Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Implications of net energy-return-on-investment for a low-carbon energy transition

Nature Energy volume 3, pages 334–340 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

An Author Correction to this article was published on 03 April 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Low-carbon energy transitions aim to stay within a carbon budget that limits potential climate change to 2 °C—or well below—through a substantial growth in renewable energy sources alongside improved energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage. Current scenarios tend to overlook their low net energy returns compared to the existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Correcting from gross to net energy, we show that a low-carbon transition would probably lead to a 24–31% decline in net energy per capita by 2050, which implies a strong reversal of the recent rising trends of 0.5% per annum. Unless vast end-use efficiency savings can be achieved in the coming decades, current lifestyles might be impaired. To maintain the present net energy returns, solar and wind renewable power sources should grow two to three times faster than in other proposals. We suggest a new indicator, ‘energy return on carbon’, to assist in maximizing the net energy from the remaining carbon budget.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Illustrative comparison of high- and low-EROI economies.
Fig. 2: Model output.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 03 April 2018

    In the version of this Analysis originally published, the value of the pessimistic EROI for the geothermal energy source in Table 1 was incorrectly given as 14:1; it should have read 9:1. This has now been corrected in all versions of the Analysis.

References

  1. Cleveland, C., Costanza, R., Hall, C. & Kaufmann, R. Energy and the US economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225, 890–897 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stern, D. I. The role of energy in economic growth. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1219, 26–51 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chontanawat, J., Hunt, L. & Pierse, R. Does energy consumption cause economic growth? Evidence from a systematic study of over 100 countries. J. Policy Model. 30, 209–220 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ayres, R. U., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Lindenberger, D. & Warr, B. The underestimated contribution of energy to economic growth. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 27, 79–88 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Perspectives for the Energy Transition—Investment needs for a Low-Carbon Energy System (OECD/IEA and IRENA, 2017).

  6. Jacobson, M. et al. 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule 1, 108–121 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hall, C. Energy Return on Investment: A Unifying Principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability. (Springer: Berlin, 2017).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Murphy, D. & Hall, C. Year in review—EROI or energy return on (energy) invested. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1185, 102–118 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Murphy, D. J., Hall, C. A. S., Dale, M. & Cleveland, C. Order from chaos: a preliminary protocol for determining the EROI of fuels. Sustainability 3, 1888–1907 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulder, K. & Hagens, N. Energy return on investment: toward a consistent framework. AMBIO 37, 74–79 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fagnart, J. & Germain, M. Net energy ratio, EROEI and the macroeconomy. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 37, 121–126 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. World Energy Balances (OECD/IEA, accessed on 14 June 2017); https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00512-en

  13. Hall, C. A. S., Balogh, S. & Murphy, D. J. R. What is the minimum EROI that a sustainable society must have? Energies 2, 25–47 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Poisson, A. & Hall, C. A. Time series EROI for Canadian oil and gas. Energies 6, 5940–5959 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. World Energy Flow in 2011 (Lawrence Livermore National Library, 2011).

  16. Gagnon, N., Hall, C. A. S. & Brinker, L. A preliminary investigation of energy return on energy investment for global oil and gas production. Energies 2, 490–503 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G. & Balogh, S. B. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy 64, 141–152 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

  19. McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall, C. A. S., Powers, R. & Schoenberg, W. in Biofuels, Solar and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems (ed. D. Pimentel) 109–132 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2008).

  21. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Volume II: Demographic Profiles (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.United Nations, 2015).

  22. World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2016).

  23. Rogelj, J. et al. Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 245–252 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P. & Fthenakis, V. The energy return on energy investment (EROI) of photovoltaics: methodology and comparisons with fossil fuel life cycles. Energy Policy 45, 576–582 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weißbach, D. et al. Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants. Energy 52, 210–221 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Raugei, M. Comments on “Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants”—making clear of quite some confusion. Energy 59, 781–782 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Raugei, M., Carbajales-Dale, M., Barnhart, C. & Fthenakis, V. Rebuttal: “Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’—making clear of quite some confusion”. Energy 82, 1088–1091 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferroni, F. & Hopkirk, R. Energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation. Energy Policy 94, 336–344 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Leccisi, E., Raugei, M. & Fthenakis, V. The energy and environmental performance of ground-mounted photovoltaic systems—a timely update. Energies 9, 622 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lambert, J. G., Hall, C. A. S., Balogh, S., Gupta, A. & Arnold, M. Energy, EROI and quality of life. Energy Policy 64, 153–167 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Means, E. ERoEI for Beginners. Energy Matters http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/ (2016).

  32. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (eds Metz, B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  33. Anderson, K. Duality in climate science. Nat. Geosci. 8, 898–900 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Murphy, D. The implications of the declining energy return on investment of oil production. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20130126 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Louwen, A., van Sark, W., Faaij, A. & Schropp, R. Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development. Nat. Commun. 7, 13728 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Energy Efficiency Market Report 2016 (IEA, 2016).

  38. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. & Botzen, W. J. W. A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 253–258 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Solomon, S. & Friedlingstein, P. Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 105004 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moriarty, P. & Honnery, D. What is the global potential for renewable energy? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 244–252 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Foley, J. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pandur, Z. et al. in Precious Forests—Precious Earth (ed. Zlatić, M.) 165–184 (InTech, Rijeca, 2015).

  43. Tidball, R. et al. Cost and performance assumptions for modeling electricity generation technologies. Contract 303, 275–3000 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Renewable Energy Essentials: Hydropower (IEA, 2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the ‘María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence’ programme of Spain, awarded to ICTA by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO), under grant MDM-2015-0552. The authors thank J. Subtil Lacerda and R. Breding for useful comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Lewis C. King & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh

  2. ICREA, Barcelona, Spain

    Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh

  3. Institute for Environmental Studies & Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh

Authors
  1. Lewis C. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.C.K. and J.C.J.M.v.d.B. jointly designed the study and wrote the paper. L.C.K. performed the model calculations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lewis C. King.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, L.C., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Implications of net energy-return-on-investment for a low-carbon energy transition. Nat Energy 3, 334–340 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0116-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0116-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing