In the first part of this series, I discussed the practicality of a future transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources—specifically renewable sources of electricity such as solar and wind power. One little-discussed hurdle is the fact that, because we must invest energy in renewables up front, a rapid transition threatens to greatly impact near-term demand for energy resulting in unwanted economic and political effects. Another is that, because we will initially use fossil fuels to build our renewable infrastructure, the transition to renewables will result in a short-term increase in carbon emissions. The extent to which both of these impacts will be significant, even their potential to foreclose the possibility of such a transition, will turn on the net energy, or Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), of available renewable energy technology.

As I alluded to last time, while there are many EROEI numbers floating about for solar, wind, etc., these numbers are far less accurate or verifiable than is, I believe, commonly assumed. I’ll argue that our measurements of EROEI are fundamentally flawed, at least for some purposes. Most EROEI studies serve as a tool to compare different technologies or to gauge advances in technology--a role for which they are generally well suited. However, when viewed from a complete systems perspective, current EROEI figures fail to provide an inclusive measurement. I’ll argue that, for purposes of planning a civilizational transition, a meaningful meansure must be inclusive of all energy inputs. Finally, I’ll propose a possible proxy-measurement to address the methodological issues surrounding EROEI.

This is a guest post from Neil Howes. Neil is an Associate Professor at the University of Sydney. Neil's last guest post at TOD was "A National Electricity Grid For Australia".

While their are no shortages of plans for the US to reduce its reliance on oil imported from overseas or replace fossil fuels with renewable resources, their is little consideration of a continental plan for future economic growth in a fossil fuel constrained world.

The North American economy, including NAFTA partners Canada, US and Mexico, accounts for 25% of the worlds oil consumption and 25% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions. Together, these three countries produce 4,800 TWh of electric power per year and share the world’s largest and most extensive electricity grid.

Presently 38% of this electricity is produced from carbon free sources (nuclear 19%, hydro 18% and wind energy 1.7%). N America has substantial oil, natural gas and coal reserves, exceptional potential solar and wind resources, a large hydro electric capacity, and unique natural hydro storage lakes that can be used for short and long term energy storage.

Conventional oil production, however, has been declining in all 3 countries and overseas imports from politically unstable regions have been increasing at a time when world oil production is near or past peak. While N American coal reserves are large, coal used for producing electricity is the major source of GHG emissions and will need to be dramatically reduced by 85-90% before 2050.

Both problems require urgent attention now, as changes will take decades to implement, and long term plans will need to involve all 3 of the NAFTA economies.

We are trying to do everything.

Save the banks, save the automakers, build out a smart grid, create jobs, yet not 'be held hostage to dwindling resources'. Can this be accomplished? We need energy to do work. We need cheap energy to have growth for this many people and for those recently joining the global stage. We need growth (or at least the perception of it) to have debt in order to finance future industry, whether the industry is basic goods or more discretionary pursuits. But via receding horizons (depletion outpacing technology), energy costs will outpace energy revenues (in aggregate, declining energy surplus), and a compressed time horizon will require prioritization.

(From: Beyond Oil: the Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades; John Gever et al.; p. 225)

Though dated, the above graphic shows (green) starting early to solve the problem of transition to a world of less liquid fuel and (red) waiting until the 'market signal' (aka last moment) - the net energy available to society (due to continued energy expenditures on 'un-economic growth') passes through a period of perilous scarcity. In Matt Simmons latest presentation(pdf), he suggests the need for up to $100 trillion to upgrade the rust and aging energy delivery infrastructure - this is 2 orders of magnitude larger than the $850 billion stimulus package voted on last night, and triple the total global stock market capitalization.

Cutler Cleveland at Boston U. kindly scanned the entire 'Beyond Oil' book at the above link which is an excellent introduction to the energy choices we face -(particularly Chapter 7.)

Below the fold is a POLL on what you think is possible given our resource constraints.

Project Better Place founder Shai Agassi was in town last week announcing that Australia will become the third country, following Denmark and Israel, to implement the group's vision of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.

Better Place and Macquarie Capital Group will raise $1 billion to build a network of 250,000 charging stations and battery exchange stations in key locations along the east coast by 2012. The network will be powered by wind turbines owned by AGL Energy.

Agassi has been promoting the plan as a way to reduce our dependence on oil (the starting premise for the project was "how do you run an entire country without oil") while creating jobs and boosting the local economy (see this interview on the Today Show for his explanation). Operating in Australia will also help the group prove it can work in large countries as well as the much smaller geographical areas covered in the first 2 rollouts. Agassi also noted that the Federal Government's $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund played a part in encouraging them to set up in Australia.