Energy Return on Investment

[Falcon]

So my question is, in your calculations do you remove the energy costs you've already counted in all those installers sandwiches etc from the general energy demand figures?

And that, of course, is your problem. You have constructed a straw man argument, and are now arguing with that as a device for avoiding the very simple and unavoidable real problem with your argument. The sandwich was a proxy for "the wider system" - you could equally well have chosen the (hydrocarbon raw material) insulation on the wires connecting your panels, or the ballbearing in the gearbox of the truck that mined the etc. but you chose the straw man example. That's your avoidance technique. Hey ho.

Once more, then I really think we have to agree that you don't get it.

You have three problems:

1. Your devices are the product of an energy intensive system - the global manufacturing system. That system comprises a very large number of sequential energy conversion processes, from raw material procurement to maintenance, each of which creates a large energy loss. The number of processes is so large that it has only every been observed to work with an energy source with a very high energy gradient to power it. That energy source is oil. The depletion rate of the global oil supply is such that uninvested supply rate half time is now 7 years. Capital to maintain global oil production is restricted due to capital formation impairment and competition from maintaining the liquidity of the banking and financial systems. Oil to maintain the global manufacturing system must now soon be switched to the higher utility end use of maintaining the hydrocarbon intensive industrial agricultural system. The global manufacturing system upon which your devices depend is therefore now on the verge of rapid contraction.

2. Your devices are capable of sustaining the global manufacturing system as a substitute for hydrocarbon only if they can achieve an EROEI comparable to the EROEI under which the majority of the system was constructed i.e. >50. At a conventionally estimated EROEI for solar PV of 20 (I'm being generous), this is unproven. The EROEI of your devices is based on an estimate of the energy requirements of their manufacture. The conventional estimate of the energy requirements of your devices fails to take into account the full energy requirement of their manufacture supply chain and is therefore grossly overstated (see following post).

3. The pace of (net) rate of contraction of the global oil supply exceeds the pace of (net) rate of expansion of renewable energy supply. Even if the pace could be matched, the ability of that low EROEI renewable supply to support the losses of the high EROEI manufacturing process is unproven. The global energy supply is therefore on the verge of contraction. The stability of the financial system upon which financing of your projects depends is conditional on an expanding energy supply.

The statement that your projects offer a viable means of sustaining the continuity of current arrangements is therefore speculative.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my conclusion. I take exception to your assertion that this argument lacks interest or integrity.

 

[Falcon]

Free Spirit - to help you understand "the sandwich" problem, and why it is not necessary to provide the number you supply.

This is how your EROEI figure is conventionally derived:

This is how your EROEI figure should be derived:

The fact that we have not worked out all the numbers in the other boxes does not alter the fact that if the number you work out is 20, the number we will eventually work out will be much, much less than 20, and likely <0.

There is no latitude for debate, here, and why contemporary methods are at odds with 20th Century EROEI estimation methods (what you refer to as "professional practice", which I'm sure is what you regard it to be.)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't agree that you've proved your point here. The point about a global manufacturing system is that many, many of the processes are shared, bringing down the energy use per each individual item. But most of those things being manufactured are things whose manufacture may need to be restricted in order not to waste energy on them. Stripping those things away, the realistic eroei for solar panels is bound to go up if you assume the same kind of system as the one we have now. But a rationalised gms that serves the needs of people, not capital, could look quite different from the one we have now.

You still need numbers, and you also need to look at alternative systems. Another point to bear in mind is that as renewable energy replaces fossil fuels, ever greater proportions of the energy used to make solar panels will be coming from renewables. This is an important point - just as when you have a mortgage, the percentage of your monthly payment that goes on interest steadily decreases over time.

 

[free spirit]

eta Falcon
see what I mean?

You're incapable of answering the question directly.

After 4-5 years of this, I guess I'm going to have to conclude that as I originally pointed out when you first started banging on about the EROEI of solar that you do double count those energy costs.

This is in no way a straw man, it's straight to the point of why you've got this wrong.

you could equally well have chosen the (hydrocarbon raw material) insulation on the wires connecting your panels,

This would be a valid energy input, and should be included in any detailed analysis as it's an energy cost that wouldn't be spent if the panels weren't being manufactured

or the ballbearing in the gearbox of the truck that mined the etc.

This should already be included within the standard energy cost figures used for whatever material it is that's been mined, which would be inputted into the EROEI equation, but really the energy costs of the machinery involved is usually a relatively minor component of the overall energy costs of that materials extraction and processing, as each truck / machine will operate for years, with its energy costs spread across all the material produced in that mine over that period.

It's not my fault that you can't see where the boundaries should be between what should and what shouldn't be counted in the EROEI figures, and end up giving bad examples such as the sandwich - you gave that example not me.

I'm not saying that all EROEI calcs are perfect, but having reviewed a few of them for solar PV, and tried adding in a few of the sorts of factors you mention, I really can't see that the better ones are going to be more than about 10-20% out at worst on their average energy input figures, not the 800-1000% out that you'd need for your previous statements to have been right.

To be honest though, even if you included all the factors you're talking about proportionally on a per panel basis they'd pale into insignificance compared to the direct energy costs of manufacturing glass, aluminum and silicon crystals for each panel, which is why it would be good if you brought some numbers to the table.

 

[Falcon]

I don't agree that you've proved your point here. The point about a global manufacturing system is that many, many of the processes are shared, bringing down the energy use per each individual item.

The real point about a high tech global manufacturing system is that it cannot be reduced in size below a critical threshold - you need raw materials from all over the globe, you need global transportation, you need infrastructure to obtain those raw materials and maintain that transportation, you need a supply chain system capable of handling millions of items, the interruption of a large number of which present single point failures in critical points in your system, you need a digital information system, you need a transaction processing system, you need a military system, etc. etc.

The issue, surely, is not the average energy demand per item, but the total aggregate energy demand in relation to generation capacity.

The assertion that all of that can be sustained with energy devices with, at best, single digit EROEI is unproven.

 

[Falcon]

You're incapable of answering the question directly.

I don't think you quite grasp that asking a question that bears no relation to the argument, then asserting it is not being answered directly, does not constitute an argument.

I cannot answer your question about double dipping because there is no double dipping. There is only the failure to take into account very large sections of your supply chain in conventional estimates, resulting in inflated estimates of EROEI.

I cannot find a way to put it any clearer than that.

In the meantime, your thoughts on points (1), (2) and (3) above - to which this point is only marginal, will - as ever - remain a mystery.

Shall we leave it there?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The problem is that the system we have now was not developed to be energy-efficient. It was developed to give maximum returns on capital.

I'm sure you're right that there are certain economies of scale below which manufacture of certain goods would be prohibitively expensive. That's why coordinated rationalisation is needed. And that has to involve numbers. I don't know what is possible exactly, but you haven't demonstrated anything so far.

 

[free spirit]

I don't think you quite grasp that asking a question that bears no relation to the argument

it has everything to do with the topic being discussed.

But ok then, let's try this a different way.

Other than the badly flawed study you once quoted from the mid 90s, based on some fictional solar farm with hundreds of miles of tarmacced roads between the panels that don't exist in reality, or similarly flawed studies.... Can you supply any links to any credible papers / studies that support your viewpoint which actually do contain some actual numbers to quantify the energy inputs you're discussing?

 

[Falcon]

The problem is that the system we have now was not developed to be energy-efficient. It was developed to give maximum returns on capital.

I'm sure you're right that there are certain economies of scale below which manufacture of certain goods would be prohibitively expensive. That's why coordinated rationalisation is needed. And that has to involve numbers. I don't know what is possible exactly, but you haven't demonstrated anything so far.

OK. Well, there are entire classes of problems that are matters of judgement rather than demonstration - for example, climate change - for which, by the time demonstration is possible, it is too late. For those situations, we were equipped with critical faculties.

I happen to believe that it would be reckless and irresponsible to entrust the wellbeing of my family to the success of unproven technologies that cannot be reconciled with basic physics and depend on the continuity of thousands of supply chains that reach back into countries which fundamentally don't like us.

But that's me. I certainly have no interest in demonstrating anything, just enjoying healthy debate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep, it really does need numbers. If the real cost of solar panels were over 100%, the economics of making and selling them would be hugely problematic.

Falcon has given a list of the realistic factors that need to be considered, but many of these will be relatively tiny. Sheer quantity of inputs doesn't prove anything if you can't indicate the size of the inputs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

OK. Well, there are entire classes of problems that are matters of judgement rather than demonstration - for example, climate change - for which, by the time demonstration is possible, it is too late.

Um no. There are plenty of numbers to back up the evidence for climate change. The models have been tested against real data and found to be pretty good. You haven't provided anything like that to demonstrate that solar panels are not worth the energy spent on them.

 

[Falcon]

Can you supply any links to any credible papers / studies that support your viewpoint which actually do contain some actual numbers to quantify the energy inputs you're discussing?

Let's go even simpler. Can you supply any links to any credible papers that contain actual numbers to demonstrate the renewable energy can support the global industrial manufacturing and agricultural systems and a population of 7 billion?

Be certain that they fully account for the energy requirements of the supply chain.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's me. I certainly have no interest in demonstrating anything, just enjoying healthy debate.

Sorry, I don't get this. It is possible to demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming is happening. If your position is that the manufacture of high-tech goods is not viable ongoing, you have to provide evidence to demonstrate this. Otherwise it's just an empty position of faith.

 

[Falcon]

Um no. There are plenty of numbers to back up the evidence for climate change. The models have been tested against real data and found to be pretty good.

Then you would have to concede that the assertion that solar presents a viable means of maintaining continuity of current arrangements is implausible. According to those climate models, we exceed the safe working CO2 concentration limit within 5 years. Since the necessary solar capacity to sustain the global manufacturing system upon which they depend has not been built, and cannot be built before we have to curtail the CO2 emitting global manufacturing system to avoid exceeding the safe working limit, they can never be built at all. Right?

 

[Falcon]

Sorry, I don't get this. It is possible to demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming is happening. If your position is that the manufacture of high-tech goods is not viable ongoing, you have to provide evidence to demonstrate this. Otherwise it's just an empty position of faith.

My evidence is that its viability has only ever been observed in the presence of high EROEI fuel. The assertion that its viability is possible in the presence of low EROEI is unobserved, and an empty position of faith.

Surely?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They're not the solution on their own. Doesn't mean they're not worth making.

It's only in talking to you that I take this side of the debate. With most people, I'm despairing about the complacency. We need to be slashing co2 emissions now. We need to be establishing international programmes for the development of new energy technologies on the level of a war economy. Huge progress could be made very quickly if we did that.

But no, the capitalist classes are increasingly deluding themselves, pinning their futures to the likes of shale gas in the desperate hope that business as usual can continue.

 

[Falcon]

I don't mean to be objectionable. But I'm not sure you realise how extreme the proposition is that jet turbine energy flux densities can be sustained on summer breezes and sunbeams *after* they've powered the manufacture not only of the jet turbines but their own transducers. It's rather startling to be accused of adopting an empty position of faith.

 

[free spirit]

Just to give the lie to Falcon's statements about the narrowness of standard EROEI figures, which in turn are based on life cycle analysis of the embodied energy of each component part, plus the actual direct manufacturing, transport, installation energy costs etc.

Here's how Greenspec state that their calculated figures for each material are derived.

The embodied energy (carbon) of a building material can be taken as the total primary energy consumed (carbon released over its life cycle). This would normally include (at least) extraction, manufacturing and transportation. Ideally the boundaries would be set from the extraction of raw materials (including fuels) until the end of the products lifetime (including energy from manufacturing, transport, energy to manufacture capital equipment, heating and lighting of factory, maintenance, disposal etc.), known as ‘Cradle-to-Grave’. It has become common practice to specify the embodied energy as ‘Cradle-to-Gate’, which includes all energy (in primary form) until the product leaves the factory gate. The final boundary condition is ‘Cradle –to-Site’, which includes all of the energy consumed until the product has reached the point of use (ie the building site).

So I agree generally with the diagram below, and this is how these figures are derived - actually it's a bit basic, missing out transport for example - it's just that the detailed calculations for all the background energy inputs for each major material input have already been done, and don't need to be redone from scratch for each LCA / EROEI calculation - at least unless there's any reason to expect that it would be significantly different to the standard figure used for that material.

So basically Falcon's arguments that this isn't being calculated properly would seem to be wrong, assuming that the diagram he's posted detailing how he thinks it should be done is actually his view of how it should be done.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My evidence is that its viability has only ever been observed in the presence of high EROEI fuel. The assertion that its viability is possible in the presence of low EROEI is unobserved, and an empty position of faith.

Who's asserted that? I see no reason in principle why one couldn't crunch meaningful numbers to test its viability. And it's a big jump from stating that 'solar panels alone could not replace oil' to stating that 'it is not worth making any solar panels'. The second doesn't follow from the first, and I'm not quite sure who has been asserting the first. fs and others are always simply promoting solar panels as an effective part of the mix.

 

[free spirit]

Let's go even simpler. Can you supply any links to any credible papers that contain actual numbers to demonstrate the renewable energy can support the global industrial manufacturing and agricultural systems and a population of 7 billion?

Be certain that they fully account for the energy requirements of the supply chain.

We're on a thread about EROEI, and I'm asking you to back up your assertions on that specific point. Can you do that or not?

 

[Falcon]

Just to give the lie to Falcon's statements etc.

To quote his reference.

The embodied energy (carbon) of a building material

He's talking about bricks, carpet tiles, and paint.

I'm talking about the container ships and their factories, mining trucks, and industrial oxygen foundries etc. etc. etc.

Free Spirit - I think the conceptual gap is just too large to bridge. At what point do you feel we end this?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You still need to come up with some numbers, Falcon. Also, where energy has already been spent - on container ships, etc - yes, you should allocate a fair proportion of its costs to solar panels to give a real eroei, but you would also be justified to say that you are not going to include it in your calculation of whether or not to make the panels because that energy has already been spent.

Also, if you're talking about the construction of the container ship and allocating a fair cost to solar panels, well, it will be tiny. We're talking pennies. Without working it out, I'd be willing to wager that the proportion of the energy cost of building the container ship that can be allocated to a solar panel would be paid off in a day. It might be paid off in an hour.

This goes back to the wider question of the viability of the global manufacturing system as it works now. But it's important not to conflate this wider point with a discussion of whether or not solar panels should be built.

 

[Falcon]

Who's asserted that? I see no reason in principle why one couldn't crunch meaningful numbers to test its viability. And it's a big jump from stating that 'solar panels alone could not replace oil' to stating that 'it is not worth making any solar panels'. The second doesn't follow from the first, and I'm not quite sure who has been asserting the first. fs and others are always simply promoting solar panels as an effective part of the mix.

It's an interesting point. We are repeating previous posts, but worth it, I think.

I think you accept that there is only a fixed and relatively small stock of high EROEI fuel left to us (the sort that useful work can be done with). It is fixed and relatively small either because there isn't much left, or we can't burn much of what's left, or both.

I think you also accept that solar panels are not only the product of a globally extensive, energy intensive manufacturing process, but that their maintenance and operational supply chain is also dependent on that process.

I think you will accept that a solar panel (or wind turbine, or nuclear power station) becomes useless the moment any one of dozens of critical components it it fails.

I think you might accept that guaranteeing the continuity of the globally extensive supply chain that is necessary to mitigate that failure and maintain service is increasingly uncertain as the financial, energy security, and military positions deteriorate.

Then we have to choose. Do we invest our small stock of remaining high EROEI fuel in building high tech solar panels which are unlikely to endure. Or do we invest it in competing activities, like reconstructing our housing stock, reducing our CO2 emissions (which a massive solar panel construction program defeats), improving transportation arrangements, and manufacturing systems?

Why would I build a solar panel?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The honest answer to that question is 'I don't know'. I don't know enough to say what would be the best mix of measures or whether solar panels should be included in that.

Nuclear is a different thing. Problem with nuclear is that it is only at best a temporary fix as long-term the costs of storage of waste becomes very costly. The risk of catastrophe also has to be built in - not just catastrophe in the plant itself, but potentially over the next 1000s of years of storage of waste.

I know a lot of people who were previously anti-nuclear have now changed their minds. I haven't. I'm still anti-nuclear, and until an effective storage solution for the waste is developed, I'll continue to oppose it. Being anti-nuclear and anti-fossil fuel obviously leaves little wriggle-room. That's why I want ENORMOUS investment now in developing the alternatives. Unfortunately, it's easier politically to just build another generation of nuclear.

Now, there is a strong case with nuclear to say that the eroei is negative when you take into account the full on-going costs of storage. But we'll all be dead by then, so who cares, seems to be the attitude.

 

[free spirit]

My evidence is that its viability has only ever been observed in the presence of high EROEI fuel. The assertion that its viability is possible in the presence of low EROEI is unobserved, and an empty position of faith.

Surely?

Shall we do some calculations?

Energy required to provide 1MJ worth of forward thrust to the drive train of a vehicle

Internal Combustion Engine = 1MJ x 5 (engine losses) x 1.02 (Energy lost in producing a 50:1 EROEI oil) = 5.1MJ

Renewable powered EV = 1MJ x 1.25 (battery losses) x 1.1 (motor losses)x 1.142 (energy lost in production of energy source at 8:1 EROEI) = 1.57 MJ


or energy required to produce 1MJ of electricity to the end user

Coal power station = 1MJ x 2.5 (conversion losses) x 1.1 (distribution losses) x 1.02 (energy lost in producing 50:1 coal) = 2.75MJ
SSEG renewable energy located at end user's propery = 1MJ x 1.142 (energy lost in production of energy source at 8:1 EROEI) = 1.142MJ


So in both examples the apparently worse EROEI source of renewable energy actually requires less than half of the input energy needed for the fossil fuel energy to do the same level of work.

So it's not an article of faith at all, it's basic mathematics / engineering.

 

[Falcon]

Also, if you're talking about the construction of the container ship and allocating a fair cost to solar panels, well, it will be tiny. We're talking pennies. Without working it out, I'd be willing to wager that the proportion of the energy cost of building the container ship that can be allocated to a solar panel would be paid off in a day. It might be paid off in an hour.

This is where I believe Free Spirit trips up, conceptually.

I think you, like him, are asserting that the proportion of energy of manufacturing and operating a container ship that should be allocated to solar should be in proportion to solar's share of global energy supply i.e. fractions of a percent.

But to my previous post: it is only worth allocating our fixed and small remaining stock of high EROEI fuel to building large scale renewable energy generating capacity if we believe that the manufacturing system can ultimately be powered by that renewable generating capacity. Otherwise it will fail, and our investment will be wasted.

Solar is, by all accounts, the most "competitive" renewable energy source in EROEI terms. A basket of renewable technologies will be less capable of powering the manufacturing system than solar alone. So if solar cannot theoretically power everything currently powered by hydrocarbon, right down to the container ships, nothing can.

So while you may debate about how to allocate the boat energy's share today, you need to demonstrate that solar can power the entire system - otherwise, rationally, you should not continue building capacity.

Can it? No, I don't have numbers saying it can't. But I have numbers saying it currently requires the output of a fuel system returning 80 million barrels a day of high EROEI fuel. And I have numbers saying solar gives EROEI in the teens. I also have my critical faculties, and the ability to intuitively sense whether overcast days can create sufficient energy flux to build transport boats AND PV panels AND jet turbines AND provide jet efflux power densities.

Is it such an extreme position to call that assertion into doubt?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Good illustration, fs, that eroei isn't necessarily the most important factor.

50:1 sounds like it's many times better than 8:1, but another way of looking at it is that one is 98% and the other is 86%. Doesn't sound many times better when expressed like that. And it isn't - 50:1 is good, but 8:1 is also very good. There isn't a catastrophic gap between the two at all. It is, as in your figures, the difference between multiplying by 1.02 and 1.14

Falcon, do you accept that if renewable energy with an eroei of 8:1 is possible, that ratio is comfortably good enough to entirely replace higher eroei fuels?

 

[free spirit]

To quote his reference.


He's talking about bricks, carpet tiles, and paint.

I'm talking about the container ships and their factories, mining trucks, and industrial oxygen foundries etc. etc. etc.

Free Spirit - I think the conceptual gap is just too large to bridge. At what point do you feel we end this?

what do you think a solar panel consists of?

Aluminium, glass, silicon, copper etc etc.

So to work out the energy input for a panel, you first add up all the embodied energy in the raw materials, then add in the energy costs of manufacturing the components of the panels, transport, installation etc. and if you're being particularly good about it, include the energy costs of disposal / recyling at the end of the products life.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No more vague arm-waving, Falcon. you need to address fs's points, I think. If the eroei for solar is somewhere in the region of 8:1, then I would think it has a compelling case to be part of the future energy mix. Fuck, even if it's 3 or 4:1, it's probably still worth it.

 

[Falcon]

Shall we do some calculations?

Yes but your calculations are still based on the assumption that "something else" is doing all the heavy lifting to cause your renewable powered EV and its batteries to be there in the first place. They have appeared fully formed from under a gooseberry bush.

Those thermal losses which make your example appear to favour renewable energy in the transport example are in fact typical losses in a large number of renewable energy manufacturing processes (e.g. ore smelting) which renewable sources now have to overcome.

Sorry.