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.

Net energy analysis must not compare apples and oranges

Nature Energy volume 4, pages 86–88 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Energy return on investment (EROI) is a critical measure of the comparative utility of different energy carriers, including fossil fuels and renewables. However, it must not be used to compare carriers that cannot be put to similar end-use. In addition, combining carriers to arrive at estimates of ‘average’ or ‘minimum’ EROIs can be problematic.

The global demand for primary energy in 2017 was 585 EJ, of which over 80% was provided by fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas). The cumulative energy demand is projected to increase by almost 30% by 2040 (ref. 1). At the same time, fossil fuel combustion is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions leading to rapid climate change and resultant negative effects. The world is thus faced with the formidable double challenge of curbing its overall greenhouse gas emissions while ensuring the continued delivery of sufficient energy to allow our societies to function.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

Fig. 1: EROI of domestic oil supply in California.

References

  1. World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2018); http://www.iea.org/weo/

  2. Carbajales-Dale, M., Barnhart, C., Brandt, A. R. & Benson, S. M. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 524–527 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berndt, E. R. From Technocracy to Net Energy Analysis: Engineers, Economists And Recurring Energy Theories of Value Discussion Paper No. 11, MIT-EL 81–065WP (MIT, 1982); http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2023/SWP-1353-09057784.pdf

  4. Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (United States Congress, 1974); https://bit.ly/2SfFhIa

  5. Cleveland, C. J. Ecol. Econ. 6, 139–162 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brandt, A. R. Sustainability 3, 1833–1854 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Murphy, C. & Hall, C. A. S. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1185, 102–118 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. King, L. C. & van der Bergh, J. C. J. M. Nat. Energy 3, 334–340 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carbajales-Dale, M., Barnhart, C. & Benson, S. M. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 1538–1544 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kis, Z., Pandya, N. & Koppelaar, R. H. E. M. Energy Policy 120, 144–157 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G. & Balogh, S. B. Energy Policy 64, 141–152 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P. & Fthenakis, V. Energy Policy 45, 576–582 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Raugei, M. & Leccisi, E. Energy Policy 90, 46–59 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Raugei, M., Leccisi, E., Fthenakis, V., Moragas, R. E. & Simsek, Y. Energy 162, 659–668 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. The ecoinvent Database (ecoinvent, accessed 1 October 2018); https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html

  16. Yáñez, E., Ramírez, A., Uribe, A., Castillo, E. & Faaij, A. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 604–628 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rahman, M. M., Canter, C. & Kumar, A. Appl. Energy 156, 159–173 (2015).

  18. World Energy Balances (OECD/IEA, accessed 1 October 2018); https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00512-en

  19. Aguirre-Villegas, H. A. & Benson, C. H. J. Clean. Prod. 157, 47–56 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall, C. A. S. & Day, J. W. Am. Sci. 97, 230–237 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall, C. A. S., Balogh, S. & Murphy, D. J. R. Energies 2, 25–47 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fizaine, F. & Court, V. Energy Policy 95, 172–186 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown, T. W. et al. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 92, 834–847 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

    Marco Raugei

Authors
  1. Marco Raugei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Raugei.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raugei, M. Net energy analysis must not compare apples and oranges. Nat Energy 4, 86–88 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0327-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0327-0

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