On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 09:36:57 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/16 07:39, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 May 2016 05:54:29 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
ERoEI for Beginners

"The Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI or EROI) of any energy
gathering system is a measure of that system€˜s efficiency"

in other words, if it takes more energy to build energy-producing
equipment than it generates, is it worth it? Example: photovoltaic
cells.

A thought provoking article by Euan Mearns.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

This is nothing new and has been taken into account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodi...energy_fiel d

There's an important bit you are missing. The energy that is put into the
system once constructed to be converted to (say electricity) Eg solar
power. Arrives for free. No pollution cost in extracting it or converting
it. No CO2 emitted. No transport costs. No clear up cost for mining etc.
No health costs to workers involved. Will always be there and can't be
taken from us/cut off.

do the solar panels get made by magic? and what about blocking by cloud -
as we have here today? and what about night time?

Harry is a real ostrich isn't he?

That basic fact that a solar panel doesn't make enough electricity to
construct its replacement is just brushed aside.

Not renewable, not sustainable, not actually overall producing any
energy at all.

Hey harry, if the wind and sun are free, how much is God charging for
Uranium these days?


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

No you're the ostrich.
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-h.../pvpayback.htm