Value chain · CLM-0316
In plain terms
In 2009 three researchers guessed that, once the energy to deliver and use it is counted, an oil-based fuel must return at least about 3 times the energy put into it, and a society's main fuels about 5 times, to support modern life; a search found no open, peer-reviewed calculation of where space solar power sits against such thresholds.
The claim as recorded
Hall, Balogh and Murphy define EROI as energy returned to society divided by energy required to obtain it, and, for an oil-based fuel, put an extended EROI of about 3:1 as a bare minimum once the energy to deliver and use the fuel, infrastructure included, is counted, and guess that something like 5:1 from society's main fuels is needed to maintain anything like what they call civilisation; IEA-PVPS Task 12 defines the parallel energy payback time metric for photovoltaics but explicitly defers its own EROI methodology to a separate report, now held as SRC-646 and recorded in CLM-1307 to CLM-1310; a dedicated search for a rigorous, open, peer-reviewed EROEI or energy payback time figure specific to space-based solar power found none, only three closed-access or abstract-only papers spanning 1995 to 2024.
Evidence behind this: RE-GRADED T2 to T3 on 2026-09-11. T2 is peer-reviewed analysis, model or simulation; the weakest source here is SRC-187, IEA PVPS Task 12's methodology guidelines, an organisational methodology document with named authors and a published method, which is T3. The weakest-source rule set on 2026-09-03 applies. This is NOT the normative-instrument case: METHOD's 2026-09-04 amendment lifts a standard, code or regulation to T1 because it MANDATES, and a methodology guideline recommends. Considered and rejected rather than left unexamined, because the title invites the opposite reading and two source rows were re-graded under that amendment on the same day.
Scope and limits
The Hall, Balogh and Murphy definition and thresholds were read in the primary article on 2026-10-09 (SRC-186), where until then they had been read only through a proxy extraction. Both thresholds are worked for oil-based fuel and transport, not for electricity: the 3:1 appears in the paper's conclusions as "something more than 3:1" (printed p.45), and the 5:1 is the authors' guess, its calculation "beyond the scope of this paper" (printed p.45). The IEA PVPS EROI methodology report cited as Raugei et al. 2015 is held as SRC-646, dated January 2016 under a slightly different title; its method is recorded in CLM-1307 to CLM-1310, not here. SRC-646 describes the minimum EROI a society needs as unsettled (PDF p.15; PDF p.26 footnote 6), which qualifies the 3:1 and 5:1 thresholds above. A held 2020 conference paper on the lifecycle sustainability of SBSP gives a financial payback period but no EROI or energy payback figure (SRC-212 PDF p.14). A 1980 US Department of Energy net energy analysis, a government report rather than a peer-reviewed paper, gives a space solar power energy payback time and lifetime energy ratio on a different counting convention (CLM-1038).
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
, read in the primary 2026-10-09. Printed p.26 (PDF 3): "EROI = Energy returned to society / Energy required to get that energy" (a displayed fraction, normalised); the "left over" wording on the same page describes net energy analysis, not EROI. Printed p.44 (PDF 21): "If infrastructure costs are included, the EROIext falls to about 3:1". Printed p.45 (PDF 22): "the 3:1 minimum "extended EROI" that we calculate here is only a bare minimum for civilization" and "our guess is that we would need something like a 5:1 EROI from our main fuels to maintain anything like what we call civilization"; Conclusions, same page: "something more than 3:1". SRC-187 printed p.8 (PDF p.6): "The indicator energy return on investment (EROI) is described in a separate IEA report (Raugei et al. 2015)." Printed p.26 (PDF p.24): "Information and recommendations on the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) indicator is given in the IEA PVPS report on Net Energy Analysis (Raugei et al. 2015)." That report is identified in full in the same document's bibliography (printed p.33, PDF p.31) and is held as SRC-646 (Report T12-07:2016, dated January 2016, PDF p.2). SBSP-specific literature found: Weingartner and Blumenberg (1995), Gigantino (2015), and Wilson, Oqab and Dietrich (2024), all closed access or abstract-only.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-021 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0316
CLM-0316, Energy Aperture, as of 2009-01.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-187
- CLM-1310The 2016 guidelines recommend default lifetime, wear-out and performance numbers for a ground solar energy-return study, and list 16 facts...
- Also from SRC-212
- CLM-0810A 2020 modelling study estimated that, across its whole operating life from 2040 to 2100, the 1978 NASA/DOE space solar power design would...CLM-0811In a 2020 modelling study of the 1978 NASA/DOE space solar power design, the carbon per kilowatt-hour fell the longer the satellites were...CLM-0812A 2020 modelling study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design estimated that its ozone-depleting emissions, almost all from burning rocket fuel at...CLM-0813The paper's detailed component-by-component calculation gives a carbon figure five to six times higher than an older top-down calculation...CLM-0814A 2020 conference paper's own cost model put the whole 60-satellite programme of the 1978 US reference design at about 3.86 trillion US...CLM-0815The 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design did not count any warming from the microwave beams themselves, saying that is too hard to...CLM-0816In their 2020 study of the 1978 NASA/DOE design, the authors list their own weak points: only whole-system detail rather than part-by-part...CLM-0817The authors state openly that a space-solar-power advocacy non-profit paid for this study, that part of the reason was to test or support...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-646
- CLM-1307An "energy return" figure for solar power can be stated in two ways, counting the electricity itself or counting the fuel a power station...CLM-1308"Energy payback time" and "energy return" are two views of one calculation and can be converted only when the lifetime and counting method...CLM-1309A fair energy-return comparison of SBSP with ground solar counts the same things for both: the energy to build, run and scrap each...CLM-1310The 2016 guidelines recommend default lifetime, wear-out and performance numbers for a ground solar energy-return study, and list 16 facts...