Talk:Energy returned on energy invested
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Topics needing coverage
I think I have seen someone use the term energy accounting to mean measurement and disclosure of information that is useful in making energy resource allocation decisions. EROEI is a term that seem to be analogous to the accounting term ROI (return on investment). It seems to me that a methodology for determining EROEI should be somewhat similar to ROI accounting methods.
- Another energy accounting issue
It is also important to know the complete energy usage required to perform a given task in a given way. For instance how much energy does it take to boil a liter of water on an electric stove as compared to a gas stove. That is similar to EROEI for energy delivered to the pan of water.
- EROEI report
Using accounting-like methodology, EROEI would not be presented as a bottom-line number but would include some kind of detailed "income statement."
- References (I added one)
It is not clear where the figures in the table come from, could someone add a clearer reference/clearer references? While the figures share similarity with those from the Murphy & Hall 2010 graph above, there are obviously some differences. Any clarification appreciated. Sunshinemachines (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Problems with the Charles Hall and Murphy table
- I recently had to delete some vandalism on the page, although it was clearly vandalism, the document the vandal included does bring up some important points about Solar's EROEI. I also find the graph of EROEI misleading in relation to Nuclear fission, as in the US uranium is now primarily enriched via centrifuge enrichment technology and not the older and more energy intensive gaseous diffusion enrichment, which is pretty much being entirely phased out in the US for the less energy intensive enrichment technologies, moreover the rest of the world has been using centrifuge enrichment for decades now.
- This was the Solar document the vandal included, which deserves a read - http://www.bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf
- Here is information on the drasticly different energy requirements and differences in general between the old and modern enrichment technologies, comparing diffusion enrichment and the centrifuge method, taken from a -Federation of American Scientists document. - The throughput per centrifuge unit is very small compared to that of a diffusion unit so small, in fact, that it is not compensated by the higher enrichment per unit. To produce the same amount of reactor-grade fuel requires a considerably larger number (approximately 50,000 to 500,000] of centrifuge units than diffusion units. This disadvantage, however, is outweighed by the considerably lower (by a factor of 20) energy consumption per SWU for the gas centrifuge. SWU stands for Separative work unit, Here's the document http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00416663.pdf
- Boundarylayer (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The follwing line appears among the external links
Well, the designation cogent is plain nonsense. Moreover, the referred page appears to be amateurish at best, outdated by ten years, and utterly unscientific: to get an idea, just look at the following exerpt.
NEARLY EVERYONE IS WRONG!
Nearly everyone in the world (all governments, and all but a handful of scientists, etc.) has accepted the economists' perpetual-motion machine. Even the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the USA Department of Energy has no idea how much energy is required to produce energy ("net energy"). Nor does the EIA have any idea how long energy can be produced ("peak")!
This seems like an op-ed piece and doesn't belong in the article at all. Better to just delete the whole section for now.
Also, someone thinks that every rational conclusion that contradicts conventional "wisdom" (brainwashing) is opinion or worse. This is too important to let falsity persist only because the average person who is likely to edit this article knows so little and most of that is wrong. Twayburn (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)