Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Degradation on Aluminum Reflectors for Solar Collectors due to Outdoor Exposure and Accelerated Aging
Previous Article in Journal
Definition and Experimental Validation of a Simplified Model for a Microgrid Thermal Network and its Integration into Energy Management Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Solarevolution: Much More with Way Less, Right Now—The Disruptive Shift to Renewables
Article Menu
Issue 11 (November) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Energies 2016, 9(11), 917; doi:10.3390/en9110917

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

1
Environmental Studies Department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617, USA
2
Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Bin Chen
Received: 22 April 2016 / Revised: 20 June 2016 / Accepted: 8 October 2016 / Published: 5 November 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy Systems in Current and Evolving Grids)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [980 KB, uploaded 5 November 2016]   |  

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); energy return on investment (EROI); Energy Return Ratios (ERRs); net energy; function unit; ISO life cycle assessment (LCA); energy return on investment (EROI); Energy Return Ratios (ERRs); net energy; function unit; ISO
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Murphy, D.J.; Carbajales-Dale, M.; Moeller, D. Comparing Apples to Apples: Why the Net Energy Analysis Community Needs to Adopt the Life-Cycle Analysis Framework. Energies 2016, 9, 917.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Energies EISSN 1996-1073 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top