How We Measure the Validity of a Certain Source of Energy
One of the most important ingredients that figures into the analysis of energy in the 21st Century is “Energy Return on Investment” (EROI). It takes energy to generate energy; this is true; there is no free lunch—but how much energy? We can extract energy from coal, oil, moving water, the photons that reach Earth from the sun, etc.—but none comes free of charge.
In the case of oil, for example, when the wildcatters were tripping across huge quantities of oil in the Texas frontier a century ago, the ease with which that oil was extracted, transported and refined came at an EROI of 1200:1, meaning that 1200 BTUs of energy was made available for every BTU that was required to make that process happen. As time went by, however, that figure dropped steadily, insofar as all the easy, obvious oil fields were identified and eventually depleted. The EROI figure for oil stood at about 5:1 in 2007, less than one half of one percent of what it was originally.
Needless to say, this has enormous implications for our society, and it accounts for the huge push on the part of the oil companies to extract tar sands. From the website of the Natural Resources Defense Council:
Extracting tar sands, and turning bitumen into crude oil, uses vast amounts of energy and water, and causes significant air and water pollution, and three times the global warming pollution of conventional crude production. The rush to strip-mine and drill tar sands will destroy and fragment millions of acres of this wild forest for low-grade petroleum fuel.
TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be the third new dedicated tar sands pipeline, and would lock the United States into a dependence on hard-to-extract oil and generate a massive expansion of the destructive tar sands oil operations in Canada in coming decades. Tar sands developments are already wreaking havoc on both people and wildlife in the region. For aboriginal peoples, the mining reduces local water supplies and increases exposure to toxic substances.
Where is this going? I actually don’t know, but it’s a good bet that the oil companies do. They know that there is more oil down there, and their business plans, as they are presented to their bankers and investors, are built around extracting as much as possible for the indefinite future. The oil companies (and the rest of the world as well) know that there is at least five times more oil down there than our scientists say is safe to extract and burn—though that seems to be the least of their worries.
It’s worth coming back to this EROI figure one last time to note this: the EROI associated with wind energy is somewhere between 15 and 30. Again, there is no free lunch, and the extraction and processing raw materials, the fabrication, installation, and operation of wind turbines comes at a cost. Yet a few obvious facts bear mentioning:
• Even the low figure (15:1) is more attractive than oil (5:1).
• The fuel associated with wind is free; it does not pollute the skies and oceans, and it does not cause lung disease
• Wind fuel doesn’t cause wars, either. There is something to be said for that. But don’t take my word for it; ask the parents of the kids killed or maimed defending America’s access to oil over the past couple of decades.
Let’s pretend for a moment that there are no solar and nuclear solutions to the ever increasing energy challenges. Is there a way to use fossil fuels to solve excess CO2 and drought related problems?
I believe so.
If we use diesel fuel to power machinery that mines and crushes olivine, fully 20x the sequestration would result per unit of excess CO2 emission! (Schuilling). Thus we can fight fire with fire (until solar and nuclear kicks in to replace fossil fuels).
Going a step further, is it possible to build a bunch of fossil fuel powered desalination plants to solve the drought problems? The amount of energy required to desal the water needs for a family of 4 is about equal to that of their fridge (according to James Conoca). If we used this water to green a desert, the resulting soils and biomass (if not burned) would definitely sequester much excess CO2 (until more permanent mineral sequestration as proposed a moment ago, or better, is enacted on a mass level). However, unlike the 20x “gain” inherent with crushing and distributing olivine, I have no clue as to the amount of sequestration gain the desal water for greening the deserts (currently, which is all of CA) idea would achieve
The Eroei for a certain energy source is countered by that from other sources, and especially, will be countered by the additional energy required to store renewable energy. As long as the overall EROEI for large scale energy distribution exceeds whatever the minimum is to continue humanity growth towards the goal of the eco modernists (added tech growth without added eco decay) then it is feasible. However, (and this is just an example to validate an argument) if society requires an average of 3x what solar can provide (24/7) and batteries “energy cost” fully half what they would ever store, then it would not be feasible unless part of a system which builds the batteries from some other clean source.
This is why the nuclear people are so prominent in their arguments. They assume that solar and wind alone can not power their own exponentiation, much less power a growing world full of droughts, excess CO2 and so on. However, IF the batteries cost only like 1/10th the energy of their total lifelong capacity, and IF solar can be made for a Eroei of 20, then the overall EROEI should be great enough to grow humanity from its current (and damaging) adolescent stage to a thriving planetary civilization complete with the ability to save itself and the biosphere and shoot for the stars.
fireofenergy there is a certain myopic perspective in many energy discussions. “Renewable energy can’t supply all our needs” “Nuclear energy is the only solution” “We have used fossil fuels and we can continue to use fossil fuels” “Energy storage can only be done with batteries which we don’t have.” …. All of these are sound bites we constantly hear and are repeated unthinkingly by too many people.
Solar energy alone has the potential to supply more than 1000 times the world’ present energy usage. Nuclear energy comes with risks. If the US government did not assume the liability for those risks the cost would mean never building a nuclear power plant. Nuclear uses lots of water and is at risk of shutdown during a drought.
Craig didn’t go into why we can’t continue to use fossil fuels. Essentially they are stored energy and stored pollutants. We release both into the current environment which can’t handle more. Battery technology is on the cusp of many remarkable changes. What we have today is not a good model for what we can and will do. In addition there are many other forms of energy storage that are quite promising: Flywheels for the shortest term frequency regulation (energy storage) and several innovative types of heat storage. Solar thermal is able to run 24/7 using heat storage… Solar updraft chimneys are a type of wind generator that also comes with built in heat storage.
There are many, many solutions, but we do need to get past the idea of cost and building the cheapest thing first and then trying to make it work. A “cost” can also be a wise investment. Money is power but it is fairly useless “buried in the ground,” or someone’s pocket.
I agree with you for the most part. What I meant by costs are energy costs. Such for batteries are still kinda questionable, if used for a predominantly solar and wind powered world. Solar has a low capacity factor. If it is 20%, then 5x more solar would ideally have to be built to keep the machinery (or heat mass and everything else) running at night in a world that uses energy at a constant rate (and that didn’t also have wind energy). I tend to believe that we will need about 3x the solar buildup with which to store 2 parts of (and a little extra to deal with storage inefficiency) in a world devoid of fossil fuels (and nuclear). Thus, this decreases solar’s Eroei by about 66%. We have to add in the energy costs for building storage capacity at the terrawatt scale. Do I dare say that the lead acid battery will energy cost almost half of all the energy it will ever store? But they are good for smaller scale applications nevertheless. This is called the Energy Stored On Investment. The lower the ESOI, the lower the overall EROEI of system. If the LiFePO4 or other batteries can be made at an ESOI of 10 or 20, then no problemo!
I say these things NOT to shill against solar and wind, but to make aware the reality of the present energy situation. The nuclear guys make some kind of similar statements but I do not agree that the validity of this argument will remain so forever – unless we don’t make it.
I do believe that batteries and solar will get made for less energy costs, that wind is already at a good Eroei, despite large amounts of concrete and steel, and that the (not so) rare earth elements and lithium needed for a world of neodymium magnet motors for cars and wind turbines are plentiful – if we make it.
Global warming is accelerating on us and we just might have to resort to a molten salt or similar reactor scale up in the mean time along with the automated scale up of all the RE parts – to insure that we make it… past the excess CO2 challenge. Storage of fission products is not really that big of a deal for advanced 21st century civilizations (but we should reprocess the unspent fuel so as to gain the extra energy and most importantly, to reduce the ASDR on the heavy metal (synth, lol – oh, I mean decay) time by a factor of about 1,000.
Once mainstream, solar, wind and advanced nuclear will have to ditch the subsidies, but in the meantime, they ALL need help because they all contribute sooo little to our ever growing planetary energy consumption, yet offer the potential for 22nd century scale planetary energy source each of their own! I would hope that most the subsidy go towards the development of their safe and automated manufacture – necessary to even hope to compete with fossil fuels. I also believe we have some 10x the fossil store needed to cause global problems – so we might not make it.
In the meantime, we also need (?) to create (subsidize) a whole new industry which uses fossil fuels to sequester excess CO2 into carbonates. The reasoning here is that a certain amount of emissions from the already well established industrial process will sequester about 20x that amount. The problem is that we would have to deal the extra local pollution in favor to re-terraform the CO2 content of the air back to almost normal levels. Big business (and CO2 taxes) working to isolate its own emissions would double as the ultimate “we have to do something about the excess CO2” awareness campaign (and even to keep the current energy based global economy from crashing in the meantime)!
Of course, there are many other ways to at least temporarily sequester CO2 safely, too (and I don’t believe that putting it back into the holes is safe).
Many people believe that this, excess CO2, is humanity’s first real global challenge. I believe global warming, ocean acidification (and all the other consequences of excess CO2 such as malaria, multiple types of droughts and deforestation) is actually the 3rd global challenge that has “death” at the end of a failure mode. It IS possible to succeed – if we get the job done ON TIME.
Solar thermal with heat storage can be run virtually 24/7 with a capacity factor roughly equal to Coal. It is solar PV that has a lower capacity factor but it seems to be favored in-spite of this. Possibly because it can be built and financed incrementally. With fewer moving parts PV may also have lower operating costs. The finances are complex with some uncertainties. Perhaps subsidies are required to encourage long term benefits of thermal systems with heat energy storage over less expensive PV systems. Long term is not necessarily less EROI but may simply include more risk. Risk discourages investment without incentives.
I am intrigued with the possibility of using fossil fuels to reduce carbon. But if you are using fossil fuels for their heat benefit why not just use a solar thermal plant to do the same without the chemical pollution? Is it really cheaper or is it just cheaper under our system of existing subsidies for fossil fuels (approx 12 times what is given to renewables according to Bloomberg) EROI is in part supposed to be a a measure that shows us some of the truth that is obscured by market place subsidies and incentives, but it is not perfect.
Hi Craig,
It is right indeed, you need energy to offer energy! In case of coal, oil and gas, the energy content of one molecule shall be greater than the energy consumption for bringing that molecule up to market (of course!).
Just for comparesome, the energy content in an atomic nucleous is about a billion times more than the energy content in a fuel molecule.
Solar, wind are fine and should be harnessed a lot this century. Nevertheless, no fuel or flow energy streams (sun radiation, wind) can match nuclear energy in terms of density.
I hope fusion energy reaches to 10:1 ratio by the next decades.
Nuclear energy is indeed a concentrated energy source. This concentrated power fascinates many. But if we were to compare energy to forms of government then roof top solar would be a strict democracy while nuclear energy would a dictatorship. Some think that they can maintain a special favorite status with the dictator. But dictators like nuclear power plants occasionally do the unexpected. In both cases the results can be bad for a country.
Risk is a factor many don’t understand. With roof top solar risk is spread out in a very thin way. One failure will not bring down the system. Nuclear energy is so risky that the US government had to underwrite all liability or no nuclear power plant would ever be built. The constantly debated question comes down to, “Do our nuclear liabilities exceed our ability to cover the costs.” In a world where we buy everything with debt the answer is never… but in a more responsible world?
” compare energy to forms of government then roof top solar would be a strict democracy while nuclear energy would a dictatorship ”
What a novel and interesting comparison ! I can see how solar would appeal to those individuals, yearning for greater freedom from the rest of society.
But, of course like most dreams, it’s an illusion. You live in an organized social structure, the benefits of which we call ‘civilization’ .
To maintain a civilization, we must all accept a certain degree of collective responsibility, and participation in collective services. You can’t just choose the bits you like, and not be part of the things you don’t think you need, or benefit you personally.
Living in an organized society, requires a certain degree of industrialization, and massive energy supply, to hospitals, factories, schools, sewerage, emergency services, and countless other power users, including the less affluent, who cant afford a suburban villa, with solar panels.
So your “democracy” begins to look a bit like the ancient Greeks. Democratic for a privileged elite !
Unfortunately, because some nuclear technology can be expensive, very toxic, and used as weapons, all nuclear technology is regarded with hysteria, and misconceptions.
Had Thorium technology been developed before Uranium, it may have become the world’s most popular and respected source of clean, zero-emission power. Regrettably, the prejudices and fear surrounding Uranium technology produced a level of hysteria and irrationality, that have prevented the introduction of thorium technology, despite it’s obvious advantages.
(among those advantages, the ability to safely dispose of old nuclear waste )
We should devote the already nuked out areas of the world for the world’s power requirements because it is far less risky than what already happened!
Going forward, one must ask how nuclear mishaps could ever compare to all that fallout from decades ago. Further, that since we are not all three eyed and five legged from all that, then the little bit of leakage from a total and global nuclear economy poses even less harm than all that. Molten salt reactors can not go super critical unless fueled with highly enriched fissionable material (or at least none has done so in the 60 year history of NE). Mishaps are caused from fuel overheating and from being next to water when overheated (hydrogen). This is why Alvin Weinberg was able to lead the ORNL with the quest to develop the MSR, to which end we shall continue to pursue.
Note that I also want total and global solar and Tesla style batteries, as well – solar should also be placed at the worlds nuclear bomb test sites for rather vast coverage in addition to sunny rooftops!
marcopolo, perhaps you have the sense of the comparison but the conclusion you give does not follow. Just because some may prefer making their own electricity does not imply they lack any sense of cooperative effort. On the contrary it is the dictatorship which seeks to dictate without consensus in the same way that those who run concentrated power sources dictate terms and conditions. Tesla dreamed of free energy for all. It was the banker that questioned how he could make money from the investment. A diffuse gathering of energy actually requires cooperative (democratic) effort to combine and concentrate what is gathered into a concerted action. But like so many things these days what is good is described as bad and what is bad is relabeled as good so that it is easy to become confused.
Without necessarily advocating one over, I am just trying to follow the implications. The comparison suggests why true freedom lovers would favor renewable energy (diffuse by nature) and why those who seek a narrowly held control, a secret knowledge and private power may favor highly concentrated energy sources like nuclear.
This subject can very quickly become very complex.
It is hard to know where to draw the boundaries in determining the energy consumption (or equivalent) of any process.
Take coal for example
Emissions at the Power station
Emissions per kWh for electricity production based on power station emissions are of the order of 900g to 1000g/ kWh. (CO2 equivalent).
Extraction and delivery
+ Mining, preparation and delivery of coal ?
+ What about energy used by all the miners travelling to work, the food they consume in order to do the work, the embodied emissions of that food, and of all the tools and equipment used to run the mine – do you count those?
+ What about fugitive methane emissions? Many mines leak methane for years or even decades after coal extraction is completed. Do you count the CO2 equivalent emissions of this methane?
Total life cycle emissions associated with each kWh delivered by coal are clearly significantly higher than the headline 900 to 1000g/kWh but what is the real level and which boundry to use in your calculations.
The same goes for any other fossil fuel.
On the other side, take as an example solar power.
The emissions associated with each watt of solar panel can vary substantially
Variations include
1. Where is the panel made, and using what technology?
The energy required to produce 1 kg of solar grade silicon varies substantially according to the production method as does the embodied energy per watt of solar panel depending how the silicon (Or other semiconductor) is converted into a solar panel.
The emissions associated with this production likewise vary depending on the energy mix on the local power grid
Case A.
Highly efficient silicon production technology, kerfless wafering technology (virtually no waste silicon), and the latest high efficiency cell technology to get as many watts as possible per kg of silicon. Suppose these panels are produced in Iceland – with a grid powered entirely by geothermal, wind and hydro then used in Europe or on the East coast of North America minimising transport emissions by relatively short delivery distances.
Embodied emissions are very low
Case B
Conventional manufacturing using energy intensive silicon production, wire cutting of silicon ingots, relatively thick wafers, and low efficiency cells all produced using coal fired electricity in China then shipped half way around the world.
Emissions are far higher
Other factors
You then have to consider the emissions associated with BOS hardware, (racking, cables, inverters etc) installation labour, R & D, administration, Building factories and the embodied emissions of materials used to build said factories.
In some cases distributed solar can offset some by reducing the need for grid upgrades
Even this is only half the story as panel life is critical to EROI as is the kWh yield per kW of array which varies dramatically according to geographical location and the specifics of the installation…
(A panel which “lives” twice as long has twice as good an EROI.)
What then of changes to vegetation as a result of solar farms?
This too can vary substantially.
If you clear land of vegetation to build a solar farm and keep it clear, then you lose bio-sequestration potential. effectively increasing emissions
On the other hand, in a desert or semi-arid land, partial shading together with dew and occasional rains channelled by the solar array might increase vegetation compared to the natural case effectively offsetting some emissions.
These are just a few of the many variables, however per kWh produced or consumption thereof avoided, energy efficiency easily out performs any other intervention.
Solar, wind, and nuclear then come in fairly similar – up to around 100g/kWh
Hydro can vary dramatically with some tropical low head hydro plants having higher net emissions than even coal fired power (due to high emissions of methane from associated dams) or very low emissions such as in high head hydro in the sub-arctic regions e.g. Norway.
Fossil fuels then generally emit higher levels of CO2 equivalent on a whole life cycle basis than all of the above with the exception of high methane emission hydro plants.
One more thought – I wonder how great an “EORI” is achieved by the effective use of contraception?
It seems to me that the very small amount of energy used to produce enough contraceptives to prevent one birth will save hundreds of tons of emissions in that individual’s avoided lifetime not to mention the lifetimes of their progeny.
You are “comparing apples to oranges.”
For coal you are including the pollution “cost” of operating the plant and leaving out the construction pollution.
For renewable resources you are including the construction but leaving out the operating “costs.”
While I realize that this is a shortcut in your rather long response it leads to sloppy thinking. They are not the same. Construction “costs” must be amortized over the life of the plant and tend to fall as the plant ages. Operating “costs” are constant and tend to rise as the plant ages. …. among many other differences.
Hi Craig,
As always, the premise you propose is interesting. Using EROI is a valid basis for energy resource analysis.
However, any objective analysis should be free of emotion, bias, moral conditions, and irrelevancies (that is if you want to remain objective).
The inclusion of emotion, bias, moral conditions, and irrelevancies, prevents logical analysis, and any dissertation becomes mere advocacy, or propaganda, for a cause.
I Unfortunately, in your analysis you seem to have selected a conclusion, and worked backwards. Including only such evidence as supports your conclusion.
The inclusion of such emotive, and irrelevant, populist language to justify Wind Power, as;
“But don’t take my word for it; ask the parents of the kids killed or maimed defending America’s access to oil over the past couple of decades.”
has no place in a rational analysis. It’s not even accurate. The US military has been involved many conflicts over the past few decades. Grenada for instance, has no oil, but there aren’t a lot of US troops losing their lives in Canada, which is the largest source of US imported oil. (the US doesn’t import oil from Iraq ! Iraq oil is sold to the PRC ).
It’s true that oil is an important economic resource, and every major power will always seek to ensure that no single power block can dominate 100% of any resource.
But, that’s all irrelevant, when it comes to calculating EROI. What is more relevant is your methodology. By only calculating EROI, at the production stage, your analysis will always provide a distorted picture, favouring Wind and Solar.
The transmission/distribution, storage, and use of energy must be included in any analysis. These factors must be calculated on an inclusive scale, or subjective distortions will occur.
For instance, an individual could point to his home solar with pride,saying how much it suited his purpose, but if implemented on an industrial scale, or a different location, the same technology, may prove hopelessly inadequate.
Oil has obvious advantages, when it comes to storage and usage. The ability of oil to be stored and distributed with relative ease, can’t be duplicated by either Wind or Solar. It’s no good calculating the low cost of generating Wind, ignoring the percentage of energy wasted, and higher grid costs causes by the intermittent nature of wind power.
If you want to be an advocate for wind power, that’s fine. Wind has an excellent story to tell.
But, I would suggest cloaking such advocacy in the disguise of unbiased analysis, becomes ( I’m sure unintentionally ) disingenuous.
“Unbiased analysis” has become a polarizing talking point with every side claiming the other is not “unbiased… so that we have lost perspective … which can become a habitual bewilderment. This blog/newsletter is not a scientific paper. It is an opinion piece. It contains enough analysis and enough controversy to drive this discussion at the end. With that understanding I consider the writing very successful. “Disguised” might be a thrilling choice of wording but a little overstated.
It is an extremely common misconception that everything you see, read and hear is or should be “unbiased.” I can’t explain why this is so common but the more sophisticated reader follows the analysis, observes breaks in logic and applies that to the rightfully delivered opinion. These pieces would be far less enjoyable without some flaws and the opinion. Sometimes we don’t even have to agree or disagree, we only have to accept it as one man’s opinion and food for thought. I certainly would be a much poorer person if everyone I called “friend” was someone who agreed with my opinions and perspective. It is a sure way to lose it.
I’m not sure you realize, but you just validated my comment !
” Opinion is just that, opinion” . Opinion, even advocacy is perfectly acceptable.
However, analysis, requires a different standard. Analyzing requires an honest, open-minded gathering of all relevant facts, then developing a conclusion based on the most creditable explanation of those facts.
Working backwards, is forming a preference, or prejudice and then fitting only those facts which suit your preference to justify a conclusion.
A headline like “How We Measure the Validity of a Certain Source of Energy”, by it’s very nature, suggests a carefully measured rational analysis. It doesn’t suggest emotional advocacy for the Wind Power Industry.
Don’t get me wrong, I admire Craig’s passion and even advocacy for the things he believes in, and even more for his willingness to be active in pursuing his goals. I know it’s hard people to remain objective about things they’re passionate about.
Regrettably, I fear all the inaccurate hype and emotion, and a lack of realistic objectivity is creating ennui and mistrust with the general public concerning environmental issues.
You give me entirely too much credit. I am hardly the proof for anyone’s hypothesis. I can put peanut butter on a piece of bread… sort of… or I can “butter to the edges. It is a similar process but a different standard. “Analysis” can be done accurately or just sufficiently to get to the opinion. It is a different standard. “Analysis” is just a tool, like a hammer or a saw, but you seen to want to hold any attempt at “analysis” to the same standard.” Not every hammer is of the same quality. Do you judge the 5the grader’s analysis and the PHD with the same standard? Do you judge the scientist’s analysis and the tech writers analysis with the same standard? Sometimes I don’t need to use the best tool to get the job done. How can we when the goals of writing are different and we tailor what is written to our goals? It is called “good writing” when done well. Good writing can be deceptive but also, surprising, and even rewarding. Faults in analysis may suggest a motivation or a perspective but it is not definitive and not necessarily “deceptive” and not necessarily “disguised.”
Headlines have context. The same headline on a scientific paper is going to have a different expectation than if it were the title of a new comedy play. There is really nothing “in its very nature.” Maybe you think there should be but just perhaps without puns, misdirection and wit the world would be a much duller place lacking some surprises to keep us on our collective toes.
I will grant that there is mistrust and ennui but is it a “cure” to take all responsibility away from the reader? Isn’t what you advocate sure to make readers inflexible and somewhat duller as you seem to demand a higher standard from writers? Thanks for your thoughts and an opportunity to review my own.