Renewable Revolution

We are a long way from comparing ERoEIs - we haven't agreed on an ERoEI for ANY renewable bio-fuel yet.  Can we at least agree on the proposed template for the methodology?  I'll even allow you to require changes to the template once we've got started and seen how it goes.

I'm not sure how to quantify having/avoiding "toxic damage to the environment" and "climate-changing emissions", although I certainly agree that it happens.  Coal contains Mercury compounds, amongst other things, which is measured for coals burned in countries with legislation for it, so those things are well-documented.  The energy cost of scrubbers in the smoke-stack might be one way to look at it.

WE are a VERY long way from comparing ERoEIs. I haven't agreed to what YOU think the ERoEIs are for fossil fuels either. I have observed you dropping ERoEI figures here and there from time to time as if it was accurate data. It's NOT. You should not do that because you, by your own admission, are

not sure how to quantify having/avoiding "toxic damage to the environment" and "climate-changing emissions".

The fact that you put those quotes where you put them says it ALL.   

You labor under the view that you can divorce environmental downsides from energy return on energy invested formulas, never mind the energy losses from the combustion chamber to the actual WORK produced that should be, but are not, SUBRACTED from the fuel ERoEI. 

For example, if I take a piece of wood and burn it in a chamber in my house, I lose some of that heat energy up the exhaust. But I lose STILL MORE of that heat energy, making the SAME piece of wood LESS efficient (LOWER ERoEI) if I burn it under a boiler to produce steam for locomotion. IOW, there are TWO EroEI numbers for the SAME fuel, depending on HOW you use it.    Enthalpy calculations NEVER MAKE THAT DISTINCTION. Therefore, USING enthalpy as a STANDARD for ERoEI calculations in MECHANICAL DEVICES is BULL SH IT.

FORGET Renewable Energy for a moment.

Tell me, do you think the fossil fuel industry could afford to pay the $44 an hour or more that it NOW does on their fracking and land and ocean oil rigs if they had to capture, process and defang the carcinogenic and otherwise toxic gases they now flare? 

If so , WHY?