The input to the production facility that produces solar cells and their ancillary equipment consists of energy corrected for entropy and material streams and human effort. The embodied energy or emergy of the material imputs must be added to the Energy Invested term. Thus, a blog on ERoEI must discuss the concept of emergy.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Why We Need the Concept of Emergy
The input to the production facility that produces solar cells and their ancillary equipment consists of energy corrected for entropy and material streams and human effort. The embodied energy or emergy of the material imputs must be added to the Energy Invested term. Thus, a blog on ERoEI must discuss the concept of emergy.
On ERoEI as a Measure of Feasibility
Currently, I am trying to convince Charles Hall, Tom Robertson,
and the rest of the world that I have solved the problem of computing the ratio
of energy returned to energy invested, i. e., ER/EI or ERoEI or EROI, depending
upon who is writing the term. My latest effort to state the solution concisely
is posted at http://dematerialism.net/eroistar.htm,
which has hyperlinks to longer discussions elsewhere. The notion of the
autonomous alternative energy district (AAED) originated in a section of “Energy in a Mark II
Economy” that was posted at http://dematerialism.net/remarks.htm.
In “Energy in a Mark II Economy”, I computed a series of subscripted ERoEIs
beginning with the direct production expenses of the manufacturer in the
energy-invested term and with each successive ERoEIi including more components. The last is very close to the composition of the energy-invested term for ERoEI*
in the AAED that determines feasibility. (Overwhelming sentiment dictated that I
change EROI back to EROEI or ERoEI – regardless of the similarity of that term
to EIEIO in the lyrics of Old MacDonald’s Farm.)
In a community that can subsidize a renewable energy technology
with fossil fuel, it is especially important to use ERoEI* as discussed at http://dematerialism.net/eroistar.htm
because the lifestyles of the participants can be supported by fossil fuel.
Thus, the alternative energy technology might be able to produce energy, but the
total amount of fossil fuel used by the community would be increased rather than
diminished. And, no one might ever know.
Before I ask you to read “ERoEI* as a Measure of Feasibility”
copied from http://dematerialism.net/eroistar.htm
(with EROI changed to ERoEI), I need to emphasize a few key points:
· One of the
correspondents claimed that ERoEI does not account for quality or convenience.
That is not true, provided that transformity is applied
to the final product accounting for quality and for time and place of production
to compute the emergy of the product in terms of a well-defined standard as I
have done in my papers on emergy and ERoEI. It is essential to combine emergy
analysis with the computation of ERoEI to determine the feasibility and
sustainability of the process under investigation.
· The price of energy
should reflect the cost of preventing or repairing any changes to the
environment that diminish the quality of life of mankind and other species or
that compromise the sustainability of the relevant ecosystems including the
magnitude of the storehouses of natural resources. The quality of life depends
upon aesthetics as well as pure material circumstances.
· The energy-invested
term should have an energy contribution corresponding to every monetary item
that affects the price even if this reduces ERoEI* to less than 1.0. Research
should continue until technologies with ERoEI* greater than 1.0 are found. This
approach is mathematically rigorous as opposed to other approaches that merely
state that an ERoEI must be greater than some unsupported number such as 3.0 to
support the operations of civilization.
Revised April 29, 2011 and December 6, 2012
ASPO Conference Austin, Texas, 2012
Tom Wayburn, Houston, Texas
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)