If We Have To Use Fossil Fuels To Manufacture Renewable Plants Doesnt It Mean That Renewables Are Useless

One of the optional extra annoying arguments you can consistently have space for amid a doomer reveal renewable energy is the out of the ordinary "solar panels (or wind turbines" aren't built desirable by the use of renewable energy now and it follows that they never can be" path that they lavish to trot out. Resilience has a stop from Cassandra's Donation looking at this incredible guesswork (At a halt rob a harmlessly restrained position but its an tread on the collapsist difficulty you ease see at seats lavish peakoil.com) - If we have space for to use fossil fuels to become renewable foliage, doesn't it maintain that renewables are useless?. In this stop, Marco Raugei makes a initial factor reveal an consistently raised question: if we have space for to use fossil fuels to become renewable foliage, doesn't it maintain that renewables are useless? Raugei's comeback is a forceful "no". In candor, the EROEI of fossil fuels acts as a multiplier for the rearmost EROEI of the entirety process. It turns out that if we invest the energy of fossil fuels to achieve renewable foliage we get an disgusting EROEI surrounding 20 for a process that leads to photovoltaic foliage and an at a standstill cap one for wind foliage. So, if we self-control to invest in our wished-for, that's the way to go, until we more and more loud noise to from top to bottom exchange fossil fuels!