Energy payback
Energy payback is a critical metric used to evaluate the efficiency of energy production technologies, specifically how long it takes for an energy-generating unit to produce an equivalent amount of energy to that which was consumed during its production, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning. This metric is particularly relevant in the context of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, where it helps determine the sustainability and viability of these technologies compared to traditional fossil fuels.
For instance, photovoltaic (PV) solar cells and wind turbines have different energy payback times, with factors such as production methods and material requirements influencing these timelines. PVs tend to have a longer payback period than fossil fuels due to higher initial costs and energy inputs, even though they produce no greenhouse gases. Recent advancements in technology, particularly with thin-film PVs, have resulted in shorter payback times, making them a more attractive option for energy consumers.
Additionally, energy payback assessments often include the analysis of external conditions like sunlight availability for PVs and wind frequency for turbines, which can significantly impact energy output. Related concepts such as energy return on investment (EROI) further expand on the idea of energy payback by evaluating the overall economic and social benefits of energy production, emphasizing the importance of efficiency in energy generation for future sustainability.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Energy payback
Summary: Energy payback provides a calculation of quantity and time frame required to repay the energy used to produce a site of further energy production.
Energy payback is generally regarded as the time it takes for an energy-generating unit to produce the same amount of energy originally used to produce the unit, plus the energy it takes to maintain the unit throughout its lifetime, plus the energy it will take to decommission the unit. This calculation usually accounts for the amount of energy exerted to start and end energy production, thereby revealing the amount of time expected to achieve positive yield. As such, energy payback calculations include both energy use numbers and temporal information.
Often examined, energy payback calculation is used in the assessment of photovoltaic energy units such as solar cells (PVs). The U.S. Department of Energy has a history of assessing the advantages of PVs in terms of energy payback, given that PVs create zero pollution, produce zero greenhouse gases, and do not produce unsustainable outputs, as does the burning of fossil fuels. PVs seem attractive for commercial and individual power production for these reasons. However, costs for PV development have been outperformed by fossil fuel source costs, which has led to continued scrutiny of PVs in relation to the length of time it takes to recoup higher costs for solar power production.
This time is slightly longer than it is for fossil fuel energy sources, because of the latter’s extant infrastructure resources, widespread access, and consistent fuel delivery. In the future, it is presumed, fuel and production resource scarcity may increase fossil fuel payback, given increased energy expenditures to attain resources in the production and maintenance portions of the energy payback calculation.
In recent years, the interest of energy companies in PVs has increased because of the sustainable nature of solar energy; moreover, the energy payback has improved for many types of PVs. In current assessments, energy payback calculations make it more likely that an energy-payback-sensitive consumer will choose to install thin-film PVs over multicrystalline units, given that thin-film units can produce electricity at similar or improved levels while using less production energy. The latter’s payback time is shorter. Thin-film panels require less energy to produce the film and substrate materials they use for solar conversion to electricity. Multicrystalline units require much more energy to purify and crystallize silicon, their primary module and conversion material. Frame structures are also more energy intensive for the crystalline units than for the thin-film versions, as heavier frames are required to secure and stabilize the heavier silicon.
Wind energy production has also been assessed for energy payback in terms of unit propellers, turbines, foundations, and gears. Wind turbine life-cycle analysis yields the description and energy quantities of manufacturing turbine components and installing rotors in safe and secure structures. This analysis includes metals, plastics, glass, concrete, and chemicals. Such analysis demonstrates energy payback across domestic and international wind turbine units ranging from 1.3 to almost 8 months. Such a timeline indicates that wind units, when placed in locations with high and predictably frequent wind velocity, pay back their production, usage, and decommission costs fairly quickly.
As with any energy production genre, externally limiting factors must be assessed for the sake of output calculations. In the previous renewable energy examples, sunlight and wind intensity and frequency are included as a portion of the output summary. Energy payback calculations amplify the need to consider the severity of these output qualifiers.
There are many related concepts that can help clarify energy payback. One such concept is the idea of breaking even, or whether an energy-producing entity provides at least as much energy as was used to produce the entity in the first place. The quantity of original energy used becomes a kind of “line in the sand” measurement against which production energy is measured. If an energy-producing unit will “cross the line,” it is deemed to be at least breaking even in terms of its energy production. Energy payback is slightly more complex than the concept of breaking even, given that the former accounts for the time it takes to break even in terms of energy production contrasted to original energy expenditures. In fact, many energy analysts refer to the concept as the “energy payback timeline” because of this important feature.
A second related concept, energy return on investment (EROI), is usually represented in terms of an energy-generating facility’s capacity to go beyond breaking even in social, political, or economic terms. The calculation for EROI is usually represented as a divisible term: The numerator is calculated using an energy facility’s named capacity multiplied by average load and multiplied by the facility’s lifetime; the denominator is calculated as the energy used to build and decommission the facility plus the multiplied outcome of named capacity, average load, portion of energy output used to maintain the facility, and facility lifetime. Of note here, EROI can be increased according to this model by reducing a facility’s production costs, increasing load, increasing facility lifetime, and reducing maintenance energy usage. The outcome of EROI reveals the investment value for the energy produced, and such a value holds weight for energy consumers and municipalities in terms of development and investment.
“Extended EROI” and “ensemble EROI” calculations build on both the energy payback and the EROI concepts. The extended EROI model continues to calculate energy returned to users but places in the denominator energy used for acquisition, delivery, and usage of energy. The ensemble EROI model provides a calculation to assess payback and overage in terms of additional unit creation on the part of wide-scale and long-term energy-producing facilities with nonlinear or asymmetrical additions.
Bibliography
Cleveland, Cutler. “Net Energy From Oil and Gas Extraction in the United States, 1954–1997.” Energy, vol. 30, 2005.
Hall, Charles, et al. “What Is the Minimum EROI That a Sustainable Society Must Have?” Energies, vol. 2 2009.
Kessides, Ioannis, and David Wade. “Toward a Sustainable Global Energy Supply Infrastructure.” Policy Research Working Paper Series, no. 5539, World Bank, 2011, ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/5539.html. Accessed 1 Aug. 2024.
Lee, Yuh-Ming, and Yun-Ern Tzeng. “Development and Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis of Wind Energy in Taiwan.” Journal of Energy Engineering, vol. 134, no. 53, 2008.
Salibi, Marc, et al. "Energy Payback Time of Photovoltaic Electricity Generated By Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell (PERC) Solar Modules: A Novel Methodology Proposal." Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, 6-10 Sept. 2021, www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/conference-paper/38th-eupvsec-2021/Salibi‗4CO45.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug, 2024.
Turner, John. “A Realizable Renewable Energy Future.” Science, vol. 285, 1999.
“What Is the Energy Payback for PV?” DOE/GO-102004-1847, US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Jan. 2004, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug. 2024.