FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2967029016> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2967029016 endingPage "1811" @default.
• W2967029016 startingPage "1810" @default.
• W2967029016 abstract "Energy return on investment (EROI) is a key metric of the viability of energy resources. Many studies have focused on EROI at point of extraction, resulting in deceptively high numbers for fossil fuels, and inconsistent comparisons to renewables. In a recent Nature Energy paper, Brockway et al. (2019) set the record straight. Energy return on investment (EROI) is a key metric of the viability of energy resources. Many studies have focused on EROI at point of extraction, resulting in deceptively high numbers for fossil fuels, and inconsistent comparisons to renewables. In a recent Nature Energy paper, Brockway et al. (2019) set the record straight. Net energy analysis (NEA) is a scientific discipline borne out of an “energy theory of value,”1Gilliland M.W. Energy Analysis and Public Policy: The energy unit measures environmental consequences, economic costs, material needs, and resource availability.Science. 1975; 189: 1051-1056Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar and its principal metric, energy return on investment (EROI),2Hall C.A.S. Lavine M. Sloane J. Efficiency of Energy Delivery Systems: I. An Economic and Energy Analysis.Environ. Manage. 1979; 3: 493-504Crossref Scopus (38) Google Scholar measures how much energy is “returned” (to human societies) as a usable energy carrier, per unit of energy “invested” in the chain of processes that are required to make that energy carrier available: EROI = Eout / Σ (Einv), where Eout = energy output (“return”) and Σ (Einv) = sum of all energy “investments.” Despite its seeming simplicity, however, the devil is in the details, and a wide range of different EROI values may be calculated for even the very same energy resource, depending on the adopted system boundary, and especially on the stage along its supply chain at which the “returned” energy carrier is sampled. More specifically, the EROI of an energy resource may be calculated at point of extraction from the geo-biosphere, also referred to as EROIst (“standard”; e.g., crude oil at the wellhead), or at the point where, and in the form in which, it is supplied to the end user, also referred to as EROIpou (“at point of use”; e.g., refined petrol at the pump, or electricity produced by burning heavy fuel oil).3Hall C.A.S. Lambert J.G. Balogh S.B. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society.Energy Policy. 2014; 64: 141-152Crossref Scopus (407) Google Scholar Historically, most of the EROI literature focused on the EROIst of fossil fuels and its change over time as reserves gradually become depleted and require more energy investment to exploit.4Cleveland C.J. Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S.Ecol. Econ. 1992; 6: 139-162Crossref Scopus (96) Google Scholar One of the first studies in which a methodologically consistent analysis of the oil supply chain at different stages of its supply chain was performed was based on historical production data for California,5Brandt A.R. Oil Depletion and the Energy Efficiency of Oil Production: The Case of California.Sustainability. 2011; 3: 1833-1854Crossref Scopus (72) Google Scholar and it documented a dramatic drop in EROI when expanding the boundary and shifting the analysis from point of extraction to point of use (Figure 8).5Brandt A.R. Oil Depletion and the Energy Efficiency of Oil Production: The Case of California.Sustainability. 2011; 3: 1833-1854Crossref Scopus (72) Google Scholar More recently, the declining EROI along the supply chains of a range of primary energy resources, as currently supplied to the UK and Chile, was documented in Raugei and Leccisi (Figure 3)6Raugei M. Leccisi E. A comprehensive assessment of the energy performance of the full range of electricity generation technologies deployed in the United Kingdom.Energy Policy. 2016; 90: 46-59Crossref Scopus (77) Google Scholar and Raugei et al. (Figure 6),7Raugei M. Leccisi E. Fthenakis V. Moragas R.E. Simsek Y. Net energy analysis and life cycle energy assessment of electricity supply in Chile: present status and future scenarios.Energy. 2018; 162: 659-668Crossref Scopus (27) Google Scholar respectively. A lack of standardization in system boundaries and the ensuing superficial “apples-to-oranges” comparisons8Raugei M. Net Energy Analysis must not compare apples and oranges.Nat. Energy. 2019; 4: 86-88Crossref Scopus (44) Google Scholar of EROI values referring to different energy carriers (e.g., raw fuels at point of extraction, and refined thermal fuels and electricity at point of use) are especially problematic—and potentially conducive to misguided interpretation—when conventional energy resources (like fossil fuels) are pitched against renewables (like wind and photovoltaics), since the latter directly produce electricity “at point of extraction,” and hence for them EROIpou is much closer to EROIst. In their recent Nature Energy paper, Brockway et al.9Brockway P.E. Owen A. Brand-Correa L.I. Hardt L. Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources.Nat. Energy. 2019; 4: 612-621Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar broke new ground by performing a systematic, world-wide analysis of the EROI of all fossil fuels based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data and a multi-regional input-output (MRIO) approach and calculated final aggregate values for EROIst (which they refer to as EROIPRIM, or “primary”) and EROIpou (therein referred to as EROIFIN, or “final”). Their findings point to a number of very important take-home messages, namely:(1)The aggregate EROIPRIM of all fossil fuels at point of extraction (Figure 3)9Brockway P.E. Owen A. Brand-Correa L.I. Hardt L. Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources.Nat. Energy. 2019; 4: 612-621Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar has been slowly declining over time (due to the progressive depletion of the most easily accessible reserves, and consistently with previous literature findings) and is currently at around 30:1.(2)The aggregate EROIFIN of all fossil-fuel-derived energy carriers at point of use (Figure 4)9Brockway P.E. Owen A. Brand-Correa L.I. Hardt L. Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources.Nat. Energy. 2019; 4: 612-621Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar is characterized by a much “flatter” trend over time (due to the fact that the largest investments are those required for refining and transportation and not for extraction) and is much lower, at around 7.5:1 for refined thermal fuels and 3:1 for fossil-fuel-derived electricity.(3)The values of EROIFIN are much more relevant to society than EROIPRIM (since final energy carriers are much closer to actual end services), and EROIFIN enables a more consistent and “fairer” comparison between fossil fuels and renewables like wind and photovoltaics.(4)When compared consistently and referring to the same energy carrier (i.e., electricity), the EROIFIN of fossil fuels is not only much lower than often previously assumed but in fact often lower than that of renewables. The authors then conclude that such low EROIFIN values for fossil fuels point to a hitherto underestimated risk in terms of reduced future global availability of net energy and resulting potential impending constraints to our economies. However, at the same time, these same results also hint at a more encouraging outlook in that, contrary to previously widespread perceptions, they prove that renewable electricity generation actually does represent a viable alternative to fossil-fuel-derived electricity, since the EROIFIN of the former is now typically higher than that of the latter has ever been. Either way, these are sobering results that cannot be ignored but demand attention from all involved actors, within and beyond academia. Future research is arguably still needed, though, to address two important lingering points. First, it is time to move beyond EROI analyses of individual energy resources (or even “families” of energy resources, such as all fossil fuels) taken in isolation and focus instead on comprehensive scenario analyses of the entire mixes of energy technologies that are used to provide societies with the two main types of energy carriers that they need, i.e., on the one hand thermal fuels, and on the other hand electricity. Such a holistic analytical approach is especially called for now that the world is on the verge on a major energy transition, and it must incorporate all elements of the system, including, e.g., distribution networks, and, in the case of electricity, projections of the required energy storage capacity (once again, taken at the whole grid mix level and not arbitrarily assigned to any individual technology). Second, and potentially even more importantly, analyses must start taking into account that any “minimum” EROI supposedly required to support our societies is not a value fixed in stone but is in fact a moving target, dependent on the efficiency at which the final energy carrier(s) is used in the mix of end services. As illustrated in Brown et al. (Figure 1),10Brown T.W. Bischof-Niemz T. Blok K. Breyer C. Lund H. Mathiesen B.V. Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’.Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018; 92: 834-847Crossref Scopus (270) Google Scholar a massive cross-sector electrification and a concomitant shift away from thermal processes—the efficiency of all of which is severely constrained by the Carnot ratio (ηmax = 1 − TC/TH)—may open the door to achieving the required services with much lower demand for primary energy, which in turn means that a significantly lower EROI than previously assumed may suffice.8Raugei M. Net Energy Analysis must not compare apples and oranges.Nat. Energy. 2019; 4: 86-88Crossref Scopus (44) Google Scholar" @default.
• W2967029016 created "2019-08-22" @default.
• W2967029016 creator A5027908187 @default.
• W2967029016 date "2019-08-01" @default.
• W2967029016 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2967029016 title "Energy Return on Investment: Setting the Record Straight" @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2002489250 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2062831250 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2134618105 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2150047500 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2165973635 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2201479330 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2755959065 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2885476370 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2914220679 @default.
• W2967029016 cites W2960915273 @default.
• W2967029016 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.020" @default.
• W2967029016 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2967029016 type Work @default.
• W2967029016 sameAs 2967029016 @default.
• W2967029016 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2967029016 countsByYear W29670290162020 @default.
• W2967029016 countsByYear W29670290162021 @default.
• W2967029016 countsByYear W29670290162022 @default.
• W2967029016 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2967029016 hasAuthorship W2967029016A5027908187 @default.
• W2967029016 hasBestOaLocation W29670290161 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C169549615 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C186370098 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C27548731 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C2778348673 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C10138342 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C105795698 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C127413603 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C144133560 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C162324750 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C169549615 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C175444787 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C17744445 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C186370098 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C199539241 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C27548731 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C2778348673 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C33923547 @default.
• W2967029016 hasConceptScore W2967029016C94625758 @default.
• W2967029016 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2967029016 hasLocation W29670290161 @default.
• W2967029016 hasLocation W29670290162 @default.
• W2967029016 hasLocation W29670290163 @default.
• W2967029016 hasOpenAccess W2967029016 @default.
• W2967029016 hasPrimaryLocation W29670290161 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W2348271468 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W2357581175 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W2369516547 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W2385861892 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W2389197620 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W2593071851 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W3013317328 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W3145401201 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W3197971910 @default.
• W2967029016 hasRelatedWork W3088921080 @default.
• W2967029016 hasVolume "3" @default.
• W2967029016 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2967029016 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2967029016 magId "2967029016" @default.
• W2967029016 workType "article" @default.