[larsga]

This is very unlikely to be a real conversation. A real economist would note that the economy can grow through provision of services that require very little energy relative to the value they add. Consider Google, for example. Sure, they use some electricity, but relative to their revenue that's extremely limited compared to a factory.

So this whole "discussion" is totally wrong-headed.

[kbenson]

He goes through pains to explain why that doesn't really matter for the argument. Punting the football a few decades down the line does not solve the underlying issue he's trying to illustrate.

[larsga]

The dialogue is about energy sources, but that's irrelevant when there are whole lines of economic activity that consume very little energy. A service economy can deliver economic growth while energy consumption falls.

This whole dialogue is utterly wrong-headed, and I don't for a second believe that that economist is a real economist.