I must admit to being suspicious of the performance of solar panel systems.
Their intemittency, the substantial difference between winter and summer.
Overcast days etc have not been helped by no solution except batteries
which become a very large overhead.
Now comes this report that we all should read as if it is anywhere near
correct means we have all wasted a very large amount of money and made
a whole lot of CO2 which we pumped into the air. More than burning the coal !

The url is
http://tinyurl.com/zk96wew

We do have to leave oil and coal before they leave us but solar PV
does not seem to be the way to do it.

The title of this thread is wrong – you should've said "negative net energy". EROEI's the quotient not the difference, so it's above zero (though below one) when net energy's negative.

But the error in this thread's title is tiny in comparison to the errors in the study!

These include:
• 16% of the calculated “energy investment” is the capital cost. This relies on the false assumption that money's the direct result of someone making a profit (hence they calculated the energy used to make that profit). In reality the money comes into existence by being borrowed from a bank, whether or not any previous profit has been made. The correct figure should be zero.

• 19% of the calculated “energy investment” is labour. But that’s a societal cost; it should not be counted because the people would (assuming a competently run economy) be working anyway.

Just removing those bogus inputs is enough to get the EROEI figure up to 1.25. But there's more:
• The energy cost of integration of the intermittent PV electricity in the grid and buffering may also be exaggerated, as some of the equipment it relies on may already exist, and the estimated energy cost for operation of smart-grid infrastructure appears unrealistic; no reason is given to justify such a high figure. Using what I considered to be more realistic gets the EROEI up to 1.4...

...But in the high latitudes that the study's based on (for not even the study's authors could contrive evidence that solar cells are an energy sink in low latitude places like Australia) wind would be the main source of nondispatchable renewable electricity, with solar only used because it anticorrelates with wind. So if that energy cost is attributed entirely to wind, the solar EROEI figure rises to 1.58.

• Though I'm not entirely sure, I think the energy embodied for faulty equipment may be double counted. If so, that could bring the EROEI figure up to 1.69.

• The study used obsolete (2010) data, but efficiency's continually improving. So EROEI may exceed 2 already. If not, it will soon.

The latest study by a couple of German universities have both proved that both solar, & wind are net energy sinks.

The only use for either is crony capitalism, allowing shonks like Obama to dispense billions to his campaign backers.

When they cut the input price for excess power it caused a big drop in new systems. Now they are reviewing the input price so excess power reflects real cost of power.

Negative talk about solar and wind is nothing new, always coming from the same quarters.

Hasbeen, considering the dodgy assumptions that last study had to make to contrive the conclusion that solar is a net energy sink at high latitudes, the extraordinary claim that wind (which has a much higher EROEI) is a net energy sink should make any thinking person doubt the credibility of the study you're referring to – if it exists. But I think a more likely explanation is that it's an error on your part.

Comparing EROIE' s of PV and coal is like comparing politicians with scientists.
No comparison is complete because the EROIE of the construction of the coal power station , it's railway feeder, its, mining infrastructure is not being taken into consideration.
The same thing happens with nuclear which has an enormous cost to EROIE with all of the mining and processing plus transportation of ores and uranium let alone the disposal of the waste.
Sorry guys but this is another red herring that the coal lobby loves.

"So EROEI may exceed 2 already. If not, it will soon."

Whoopty doo!And what about when the energy invested has to come from solar?

Even if it did, hypothetically, tip over 2, it still means solar would require preposterously massive infrastructure including energy storage and fossil-fueled backup (to meet residual, inevitable intermittency problems) to meet current electricity and transport needs (let alone growth). That cost will obliterate the cost of the nuclear option.

How can the major parties be deflected away from fossil-fuels and/or renewables and towards the only real CO2 mitigation option we have in our locker? Australia's Chief Scientist has a big role to play here, and I await him showing his hand.

The thread author tells its own story. Bazz has a leaning toward believing alternate bloggers as fact, when the only fact is they have invested interests.

Vested interests for god's sake.

Nothing could be more vested than those who funded Obamas election, then put their hands out for their pay off with taxpayer funding of their start up alternate power companies.

Only alternate power companies have ever managed to go broke in just 3 years after receiving half a billion, yes billion, dollars from the taxpayer.

Wonder where it went? Guess!

Scratch most shonks, & you'll find green below the façade.

Luciferase,

"Whoopty doo!And what about when the energy invested has to come from solar?"
In that hypothetical situation, the manufacturing would all be done in lower latitudes where energy returned is much greater.

But as you well know, there will always be other power source options including nuclear and wind.

"Even if it did, hypothetically, tip over 2, it still means solar would require preposterously massive infrastructure including energy storage and fossil-fueled backup (to meet residual, inevitable intermittency problems) to meet current electricity and transport needs (let alone growth). That cost will obliterate the cost of the nuclear option."
You have to specify what location you're referring to, for in sunny climates like we have here, it's unlikely EROEI will fall below 3 (and the figure's still rising). Backup is of course needed, but in the long term it need not be fossil fuelled, and in the short term it's not that expensive, as a lot of existing infrastructure could be used, and solar thermal can be designed to produce power when the sun's not shining.

"How can the major parties be deflected away from fossil-fuels and/or renewables and towards the only real CO2 mitigation option we have in our locker? Australia's Chief Scientist has a big role to play here, and I await him showing his hand."
We do need to stop having to rely on fossil fuels, but there is no good reason to avoid renewables. In Australia, which is very sunny, has a low population density and does not have a history of nuclear energy experience, renewables are likely to be the cheaper option. We should not rule out nuclear, but neither should we pretend it's the only solution.

Aiden, apparently did not notice that the authors raised the same
reservation about capital input that he raised himself.
Capital input if raised by the magic click of a bank mouse I agree is
totally devoid of energy input. It is however repaid by energy output
being sold and the proceeds being paid back to the bank, so it reduces
the out put.
That I assume is the argument for including it as an input.
Anyway anything with an ERoEI as low as 2 is a lost cause and should be
abandoned.

Luciferase has touched on the real problem, the massive need for storage.
Imagine, if you are game, the massive battery or similar device, that
would be needed to store enough electricity for say NSW & Victoria
for perhaps five days plus enough left over to restart the system
after the slow moving front moved out into the Tasman.
Solar & wind are all very nice and on Lateline last night Senator
Rihannon made it obvious that she is totally unaware of these complications.

"they have invested interests." is no answer to these problems and
to keep repeating that old chestnut has worn very very thin.

Some of Aidens comments relate to the energy costs of employees of
the solar systems.
However, the maintenance staffs truck needed energy to be built and fueled.
He needs energy and energy is used to produce his food.
He is not self supporting, he needs a house and family and energy is
used to feed them. All that HAS to come from the output of the solar
system otherwise it will breakdown and stop generating.

These peripheral energy costs have been added in for coal fired
electricity and is one of the reasons for the falling ERoEI of coal.
We do have to leave coal & oil before they leave us.

Bazz,
"Aiden, apparently did not notice that the authors raised the same
reservation about capital input that he raised himself."
FALSE.

The authors of the study did not raise that reservation. Had they done so they would have drawn attention to how stupid it would be to include it. Nor did Euan Mearns (the blogger who reviewed it) though Euan did raise about capital the reservation that I raised about labour; oddly enough he failed to raise it about labour!

"Capital input if raised by the magic click of a bank mouse I agree is
totally devoid of energy input. It is however repaid by energy output
being sold and the proceeds being paid back to the bank, so it reduces
the out put.
That I assume is the argument for including it as an input."

Firstly, an input and a foregone output are different things, and the EROEI figure is different if you include one as another.

Secondly, selling the energy output doesn't reduce it.

Energy costs and financial costs are different things, and it is fraudulent to treat one as the other.

"Anyway anything with an ERoEI as low as 2 is a lost cause and should be
abandoned."
That's not for you to determine! Net energy is still positive, so from a technical POV there's no need to abandon it. From an economic POV it's unlikely to be a good investment, but that is determined by the IRR not the EROEI.

(TBC)

Bazz (continued)

"Imagine, if you are game, the massive battery or similar device, that
would be needed to store enough electricity for say NSW & Victoria
for perhaps five days plus enough left over to restart the system
after the slow moving front moved out into the Tasman."
The solar output wouldn't drop to zero, and the wind output would be higher than usual in that time, so you wouldn't need enough storage to supply the entire amount of power needed. But if we move to 100% renewable energy, it would make sense to have heavy industry (including fuel synthesis) that would operate when there's excess power and shut down when there's a shortage.

"However, the maintenance staffs truck needed energy to be built and fueled.
He needs energy and energy is used to produce his food."
But he'd need that even if he was working on something else. As I said, it's a societal energy cost, not an energy input.

Aiden, if you are comparing systems the overhead costs have to be counted.
If one system has higher costs then another then that affects the comparison.
I just cannot see how you can avoid it.
The greenies want to count rejuvenation of mining sites and the
hospital costs of those affected by coal dust from passing trains etc.

I agree that in any situation of cloud the output will not be zero.
If however you are designing a system you have to build in some
assumptions and you do have to assume very heavy overcast in winter
at higher latitudes. The system has to work under the most pessimistic
assumptions, but that is not what the authors assumed.
The ERoEI of coal seems to be around 25 to 30 from what I have found
so 2 is pretty dismal.

Bazz,

If you are comparing systems then the overhead costs do indeed have to be counted. But they should be counted as overhead costs. They certainly shouldn't be shouldn't be used to pretend the systems are less energy efficient than they are, under the delusion that viability depends on EROEI reaching some arbitrary value or that the option with the highest EROEI is always best.

In the 20th century the EROEI of solar panels was often below 1, hence they were only useful for niche applications like providing power to very remote areas. But the days when solar panels were an energy sink are long gone. As long as net energy is positive, viability depends on cost not EROEI. And a proper comparison wouldn't use a single cost figure, but would look at the cost structure, how it's affected by different variables and how well suited it is to meeting the market's requirements.

Yet some fools still maintain the ludicrous position that a fudged EROEI figure is a better basis for those decisions.

An EROEI of 2 is indeed pretty dismal. It means there's a high energy investment and/or a low energy return, so it's unlikely to be commercially viable. But these are just two of many factors, and solar may be attractive because of its anticorrelation with wind.

The EROEI of coal may well be around 25 or 30. But of course that doesn't include the energy in the fuel itself; including that would of course bring the figure below 1. Renewables have the great advantage of not needing fuel.

"Renewables have the great advantage of not needing fuel", Aidan.

Don't be so silly Aidan, of course they need heaps of fuel, much more per Kilowatt hour produced than any traditional fuels.

The real difference is much of their fuel has to be expended in making the things, long before any positive return is received. Many of them will never actually produce in their lifetime, the energy/fuel expended in their manufacture.

Traditional fuels on the other hand only have to be harvested & supplied when power is required. These fuel costs are not required up front, but only as the power they supply is needed.

Well, Hasbeen, if you want to be ultrapedantic, fuel is also needed to build the fossil fuelled power plants.

And there's a great irony here in that you tell me not to be silly when you yourself in the same sentence are being absolutely idiotic!

Including construction, the output from renewables is much higher than the input, whereas when generating electricity from fossil fuels, the output is never as high as the energy in the fuel.

Back in the 20th century, solar cells took more energy to manufacture than they the electricity they produced. But those days are long gone, and even at high latitudes the conclusion that solar's a net energy sink can only be arrived at by fudging the figures (as the study Bazz linked to did by assigning energy values to non energy inputs).

And though you claim wind power is a net energy sink, all the figures I've seen show a much higher EROEI (typically between 15 and 20, but varying according to location and size of turbine, with bigger ones giving higher values). Try looking at the facts instead of basing your opinion on you prejudices!

hasbeen: Traditional fuels on the other hand only have to be harvested & supplied when power is required. These fuel costs are not required up front, but only as the power they supply is needed

And there are no costs in fuel to manufacture an enormous coal fire power station, the rail to feed it with coal, the excavation of the mine, the machinery to run the mine,
The accommodation and transport for the mine workers, the accommodation and transport for the power station operators.
Come off the grass hasbeen, you are doing a bit of cherry picking as usual.