The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.
Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.
Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.
No brainer, right? But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area. And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.
The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B. The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B. The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year. Are THOSE costs worth the money?
Of course, we all know the answer. The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."