<What is a Human Being Worth (in Terms of Energy)? The Oil Drum Have Attitudes Changed?>

33 comments on Lester addresses U.S. governors on energy future, calls for Marshall Plan for energy innovation

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Carolus Obscurus on July 20, 2008 - 3:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Second, how much total energy is consumed in developing, manufacturing, and maintaining alternative energies (this is a question that few studies have examined thoroughly)?

A question I've been asking for a long time as well. Though I would modify it as follows:

"How much total energy is consumed in developing, manufacturing, and maintaining alternative energies when their contribution is scaled up by an order of magnitude or more?

For example, there is the factor of 'peak precious metals' when it comes to a massive expansion of PV solar. Technological progress and economies of scale may be nullified by the increasing scarcity of finite mineral resources. So there is no guarantee that the 'energy payback time' will decrease -- in fact, at some time in the future, it must increase.

Again, I'm not opposed to alternative energy, but unless these questions are answered, some degree of skeptisism is justified.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cjwirth on July 20, 2008 - 7:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Carolus,

Here tis some stuff from my report:

Alternative Energies and Net Energy Produced:

The planning, development, manufacture, and maintenance of alternative energies consumes fossil energies. Proponents of alternative energies provide an analysis of net energy produced over the life cycle of a project or device, known as a life-cycle-analysis (LCA).

Invariably, such assessments are incomplete in accounting for only a portion of the energy inputs. For example for the typical LCA of a solar panel, the energy input is usually confined to the energy required to produce and construct the panels, photovoltaic cells, glass, and pylons.

What analysts do not included is all of the energy used in all of the processes required to plan, develop, manufacture, transport, store, install, and maintain the panels, including: the energy used to mine the ores; process the ores; mine the silica for glass; transport the ores; mine the coal; manufacture various parts in diverse locations; transport those parts via ships and trucks from diverse global locations; build, heat, and provide electric power for the factories and offices where all of the components and parts are designed, constructed, marketed, stored, and delivered; install and maintain major solar panel installations with gasoline operated vehicles and petrochemical-based cleaners; and the salaries and stock dividends of all employees and stock holders for all of these processes that are then spent, thus consuming fossil energy in the products and services purchased.

Because there are many confounded energy input variables (for example the transport of solar panel components may be transported with unrelated products), it is difficult to quantify the real energy costs of solar panels. The high dollar cost of solar panels, however, is a rough economic estimate of these energy inputs. This explains why researchers in the industry

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-83108.html

conclude that “the initial costs [of solar panels are about 2.5 times the value of the electricity produced” over the 25 year lifespan of the panels. In sum, accounting for “all of the energy inputs” (AEI) is necessary for an accurate LCA. We can call this “complete energy returned on energy invested” or C-EROEI.

Warm regards,

Clifford J. Wirth
Peak Oil Associates International

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

33 comments on Lester addresses U.S. governors on energy future, calls for Marshall Plan for energy innovation

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version