Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

A review of EROEI-dynamics energy-transition models T

⁎
Craig D. Rye , Tim Jackson
Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP), University of Surrey, 388 Stag Hill, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The need for an environmentally sustainable economy is indisputable but our understanding of the energy-
EROEI economy interactions (dynamics) that will occur during the transition is insufficient. This raises fascinating
Net-Energy questions on the future of economic growth, energy technology mix and energy availability. The crucial inter-
Model actions between energy and economy systems can be usefully described in terms of the Energy Returned on
Transition
Energy Invested (EROEI) metric (the energy cost of primary energy production). Multiple authors have used this
Dynamics
Biophysical
metric to explore the behaviour of the economy over the transition to lower carbon energy sources. The fol-
lowing text is a review of energy-economy models that incorporate the EROEI metric. In particular, the EROEI-
dynamics literature is found to describe a common set of dynamics associated with the transition to lower EROEI
primary energy resources. These include: the rising resource-cost of primary energy production, the short-term
misallocation of resources, the short-term overproduction of energy and the potential decline in economic
stability. The literature can be divided into groups of related models. Following the review, a number of key
areas for additional work are identified and discussed.

1. Introduction for society.

Energy Returned
The Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI; aka efficiency) of EROEI =
Energy Invested (1)
primary energy production has declined markedly over recent decades
(Murphy, 2014). Furthermore, the EROEI of primary production is NE = Energy Returned − Energy Invested (2)
projected to decline further in the early half of the current century,
Many of the core insights of the EROEI (or NE) metric are intuitive
associated with the continuing depletion of fossil fuel reserves and the
but poorly accounted for. For example, an energy carrier (such as ga-
transition away from conventional fossil fuels (IPCC, 2014; Sterman,
soline) must provide more energy when it is used than it requires in
1982; Gagnon et al., 2009; Grandell et al., 2011; Murphy and Hall,
production. Otherwise, it would not make ‘economic sense’ to produce
2010). For example, Guilford et al., (2011) find that the EROEI for
it. The greater the energy return, or net energy, the greater the positive
United States Oil and Gas has declined by around a half, between 1930
effect on the economy. Unfortunately, this kind of argument is often
and present. The continuing decline of EROEI is a significant academic
neglected. For example, green energy subsidies typically support bio-
and political concern posing impacts on energy futures and the dy-
fuels and wind energy equally, however, wind power usually provides
namics of the transition to a low carbon economy.
significantly greater energy and economic return. Therefore subsidies
EROEI is estimated as the energy produced by an energy-gathering
are often biased towards low EROEI renewables. EROEI provides a
activity divided by the energy required for that production (Eq. (1)).
powerful approach for examining the efficiency of primary energy
The energy produced by energy gathering activity is refered to here as
generation technologies.
primary energy. Typical EROEI values are provided in Table 1. A si-
Charles Hall and collaborators provide many early works on EROEI
milar useful metric of primary energy efficiency is Net Energy (NE). NE
in economics (e.g. Hall and Cleveland, 1981; Cleveland et al., 1984;
is estimated as the energy produced by primary energy minus the en-
Hall et al., 2008; Hall et al., 2009). Notably, Murphy and Hall (2010)
ergy required for that production (Eq. (2)). Both the EROEI and NE
highlight that the relationship between Net Energy and the EROEI is
metrics indicate the efficiency of energy production. EROEI is a parti-
exponential where NE declines rapidly as EROEI falls below approxi-
cularly interesting term because its name explicitly refers to the energy
mately ~10:1. The relationship between EROEI and NE is commonly
that is ‘used up’ or ‘invested’ in the process of producing useful energy
referred to as the ‘Net Energy cliff’ (see Fig. 1). This relationship

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: craig.d.rye@gmail.com (C.D. Rye).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.041
Received 8 November 2017; Received in revised form 26 June 2018; Accepted 27 June 2018
0301-4215/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272

Table 1 curve models. Each model is described (typically in 3 paragraphs) in

Typical EROEI values (derived from Hall and Klitgaard, 2011). terms of its novelty, technical detail and main findings. Section 4 pro-
Primary energy production technologies Approximate EROEI vides a discussion and Section 5 gives concluding remarks.

Hydropower > 100:1 2. Numerical models of EROEI-dynamics

Historic oil and gas 100:1
Coal 80:1
Current global oil and gas 20:1 In this section, we review the history of energy-economy models
Wind (no storage) 20:1 that specifically explore EROEI dynamics. Emphasis is given to seminal
Nuclear 15:1 works. There are unavoidably a number of limitations to this review.
Current US oil and gas 10:1
During the development of the literature, models are often documented
Solar (no storage) 10:1
Unconventional oil and gas 5:1 inconsistently therefore it is challenging to provide a consistent outline
Biofuels 2:1 of technical detail. Further, choosing the boundaries of the review is
challenging. For example, this review does not explore the broader
Integrated Assessment Modelling (IAM) literature. The accuracy of the
IAM literature in simulating EROEI-dynamics is debated (e.g. Dale
et al., 2013) and this discussion is beyond the scope of this review.
However, some of the EROEI-dynamics models may be considered as
belonging to the IAM literature and vice-versa. This review particularly
emphasises research that directly refers to EROEI.

2.1. Early Models (~1970 to 1980)

World3 is perhaps the earliest model to (implicitly) simulate EROEI

dynamics (Meadows et al., 1972). It is associated with the Limits to
Growth study (Meadows et al., 1972) and was designed to explore the
integrated environmental challenges facing the global economy in the
21st century. The model was derived from the earlier work of Forester
(1970) on Industrial Dynamics and has had a defining impact on the
following energy-economy-environment debate.
The World3 model can be technically described as a globally ag-
gregated, system dynamics framework, where well-chosen simplified
equations are used to represent large complex systems. The model
Fig. 1. The relationship between Net Energy (expressed as a percentage) Energy
implicitly simulates EROEI-dynamics by assuming that the cost of ex-
Return on Energy Invested: ‘the net-energy cliff’ (Murphy 2013).
tracting non-renewable resources increases as resources are depleted.
Therefore as the model consumes non-renewable resources, their cost
suggests that advanced economies require EROEI values of at least 5 to increases and this drives a downward pressure on economic growth.
maintain key infrastructure and avoid economic decline. From a similar However, the model does not explicitly simulate energy systems.
argument, it is suggested that the Net Energy cliff could play a key role The main results (or dynamics) of World3 are relatively consistent
in the growth rate of an economy. for a range of reasonable model parameters. The ‘standard run’ of
Following the work of Hall and Murphy, numerous authors have World3 suggests that the current growth trend of the global economy is
conducted empirical analyses of the relationship between EROEI and unsustainable; leading to the encroachment of environmental limits and
other economic indicators. For example, Heun and de Wit (2012) King ultimately ‘overshoot and collapse’ (Fig. 2). In this case, industrial
and Hall (2011) and Brandt (2017) find interesting relationships be- output and food production peak around 2015 and decline thereafter.
tween EROEI and energy prices. Heun and de Wit (2012) suggest that Population and pollution peak around 2030 and decline thereafter. The
these relationships may break down as EROEI becomes small. Hall et al. simulation stabilises around the beginning of the 22nd century with a
(2008) suggest that during periods of energy shortage (i.e. low EROEI, global population of around a half of the peak value. However, ac-
such as the 1970s ‘energy crisis’ or the rising prices of 2000–2007) counting for the models’ uncertainty, its precise predictions are less
discretionary spending typically declines. Finally, Rubin (2012) and important than the underlying dynamics (Jackson and Webster, 2016).
Hamilton (2009) use empirical analysis to argue that the rising energy
prices (declining EROEI) of 2000–2007 contributed to the recent 2008
financial crisis. Empirical works therefore typically suggest an inverse
relationship between EROEI and energy prices, and a link between
EROEI and economic health.
Numerical models have been developed to explore the related set of
system behaviours accompanying the transition towards lower EROEI
(e.g. Sterman, 1982; Hounam, 1979; Baines and Peet, 1983; Bodger and
Baines, 1988). These models typically simulate the behaviour of the
energy-economy during a period of declining resource quality, or en-
ergy technology transition. The emergence, nuance, evolution and as-
sociation of these EROEI-dynamics models are the subject of this re-
view.
The structure of this review is as follows: Section 2 outlines the
history of EROEI-Dynamics models. Section 2.1: discusses formative
work (1970–1980). Section 2.2: covers a period of rapid development Fig. 2. The distribution of core variables for the World3 ‘Standard Run’, taken
from (Meadows et al., 1972).
(1980–2000). Section 2.3: highlights the most recent literature
(2000–2017). Section 3 outlines the closely related field of resource-

261
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Shortly after publication World3 was heavily criticised (see Hall and
Day, 2009; Bardi, 2011; Jackson and Webster, 2016 for more details).
But the results of World3 were revisited by Turner (2008), who con-
cluded that the behaviour of the global economy 1972–2008 agrees
well with the ‘standard run’ scenario. Furthermore, World3 was re-
cently re-calibrated by Pasqualino et al. (2015), who argue that recent
improvements in pollution and food productivition may have delayed
but not negated Meadows et al. (1972) prediction of ‘overshoot and
collapse’.
Following World3, Roger Naill and collaborators (in association with
the U.S. Department of Energy; Naill, 1973) developed a progression of
five models, COAL 1 and 2, FOSSIL 1 and 2, and IDEAS. Unfortunately,
these models are sparsely documented. However, these models are well
cited and considered influential on following work (Sterman, 1982).
COAL and FOSSIL are perhaps the earliest System Dynamics models to
incorporate energy market dynamics, investment time lags and price
elasticities. Later iterations of the group, such as FOSSIL2 and IDEAS were
used by the U.S. Department of Energy between 1973 and 1995, as policy
design and testing tools (Qudrat-Ullah, 2013).
From a technical perspective, early iterations of COAL follow an
aggregated (‘top-down’) approach similar to World3. However, later
iterations of FOSSIL emphasise greater detail in primary energy pro-
duction (‘bottom-up’ approach). FOSSIL 2 and IDEAS may be classed
principally as bottom-up models (Qudrat-Ullah, 2013), where each
sector, and often subsectors are described explicitly with individual
behavioural equations.
Following World3, the COAL-FOSSIL studies, the STER (System,
Time, Energy and Resources) model, documented by Hounam (1979),
presents an innovative EROEI-dynamics approach. STER is one of the
earliest models to explore the behaviour of the energy sector during a
period of resource depletion, and therefore also one of the first to di-
rectly focus on EROEI-dynamics. It may also be one of the earliest ex-
amples of a ‘biophysical’ EROEI model, where all capital flows and
production are defined in terms of energy. In addition, the research
question posed by STER is novel; STER is designed to determine the
maximum possible (resource constrained) growth rate that an economy
can achieve in a given time period. In this regard, the model design
avoids the uncertainty of many parameters by framing results in terms
of the maximum economic potential. Unfortunately, STER is only
documented by a single conference paper where it is described as a pilot
study (Hounam, 1979).
It is difficult to discuss the technical detail of STER because of sparse
documentation. The structure is shown in Fig. 3. STER is a simplified,
aggregated, top-down model with a production function articulated in
terms of energy, capital, labour, and technology. The model simulates
EROEI dynamics by assuming that the demand for resources by the
primary energy sector increases (i.e. the resource cost of primary en-
ergy production increases) as energy resources are depleted.
The results of STER suggest that, if energy use is held constant, the
relative resource consumption of the energy sector must increase as
resources are depleted, so as to keep up with demand. The rising cost of
energy production then leads to the crowding out of (non-energy) in-
dustrial production and the growth of the energy sector relative to the
non-energy industry (Fig. 4). This (relative) expansion of the energy
sector during the transition to low EROEI is an important process dis-
cussed by the EROEI-dynamics literature.
Directly following World3 and the COAL-FOSSIL studies, John
Sterman of the MIT System Dynamics group developed a seminal en-
ergy-economy model, referred to here as the Sterman model (e.g.
Sterman, 1982). In line with STER, the Sterman model is one of the
earliest models designed to specifically simulate the energy-economy
dynamics associated with a transition from high to low EROEI primary
energy. Furthermore, the model provides one of the earliest direct re-
ferences to EROEI-dynamics (Sterman, 1982; Section 2.1 para. 8). A
diagram of the structure of the Sterman model is shown in Fig. 5.
The Sterman model is a globally aggregated, top-down, system
262
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of the structure of Gilliland (1978) theory, and
the STER model (Hounam, 1979).
dynamics framework that uses a nested, constant elasticity of sub-
stitution production function in technology, capital, labour and en-
ergy.1 The model characterises the energy sector in terms of two ag-
gregated technology groups, conventional and unconventional energy.
This simplification supports the inclusion of complex economic detail
and allows the examination of many interesting energy-economy dy-
namics. For example, the model includes inflation, monetary policy and
international trade. It also provides a complex representation of in-
vestment and capital depreciation. Conversely, for simplicity, the model
excludes many interesting factors that may play important roles in
energy-transition dynamics, such as business inventories and environ-
mental interactions.
The Sterman model simulates EROEI-dynamics using two key as-
sumptions. In principle, it assumes that the cost of producing conven-
tional energy increases as reserves are depleted (whereas the reserves of
unconventional energy are infinite). Further, it assumes that the initial
EROEI of conventional fossil fuels is greater than the EROEI of un-
conventional fossil fuels. Therefore, as the economy consumes con-
ventional energy or transitions from conventional to unconventional
energy, the resource cost of energy production increases. This in-
creasing demand for resources by the energy sector ‘crowds out’ in-
vestment in the non-energy economy and provides a downward pres-
sure on economic growth. It is noted that the EROEI-dynamics of the
model follow from similar core assumptions made by the World3.
The conclusions of Sterman (1982) emphasises three key energy-
economy dynamics:
1. As previously stated, the depletion of conventional energy leads to
increasing resource requirements for the energy sector, leading to a
downward pressure on economic growth by ‘crowding out’ invest-
ment in the non-energy economy.
2. Energy price increases are expected to drive an increase in economy-
wide energy efficiency, however, it is argued that this will occur
more slowly than investment in energy production. Therefore, in the
short-term energy may be over-produced and capital misallocated.
In the long run, the misallocation of capital will constitute in-
efficiency.
3. Due to the capital-intensity of energy production, significant in-
vestment will be required in the short-run at the start of the tran-
sition; the initial cost of transition will facilitate a short-term
downward pressure on economic growth and may slow the transi-
tion.
1
The constant elasticity of substitution (CES) production function is a simple
aggregate model of production (Solow, 1956). The function is characterised by
constant elasticity’s for its factors (e.g. capital and labour) regardless of pro-
duction scale. The role of energy in production is well discussed; authors such
as Cantillon (1730) and Georgescu-Roegen (1971) make notable contributions.
Early modelling studies that incorporate energy as a factor of production in-
clude: Tintner et al., 1974; Hudson and Jorgenson, 1974; Berndt and Wood,
1979).
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Fig. 4. STER model output. Left: Sectorial percentage of capital. Right: capacities of energy sectors. Hounam (1979).
Fig. 5. Schematic illustration of the Sterman model structure (Sterman, 1982).
The distribution of energy production over the transition as pro-
jected by Sterman is illustrated by Fig. 6. Sterman concludes: ‘the road
to the economy freed from dependence on non-renewable energy
sources is likely to be quite long and rocky’ (Sterman, 1982, page 352).
263
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
Fig. 6. An example of output from the Sterman model, highlighting the energy
transition envisioned by Sterman (1981).
2.2. Intermediate models (~1980 to 2000)
Following the Sterman model and the STER model, Baines and Peet
(1983), and Bodger and Baines (1988) developed a system dynamics
model to explore the role of historical energy transitions (e.g. from
biomass, to coal, to oil and gas) in long-run (inter-decadal) economic
variability (e.g. Kondratieff, 1979). This is referred to here as the BPB
model. A schematic of the BPB model and an illustration of the energy
availability over recent energy transitions are shown in Figs. 7 and 8
respectively (Baines and Peet, 1983).
In a technical regard, the BPB model is a globally aggregated, top-
down, biophysical approach that uses constant values for the EROEI of
energy technologies. The model simulates historical energy transitions
by assuming that the economy has a preference to consume the highest
EROEI resources available. Therefore economies typically transition to
higher EROEI resources as they become available. The model contains a
similar level of energy production detail to the STER model. The BPB
model was not thoroughly calibrated to historical data (Dale, et al.,
2012). Furthermore, it does not appear to include a complex re-
presentation of the economy such as the Sterman model.
The results of the BPB model suggest that EROEI-dynamics have
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Fig. 7. A schematic showing the BPB model view of EROEI dynamics (Bodger
and Baines, 1988).
Fig. 8. A schematic showing the distribution of capital between competing
energy technologies over a series of transitions, as Envisioned by Bodger and
Baines (1988), associated with the BPB Model.
played a plausible role in long-run (inter-decadal) economic variability,
particularly in association with energy technology transitions. This ar-
gument is supported by the work of other notable authors, such as
Schumpeter (e.g. Schumpeter, 1939), Sterman (1985) and King et al.
(2015).
In the early 90s Malcolm Slesser and colleagues developed the
Enhancement of Carrying Capacity Options (ECCO) modelling frame-
work in association with UNESCO (e.g. Slesser, 1992). ECCO was ori-
ginally developed to assist supply-side growth in low-GDP nations and
has been applied to a range of economies including Kenya (Owino,
1991), China (Wenhua, 1991; Xiaohui, 1995) and the Netherlands
(Noorman, 1990, 1995). ECCO is a biophysical system dynamics ap-
proach that draws directly from the approaches of World3, FOSSIL2,
and STER (Gilliland, 1978). In particular, following STER, it is designed
to determine the maximum growth potential of an economy as a
function of its resource constraints.
The core ECCO model is a top-down aggregated simulation of a
national economy. The structure of ECCO follows the Natural Capital
Accounting methods of Slesser (1989). This basis leads to a strong
emphasis on the efficiency of primary resource production, and there-
fore emphasis on EROEI. The model defines three types of natural ca-
pital, depletable (e.g. fossil fuels), recyclable (e.g. aluminum) and re-
newable (e.g. solar power). Similar to STER, ECCO is classed as a
biophysical model and describes all the interactions in the economy in
terms of energy. Following Dürr (1994), ECCO has a novel production
function with factors in terms of operational energy and capital-em-
bedded energy. The ECCO production function interestingly neglects
the role of labour. Further, ECCO explicitly calculates the EROEI of
multiple primary resources, including energy resources.
ECCO models typically incorporate an aggregated world model,
referred to as CORECCO or GlobECCO. A diagram of the CORECCO
structure is shown in Fig. 9. Similar to the ECCO national models,
264
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
CORECCO explicitly simulates EROEI dynamics at an aggregate level.
The standard implementation of CORECCO suggests that industrial
output of the global economy will peak in the early half of the current
century and decline thereafter.
In the late 90s, Fiddaman (1997) developed the Feedback Rich
Energy Economy model (FREE) in association with the MIT System
Dynamics group that draws directly from World3 and the Sterman
model (Fig. 10). FREE is designed to highlight the role of complex non-
linear feedbacks in energy-economy systems, particularly over a period
of energy transition. Furthermore, it is designed to explore the response
of the energy-economy to policy proposals.
The FREE model simulates a large range of economy-energy-en-
vironment interactions, it therefore can be considered an Integrated
Assessment Model, as well as an EROEI-dynamics model. The economy
structure of FREE is derived from the highly cited DICE Integrated
Assessment Model (Nordhaus, 1992). The energy systems and energy-
economy coupling of FREE is derived from the Sterman model (e.g.
Sterman, 1982). FREE uses a Cobb-Douglas production function with
factors in Labour, Capital, Energy and Technology. Unlike the Sterman
and World3 models, the population and total factor productivity are
estimated exogenously. FREE explicitly accounts for EROEI dynamics
and resource constraints, as well as climate interactions (Fiddaman,
1997, 1998).
The ‘business as usual’ results of the FREE model suggest that the
net energy output of the global economy will decline between 2020 and
2045. However, unlike the Sterman or World3 models, the GDP of the
economy does not appear to decline. This distinction for GDP highlights
a potential rigidity in the model that may be associated with exogenous
parameters, such as population or total factor productivity growth.
Similar to Sterman (1982), Fiddaman argues: ‘Much of the harm from
depletion actually arises from the difficult period of transition away
from oil and gas, rather than from the long-run effects of losing the
services of those fuels’. This is due to the cost of building new and
retiring old energy systems (pg. 15, Fiddaman, 1997). Fiddaman
therefore additionally supports Sterman (1982)’s emphasis on the role
of the misallocation of capital during the transition, both in the energy
industry and in the none-energy industry. Fiddaman argues ‘Depletion
leads to suboptimal capacity utilization in the goods producing sector,
because energy prices are far from the levels for which the capital stock
was designed. In extreme scenarios, when depletion suddenly becomes
severe, a near-shutdown of the economy is possible.’ (pg. 15, Fiddaman,
1997). Fiddamen argues that a depletion tax on oil and gas improves
the economic stability of the transition by increasing the price of oil and
gas earlier; therefore, by spreading the economic cost and risk of sys-
temic failure.
2.3. Recent models (2000–2017)
Following from STER and ECCO, the Global Energy Modelling – a
Biophysical Approach model (GEMBA; Dale et al., 2012) is a recent
direct effort to explore EROEI dynamics over the renewable energy
transition. GEMBA’s description of EROEI-dynamics is highly intuitive
and engaging. Furthermore, GEMBA is notably well constructed for
calibration with empirical data.
GEMBA can be technically described as a globally aggregated top-
down, biophysical model that utilises a highly simplified economy
model with a production function in terms of capital and a capital to
output ratio (Fig. 11). In particular, GEMBA simulates a detailed range
of production technologies, including coal, oil, gas, wind, hydro and
solar. GEMBA estimates
EROEI in terms of resource depletion and technological develop-
ment (Dale et al., 2010).
The main results of the GEMBA model suggest that the relative
capital requirement of the energy sector may increase over the energy
transition to around half the capital in the economy (Fig. 12a; similar to
STER and the Sterman model). Over the same period, the total available
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272

Fig. 9. Outline of CORECCO (Slesser, 1992) taken from Dale (2010).

Fig. 10. A schematic of the FREE model, taken from Fidderman (1997).

energy is suggested to peak mid-21st century, eventually stabilising at Energy Scenarios (SRES; IPCC) with the GEMBA projections. GEMBA’s
around half current values in 2200 (Fig. 12b). projections provide lower future estimates of energy availability then
Dale et al. (2013) compare the MESSAGE (common Integrated As- MESSAGE. It is argued that this is because GEMBA utilises more rea-
sessment Model) projections, associated with the Special Report on listic primary resource estimates.

265
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Fig. 11. A schematic of the GEMBA model (Dale et al., 2013).
Finally, a recent work by Brandt (2017) focuses on the dynamics of
the ‘Net Energy Cliff’. The Brandt approach is novel for the distinction
that it makes between GDP and ‘material prosperity’. This emphasis on
‘material prosperity’ provides a strong link with the Biophysical ap-
proach, however, the Brandt model is not biophysical.
The Brandt model is a bottom-up globally aggregated model that
uses a neoclassical production function, with factors in, capital, labour,
energy and resources. The economy component of the Brandt model is
derived from the KLEMS economy model (Van Ark et al., 2007) and its
representation of energy production uses an input-output model of the
energy industry. The Brandt model explicitly simulates EROEI-dy-
namics, where a decline in the EROEI of production is shown to drive a
decline in the material prosperity of the economy.
The results of Brandt (2017) are used to explore the concept of a
minimum EROEI. As suggested by Hall and Murphy (2011) Brandt finds
a consistent behaviour in all runs, where below a specific level of
Fig. 12. GEMBA model output: Left (a): the distribution of capital between the energy sector and the industrial sector. Right (b): the projected energy production of
the global economy (Dale et al., 2013).
266
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
EROEI, typically ~7, the material wealth of the economy declines ra-
pidly.
3. Resource curve methods
In addition to the EROEI-dynamics models, a related body of lit-
erature utilises resource curve methods (e.g. Hubbert, 1956) to explore
21st century energy futures. Studies within this group include: Brecha
(2008), Doose (2004), Nel and Cooper (2009), Macías and Matilla-
García (2015). Resource curve methods simulate resource depletion but
do not explicitly include EROEI-dynamics. The approach uses empirical
observations of resource depletion and global geological data to esti-
mate the future global depletion of resources. Resource curve methods
typically apply these distributions as exogenous constraints. The re-
source curve literature is extensive and often overlaps with EROEI-dy-
namics models, it includes some influential studies that are well cited
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Fig. 13. A comparison of a global carbon emissions scenario estimated by
Brecha (2008) and the IPCC Integrated Assesment Model scenarios. Brecha
(2008) scenarios are shown by full lines, IPCC scenarios are shown by dashed
lines.
by the EROEI-dynamics modelling literature. The following section
outlines a number of notable studies that use these methods.
Following World3, Capellán-Pérez and collaborators (e.g. Capellán-
Pérez et al., 2014; Mediavilla et al., 2013) developed the World Limits
Model (WoLiM). WoLiM is a biophysical system dynamics model that
uses resource curve methods. WoLiM is designed to explore the feasi-
bility of 20th century growth trends (Fig. 13).
WoLiM is a bottom-up model with notable detail in primary energy
production (Fig. 14). The model is driven primarily by a group of GDP
and population scenarios that are set externally (exogenous). Therefore
EROEI decline is not able to influence GDP and the model is not able to
properly simulate EROEI dynamics. The model simulates the depletion
of resources with resource depletion curves (e.g. Mohr, 2012, Patzek
and Croft, 2010). WoLiM’s results typically predict resource constraints
in the early half of the 21st century. The majority of WoLiM runs exceed
environmental limits leading to dangerous climate change. WoLiM
maybe be thought of as a model that is designed to test for resource
limitations as a result of optimistic 21st century growth projections.
Kumhof and Muir (2014) and Benes et al. (2015) provide related
modelling studies that are more closely aligned with resource curve
models then with the EROEI dynamics models. Kumhof and Muir
(2014) use a top-down, Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model
to explore the behaviour of the global economy responding to a decline
in oil production. The model simulates energy scarcity using a resource
depletion curve, which is expressed in terms of the oil price. Benes et al.
(2015) use an econometric model of the global oil market to explore the
response of the economy to a decline in oil production. The Benes
model simulates EROEI dynamics through a rising oil price, associated
with a depletion curve. The Kumhof model suggests that a realistic
decline in the global oil production may drive a significant decline in
the GDP growth rate of both importer and exporter countries. This
decline is notable since the growth rates of the high GDP countries are
currently declining and additional decline may constitute stagnation or
decline (Summers 2011). The Benes model similarly predicts that re-
source depletion with drive oil prices to almost double over the coming
decade. Benes notes that this scale of increase would have a dramatic
impact on the global GDP, further supporting the arguments of Kumhof
and Muir (2014) and the EROEI dynamics models.
Finally, Sgouris et al. (2016) developed the NETSET resource curve
model. The NETSET model uses a novel inverse approach to simulate a
range of feasible transition pathways. The framing of the approach is
well illustrated by the title: ‘… quantifying the narrowing net-energy
pathways to a global energy transition’ (Sgouris et al., 2016).
The NETSET model is a globally aggregated, top-down, biophysical
simulation model. The model uses an exogenous projection of future
population to estimate future energy demand. It then integrates back-
wards to estimate a range of transition pathways that satisfy emissions
targets and minimum energy per capita requirements. NETSET uses
267
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
three core pre-conditions. First, carbon emissions must not surpass le-
vels chosen to limit global warming to 2 °C (between 510-1505 Gt CO2;
IPCC, 2014). Second, energy availability must not decline below levels
deemed as unrealistic (between 600 and 6000 Watts per person). Third,
the rate of transition to low-carbon technologies should not exceed that
which fully depletes none-renewable resources.
The results of the NETSET model suggest that there are a number of
biophysically feasible pathways to transition to a low carbon economy
(Fig. 15). Sgouris et al. (2016) uses a ‘feasibility indicator’ to determine
which pathways are most likely. It intuitively suggests that the transi-
tion becomes more difficult if it is delayed, or if the carbon emission
targets are relatively stringent. However, the model does not simulate
macro-economic variables. The model, therefore, does not discuss the
economic or social implications of the projected energy pathways.
4. Discussion
In the spirit of organising our discussion, it is useful to present a
historical synthesis of the models discussed in this paper. An overview
of the key literature is shown in Fig. 16 and a summary table is shown
in Appendix I. Four model groups are evident: the MIT System Dy-
namics group (red), the US department of energy group (blue), the BPB
group (green), and the STER-ECCO group (orange). These four groups
can be additionally linked. The red and blue groups are interconnected
through the work of authors such as Sterman and Fidderman. The green
and orange groups show strong association both through common au-
thors and model design.
As previously stated, the World3 model is one of the earliest models
to directly explore the inter-related global challenges associated with
unsustainable 20th century growth trends, having a defining impact on
following work. It is also perhaps one of the earliest models that im-
plicitly simulates EROEI dynamics. It is important to note that World3
follows World2 and the formative work of Forester in Industrial
Dynamics (Forrester, 1970).
Following World3, the development of EROEI models can be de-
scribed in terms of the MIT (red-blue) group and the Biophysical (or-
ange-green) group. A divergence between the MIT and Biophysical
groups occurs around 1980 associated with the STER model and the
Sterman model. These models are perhaps the earliest to directly si-
mulate EROEI dynamics; both make significant contributions to the
literature.
The Sterman model signifies a more direct development of World3
but also draws influence from the COAL and FOSSIL models. The model
has a stylised description of the energy sector and a more complex re-
presentation of the economy that provides a good platform for ex-
ploring energy-economy interactions. One may argue that many fea-
tures of the Sterman model, such as the misallocation of capital, or the
role of inflation and unemployment have been insufficiently explored
following its publication. The Sterman model is followed by the FREE
model, which integrates the Sterman approach with recent economic
theory and explores a range of policy options.
At a similar time to the Sterman model, the STER model introduces
multiple novel features to EROEI modelling, including the biophysical
approach. It is unfortunate that the STER model is only documented by
a brief preliminary paper. STER is followed by a series of biophysical
models: BPB, ECCO and GEMBA (green and yellow). The BPB model
uses a similar approach to STER but explores a distinctive question on
the role of EROEI in historical inter-decadal energy transitions. The
ECCO framework develops the STER approach and applies it to a range
of national economies, with a particular interest in understanding the
resource constraints of economic growth. Finally, GEMBA continues the
approach of this group but returns to focus directly on the renewable
energy transition and provides an intuitive structure that is well de-
signed for calibration with empirical data. Of this group, the GEMBA
model is perhaps the most directly interested in EROEI dynamics and
provides a critique of the highly cited integrated assessment models
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272

Fig. 14. Schematic illustration of the structure of the WoLiM model (Capellan-Perez et al., 2014) IB stands for Industrial Buildings sector. The WoLiM structure can be
described as follows: GDP growth drives energy demand. Energy demand is divided into three categories. Demand drives production through a number of technology
options. The optimal pathway for generation is a function of resource limits and environmental pollution.

that appear to neglect EROEI dynamics.
Following the progression of the MIT, and the biophysical modelling
groups, a number of relatively independent models have made sig-
nificant contributions. For example, WoLiM provides an alternative
approach to the problem outlined by World3. It utilises more recent
approaches to economic theory and highlights that current resource
consumption growth trends are unsustainable, both in terms of resource
and pollution limits.
Despite the diversity in the EROEI-dynamics literature, there are
seven key arguments or dynamics that run through all material. These
dynamics are listed below, along with the dates of their first doc-
umentation.
1. EROEI declines during the low carbon transition – during the transition
to low carbon technology, primary energy production becomes less
efficient (this is first implied by Meadows et al., 1972; this is fun-
damental to all models in this review except the BPB model).
2. The energy sector outgrows the economy (aka. energy cannibalism) - as
the EROEI of primary energy production declines, the energy sector
requires increasing resources (including energy) to maintain supply
with demand (Hounam, 1979; Sterman, 1982; Slesser, 1992;
Fiddaman, 1997; Dale, 2010; Capellán-Pérez et al., 2014; Kumhof
and Muir, 2014; Benes, 2015).
3. Short-term confusion - during the transition to low-carbon tech-
nology, a short-term misallocation of capital and labour occurs due
to imperfect information (Sterman, 1982; Fiddaman, 1997).
4. Short-term over production - energy scarcity drives both an increase in
energy efficiency and investment in energy production. Sterman
(1982) argues that this leads to a short-term overproduction of
primary energy.
5. Short-term scarcity - a decline in EROEI is expected to drive scarcity
and inflation (Sterman, 1982).
6. Energy transition ‘long wave’ - ‘long wave’ (inter-decadal) economic
variability may be associated with energy transitions and EROEI
(Baines and Peet, 1983).
7. ‘Net Energy Cliff’ - economic systems become unstable as EROEI
declines below 10:1 associated with the ‘Net Energy Cliff’ (Brandt,
2017; Murphy and Hall, 2010).

268
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Fig. 15. An example of a NETSET simulated energy future, providing 2000 W
average net power per capita by 2100 to a population of 10.8 billion. Fossil fuel
emissions do not exceed 990 GtCO2. The dashed line represents the net avail-
able energy. Values above this line represent energy invested.
Fig. 16. The recent history of EROEI models. Colours denote studies with the
same or related authors. Relatively independent models are black. Full line:
strong link between authors. Dotted line: significant influence from a paper.
These dynamics may be usefully re-framed into three groups:
Scarcity (1, 2, 6), Instability (5, 6, 7) and Uncertainty (3, 4). From this
view, ‘Scarcity’ encompasses the driving dynamics that lead to a decline
in resource availability. Dynamics 1 and 2 of this group are the most
consistent across the literature. ‘Instability’ encompasses potential sys-
temic failures where systems are forced to sustain unanticipated re-
source constraints. Finally, ‘Uncertainty’ encompasses the period of
change or adjustment, where unavoidable unknowns (imperfect in-
formation) lead to the misallocation of capital. Scarcity is the primary
driver of Instability and Uncertainty, however, these dynamics are
inter-related and constitute feedbacks that are difficult to simulate.
From this framework, the issues of Instability and Uncertainty in en-
ergy-economy dynamics are notably poorly understood.
The issue of instability is an interesting topic of divergence in the
literature. Multiple authors, particularly in the MIT group, suggest that
the low carbon transition is likely to drive a period of instability
(Sterman, 1982, Fiddaman, 1997). However, dedicated modelling stu-
dies such as Jackson and Victor (2015), Jackson (2017), suggest that
the transition to a steady state or low carbon economy does not ne-
cessitate instability. Further work is required to explore the role of
EROEI in systemic instability and the macro policy levers available to
facilitate a stable energy transition.
In addition, the issue of late 21st century energy availability is an
important topic in the literature. Models such as GEMBA and WoLiM
predict a mid 21st century decline in energy availability (Dale, 2013;
269
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
Capellán-Pérez et al., 2014). This behaviour is similar to the ‘system
collapse’ described by World3 and CORECCO (Meadows et al., 1972;
Slesser, 1992). However, models such as the Sterman (1982) and Fid-
derman (1997) predict short-term instability instead of long-run de-
cline. Here, it is important to account for model design factors and
consider the research questions being explored by given papers. For
example, the Sterman model is highly idealised. It is not designed to
predict future energy availability from empirical data. The models that
are more directly designed to explore empirical estimates of resource
constraints such as CORECCO, GEMBA and WoLiM typically predict a
long-run decline in energy availability in the mid 21st century
(Meadows et al., 1972; Slesser, 1992; Dale, 2013; Capellán-Pérez et al.,
2014). Here it is argued that this issue requires further direct analyses
of model code and empirical data.
Following models such as GEMBA and WoLiM, multiple authors
have expressed concern that the highly cited Integrated Assessment
Modelling or Energy-Economy modelling literature does not effectively
simulate or discuss EROEI-dynamics (e.g. Dale et al., 2013) and
therefore presents optimistic scenarios for future energy availability.
Moreover, Keepin and Wynne (1984), Schneider (1997) and Schneider
and Lane (2005) argue that the subcomponents of Integrated Assess-
ment Models are often poorly coupled suggesting EROEI dynamics are
poorly simulated. This concern is also crucial, requiring directed re-
search and review. It is argued that it is beyond the scope of this review.
The Energy-Economy modelling literature is critiqued in general for
documentation issues (Pindyck, 2015; Beck and Krueger, 2016;
Pfenninger, 2017; Schneider, 1997). It is argued that the EROEI-dy-
namics literature could also benefit from improved documentation and
archiving. For example, research papers (and/or manuals) for COAL,
FOSSIL and STER are not readily accessible. However, these models are
highly cited by later work. Model descriptions, terminology and sche-
matics are often used inconsistently. For example, common challenging
terms include, ‘Top-Down’, ‘Bottom-Up’, ‘Hybrid’, ‘Simulation’, ‘Opti-
misation’ and ‘General Equilibrium’. This issue is compounded by the
concern that model code is rarely available for scrutiny, even decades
after original research publications. It is further suggested that the lit-
erature may benefit greatly from an improved effort in review and
synthesis.
Further research in energy-economy dynamics is vital, considering
the urgency of the transition to a sustainable economy (IPCC, 2014;
Sverdrup et al., 2015). Particularly considering that the current eco-
nomic climate is characterised by declining economic growth rates
(Summers, 2013), increasing instability (Rye and Jackson, 2016) and
increasing uncertainty (Baker et al., 2016), all of which are plausibly
related to EROEI dynamics. There is therefore a notable requirement for
further empirical studies in EROEI-dynamics. For example, it may be
possible to find signatures of EROEI dynamics in Secular Stagnation, or
in international trade. Further work is required to provide an improved
link between empirical work, such as Heun and de Wit (2012) and the
modelling literature.
There are multiple a-priori EROEI dynamics identified by our dis-
cussion that are not discussed by the current literature. These provide
interesting subjects for further research. Examples of these dynamics
include:
• The role of EROEI in financial instability – e.g. As EROEI declines
currently highly valued resources may become unprofitable to ex-
tract. A sudden loss in value would provide a significant destabi-
lising perturbation/s to financial systems (e.g. stranded assets:
Carbon Tracker, 2013).
• The role of EROEI in Secular Stagnation – Following e.g. Slesser
(1992), EROEI plays a significant role in determining the growth
rate of an economy. Therefore, the decline in EROEI over recent
decades may have played a primary role in Secular Stagnation.
• The role of international trade in global EROEI and global energy prices –
Resource exploitation and international trade strategies are likely to
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
change as EROEI declines and the nation state’s concerns of resource
scarcity increase. It is possible that changes in trade may lead to a
decline in oil price during a period of declining EROEI.
5. Concluding remarks
The literature discussed by this review is diverse and spans almost
50 years from the initial publications of the Limits to Growth study. It is
possible to map the development of the EROEI-dynamics models over
this period, to identify seminal works and provide a historical catalogue
of blueprints for future work. Notable early works include: Meadows
(1973), Hounam (1979) and Sterman (1982). The consistency of the
key arguments stemming from these papers and running through the
EROEI-dynamics literature is strongly supportive of their validity. The
most widely established arguments suggest that geological resource
constraints will drive a relative expansion of the energy sector in the
coming century, and a downward pressure on material prosperity (ar-
guments 1, 2, 3 and 5).
It is clear that considerable work is required to further our under-
standing of EROEI-dynamics. Perhaps the most significant concern
following this review is the divergence in the literature, where the
widely cited Integrated Assessment Modelling literature poorly cites
EROEI-dynamics literature. It is possible that better integration of
EROEI-dynamics could have a significant impact on the discussion of
energy futures and therefore a significant impact on government policy.
Appendix I. Model Summary Table
Summary of models discussed by the review. The models are classified by the year of their first major publication as well as the development
group assigned by this review. Red: MIT group. Blue: US government group. Orange: STER-ECCO group. Green: BPB group. Grey: no clear group. The
models are also classified by the key dynamics. Further, by novel conclusions and their earliest reference.
270
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
Greater research is required to explore this concern.
Regardless of this concern many of the immediate-term policy im-
plications are consistent throughout the literature. These suggest that
rapid investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency are re-
quired, some form of carbon or resource tax would be beneficial and
delayed actions are likely to increase the chance of dangerous climate
change. Further, there is a significant risk of systemic collapse.
However, policy implications differ in the medium to long-term, where
the EROEI-dynamics literature often advocates a low-growth or steady
state economy. This is discussed both in terms of a mitigation strategy
and a biophysical inevitability. It is clear that greater research is re-
quired to explore the dynamics of the steady state economy, as the
EROEI-dynamics literature consistently projects that it may become a
prominent feature of the current century.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the Economic and Social Research Council
for the Centre for the Understanding of Sustanable Prosperity (ESRC
grant no: ES/M010163/1) is gratefully acknowledged. We would also
like to thank researchers at the Centre for the Understanding of
Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP.ac.uk) for their support. We would like to
thank Iñigo Capellán-Pérez, Roberto Pasqualino, Sarah Hafner and
Angela Druckman for their insightful comments and support
throughout.
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
References
Macías, A., Matilla-García, M., 2015. Net energy analysis in a Ramsey-Hotelling growth
model. Energy Policy 86 (C), 562–573.
Baker, S.R., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J., 2016. Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Q. J.
Econ. 131 (4), 1593–1636.
Baines, J.T., Peet, J., 1983. The Dynamics of Energy Consumption: Changing Expectations
for the Supply of Goods and Services. Dept. of Chemical Engineering,
Christchurch, N.Z.
Bardi, U., 2011. The Limits to Growth Revisited. Springer, New York.
Beck, M., Krueger, T., 2016. The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of un-
certainty in integrated assessment modelling. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change
7.5, 627–645.
Benes, J., Chauvet, M., Kamenik, O., Kumhof, M., Laxton, D., Mursuland, S., Selody, J.,
2015. The future of oil: Geology versus technology. Int. J. Forecast. 31 (1), 207–221.
Berndt, E.R., Wood, D.O., 1979. Engineering and econometric interpretations of energy-
capital complementarity. Am. Econ. Rev. 342–354.
Bodger, P.S., Baines, J.T., 1988. Dynamics of an energy-economic system subject to an
energy substitution sequence. Energy Syst. Policy 12 (3), 167–178.
Brandt, A.R., 2017. How does energy resource depletion affect prosperity? Mathematics
of a minimum energy return on investment (EROI). Biophys. Econ. Resour. Qual. 2, 2.
Brecha, R.J., 2008. Emission scenarios in the face of fossil-fuel peaking. Energy Policy
36.9, 3492–3504.
Capellán-Pérez, I., Mediavilla, M., de Castro, C., Carpintero, Ó., Miguel, L.J., 2014. Fossil
fuel depletion and socio-economic scenarios: an integrated approach. J. Energy 77,
641–666.
Cleveland, C., Costanza, R., Hall, C., Kaufmann, R., 1984. Energy and the US economy: a
biophysical perspective. Sci 225 (4665), 890–897.
Carbon Tracker, 2013. Unburnable Carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets.
London, UK. 〈www.carbontracker.org〉 (Accessed 24 April 2016).
Cantillon, (1730) Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en General, Kinokuniya Bookstore Co.
Dale, M., Krumdieck, S., Bodger, P., 2012. Global energy modelling—a biophysical ap-
proach (GEMBA) Part 2: methodology. Ecol. Econ. 73, 158–167.
Dale, M., 2010. Global energy modelling: a biophysical approach (GEMBA). Doctor of
philosophy in mechanical engineering. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand.
Dale, M., Krumdieck., S., Bodger., P., 2013. Future scenarios for the global energy supply
system – a biophysical perspective. GCEP working paper, ww.researchgate.net/
publication/236649206_Future_Scenarios_for_the_Global_Energy_Supply_System_-a_
Biophysical_Perspective (Accessed 24 April 2016).
Doose, P.R., 2004. Projections of fossil fuel use and future atmospheric CO2 concentra-
tions. In: Hill, Ronald J., J.L., Aizenshtat, Zeev, Jo Baedecker, Mary, Claypool,
George, Eganhouse, Robert, Goldhaber, Martin, Peters, Kenneth (Eds.), The
Geochemical Society Special Publications, Geochemical Investigations in Earth and
Space Science: A Tribute to Isaac R. Kaplan. Elsevier, pp. 187–195.
Dürr, H.P., 1994. Sustainable, equitable economics, the personal energy budget. In:
Smith, P.B., Okoye, S.E., de Wilde, J., Deshnkar, P. (Eds.), The World at the
Crossroads, Towards a Sustainable, Equitable and Liveable Word. Earthscan,
London, UK.
Fiddaman, T., 1997. A feedback-Rich Climate-Economy Model, Ventana Systems working
paper, (Accessed 24 April 2016).
Fiddaman, T., 1998. A feedback-rich climate-economy model. In: Proceedings of the 16th
International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Quebec.
Forrester, J.W., 1970. Urban dynamics. IMR; Ind. Manag. Rev. (pre-1986) 11 (3), 67.
Gagnon, N., Hall, C., Brinker, L., 2009. A preliminary investigation of the energy return
on energy investment for global oil and gas production. Energies 2, 490–503.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge,
Mass./London, Harvard UP.
Grandell, L., Hall, C., Höök, M., 2011. Energy return on investment for Norwegian oil and
gas from 1991 to 2008. Sustainability 3, 2050–2070.
Gilliland, M., 1978. Energy Analysis: A New Public Policy Tool, AAAS Symposium Series.
Guilford, M.C., Hall, C.A., O’Connor, P., Cleveland, C.J., 2011. A new long term assess-
ment of energy return on investment (EROI) for US oil and gas discovery and pro-
duction. Sustainability 3 (10), 1866–1887.
Hall, C., Cleveland, C., 1981. Petroleum drilling and production in the United States: yield
per effort and net energy analysis. Sci 211 (1981), 576–579.
Hall, C., Powers, R., Schoenberg, W., 2008. Peak oil, EROI, investments and the economy
in an uncertain future. In: Pimentel, D. (Ed.), Renewable Energy Systems:
Environmental and Energetic Issues. Elsevier, London, UK, pp. 113–136.
Hall, C., Klitgaard, K., 2011. Energy and the wealth of nations: understanding the bio-
physical economy. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, Germany.
Hall, C., Balogh, S., Murphy, D., 2009. What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable
society must have? Energies 2 (1), 25–47.
Hall, C.A., Day Jr., J.W., 2009. Revisiting the limits to growth after peak oil. Am. Sci. 97,
230–237.
Hamilton, J.D., 2009. Causes and consequences of the oil shock of 2007–2008. Brook.
Pap. Econ. Act. 215–261.
Heun, M.K., de Wit, M., 2012. Energy return on (energy) invested (EROI), oil prices, and
energy transitions. Energy Policy 40, 147–158.
Hounam, I., 1979. STER - A Global Energy Supply Model. Paper presented at the Energy
systems analysis: proceedings of the International Conference, held in Dublin,
Ireland, 9-11 October.
Hudson, E.A., Jorgenson, D.W., 1974. US energy policy and economic growth, 1975-
2000. Bell J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 461–514.
Hubbert, M.K., 1956, January. Nuclear energy and the fossil fuel. In Drilling and
271
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
production practice. American Petroleum Institute.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: synthesis Report. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri,
R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, pp. 151.
Jackson, T.D., Victor. P., 2015. Credit creation and the ‘growth imperative’. A quasi-
stationary economy with debt-based money. 〈http://www.prosperitas.org.uk/assets/
passage-wp_15-01.pdf〉 (Accessed 24 April 2016).
Jackson, T., Webster, R., 2016. Limits Revisited: a Review of the Limits to Growth Debate.
Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity. 〈http://limits2growth.org.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Jacksonand-Webster-2016-Limits-Revisited.pdf〉
(Accessed 24 April 2016).
Jackson, T., 2017. Prosperity without Growth: foundations for the Economy of
Tomorrow. Routledge, London, UK.
Keepin, B., Wynne, B., 1984. Technical analysis of IIASA energy scenarios. Nature 312
(5996), 691–695.
Kumhof, M., Muir, D., 2014. Oil and the world economy: some possible futures. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20120327.
King, C.W., Hall, C., 2011. Relating financial and energy return on investment.
Sustainability 3 (10), 1810–1832.
King, C.W., Maxwell, J.P., Donovan, A., 2015. Comparing world economic and net energy
metrics, Part 1: single Technology and Commodity Perspective. Energies 8,
12949–12974.
Kondratieff, N.D., 1979. The long waves in economic life. Review (Fernand Braudel
Center), 519–562.
Murphy, D.J., Hall, C., 2010. Year in review—EROI or energy return on (energy) invested.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1185, 102–118.
Murphy, D.J., 2014. The implications of the declining energy return on investment of oil
production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 372, 20130126.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., Meadows, D., 1972. Limits to Growth. Chelsea Green
Publishing, Vermont, USA.
Mediavilla, M., de Castro, C., Capellán, I., Javier Miguel, L., Arto, I., Frechoso, F., 2013.
The transition towards renewable energies: physical limits and temporal conditions.
Energy Policy 52, 297–311.
Mohr, S.H., 2012. Fossil fuel future production, world and Australia focus. Presented at
the Australian Frontiers of Science 2012: Science for a green economy, Sydney, 2-4
December 2012.
Murphy, D.J., Hall, C.A., 2011. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of
economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219 (1), 52–72.
Naill, R.F., 1973. The discovery life cycle of a finite resource: a case study of US Natural
Gas. In: Meadows, D.L., Meadows, D.H. (Eds.), Toward Global Equilibrium.
Nel, W.P., Cooper, C.J., 2009. Implications of fossil fuel constraints on economic growth
and global warming. Energy Policy 37, 166–180.
Noorman, K.J., 1990. Resource Accounting a Tool for Analysing Development Planning in
the Netherlands. IVEM-studentenverslag no.50. Center for Energy and Environmental
Studies IVEM, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Noorman, K.J., 1995. An ECCO model study of the long-term development potential of
the Netherlands. Paper presented to the Second International Symposium on Energy
Based Models. Edinburgh University, Scotland, pp. 28–30.
Nordhaus, W.D., 1992. The DICE Model: Background and Structure of a Dynamic
Integrated Climate Economy Model of the Economics of Global Warming. New
Haven, Conn, Cowles Foundation.
Owino, J.D., 1991. Sectoral study - Exploring the potential of carrying capacity assessment,
population growth and self-sufficiency in Kenya using ECCO. In: Gilbert, A.J., Braat, L.C.
(Eds.), Modelling for Population and Sustainable Development. Routledge, London.
Pasqualino, R., Monasterolo, I., Jones A.W., 2015. An integrated global food and energy
security system dynamics model for addressing systemic risk and supporting short
term sustainable policy making. In: Global Food Security: Adaptation, Resilience and
Risk. Presented at the BHP Billiton Sustainable Communities/UCL Grand Challenge
Symposium Series, London, UK.
Patzek, T.W., Croft, G.D., 2010. A global coal production forecast with multi-Hubbert
cycle analysis. J. Energy 35, 3109–3122.
Pindyck, R.S., 2015. The use and misuse of models for climate policy (NBER Working
Papers 21097). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Pfenninger, S., 2017. Energy scientists must show their workings. Nature 542 (7642)
(393-393).
Qudrat-Ullah, H., 2013. Energy Policy Modeling in the 21st Century. Springer USA.
〈https://www.springer.com/energy/policy,+economics,+management+
%26+transport/book/978-1-4614-8605-3〉.
Rubin, J., 2012. The end of growth. Random House, Canada.
Rye, C., Jackson, T., 2016. On the use of instability indicators in exploring inter-decadal
variability in GDP. CUSP Working Paper WP4, Centre for the understanding of
Sustainable Prosperity, online at CUSP.ac.uk/pub/WP4.
Schneider, S.H., 1997. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: trans-
parent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding valueladen assump-
tions? Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 229–249.
Schneider, S., Lane, J., 2005. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change:
much has been learned—still a long and bumpy road ahead. Integr. Assess. 5.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1939. Business Cycles 1 McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Sgouris, S., Csala, D., Bardi, U., 2016. The sower’s way: quantifying the narrowing net-
energy pathways to a global energy transition. Environ. Res. Lett. 11.9 (2016),
094009.
Slesser, M., 1989. Forecasting long-term energy prices from an entropy theory of value.
OPEC Rev., Energy Dev. Forum.
Solow, R.M., 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quart. J. Econ. 70
(1), 65–94.
C.D. Rye, T. Jackson
Slesser, M., 1992. ECCO: User's Manual. In Resource Use Institute (Ed.). Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Sterman, J., 1982. The energy transition and the economy: a system dynamics approach
(Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA.
Sterman, J., 1985. A behavioural model of the economic long wave. J. Econ. Behav.
Organ. 6.1, 17–53.
Summers, L., 2013. Why stagnation might prove to be the new normal. Financ. Times 15.
Sverdrup, H.U., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., Koca, D., 2015. An assessment of metal supply sus-
tainability as an input to policy: security of supply extraction rates, stocks-in-use,
recycling, and risk of scarcity. J. Clean. Prod.
Tintner, G., 1974. Linear economics and the Boehm-Bawerk period of production. Quart.
272
Energy Policy 122 (2018) 260–272
J. Econ. 127–132.
Turner, G.M., 2008. A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality. Glob.
Environ. Change 18, 397–411.
Van Ark, B., O'Mahony M., Ypma G., 2007. The EU KLEMS Productivity Report, Issue 1.
Wenhua, L., 1991. Research on population and sustainable development in China. In:
Gilbert, A.J., Braat, Lc (Eds.), Modelling for Population and Sustainable
Development. Routledge, London.
Xiaohui, H., 1995. The coordinative development of society economy, resources and en-
vironment in China (application of ECCO model). Paper presented to the Second
International Symposium on Energy Based Models. Edinburgh University Scotland, pp.
28–30.