@ Roses you're the one who gave a list of high EROEIs then wanted to retract them. A list of unbuffered electrical EROEIs is here
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-07-18/eroei-electricity-generation
which are somewhat lower than the Wikipedia values. While it shows PV ahead of coal I wouldn't like to rely on PV to cook breakfast on a chilly Canberra morning. I have to presume the Weissbach study used electrical output in order to cover CHP and hybrids like solar thermal with a winter gas boost.

Interesting the use of ratios of net energy fraction. If EROEIs of two forms of generation were 2 and 0.75 the ratio would be
[(2-1)/2]/[(.75-1)/.75] = - 1.5 What does that mean?

As nuclear energy is THE way for Real Men who are ambituous engineers to be allocated taxpayer money I have 3 nuclear Laws.

LAW 1
All countries that are devoted to nuclear power reactors also have nuclear weapons programs. Hence Germany and Japan with no such weapons are dropping their power reactor programs because of the many downsides of nuclear.

LAW2
Decommissioning nuclear power reactors is costing the UK and Japan 10s of $Billions - a cost not mentioned by the author.

LAW3
A rapid release of nuclear energy would solve the over-population+excessive energy use problem overnight.

That is nuclear weapons used judiciously over some other peoples' countries would resolve all their problems.

BTW it has just been reported that heaps of bused-in cops have turned up to the Hong Kong protests http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-01/hong-kong-protests-bus-loads-of-police-arrive/5782050.

Pete

surely the discussion should be a nuclear. non uranium

ben

What the Author also studiously overlooks, is the fact that when dams are decommissioned, the sites usually remain viable!
And as a dam is decommissioned, those with real smarts, would ensure that another new one, with a life of around a hundred plus years, replaced it.
After all, most of the often expensive earthworks would have been already done!
And given concrete reaches its maximum strength in around 80 years, worthwhile long term investments!
Moreover, the flood or drought/feast or famine nature of our local climate, is all the reasons we need, to build many more income earning dams!
Thousands of which should be small upland dams that actually force billions of tons of water into the landscape, that after forcing the salt table lower, massively improving fertility and production as well as flood mitigation, then allows this stored but hardly ever evaporated water, to slowly weep back out during any extended drier period.
These seriously extended flows, would mitigate against inevitable future droughts. As well as seriously improving the feasibility of new if often modest hydro schemes; and a seriously better option, than even more costly transmission towers and their averaged 50% energy losses, traversing the countryside!
And contain much of the alluvium, now finding it way onto our reef systems, with disastrous consequences.
Moreover, provide reliable usable flows, where none now exist, as well as mitigate against further erosion.
Still water being almost the most inert substance on the planet!
And think, a two metre high 10 metre wide weir, could power up to thirty homes.
And weirs can be constructed of much of the alluvium that currently clogs our waterways, and makes flood events, far more dangerous and disastrous, than they need be!
The fact that these modest schemes can earn handy long term incomes, is all that is needed to finance them!
And indeed, gives credence to the term, think globally, act locally.
Rhrosty.

Could the plaintive cry that alternative energy is not worth it be because the greedy power companies are feeling the pain from loss of profits?
Solar has been taken up quickly by the uninformed householder who does not realise that the power he is producing is not being sold for a profit so it must be no good at all.

Solar power is growing so fast that older energy companies are trying to stop it
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6849723/solar-power-net-metering-utilities-fight-states

Robert

You are right that growth in solar has dented demand and profits for conventional electricity. The trouble is, a lot of that demand for solar was fuelled by subsidies though high feed in tariffs, assistance with capital costs etc. There is also an implicit subsidy because electricity tariffs don’t fully recover fixed costs such as transmission and distribution networks, which most solar generators need when the sun isn’t shining.

Now that solar is becoming cheaper and more efficient it may be able to compete with coal and gas fired electricity, but unless we get cheap and efficient storage, most users will also need the network as backup.

The “death spiral” mentioned in the article is unlikely, but not impossible. It is a good reason to stop subsidising solar, whether the net metering used in the US, or the over-generous feed in tariffs in Australia.