For those of you still open to learning,
Speak for yourself. You're constantly bombarded with massive disconfirming evidence, over years, and you've learned nothing from it. You've seen massive failure of prediction, and you don't even ask why. Whenever any objection is posed, you just dodge the topic and bow out suddenly.
The paper you are referring to purposefully does not perform a quality adjustment for electricity and so overstates the ERoEI of fossil fuels (by approximately 3x) if used to generate electricity. Furthermore, the paper is measuring the ERoEI of solar cells in Germany which is one of the worst locations for them. Furthermore, the paper is including the entire cost of pumped storage in their ERoEI calculations so solar PV can be compared to "baseload" power generation. That is "stacking the deck" against solar PV about as far as possible. You mentioned none of this. You just picked an outlier.
You could even have read the responses from other researchers to that paper you cited. The responses from other researchers were uniformly negative. It's in the same journal. Here are some highlights: "Serious methodological errors in a paper by Weibach et al. invalidate their results...Weibach et al.'s findings and conclusions are rebutted."
I'm not saying the rebuttal is necessarily right. However, you didn't even MENTION it. Again, you cherry-picked.
For those of you still open to learning,
If you are open to learning something about the topic, then you won't just cherry-pick outlying references as you're doing, ignore criticisms from other researchers, and dodge all objections and offer no legitimate response.
-Tom S