Renewable energy is a poor substitute for fossil fuels. That’s because renewables are a diffuse form of energy and produce power only about one-third of the time.
That doesn’t stop renewable energy true-believers from trying to bend the laws of physics to tell a story that’s not true. EROI** (energy returned on energy invested) was used in this way by Murphy et al in 2022 and more recently, by Delannoy et al in late 2023.
Louis Delannoy and twenty-one co-authors proclaimed the good news in November that there is now a consensus that renewable energy is cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels.
“The EROI of fossil-fueled electricity at point of end use is often found to be lower than those of PV, wind and hydro electricity, even when the latter include the energy inputs for short-term storage technologies.”
Emerging consensus on net energy paves the way for improved integrated assessment modeling
That’s not true. There is great uncertainty about EROI and a range of net energy values for every type of energy source. It’s a blunt instrument at best. It requires knowing an unknowable array of complex inputs and outputs to be anything more than a high-level guess.
First, let’s examine the easy part of their statement—“including storage technologies.” Lazard’s latest data shows that wind and solar are the most expensive forms of electric power once backup storage is included. Cost and EROI are not the same thing but they are related so it’s a red flag that Delannoy et al’s statement may be untrue.
The reference for their claim is a 2020 paper by one of the co-authors about modeling carbon emissions in California that included simulations for future solar PV EROI . California is not the world, forward modeling is not historical data, and solar PV is not the renewable universe.
Their claim that backup storage was included in their EROI consensus is not true.
Now, let’s look at the harder part of their statement which claims that the EROI of fossil-fueled electricity is lower than for renewable energy sources. They are talking about electricity—not all energy—but that is not how many will read their claim.
Electric power represented only 19% of global energy end-use consumption in 2022. Crucially, only 3% of oil was even used for electric power generation. Only 34% of natural gas was used for power generation and only 59% of coal was used for electricity. In other words, Delannoy et al are not telling the truth.
What is the EROI of wind and solar for producing the four pillars of civilization—steel, concrete, plastic and ammonia for fertilizer? Electric vehicles were a zero rounding error for most of transportation. How about air travel? The EROI of fossil-fueled electricity at point of end use is barely relevant in the wider view of our energy future.
Describing one of Delannoy et al’s reference papers, Michael Carbajales‑Dale noted,
“In a recent paper, Brockway et al. highlight [the] ‘apples and oranges’ nature of comparing the energy return on investment (EROI) of oil at the wellhead with electricity production from renewable technologies…Clearly this is not a fair comparison, just as we would not directly compare the price of oil, or perhaps coal, with the price of electricity.”
When is EROI Not EROI?
He goes on to explain how most renewable EROI is determined on a facility level whereas fossil fuel EROI is ordinarily based on the entire industry or a region.
“A region or industry, however, is composed of multiple, overlapping projects engaged in a continual process of construction, operation, and decommission all at the same time, such that there is no analog to the life cycle for the facility.”
When is EROI Not EROI?
In other words, Delannoy et al are again not telling the truth.
As an example of the complexity that Delannoy et al overlook, I am routinely frustrated by how difficult it is to find reliable drilling and completion costs for an average oil and gas well in a play or a region—a key input for EROI work. Drilling depths and rig costs vary, completion methods are different, and few operators disclose their expenses publicly. Operating costs for extraction are equally complicated because of variable production taxes, royalties, net revenue interests, and lease operating and overhead expenses.
How many EROI analysts can even explain what I just wrote or know how to find that information? Yet they proclaim with troubling certitude that there is an emerging consensus that fossil fuels have a lower EROI than renewables.
Delannoy and his co-authors do not mean to be misleading. They think they are telling the truth and that’s the problem. True believers are willing to go to any length to convince us of their truth. They believe it so strongly that they cannot be objective.
The sad truth is that a renewable energy transition is imaginary.
A renewable world is far in the future based on present growth of fossil fuel consumption (Figure 1). Wind and solar accounted for less than 5% of global energy use in 2022. Wind, solar and nuclear together accounted for less than 9%.
Figure 1. A renewable world is far in the future based on present rates of increase. Wind and solar accounted for less than 5% of global energy use in 2022. Wind, solar and nuclear accounted for less than 9%. Source: Our World in Data & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. Click on the image to enlarge.
|
There is no evidence that renewable energy has changed the upward trajectory of carbon emissions despite thirty-six international climate conferences and trillions of dollars of investment over the last forty years. Global CO₂ emissions have increased +18 gigatons (+93%) since the first World Climate Conference in 1979 and +15 gigatons (+61%) since COP 1 in 1995 (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Global CO₂ emissions have increased +18 gigatons (+93%) since the first World Climate Conference in 1979 and +15 gigatons (+61%) since COP 1 in 1995. Source: Our World In Data, Stanford University & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. Click on the image to enlarge.
|
Society is in a terrible predicament. Papers like Delannoy’s give false hope that there is a renewable pathway that can save us from climate change. But climate change is just the tip of the iceberg.
Over-consumption of all energy is destroying earth’s ecosystem—the true basis of wealth that forms the foundation for human prosperity. This includes the destruction of forests, the genocide of the animal kingdom, the pollution of land, rivers and seas, the acidification of the oceans, and loss of fisheries and coral reefs.
Focusing on climate change alone is a narrow view. Carbon dioxide is just one of the pollutants contaminating the environment. The growth of the human enterprise enabled by excess energy use threatens everything. Substituting renewable for fossil energy will make that problem even worse.
We are well beyond a soft landing for the planet. There are no moderate pathways forward. Pretending that there are is counter-productive. A radical reduction in all energy consumption is the only solution.
The problem is that it’s not the solution that we like but it’s time to start telling the truth about our future.
**EROI is the difference between the total energy output minus the total energy input over the life cycle of an energy source or technology.
