Why use a bad metric when one can use the actually relevant metrics?
I see this from nuclear advocates when they talk about "energy density". Energy density (or EROI) are only relevant insofar as they affect cost. Why not just use cost? (The answer is that cost isn't giving the nuclear advocates the answer they want, so they have to lie and use some substitute metric.)
Not if you factor in all the residual. Adding to fossil or water based grid is okay, running on its own with all the necessary residual it gets way worse.
EROI of 5 means 20% all energy goes just to preserving current status. As wind is limited this gives hard limits to what is sustainable in northern countries. These problems completely disappear with nuclear.
I see this from nuclear advocates when they talk about "energy density". Energy density (or EROI) are only relevant insofar as they affect cost. Why not just use cost? (The answer is that cost isn't giving the nuclear advocates the answer they want, so they have to lie and use some substitute metric.)