Did I ignore that coal requires machines to produce energy?
You left out the fact coal needs machines to collect.
No. I'm pointing out that in every case we need to build machines to collect and convert energy that exists in our environment into something useful. It is because we need these machines that no energy is "free". Most of all we need energy to produce these machines, and that forms a basis for comparing the utility of different energy sources.
Terrible comparisons does not excuse your misstatements.
How do the different energy sources compare on the energy return on energy invested
You presented none of this. Your only statements were how bad solar was while not disclosing the coal was far worse.
Fossil fuels land around 30 on EROEI. Onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission do better. The other options most people would considerr do worse or aren't listed.
Pure EROI does not factors like pollution, supply chains, and practicality. Ignoring things seems to be your modus operandi.
Did I "rig the comparisons" on solar power?
Presenting the costs and requirements of one thing while ignoring the other option has higher requirements is rigging. Like I said you can say renting a house is cheaper than owning because owning requires a mortgage and utilities.
Only if you believe I had some influence on studies done in Germany.
What studies? Is this yet another thing you did not present to anyone?
I can't speak German but I visited the place once. It's a nice place, great food, and as someone that grew up in an area with plenty of people with German ancestry it was a bit like "going home" for me. Germany has been quite committed to renewable energy for some time now so they'd be quite interested in getting the most out of their investment in wind, solar, hydro, or whatever but they could not reach the EROEI of nuclear fission.
Again. You are relying on a single factor. Other factors have no place in your world. By your logic, every country in the world should use nuclear then coal despite the fact coal and nuclear fuel do not exist everywhere.
If you have a better metric to choose for a fair comparison then I'd like to see it.
How about looking at the real world? Coal plants are being shut down even in red states. The main reason: they are more expensive (despite your EROI factor) to operate than other types of plants. That operating cost does not include the fact they pollute more.
Based on studies I've seen on varied energy sources I've become convinced that it is only a matter of time before nations all over the world, including Germany, will learn that for the best return on investment they should be producing energy from hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear fission. Failure to use energy sources with the highest return will put them at a disadvantage economically compared to nations that do use the energy sources with the highest return.,
So no one should use solar because you only rely on one factor in your calculation for the entire world. You don't see a problem with your analysis?