The energy return on energy invested (EROI) of an energy system is the ratio of energy delivered to society to the energy society must invest to obtain it. A 2020 study by de Castro and Capellán-Pérez computed EROI for the main renewable electricity technologies at three system boundaries and found that at the most comprehensive (extended) boundary, variable renewables (wind, solar photovoltaics, and concentrated solar power) currently return less than 3:1 — below the roughly 4:1 that the same study derives for global average fossil-fuel electricity at that boundary. The authors state that the minimum EROI — at this extended boundary — required to sustain a complex modern society has never been conclusively determined, and that static EROI cannot capture the transient dynamics of a rapid transition, in which large up-front energy investments can create an 'energy trap' before returns arrive. Subsequent literature has quantified parts of the question (transient net-energy declines of 10–34% during transition buildout, systemwide EROI trajectories of decarbonization scenarios, macroeconomic models of declining EROI), but no study determines the minimum extended-boundary societal EROI, and no integrated framework yet couples material flows, energy flows, and economic constraints under declining fossil-fuel EROI. The problem remains open, with an irreducibly conditional (social-choice-dependent) structure that any sound answer must make explicit.

Background

Energy return on energy invested (EROI) is the ratio of the energy an exploitation technology delivers over its lifetime to the energy that must be invested — in extraction, manufacturing, construction, operation, and decommissioning — to obtain that energy. EROI depends strongly on where the analysis boundary is drawn. The standard boundary (EROIst) counts only direct and indirect energy inputs to the power plant ('farm-gate'); the point-of-use or final boundary (EROIfinal) adds energy losses and investments in transmission and distribution so that energy is measured at the consumer's meter; the extended boundary (EROIext) additionally includes the indirect energy investments of the rest of society that the energy system requires to function (maintenance, financing, security, and other supporting operations), and is the relevant perspective when asking how much energy surplus is left for society's discretionary uses — food, health, education, culture. Because the fraction of an economy's energy and labor that must be devoted to obtaining energy rises steeply as EROI falls toward 1:1 (the 'net energy cliff'), several authors have argued that industrial societies need system-level EROI well above 1:1: Hall, Balogh, and Murphy (2009) calculated a minimum of roughly 3:1 at the wellhead for a fuel to be worth delivering to US consumers and argued informally for higher societal requirements; Lambert et al. (2014) correlated national EROI with quality-of-life indicators and suggested minimum system EROIst above 10–15:1, while acknowledging these figures are approximations, partly price-based, or 'educated guesses'; Fizaine and Court (2016) inferred a minimum societal EROI from the share of economic activity devoted to energy supply; Brandt (2017) treated the question theoretically, showing prosperity losses from declining EROI are gradual and risk-based rather than sharp. None of these estimates reaches the extended boundary. de Castro and Capellán-Pérez (2020) estimated current global-average EROI for the five renewable technologies with the largest electricity potential at all three boundaries — large hydro about 28.4/13/6.5:1, onshore wind 13.2/5.8/2.9:1, offshore wind 8.7/4.7/2.3:1, solar photovoltaics (PV) 7.8/3.5/1.8:1, and concentrated solar power (CSP, which uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight and drive a thermal electricity generator) 2.6/1.6/0.8:1 (standard/final/extended) — concluding that variable renewables' EROIext is currently below the roughly 4:1 they derive (from Brockway et al. 2019) for global average fossil-fuel electricity. Two further open issues compound the threshold question. First, EROI analyses are static, but the transition is dynamic: renewable plants require large up-front energy investments with delayed returns, so during a fast transition the EROI of the full system can temporarily fall well below the weighted average of the technologies' lifetime EROIs — a reduction in discretionary energy arriving at society precisely when primary energy consumption rises, which the literature calls an 'energy trap' and which Capellán-Pérez, de Castro, and Miguel González (2019) had earlier quantified with a dynamic model showing system EROI potentially falling from about 12:1 to about 3:1 by mid-century in a 'Green Growth' scenario. Second, as renewables scale up, several factors erode their EROI — storage and grid expansion to manage variability, declining quality of remaining sites, declining ore grades for critical minerals, thermodynamic limits to efficiency and recycling, and substitution to lower-performance materials where minerals become scarce — while technological learning and rising recycling rates push the other way; whether the second set can outpace the first is unknown, and its interaction with the declining EROI of fossil fuels has not been modeled in an integrated framework that couples material and energy flows with economic constraints. The unresolved target is therefore two-fold and coupled: establish the minimum EROI, at the extended system boundary, that a complex modern society requires — recognizing that the source itself argues it may not be a single number but a range of increasing risk indexed by social choices such as inequality and the allocation of diminishing discretionary energy — and determine, dynamically, whether a transition to fully renewable energy sources can keep the system's EROI above that requirement at a stated allocation choice.

Problem Statement

Determine the minimum EROI, at the extended system boundary (EROIext, including the indirect energy investments of the society that the energy system supports), that is required to sustain a complex modern society — or establish, with explicit reasoning, that no unique threshold exists and characterize instead the dependence of the viability boundary on social allocation choices (inequality, discretionary-energy distribution, risk tolerance), as the source itself anticipates. Whichever form is adopted, the reference baseline that is to be sustained — the energy-service level or quality-of-life index taken to represent 'a complex modern society' — must be identified explicitly, because the required extended-boundary EROI is a function of that baseline. This threshold determination must then be joined with a dynamic, integrated assessment of the energy transition: an analysis in which the EROI of the full system evolves over time under (i) declining EROI of fossil fuels, (ii) the large up-front energy investments and delayed returns of renewable buildout, including the possibility of a temporary 'energy trap' in which discretionary energy delivered to society falls while primary energy consumption rises, and (iii) the competition between EROI-eroding factors (storage and grid expansion for variability management, declining site quality, declining ore grades, thermodynamic limits to efficiency and recycling, substitution to lower-performance materials under mineral scarcity) and EROI-enhancing factors (technological learning, increased recycling). A resolution requires all of the following, and is complete only when each is supplied: (a) an explicitly stated energy-service or quality-of-life baseline that defines the society to be sustained; (b) the extended-boundary threshold determination, or alternatively its social-choice-dependent characterization; (c) a quantitative, time-evolving extended-boundary EROI trajectory for the whole system, with factors (i)–(iii) describing the scope of that single assessment rather than three separate objectives and with a qualitative narrative not satisfying it; and (d) the resulting sustain-or-reorganize verdict for a fully renewable system. The overarching scientific objective uniting these components is a net-energy viability criterion for a fully renewable energy system: to decide, on a defensible quantitative basis, whether such a system can sustain a complex modern society, or whether a deliberate reorganization toward lower energy throughput is required — a determination the source states requires a framework that couples material and energy flows with economic constraints, which does not yet exist in the literature.

References

  1. de Castro, C.; Capellán-Pérez, I. (2020). Standard, Point of Use, and Extended Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) from Comprehensive Material Requirements of Present Global Wind, Solar, and Hydro Power Technologies. Energies 13(12), 3036. DOI: 10.3390/en13123036. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123036
  2. Hall, C.A.S.; Balogh, S.; Murphy, D.J.R. (2009). What is the Minimum EROI that a Sustainable Society Must Have? Energies 2(1), 25-47. DOI: 10.3390/en20100025. https://doi.org/10.3390/en20100025
  3. Lambert, J.G.; Hall, C.A.S.; Balogh, S.; Gupta, A.; Arnold, M. (2014). Energy, EROI and quality of life. Energy Policy 64, 153-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.001
  4. Fizaine, F.; Court, V. (2016). Energy expenditure, economic growth, and the minimum EROI of society. Energy Policy 95, 172-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.039
  5. Brandt, A.R. (2017). How Does Energy Resource Depletion Affect Prosperity? Mathematics of a Minimum Energy Return on Investment (EROI). Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality 2, 2. DOI: 10.1007/s41247-017-0019-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-017-0019-y
  6. Brockway, P.E.; Owen, A.; Brand-Correa, L.I.; Hardt, L. (2019). Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nature Energy 4, 612-621. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0425-z. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0425-z
  7. Raugei, M. (2019). Net energy analysis must not compare apples and oranges. Nature Energy 4, 86-88. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0327-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0327-0
  8. Capellán-Pérez, I.; de Castro, C.; Miguel González, L.J. (2019). Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and material requirements in scenarios of global transition to renewable energies. Energy Strategy Reviews 26, 100399. DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100399
  9. Dupont, E.; Germain, M.; Jeanmart, H. (2021). Estimate of the Societal Energy Return on Investment (EROI). Biophysical Economics and Sustainability 6, 2. DOI: 10.1007/s41247-021-00084-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-021-00084-9
  10. Jackson, A.; Jackson, T. (2021). Modelling energy transition risk: The impact of declining energy return on investment (EROI). Ecological Economics 185, 107023. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107023
  11. Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. (2021). Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 14(15), 4508. DOI: 10.3390/en14154508. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154508
  12. Fthenakis, V.; Raugei, M.; Breyer, C.; Bhattacharya, S.; Carbajales-Dale, M.; Ginsberg, M.; Jäger-Waldau, A.; Leccisi, E.; Lincot, D.; Murphy, D.; Perez, M.J.R.; Sinha, P.; Rockett, A.; Sadewasser, S.; Stanbery, B.J.; Swanson, R.M.; Verlinden, P. (2022). Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508. Energies 15(3), 971. DOI: 10.3390/en15030971. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030971
  13. Slameršak, A.; Kallis, G.; O'Neill, D.W. (2022). Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition. Nature Communications 13, 6932. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33976-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33976-5
  14. Court, V.; Fizaine, F. (2023). EROI minimum et croissance économique. Annales des Mines - Responsabilité et environnement 111, 74-79. DOI: 10.3917/re1.111.0074. https://doi.org/10.3917/re1.111.0074
  15. Aramendia, E.; Brockway, P.E.; Taylor, P.G.; Norman, J. (2024). Exploring the effects of mineral depletion on renewable energy technologies net energy returns. Energy 290, 130112. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.130112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.130112
  16. Sahin, H.; Solomon, A.A.; Aghahosseini, A.; Breyer, C. (2024). Systemwide energy return on investment in a sustainable transition towards net zero power systems. Nature Communications 15, 208. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-44232-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44232-9
  17. Solomon, A.A.; Sahin, H.; Breyer, C. (2024). The pitfall in designing future electrical power systems without considering energy return on investment in planning. Applied Energy 369, 123570. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123570
  18. Aramendia, E.; Brockway, P.E.; Taylor, P.G.; Norman, J.B.; Heun, M.K.; Marshall, Z. (2024). Estimation of useful-stage energy returns on investment for fossil fuels and implications for renewable energy systems. Nature Energy 9, 803-816. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-024-01518-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01518-6
  19. Jackson, A.; Jackson, T. (2025). Macroeconomic, sectoral and financial dynamics in energy transitions: A stock-flow consistent, input-output approach. Ecological Economics 230, 108507. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108507
  20. Malecha, Z. (2025). Energy Mix Constraints Imposed by Minimum EROI for Societal Sustainability. Energies 18(14), 3765. DOI: 10.3390/en18143765. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18143765
  21. Sahin, H.; Solomon, A.A.; Aghahosseini, A.; Breyer, C. (2026). Uneven Distribution of Natural Energy Resources Impacts on Systemwide Energy Return on Investment. Earth's Future 14, e2025EF006183. DOI: 10.1029/2025EF006183. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006183