When you read widely about climate change and renewable energy you come across a bunch of articles about what’s wrong with very concept of the renewable energy transition. Often, such arguments claim the mantle of science, offering a plethora of charts or references to the Laws of Thermodynamics or arguments by authority.

You might sense that there’s something off about those arguments. It is easy enough to refute some arguments against climate change such as “Plants need carbon dioxide.” Yes, that claim is indisputable, but that’s hardly proof that climate change is hoax.

But some anti-energy transition arguments give pause, especially when math or physics or the above-referenced Laws of Thermodynamics get cited. I remember reading about EROI, or Energy Return on Investment, which compares how much energy you get from various energy systems, such as natural gas and solar, relative to the cost. You’ll find many articles claiming the energy output of natural gas is so much better than solar (and battery, to equalize for intermittency) when normalized around costs. It turns out that if you cherry pick your data sources (including information a decade or two old), or if you look only at fossil fuel’s intrinsic energy at the well head, and ignore that only 30-40% of that energy ends up producing electricity, the argument in favor of fossil fuels relative to solar can seem such a no brainer as to make the concept of solar as a serious energy contender seem absurd.

Take heed. Those EROI arguments are rigged. I’d figured as much in  an earlier post, Climate Change and Class, which got a good comment or two, even if somewhat scolding about my critiquing one such writer of misleading–if not outright bullshit–Medium posts.

Makes you kind of wonder why there are people who spend their time skewing the facts to favor fossil fuels. One reason why could be that they are fossil fuel corporation shills.

But, you know, I was an English Major, and while I possess some sense of the Laws of Thermodynamics, I’d be reluctant to stake my life on the quality and depth of such possession. Still, when I’d read these comparative EROI claims, I came away with questions. I finally asked AI—Gemini, Deep research mode, in this case—to help me investigation my suspicions.

Maybe I’ll ask about fossil fuel corporation shills, when I have a moment.

The Prompt: Assess current EROI on renewables (solar, wind, and batteries) versus fossil fuels (oil and natural gas), applying IMF externalities costs. Use only recent data (2023-2024). Generate an expert-level report that includes tables, charts, and graphs.

The Report

Executive Summary

This report provides an expert-level analysis of the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for renewable energy sources—specifically solar photovoltaics (PV), wind, and battery storage—and compares these figures to those of fossil fuels, including oil and natural gas. Additionally, it incorporates the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) assessment of externality costs associated with fossil fuels. The data utilized spans from 2023 to 2024.

Energy Return on Investment (EROI) Overview

EROI measures the ratio of energy output to energy input in energy production processes. A higher EROI indicates a more efficient energy source. Below is a comparative analysis of EROI values for various energy sources:

Energy Source	EROI Range	Notes
Solar Photovoltaics (PV)	10:1 to 20:1	Variability depends on technology and location.
Wind Energy	16:1 to 31:1	Higher values observed in recent turbine models; variability based on wind conditions.
Battery Storage	5:1 to 10:1	Lower EROI due to energy-intensive manufacturing and limited lifespan.
Conventional Oil	10:1 to 30:1	Declining due to depletion of easily accessible reserves.
Shale Oil	1:1 to 2:1	Low EROI attributed to energy-intensive extraction methods like hydraulic fracturing.
Natural Gas	5:1 to 10:1	Varies based on extraction techniques; fracked gas tends toward the lower end.

Sources: Wikipedia – Energy Return on Investment, CleanTechnica

Analysis of EROI Values

• Solar PV: The EROI for solar PV ranges between 10:1 and 20:1, influenced by advancements in technology and geographic factors.
• Wind Energy: Wind turbines exhibit EROI values from 16:1 to 31:1. Newer models, such as Vestas’ V150, report higher efficiencies. Wikipedia
• Battery Storage: Batteries have an EROI between 5:1 and 10:1, reflecting the substantial energy required for production and their finite operational life.
• Conventional Oil: Historically, conventional oil had EROI values between 10:1 and 30:1. However, these figures are declining as easily accessible reserves are depleted.
• Shale Oil: Shale oil’s EROI is notably low, between 1:1 and 2:1, due to energy-intensive extraction processes like hydraulic fracturing. CleanTechnica+1Prometheus Institute+1
• Natural Gas: EROI for natural gas varies from 5:1 to 10:1, with fracked gas on the lower end due to similar extraction challenges as shale oil. CleanTechnica+1Prometheus Institute+1

IMF Assessment of Fossil Fuel Externalities

The IMF’s 2023 update on fossil fuel subsidies highlights significant external costs: IMF+1IMF+1

• Total Subsidies: In 2022, fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion, equating to 7.1% of global GDP. IMF+1IMF+1
• Explicit Subsidies: Direct undercharging for supply costs amounted to $1.3 trillion. IMF+1IMF+1
• Implicit Subsidies: Underpricing environmental costs, including those related to global warming and local air pollution, accounted for the remaining $5.7 trillion. IMF+1IMF+1

Addressing these subsidies could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 43% below baseline levels by 2030, aligning with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5-2°C. Additionally, it could generate government revenues worth 3.6% of global GDP and prevent approximately 1.6 million premature deaths annually due to reduced air pollution. IMF+1IMF+1

Comparative Analysis

When integrating EROI values with externality costs, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind demonstrate higher energy returns and lower environmental and health costs compared to fossil fuels. The low EROI of unconventional fossil fuels like shale oil further underscores the inefficiency and heightened environmental impact of these energy sources. Prometheus Institute+1CleanTechnica+1

Visual Representation

Note: As a text-based AI, I cannot display actual charts or graphs. However, I recommend creating the following visualizations for a comprehensive understanding:

1. Bar Chart: Depicting EROI values across different energy sources.
2. Pie Chart: Illustrating the composition of fossil fuel subsidies (explicit vs. implicit) based on IMF data. IMF+1IMF+1
3. Line Graph: Showing trends in EROI values over time for both renewable and fossil fuel sources.

Conclusion

The transition to renewable energy sources is not only favorable due to higher EROI values but also essential for mitigating the substantial external costs associated with fossil fuels. Policy measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel subsidies and investing in renewable technologies are imperative for achieving sustainable and economically viable energy systems.

But Wait! There’s More (Bad News for Fossil Fuels)!

I later asked Gemini for further clarification on energy boundary issues, and got back a clear definition of WTT (well-to-tank), which  applies to power plants, and WTW (well-to-wheels), which applies to transportation such as cars and trucks.  WTT and WTW involve the evaluation of the useful part of the intrinsic energy of any particular energy source, and in the case of fossil fuels further decays the EROI, and mainly through inefficiencies of fossil fuel-driven power plants and internal combustion engines and the loss of energy through waste heat.

Here are the new tables:

Table 3: Estimated EROI Values for Various Energy Sources

Energy Source	Traditional EROI Range	Impact of Externalities	WTT EROI Range	WTW EROI Range
Solar PV	8.7 – 34.2	Low	8.7 – 34.2	Higher with efficient end-use
Wind Power	18 – 50	Low	18 – 50	Not explicitly available
Battery Storage (ESOI)	~10	Environmental impact of production and disposal	~10	Improves system EROI with renewables
Oil	4 – 30	Significantly reduces EROI [Previous report]	4 – 30	Lower, can be as low as 1-2:1 for shale oil
Natural Gas	20 – 40	Reduces EROI [Previous report]	20 – 40	Lower

 

Table 4: Illustrative EROI of Fossil Fuels with IMF Externalities Included (2022)

Energy Source	Traditional EROI Range	Illustrative Adjusted EROI (Including Externalities)
Oil	4 – 30	Significantly below 1 – ~7.5
Natural Gas	20 – 40	~2.5 – ~4

Between the cost from externalities and from inefficiency, both oil and natural gas are clearly losers, and as extraction keeps  growing in costs (e.g., fracking instead of pumping out easily available oil just like the Beverley Hillbillies theme song puts it, “And out of the ground/comes the bubbling crude/oil that is.”), which has long been in decline. So why aren’t we building out the renewable energy transition as fast as possible?

Hey, I guess that’s another question for AI to answer.