comparing apples to apples: why the net energy analysis community needs to adopt the life-cycle analysis framework
Clicks: 218
ID: 181202
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
218 views
55 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #236 of 526 articles by views in acs combinatorial science
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 526 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
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.
| Reference Key |
murphy2016energiescomparing
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;David J. Murphy;Michael Carbajales-Dale;Devin Moeller |
| Journal | acs combinatorial science |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.3390/en9110917
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.