In this topsy-turvy world, everything is in flux. Sense becomes nonsense, and vice versa. Facts become denialist talking points, and the hysterical fever dreams of alarmists becomes fact. Eventually, somebody had to realise that a bicycle is, indeed, a viable transportation method for a gurnard.

Thus we reach the stage in the slow collapse of civilisation when we realise, after all, that renewable generators produce more useful energy than fossil fuels.

Struggling to come up with advantages for renewables, I find two, which are in effect two sides of the same coin: they use no fuel, and emit no carbon dioxide when in use. That’s it.

Their disadvantages, as we know, are legion. They are intermittent and unpredictable. They use a lot of materials. They take up large amounts of space. They have to be tied into the grid on long cables from the middle of nowhere. They don’t contribute to stabilising grid frequency, but can only follow. Adding them to a grid requires the addition of frequency stabilisers plus dispatchable backup. They are an ecological menace.

To grok the usefulness or otherwise of renewables, imagine a flow of energy. The renewables derive their “fuel” through natural supplies of power that vary on a variety of timescales. When those natural sources provide power, renewables generate electricity: but it must be used at once. If there is nothing for the electricity to be used for, it is useless. If the natural power source is not flowing, then the renewables are useless.

Compare this to a fossil-fuelled generator where the incoming power can be controlled by storage of the energy source (a heap of coal, for example). The input is always available, and the output can be varied according to need.

To make an analogy with domestic water: in one scenario, we turn the tap on when we want water, and water flows out. In the other, we leave the tap on all the time, and the water flows, or does not flow. To make an analogy with international shipping: a sailing ship may make progress when the wind blows, but goes nowhere in a calm. If it is windy, but the ship does not wish to move, the wind is useless. A diesel transport, however, forges ahead indomitably.

But in our topsy turvy world, such logic avails us naught.

How does Ars Technica feel able to argue that up is down? Well, their opening paragraph is a rounded summary of the obvious issues:

It doesn’t take a lot of energy to dig up coal or pump oil from the ground. By contrast, most renewable sources of energy involve obtaining and refining resources, sophisticated manufacturing, and installation. So, at first glance, when it comes to the energy used to get more energy—the energy return on investment—fossil fuels seem like a clear winner. That has led some to argue that transitioning to renewables will create an overall drop in net energy production, which nobody is interested in seeing.

With you so far, Ars.

A new study by researchers at the UK’s University of Leeds, however, suggests that this isn’t a concern at all—in most countries, renewables already produce more net energy than the fossil fuels they’re displacing. The key to understanding why is that it’s much easier to do useful things with electricity than it is with a hunk of coal or a glob of crude oil.

Here we begin to sense that our friends at Leeds set out to prove that renewables are better, come what may. For an obvious retort to this sentence is that fossil fuels can be burnt to produce electricity at the time we require it. Its delivery of electricity therefore trumps that of renewables – it has more value per watt supplied. And there is another obvious problem: fossil fuels are very good at generating heat. And Ars Technica’s mention of crude oil is rather unfortunate for their case, since we all know how many uses crude oil is put to.

It’s now long enough since W. Stanley Jevons said…

The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to he exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.

The Coal Question

… that we should all be aware of it by now.

On what basis is the claim of the victory of renewables made? On Leeds’ invention of a new version of EROI – not just how much energy you get out of the energy you invest, but how much “useful-stage” energy you get. So much energy is wasted in transporting fuels, etc (and one presumes the energy wasted as heat in internal combustion engines is a major contributor to this metric). So to take the vehicle propulsion example: electricity is more efficient at driving the wheels than petrol, so the “useful-stage” EROI of oil has to be reduced accordingly. Meanwhile, for home heating, gas is great, but the efficiency of heat pumps trumps that.

The researchers gathered a lot of final EROIs from the literature, and they’re quite striking. The absolute worst for wind power is over 10, and the highest values are in the area of 25. So, wind power is already ahead of fossil fuels when it comes to giving us more useful energy back than is needed to produce, install, and maintain wind turbines.

The literature means nothing when you have data. The data shows manufacturing relocating away from places where renewables penetration is highest (still far below 50% of electricity) to where it is lowest.

Of course, the EROI of 25 does not include the problems with renewables. But don’t worry.

Even when intermittency, curtailment, and storage are considered, wind comes out well ahead of fossil alternatives.

This story smells of the farmyard. Will the “useful-stage energy” from any energy system’s renewables ever power the prospecting, mining, refining, and manufacturing of 25 times their number? Will this inevitably lead to an exponential increase in available energy, the collapse of energy costs, and to climate denialists slinking off to the pub, where they can finally afford to buy a pint of beer again, since their energy bills are so cheap?

There is no mention of nuclear in Leeds’ work. I do wonder at what the “useful-stage” energy of a kilogram of uranium is.

The paper, which I have only skimmed. I fear it would take a month to unravel its mysteries by the time its supplementary information and source data is considered.

Apologies for “recycling” the pun in the title, which I used in my book Ares Upwards. Modesty forbids me from linking to it here, but it has probably been enjoyed by the several people who have read it.