3 ms·
Looks like you didn’t read the link. Quote: When the EROEI of a source of energy is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes a net "energy sink",
by chongli 7y ago
Looks like you didn’t read the link. Quote:
When the EROEI of a source of energy is less than or equal to one, that energy source becomes a net "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a source of energy, but depending on the system might be useful for energy storage (for example a battery).
If oil is made to compete against batteries then it will lose. It may have higher energy density but it’s also non-rechargeable, requires a heavy and complicated and high maintenance (compared to a very simple electric motor) internal combustion engine, and produces large amounts of greenhouse gases.
About the only thing it would still be cost effective for with a negative EROEI is aviation fuel, but even that application is facing competition from batteries [1].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.h...
- kortilla 7y agoAviation fuel is facing absolutely no competition from batteries. Neither is gas for long-haul trucking, bunker fuel for container ships, etc, etc, etc. EROEI will come and go with nary a shit given. The entire value prop of oil at this point already is it’s portability, density, and refuel time. Electric cars are already cheaper per mile when it comes to fuel, yet tons of people don’t bother because of charging logistics. Energy into extraction is just part of the cost like anything else. There is nothing magic or even meaningful about it. That whole theory is based on the stupid notion that energy is fungible.