Comparing Apples to Apples: Why the Net Energy Analysis Community Needs to Adopt the Life-Cycle Analysis Framework

David J. Murphy, Michael Carbajales-Dale and Devin Moeller
Additional contact information
David J. Murphy: Environmental Studies Department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617, USA
Michael Carbajales-Dale: Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
Devin Moeller: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA

Energies, 2016, vol. 9, issue 11, 1-15

Abstract: How do we know which energy technologies or resources are worth pursuing and which aren’t? One way to answer that question is to compare the energy return of a certain technology—i.e., how much energy is remaining after accounting for the amount of energy expended in the production and delivery process. Such energy return ratios (the most famous of which is energy return on investment (EROI)) fall within the field of net energy analysis (NEA), and provide an easy way to determine which technology is “better”; i.e., higher Energy Return Ratios (ERRs) are, certeris paribus, better than lower ERRs. Although useful as a broad measure of energy profitability, comparisons can also be misleading, particularly if the units being compared are different. For example, the energy content of electricity produced from a photovoltaic cell is different than the energy content of coal at the mine-mouth, yet these are often compared directly within the literature. These types of inconsistencies are common within the NEA literature. In this paper, we offer life cycle assessment (LCA) and the LCA methodology as a possible solution to the persistent methodological issues within the NEA community, and urge all NEA practitioners to adopt this methodology in the future.

Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); energy return on investment (EROI); Energy Return Ratios (ERRs); net energy; function unit; ISO (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (28)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/11/917/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/9/11/917/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:9:y:2016:i:11:p:917-:d:82215

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().