改进能源投资回报率计算方法

IF 49.7 1区 材料科学 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS Nature Energy Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1038/s41560-024-01696-3
Charles A. S. Hall, Graham Palmer
{"title":"改进能源投资回报率计算方法","authors":"Charles A. S. Hall, Graham Palmer","doi":"10.1038/s41560-024-01696-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maintaining energy supply is a critical challenge as we strive to transition away from fossil fuels. Energy return on investment (EROI) is a tool widely used by energy analysts to help understand the efficiency with which we extract, deliver and use energy. Initial research in this area focused on the EROI of extracting energy from nature, using direct energy costs where available and deriving indirect energy costs from economic data to infer relatively comprehensive energy cost assessments<sup>1,2</sup>. More recent studies have increasingly expanded the boundaries of the denominator by including additional energy required to refine and deliver energy to its final point of use<sup>3,4</sup>. Such studies, sometimes called harmonization studies, attempt to ensure consistent comparisons across different energy sources<sup>5,6</sup>, and conclude that the EROI of renewables surpasses that of fossil fuels. We find this conclusion surprising, as it is opposite to earlier studies. While we agree on the importance of accounting for all costs associated with energy technologies and applaud the efforts of such studies to “compare apples with apples”<sup>6</sup>, we believe that there are at least five ways in which these assessments could be improved.</p><p>First, the most common approach to measuring EROI for renewable technologies is life cycle assessment (LCA). While this approach is usually regarded as accurate within its defined boundary, it is subject to two important types of truncation error<sup>7</sup>. The first is sideways truncation, where many small but collectively significant processes — such as service activities — are excluded because they are individually minor and too numerous to measure. Established LCA cut-off rules often lead to their exclusion, yet they can account for about half of the total energy costs, as demonstrated by more comprehensive environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) or energy intensities of financial activity<sup>7,8</sup>. This truncation could halve the EROI of technologies like solar photovoltaics. The second is downstream truncation, where system-level processes that lie beyond the electrical busbar or inverter — such as storage, firming, and transmission — are typically omitted. These system-level processes are critical for understanding energy transition but are difficult to capture within the scope of an LCA-based EROI study. To address these limitations, studies must expand their boundaries of analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":19073,"journal":{"name":"Nature Energy","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":49.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving calculations of energy return on investment\",\"authors\":\"Charles A. S. Hall, Graham Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41560-024-01696-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Maintaining energy supply is a critical challenge as we strive to transition away from fossil fuels. Energy return on investment (EROI) is a tool widely used by energy analysts to help understand the efficiency with which we extract, deliver and use energy. Initial research in this area focused on the EROI of extracting energy from nature, using direct energy costs where available and deriving indirect energy costs from economic data to infer relatively comprehensive energy cost assessments<sup>1,2</sup>. More recent studies have increasingly expanded the boundaries of the denominator by including additional energy required to refine and deliver energy to its final point of use<sup>3,4</sup>. Such studies, sometimes called harmonization studies, attempt to ensure consistent comparisons across different energy sources<sup>5,6</sup>, and conclude that the EROI of renewables surpasses that of fossil fuels. We find this conclusion surprising, as it is opposite to earlier studies. While we agree on the importance of accounting for all costs associated with energy technologies and applaud the efforts of such studies to “compare apples with apples”<sup>6</sup>, we believe that there are at least five ways in which these assessments could be improved.</p><p>First, the most common approach to measuring EROI for renewable technologies is life cycle assessment (LCA). While this approach is usually regarded as accurate within its defined boundary, it is subject to two important types of truncation error<sup>7</sup>. The first is sideways truncation, where many small but collectively significant processes — such as service activities — are excluded because they are individually minor and too numerous to measure. Established LCA cut-off rules often lead to their exclusion, yet they can account for about half of the total energy costs, as demonstrated by more comprehensive environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) or energy intensities of financial activity<sup>7,8</sup>. This truncation could halve the EROI of technologies like solar photovoltaics. The second is downstream truncation, where system-level processes that lie beyond the electrical busbar or inverter — such as storage, firming, and transmission — are typically omitted. These system-level processes are critical for understanding energy transition but are difficult to capture within the scope of an LCA-based EROI study. To address these limitations, studies must expand their boundaries of analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Energy\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":49.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Energy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"88\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01696-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENERGY & FUELS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Energy","FirstCategoryId":"88","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01696-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在我们努力从化石燃料转型的过程中,维持能源供应是一项关键挑战。能源投资回报率(EROI)是能源分析师广泛使用的一种工具,用于帮助了解我们提取、输送和使用能源的效率。这一领域的初步研究集中于从自然中提取能源的EROI,利用可用的直接能源成本,并从经济数据中得出间接能源成本,以推断相对全面的能源成本评估1,2。最近的研究越来越多地扩大了分母的边界,包括提炼和输送能量到最终使用点所需的额外能量3,4。这些研究,有时被称为协调研究,试图确保在不同能源之间进行一致的比较5,6,并得出可再生能源的EROI超过化石燃料的结论。我们发现这个结论令人惊讶,因为它与早期的研究相反。虽然我们同意计算与能源技术相关的所有成本的重要性,并赞赏这种“同类比较”的研究的努力,但我们认为,至少有五种方法可以改进这些评估。首先,衡量可再生能源技术的EROI最常用的方法是生命周期评估(LCA)。虽然这种方法通常被认为在其定义的边界内是准确的,但它受到两种重要类型的截断错误的影响。第一种是横向截断(sideways truncation),即排除了许多规模较小但总体上很重要的过程(如服务活动),因为它们单独规模较小,而且数量太多,无法衡量。既定的LCA截止规则往往导致它们被排除在外,但它们可以占总能源成本的一半左右,正如更全面的环境扩展投入产出分析(EEIOA)或金融活动的能源强度所证明的那样7,8。这种截断可能会使太阳能光伏等技术的EROI减半。第二种是下游截断,在这种情况下,位于电气母线或逆变器之外的系统级过程(如存储、加固和传输)通常被省略。这些系统级过程对于理解能源转换至关重要,但很难在基于lca的EROI研究范围内捕获。为了解决这些局限性,研究必须扩展其分析范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Improving calculations of energy return on investment

Maintaining energy supply is a critical challenge as we strive to transition away from fossil fuels. Energy return on investment (EROI) is a tool widely used by energy analysts to help understand the efficiency with which we extract, deliver and use energy. Initial research in this area focused on the EROI of extracting energy from nature, using direct energy costs where available and deriving indirect energy costs from economic data to infer relatively comprehensive energy cost assessments1,2. More recent studies have increasingly expanded the boundaries of the denominator by including additional energy required to refine and deliver energy to its final point of use3,4. Such studies, sometimes called harmonization studies, attempt to ensure consistent comparisons across different energy sources5,6, and conclude that the EROI of renewables surpasses that of fossil fuels. We find this conclusion surprising, as it is opposite to earlier studies. While we agree on the importance of accounting for all costs associated with energy technologies and applaud the efforts of such studies to “compare apples with apples”6, we believe that there are at least five ways in which these assessments could be improved.

First, the most common approach to measuring EROI for renewable technologies is life cycle assessment (LCA). While this approach is usually regarded as accurate within its defined boundary, it is subject to two important types of truncation error7. The first is sideways truncation, where many small but collectively significant processes — such as service activities — are excluded because they are individually minor and too numerous to measure. Established LCA cut-off rules often lead to their exclusion, yet they can account for about half of the total energy costs, as demonstrated by more comprehensive environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) or energy intensities of financial activity7,8. This truncation could halve the EROI of technologies like solar photovoltaics. The second is downstream truncation, where system-level processes that lie beyond the electrical busbar or inverter — such as storage, firming, and transmission — are typically omitted. These system-level processes are critical for understanding energy transition but are difficult to capture within the scope of an LCA-based EROI study. To address these limitations, studies must expand their boundaries of analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Energy
Nature Energy Energy-Energy Engineering and Power Technology
CiteScore
75.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
193
期刊介绍: Nature Energy is a monthly, online-only journal committed to showcasing the most impactful research on energy, covering everything from its generation and distribution to the societal implications of energy technologies and policies. With a focus on exploring all facets of the ongoing energy discourse, Nature Energy delves into topics such as energy generation, storage, distribution, management, and the societal impacts of energy technologies and policies. Emphasizing studies that push the boundaries of knowledge and contribute to the development of next-generation solutions, the journal serves as a platform for the exchange of ideas among stakeholders at the forefront of the energy sector. Maintaining the hallmark standards of the Nature brand, Nature Energy boasts a dedicated team of professional editors, a rigorous peer-review process, meticulous copy-editing and production, rapid publication times, and editorial independence. In addition to original research articles, Nature Energy also publishes a range of content types, including Comments, Perspectives, Reviews, News & Views, Features, and Correspondence, covering a diverse array of disciplines relevant to the field of energy.
期刊最新文献
Power price stability and the insurance value of renewable technologies Improving the operational stability of electrochemical CO2 reduction reaction via salt precipitation understanding and management Citizen-financed solar projects A microscopic look at degradation Lithium Triangle supply chains
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1