It would be nice to know the reasoning and or sources behind those EROI estimates. I'm aware different analysts come up with different figures from including or not including some costs, but traditional nuclear power doesn't come out that well (50?!), and I'm not aware of anyone having enough data to know what the newer nuclear designs would come out to be in EROI terms. The EROI of oil has also fallen over time. Some suspect that it between 10 and 18 now.
We should also keep in mind that there are two sides to the coin: EROI (production-side) and energy efficiency of use (consumption-side). We can compensate somewhat for falling EROI through the use of more energy-efficient devices (e.g., EnergyStar appliances, higher miles-per-gallon ICE vehicles versus lower miles-per-gallon ICE vehicles, better house insulation, etc.).
yea as you probably know every EROI estimate out there will have some sort of bias baked into it
the numbers I use come from Geohring & Rozencwajg, who've been spot-on in their predictions of not the oil and gas and even commodities in general
They put modern nuclear facilities at EROEIs of 100:1 - I don't have direct access to the partners so I'm not sure what the exact inputs are for nuclear
But not getting stuck on the numbers, the ranges and overall framework make sense. Sure shale/tight oil have lower EROEIs than the conventional wells, but it's certainly over 10. an EROEI of 10 wouldn't allow developing nations to grow GDP/capita (and subsequently population) at the rate they've been growing.
renewables with an EROEI below oil and gas also makes sense. materials required for their production involve the most energy-intensive processes in the world. many people also over-estimate their capacity factors, don't include system-level infrastructure (batteries to supplement intermittency), remove maintenance/servicing from the mix etc. solar and wind also have the lowest energy density (more land required for less energy).
I think we can use this broader framework to extrapolate scenarios in which investment/underinvestment in various energy sources can lead to drastic consequences for economic prosperity etc.
I am curious though if you've come across reliable sources for EROI estimates, or what framework you use when looking at the adoption of various energy sources?
I agree with your take on climate change. Please put out some information on Twitter with your climate change views so I can shRe it
It would be nice to know the reasoning and or sources behind those EROI estimates. I'm aware different analysts come up with different figures from including or not including some costs, but traditional nuclear power doesn't come out that well (50?!), and I'm not aware of anyone having enough data to know what the newer nuclear designs would come out to be in EROI terms. The EROI of oil has also fallen over time. Some suspect that it between 10 and 18 now.
We should also keep in mind that there are two sides to the coin: EROI (production-side) and energy efficiency of use (consumption-side). We can compensate somewhat for falling EROI through the use of more energy-efficient devices (e.g., EnergyStar appliances, higher miles-per-gallon ICE vehicles versus lower miles-per-gallon ICE vehicles, better house insulation, etc.).
yea as you probably know every EROI estimate out there will have some sort of bias baked into it
the numbers I use come from Geohring & Rozencwajg, who've been spot-on in their predictions of not the oil and gas and even commodities in general
They put modern nuclear facilities at EROEIs of 100:1 - I don't have direct access to the partners so I'm not sure what the exact inputs are for nuclear
But not getting stuck on the numbers, the ranges and overall framework make sense. Sure shale/tight oil have lower EROEIs than the conventional wells, but it's certainly over 10. an EROEI of 10 wouldn't allow developing nations to grow GDP/capita (and subsequently population) at the rate they've been growing.
renewables with an EROEI below oil and gas also makes sense. materials required for their production involve the most energy-intensive processes in the world. many people also over-estimate their capacity factors, don't include system-level infrastructure (batteries to supplement intermittency), remove maintenance/servicing from the mix etc. solar and wind also have the lowest energy density (more land required for less energy).
I think we can use this broader framework to extrapolate scenarios in which investment/underinvestment in various energy sources can lead to drastic consequences for economic prosperity etc.
I am curious though if you've come across reliable sources for EROI estimates, or what framework you use when looking at the adoption of various energy sources?