kim, P. Newbold. (2004). More powerful panel data unit root tests with an application to mean reversion in real exchange rates.  Journal of Applied Econometrics, 19 (2):147–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.723

Tang, C. F., Tan, B. W., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Energy consumption and economic growth in Vietnam. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54 , 1506–1514.

Tsani, S. Z. (2010). Energy consumption and economic growth: A causality analysis for Greece. Energy Economics, 32 (3), 582–590.

Uğur, B., & Kütükçü, E. (2022). D-8 Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Büyümenin İşsizlik Üzerindeki Etkisi: Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6 (1), 65–78.

Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P., & Wang, Q. W. (2011). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39 (9), 4870–4875.

Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97 (3), 185–190.

Download references

Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Nigde Omer Halisdemir University, Nigde, Turkey

Okyay Uçan & Ecem Turgut

Department of Banking and Finance, Nigde Omer Halisdemir University, Nigde, Turkey

Ayberk Nuri Berkman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Okyay Uçan .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Uçan, O., Turgut, E. & Berkman, A.N. The Relationship Between Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: Panel Data Analysis by Country Groups. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02137-y

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2023

Accepted : 05 June 2024

Published : 05 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02137-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Energy consumption
• Economic growth
• Panel LM test
• Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality test

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Research Program in Development Economics

Topics in economics: energy economics.

Examines the economics behind many issues related to energy use, including the investment and use of renewable and non-renewable resources, energy conservation, deregulation of energy markets, transportation, and energy independence. Current policy options are discussed.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• How Americans View National, Local and Personal Energy Choices

Most Americans want more renewable energy, but support has dipped. Interest in electric vehicles has also declined

Table of contents.

• 1. Views on energy development in the U.S.
• 2. Americans’ views on local wind and solar power development
• 3. Americans’ perceptions of solar power in their own lives
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Appendix: Detailed charts and tables

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of energy issues. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,638 U.S. adults from May 13 to 19, 2024.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report , along with responses, and its Methodology .

The planet’s continued streak of record heat has spurred calls for action by scientists and global leaders . Meanwhile, in the United States, energy development policy is being hotly debated on the national and local levels this election year. How do Americans feel about U.S. energy policy options, and what steps are they willing to take in their own lives to reduce carbon emissions? A new Pew Research Center survey takes a look.

Among the major findings:

There’s been a decline in the breadth of support for wind and solar power. The shares who favor expanding solar and wind power farms are down 12 percentage points and 11 points, respectively, since 2020, driven by sharp drops in support among Republicans.

Interest in buying an electric vehicle (EV) is lower than a year ago. Today, 29% of Americans say they would consider an EV for their next purchase, down from 38% in 2023.

Still, a majority of Americans (63%) support the goal of the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. When asked which is the greater priority, far more Americans continue to say the country should focus on developing renewable energy than fossil fuel sources (65% vs. 34%).

The survey, conducted May 13-19 among 8,638 U.S. adults, finds a fairly modest share of U.S. adults (25%) say it’s extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Far more give this middling or low priority.

These findings illustrate how large shares of Americans back more renewable energy that would decrease overall carbon emissions. Still, this general orientation does not necessarily translate into strong commitment to reducing personal carbon emissions or interest in buying an EV.

Jump to read more on: Trends in views of energy development in the U.S. | Views on wind and solar development at the local level | Perceptions of solar power in people’s own lives

What’s behind declines in support for wind and solar?

Declines in public support for renewable energy have been driven by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, whose support started to fall sharply after President Joe Biden took office in early 2020.

• 64% of Republicans say they favor more solar panel farms, down from 84% in 2020.
• 56% of Republicans say they favor more wind turbine farms, a 19-point drop from 2020.

Over this same time period, views among Democrats and Democratic leaners on these measures are little changed, with large majorities continuing to support more wind and solar development.

In some cases, gaps between Republicans and Democrats over energy policy now approach the very wide partisan divides seen over the importance of climate change .

In May 2020, Democrats were 26 points more likely than Republicans to say the country’s priority should be developing renewable energy (91% vs. 65%). Four years later, that gap has ballooned to 49 points, due almost entirely to changing views among Republicans – 61% of whom now say developing fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority.

Jump to more details on partisan differences in views of U.S. energy development.

But changes in attitudes about policies that would reduce carbon emissions are not solely the result of more negative views among Republicans. For instance, the share of Democrats who say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an EV for their next car purchase has declined from 56% to 45% in the last year. And the share of Democrats who call climate change a very big problem for the U.S. has declined from 71% in 2021 to 58% today.

Views within each party

Among Republicans, age matters. Younger Republicans express much more support for renewable energy than do older Republicans. For instance, 67% of Republicans ages 18 to 29 say the country should give priority to wind, solar and hydrogen development. The oldest Republicans (ages 65 and older) take the opposite view: 76% give priority to developing oil, coal and natural gas.

By and large, Democrats are more united in their views on energy. Democrats across age groups broadly support steps that would lower carbon emissions and prioritize renewable sources. But differences emerge over the degree with which to break from fossil fuels: 45% of Democrats say the country should phase out the use of oil, coal and natural gas completely, compared with 53% who say that fossil fuels should remain part of the mix along with renewable sources.

Differences within the two major parties are explored in more detail here .

Views on increasing electric vehicles in the U.S.

Amid a major policy push at the federal level for electric vehicles, Americans are unenthusiastic about steps that would phase out gas-powered vehicles.

In March of this year, the Biden administration announced a rule aimed at dramatically expanding EV sales . Overall, 58% of Americans say they oppose these rules that would make EVs at least half of all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. by 2032. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose this policy (83%). Among Democrats, 64% support these rules to expand EV sales, while 35% say they oppose them.

Americans bought EVs in record numbers last year, but the growth rate is slowing, and interest in EVs has declined. In the current survey, 29% of Americans say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an electric vehicle the next time they purchase a car. Last year, 38% expressed this level of interest in an EV purchase.

Related: About 3 in 10 Americans would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle and the distribution of EV charging stations in the U.S.

Americans’ views on limiting their own ‘carbon footprint’

Discussions about reducing carbon emissions often include the everyday actions people can take to reduce the amount of energy they use . One-in-four Americans say it is extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Larger shares say this is either somewhat (42%) or not too or not at all (32%) important to them.

Even among Democrats – who express broad support for renewable energy – only 39% say reducing their own carbon footprint is extremely or very important to them personally.

These findings align with a previous Center survey that shows a modest share of Americans (23%) expect to make major sacrifices in their own life because of climate change.

Simply put, the shares of Americans who place the highest priority on limiting their own carbon emissions or expect to make big changes to the way they live because of climate change remain relatively small.

Those who place a high priority on reducing their own carbon footprint – or expect major direct impacts from climate change – are far more likely than other Americans to back aggressive steps to reduce carbon emissions.

For instance, 70% of those who place high importance on reducing their own carbon footprint support rules to dramatically boost EV sales in the U.S. by 2032. Much smaller shares of those who say reducing their carbon footprint is somewhat (43%) or not too or not at all (14%) important support this policy.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in the U.S.

How republicans view climate change and energy issues, growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, why some americans do not see urgency on climate change, what the data says about americans’ views of climate change, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Science, technology and innovation

International co-operation on science, technology and innovation pushes the knowledge frontier and accelerates progress towards tackling shared global challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss. The OECD provides data and evidence-based analysis on supporting research and innovation and fostering policies that promote responsible innovation and technology governance for resilient and inclusive societies.

Select a language

Policy issues.

• Chemical safety and biosafety The chemical industry is one of the largest industrial sectors in the world and is expected to quadruple by 2060. Governments and industry share the responsibility for ensuring safe chemical production and use. The OECD helps countries develop and implement policies for safeguarding human health and the environment, and in making their systems for managing chemicals as efficient as possible. Learn more
• Science policy Science policy focuses on actions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public investment in research. Publicly funded research in universities and research institutes plays an essential role in generating the knowledge that supports evidence-based decision making and underpins technological development. There is increasing policy emphasis on “open science” and the mobilisation of public research to address urgent and complex societal challenges. Learn more
• Space economy The space economy encompasses all activities and resources that contribute to human progress through the exploration, research, understanding, management, and utilisation of space. The sector provides critical infrastructure on Earth, contributes fundamental scientific data for decision-making, and supports societal well-being. Learn more
• Technology policy Technological innovation is an engine of human well-being and economic activity, but also raises concerns for individuals and society. Governments use a mix of policies targeting specific technologies to steer their responsible development and use. This includes national plans that provide strategic orientation and support measures for research, innovation and diffusion activities. Policies also promote ethical practice through regulations and guidelines. Learn more

Programmes of work

• OECD Eurasia Competitiveness Programme Enhancing regional dialogue, competitiveness and improving the business climate. Learn more
• AI in Work, Innovation, Productivity and Skills The OECD is working with governments around the world to measure and analyse the impact of AI on training needs and labour markets. We aim to help governments to create AI-related policies that are both responsible and human-centred, and that improve the wellbeing of individuals and society as a whole. Learn more

Related publications

Subscribe to our science, technology and innovation newsletter

Different electric thermal energy storage configurations integrated with parabolic trough concentrating solar power plant

• Marušić, Ante
• Lončar, Dražen

The addition of an electric heater to an existing thermal energy storage parabolic trough concentrating solar power (CSP) plant can offer a low-cost, large-scale solution for grid electricity storage, albeit with moderate storage efficiency. While previous studies have mainly covered this topic from a techno-economic perspective, this research focuses on the challenge of improving the efficiency of electricity storage. A detailed off-design model, including the solar field and power cycle inertia, is developed and validated for a proposed 50 MW e parabolic trough plant with a solar salt thermal energy storage system. Two electric thermal energy storage (TES) configurations are investigated using this model. In the first configuration, an electric heater is simply added to the entrance of the hot tank in a two-tank TES system without affecting the nominal performance of the power cycle. In the second, novel configuration, an additional (third) tank is introduced. It is primarily charged using electricity-supplied heat for steam superheating. This steam superheating leads to higher power cycle efficiencies without requiring additional modifications to the downstream part of the steam generator. The operation of both storage configurations is examined in three different 7-day scenarios: no irradiance (when the system functions as a simple Carnot battery), low irradiance, and medium irradiance (when the system functions as a CSP Carnot battery). Results demonstrate that the CSP Carnot battery efficiency is highest in the low irradiance scenario, as the electricity-supplied heat brings the power cycle closer to nominal conditions, enabling better utilization of both solar-supplied heat and electricity-supplied heat. Furthermore, while the superheating configuration exhibits a relative increase of ∼1.9% in power cycle thermal efficiency compared to the normal configuration under nominal conditions, the CSP Carnot battery efficiency is increased by a relative value of ∼2.1%‑3.6%.

• High-temperature thermal energy storage;
• Power-to-heat-to-power;
• Concentrating solar power;
• Carnot battery;
• Solar energy;
• Power2Heat2Power

The Daily Show Fan Page

Explore the latest interviews, correspondent coverage, best-of moments and more from The Daily Show.

The Daily Show

S29 E68 • July 8, 2024

Host Jon Stewart returns to his place behind the desk for an unvarnished look at the 2024 election, with expert analysis from the Daily Show news team.

Extended Interviews

The Daily Show Tickets

Attend a Live Taping

Find out how you can see The Daily Show live and in-person as a member of the studio audience.

Best of Jon Stewart

The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

New Episodes Thursdays

Jon Stewart and special guests tackle complex issues.

Powerful Politicos

The Daily Show Shop

Great Things Are in Store

Become the proud owner of exclusive gear, including clothing, drinkware and must-have accessories.

About The Daily Show

Popular Keywords

Research directory.

• Semiconductor Research
• Display Research
• Optoelectronics Research
• Green Energy Research
• ICT Applications Research
• Semiconductors
• Wafer Foundries
• Compound Semiconductor
• AI Server/HBM/Server
• Upstream Components
• Panel Industry
• Display Supply Chain
• Display Technologies
• LED Demand / Supply Data Base
• Sapphire Market
• LED Chip & Package
• LED Backlight
• LED Lighting
• LED Display
• IR LED / VCSEL / LiDAR Laser
• UV LED / UV Laser
• MicroLED / Mini LED
• Lithium Battery and Energy Storage
• Consumer Electronics
• Notebook Computers
• Smartphones
• Monitors / AIO
• Emerging Technologies
• Cloud / Edge Computing
• Automotive Technologies

Selected Topics

• Telecommunications
• Computer System
• Automotive & EV
• Green Energy & Storage
• Display Panel & LED
• DRAM (Index)
• TFT-LCD (Index)
• Li-Ion Battery
• Press Center
• Beta DataTrack
• [News] Samsung Anticipates Q2 Profit to Soar on AI Demand with a 15-fold Increase

Thanks to the rebound in memory chip demand amid accelerated global AI development, Samsung Electronics reported its strongest sales and profit growth in years. According to its financial guidance announced on July 5th, the semiconductor giant projects its operating profit to grow more than 15-fold YoY to 10.4 trillion won (USD 7.5 billion) in its preliminary results for the April-June quarter, outstripping market expectations.

In addition, the company expects its sales to increase by approximately 23% to 74 trillion won. According to a report from Bloomberg , this marks the largest rise since the peak levels seen during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021.

The forecast is way better than LSEG SmartEstimate’s earlier forecast, which expected Samsung Electronics’ operating profit for Q2 2024 to reach 8.8 trillion won (roughly USD 6.34 billion).

Samsung is scheduled to release final earnings, including divisional breakdowns, on July 31.

It is also worth noting that Samsung is releasing its results just days ahead of planned three-day walkouts by union organizers, starting from July 8th. According to Bloomberg, the move would involve over 28,000 members, including those at crucial chip plants, due to a wage dispute. The extent of participation in Monday’s walkout remains uncertain at this time.

Citing market sources, the report noted that Samsung’s Q2 financial results highlight the memory market’s robust recovery this year from a sharp decline post-Covid, driven by increased demand from data centers and AI development, which contributes to a turnaround in Samsung’s largest division, which had incurred losses the previous year.

According to TrendForce, Samsung’s global share of DRAM and NAND Flash output in 2023 was 46.8% and 32.4%, respectively. An earlier report by the Korea Economic Daily indicated that Samsung’s HBM production has been sold out in 2024.

According to the latest forecast by Trendforce, the HBM market is poised for robust growth, driven by significant pricing premiums and increased capacity needs for AI chips. HBM prices are expected to Increase by 5–10% in 2025.

• [News] Samsung Establishes New HBM Team to Advance HBM3, HBM3e and HBM4 Development
• Samsung Strike Has No Immediate Impact on Memory Production, with No Shipment Shortages, Says TrendForce

(Photo credit: Samsung)

Please note that this article cites information from Bloomberg  and  the Korea Economic Daily .

Related articles.

• [News] Foundry Giant GlobalFoundries Acquired GaN-Related IP

[News] AI Boom Expected to Boost Samsung' Q2 Profit, Soaring to USD 6.34 Billion

• Search for:

Recent Posts

• [News] AI Boom Expected to Boost Samsung’ Q2 Profit, Soaring to USD 6.34 Billion
• [News] TSMC Reportedly Secures 3nm Order After Tapeout for Google’s Tensor G5

Recent Comments

• Panel Costs Account for More Than 60% of 21.5-inch Monitor Retail Prices, with LCD Monitor Panel Prices Likely to Keep Rising on Panel Costs Account for More Than 60% of 21.5-inch Monitor Retail Prices, with LCD Monitor Panel Prices Likely to Keep Rising
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• November 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• 5G Technologies
• Artificial Intelligence
• Broadband & Home Network
• IC Manufacturing, Package&Test
• Industry 4.0
• Micro LED / Mini LED
• Wearable Devices
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.org

Get in touch with us