Aiden, I have read your comment and I can see the argument you are making.
The boundaries need defining.
For instance the energy needed to produce the steel and the energy
needed to manufacture the vehicle that the man whose job it is to run
around servicing the solar equipment, should that be counted ?

If he did not drive around could he do the job by walking ?
If so the extra food he eats, could be added into the total overhead.
If he cannot do either then the plant will eventually fail.
Is there a way to convert the cost of that vehicle into overhead energy ?
That seems to be the crux of the argument.

In a coal fired plant are these factors not also real ?

I suspect that this argument does not materially affect the result
in the longer term. However they are real.

World-wide, Aidan, you blind-folded pied-pipers are leading us towards destruction with your wishful thinking and your RETs. But of course, don't let reality impinge upon your reverie.

Like, the success in France and elsewhere of affordable nuclear power, which will only get more affordable when the RE zealots, the primary placers of obstacles before it, are finally recognized as charlatans.They shout loudly of technology advances in PVs, as if that is all that determines their viability, while failing to acknowledge any prospect of nuclear becoming even safer and more efficient.

Or, like the real experience, not hypothetical calculations, surrounding PV's in Spain, and Germany, of their unviability as a solution to mitigating AGW, even before the issue of storage reduces it considerably further.

Well, it looks like things will just have to get worse before they get better while the dreamers keep us blind and befuddled, as if we even have time for that drunken luxury.

Bazz, whether the energy needed to produce the steel and the energy needed to manufacture the vehicle that the man whose job it is to runaround servicing the solar equipment should be counted depends IMO on whether the vehicle is exclusively for that purpose. If it isn't, it would probably be made anyway, so I'd exclude it.

But I'm not objecting to Prieto and Hall including that sort of thing in their figures. What I'm objecting to is their inclusion of such things as municipal taxes. They're not energy at all, but Prieto and Hall wrongly believe money can be converted to energy. This belief seems to be based on a failure to understand that money exists before a profit is made.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase, you seem to be attributing to me opinions other than my own. I've got nothing against the success in France and elsewhere of affordable nuclear power, and I think there should be much more of it in many countries including England. But I do object to the wishful thinking by which you see it as a panacea, and I also object to the limited imagination by which you claim that it's the only viable alternative. It isn't, and it's not always even the cheapest option.

RETs are not my favourite way of encouraging renewable energy; as I've said many times before, I'd much rather see concessional loans used instead. But however it's encouraged, more renewable energy does put a long term downward pressure on electricity prices. As does nuclear.

Aiden,
I would expect the vehicle in question would be equipped with
ladders, toolbox, instruments, perhaps some plumbing tools, gas bottles etc etc.

As far as local government rates etc, I think we should be comparing
like with like. So would coal fired stations pay rates ?
Would a large solar farms pay rates ? Would a wind farm pay rates ?
Well the land on which the windfarm was installed would have an increased
valuation and so increased rates.

UNless you equalise the overheads (all of them) how do you make
a comparison ?
I can see why Prieto and Hall included them. Afterall Prieto was
writing cheques to cover all these contingencies.

One way to equalise it is by the sale price of the electricity.
Afterall the sale of the electricity needed to pay a bill is a
loss that does not support the plants viability.
Too many of these will collapse the operation.
Ultimatly that is what counts.

"....I also object to the limited imagination by which you claim that it's the only viable alternative."

If we are to impact upon AGW, maintain civilization standards and grow them in the developing world, it is the only viable alternative for base-load. All your imagination and wishful thinking won't change that, but do carry on with your tripe.

Bazz,

I have no objection to comparing local government rates etc. If you want to make an equalised overheads comparison, go ahead. Just don't pretend it's still an EROEI comparison.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,

Your claims about maintaining civilization standards are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what civilization requires. And in the developing world, where the gap between skilled and unskilled wages is much higher, the economics are less likely to favour nuclear.

Despite that, nuclear's often the best solution. But I can't think of anywhere where it's the only solution.