Further considerations to: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation

Ferroni, Ferruccio; Guekos, Alexandros; Hopkirk, R.J.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.007

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As reported in Table 9, the MI used for the panels and the bracket was quite high in the order of 10 4 kg, while the other components presented a lower MI in the 10 2 -10 3 kg range. Where the embedded energy of the PV modules is concerned, recent studies provide diverse CED values, with large uncertainties, for the different types (mono-, poly-crystalline, and metals-based thin-film), ranging from 200 kWh el /m 2 up to 1500 kWh el /m 2 [68][69][70][71]. However, the values reported in literature should be carefully considered.…”

Section: Materials Input (Mi) and Indirect Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H2 Production

Gómez-Camacho

Ruggeri

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the sustainability context, the performance of energy-producing technologies, using different energy sources, needs to be scored and compared. The selective criterion of a higher level of useful energy to feed an ever-increasing demand of energy to satisfy a wide range of endo- and exosomatic human needs seems adequate. In fact, surplus energy is able to cover energy services only after compensating for the energy expenses incurred to build and to run the technology itself. This paper proposes an energy sustainability analysis (ESA) methodology based on the internal and external energy use of a given technology, considering the entire energy trajectory from energy sources to useful energy. ESA analysis is conducted at two levels: (i) short-term, by the use of the energy sustainability index (ESI), which is the first step to establish whether the energy produced is able to cover the direct energy expenses needed to run the technology and (ii) long-term, by which all the indirect energy-quotas are considered, i.e., all the additional energy requirements of the technology, including the energy amortization quota necessary for the replacement of the technology at the end of its operative life. The long-term level of analysis is conducted by the evaluation of two indicators: the energy return per unit of energy invested (EROI) over the operative life and the energy payback-time (EPT), as the minimum lapse at which all energy expenditures for the production of materials and their construction can be repaid to society. The ESA methodology has been applied to the case study of H2 production at small-scale (10–15 kWH2) comparing three different technologies: (i) steam-methane reforming (SMR), (ii) solar-powered water electrolysis (SPWE), and (iii) two-stage anaerobic digestion (TSAD) in order to score the technologies from an energy sustainability perspective.

show abstract

Section: Materials Input (Mi) and Indirect Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H2 Production

Gómez-Camacho

Ruggeri

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is not yet a scientific consensus on how metrics should be calculated, thus a wide variety of methods are used with different system boundaries, uncertainties and key parameters, which reduces the robustness and comparability of published values [14][15][16][17]. Another challenge is the rapid change of parameters in the life-cycle inventory data for particular technologies [18,19], such as the Energy Return Ratio of solar-PV [20][21][22][23], GHG emissions of liquefied natural gas (LNG) [24], job requirements in solar and wind energy supply chains [14], and energy inputs and emissions in biomass power generation [25][26][27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electricity generation technologies: Comparison of materials use, energy return on investment, jobs creation and CO2 emissions reduction

Kis

Pandya

Koppelaar³

2018

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New life-cycle method implemented to compare 19 electricity generation technologies.• Long distance fuel transport significantly reduces energetic-economic viability.• Low load factors for solar and wind sharply reduces energetic-economic viability.• Electricity sector jobs for generation will double in renewable-majority futures.• Natural gas without carbon capture is not a suitable bridge for a low-carbon future.

show abstract

“…This lifetime is difficult to estimate because the average time in operation of the present power plants is very low due to the high recent growth of variable RES (we estimate: CSP = 7.2 years, PV = 3.8 years, Onshore Wind = 6.6 years, and Offshore Wind 4.4 years based in the capacity added in the history [93]). This parameter is hence subject to controversy (see for instance the discussion for PV from Ferroni et al and the responses of Raugei et al [26,31,100]). As the expected lifetime of these technologies is more than three times their current time in operation, it is difficult to estimate the average lifetime based in real numbers.…”

Section: Materials Requirements and Performance Factors Per Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies

Castro

Capellán‐Pérez

2020

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether renewable energy sources (RES) will provide sufficient energy surplus to entirely power complex modern societies is under discussion. We contribute to this debate by estimating the current global average energy return on energy invested (EROI) for the five RES technologies with the highest potential of electricity generation from the comprehensive and internally consistent estimations of their material requirements at three distinct energy system boundaries: standard farm-gate (EROIst), final at consumer point-of-use (EROIfinal), and extended (including indirect investments, EROIext). EROIst levels found fall within the respective literature ranges. Expanding the boundaries closer to the system level, we find that only large hydroelectricity would currently have a high EROIext ~ 6.5:1, while the rest of variable RES would be below 3:1: onshore wind (2.9:1), offshore wind (2.3:1), solar Photovoltaic (PV) (1.8:1), and solar Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) (<1:1). These results indicate that, very likely, the global average EROIext levels of variable RES are currently below those of fossil fuel-fired electricity. It remains unknown if technological improvements will be able to compensate for factors, which will become increasingly important as the variable RES scale-up. Hence, without dynamically accounting for the evolution of the EROI of the system, the viability of sustainable energy systems cannot be ensured, especially for modern societies pursuing continuous economic growth.

show abstract

Further considerations to: Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H2 Production

Energy Sustainability Analysis (ESA) of Energy-Producing Processes: A Case Study on Distributed H2 Production

Electricity generation technologies: Comparison of materials use, energy return on investment, jobs creation and CO2 emissions reduction

Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About