10 Fundamental Principles of Net Energy Analysis

This is a repost from Cutler Cleveland on the underlying principles of net energy. We previously highlighted Dr. Clevelands work on the Energy Return from Wind. This post is Professor Clevelands latest installment on net energy analysis at the Encyclopedia of Earth, which I have reformatted to theoildrum. The Encyclopedia of Earth, where Prof. Cleveland is an editor/director, is a great academic/content based web clearinghouse for information on earth and our environment. I encourage everyone to follow some of the hyperlinks in the below story and peruse that site.

Outside of taxes and profits, we are a society used to thinking in gross terms. But the net is what we get to use. Net energy analysis, (and its subset EROI) get alot of airtime in peak oil discussions, but not yet in public. If the world is running on a certain total energy surplus, what are the implications for a decline in this surplus? Will the market, via dollars, treat gross production the same and forget to factor in increased costs? There seems to be much disagreement as to how best to use EROI and net energy principles, if at all, in planning for the looming energy crisis.

Introduction

Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of the energy extracted or delivered by a process to the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. A common related term is energy surplus, which is the gross amount of energy extracted or delivered, minus the energy used directly and indirectly in that process. EROI is a dimensionless number, while energy surplus refers to an actual physical quantity of energy. Suppose an energy delivery system delivers 10 joules of energy, but in the process consumes 2 joules. The EROI for that process is 5 (10 divided by 2), while the energy surplus delivered is 8 joules (10 minus 2).

EROI is a tool of net energy analysis, a methodology that seeks to compare the amount of energy delivered to society by a technology to the total energy required to find, extract, process, deliver, and otherwise upgrade that energy to a socially useful form. Net energy analysis was developed in response to the emergence of energy as an important economic, technological and geopolitical force following the energy price increases of 1973-74 and 1980-81. Interest in net energy analysis was rekindled in recent years following another round of energy price increases, growing concern about energy's role in climate change, and the debate surrounding the remaining lifetime of conventional fossil fuels, especially crude oil.

The principles

1. Net energy and energy surplus are important driving forces in ecology and economic systems

The efficiency and effectiveness of energy capture is a central organizing principle in ecology. Living organisms must capture energy and allocate it among a number of life-sustaining tasks (growth, reproduction, energy storage, defense, competition). A larger surplus produced by a system of energy capture compared to competing strategies gives an organism a competitive advantage. Ecologists have used the principle of net energy to explain a wide range of phenomena, including habitat switching, long distance migration by birds, vertical migration by marine organisms, optimal foraging strategy, the pattern of the distribution and abundance of species, reproductive behavior in bats, and the effects of human disturbance on organisms.

Biologists such as Alred Lotka and Howard Odum elevated the concept to the driving force behind natural selection itself, where, in the struggle for existence, the advantage goes to those organisms whose energy-capturing devices are more effective in directing available energies into channels favorable to the preservation of the species.

Scholars from a number of disciplines have applied the same concept of net energy to social systems, with widely varying assumptions about the extent to which net energy influences the trajectory of the evolution of culture. The analogy to natural systems is straightforward: societies with access to energy sources with a higher EROI and a large net energy surplus have an economic and military advantage over societies that use lower quality energy sources. A low EROI means that more of a society’s productive resources must be devoted to energy delivery, and thus cannot be used to produce non-energy goods and services, support a powerful military, expand the arts, or be consumed as leisure time.

Net energy has been used to explain major energy transitions, including the industrial revolution and the emergence of the affluent society, the rise and fall of great civilizations, the pattern of resource depletion, and the impact of technological change on energy technologies. Net energy has been used as a methodological tool to assess and compare energy systems, as a tool to assess the climate impact of energy technologies, and it plays a central role in the longstanding debate on the viability of alternative energy technologies such as ethanol.

2. The size and rate of delivery of surplus energy is just as important as EROI

The net amount of energy delivered from the energy sector to the non-energy sectors is the energy available to generate non-energy goods and services. The size of that surplus sets broad but distinct limits on human economic aspirations. Falling water, for example, can deliver a large EROI in a specific location, but the total energy surplus available to a society from falling water is limited by the relatively sparse spatial distribution of the resource. The amount of energy surplus potentially available from diffuse energy sources such as solar and wind power is just as important as their EROI.

Contrary to popular belief, agriculture did not supplant hunting and gathering as the major food production technology because it had a higher EROI. Indeed, hunting and gathering often produced a very high EROI in specific locations and around specific resources. For example, the harvesting of energy-dense biomass in coastal whaling had an EROI in the neighborhood of 2000:1. Some hunting and gathering societies developed sophisticated social and civil institutions, and often consumed their energy surplus in the form of leisure time. But hunting and gathering ultimately is limited by the distribution of edible net primary production in the biosphere, which limits population densities to about one person per square < a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Meter">kilometer.

The advantage of agriculture derives from the large net energy surplus delivered per unit land area and per person compared to hunting and gathering. Agriculture thus erased the energetic limits to carrying capacity inherent in hunting and gathering, and released human labor and other productive resources from the farm. The latter was a necessary condition for the industrialization of society.

3. The unprecedented expansion of the human population, the global economy, and per capita living standards of the last 200 years was powered by high EROI, high energy surplus fossil fuels.

The penultimate position of fossil fuels in the energy hierarchy stems from the fact that they have a high EROI and a very large energy surplus. The largest oil and gas fields, which were found early in the exploration process due to their sheer physical size, delivered energy surpluses that dwarfed any previous source (and any source developed since then). That surplus, in combination with other attributes, is what makes conventional fossil fuels unique. The long run challenge society faces is to replace the current system with a combination of alternatives with similar attributes and a much lower carbon intensity.

4. The principal economic impact of a shift to a lower EROI energy system is the increased opportunity cost of energy delivery.

A shift to a lower EROI energy system means that more of society's productive resources are devoted--directly and indirectly-- to delivering the same amount of energy. That energy thus cannot be used for other purposes, notably consumption goods. Energy used to make a drilling rig or wind turbine cannot be used to manufacture iPods or provide medical care.

5. Energy quality matters

Net energy is only one attribute of an energy system that determines it usefulness to society. The usefulness of an energy system is determined by a complex combination of physical, technical, economic, and social attributes. These include gravimetric and volumetric energy density, power density, emissions, cost and efficiency of conversion, financial risk, amenability to storage, risk to human health, and ease of transport. These attributes combine to determine energy quality: differences in the ability of a unit of a fuel to perform useful services for people. No single metric of an energy system captures all such attributes, including EROI. It stands to reason, therefore, that a comprehensive and balanced comparison of energy technologies should employ a range of metrics, with their strengths and weaknesses duly noted.



Energy content per unit mass and per unit volume for various sources (click to Enlarge)

Since all forms of energy can be completely converted to heat, heat units (Btus, joules, calories, kilowatt-hours) provide an easy way to aggregate different forms of energy. For example, the world uses about 450x1015 Btu, or 450 "quads" of energy each year. That quantity is the aggregation of dozens of different energy types added together by multiplying their mass or volume used times their heat content per unit mass or volume. But this approach implicitly assumes that "all Btus are equal," i.e., that people value a heat unit of electricity the same as a heat unit of coal. Of course, this is not the case. Electricity performs important tasks that coal cannot, or it performs them more effectively. People are willing to pay 15 times more for a heat unit of electricity (in the U.S.) because of these differences. Accounting for differences in energy quality can dramatically alter the results of net energy analyses.

6. Market imperfections that distort prices and cost also affect EROI

Dollar-based assessments of energy systems are distorted by market imperfections such as externalities, subsidies, and government policies. The result is that the full social cost of energy is unaccounted for. However, EROI is plagued by many of the same problems. For example, there is no established methodology to incorporate the ecological and human health impacts of energy production and use in the calculation of EROI, so it too overstates benefits to society. In fact, economic analysis has better developed tools to estimate and aggregate external costs than energy analysis.

The calculation of indirect costs in energy analysis (e.g., the energy used to manufacture a wind turbine) often is based on economic data. Subsidies and other government policies affect decisions made in the market, and thus affect the economic data often used as inputs to energy analysis, including the pattern of capital investment. A good example of this was government regulation of the natural gas industry in the U.S. in the 1970s. Deep, new, and presumably lower EROI natural gas was assigned a higher price than shallow, old, and presumably higher EROI gas in an attempt to stimulate overall exploration. Any change in the overall EROI for gas extraction caused by this policy had little to do with “resource depletion” per se.

7. The methodologies to perform net energy analysis are well established

Conventional wisdom in the blogsphere and other Internet communities is that there are no guidelines for performing net energy analysis. In fact, there is a rich, well-established body of literature on the subject, most of which was developed in the first wave of energy research in the 1970s and 1980s. This body of work includes not only methodological detail, but also discussions about how to deal with intractable problems such as joint costs and outputs, the energy cost of human labor, choosing appropriate system boundaries, among many others. The record also has a rich history of debate about the virtues of net energy analysis, particularly in regards to what it adds, if anything, to a discussion that already includes a thorough economic assessment. The current discussion surrounding net energy analysis would be significantly enhanced if participants were better informed by previous work.

8. The relation between “peak oil” and the EROI for world oil production is unknown

This statement is true for two reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that we do not know when world oil production will peak, and won’t know definitively until sometime afterwards. Second, and more importantly, there is no comprehensive and reliable assessment of the historic EROI for world oil production. There is a distinct lack of reliable public data on the direct and indirect costs associated with oil production in many regions of the world.

The lower 48 U.S. is the only region for which we can compare the trends in EROI and oil production. There we see a remarkable convergence: crude oil production peaks in 1970 and then declines, and the EROI for that production peaks at about the same time. The timing of both peaks is consistent with a change in the underlying cost structure of the resource, when the cost-increasing effects of depletion began to outweigh the cost-decreasing effects of technological change. If such as connection holds at the global level, then the timing and impact of “peak oil” takes on added significance.

9. Technological change affects EROI just as it affects price and cost

There is a widely held assumption that the EROI for a nonrenewable energy resource such as crude oil or a renewable resource such as wind inexorably decline once the physical quality of the resource base begins to decline (e.g., smaller and deeper fields, or less windy sites). This is not necessarily the case. Technological change that lowers the dollar cost of extraction can also lower the energy cost of extraction. For example, developing the ability to drill multiple and directional wells from a single platform lowered the dollar cost per well, and it may well have lowered the indirect energy embodied in the materials required to extract oil. The well-documented technical improvements that have lowered the dollar cost of emerging technologies such as wind and solar undoubtedly exert at least some downward pressure on energy costs as well.



The decline in cost for ethanol fuel produced from sugarcane in Brazil (click to Enlarge)

Technological change exogenous to the energy industry also affects the EROI. For example, the development of more efficient combustion engines would, ceteris paribus, improve the EROI for oil extraction that relies on such engines to lift oil to the surface. Similarly, a decrease in the quantity of energy required to produce a kilogram of steel will, ceteris paribus, improve the EROI by reducing the energy embodied in oil field equipment.

10. Alternatives to the dominant energy and power systems show a wide range in EROI

Most alternatives to conventional liquid fuels have very low or unknown EROIs. The EROI for ethanol derived from corn grown in the U.S. is about 1.5:1, well below that for conventional motor gasoline. Ethanol from sugarcane grown in Brazil apparently has a higher EROI, perhaps as high as 8:1, due to higher yields of sugarcane compared to corn, the use of bagasse as an energy input, and significant cost reductions in ethanol production technology. Shale oil and coal liquefaction have low EROIs and high carbon intensities, although little work has been done in this area in more than 20 years. The Alberta oil sands remain an enigma from a net energy perspective. Anecdotal evidence suggests an EROI of 3:1, but these reports lack veracity. Certainly oil sands will have a lower EROI than conventional crude oil due to the more diffuse nature of the resource base and associated increase in direct and indirect processing energy costs.

On the power generation side, coal, and hydropower have the highest EROI among conventional power systems, although the latter has very limited potential for further expansion in most regions of the world. Nuclear power appears to have a lower EROI, but there are very few credible studies that are thorough and unbiased. We do not know what the EROI will be from the new generation of nuclear reactors that would be built if demand for them returns. Wind has a very favorable EROI in the right conditions, while solar thermal and photovoltaic systems have lower EROIs compared to coal and hydropower. As outlined above, a key issue is the size of the surplus that can realistically be delivered by those renewable power technologies.

A final point for consideration:

Carbon may trump EROI. The growing concern that climate change may impose swift and large costs on society may drive the next major energy transition. It is plausible that carbon intensity, as opposed to net energy, may be the principal attribute of future energy systems that determines the timing and pace of their adoption. Society may choose to forgo the benefits of a larger energy surplus to reduce its exposure to climate-related risks.

Further reading

Original posting of the article at the Encyclopedia of Earth here

Biopact. 2006. Brazilian ethanol is sustainable and has a very positive energy balance - IEA report

Bullard, Clark W., Peter S. Penner and David A. Pilati. 1978. Net energy analysis: Handbook for combining process and input-output analysis. Resources and Energy, 1978, vol. 1, issue 3, pages 267-313.

Cleveland, Cutler J. 2005. Net energy from oil and gas extraction in the United States, 1954-1997. Energy, 30: 769-782.

Cleveland, Cutler J., and Robert Herendeen. Solar Parabolic Troughs: Succeeding Generations Are Better Net Energy Producers. Energy Systems and Policy 13: 63-77 (1989)

Cleveland, Cutler J., Robert Costanza, Charles A.S. Hall, and Robert Kaufmann. Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective. Science 225: 890-897 (1984).

Farrell,, Alexander E. Richard J. Plevin, Brian T. Turner, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’Hare, Daniel M. Kammen. Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. 27 JANUARY 2006 VOL 311 SCIENCE

Gever, John, Robert Kaufmann, David Skole, Charles Vorosmarty. 1986. Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades

Hall, C.A.S., J.A. Stanford and R. Hauer. 1992. The distribution and abundance of organisms as a consequence of energy balances along multiple environmental gradients. Oikos 65: 377-390.

Hall, Charles A.S., Cutler J. Cleveland, and Robert K. Kaufmann. Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process. (Wiley Interscience: New York, 1986). (Reprinted by the University of Colorado Press, Niwot, CO 1992).

Lenzen, M. and J. Munksgaard. 2002. Energy and CO2 life-cycle analyses of wind turbines-review and applications. Renewable Energy, 26: 3, pp. 339-362.

Odum, H. T., 1971. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley-Interscience, New York. ISBN 047165275X

Smil, V. 1991. General Energetics: Energy in the Biosphere and Civilization. John Wiley, New York. ISBN 0471629057

Spreng, Daniel T. 1988. Net Energy Analysis and the Energy Requirements of Energy Systems (Praeger). ISBN 0-275-92796-2

Tainter, Joseph A. (1990). The Collapse of Complex Societies (1st paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38673-X.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/emsim

EMERGY SIMULATOR
EmSim simulating a the world natural resources evolution... Diagram (JGraph) driven simulator. Bondgraphs > nonlinear differantial system > plot: implemented for economics and ecology. Network analysis: emergy propagation implemented.

Any suggestions on how to actually use this? The project seems to be defunct, the links to supporting websites are broken, and there's no manual included with the downloaded source files. Any help besides the cryptic description?

Cheers,
Jerry

The long run challenge society faces is to replace the current system with a combination of alternatives with similar attributes and a much lower carbon intensity.

That's a serious and fundamental misstatement of the long run challenge. Right up there next to "let them eat cake". Damn, where did I leave my magic wand?

We don't get "similar attributes" at declining EROI. We certainly do not get lower carbon intensity - short of photosynthesizing hydrogen or uranium. Like I said, magic wand. What we will get is rapidly increasing environmental degradation across all resource bases as we try to combat declining EROI. And the more we do, the worse it will be.

The short, medium and long run challenge is planning the path down. While there is still some ancient sunlight. What's the paradigm? 1/8 the energy we have now in maybe 20 years? What would be the EROI at that point? Crunch out what kind of economy and environment we can have.

cfm in Gray, ME

I think this is too pessimistic. Plug-ins and full EV combined with wind energy and nukes is a great solution and substitute for most transportation needs.

I like this chart to understand the difficulty of scaling energy sources to meet current need. Wind and Nukes make up a tiny % of total energy use (see position on left compared to USA total energy on far right).

And this does not even deal with energy quality issues. Such as the difficulty in replacing the energy density of oil in the modern transportation network.

Well its a nice looking graph but it doesn't show us anything about how effective the usage of energy is/ Consider for a moment if Nuclear turned out to be 5x as efficient in a role providing energy for transport for example -the nuclear bubble could easily cover for a drop in imported oil if this where the case...

Ones thing is for certain, we will look back on our present time as being one of vast inneficiency and since productivity is related to the amount of something you get out for a given input won't our future be one of much higher productivity? Come to think of it isn't increasing productivty one of the core definitions of economic progress?

Nick.

The core definition of progress, according the current economic orthodoxy, is an increase in total productivity. If increases in efficiency lag behind increases in the cost of energy, then the correct label for the situation will be economic contraction. Of course the current economic orthodoxy is functionally insane. The core principle of intelligent economic activity should be ecological modesty. If improved efficiency helps us to live an ecologically modest lifestyle then let's go for it. But if we actually have to give up wealth in order to live within the ecological budget of the earth, then only a zombie moron would say, "Give me my 3000 square foot home, my plasma screen televsion, and my personal automobile or give me death."

I think this is too pessimistic. Plug-ins and full EV combined with wind energy and nukes is a great solution and substitute for most transportation needs.

Which, of course, totally misses the point. Fulfilling your myopic "transportation needs" does less than nothing to solve the much larger multi-faceted problem of the whole world going down the backside, so to speak.

Then again, millions of equally clueless sapiens sitting in their shiny new "plug-ins" with no food or water will quickly solve the overpopulation problem, so maybe that's not such a bad thing after all. Long run or otherwise.

Cheers,
Jerry

"I think this is too pessimistic. Plug-ins and full EV combined with wind energy and nukes is a great solution and substitute for most transportation needs."

Dryki, I think waterpump found your magic wand. BLING!lol

Let's not be so quick to judge waterpump's lack of pessimism.

http://s.wsj.net/article/SB121746229279198963.html?mod=most_emailed_da…

It's not lack of, it's misplaced pessimism.

I personally believe that all these "new tech's" and devices are real and doable. I have personally seen some knock you on your ass amazing devices that if developed would have a profound effect on the area of their focus, and yet for too many reasons to list here will never see the light of day. One of the biggest reasons was TPTB couldn't/wouldn/t give it their ble$$ing (not that they had a clue as to the viability).

I just understand that the constraints we face are much bigger than anything we can invent.

The issue is a socioeconomic, cultural problem that is not even the 800 lb chimp in the room. IT'S THE ROOM ITSELF!

Could you please be more precise and specific? Why wouldn't a plug-in hybrid, full EV combined with a wind boom and more nukes (and perhaps some more coal use if needed) work?

Well, actually, they will work. The sooner we slam into the wall the better because there will be bigger pieces left for us bottom-feeders. Not everything will be gray-gooed. I'm starting to understand that a managed, steady decline is likely to be far more devastating - and all-consuming - than a fast crash.

Just for yucks, I reviewed the charts and assumptions in "Limits to Growth: the 30 year update" last night. Yuck. A pain in all the diodes down my left side. I had to put the book down fast.

Any assumption that we can fix or replace any portion of our infrastructure, where that assumption depends on infinite supply of something - fish, petroleum, wood pellets, phosphate, clean water, human ingenuity - they are all wrong. Everything is limited, even the human ingenuity (Tainter). The quality of all resources is declining - another double whammy.

To paraphrase Reagan, Obama and Souperman2, "tear down the room".

cfm in Gray, ME

How do you define "work"? Do you mean, is it possible to build one electric car and power it from wind/nuke/coal?

Or do you mean, replace all the energy provided by 20 million barrels per day of oil (and 20 tcf natural gas), and all the services provided by 200 million+ cars/trucks, ships, aircraft, on a time line of 20 years? Because that is the real challenge.

There are technology issues and rate of growth issues.

From Energy use in the US

Wind and Solar are too small to even display on this graph. The nuke industry is overrepresented here because no new nukes have been built in a very long time. Coal may already have peaked as an energy source (depends a bit on the Illinois basin) Energy Watch Group Coal Report Summery

I agree about misplaced pessimism. For energy we already have the technologies (nuclear, wind and hydro turbines, etc) to produce a high enough energy return to maintain a form of civilisation. This civilisation is unlikely to involve drive-thru KFCs, but then we managed without them for a couple of thousand years before, so I guess we could cope. In terms of total TWs of energy, we cannot perform an instant switch over to the same level of energy use we have at present, though we don't actually need to because: a) fossil fuels won't disappear tomorrow, and b) the greater use of energy efficiency and conservation. However, this time factor is important as the forced reduction in energy use IN SOME NATIONS due to lower available imports (plus lower net energy) will happen too quickly to adjust to without significant pain. But we also have additional ecological overshoot problems - limits to other resources (fresh water, minerals, cropland), ecosystem collapses due to biodiversity loss, and a climate that is rapidly warming to an extent last experienced on Earth 3 million years ago. This is all exacerbated by a human population growing by a quarter of million souls each day (a new Dallas + Boston each week; or a new Glasgow + Edinburgh + Aberdeen each week [I live in Scotland!]). Yet even each of these might be overcome, for example if we instituted a strict one-child policy, urban permaculture, electric rail & cycle priority, waste materials recycling, rainforest protection, fishing controls, land and wealth redistributions, etc, etc. But these won't happen, and that is the reason I'm pessimistic: these are inter-connected problems with a new level of complexity that require a higher level of critical thinking, but our brains have just not quite evolved far enough to consistently deal with this. It could happen, but the probabilities are that things will get tough for most and nasty for some (and that is without any Black/Grey Swans of nuclear weapon launches, disease pandemics, etc).

Misplaced pessimism again, GreenE. Doomers shouldn't project their own shortages of brain power onto the entire population.

You do realize that certain algae will photosynthesize hydrogen?

I came in contact with a hydrogen producing cyanobacteria last semester at Uppsala University. We had a series of experiments in the labs at the department of photochemistry and Molecular science. During our experiments we never surpassed 1 % efficiency sunlight to hydrogen and our professor Peter Lindblad told us that the bacteria isn’t going to be a viable energy source for many years to come. We also did some experiments with artificial photosynthesis but that technology is very immature (it doesn’t produce any hydrogen) but has a great potential.

You do realise, that the full hydrogen cycle - using any method is several times less energy efficient than a full chemical battery cycle (ref: Ulf Bossel)?

You do realise that replacing the gasoline infrastructure with a hydrogen infrastructure is more expensive than replacing it with an electricity infrastructure (ref: Ulf Bossel, Wilson & Burgh)?

You do realise that it took 50+ years to build the gasoline infrastructure, oil peak is probably 0-7 years away and transition to any new infrastructure will take c. 15-25 years minimum under a crash program (ref: Hirsch & Bezdek)?

You do realise that paper technologies just tested in the lab are not the same as mass-manufacture, mass-installed, mass-scaled and mass-sused infrastructure?

One could go on, but it should be obvious to anybody that there are high uncertainties on the way from here to algae hydrogen paradise.

It may happen, but it's unlikely to be within three years, unlikely to save us from a net liquid fuels decline in the near future and unlikely to 'save' us on it's own due to scaling issues.

And that again does not guarantee that the world will succumb into chaos (a reminder for those inclined to do dichotomic thinking and incapable of probabilistic reasoning).

I am glad to see energy quality is finally entering into the discussion of energy analysis here at TOD. Odum used a simple table to define quality mappings in terms of Fossil Fuel Equivalents (FFEs) for various forms of energy. This is expanded somewhat by the table of Solar Transformaties at dematerialism.net. By adding in other dimensions such as transportablity, carbon intensity, availability, and the others you have listed here we could start to get at a decent method for comparison. For example, solar photovoltaics may have very low EROI, but the fact that they convert the lowest quality energy to one of the highest needs to be taken into account when evaluating our options.

I appreciate that we could all be better informed on net energy analysis. I've read a number of the articles at eroei.com and a number of them (Costanza and Hall, I believe) used input-output analysis. I would like to learn more about this, and any other methodologies the community can point me to.

I recommend starting with two papers you should be able to get at your local university library in PDF form.

Hall C, Efficiency of Energy Delivery Systems: I, An Economic and Energy Analysis, 1979, Environmental Management, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 493-504 (there are 3 parts. Get them all.) They do an EROI of a Coal power plant and contrast it with insulating buildings. This gives you a good working example to understand.

NET ENERGY ANALYSIS Handbook for Combining Process and Input-Output Analysis, Clark W. BULLARD, Resources and Energy 1 (1978) 267 313. 0 North-Holland Publishing Company

This second paper contains (almost) all the tables and charts to compute net energy. They are the only IO tables I know about for all sectors of the US economy.

IMHO, the most important resource on this question is the work of H. T. Odum, briefly mentioned in the article above.

His book "Environment, Power, And Society For the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy Of Energy" was updated and re-published just last year. The entry for this title in the bibliography above has not been updated to reflect this. Understanding Odum's work is crucial if you want to know why solar, PV in particular, is not going to be the answer everyone thinks it is.

I also highly recommend his book "A Prosperous Way Down", a brilliant summary of his thinking published late in his career, not long before he passed away. I think it's being re-published this summer.

Cheers,
Jerry

Would you be willing to offer a summary of his premise in regards to solar PV? Does his argument provide any different perspective on the usefulness of CSP?

Thanks,
Bob Fiske

He does not mention CSP technology specifically, but this passage sums up his premise in regards to solar in general:

Concentrating Solar Energy

As explained in Chap 4, solar energy is inherently dilute. By the time it is concentrated to fuel status, its net eMergy yield is small. Because of the success of industrial agriculture, people assume that net eMpower of solar production can be increased by more intensive farming or forestry practices. this is wrong, as proved by Steven Doherty (1995) in his analysis of forest production in Sweden, Puerto Rico and the United States (fig. 7.18). The more often a forest is replanted and harvested the less net yield. Very high yields come from forests allowed to grow a long time without much effort by society. In other words, the net eMpower of solar energy depends on time of growth.

Many transformation steps are required to process and concentrate dilute solar insolation to high-quality electric power using organic photosynthesis of the chloroplast, which is the green plants photovoltaic cell. With the intent of skipping steps, hardware photovoltaic cells have been researched for decades, trying to generate electric power from solar energy with net eMergy, which would make them economical. But these designs ignore the energy hierarchy law (chapter 4) that requires many calories of available energy at one level to make a few calories at higher levels. Figure 7.19 compares electrical current generation from silicon solar voltaic cells with that from a wood power plant operated on old-growth logs in the Amazon. Evaluations that claim net yield from solar cells leave out the huge eMpower required in the human services for manufacture, distribution, support, connections, operation, management and maintenance.

The greater the human population, the smaller the area of forests remaining, and the less time is usually allowed for growth. The global net eMpower of solar energy decreases with population. As populations have increased, times between shifting agriculture farming have decreased, which reduced yields.

Where a dilute renewable energy has to be concentrated to support society, either eMergy is used to concentrate the energy spatially or time is allowed for the energy to accumulate in a broadly accumulated storage. There is an eMergy equivalence between accumulation of available energy over time and the work of concentrating energy in space. Self-organizing systems do both (chap 4).

Cheers,
Jerry

Solar is clearly the long-term solution. Concentrating thermal or PV in the near term with the waste heat stored for local heating or cooling use, and high efficiency Optical Rectenna in the intermediate future. As much as possible distributed to the point of use, with backup from large CSP stations or nuclear or coal-with-sequestration and transmission as required.

We can sit around and put out the depressed results of thoughtless naval-gazing, or get started on solutions, and promoting and supporting them in everything we do.

That EROI and "size and rate of delivery of surplus energy" are both important, and the fact that both are incredible difficult to predict for many kinds of energy production in the future, due to optimizations, black swans, etc. and due to present difficulties to read today's "true" EROI in any given system should open the eyes to the reader for the only conclusion possible:

We don't friggin know.

It was mentioned the example of hunting and gathering and farmland. I think that such transition was probably looked upon as a path downward. It meant more hard work, less EROI. And yet, it gave mankind clear advantages. The same could be said that it was what happened in the transition from wood to coal. Wood was cheap and easy to chop and burn. Coal had to be digged up. And yet, it was after the transition to coal that we witnessed the industrial revolution.

These are examples on how some myths that were created or "born again" in the context of peak oil (such as Devon's Paradox, another idiocy spread around many peak oil sites, but gladly forgotten in here) are simply false in the forecasting of the future of energy production and consumption. The fatalism that feeds itself from these concepts should be denied and frowned upon.

It was mentioned the example of hunting and gathering and farmland. I think that such transition was probably looked upon as a path downward.

I do not think it were an either or choise. I live in Sweden where farming has been done in parallell with fishing, hunting and berry picking into modern times. The transition has allways been seemless from areas where farming is lean and gathering is significant to areas where farming is fat and gathering in the form of hunting were a reserved past time for rich land owners.

I am quite sure that everybody wanted the fat land where you often had good years with a huge yield and getting more fat land were an incremental process. The well off already had it, the not well off tried to fertilize, pick stones, etc investing manny lifetimes in providing next year and the next generation with a better farm. Some could of course choose between farming and gathering but almost all niches were already claimed.

I think there are some new directions quantitative energy analysis needs to take;

1. EROEI and payback of integrated systems

It is glib to talk of values of say 20 and 0.5 years for wind power without mentioning the wider system. That system could include storage, new transmission line and sometimes-idle replicated plant and fuel-burn backup. Does the systems integrated EROEI still make the magic number 10, the edge of the 'cliff'?

2. can we really live with low EROEI?

I wonder if a sub 10 EROEI world is nasty brutish and short. On the other hand in a high EROEI world we have unregulated entertainment, a varied diet and personal mobility. Working out that cutoff point will decide what local and global population should be.

3. per-capita energy investment

What is the individual's share of fuel refining and electrical generation infrastructure? Is it $0.5m or $5m? I have no idea, either in dollar terms or megawatt hours of embodied energy. Knowing that figure points to the steepness of the required investment curve to replace fossil energy. For example a plug-in car for every family manufactured and powered by wind and solar. I suspect some time paths will take decades, not the few years some like to think.

2. can we really live with low EROEI?

Theoretically, we can live with an EROEI of 1.001, as long as the following things are taken care:

1. Most of work is automatized. EROEI of 1.001 in complete human labor is hell on earth, we would only have time to work for our energy. But if 99.999% of such work is by robots that feed themselves by the closed system, then it is better. This is why recent coal mines have less EROEI but are far better than older ones: While they spend more energy in robotic and mechanical tools, they use less of our human hours, so we can write in blogs and discuss poker rather than digging up coal. Theoretically, if the system could be completely automatized, there is only one limit that should not be passed through: EROEI=1.

2. The EROEI itself is reliable, that is, it doesn't cross the threshold of 1 time to time.

3. The transition is complete.

The last point is by far the most important. We should keep in mind that the panic that TOD has towards EROEI only comes about because we come from a high EROEI energy market, and perhaps we will be forced to go towards a low EROEI energy market too fast. This is where it gets tricky, because we are still building our low-EROEI infrastructure with high EROEI energy, and the transition is turbulent and may indeed cause troubles.

Apart from it, though, in a pure abstract sense, low EROEI is only worse all else being equal, when it is clearly not. If the energy producing process is mostly mechanical and robotical, it means we have a multitude of "slaves" working for us. I can hardly see that as "bad".

But if 99.999% of such work is by robots that feed themselves by the closed system, then it is better.

No, it is not. Using your 99.999% number, that would require an "economy" 100,000 times bigger than what we currently have to net out the same "return". We've already hit resource limits with our mere puny human economy.

cfm in Gray, ME

that would require an "economy" 100,000 times bigger than what we currently have to net out the same "return"

You're obviously misrepresenting what I said. First, you deny that this is what happens now, most of the tasks to get energy out are not man-powered, they are machine-powered. Man is increasingly only needed to supervision and maintain the machines at work, etc. Second, I was talking in a pure abstract sense, and about energy, not any other resource. As you are aware, renewable energy is there for the taking and is, practically speaking, infinite.

Your assumption that

We've already hit resource limits

shows your fearmongering source code quite well.

As you are aware, renewable energy is there for the taking and is, practically speaking, infinite.

The infrastructure - your robots - required to harvest it is not free at all. The infrastructure for lower EROI energy sources is generally going to be much more extensive and expensive than for petroleum - that's almost the definition of "high value" and EROI isn't it? Benefit - cost to "produce". [I couldn't find the chart in past Oil Drum article showing how lower EROI energy sources start to take up more and more of the economy, sorry.]

Everything is energy, even the Earl Grey tea I just made in my replicator. I'd not disagree with that. Where I find fault is the idea that we can build our way out of low value energy sources by having several orders of magnitude more of them.

Yes, the implications of resource limits do scare the hell out of me. We have a planetary Income Statement and a planetary Balance Sheet. They don't work now because our scale of operations is too big. Increasing our scale of operation will only make matters worse. The logical response would be reducing our scale of operations to what the renewable traffic will support (eg solar) and using capital (fossil) only to increase the harvest of the renewables.

That humankind has a measurable impact on the environment is sufficient to prove the limits are not only real but that we have hit them.

cfm, not in Gray, ME