Renewable Revolution

Until you can actually substantiate your accusations of ERoEI bias, this argument will never get anywhere.  I propose we agree on a methodology to evaluate Full Life Cycle ERoEI, in the form of a spreadsheet, and I will fill in one column of figures and you can fill in your column of figures, and we can then compare them row-by-row and see where the discrepancies lie.

The Farrel et al report labels the rows like this:
Article title
Journal
Heating Value basis
Agricultural Phase
Nitrogen (MJ/kg)
N Application rate (kg/ha)
Phosphorus (MJ/kg)
P2O5 application (kg/ha)
Potassium (MJ/kg)
K2O application (kg/ha)
Lime (MJ/kg)
Lime CaO application (kg/ha)
Herbicide (MJ/kg)
Herbicide application rate (kg/ha)
Insecticide (MJ/kg)
Insecticide (kg/ha)
Seed (MJ/kg)
Seed rate (kg/ha)
Transportation of inputs, summary (MJ/ha)
Tranport energy (MJ/kg)
Gasoline (MJ/ha)
Diesel (MJ/ha)
Natural gas (MJ/ha)
LPG (MJ/ha)
Electricity (MJ/ha)
Energy used in irrigation (MJ/ha)
Farm labor (MJ/ha)
Labor transportation (MJ/ha)
Farm machinery (MJ/ha)
Inputs packaging (MJ/ha)
Total Agricultural Phase (MJ/ha)
Biorefinery Phase
Transportation of feedstock to biorefinery (MJ/L)
Primary energy (MJ/L)
Electricity (MJ/L)
Coal (MJ/L)
Natural gas (MJ/L)
Diesel (MJ/L)
Biomass (MJ/L)
Capital (plant and equipment) (MJ/L)
Process water (MJ/L)
Effluent restoration (BOD energy cost in MJ/L)
Transportation of chemicals to plant
Totals
Crop yield (kg/ha)
Biorefinery yield (L/kg )
Net ethanol yield per land area (L/ha)
Net fuel energy yield per land area (MJ/ha)
Agricultural energy (MJ/L)
Biorefinery energy (MJ/L)
Recycled biomass energy (MJ/L)
Input energy (MJ/L)
Reported HV of ethanol (MJ/L)
Coproduct credits (MJ/L)
Coproducts as % of total energy
Output Energy (MJ/L)
Net energy value, NEV (MJ/L)
Net energy ratio (see Suppl. Online Material)

Is that acceptable?
I should just add, if I didn't mention it before, that the six reports evaluated were on corn, but the spreadsheet would work in exactly the same way for any feedstock.  BTW I agree with you that corn is not the best feedstock, whole sugar cane (not just the molasses fraction) is probably best for areas that can grow it.

It's a start, but NO, it is not acceptable because it is woefully incomplete. "Crop yield", for example, is one of those loaded terms that woefully FAILS in measuring adequate nutrition and is slanted to WEIGHT. I have posted, years ago now, about the FACT that, with chemical fertilizers, the "yields" went UP while the NUTRITIONAL VALUE of the crop WENT DOWN.

And AT NO TIME was the environmental COST of synthesizing the fertilizers and pesticides from hydrocarbon feed stock SUBTRACTED from those "yield" figures, to the JOY of the fossil fuel industry that claimed we OWED them for their (FAKE) "green revolution" of heavier, but less nutritious, crops.

And please SPARE me that data dump on different energy calculation formulas.

1) Post what YOU think is an acceptable energy density formula. And don't you DARE try to come up with some EXTERNAL combustion raw enthalpy based calculation. You need a DIFFERENT formula depending on the mechanical output obtained in the combustion chamber. You need to COMPARE engine design alloy requirement from operating temperatures and the maintenance costs of among different fuels. IOW, ERoEI does not mean jack sh it if ALL the LOSSES in energy from the combustion chamber to the kinetic drive shaft are not SUBTRACTED. Yes, it's complicated. And its complicated because the SAME fuel will have a different engine efficiency, depending n the design of the engine (compression ratio and engine weight). 

2) THEN, post what you think the cubic feet of flared gas per barrel of crude oil extracted from an oil rig in the ocean or on land is. Also, please provide the cubic feet of flared gas per captured marketable CH4 at a fracked gas rig site.

3) THEN, tell me what the COST of that flared gas, per cubic feet or some metric measurement of gas you are comfortable with, in biosphere damage and human health care. Palloy, SOMEBODY is paying it. And SOMEBODY has done that math. DON'T tell me it hasn't been done or that it is "impossible to quantify". Obviously, that must be done for the full life cycle cost computation, including the flaring caused by crude oil cracking towers at refineries. Also, the energy cost of drying, compressing and/or cooling of gas, along with the energy chemical synthesis costs of making the mercaptan marking gases must be figured in, of course.

4) When we have a CLEAR ERoEI number for fossil fuels, ABSENT fossil fuel Charles Hall PRoPI (Profitable Return on Propaganda Invested  :evil4:), THEN we can proceed to approach Renewable Energy in exactly the same way. I am willing to attempt to quantify each and every energy and environmental downside that ANY Renewable energy technology has.

BUT I WILL NOT do it in isolation. You cannot be allowed to move the energy math goal posts around with rationalizations like slavery in Brazil UNLESS that is THE NORMAL and ACCEPTED method of obtaining WHATEVER. Uzbekistan has a huge slavery problem. People are screaming about it at the U.N. The fact is, ANY country engaging in slavery is NOT going to LIMIT it to Renewable Energy production just to make it "cost effective". They will USE that slavery in production of dirty energy TOO!

I just posted an article that has to do with energy and costs. NOTICE what Lazard, an authority on LCOE, LEFT OUT of their calculations. I will NOT let YOU leave that out.

Then we can talk about rare earth piggery and battery production environmental piggery and ethanol "inefficiencies". Until then, NO DEAL.