Talk:Energy return on investment

Untitled section

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AmsNU2015 (article contribs).

This topic needs to be treated more carefully -- unreliable sources

Hi guys, this topic needs to be treated very carefully.

There are unreliable sources on this page, and links to articles which include unreliable sources.

Some material surrounding EROI has been promoted by a bizarre fringe group which has predicted the collapse of civilization, over and over again, since the early 1970s. I take a historical interest in this group. One of the main researchers in this field (and his graduate students) have been predicting the collapse of civilization over and over again across decades.

Such sources, and everything which cites them or relies upon them, should be treated with caution, in my opinion. Thomas pow s (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the EROI concept as such, and the conclusions you may take when using the EROI concept. In Germany, EROI is called "yield factor" and it is basically the sum of all energetic investment compared to the sum of all outputs. In 1982 Bruce Hannon introduced a net present value calculation (energy discounting) meaning we now have an energetic interest rate. Regarding the collapse of civilisation I can understand that there are good arguments to expect a decline if the net surplus is getting smaller if fossil fuels are degrading in quality. Wind and solar energy are abundant on a global scale and the EROI may be smaller than FF decades ago, but it is stable. Therefore, Cassandras prophecy may be avoided if we do something against her vision. --Gunnar (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a problem with cherry-picking of sources, and undue representation of fringe sources. There have been more than 50 studies of energy payback of solar PV in the literature. They yield fairly consistent results over time, improving over time. However, there are also two studies which show very low EROI for solar PV (one from Weissbach et al, and another from Ferroni and Hopkirk). Both of those studies came under intense criticism for methodological errors. Those two studies are FAR outliers. They must not be given undue weight here. Thomas pow s (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the usefulness of a cleanup. Let's not get too far with removing "everything which cites" unreliable sources though, or you would end up excluding even, say, a refutation article or literature review which can be used to support the statement that they are fringe theories. --Nemo 08:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The Weissbach et al analysis is cogent and soundly reasoned. Solar PV is not connected straight to the grid, nor to your home appliances, it requires electrical inverters, batteries etc. These are energy intensive and disposable goods after a few hundred battery cycles. Therefore should be incorporated into any realistic assessment on energy returned on investment.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Solar panels have inverters, which are specifically used to connect them to grids, and right now they rarely even have batteries. Indeed, inverters are not required for batteries- inverters produce AC current- batteries are DC. GliderMaven (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed? Solar panels actually don't have inverters. They certainly need them though and they're not cheap to buy or manufacure. Are these you acknowledge, essential inverters included in the EROI calculations done by solar advocates? Or in the common home generation environment, are the batteries which have to be used alongside and in parallel with the inverters for running your AC appliances, are the batteries included, No? The system boundary ends at the manufacture of the panel, does it? Yet you acknowledge the panel cannot generate any electricity of use on its own. Especially not at grid scale, which is where this fantasy breaks down in the real world, every time it is tried over and over again.

The only nonsense here is believing that solar PV is whatever solar advocates say it is. Tomorrow if EROI is declared a zillion. The advocates would believe it. You don't have to build anything man, the energy just flows, pass me a joint yo. The so called -outliers- are the best papers because they don't have a conflict of interest and actually diligently produce consistent results because they follow the leader in the field's methodology. Not whatever some industry lobbied committee decides tomorrow will be the new methodology and then next year, a new methodology again. Pumping out reams of papers ostensibly to grease the wheels on the swindle train? Why do you think they don't follow Charles Hall's methodology but have to keep re-inventing their own ones? With their fantasy-world-building statistical tricks?

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, so a cost per watt (very ambiguous due to location etc.) for a solar PV may be around $2.80. The cost per watt of a solar inverter is about 10% of that. Maybe that's not such a big deal. Utility and commercial scale PV is $1.11 and $1.85. From Fu et al., 2018.

Most comparisons of renewables and oil/gas are questionable. Because of climate change there's tremendous pressure/desire to demonstrate renewable advantage. That's not cherry-picking, it's a effort to engineer opinion, which many consider ethical. Unfortunately, this only works for the short-term. Once data emerges that shows predictions were overestimated, you can expect a strong counter-reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of buffered EROI section

I removed the buffered EROI section because of its reliance on a single fringe source. That source includes figures which are drastically at odds with other published findings.

The study cited was rebutted in the same journal by the leading figures in net energy research. Ultimately they labelled the study "refuted".

A single study, which is a far outlier and has been labelled "refuted" by the leading researchers in the field, cannot be given the same weight as dozens or hundreds of studies which reach a different conclusion. In this case there is an entire section devoted to this one study, even though it's a far outlier. In contrast, the meta-analysis for solar PV (which adds up and summarizes more than 25 separate studies) was given a only a single line above.

This issue is not just about buffering. The study mentioned calculates an EROI of 3.8 for field solar PV, even before buffering. That figure is much less than half what is found in the 25+ studies from the meta-analysis above. Thomas pow s (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue is all about buffering and this article should present the matter of buffering to readers. An issue you now have deprived them of, without convincing cause. As I followed the back and forth discussion in the literature and the original authors admirably refuted attempts to draw their team into disrepute. Moreover, to your specific quibble, the lead author, who is German, made it clear that the Solar figure you're so oddly focused upon, was for solar at a specific insolation. The EROI of solar is highly variable depending on that. Is it not?

Though regardless of this mountain out of a mole-hill. The matter of buffering and it is all about buffering. Should be presented in the article. If you know of a better scientific article that has a similar treatise on buffering then in that case, by all means let's update the article. Until then, the issue should be given its own section. As it really is that important. Theoretical EROIs are all well and good but the matter of buffering, gets into realistic grid cases. Which is all that matters in the real world.

P.S I wouldn't call Raugei and their, odd methodology, a methodology that just so happens to promote their favorite solar energy, a leading researcher in anything? It's frankly pretty disingenuous. Can you cite a source for your claim here, that they are this, alleged, leading figure in net energy research? What's their impact ratio? Or are they not solely solar afficiandos? Nothing necessarily wrong with that but leading figure in all of net energy research? When are you going to pull my other leg?

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi BoundaryLayer,

You are presenting your own opinions on the subject matter. That has no relevance here and does not address the objections made above. The source is a single far outlier which is referred to as "refuted" by leading researchers in the field. As such, it cannot be included in the article, much less given its own section when dozens or hundreds of studies to the contrary are summarized in a single line.

"If you know of a better scientific article that has a similar treatise on buffering then in that case, by all means let's update the article."

There are no other scientific articles on the topic because the very idea makes no sense and has been rejected by almost all other researchers. That is why there are only two papers about it, out of thousands. The idea of including buffering for each energy source separately makes no sense whatsoever and would never be done, as Fthenakis et al pointed out in their refutation. That is why there are only two papers on this topic from the same author, and why it must not be given its own section or even included.

"I wouldn't call Raugei and their, odd methodology, a methodology that just so happens to promote their favorite solar energy, a leading researcher in anything?"

Raguei has published approximately 60 papers on this issue and is widely cited. Fthenakis has published 100+ papers on this topic, is widely cited, has authored guidelines for LCA anaylsis which were accepted by the IEA and are widely followed, and has worked for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the USA. In contrast, Weissbach appears to have authored 2 publications on this topic.

The other sources you cite are totally unacceptable. One of them is one-page paper by an undergraduate for an introductory college course. That paper simply repeats the conclusions from the outlier study above, so it is not an independent source. Another source appears to be a blog post or something similar from a political website, and includes a notice at the bottom: "This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member." Again, it simply repeats the findings from the source above. Finally, the quotation you offer ("the most extensive overview so far based on a careful evaluation of available") is taken from the study itself and is the author praising his own study, within the study itself.

This stuff is fringe and is nowhere near meeting the criteria for inclusion.

Thomas pow s (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have referred this issue to the NPOV noticeboard. Thomas pow s (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm completely on your side, I could not have put it better than you have above. This material has no place in this article. GliderMaven (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh good, a tag-team. Not sure, why as a lay readers you needed to take this, to the venue you have we couldn't discuss your POVs here.

But seen as you decided to bring it there. For anyone who is unfamiliar, this debate is not new; there is an ongoing debate over the distinction between two accounting methods, the physical content method and the substitution method. Suffice it to say that each calculation has its justification and merits because each measures something slightly different. Importantly, the share of renewables looks bigger in one method;[now guess which one User:Thomas pow s advocates to have sole recognition in the article?] and in the other method, they look smaller.

Now with that in mind. The specific paper Thomas pow s continually censors out of the article, is one of the most cited in the field, it has over one hundred citations, which anyone worth their salt can go check. With those citations, ten of them, continuing up to as recent as last year, not bad for an alleged fringe paper from six years ago. By contrast most of the papers that User:Thomas pow s holds up as the truth aren't anywhere near as influential. Though those with a particular POV are rarely accomodating to others. Lastly, the addition of the mentioned stanford university webpages that summarized the highly influential paper, which are notably behind a paywall to most, are merely courtesy references to those without subscription access.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that Andrew Wakefield's anti-vax paper had lots of citations too, until it was retracted. I'm not saying that this paper is necessarily going to be retracted in the same way, but the point is that a simple count of citations is not indicative of quality. GliderMaven (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yet you still don't realize that Raugei is Andrew Wakefield here. Raugei even appeared here once and actually began to edit wikipedia to promote their material on this very article and in that regard, they're no different, and essentially akin to Mark Z. Jacobson, are they? I do not consider them to be the most conflict of interest disclosing individuals, instead a solar afficiando. Nothing wrong with that but you don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

As for Fthenakis, he works at the Photovoltaic Environmental Research...need we say anything more? Who would guess that? Who would guess that the very same kind of advocates would still have issues here on wikipedia? Their pet-methodology promotes the energy from solar, giving it various accounting boosts because it generates electricity, not the heat that went into manufacture, so they multiply everything by seven and call it output weighing...ok...Is that what passes for science now? Let me make up a term that favors my products at work, I'll take Raugei's and Fthenakis' lead and multiply my result by seven, my boss will love me too. Honestly, their use of fantastical statistical methods. Are what is actually fringe science and every reputable researcher in the field does not regard it as anything more than obscurantist and do not agree with its use.

But hey don't take my word for it. Dredge back in the edit history from six years ago and find Raugei and maybe go read what The actual inventor of the energy return on investment (EROI) metric, Charles Hall, said about solar PV. As a tenured professor not funded by any special interests, he is one of the most respected, cited, and unbiased scientists writing on EROI-

I trust only one study, the one I did with Pedro Prieto, who has a great deal of real world experience and data...(Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results.'

There are at least three reasons that EROI estimates appear much wider than they probably really are:

1) They are often done by advocates one way or another, not by experienced, objective (and peer reviewed) analysts.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/

What was the value of EROI for solar PV in the Hall Prieto analysis? The only solar PV analysis that uses three years of real data from hundreds of solar facilities in Spain, not theoretical values. It is 2.4. Just like Weissbach. http://www.science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160307-Des-Houches-Case-Study-for-Solar-PV.pdf

Though if you were to believe Thomas pow s, the values and methodology that the founder of the entire field of study endorses. It is that, which is fringe? Is that so. Not Raugei and Fthenakis's advocacy-massaged figures? Who works in the industry that he then writes glowingly about? Are you two for real?

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Article needs to illuminate a recurring issue

This article goes thru cycles of solar advocates editing the article and eliminating all realism from the article. For example. They do not use the standardized Murphy methodology both promote the figures from advocates who work in the industry, so should be treated with that in mind and that conveyed to readers.

As The actual inventor of the energy return on investment (EROI) metric', Charles Hall should have greater weight in this article rather than recurring advocates and their unrealistic figures. As he elucidates, this about solar PV. As a tenured professor not funded by any special interests, he is one of the most respected, cited, and unbiased scientists writing on EROI-

I trust only one study, the one I did with Pedro Prieto, who has a great deal of real world experience and data...(Palmer, Weissbach) got similar results.'

There are at least three reasons that EROI estimates appear much wider than they probably really are:

1) They are often done by advocates one way or another, not by experienced, objective (and peer reviewed) analysts.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/

What was the value of EROI for solar PV in the Hall Prieto analysis? The only solar PV analysis that uses three years of real data from hundreds of solar facilities in Spain, not theoretical values. It is 2.4. Just like Weissbach found and Palmer. http://www.science-and-energy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160307-Des-Houches-Case-Study-for-Solar-PV.pdf

Similiarly, here is another highly cited peer-reviewed article laying out the issue. Hopkirk, 2016 - Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379

Charles Hall and his team, developed further the concept of ERoEI in Hall et al. (2009), in Murphy and Hall (2010) and in Murphy and Hall (2011). They have suggested that a technology with an ERoEI[EXT] less than 5 be considered as unsustainable.

In the extended ERoEI, the system’s boundaries are defined so as to encompass all energy-relevant activities related to the ability to deliver a reliable, flexible and available product to the consumer on demand. The first has to do with “upstream” factors, such as, for example, the energy it took to construct the plant for the purification of silicon to solar grade Silicon

The book “Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution-The Energy Return on Investment” (Prieto and Hall, 2013) indicate more than 20 activities or tasks, outside the production process of the modules, which should be included in defining the system boundary and the energy or equivalent energy fluxes, which cross it. The activities are based on the comprehensive experience gained by Pedro A. Prieto during the construction of several photovoltaic projects in Spain.

Apart from the work of Prieto and Hall, only a few other studies have corrected any of the weak points of the IEA methodology. One of these was that by Weissbach et al. (2013)

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, if the EROEI of a solar panel really was as low as 2.4, with plausible costs for the energy used in its creation, literally the entire current cost of a solar panel would be the energy needed to make it. Which with realistic materials and fabrication cost would mean that the manufacturers were making a loss on every single one. Nah. They don't. This is all bullshit. GliderMaven (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are but all I hear is WP:IDONTLIKE, considering your involvement with what is a troubling censoring campaign against these, the only independent assessments done on the full lifecycle of solar. Not just the panels, which really, good luck getting any energy out of those flying solo/a fantasy. Without as Hopkirk writes, the 20 activities or tasks, outside the production process of the modules which solar advocates claim is not important, really?

Perhaps an analogy, it would be like nuclear advocates claiming the system boundary ends at the production process of the nuclear fuel, everything else shouldn't be included, that big steel and concrete support structure to house the fuel, the entire electrical switchyard, what would you say if these nuclear advocates were publishing papers statistically dropping all mention to these realistic processes, what would you think if they claimed it's not important to the energy return calculations? How would you react to that, would it be fantastically rosy to you too, no? Come on? With that not even the tip of the actual solar iceberg as Raugei likes to multiply his figure by seven. Calling it output weighing because electricity comes out of solar energy and not heat. Though do you think the universe actually cares about that statistical massaging?

Honestly. Yet it is the independent work of Palmer, Weissbach et. al, Charles Hall, Prieto and Hopkirk, it is their work you want to be farcically labelled as what is fringe and disappeared? Well, do you not? None other than the founder of the entire field of study, is fringe is he? You try to invert this by saying his figure is akin to andrew Wakefield? Really? that is not all you industry folks and their glowing figures? So look, this transparent solar advocacy is the only thing that ,which to use your language, is utter bullshit. It's no better than policy based evidence making.

Now for the article. Are you opposed to having the founder of the field given greater WP:weight in the article? Yes or No. Are you opposed to giving readers the knowledge imparted by the leader in the field, that the fantastically high figures are precisely those that routinely come out of individuals who have affiliations with the industry? Amazing. A Yes or No answer here would suffice.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, to put it extremely bluntly, if he or anyone is pushing a paper that has been so widely discredited he or she can fuck right off. And that includes you. In fact especially you, since you're wasting OUR time. GliderMaven (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Which bit of 'stop wasting our time didn't you understand?' GliderMaven (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly like quoting Wakefield in a vaccination article. The figures of EROEI of 2.4 for solar power are entirely fictitious numbers that assume: a) the solar panels are all in Germany (only!) b) they are all backed up by 10 days(!!!) of storage c) 50% of the energy is thrown away anyway. The real world numbers vary from slightly below the insolation of Germany to 2.5 that of germany, most places have NO storage at all, or at most 1 day, virtually none of the solar energy is ever thrown away. GliderMaven (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

GO AWAY AND DO NOT COME BACK! GliderMaven (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Could this be any clearer of a case of WP:IDONTLIKE? Wikipedia should not and is not the place for advocates to peddle and promote their wares nor is it very tolerant of those that then begin proceedings to essentially bully their sole POV into dominance on an article. Moreover this perverse suggestion that the founder of the field, Professor Hall and his method of analysis, is akin to Wakefield that you have repeatedly and ludicrously attempted to make stick, is truly disturbing in the levels of absolute guttural inversion you are going to. I am immediately suggesting you cease editing with this unscholarly attitude of WP:OWN and especially in regard to your casting of these genuinely perverse aspersions.

As there have been multiple independent papers in support of Hall and Weißbach. There is a litany most notably [A]Battisti et al., [B]Ito et al, [C] Meijer et al. and another paper from [D] Alsema that are all cited by and in good agreement with the paper by the 6 scientists in Weißbach et. al. More recently [E]Palmer, [F]Charles Hall, Prieto and [G] | Ferroni, Hopkirk et. al all of whom have clearly dispelled the attempted rebuttals of the tenacious solar advocate Raugei, as you can read in the attached and have illuminated the latter and their numbers as what are truly fictitious.

As can you perhaps elaborate on precisely who do you regard as effecting this alleged discrediting of Hall and Weißbach? Do you think it was Raugei's team that did? Are you trying out to be a comedian next? Do you even know who this Raugei individual is? They're based in Oxford Brookes University, not to be confused, with the actual real Oxford University, of which it actually has no academic connection. This Raugei may have attempted a rebuttal but it wasn't one bit convincing to anyone but their fellow special pleading solar advocates.

Indeed, seen as you're prone to making comparisons to Wakefield. I wonder what you would think about how I remember a particularly intriguing IP address which likewise got involved with this familiar attempt at censorship, the initial addition of Weißbach and the IP editor then took the opportunity to promote Raugei's work, once they were finished censoring out Weißbach, naturally of course, the editor |161.73.149.112 is incidentally geo-located, well where do you think? Could you guess? That's right. Oxford Brookes University. So strange isn't it, right where Raugei works. Did this editor declare their WP:COI? No they did not. Is that the conduct of an honest researcher in your view? Honestly, you couldn't make the yarns of you folks up.

I really do think Weißbach's team spoke effortlessly piercingly when they rebutted Raugei's balloon team, with the comment that Raugei produces nothing but - "politically motivated energy evaluations".

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hi boundarylayer,

There are a few issues here.

First, Charles Hall did not invent this concept or this field of study. Hall clearly copied the idea from his mentor and thesis advisor, HT Odum, who wrote a book about the topic in 1972 ("Energy Basis for Man and Nature"). Furthermore, the idea had been around for decades before that. As a result, Hall did not create this field of study.

Second, you are repeatedly making bizarre and inappropriate remarks, such as claiming that the scientific consensus is the result of a marijuana-induced haze ("pass another joint yo"), making insulting and bizarre comments to the other editors ("Are you trying out to be a comedian next?"), and so on. A large fraction of your arguments appear to be inappropriate personal remarks, intuitions about the motives of others, name-calling, and so on. It is not appropriate and it has no weight here.

Third, you are repeatedly responding to a scientific consensus by presenting your own opinion here about the topic. However, this is not a forum for a discussion of the topic. The point here is to judge how much weight is being given to these various ideas by the consensus of experts in the field.

There are 250+ papers on the EROI of solar PV and they all reach broadly similar conclusions. You have cherry-picked a single outlier which was repeatedly referred to as "refuted" by leading researchers. That paper should be given a weight in the article which is commensurate with its acceptance in the field of study. Since 250+ papers are given a single line above, this "refuted" sole outlier deserves no weight.

I do not want to hear your opinion about the topic, or why all the authors of those 250+ papers are smoking marijuana together, and so on. Your opinion on the topic has no weight here. You would need to provide meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of studies for this fringe position to get even the SAME weight as the mainstream view. Not your own opinion, but meta-analyses of dozens or hundreds of studies.

Thomas pow s (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources credit Hall with founding the term EROI and applying it to the energy field, are you contesting this? Are you perhaps simply unfamilar with WP:RS and WP:Secondary. Reliable secondary sources have not corroborated any of the solar advocates, 'pieces'. Hall is an independent analyst, industry publishes a lot of nonsense and no one takes it seriously, for example, Hall doesn't.

Reliable secondary sources discuss how there is two competing methodologies. Are you contesting this? Reliable and not to mention academic, secondary sources also discuss the Weissbach paper and its results.

If you could provide any reputable secondary references in support of your censor-happy WP:POV, then please add them and collaborate in writing the article. Otherwise it seems to be fairly transparent anti-Hall and pro-solar industry affiliated methodologies and papers, that you are wholesale skewing the article to promote, with wiping/blanking/deleting out anything remotely to the contrary.

Do not blank this material, out of the article again. As this material is cited by reliable secondary sources. Your opinions and industry affiliated 'papers' are decidedly, not.

== History ==

The field of study is largely credited with being pioneered by Charles A. S. Hall, a Systems ecology and biophysical economics professor at the State University of New York, who took their initial work done at a Ecosystems Marine Biological Laboratory and focused their methodology on examining the sustainability of human industrial civilization. The concept would have its greatest exposure in 1984, with a paper by Hall that appeared on the cover of the journal Science.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs)

BoundaryLayer, the sources you provide say nothing of the sort. The New York Times article claims that Charles Hall is one of the founders of Biophysical Economics, which is totally different. Nowhere in the article does it say that Hall is the founder of the field of net energy analysis.

The Scientific American article claims that Hall coined the term EROI. Other researchers use other terms to describe it (Energy Yield Ratio, Net Energy Return Ratio, Energy Payback Time, and so on). However, Hall is certainly not the founder of the field of study. He decided to use the term "EROI" rather than Odum's term "Energy Yield Ratio". The article clearly indicates that Odum was working on this material long before Hall came around.

Furthermore, Hall does not claim to have invented the field of study. He wrote: "As the person who came up with the term EROI in the 1970s (but not the concept: that belongs to Leslie White, Fred Cotrell, Nicolas Georgescu Roegan and Howard Odum)". https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_quality_of_life_limited_by_EROI_with_renewable_Energy

Thomas pow s (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If there is a scientific consensus, and if it is so obvious as you suggest, then go ahead and prove it. Show us that the scientific consensus exists, that the consensus is a hard fact. There is plenty of space available in this talk page. If you can prove it, prove it. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree rather than bicker, please list WP:Reliable sources on which the claim of scientific consensus is based. It would help too if you state the alleged scientific consensus. If its already in here somewhere I apologize but tl;dr. Help us out? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. There are three meta-analyses of over 250 studies in the field. You can read about them here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306906

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X

One of them comes up with an EROI of 14.4 for solar PV based upon the most recent data. That is drastically different from the two outliers which BoundarLayer quotes, which showed an EROI of 0.8 and 2.4. Those studies are FAR outliers, as is shown by the meta-analysis of 250 studies above.

The outlier Weissbach study was referred to as "refuted" by two of the most-published authors in the field, including a leading figure from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. A refutation was published in the same journal which laid out the defects of that study, as I indicated above. The outlier paper was subsequently forgotten, as more recent studies in this field do not employ that methodology.

The other outlier study which BoundaryLayer refers to (Ferroni and Hopkirk) was refuted below:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066

The refutation is a consensus paper with 22 separate co-authors, which reads like a "who's who" of notable figures in the field.

I will quote from that consensus refutation paper.

"We have carefully analysed (Ferroni and Hopkirk), and found methodological inconsistencies and calculation errors that, in combination, render its conclusions not scientifically sound... In addition, they use out-dated information, make invalid assumptions on PV specifications and other key parameters, and conduct calculation errors, including double counting. We herein provide revised EROI calculations for PV electricity in Switzerland... It is especially noteworthy that even the latter EROIEXT range is one order of magnitude higher than 0.8 which was obtained by Ferroni and Hopkirk." --- signed by almost everyone notable in the field.

So, on one side of the ledger, we have 3 meta-analyses of 250+ studies, and a consensus paper signed by 22 of the most notable figures in the field. On the other side, we have two far outlier studies which were roundly criticized, one of which was labelled "refuted" by the most-published people in the field. That is what I mean by "consensus".

Thomas pow s (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I will state what the scientific consensus is, since NewsAndEventsGuy asked me to do so. The EROI of solar PV lies somewhere between 6 and 14.4. The discrepancy is due to the fact that some of the studies rely upon older data, boundaries are drawn somewhat differently, and there are differences in insolation between different areas. The two studies which show an EROI of 0.8 and 2.4 are far outliers and refuted.

Thomas pow s (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Look Thomas pow s you just linked to a paper discussing net energy gain that only discusses the solar module. You may be able to convince certain people, that this is the same thing as EROI, but it very clearly isn't. For one, the paper doesn't even claim it is an EROI calculation, for crying out loud. In EROI calculations the system boundary does not absurdly end at the manufacture of just the panel. You acknowledge the panel cannot generate any electricity of use on its own. This is like claiming the net energy gain of nuclear fuel, is a zillion, all that concrete and steel surrounding and supporting, totally irrelevant. That is in essence, the conversation we're having here but on solar energy. Essentially it would be like a nuclear advocacy pushing the view that nuclear fuel has this net energy gain value that is let us hand-wave, just the same as energy return on investment, [when really the paper actually states it is not, it's just a net energy gain]. If net energy gain is what you're interested in. Then go to that article. When the studies you are linking to are not EROI, yet you claim they are. This is where we've entered the Fecking twilight zone, again and again.

Thomas pow s has repeatedly claimed there is a scientific consensus, yet then links to a paper that discusses the wholly inappropriate value of net energy gain, of just the solar modules. You are to assume, like the nuclear fuel analogy, that these solar modules just float in thin-air and electricity bolts shoot out of it, to power your computer. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13728

So despite all the bluster, there clearly is no scientific consensus for the full accounting of the Solar PV energy system, as has been fantastically claimed here over and over again. The metric of EROI, is also totally different from the solar modules, net energy gain.

This, the only one of three papers you linked too, also makes it crystal clear, that it's just the module/panel being analyzed. That's it. The thing is assumed to float in-mid-air and shoot electricity directly into your computer. No copper wire needs to be shaped and smelted to connect the modules, no steel or aluminum must be manufactured to connect and support each module. No inverter, no nothing else. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X the module types ranked in the following order: cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), amorphous silicon (a:Si), poly-crystalline silicon (poly-Si), and mono-crystalline silicon (mono-Si). The mean harmonized EROI varied from 8.7 to 34.2. - Remember that's just for the modules, not the entire actual solar PV energy system.

This is precisely what Hall is talking about, it's an apples-to-oranges case of statistical fantasy.

Also this second paper, again doesn't even have the metric of EROI mentioned in it either. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306906

Please stop wasting my time on papers that aren't even EROI papers and then, the sole one you had, is just on the solar module. Not actually the EROI of real-life solar energy.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

All of the studies include balance of system costs, including inverters, wiring, and support structures. One of the meta-analyses indicates: "Studies lacking energy input values for ... installation, installation transportation, operation & maintenance, and decommissioning were complemented with mean values..." Even driving the panels to the site was included, which is not included for any other source of energy.

As a result, when BoundaryLayer says the paper "makes it crystal clear, that it's just the module/panel being analyzed... No copper wire ... no steel or aluminum ... No inverter, no nothing else.", it is a blatant and total fabrication. This fabrication is being repeated over and over again. When I point that out, I am told to "stop bickering".

Anyway, this is a huge waste of time. The other people (besides BL and me) need to decide.

Thomas pow s (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Where in that sole reference the only one that actually claims to be a EROI, does it say this includes the steel and copper wire and so on that actually is necesary to make solar energy? It pretty clearly is just the modules. I have no issue with you 'bickering'I have however blanking editing you are doing is vandalizing the article and engaging in the pushing of fantasy upon readers. Secondly, When you write all of the studies you are being disingenuous. As you know full well you didn't link to three papers on EROI, you linked to a sole one, from four years ago. The single paper that you cite, is one that ispresently in the article, it's the EROI of the module. It is not the EROI of PV, for a home installation nor within a grid-system. That's precisely the issue that Professor Charles Hall and many others have, with this fantasy.

Your single paper from 2015 --> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X is just the the module types ranked in the following order: (CdTe), (CIGS), (a:Si), (poly-Si), (mono-Si). The mean harmonized EROI varied from 8.7 to 34.2. - Remember that's just for the modules, not the entire actual solar energy system.

Another point that is grossly misleading, that you repeat again and again. Is this single paper also makes it clear that A total of 232 references were collected of which...23 passed our screening for EROI and embedded energy analysis. So it is not your repeated 232 papers , it's just again in reality the cherry-picking of one tenth that number, that you have hyped up on this talk page. Just 23 EROI references not even papers mind you, but references, some of which aren't even peer-reviewed papers. It's this kind of over-blowing of numbers and misleading statements, that we likewise keep coming back to.

Also something Thomas continually has disappeared from the article, is that even amongst those in the solar industry, like Raugei, who as an IP editor, curiously 'someone' from their very same 'university' came along and disappeared the German Weissbach study here on wikipedia when I first added it years ago. No declared conflict of interest of course, despite Raugei being the one trying to write a rebuttal of it. That individual, this Raugei in the years hence, has acutally reluctantly now begun to recognize that, as of this later 2017 paper, that the real-world EROI of solar PV in the selected Switzerland is predictably lowered, when you get into less theoretical and more realistic apples-to-apples, empirical examinations. Our revised EROI and EROI[EXT values for PV systems in Switzerland,3 calculated according to the formula adopted by Ferroni and Hopkirk (i.e., as the ratio of the total electrical output to the ‘equivalent electrical energy’ investment), but based on the arguments and numbers presented in this paper are, respectively, EROI≈9–10 (when adhering to widely adopted ‘conventional’ system boundaries as recommended by the IEA (Raugei et al., 2016)) and EROI[EXT≈7–8 (when instead adopting ‘extended’ system boundaries that also include the energy investments for service inputs such as ‘project management’...

Thomas has continually and selectively blanked this article, to disappear the slightest mention to these real-world EROI numbers and to also disappear the more complete methodology that the man who 'invented' the term, actally endorses and use. Which is [A] contrary to editor policy but likewise [B] Something that they have hilariously claimed is the scientific consensus AKA Raugei and Fthenakis and their motley crew who are employed in the solar industry, are the consensus, editing wikipedia to censor papers they are trying to refute? Yet this crew have actually begun to accept, the real-world EROI would be about ≈7 in Switzerland. So why do you keep on blanking the article from even mentioning EROI[ext] and the studies that report these lowered values? Can you tell us that? If those in the solar industry finally have acknowledged it is close to ≈7 in Switzerland, what would it be further North in Germany, or Ireland, according to the solar-industry consensus' fellows?

Together with the fact that what the solar-industry lads have reported for Switzerland. As no one has refuted Hall and Prieto's monumental analysis of solar in Spain, with its exhuastive, book length detailing of the system, of EROI[ext] at under 3. As no one has similarly issued a convincing refutation of the Weissbach teams's values for germany, that was ≈3.9. Together with the fact that these two results were, the only two that were covered by secondary sources. They naturally, by wikipedia policy, are what is to be presented. Yet you are blanking them. Why?

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(outdenting) Also, BoudnaryLayer, you need to stop making things up. I will list some of your odd fabrications here, followed by my response:

"Thomas' favorite solar advocates consider solar modules to instantly produce electricity, akin to a kind of magickal spontaneous generation once they leave the factory. They apparently do not need any supporting equipment at all, just like when you manufacture nuclear fuel and it leaves the factory, it does not need a power station to work with...oh wait... In reality every energy system needs a support structure."

No. The 250+ papers I cited include mining, purification of silicon, manufacturing, transportation and installation of solar panels, inverters, balance of system costs, panel washing and maintenance, frames and concrete foundations, and decomissioning. This is the case for ALL of the 29 studies included in the meta-analysis I referred to above.

Where did you get this notion that the 250+ studies were assuming magical spontaneous generation?

"giving (solar) various accounting boosts because it generates electricity, not the heat that went into manufacture, so they multiply everything by seven and call it output weighing...ok...Is that what passes for science now?"

That's just totally wrong, for two different reasons. First, they adjust the output of solar panels up by a factor of between 2.4 and 3. The "factor of seven" appears to be fabricated.

Second, it has nothing to do with the heat that went into manufacture. Nuclear and coal-fired plants lose approximately two thirds of their energy as waste heat, as hot steam coming out of those huge cooling towers you see at nuclear power plants. That energy is lost as waste heat into the atmosphere. It is not returned to the electricity grid, so it's not counted as an energy return. As a result, the electricity output of solar PV is adjusted upwards by a proportional amount, for obvious reasons, so the numbers will be comparable. Either that, or the waste heat from coal plants is not counted as an energy return, and adjusted downwards. This is a standard practice according to the IEA guidelines, for obvious reasons.

"Thomas is also engaged in attempting to frame anyone who publishes on the matter, that is not getting industry money, as fringe."

That is clearly fabricated. I provided meta-analyses that include 250+ studies under consideration. The vast majority of those sources are from academics who do not get industry money.

Furthermore, I am only objecting to two widely derided studies, out of 250+. That is clearly not an attempt to "frame anyone who publishes" as fringe.

"article as it is essentially the turning of wikipedia into a solar PV WP:PROMOTION arm."

That is totally fabricated and has nothing to do with reality. The EROI values for solar PV in the article are totally unremarkable and are lower than the EROI values reported for many other sources of energy, and especially lower than the values for nuclear power. I am not interested in advocating solar power.

"As for Fthenakis, he works at the Photovoltaic Environmental Research...need we say anything more?"

That makes him a subject matter expert. People who do research about photovoltaics will have some connection to photovoltaics. It is not a sinister plot or insider scam.

"The only nonsense here is believing that solar PV is whatever solar advocates say it is. Tomorrow if EROI is declared a zillion... You don't have to build anything man, the energy just flows, pass me a joint yo... Pumping out reams of papers ostensibly to grease the wheels on the swindle train?"

I hardly even know what to say. An EROI of 15-25 is not "a zillion". The figures were taken from meta-analyses of 250+ studies, not from a collective marijuana-induced haze.

Almost all of your assertions are bizarre, fringe, factually totally wrong, and often outright fabricated. This material has no place in the encyclopedia.

Thomas pow s (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked once already, you have not answered.Reliable secondary sources credit Hall with founding the term EROI and applying it to the energy field, are you contesting this?

You are now entering into an edit-war by vandalizing a page to promote your own personal POV that just incidentally is promoted by the solar-afficiando industry, these so called hundred industry-money-greased-papers, are not the subject of any reliable secondary sources? Are they? In fact, having noticed one editor here already is employed in the solar industry, I have to ask you, is there a conflict of interest that you need to declare. WP:COI. As you're all very motivated to censor what the reliable secondary sources state. Moreover, no one claimed others hadn't done work on the generic idea of return on investment, you could opinionate and go much further to argue the infamous Thomas Malthus laid the foundations, for the entire field in the English language, however this article is titled EROI. Therefore, it should give readers the history of the term EROI. End of story. It is not a platform for my opinions or yours, or primary sources.

Find some reliable secondary sources, then come back and add them. That's how wikipedia works. Not a single editor claiming to know the truth and blanking pages over-and-over again. Which is what you are doing Thomas.

BoundaryLayer, maybe you didn't see the response I typed in above. I certainly did answer. I AM CONTESTING what you say.

The sources you provide say nothing of the sort. The New York Times article you provided does not say anything like "Charles Hall invented the field of net energy analysis". The article claims that Hall is one of the early members of Biophysical Economics, which is different. Could you point out where in the NY Times article that Hall is credited with creating this field? I see nothing to that effect in the article.

There are various different accounting terms for this field of study. Most of them are synonyms. Hall's mentor and thesis advisor called it "Energy Yield Ratio"; some others call it "Net Energy Return Ratio"; others use "Energy Payback Time"; and so on. Hall invented one of those terms, not the field of study.

"Moreover, no one claimed others hadn't done work on the generic idea of return on investment, you could opinionate and go much further to argue the infamous Thomas Malthus laid the foundations, "

Again, that is bizarre and off-topic. I am claiming that many others did research on this very field of study --- net energy analysis. Hall does not claim to have invented the field, and the secondary sources do not say that. Hall invented one of four or five terms used within the field to describe this particular idea. That is not at all the same as having invented the field, which your sources do not claim and which Hall doesn't claim for himself.

Thomas pow s (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Boundarylayer (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

refs for this subsection

References

Request for comment, include Hall and related secondary source discussed papers

Should this article include the peer-reviewed data supported by Hall, the founder of the field along with the Weißbach et al. study, when both have received write ups in secondary sources? Boundarylayer (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Unlike the cherry-picking presently occurring in the article, where there are multiple clear examples of papers being presented that do not have any reliable secondary sources discussing them. There are by contrast numerous secondary sources discussing both Hall, Prieto and the Weißbach et al. study. Here are some secondary sources to that effect.

1. http://energystoragereport.info/eroi-energy-return-on-investment-energy-storage/
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/
3. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/kumar2/
4. https://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/a-modern-equation-for-energy
5. https://insightmaker.com/insight/34284/Clone-of-Energy-transition-to-lower-EROI-sources
6. https://newmatilda.com/2014/11/26/nuclear-power-australia-has-more-one-blind-spot-tackling-climate-change/
7. https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/catch-22-energy-storage

With energystoragereport.info writing The Weißbach study, for example, used transparent calculations based on published data and was accepted for publication in Energy, a peer-reviewed journal.

And the authors were able to put up a spirited defence of the work in the face of a critique by Marco Raugei of the Faculty of Technology, Design and the Environment at Oxford Brookes University in the UK[not to be confused, with the actual real Oxford University, of which it actually has no academic connection.]

Alongside this by Hopkirk, in 2016, writing on the high impact factor of the Weißbach et al. study - Apart from the work of Prieto and Hall, only a few other studies have corrected any of the weak points of the IEA methodology. One of these was that by Weissbach et al. (2013).

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379

For reputable secondary sources on Hall[though there are plenty more, as he's the founder and leader in the field of study].

1. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-05-27/the-real-eroi-of-photovoltaic-systems-professor-hall-weighs-in/
2. https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain

With both of these papers and their clearly notable results discussed in reputable secondary sources, I do not see why they are being repeatedly censored out of the article and in there place only papers by those affiliated with the industry, that two editors to this article have bestowed upon themselves the authority of determining, that which is suitable for our readers to see. Can someone explain to me why this is happening? Boundarylayer (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: no

I love the bit about "Similiarly, here is another highly cited peer-reviewed article" in reference to F&H, I got a real-world LOL! That's because I wrote a widely quoted article about that very paper.

The F&H paper is very low quality. It clearly double counts the main input, uses numbers that the authors literally base on "personal experience", bases some inputs on un-correlated measures, uses decade-old numbers for some inputs, cite papers to back statements when the original papers don't even mention the numbers, makes outright math errors, etc etc etc.

So I contacted Charles Hall, yes, the one you are claiming we should be quoting. I pointed out the issues I noticed in the paper, and he seemed unfamiliar with any of them. Not just the problems, the paper. He then forwarded my comments to F&H, who replied that my only concern was something about the date of the data (google it, you'll find it). Some time later he almost admitted to the problems in the paper, saying "(despite, perhaps, some issues)". However, he then claims in that article that they "have done us a good service by attempting to get actual lifetimes for modules, which were much closer to 18 years than infinity". That's annoying, because I clearly pointed out their calculation of this number was complete BS, and that there was a system literally down the road from them that demonstrated that.

My article on the topic got copied around the 'net quite widely, I'd say as widely as the original paper. A few months later a comprehensive review was published in the same journal. They noted all of the problems I did. In contrast to the "widely cited" you claim, the Elsyver server shows only the names of the people in the review article.

If you're going to propose rewriting this article based on that paper, I'll just save everyone the time and say "no" right now. It is widely discredited, including by the very journal that published it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To Maury Markowitz, No one is all that interested in the 'solar-is-energy-negative' conclusions of one specific F and Hopkirk paper, a paper that you seem to have just tunnel-visioned over, as those specific conclusions were not carried by reliable secondary sources. The F and Hopkirk paper however is merely a secondary source for low ~1-8 EROI results, for every grid-sized solar PV installation so far attempted, results and papers that are actually the subject of this talk-page discussion, with those other papers, those by Weissbach et. al, Hall and Prieto, being what was carried by multiple reliable secondary sources. It is these low, but not negative EROI papers that require presentation in the article. As they meet the criteria for WP:Secondary. No 're-write' required there. That's just basic wikipedia policy.

See Weissbach et. al and Hall discussed here. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-energy-and-sustainability/article/lessons-from-technology-development-for-energy-and-sustainability/2D40F35844FEFEC37FDC62499DDBD4DC/core-reader Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability Universiy of Cambridge M.J Kelly 2016

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You asked for comments, I gave one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer, within the request for comment, there is the assumed implicit recognition that the editor who is requesting, is perhaps naiively, seeking neutral/outsider comments. Not comments from editors who are certified salesmen and spokepersons for the 'product' under analysis, who have not once, declared their disturbingly self-promotional conflict of interest. WP:COI. So honestly no, I actually did not ask for the undermining and perversion of the request for comment process.

No editor who opens a request for comment, is 'asking' for the arrival of editors with undisclosed, conflict of interests.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@BoundaryLayer: So now you are accusing me of COI because I actually know something about the topic? How droll. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@BoundaryLayer: You're alleging an undisclosed conflict of interest. What are you referring to? If you're referring to his blog post, he disclosed that right away, in the second sentence of his initial post here. Furthermore, it's not a conflict of interest. What are you referring to?

Thomas pow s (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi BoundaryLayer,

The secondary sources you provide are totally unreliable and do not meet the minimal criteria of WP:RS. One of them is an outright doomsday website which is predicting the imminent collapse of civilization again because of peak oil. That source should be totally ignored. Another is a 2-page college paper written by an undergraduate for an introductory course, in which he just repeats this material. Another appears to be a blog of some kind. Those sources should carry no weight here.

Thomas pow s (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)