Luciferase, EROEI is not a useful measure for working out energy strategies. Even if batteries produce less energy than they take to manufacture, it may still be worth using them. This is because the storage allows energy to be used where and when it would otherwise not be available.

World energy demand is not locked in (unlike some effects of global warming which are now unstoppable). Because highly polluting fuels, particularly coal, cannot be used so much in the future, the cost of energy will have to go up and its use likely be lower as a result.

Tomw, batteries do not produce power as I am sure you know.
It is just that there are firstly charge/discharge losses in them and
the embedded energy in their manufacture, all it does is lower the
ERoEI of the solar cells or whatever is used to charge the batteries.

Luciferase further to my last post I have just seen the figures for
the Bakken field and it looks like the Bakken may have peaked in December.
Its output fell 3% in January.
If the Texas field also falls that will confirm peak all oils.
Interesting times.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2015/01/26/North-Dakota-rig-activity-slowing/7641422279770/

tomw, I'm glad you can see that there is no Catch-22 of energy storage. But what Luciferase and Peter Lang aren't telling you is that renewable technology is advancing very rapidly and those low EROEI figures for solar PV are obsolete, and with newer technology they can get an order of magnitude higher. See http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sunedison-begins-production-of-electronic-grade-polysilicon-using-fluidized-bed-reactor-technology_100016659/#axzz3TSIHgplE and http://www.clca.columbia.edu/7B_SolarToday%20June12_c.pdf

So even if their critical thinking skills are so poor that they still believe an advanced society requires an EROEI of at least 7, renewable energy can meet that figure easily.

Have a critical think about this:

http://energyskeptic.com/2014/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/

2.45 based on mass installation real data, and that's without storage. Solar has a place, with or without storage, but not in delivering base-load.

Those EROEI calculations are of course based on the older, less efficient solar panels. They're not explained in detail in the linked article, but I'm baffled as to how insurance can consume 19.9GWh/year, for example, and Municipal taxes etc 14GWh/year.

As I have said many times, I do not support the feedin tariffs system for funding renewable energy infrastructure; I think they should be funded by concessional loans instead.

No disagreement with the book, Aidan, other than a quibble? The bit to which you most need to pay most attention is,

"Cheaper and More Efficient DOESN’T MATTER: PV is only 1/3 of the EROI

Critics of this book will say cheaper and more efficient PV cells are on the way. But as Prieto and Hall point out, the most effect an improved solar PV could have on the overall EROI is a maximum of 1/3 because of all the other factors. Plus EROI goes down every time the oil price goes up, because that causes all of the other factors to increase. Press releases of solar PV breakthroughs can be very exciting, but keep in mind that none of these past improvements could replace fossil fuels: thin-film, nanotechnology PV, cadmium telluride cells, organic cells, flexible cells, rollable sheets of PV for rooftops, slate modules, multi-junction cells, back-junction cells with 20-40% efficiency, PV grapheme, etc.

These improvements have costs, that’s part of what’s meant by the “premature phase out” factor. Solar businesses and PV plants go bankrupt when out-competed if they can’t afford to make expensive alterations and retrofits."

Of course, you can retreat to "2.45 (unbuffered!) is just great" but I hope you can see that the renewables route, generally, is the slowest possible road to carbon abatement and can't head off CAGW in the time we have.