pstarr wrote:Where do suppose he picked up that crap? It's not a liberal thing. Limbaugh and Hannity don't have a clue regarding net-energy analysis. It must be one of Graeme's green rags.

Pstarr, I pointed out the error for you. I pointed out the error in the calculations of ERoEI done by the energy declne movement. You could easily perform the calculations yourself by looking up any of the relevant papers on the ERoEI of fossil fuels, and seeing that they have, in fact, counted waste heat losses as energy returns. Those papers, and essentially all the ERoEI analysis found on sources like theoildrum.com, etc, were based upon a simple, obvious mathematical mistake, which I've now pointed out to you.

You responded to this by posting childish personal remarks with no relevant content whatsoever. You also speculated about where I got the idea, which obviously has no logical relevance. I can only assume you have no serious response.

You're a fool if that's the only way you respond to contrary information. What you should do now is pay attention to content.

There are some papers which do not commit the obvious mathematical error, for example, one by Mason Inman, and another by Johan Lundin ("EROI of crystalline silicon photovoltaics"). The latter paper correctly performs an energy quality correction and does not compare primary energy from fossil fuels against electricity from renewables. When carrying out the calculation correctly, the author finds that solar PV has a primary energy-equivalent ERoEI of approximately 20, in high insolation areas. That figure is undoubtedly higher than the ERoEI of either natural gas or oil.

The paper by Mason Inman and accomanying article in Scientific American, attempts to perform the calculation correctly. As a result, the author arrives at the conclusion that renewables have ERoEI ratios which are comparable to fossil fuels.

-Tom S