1st Biennial Emergy Research Conference

Emergy Systems | Center for Environmental Policy | University of Florida
HOME
RESEARCH AGENDA
PUBLICATIONS
CONFERENCES
NEAD
RESOURCES
CONTACT
1st Biennial Emergy Research Conference

INTRODUCTION
CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
PHOTOS
Proceedings
Chapters from the Proceedings are available here as individual PDF files. A paperback book
version of the Proceedings is also available. Please contact us for purchasing information.
Emergy Synthesis: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology
PROCEEDINGS
1st Biennial Conference

September 1999
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
Contributors, Preface, Acknowledgments

1. Emergy Synthesis: An Introduction
M.T. Brown, S. Brandt-Williams, D. Tilley, and S. Ulgiati
2. Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy: diverging or converging approaches?
Sergio Ulgiati
3. The Transformity of Riverine Sediments in the Mississippi Delta
Jay Martin
Past Proceedings
4. Emternalitie - Theory and Assessment

Gonzague Pillet, David Maradan, Nicole Zingg, and Sherry Brandt-Williams
5. Emergy Analysis of the New Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline (Gasbol)
Maria Silvia Romitelli
6. Transformities and Exergetic Cost - A Discussion
J.T.V. Pereira and S.A. Nebra
7. Emergy Evaluation of Ecosystems: a basis for environmental decision making
Eliana Bardi and Mark T. Brown
8. Emergy Analysis of Tomato Production Systems
Charlotte Lagerberg
7th (2012)
6th (2010)
9. Sustainable Use of Potable Water in Florida: an Emergy Analysis of Water Supply and
Treatment Alternatives
Andres A. Buenfil
10. Simulating Emergy and Materials in Hierarchical Steps
Howard T. Odum
11. The Hierarchical Pattern of Energy Flow in Ecological-Economic Systems Representing
Three Geographic Scales
David R. Tilley and Mark T. Brown
12. Emergy Evalnations of Material Cycles and Recycle Options
Mark T. Brown and Vorasun Buranakarn
5th (2008)
4th (2006)
3rd (2004)
2nd (2001)
13. Toward a Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum Em-Power Principle

Corrado Giannantoni
14. Emergy Analysis of Channel Catfish Farming in Alabama - USA
E. Ortega, J.F. Queiroz, C.E. Boyd, and J.M.G. Ferraz
15. Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horticultural Production in Botucatu,
Sao Paulo State, Brazil
Vito Comar
16. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis of Wastewater Treatment Using Wetlands
Jae-Young Ko, Jay Martin, and John W. Day
17. Sweden Food System Analysis
Susanne Johansson, Steven Doherty, and Torbjrn Rydberg
18. Spatial Transformities for Alachua County, Florida
J. David Lambert
19. An Energy Hierarchy Law for Biogeochemical Cycles
Howard T. Odum
http://cep.ees.ufl.edu/emergy/conferences/ERC01_1999/proceedings.shtml[31.07.2013 21:23:09]
Emergy Systems | Center for Environmental Policy | University of Florida
20. Transformity and Potential Effect of Feedback in Human Dominated Systems - Using
Wastewater as an Example
Johanna Bjrklund
21. A Revised Solar Transformity for Tidal Energy Received by the Earth and Dissipated
Glohally: Implications for Emergy Analysis
Daniel E. Campbell
1st (1999)
22. Calculating Transformities with an Eigenvector Method

Dennis Collins and Howard T. Odum
23. Emergy Analysis and Trends for Ethanol Production in Brazil
C.R. Lanzotli, E. Ortega, and S.M.G. Guerra
24. Emergy Evaluation of the Environment and Economy of Nicaragua
Margarita Cuadra and Torbjrn Rydberg
25. Energy and Emergy Assessment of Municipal Waste Collection. A case study
Federico Luchi and Sergio Ulgiati
26. Sublimation
David M. Scienceman and Florence Ledoux
Index
Citation
Brown, M.T. 2001 (ed). Emergy Synthesis 1: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology. Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Emergy
Conference. Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville. 319 pages.
Return to top
2003-2013 Emergy Systems | Center for Environmental Policy | University of Florida

102 Phelps Lab | PO Box 116350 | Gainesville, FL 32611-6350
http://cep.ees.ufl.edu/emergy/conferences/ERC01_1999/proceedings.shtml[31.07.2013 21:23:09]
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:
Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology
Proceedings from the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference,

Gainesville, Florida, September, 1999.
Edited by
Mark T. Brown
University ofFlorida
Associate Editors
Sherry Brandt-Williams
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Naples, Florida
David Tilley
Texas A&M University

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000
The Center for Environmental Policy

Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
Gainesville, FL
iii

P.O. Box 116450
Gainesville, FL 32611-6450
Fax (352) 392-3076
ISBN: 0-9707325-0-3
Cover design by Sherry Brandt-Williams
Center for Environmental Policy
This book may be purchased for $15 from:

iv
CONTENTS
Contributors
vii
Preface
ix
Acknowledgements
1. Emergy Synthesis: An Introduction
M T Brown, S. Brandt-Williams, D. TIlley, and S. U1giati

2. Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy: diverging or converging
15
approaches?
Sergio U1gia/i
3. The Transformity of Riverine Sediments in the Mississippi Delta
33
JayMartin
4. Emternalitie. - Theory and Assessment
39
Gonzague Pillet, DavidMaradan, Nicole Zingg ,and

5. Emergy Analysis of the New Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline (Gasbol)
53
Maria Silvia Romitelli

6. Transformities and Exergetic Cost - A Discussion
7l
J. TV. Pereira and S.A. Nebra

7. Emergy Evaluation of Ecosystems: a basis for environmental
81
decision making
Eliana Bardi andMark T Brown

8. Emergy Analysis of Tomato Production Systems
101
Charlolle Lagerberg
9. Sustainable Use of Potable Water in Florida: an Emergy Analysis
107
of Water Supply and Treatment Alternatives.

Andres A. Buenjil
10. Simulating Emergy and Materials in Hierarchical Steps
II9
Howard T Odum
II. The Hierarchical Pattern of Energy Flow in Ecological-Economic
129
Systems Representing Three Geographic Scales

David R. TIlley and Mark T Brown
12. Emergy Evalnations of Material Cycles and Recycle Options
141
Mark. T Brown and Vorasun Buranakarn

13. Toward a Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum Em-Power
155
Principle
Corrado Giannantoni
14. Emergy Analysis of Channel Catfish Farming in Alabama - USA
E. Ortega, J.F. Queiroz, c.E. Boyd, and J.MG. Ferraz
17l
15. Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horticultural
181
Production in Botucatu, Sao Paulo State, Brazil

Vito Comar
16. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis of Wastewater Treatment
197
Using Wetlands
Jae-YoungKo. JayMarlin. and John W. Day
211
17. Sweden Food System Analysis

Susanne Johansson. Steven Doherty. and Torbjom Rydberg
18. Spatial 'fransformities for Alachua County, Florida
223
J. David Lambert
19. An Energy Hierarchy Law for Biogeochemical Cycles
235
Howard T. Odum
20. Transformity and Potential Effect of Feedback in Human
249
Dominated Systems - Using Wastewater as an Example

Johanna Bjorklund
21. A Revised Solar 'fransformity for Tidal Energy Received by the Earth
255
and Dissipated Glohally: Implications for Emergy Analysis.

Daniel E. Campbell
22. Calculating Transformities with an Eigenvector Method
265

23. Emergy Analysis and 'frends for Ethanol Production in Brazil
281
C. R Lanzotli, E. Ortega, and S. M G. Gue"a.

24. Emergy Evaluation of the Environment and Economy of Nicaragua
289
Margarita Cuadra and Torbjom Rydberg

25. Energy and Emergy Assessment of Municipal Waste Collection.
303
A case study.
Federico Luchi and Sergio Ulgiali
317
26. Sublimation
David M Scienceman and Florence Ledoux
vi
Contributors
ELIANABARDI, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Box 116350. University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, 32611-6450, USA [elianab@ufl.edu]
JOHANNA BJORKLUND, S w e d i s h Unive rsity of Agricultural Sciences, Department of
Ecology and Crop Production Science, PO Box 7043, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
[Johanna.Bjorklund@vo.slu.se]
C. E. BOYD, Food Engineering School, Unicamp, CP 6121, 13083-970 Carnpinas, SP, Brazil
SHERRY BRANDT-WILLIAMS, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Naples, Florida 34113-8059, USA
[slbw@gulfaccess.net]
MARK T. BROWN, Department o f Environmental Engineering Sciences, Box 116350
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA [ mtb@ufl.edu]
ANDRES A. BUENFIL, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA [abuenfil@grove.ufl.edu]
VORASUN BURANAKARN, Faculty of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, Wangrnai, Patumwan,
Bangkok 10330 Thailand [Vorasun.B@chula.ac.th]
DANIEL E. CAMPBELL, USEPA, National Health and Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, Rhode Island, 01879, USA
[carnpbell.dan@epamail. epa.gov]
DENNIS COLLINS, Department of Mathematics, University of Puerto Rico, Box 9018, Mayaguez, Puerto
Rico 00681
VITO COMAR, State University of Southern Mato Grosso - UEMS - Brazil, Rua Iguassu 1105,
Jardim Girassol, 79 831-070 Dourados-MS, Brazil [ vito@uems.brl
MARGARITA CUADRA, Universidad Nacional Agraria-UNA. Apdo. 453. Managua, Nicaragua. e-mail:
[Margarita.Cuadra@evp.slu.se]
JOHN W. DAY, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences and Coastal Ecology Institute,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
STEVEN DOHERTY, Center for Sustainable Agriculture (CUL) and Research School in Ecological
Land-use (RESELU), Box 7047, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden [steven.doherty@cul.slu.se]
JOSE M. G. FERRAZ, Food Engineering School, Unicarnp, CP 6121, 13083-970 Carnpinas, SP, Brazil
CORRADO GIANNANTONI, ENEA - "National Agency for New Technology, Energy and the
Environment", Energy Department - Research Centre of Casaccia, S. Maria di Galeria, 00060
Rome, Italy [giannantoni@casaccia.enea.it]
S. M. G. GUERRA, Unicarnp, Mechanical Engineering School, Unicarnp, CP 6121, 13083-970 Carnpinas,
SP, Brazil [sguerra@fem.unicamp.br]
SUSANNE JOHANSSON, Department of Ecology and Crop Production Science, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences, Box 7043, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden [Susanne.johansson@evp.slu.sel
vii
JAE-YOUNG KO, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences and Coastal Ecology Institute,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA (jyko@unix l .sncc.lsu.edu]
CHARLOT T E LAGERBERG, SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences),
Department of Horticulture, P.O. Box 55, S-230 53 A1narp, Sweden [Lotta.Lagerberg@tv.slu.se}
J. DAVID LAMBERT, PHD., Department of Urban andRegional P lanning, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, 32611, USA., (jlambert@unf.edu]
C. R., LANZOTTI, Unicamp, Mechanical Engineering School, Unicamp, CP 6121, 13083-970 Campinas,
SP, Brazil, [Ianzotti@fea.unicamp.br]
FLORENCE LEDOux, c/o Australian Rural Group, Ltd., P.O. Box 307, Bathurst, N.S.W., Australia,
2795; Fax: +61263 31 1513
FEDERICO LUCHI, Environmental P rotection Agency of the Tuscany Region - ARPAT,
Department of Siena (Italy). [vigiILsi@arpattoscana.it]
DAVID MARADAN, Ecosys , Inc., Applied Economics & Environmental Economics, CH 1227 Geneva,
Switzerland
JAY F. MARTIN, Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State
University. Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA [martin.1130@osu.edu]
S.A. NEBRA., State University of Campinas, Mechanical Engineering College, Energy Department P.O.
Box 6122, 13083-970, Campinas, and SP, Brazil, [sanebra@fem.unicamp.br]
HOWARD T. ODUM, Environmental Engineering Sciences, 424 Black Hall, Box 116450.
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611-6450, USA [htoeco@aol.com]
E. ORTEGA, Food Engineering School, Unicamp, CP 6121, 13083-970 Campinas, SP, Brazil,
[ortega@fea.unicamp.br ]
J. T. V P EREIRA., State University of Campinas, Mechanical Engineering College, Energy Department
P.O. Box 6122, 13083-970, Campinas, and SP, Brazil [tomaz@unicamp.br]
GONZAGUE PILLET, Ecosys , Inc., Applied Economics & Environmental Economics, CH 1227 Geneva,
Switzerland [ pillet@ecosys.com]
J. F. QUEIROZ, Food Engineering School, Unicamp, CP 6121, 13083-970 Campinas, Sp, Brazil
M. SILVIAROMITELLI, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado de Sao P aulo, Brazil, Rua Teixeira da
Silva, 66- apt. 3A., Sao Paulo,SP, Brazil- CEP-04002-030- [romit@uol.com.br ]
TORBJORN RYDBERG'Department of Ecology and Crop P roduction Science, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7043, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden,
[Torbjorn.Rydberg@evp.slu.se ]
DAVID M. SCIENCEMAN, c/o Australian Rural Group, Ltd., P.O. Box 307, Bathurst, N.S.W.,
Australia, 2795; Fax: +61 263 31 1513
DAVID R. TILLEY, Department of Environmental Engineering, Texas A&M University- Kingsville,
Kingsville, Texas, 78363, USA [tilley@tamuk.edu]
SERGIO ULGIATI, Department of Chemistry, University of Siena, Siena, Italy [ ulgiati@unisi.it}
NICOLE ZINGG, ECOSYs , Inc., Applied Economics & Environmental Economics, CH 1227
Geneva, Switzerland
viii
Preface
In the Summer of
1997, my good friend and colleague, Sergio Ulgiati and I were discussing how
we might catalyze increased communication between the loose community of friends, colleagues, and
associates who were very much interested in developments in emergy theory, but who were scattered
around the globe. We were aware that this group was applying emergy theory and concepts to interesting
policy and resource management questions throughout the world and many were developing new theoretical
wrinkles that would be of interest to the others. With the increased use of the "web" it was possible to
keep in touch, somewhat, but the web still was not the ideal solution. We came to the conclusion that
what was needed was a continuing series of biennial meetings that would bring together the "community
of scientists" interested in emergy to share thoughts, concepts, theories, and applications of the emergy
systems approach. We decided to hold the meeting in Gainesville, Florida on the University of Florida
campus, in odd years.
This volume of papers is the result of that discussion with Sergio. The first biennial Emergy
Conference was held in September 1999. Over fifty scientists attended, representing Brazil, Italy, Korea,
Mexico, Nicaragua, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States, and Venezuela. For two and one half days
we presented papers and discussed recent developments in a stimulating interchange of theory, principles,
and applications of emergy systems. We had hoped for and achieved a synergism as our colleagues from
around the globe presented their most recent and creative work. Each participant of the conference was
asked to prepare a presentation as well submit a paper for publication. Papers were peer reviewed and
authors revised them accordingly.
As the papers were reviewed and authors submitted their revisions I began to pull them together
into this volume. During the process of reading and rereading them the term "Emergy Synthesis" kept
coming to mind. David Scienceman, our Australian colleague, coined the phrase years ago suggesting
that the emergy systems approach was not analysis, as it did not dissect and breakdown into pieces, but
instead, combined the elements of systems to form coherent wholes. The application of the ernergy
methodology is not analysis ... it is synthesis.
So
I decided to title the series of proceedings that will
result from our biennial meetings "Emergy Synthesis: theory and applications of the emergy
methodology."
Part of the impetus behind the conference was to collect and publish a handbook of transformi ties.
During our discussions on the last day of the first conference, however, the participants suggested publishing
transformities as a series of Folios. The concept suggested was as follows: Someone who takes the initiative
to collect transformities previously calculated and/or calculate new ones within a particular theme would
edit a theme Folio. Folios would present transformities with documentation of the sources of data and
calculations. Transformities previously calculated would be presented with due credit and without change
except those requested by the original author. When received, a Folio would go to reviewers, then back
to the author for revision, and then back for publication.
A continuing series of Folios are to be issued. To date, two Folios have been published by the
Center for Environmental Policy under the title Handbook ofEmergy Evaluation. Folio #1: Introduction
and Global Budget introduces the series and provides the basis for global emergy budget.
Folio
#2:
Emergy of Global Processes presents calculations of transformities for global process of atmospheric,
geologic, and oceanic systems. The folios may be obtained from the Center for Environmental Policy,
Box
116450, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6450
Mark T. Brown
Gainesville, FL.
November,
ix
2000
AcknowledgemeJlts
The conference and these proceeding would not have been possible without the help and hard
work of many people.
The organizing committee; Sherry Brandt Williams, David Tilley and Sergio
Ulgiati, were absolutely essential, providing time, energy, ideas, and encouragement at every step of the
way. In addition, Sherry designed the conference poster and with some additional design work it now
graces the cover of this book. Eliana Bardi, was invaluable, single-handedly working to organize almost
everything ... brochures, conference rooms, lodging, transportation, food ... you name it and she organized
it. Students in our Systems Ecology Program at U of F, contributed much of their time and energy in
numerous ways. Carol Binello, my partner, undertook the enormous taskof formatting all these manuscripts
for printing, and did it!
I wish to thank the participants in our conference who brought to Gainesville a rich diversity of
efforts that has added, once again, to the information available to us all. And of course, I thank the
following reviewers of the papers in this volume, who devoted much time and energy to their reviews:
Ben Fusaro, Florida State University
Antonio Valero, University of Zaragoza, Spain
Brian Fath, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OR, USA
Antonio Liborio Philomena, Fund. Univ. of Rio Grande, Brazil
Enrico Sciubba, University of Roma "La Sapienza", Roma, Italy
Lotta Lagerberger, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, A1narp, Sweden
Vito Comar, State University of Southern Mato Grosso - UEMS - Brazil,
John Peel, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Kozo Mayumi, University of Tokushima, Japan
George Tsatsaronis, Technical University of Berlin
Howard T. Odum, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Dan Campbell, Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, USA
Murray Patterson, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Gonzague Pillet, Ecosys, Switzerland
Steven Doherty, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala, Sweden,
Torbjorn Rydberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala, Sweden
Linda Leigh, Drylands Institute, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Shu-Li Huang, National Chung-Hsing University, Taipei, Taiwan
Jay Martin, Ohio State University, Columbus, OR, USA
Guy McGrane, North Wilkesboro, NC, USA
David Pimentel, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
Marlo Giampietro, National Institute of Nutrition, Roma, Italy
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the long partnership (if I may be so bold) and the tremendous
intellectual atmosphere that it has been my privilege to experience for the past 27 or 28 years in Gainesville,
working with H. T. Odum. I know I speak for all the participants at this conference, and many others
when I say ... it continues to be an amazing journey. It is because of the hard work and intense intellectual
curiosity of H.T. Odum and his belief in self-organization that we gathered in Gainesville.
Mark T. Brown
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
1
Emergy Synthesis: An Introduction
Mark T. Brown, Sherry Brandt-Williams, David Tilley, and Sergio Ulgiafi
Synthesis is the act of combining elements into coherent wholes. Emergy synthesis is a
"top-down" approach to quantitative policy decision making and evaluation. Rather than dissect and
break apart systems and build understanding from the pieces upward, emergy synthesis strives for
understanding by grasping the wholeness of systems. Emergy is a systems concept, and cannot be fully
understood or utilized outside of systems. Emergy is context driven and has been described as the memory
of energy used in the past to make something (Scienceman, 1987). Put another way, emergy is the amount
of energy of a single type consumed, either directly or indirectly, to make another form of energy, a
product, or a service. By evaluating complex systems using emergy methods, the major inputs from the
human economy and those coming "free" from the environment can be integrated to analyze questions of
public policy and environmental management holistically. A full explanation of concepts, principles and
applications of emergy can be found in "Environmental Accounting" by H. T. Odum (1996).
In this volume twenty-five papers are presented that resulted from the First Biennial Emergy
conference held in Gainesville, Florida in September 1999. The papers span the interests of the
twenty-five scientists who presented them representing both theory and applications of the emergy
methodology. Together, they form an interesting blend of theory and application, and while few papers
are seldom wholly theoretical or applied, these twenty-five papers are split almost equally between
subjects that stress theoretical aspects and those that stress applications.
In the following sections of this Introduction, we summarize the general conceptual and
theoretical basis of the emergy methodology, describe the general methodology for conducting an emergy
evaluation, and finally summarize how evaluations are applied to policy and environmental management
decision making.
Emergy Theory
The theoretical and conceptual basis for the emergy methodology is grounded in thermo
dynamics and general system theory. Evolution of the theory during the past thirty years was
documented by H.T Odum in Environmental AccQunting (1996) and in the volume edited by C.A.S. Hall
titled Maximum Power (Odum, 1995). A critical central concept that has occupied emergy theory during
its evolution has been the concept of energy quality. To understand energy quality, we build a case for it
by first defining energy.
Energy has been defined as the ability to do work, based on the physical principle that work
requires energy input. Energy is measured in units of heat, or molecular motion... the degree of motion
resulting in expansion and quantified in calories or Joules.
Heat energy is a good measure of the ability to raise water temperature. However, it is not a good
measure of more complex work processes. Processes outside of the window defined by heat engine
technology, do not use energies that lend themselves to thermodynamic heat transfers. As a result,
converting all energies of the biosphere to their heat equivalents reduces all work process of the bio
sphere to heat engines. Different forms of energy have different abilities to do work, and it is necessary to
account for these different abilities if energies are to be evaluated correctly. A Joule of sunlight is not the
-1-
Chapter 1. Introduction
same as a Joule of fossil fuel, or a Joule of food, unless it is being used to power a steam engine. A system
organized to use concentrated energies like fossil fuels cannot process a more dilute energy form like
sunlight. Evaluation of energy sources is system dependent. The processes of the biosphere are infinitely
varied and are more than just thermodynamic heat engines. As a result, the use of heat measures of energy
that can only recognize one aspect of energy, its ability to raise the temperature of things, cannot
adequately quantify the work potential of energies used in more complex processes of the biosphere. As
in thermodynamic systems where energies are converted to heat to express their relative values, in the
larger biosphere, as a whole, energies should be converted to units that span this greater realm. In this
way multiple levels of system processes other than heat engine technology, ranging from the smallest
scale to the largest scales of the biosphere, can be accounted for.
Emergy And Transformity

Emergy accounts for, and in effect measures quality differences between forms of energy. Emergy
is an expression of all the energy used in the work processes that generate a product or service in units of
one type of energy. By definition, emergy is the amount of energy of one form (usually solar) that is
required, directly or indirectly, to provide a given flow or storage of energy or matter. The ratio of emergy
required to make a product to the energy of the product is called transformity. Solar emergy is expressed
in solar emergy joules (sej, solar emjoules), while solar transformity is expressed in solar emergy joules
per Joule of output flow (sej/l). Figure
1 illustrates how emergy is assigned to an output flow, and how
the transformity of an output flow is calculated. The simple process has three energy inputs whose
transformities are known from previous calculations. Therefore the emergy of each input is its energy
multiplied by its transformity. The total emergy of the output is the sum of the emergy inputs, and the
transformity of the output is its emergy divided by its energy.
The transformity of solar radiation is assumed equal to one
(1). Transformities of the main
natural flows in the biosphere (wind, rain, ocean currents, geological cycles, etc) are calculated as the
ratio of total emergy driving the biosphere as a whole to the actual energy of the flow under consideration
(Odum,
1996, 2000).
Output
'-_......1 Transformation
Process
Energy in - Energy out...(E, +EZ+E3

Solar emergy output
El"Tr,
Solar transformity of output
Ecf+EO>
+ E2*Tr2
+ E3*Tr3
Solar mncrgy of outPUt

Energy of output
Figure 1. Aggregated diagram ofa transformation process where low quality energy (El) is upgraded to a higher
quality energy (EO), requiring the input of two other energy sources (E2 andE3).
The total emergy driving a process becomes a measure of the self-organization activity of the
surrounding environment, that is converged to make that process possible. It is a measure of the
environmental work (in both the present and past) necessary to provide a given resource, be it the present
oxygen stock in the atmosphere or the present stock of gold or oil deep in the planet.
Maximum Empower
Lotka (1922a and 1922b), following Boltzman (1886) enunciated a fundamental organizing
principle of all systems in the maximum power principle. He stated" ...that in the struggle for existence,
the advantage must go to those organisms whose energy-capturing devices are most efficient in directing
available energy into channels favorable to the preservation of the species." Further he stated" ...natural
selection tends to make the energy flux through the system a maximum, so far as compatible with
constraints to which the system is subjected."
Latka suggested power maximization as a
4 Law of
Thermodynamics as has Odum (1996). While, power maximization might be a measure of fitness. it may
suggest maximizing flows through self-organizing process at low transformity scales where the
energy flow is greatest. Restated using emergy, Latka's maximum power principle becomes the
maximum empower principle and suggests maximizing useful work at all scales:
Maximum
Empower principle
At all scales, systems prevail through system
organization that first, develop the most useful work with inflowing emergy
sources by reinforcing productive processes and overcoming limitations and
second by increasing the efficiency of useful work.
Maximizing useful work at all scales, at the same time, is required to maximize the combined
economy of humans and environment. Useful work means utilizing inflowing emergy in reinforcement
actions that ensure and, if possible, increase inflowing emergy. Processes that dissipate energy without
Reinforcing feedback
or "autocatalyic loop"
Storage of high
quality energy
Figure 2. Diagram illustrating maximum empower. Injlowing energy is upgraded and used in reinforcement
actions to ensure, and when possible, increase injlowing energy.
-3-
useful contribution to increasing inflowing emergy are not reinforcing, and thus cannot compete with
systems that use inflowing emergy in self-reinforcing ways. Figure 2 illustrates an extremely aggregated
system and the self-reinforcing feedback (autocatalytic loop) that increases inflowing energy.
Energy Flows Generate Hierarchies
Geologic processes, atmospheric systems, ecosystems, and societies are interconnected through
a series of energy transformations... each receiving energy and materials from the other, returning same,
and acting through feedback mechanisms to self-organize the whole in a grand interplay of space, time,
energy and information. Processes of energy transformation throughout the biosphere build order,
degrade energy in the process, and cycle materials and information in networks of hierarchically
organized systems of ever increasing spatial and temporal scales.
When the actions of a large number of units of one type contribute to forming a few of another,
a hierarchical relationship results. Convergence of energy in steps of transformations results in energy
hierarchies. With each transformation many joules of energy of one kind loses its availability (potential,
or ability to drive further processes) to produce fewer joules of another kind. This is a consequence of the
2" Law of Thermodynamics. Since there is energy in everything including information and since there
are energy transformations in all processes on earth and possibly in the universe as well, all energy
processes can be regarded as part of an energy hierarchy. Using a broad definition of work as an energy
transformation, then a series of successive work processes (a series of energy transformations) generates
an energy hierarchy.
Hierarchies result from organizational structure of systems where energy transformation
processes organized as webs converge and concentrate energies into fewer and fewer components at
higher levels in the web. Web can be aggregated to chains of transformations where many small scale
processes contribute to fewer and fewer larger scale processes (Figure 3). Familiar examples of energy
transformation series are: streams and rivers converging in a watershed, the convergence of energy in
food chains, road networks, or cities distributed in landscapes according to Central Place Theory
(Christaller,1966; Losch, 1954) . Convergence of energy through a series of energy transformations
yields a final product which carries less energy than invested to start the chain, due to the entropic
degradation. However, the higher position of the item in the energy hierarchy makes it more valuable, as
a large convergence of resources was required to support the process. We may say that the final product
has a higher quality than initial products. Odum has suggested the energy hierarchy as a 5" Law of
Thermodynamics (Odum 1996)
METHODSOFEMERGYACCOUNTffiG
Emergy Basis of Value
Emergy accounting (Odum, 1996) uses the thermodynamic basis of all forms of energy and
materials, but converts them into equivalents of one form of energy, usually sunlight. Emergy is the
amount of energy that is required to make something. The units of emergy are emjoules, to distinguish
them from JOUles. Most often emergy of fuels, materials, services etc. is expressed in solar emjoules
(abbreviated sej). Emergy then, is a measure of the global processes required to produce something
expressed in units of the same energy form. The more work done to produce something, that is the more
energy transformed, the higher the emergy content of that which is produced.
To derive solar ernergy of a resource or commodity, it is necessary to trace back through all the
resources and energy that are used to produce it and express each in the amount ofsolar energy that went into
their production. This has been done for a wide variety of resources and commodities and the renewable
energies driving the biogeochemical process of the earth (Odwn, 1996,2000). When expressed as a ratio of
the total ernergy used to the energy of the product, a transformation coefficient results (called transformity
whose dimensions are sej/J). As its name implies, the transformity can be used to "transform" a given energy
-4-
Hierarchical Levels
II
..
I
I
"I
I
.) I
I Processes I
I
I
Decreasing energy
Increasing transforrnity
-i
..
..
------
Figure 3. Systems are organized in webs of energy transformations that are hierarchical in organization.
Transformation webs can be aggregated into transformation chains where energy flows decrease with each
transformation step (a consequence a/the 2nd Law) and transformtty increases.
into emergy, by multiplying the energy by the transformity. Ratios of emergy per mass (sej/g) are also
calculated for materials. For convenience, in order not to have to calculate the emergy in resources and
commodities every time a process is evaluated, previously calculated transformities are often used.
[Definitions of terms used in emergy accounting can be found at the end of this chapter as an Appendix]
Emergy measures value of both energy and material resources within a common framework.
Transformities provide a quality factor as they account for convergence of biosphere processes required
to produce something. Embodied in the emergy value are the services provided by the environment
which are free and outside the monied economy. By accounting for quality and free environmental
services, resources are not valued by their money cost or society's willingness to pay, which are often
very misleading.
Emergy Accounting and Emergy Based Indicators

The general methodology for emergy analysis has been explained in detail by Odum in
Environmental Accounting (Odum,
1996). Emergy accounting is organized as a top down approach
where first a system diagram of a process or system under consideration is drawn to organize evaluations
and account for all inputs and outflows. Papers in this volume use the systems symbols given in Figure 4
-5-
>
Energy circuit: A pathway' whose flow is proportional to the quantity in the

storage or source upstream (see equatIon gIven WIth tank).
Source: Outside source of energy delivering forces according to a program
controlled from outside; a forcing function, ego the sun or electricity.
Storage: A storajle of energy or material within the sy-stem tracking a uanti1l: as
the balance of intTows and outflows; a state variable; dQIIdt X - kl*Q1 - k2 QI.
=
Heat sink' .Dispersion of potential energy into heat tbat accompanies all real
transfonnatIon processes and storages;
Interaction: Interactive intersection of two pathways coupled tOjJroduce an

outflow in proportion ) to a function of both (QI and Q2); the tIrst intersection
represents the tenn k* I*Q2, ego the limiting mteraction of light and phosphorus
on the growth of a plan ;
Q
Q2
.
"'
the seond intersection represents k*(Q2IQI), ego the drain on a population created
by toXIC substances
Consumer: Unit Il1at transfQnns energy q!l8lity, stores it, and feeds it back
autocatalyttcally to Improve Inflow, ego a lIon or a CIty.
Producer: Unit that collects and transfonns low-quality energy under control
interactions of high-quality flows, ego a vascular pfant or a forest.
Box: Miscellaneous sy'mbol to use for wbatever unit or function is labeled without
showing all the internal processes, ego an industrial process.
Transaction: A unit that indicates a sale of goods or services (solid line) in

exchange for payment of money (dashed line). Price is shown as an external
source.
Figure 4. An abridged list ofsymbols and definitions ofthe energy systems language (Odum, 1994).
-6-
for diagramming, but other diagramming languages can be used. The purpose of the system diagram is to
conduct a critical inventory of processes, storages and flows that are important to the system under
consideration and are therefore necessary to evaluate.
Tables of the actual flows of materials, labor and energy are constructed from the diagram. Raw
data on flows and storage reserves are converted into emergy units, and then added up into a total emergy
flow to the system. Inputs that come from the same source are not added, to avoid double counting. Only
the larger input is accounted for. If the table is for the evaluation of a process, it represents flows per unit
time (usually per year). If the table is for the evaluation of reserve storages, it includes those storages with
a turnover time longer than a year.
Evaluation tables are usually constructed in the same format, as given by the column headings
and format below:
1
Note
2
Item
3
Data
4
Units
5
EmergylUnit
(sej/unit)
6
Solar Emergy
(E+15 sej/yi')
7
em$ Value'
(1998 em$/yr)
1.
First item
xx.x
J/yr
xxx.x
xxx.x
XXX.x
2.
Second item
xx.x
glyr
xxx.x
xxx.x
XXX.x
n.
nth item
xx.x
$/yr
xxx.x
xxx.x
xxx.X
Column #1 is the line item number, which is also the number of the footnote found below the table where
raw data sources are cited and calculations are shown.
Column # 2 is the name of the item, which is also shown on the aggregated diagram.
Column # 3 is the raw data in joules, grams, dollars or other units. The units for each raw data item are
.
shown in column #4 .
Column # 5 is the transformity used for calculations, expressed in solar emergy joules per Joule. Some
times, inputs are expressed in grams, hours, dollars, therefore an appropriate conversion ratio is
used (sejlbr; sej/g; sej/$). Transformities may be obtained from previous studies or calculated
for the system under investigation. If transformities from other authors are used, source refer
ence should be shown in footnotes.
Column # 6 is the solar emergy of a given flow, calculated as raw input times the transformity (Column
3 times Column 5).

Column # 7 is the "emdollar value" of a given item for a given year. This is obtained by dividing the
emergy in Column
# 6 by the "emergy-to-GDP ratio" for the country and selected year of the
evaluation (units are sej/$). The emergy/GDP ratio is calculated independently. The value in
this column expresses the amount of economic activity that can be supported by a given emergy
flow or storage.
The final step of an emergy evaluation involves interpreting the quantitative results. In some
cases, the evaluation is done to determine fitness of a development proposal, in others it may
be a
question of comparing different alternatives. The evaluation may be seeking the best use of resources to
maximize economic vitality. So the final step in the evaluation is to calculate several emergy indices that
relate emergy flows of the economy with those of the environment, and allow the prediction of economic
viability, carrying capacity or fitness. Additionally, using the results of the emergy analysis tables, com
parisons between the emergy costs and benefits of proposed developments as well as insights related to
the sustainable use of resources can be made. Definitions of concepts used in this book are given in the
Appendix to this chapter.
-7-
When comparisons are made following an emergy analysis, it is sometimes easier to express the
emergy in more familiar terms. So emergy is converted to dollars of buying power, based on a average
ratio of emergy per dollar of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the local economy. The emergy dollar
ratio (sej/$) is calculated for a given economy in a given year by dividing the total emergy use in the
economy by the GDP for that year. It is a measure of buying power, in essence it quantifies the average
amount of emergy that circulates in the economy for every dollar that circulates. Emergy is converted to
"emdollars' (the term used to describe emergy buying power) by dividing emergy of a product or process
by the emergy dollar ratio. The abbreviation for emdollars is em$ to distinguish them from currency
dollars.
Emergy and Environmental Decision Making
All decisions are environmental decisions. Every policy decision made has environmental
consequences, some larger than others, but environmental consequences none the less. Since all actions
of humans are within an environmental bubble, so to speak, and all actions require some form of resource
input, which leads to a waste output, the action has environmental consequences. Consequences that
result from the input of resources from the environment include how the environment will be affected as
a result of extracting and using resources. Consequences on the output side include how the environment
will be affected by the wastes that are generated as a result of some activity.
Increasingly those interested in conservation and management of the biosphere'S ecosystems
are recognizing that the human use of resources and the human development of landscapes are driving
forces behind the need for conservation and management. Issues of wise use revolve around balancing
human needs with ecological realities. Sustainability, the new buzz word for carrying capacity, is another
way of approaching the same old problem ... how to balance human needs on the one hand, ecological
needs on the other and ultimately the interaction of both now and in the future. Human systems are not
sustainable if the result of extracting resources for one use, is the loss of ecological systems that provide
resources for another use ...or if the result of development in one area causes greater losses of ecological
productivity and ultimately economic vitality in another area.
Decisions regarding resource conservation and environmental management often become a
questi on of trade-offs, for instance, trade-offs between human needs for resources and the loss of
ecological functions that may result. In the best of all worlds, the decision is made based on criteria
concerning perceived benefits and impacts. However, even in the best of circumstances, benefits and
impacts often do not have equally definable or measurable criteria. On the one hand there are the human
needs measured in jobs, food that can be produced, or economic activity that may result. On the other
hand there are ecosystem losses, measurable in grams carbon of primary production, diversity of animals
present, or ecological functions that are supported.
Clearly, if this wider perspective in resource conservation and management is going to work
there is a need for methods of evaluation that can bridge across the divide between human needs and
values and ecosystem requirements. The emergy evaluation technique bridges this divide.
By evaluating policy and management questions using emergy methods, the major inputs from
the human economy and those coming "free" from the environment can be integrated to analyze
problems holistically. We call this evaluation technique "emergy synthesis" rather than emergy analysis
since it is an integration or amalgamation. Emergy synthesis is a tool that can complement traditional
cost-benefit analysis to make more integrated resource management decisions. The values obtained
using emergy accounting are independent of human preferences and do not rely on artificial markets or
shadow pricing.
Evaluating Environmental Contributions
The systems diagram of an economic use interface in Figure 5 shows non-renewable
environmental contributions (N) as an emergy storage of materials, renewable environmental inputs (R),
and inputs from the economy as purchased (F) goods and services. Purchased inputs are needed for the
-8-
Chapter I. Introduction
Purchased Resources
Services
Economic
Use
Yield
Degraded energy
Yield (Y) R+N+F
%Renew R/(R+N+F)
Nonrenewable to Renewable Ratio = (N+F)/R
Emergy Yield Ratio
YIF
Emergy Investment Ratio
F/(R+N)
Environmental Loading Ratio
(F+N)/R
=
Figure 5. Simplified diagram ofan economic sector showing non-renewable environmental contributions (N) as an
emergy storage a/materials, renewable environmental inputs (R). and inputsfrom the economy as purchased goods
and seNices (F). Ratios and emergy indices are defined using theflows ofrenewable, non-renewable, and purchased
emergy.
process to take place and include human service and purchased non-renewable energy and material brought
in from elsewhere (fuels, minerals, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, etc). Environmental inputs (R and N)
are things like water or topsoil and are evaluated as the amount of emergy required to make them.
Environmental inputs often have high emergy values because of the time required to make them (it can
take hundreds of years to make I em of topsoil, for instance), or the very large area required for
convergence of environmental services to provide them (water in a reservoir, for instance).
There are other environmental services provided by the environment in absorbing and recycling
by-products and are of fundamental importance to a sustainable production pattern. When the free work
of the environment in absorbing wastes is overloaded, it must be replaced with technology. Recycle of
by-products requires that they "fit" the patterns and organization of the environment, making production
processes time and location dependent. When the support area of a process is taken into account, wastes
and by-products can be absorbed and recycled by the environment within the material cycles that are
driven by solar energy.
Evaluating Net Emergy Benefits

Investments in activities should lead to net benefit. The concept of net emergy benefit is that
any investment or development action, when considered holistically, should lead to more emergy flow in
the economy and environment than the "costs". Emergy evaluations done for proposed development
actions whether the development of an extractive use of the environment, new urban structure, or waste
disposal account for the emergy used in the process, the emergy values of environment "lost" as a result
of the project, and finally the emergy gained by the economy as a result of the project. Figure 5 is a much
aggregated systems diagram of an economic use interface between the environment and economy. The
flows of money, environmental contributions, and emergy investment from the economy are shown, as
well as the environmental losses resulting from the economic use. A main evaluation tool to determine
net benefit, is the Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) described in Figure 5 as the total emergy contributed
divided by the feedback from the economy.
-9-
Evaluating Carrying Capacity
The concept of carrying capacity relates resource use to environmental support. To sustain a
carrying capacity for a population or an economic development requires that there is a balance between
the supply of resources and the impacts sustained as a result of that supply. The population size or
development intensity that can be sustained results from a balance between the use of environment as a
source of resources and its use as a sink for wastes. It is true of all economic development that there is a
carrying capacity, beyond which further development causes declines in resource availability and
environmental integrity. The scale or intensity of development in relation to its environment may be
critical in predicting its effect and ultimately its sustainability. Large-scale developments can be
integrated into the environment if there is sufficient regional support area to balance its effect. As the
intensity of development increases (and therefore its consumption of resources and environmental
impacts increase), the area of natural undeveloped environment required for its support must increase.
Ultimately, carrying capacity is related to the ability of a local environment to provide necessary
resources for a population or economic endeavor on a renewable basis since non-renewable energy by its
very definition cannot be depended on in the long term. In emergy terms, the long term carrying capacity
of an area is limited by the flux of renewable emergy that is characteristic of that area. One might term
this" renewable carrying capacity", since it relies on an environment's ability to support economic
development based solely on its renewable emergy sources. In many respects renewable carrying
capacity is an unrealistic number, since all economic developments by their very nature require
non-renewable emergy and match that emergy with renewable resource base to extract a net yield.
However, the renewable carrying capacity provides a benchmark that might be used to establish a lower
limit to the carrying capacity of a region.
Renewable carrying capacity is calculated using the average renewable emergy inputs to a
region and determining how much area is required to supply the total emergy requirements of a
popUlation. Since renewable emergy sources are aerial based, carrying capacity becomes an aerial
measurement. The same techniques are applied to any economic development once emergy requirements
for the development are known.
They are expressed in equivalent renewable emergy and then the
required support area is calculated. The renewable carrying capacity calculated in this way may be a
predictor of long run sustainability.
A second approach to carrying capacity is related to the "fitness" of development within a local
"eco-economic system" (the local system is composed of both a human dominated economy and an
environment that supports that economy). This second approach is based on the intensity of development,
which we call "environmental loading." The scale or intensity of development is used and related to
existing conditions under the theory that if a development's intensity is much greater than that which is
characteristic of the surrounding region, on average, the development has greater capacity to alter
existing social, economic, and ecologic patterns. Ifit is similar in intensity it is more easily integrated into
existing patterns. This second method of evaluating carrying capacity uses a ratio of non-renewable
emergy to renewable emergy, called an Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) and provides an upper limit
to carrying capacity.
The two approaches combined, provide upper and lower bounds to carrying capacity. In the first
case, the renewable emergy carrying capacity assumes that all resources sustaining an economic
endeavor must come from the local renewable resource base. The second case suggests that to remain
competitive, development should maintain a similar intensity as the average environmental loading ratio
of the local environment under current conditions.
Evaluating Development Alternatives

Often policy decisions require a choice between more than one development alternative. Under
such circumstances, emergy evaluation provides quantitative measures for decision making. Three
principles are used in judging fitness, sustainability and economic vitality between alternatives:
-10-
Chapter i. introduction
(I) When alternative investments are compared, which contributes the most emergy value to the public
economy? (2) Which alternative's emergy intensity nearly matches that of the local economy. (3) Which
alternative maximizes use of renewable sources and minimizes "load" on the environment. Several
indices are calculated from the emergy evaluations that are used to judge sustainability and fitness, they
are: Empower Density (ED), Percent Renewable (%Ren), and the Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR).
Several other indices help in gairting perspective about alternatives and are necessary complements to the
above ratios. They are: Solar Transformity, Emergy I GDP Ratio, Emergy Investment Ratio, Emergy Per
capita, Emergy Exchange Ratio, Emergy Yield Ratio, and Emergy Sustainability Index. All of these
indices are listed and defined in the Appendix to this chapter.
CONCLUDING REMARKS: EMERGY SYNTHESIS

The papers in this volume provide information valuable for the next step in evolution of emergy
synthesis. Some of the papers provide examples of comparative assessments with resource policy
recommendations. Others develop and discuss new theoretical concepts. All of them apply their emergy
perspectives toward a better understanding of the integration of humans in their environment. This
collection of papers covers a wide range of subjects: evaluations of agriculture, the life cycle of building
materials; evaluations of natural resource distribution and the work of natural systems at several different
scales; mathematical emergy constructs and comparisons between emergy and exergy; incorporating
emergy into traditional economic evaluations and Freudian psychological profiles; and a proposed 6
Law of Thermodynamics. The following list provides a very aggregated subject index of the papers in
this volume presented in the order they appear in the text.
Energy Emer.gy and Embodied Exergy' diverging or converging approaches?, emphasizes clearer
statement of its thermodynamic basis for the emergy methodology, and suggests integration with
other forms of biophysical analysis
Ih.c..Transformity .of..Rjyerine Sedjments iaMississippj Iltl.ta, presents an emergy per mass
calculation as a first step in evaluating river diversion scenarios
Emtemalitie. - Tbeoty arulAssessment proposes the use of emergy to place a value on the
environmental inputs not included in commercial agricultural markets
Emergy Analysis oftbe NewBoljvjaMBrazjl Gas Pipeline uses emergy yield ratios to evaluate project
feasibility of a gas pipeline
Transformitjes and Exergetjc Cost - A Discussion examines similarities and dissimilarities between
energy, exergy and emergy methodologies
Emergy Evaluation .of..Ecosystems a...ha..si..s..-ioLenvjroomentaJ decision makjng uses emergy
evaluation to value ecosystems and their structure and environmental services
Emergy Analysis ofTomato production Systems, compares different heating and fertilizer strategies
in Sweden's conventional and organic production of tomatoes
Sustainable IJse nfPotable Water in Florida" an Emecgy Analysis of Water Supply and Treatment
Alternatives evaluates, using emergy, alternatives for supplying freshwater to areas with a limited
supply and calculates several'transformities for water
Simulating Emergy arulMaterials in.Hierarchical , uses computer simulations of key
parameters in determining organizational hierarchy to allow synthesis of multiple concepts in the
evaluation of a system
.Ih.e.-Hierarcbjcal pattern of..Energy EloPl..EcoIQgica1-EconQmjc Systems Representing llu:e.e.
Geographic SI:aJ.i:s, proposes the use of power and empower spectra (energy and emergy as a
function of transformity) to assess ecological-economic systems
Emergy Evalyations of.Material Cycles arulRecycle Options, used emergy to evaluate the
comparative advantages of recycling and adaptive reuse of major construction materials
-11-
Chapter i. introduction
Toward a..,Matbe matical Formuiation....o.f.

.
.tltt...Maxjmutn Em-power principle, presents a
mathe-matical definition for emergy and formulates a mathematical foundation for the Maximum
Empower Principle
Eme(gy Analysis of Channel Catfish Farming in Alabama, l! S., uses emergy to compare Alabama
aquiculture to conventional animal meat production systems
Emer,gy EyaJ118tjous of Organic and Conyentional Horticultural Productjon jn Botucatu Sao Paulo
S1ate...Brnil, illustrates the value of emergy in evaluating different agricultural production
techniques
Embodied Energy and Eroeri)' Analysis ofWastewater Treatment IIsing Wetlands, compares the use
of wetlands to conventional treatment for wastewater using three different methods of accounting
emergy, cost-benefit and embodied energy
Sweden Food Systems Analysis, evaluates the resource basis of the Swedish food system including
farm production, processing, distribution and consumption to quantify investments, environmental
support and environmental loading.
Spatial Iransformities for Alachua County Florida, uses a GIS and spatial analysis techniques to
assign emergy and transformities to landscape
An EneQIY Hierarchy Law for Biogeochemical Cycles, proposes a sixth energy law - a principle
of material hierarchy
Transformity and Potential Effect ofFeedhack in Human Dominated Systems !IsingWastewater as
discusses the dilemma of calculating transformities in systems that may not be operat
ing at maximum efficiency
an Example
A.Reyjsed So.Iar.Iransfonuity fuL1ldal.Energy Received b.\Lthe..Eanh..and.Dissipated Globally'

Implications for EmeQIY Analysis presents a revised tidal energy transformity with values for use in
two different time scales of evaluation
Calculating Iransfonnities with an Eigenyector Method illustrates the usefulness of matrix algebra
in quickly calculating transformities from sets of emergy equations generated in a systems diagram
method
Emergy Analysis and Trends for Ethanol Production in Brazil presents several indices for ethanol
production as a basis for assessing fuel market trends
Emerg)' Eyahlation ot:.ths:LEnyironment aruLEconomy of..Nicaragua examines the economy and
environment of Nicaragua and compares it with other nations
Energy and Emergy Assessment of Municipal Waste Collection A Case Smdy uses a joint mass!
energy/emergy approach to evaluate municipal waste collection in Siena,Italy
Sublimation diagrams Sigmund Freud's theories of sublimation, culture and personality using
energy systems language
Emergy synthesis is the step beyond analysis. By evaluating the emergy basis for systems and
their processes, products, and services, components essential to more complete evaluations are included.
The services and natural capital of the environment are included along with purchased materials, energy
and human services. The values of environmental components can be compared to values generated from
economic exchanges. Policy decisions now take on a more holistic perspective with the more complete
information that is afforded when both the products and services of the human sector are given equal
weight with the services and capital of nature. More informed decisions are possible when both
environmental and social system tradeoffs are understood and quantified.
In all, emergy synthesis generates a deeper understanding of how one might apply principles of
self-organization and maximum power at every scale in the hierarchy of the universe.
The publication oflhis first proceedings represents the conclusion of the first conference and a
lead-in to an even stronger, more ambitious second conference.
-12-
BmLIOGRAPHY
Boltzman,L. 1886. The second law of thermodynamics. Address in English to Imperial Academy of
Science in 1886. Populare Schriften. Essay 3: Selected Writings ofL. Boltzman. D. Reidel,
Dordrecht, Holland
Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 1997. Emergy Based Indices and Ratios to Evaluate Sustainability:
Monitoring technology and economies toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecological
Engineering 9: 5 1-69
Brown, M.T. and S. illgiati.1999. Emergy evaluation of natural capital and biosphere services. AMBIO.
Vol.28 No.6, Sept. 1999
Christallar, W 1996. Central Places in southern Germany. (trans. By G.C.W Baskin) Prentice Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Losch, A. 1954. The economies ofLocation (Trans by U. Waglom and WF. Stalpor) Yale Univ. Press,
New Haven CT.
Lotka A.J., 1922a. Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, U.S., 8,147-150.
Lotka A.J., 1922b. Natural selection as a Physical Principle. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 8, 151-155.
Odum, HT. 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Odum, HT. 1995 . Energy Systems and the Unification of Science. In CAS Hall (ed)Maximum Pawer.
University of Colorado Press.. Niwot, CO. pp365-372
Scienceman, D. 1987. Energy and emergy. in Pillet, G. and T. Murota (eds.) Environmental
Economics-The Analysis of a Major Interface. Geneva, Switzerland: Roland,Leimgruber.
pp. 257-276.
Ulgiati, S. and M.T. Brown. 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made
ecosystems. EcologicalModeling Vol. 108, Nos.1-3, 1 May 1998.
illgiati, S., M.T. Brown, S. Bastianoni, and N. Marchettini, 1996. Emergy Based Indices and Ratios to
Evaluate Sustainable Use of Resources. Ecological Engineering 5 pp497-517.
illgiati, S., HT. Odum, and S. Bastianoni, 1994. Emergy Use, EnvironmentalLoading and Sustainability.
An Emergy Analysis ofitaly. EcologicalModeling, 73: 215-268.
APPENDIX: Definitions of terms used in emergy evaluations
et
Further discussion and definitions can be found in Odum, 1996; Brown and illgiati, 1997; illgiati
al. 1995
Definitions
Energy Sometimes referred to as the ability to do work. Energy is a property of all things which
can be turned into heat and is measured in heat units (BTUs, calories, or joules)
Emergy An expression of all the energy used in the work processes that generate a product or
service in units of one type of energy. Solar emergy of a product is the emergy of the product expressed
in equivalent solar energy required to generate it. Sometimes its convenient to think of emergy as energy
memory.
-13-
Emjoule. The unit of measure of emergy. "emergy joule." It is expressed in the units of energy
previously used to generate the product; for instance the solar emergy of wood is expressed as joules of
solar energy that were required to produce the wood.
Empower An expression of emergy per unit time. Analogous to power, where the units are the
flow of energy per time. Empower is a measure of the emergy used in a process per unit time.
Non-renewable Emecgy The emergy of energy and material storages like fossil fuels, mineral
ores, and soils that are consumed at rates that far exceed the rates at which they are produced by geologic
processes.
Renewable Emecgy The emergy of energy flows of the biosphere that are more or less constant
and reoccurring, and that ultimately drive the biological and chemical processes of the earth and
contribute to geologic processes.
Resident Emergy (or local emecgy). The renewable emergy flows that are characteristic of a
region such as sunlight, winds, rain, and tidal flux.
Indices
Emecgy I money ratio (Bmew I GDP ratio). The ratio of total emergy use in the economy of a
region or nation to the GOP of the region or nation. The emergy / GOP ratio is a relative measure of
purchasing power when the ratios of two or more nations or regions are compared.
Empower density The ratio of total emergy use in the economy of a region or nation to the total
area of the region or nation. Renewable and nonrenewable empower density are also calculated
separately by dividing the total renewable empower by area and the total nonrenewable empower by
area, respectively.
Emew exchange ratio The ratio of emergy exchanged in a trade or purchase (what is received
to what is given). The ratio is always expressed relative to one or the other trading partners and is a
measure of the relative trade advantage of one partner over the other.
Emergy Investment ratio The ratio of emergy fed back from outside a system to the indigenous
emergy inputs (both renewable and non-renewable). It evaluates if a process is a good user of the
emergy that is invested. in comparison with a1tematives.
Enyironmental loading ra.1i.o.. The ratio of nonrenewable and imported emergy use to
renewabl e emergy use
Emecgy per capita The ratio of total emergy use in the economy of a region or nation to the total
population. Emergy per capita can be used as a measure of potential, average standard of living of the
population.
Emeril)' Sustainabjlity .lndex.. The ratio of the Emergy Yield Ratio to the Environmental
Loading Ratio. It measures the contribution of a resource or process to the economy per unit of
environmental loading.
Emecgy yield ratio. The ratio of the emergy yield from a process to the emergy costs. The ratio
is a measure of how much a process will contribute to the economy.
percent renewable emergy (%Ren). The ratio of renewable emergy to total emergy use. In the
long run, only processes with high %Ren are sustainable.
Solar transformity The ratio of the solar emergy that is required to generate a product or service
to the actual energy in that product of service. Transformities have the dimensions of emergy/energy
[sej/J). A transfonnity for a product is calculated by summing all the emergy inflows to the process
U1d dividing by the energy of the product. Transformities are used to convert resources of different types
:0 emergy of the same type. The transformity is a measure of the "value" with the assumption that
Iystems operating under the constraints of the maximum emergy principle generate products that
rumulate productive process at least as much as they cost (Odum, 1996).
-14-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
2
Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy: diverging or
converging approaches?
Sergio Ulgiati
ABSTRACT
The emergy accounting procedure is evaluated in light of (i) the need for a clearer statement of
its thermodynamic basis, and (ii) the recent large demand for integration among biophysical approaches
to investigate natural and human-dominated ecosystems. The huge potential of the emergy approach to
catalyze the e./Jorts and improve results of world-wide scientific research in resource use and energy
systems assessments is discussed and a code of practice for emergy and biophysical evaluations is
suggested
INTRODUCTION
Concepts underlying biophysical approaches presented in this paper need to be defined and their
relationships highlighted, in orderto avoid misunderstanding the methodologies that are used. The concepts
of mass and energy flow are easily understood and theoretically accepted, even if the laws of mass and
energy conservation are very often neglected. Some scientists have found it more difficult to accept the
two concepts exergy and emergy, mainly due to lack of clear definitions or to unclear presentation of the
advantages of their use. Clarifying these two concepts and relating them to other concepts used in
thermodynamic and biophysical analyses might help build integrated methodologies. Different approaches
may enhance each other, if their use is consistent with the goals of the investigation.
Measuring Energy as Heat

The energy content of an item may be a misleading concept. Some items (oil, coal, wood, etc.)
are usually considered fuels, as they react with oxygen in the air and release a huge amount of heat (the
combustion process). Other substances (all food items) also react with oxygen but release heat in a more
controlled way within living organisms. They are not considered to be fuels even though they actually
"fuel" a metabolic process. Finally, other chemical species and compounds undergo very slow chemical
reactions and release a very small amount of heat (for instance, iron oxidation). Every time a resource is
transformed, an exchange of energy with the surrounding environment is involved. The energy that is
released in the form of heat can be accounted for as higher heating value, lower heating value, combustion
enthalpy, etc., and measured injoules or calories.
HHY., the Higher Heating Value, is defined as the total energy contained "in a unit weight or
volume offuel and is determined experimentally by burning a known quantity offuel in a bomb calorimeter
and measuring the heat released" (Lyons et aI., 1985). It is sometimes referred to as "gross calorific
value", or as "anhydrous gross calorific value" if the fuel has no water content before it is burned. When
measuring the heat released, water vapour from the products of combustion is condensed in the calorimeter
and heat of evaporation/condensation is also accounted for.
-15-
Chapter 2. Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy. ..

Instead L.HY, the Lower Heating Value, assumes that "the moisture products of combustion
remain in the vapour phase passing all heat recovery devices and no condensation heat release is gained'
(Lyons et al., 1985). By definition, the L.H.Y, sometimes referred to as "net calorific value", is always
lower than the HHY If other heat losses are accounted for in addition to the heat carried away by water
vapour, we remain with the U.H. Y, the Usable Heating Value, i.e. "the amount ofheat that can be actually
recoveredwhen ajuel is burned in a combustion chamber". It depends, of course, upon the environmental
and technical characteristics of the process.
If a constant-volume, adiabatic, bomb calorimeteris used, total heat from combustion is accounted
for as H.H.Y Instead, if the system is subjected to a constant pressure p, and is allowed to undergo
changes of its volume V, then some of the energy supplied as heat may escape back into the surroundings
as work. To account for this phenomenon, the concept enthalpy,
II, has been introduced, defined as "the
heat supplied at constant pressure" (Atkins, 1994):
(I)
H=U+pV
where U is the internal energy of the system.
Because combustion is a chemical reaction completely oxidizing a fuel, we may define astandard
combustion enthalpy as the total heat that is supplied by the fuel when it is oxidized to CO2 and H20 at
constant pressure.
The consequence of the above definitions is that it is not sufficient to say "heat of combustion"
or "heat content" to clearly indicate the work potential of a resource. The latter depends upon the specific
environmental and technical conditions, which must always be stated whenever the process is described.
Free-energy and Exergy

Because energy may have different ability to provide useful work, depending upon the
irreversibility of the process, a more convenient measure can be obtained by means of the concept
free-energy. The thermodynamic basis of the free-energy concept is found in the definitions of Helmholtz
and Gibbs energies for systems in thermal equilibrium with their surroundings (Atkins, 1994). When a
change in the system occurs and there is a transfer of energy as heat between the system and its surroundings,
it may occur at constant volume (dU - T dS '" 0) or at constant pressure (dH - T dS"
0), with an entropy
change dS= (dU+pdV)lT. In the first case, the Helmholtz free-energy

A=U -TS
(2)
can be introduced; in the second case the Gibbs free-energy
G=H-TS
(3)
is defined'. As most real processes occur at constant pressure, the Gibbs free-energy is far more widely
encountered than Helmholtz free-energy, so that G is normally referred to as simply the "free-energy". In
both cases, it can be demonstrated that a change in free -energy, AG, measures the maximum non-expansion
work that the system can do when it is working reversibly (Atkins, 1994). Therefore, free-energy relative
to a given reference state can be defined as the maximum amount of work that can be obtained when a system
moves from a state characterized by a set of parameters {i} (temperature, pressure, chemical potentials, etc.)
towards the set of parameters {<Pio} describing the reference state, by means of a reversible process. For
chemical and physical processes investigated under laboratory conditions, the reference state is usually
characterized by standard laboratory parameters (Atkins, 1994) that are not always equal to those in the
environment (e.g., standard temperature is 25C, while average environmental temperature is around 16C).
When the reference state is characterized by average environmental values of parameters, free-energy is
usually called exergy (Szrugut et al, 1988), to make it clear that we refer to the surrounding environment.
According to Szargut et al. (1988), "exergy is the amount ofwork obloinable when some matte r is brought to
a slale ofthermodynamic equilibriumwith the common components ofthe natural surroundings by means of
reversible processes, involving interaction only with the above mentioned components ofnature."
, u- internal energy; T - temperature; p = pressure; V
areinfinitesimal changes ofvariables
Volume; S
-16-
entropy; H
enthalpy; dS, dV, dU, and dH
Chapter 2. Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy...

Except for a few cases such as electricity production by means of nuclear reactors, the gravitational
potential of water or the geothermal potential of deep heat, chemical exergy is the only significant
free-energy source in most processes. In the procedure of Szargut et al. (1988), chemical exergy is calculated
as the Gibbs free-energy relative to average physical and chemical parameters of the environment. Szargut
et aJ.
(1988) calculated the chemical exergy of a resource, bch,res relative to common components of
'
nature, by means of the following procedure:
(a) The most stable end products of reactions involving the resource under consideration are
chosen as reference chemical species "rs" in the environment (air, ocean or earth crust).
These reference species are not in thermodynamic equilibrium, as the biosphere is not a
thermodynamic equilibrium system. Reference species are assigned a specific free-energy
(exergy) brs due to their molar fraction Zrs in the environment by means of the formula
- RT In Zrs where the reference species are assumed to form an ideal mixture or solution,
brs
R is the gas constant, T is the environment temperature.
(b) In accord with the classical procedure of Gibbs, a chemical reaction linking a resource "res"
to its reference species is chosen. The chemical exergy difference Abcb,res between the two
Abf+ bch i where Abfis the standard chemical exergy of
states is calculated as Abch,res
formation of the resource from elements, and bch i is the standard chemical exergy of the
i-th element relative to its reference species. Tabulated values (Atkins, 1994) of free-energy
can be used for this purpose.
(c) The total chemical exergy of the resource is finally calculated as bch,res
Abf+ bch i+
brs' In so doing, tables of exergies per urtit mass or per mole (specific exergy) can be
constructed for the resources (Szargut et al.,
1988).
Very often, values of free-energy and exergy of fuels do not differ significantly from their commonly
used HHY., L.H.Y. or combustion enthalpy.
By definition exergy (ability to do work) is not conserved in a process: exergy of inputs equals the exergy
of outputs (including waste products) plus the amount of exergy losses due to irreversibility. Some possible
applications of the concept exergy (free-energy) have been suggested:
(a) measuring all inputs and outputs by means of the same numeraire (joules of free-energy
relative to the environment, a reference level);
(b) comparing the
maximum work that can be obtained from the process inputs with the work
obtainable from the process outputs, in order to calculate an exergy efficiency and to figure
out possible process improvements and optimization procedures aimed at decreasing exergy
losses in the form of waste materials and heat.
(c) evaluating waste exergy as a measure of potential harm. Ayres and Martinas
Ayres and Masirti
(1994) and
(1998) have suggested that "there is a class of errvironmental impacts
arising simply from uncontrolled chemical reactions in the environment initiated by the
presence of 'reactive' chemicals. Theformation ofphotochemical smog in the atmosphere is
one example
... It.
Optimization
(b)
Lazzaretto et al.,
is the appreciable goal of most exergy analysts (Kuemmel and Linderberger,
1998;
1998), while potential harm evaluation (c) still requires further investigation. In this
paper we suggest exergy as the measure (a) of the free-energy of each item relative to the environment, to
quantify inputs entered in calculation algorithms.
Energy and the Laws of Thermodynamics

Energy, defined as the ability of a resource to do mechanical work (Atkins,
1994, p.56), has very
often been equated to some defirtition of caloric value (H.HY., L.HV, U.HY., combustion enthalpy).
Linkage between energy and mechanical work also occurred due to historical reasons, stemming from the
fact that work can actually be extracted from heat (Watt's steam engine and the so-called industrial
revolution in Europe,
18 century).
-17-
Chapter 2. Energy, Emergy and Embadied Exergy. ..
Free-energy is, instead, the real measure of a resource's ability to drive a transformation process
and to do work (Atkins, 1994, p.147-153). This ability is not necessarily linked to the heat content, but to
the existence of gradients (temperature, pressure, concentration, chemical potential or other state parameters
higher than environmental ones). Free-energy is not conserved in a process, due to the irreversibility of
real processes (lowering of gradients). Free-energy depends upon the reference level; it is not a property
of the resource itself, it is a system property. Free-energy input to a process does not equal to free-energy
of outputs, as real processes always have free-energy losses due to irreversibilities. A proper balance must
also account for these losses. Free-energy relative to the environment has been called exergy by many. It
quantifies the consequences of the second law on resource use in a process.
The paradox of energy conservation coupled with the observed decreasing ability to perform
work cannot be escaped and may require a restatement of the Law of Energy Conservation. A semantic
contradiction is evident: I) conservation of energy is stated by the First Law of Thermodynamics; 2) the
word energy is used to mean "ability to do work", something that is not conserved in a process.
Is there anything that is conserved in a process? Yes, there is. Whatever the process under
investigation (chemical reactions like combustion, flows of electrons like electricity, the fall of bodies
due to the law of gravity, any kind of collisions, etc.) it ends up with production of heat. Odum (1994)
notes that any "energy traniformation... is work" and that "in practice, energy is defined and measured by
the heat that is formed when energy in other forms is transferred into heat. All kinds of energy can be
converted into heaf'. The latter, a measure of molecular motion, is conserved, as it is continuously
exchanged among molecules, according to the Boltzmann Law. The concentration of molecular motion
in a system, which we call temperature, determines the ability of heat to drive a process (due to temperature
gradients). Heat may be diluted, but never destroyed. It might be appropriate to restate the First Law as:
Heat, a measure oftotal molecular motion, is conserved. Some chemical laws like Hess's Law are based
upon this definition. Conservation of heat is actually the basis of the heat balance, in order to account for
heat flows to and from a process. Release of heat may be a waste of a resource still usable or even a source
of pollution. Once a heat flow has been identified and quantified, can it be evaluated according to its
quality (residue usefulness or environmental impact).
A clear definition of these basic concepts is of paramount importance both for the investigation
of a process and for the comparison among results from different approaches.
THE CONCEPT OF EMBODIMENT AND THE EMERGY ACCOUNTING
It takes roughly' 1.25 g of crude oil to make I g of refined oil in a typical refinery process; it takes
threejoules of refined oil to supply I J of electricity in a typical power plant. Therefore, it takes about 3.8 J of
crude oil to supply I J of electricity for Camot-efficiency-limited conversions in current practice. Some
additional oil is also invested in machinery and other goods that are components of the refinery and power
plant. Oil is also needed in transport of components. The oil energy that has been invested in the global
production process is no longer available, it has been used up and is not contained anymore in the final
product. The actual energy content (combustion enthalpy, HHY., L.HY. or so) is something different than
the total energy spent by many processes which conveIge hierarchically to a final product. This latter (total
energy in the form of crude oil equivalent) is very often referred to as "embodied energy" by energy analysts.
If we focus on crude oil availability and its ability to run an industrial system, the total oil energy used up and
no longer available is a basic parameter. This is what many energy analysts do, with or without an exergy
evaluation of converging inputs (Smil, 1991). Consistent with this tracing back procedure, Odum (1988,
1996) has introduced the concept ofjOrm eme/xy, the amount of energy of one kind that is directly or indirectly
required to make a given product or to support a given flow. We may therefore have an oil emergy, a coal
emergy, etc. according to the specific goal and scale of the analysis. The concept of embodiment supports the
idea that something has a value based on what went into making it. This might be called a donor system of
value, while heat evaluation and economic evaluation are receiver systems of value. A similar statement, i.e.
that which is invested in something determines its value, is shared by Jmgensen (1992) and recently by
Svirezhev (1997) using exergy accounting of ecosystems.
, All numbers are approximate
-18-
Chapler 2. Energy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy...
The focus on crude oil and oilier fossil fuels (solar energy stored by ecosystem work) is very
recent in the history of human kind. It is because we pay for them and we worry about a possible shortage.
Before oil and coal were used, the focus was on free, direct solar radiation as well as indirect solar energy
in rain, wind, wood and other environmental sources. Everybody was well aware that the availability of
direct and indirect solar energy was (and still is) the main driving force of natural ecosystems and the
human societies that depend on them. Odum switched his focus from the interface between human societies
and fossil storages to the interface human societies and the environment, identifying the free environmental
work contributes to each kind of resource supporting human activities. Understanding the environment
support to human wealth and its embodiment in the goods that human societies make and use is of
paramount importance to design sustainable interactions of man and nature.
Therefore, expanding the scale of the investigation requires the concept of oil emergy to be
expanded to solar emergy, a measure of the total environmental support to every kind of process in the
biosphere by means of a new unit, the solar emergy joule.
It should not be overlooked that this new point of view requires evaluations of energy concentration
through a hierarchy of processes that are not under human control and may therefore follow a different
optimization pattern than humans. Human societies usually maximize local process-efficiency, short
time-scale return on investment, employment, profit, one-product output. On the contrary, natural processes
are system oriented, and try to maximize the total flow of resources processed through optimization of
efficiencies and feedback reinforcement (maximum power principle; Latka 1922a,b; Odum and Pinkerton,
1955; Odum, 1983). The thermodynamics of processes under human control (deterministic, product
oriented) may therefore be somehow different than the thermodynamics of environmental processes
(stochastic, system oriented).
Emergy and Transformity
The name emergy and a valuable effort to develop the emergy nomenclature has been provided
by Scienceman (1987). As already mentioned, "emergy is the amount of available energy of one form
directly or indirectly required to provide a givenflow or storage ofenergy or matter.". Accordingly, solar
emergy is defined as the sum of all inputs of solar energy (or equivalent amounts of geothermal or
gravitational energy) directly or indirectly required in a process. Usually these indirect inputs are yielded
by another process (or chain of processes) by which solar emergy is concentrated and upgraded. On a unit
basis, one joule or gram of a given item has been produced by dissipating a certain amount of solar
emergy. The amount of input emergy per unit output energy is called solar transformity. The solar
transformity gives a measure of the convergence of solar emergy through a hierarchy of processes or
levels; it can therefore be considered a "quality" factor, intended as a measure of the intensity of the
biosphere support to the flow under study. The total emergy of an item can be expressed as:
solar emergy amount of item x its "solar" convergence factor (transformity).
Each input flow can be expressed by means of many different numeraires (exergy, combustion
enthalpy, mass, currency, etc.) and units (joule, gram, mole, kcal, $). The solar emergy is usually measured
in solar emergy joules (seJ), while the unit for solar transformity is solar emergy joules per joule of
product (seJ/J). Sometimes emergy per mass of product is also used (seJ/g). In so doing, all kinds offlows
to a system can be expressed by the same numeraire (solar emergy), also accounting for a convergence
factor (transfonnity) through the hierarchy of biosphere. It might be useful to recall that emergy is not
energy. The emergy of a given flow or product is, by definition, the total amount of solar available energy
that is directly or indirectly required to generate the flow or the production process. This much solar
energy is provided by the work of self-organization of the planet as a whole. Part of this work has been
performed in the past (only think of fossil fuels) over millions of years. Another part is the present work
of self-organization of the geo-biosphere. The higher theflow that is required, the higher the contribution
from present and past environments that is exploited to support a given process. Thus emergy can be
considered like an "energy memory", i.e. the memory of the available energy that has been and is being
spent during the whole process. According to the efficiency of the processes along a given pathway, more
=
-19-
or less emergy might have been required to reach the same result. It follows that:
a) transformities are not constant nor are they the same for the same product everywhere, as
many different pathways can be chosen by a system in its self-organization strategy;
b) emergy is not conserved in the way energy and other thermodynamic state functions are. On
the contrary, it adds up due to space and time convergence. In so doing, it becomes a "memory"
of resources invested over the whole process;
c) an optimum performance according to external constraints can be shown by systems that have
been selected over a long "trial and error" process and that have therefore self-organized to
feedback for maximum power output (Lotka, I 922a,b). Their performance might result in an
optimum (not necessarily minimum) transformity.
Some values for transformities are available in the scientific literature on emergy (Odum, 1996). Of
course, it is sometimes needed to calculate transformities for input flows never investigated before. When
a large set of transformities is available, other natural and economic processes can be evaluated by
calculating input flows, throughput flows, storages within the system, and final products, in emergy
units. After emergy flows to and storages in a process or system have been evaluated, it is possible to
calculate a set of indices and ratios that can be used for policy making. Many evaluations (Smil, 1991)
have been performed based on conventional energy accounting of fossil fuel inputs to a process, adding
up all inputs into a total oil equivalent amount and then comparing this tota! to the energy or mass of final
product. In so doing an "oil emergy" accounting was performed, instead of a solar, as each input is
measured by the amount of oil equivalent that is directly and indirectly required to extract, process and
deliver it.
Emergy accounting sometimes receives criticisms for the way transformities of primary inputs
(wind, rain, deep heat, fossil fuels, etc.) have been calculated (Odum, 1996). The point is that these are
basic flows that are used in the calculation procedures of all other processes. An incorrect value of some
of these transformities would affect the results of other calculations. This is, of course, true, as in every
other branch of science, and a huge effort to improve the way primary resources are evaluated is advisable
and would be of interest to all emergy analysts. However, our eventual inability to find a completely
satisfactory way for calculating some transformities cannot be a sufficient reason to invalidate the global
rationale of the approach. As an example, I have recently performed a new estimate of the transformity of
crude oil, based on different data and assumptions than those used in Odum (1996). The resulting value
was 5.8 E4 seJll instead of the commonly used 5.4 E4 seJll. The new result is unlikely to cau.se any
significant changes in the already calculated transformities. However, even if significant changes were
caused, they would not originate any problem to the emergy theory, which would only have to update
some of its databases.
Energy, Embodied Energy and Emergy: Significant Differences
It is worth noting that energy' (free-energy, exergy) is a property of the system that can still be
used up. A fuel has an energy (free-energy, exergy) content as it can be burned and drive a process (do
work).
Embodied energy (embodied free-energy, embodied exergy) measures a different property, i.e.
the sum of the actual energy (free-energy, exergy) of the system plus the energy (free-energy, exergy)
previously used up to produce and provide the resource. In so doing, only those energy (free-energy,
exergy) sources that are non-renewable are accounted for. They are assigned an economic cost depending
upon their scarcity. Embodied energy is therefore an hybrid concept, referring both to something that has
been already and to something that has not yet been used up.
Finally, solar emergy is an account of tota! energy (free-energy, exergy) used up to provide a
resource, tracing back to natural sources (solar radiation, gravitational energy, deep heat) that are the
ultimate support to the processes yielding a given resource. The product of such processes may have a
very small eneigy (free-energy, exergy) content that is already included in the total, and may have required
a huge expenditure of primary resources in the course of their production. Emergy is therefore a memory
3 This section is written thinking of energy. However, as indicated in parentheses, its content also applies to the
concepts of free-energy and exergy, who share the properties that are suggested.
-20-
Chapter 2. Energy. Emergy and Embodied Exergy...

ofthe total energy (free-energy, exergy) previously used up, a measure of the total environmental support,
not a measure of the actual energy (free-energy, exergy) content of a product. The meaning of a high
emergy value per unit item (transfonnity) is in the high quality and special role of the item itself within
the global system in which it is embedded. When the high expenditure of primary resources is not justified
by a correspondingly high quality role of the product, production is discontinued according to
Lotka-Odum's Maximum Power Principle.
METHODOLOGICAL: MULT ICRITERI A AND MULTISCALE

EVALUATIONS. NEGLECTED LAWS AND PRINCIPLES.
The Law of Mass Conservation
A balanced input-output mass flow is a preliminary sign of a careful evaluation (Ayres R.U.,
1995). Small flows of very reactive chemicals may have a very toxic behaviour and should not be neglected.
The conservation of mass in open systems, when applied to every chemical species of importance, makes
the difficult task of linking mass inputs to released chemical species much easier. A batement or safe
disposal of these flows might require huge amounts of resources or natural services. In addition, when
input and output mass flows are known, evaluation of cost and impact is much easier.
Mass of inputs to a system or a process must equate to the mass of outputs. Mass cannot be
created or destroyed. Of course, this applies not only to total mass flow, but also to individual chemical
species, as no nuclear reactions are involved at the scales of investigation of interest to us. The meaning
of this issue is that when we fuel an engine, we are not only supplying an amount of energy, but also an
equivalent mass of chemical species (mostly hydrocarbons). The latter will react with other chemical
species in the air, yielding an amount of emissions (carbon dioxide, water vapour, carbon oxide, etc.)
which equals the mass of inputs (fuel, air). Direct measurements as well as the knowledge of the
stoichiometry of involved reactions are powerful tools to evaluate the relative amounts of inputs and
outputs, in order to get a global knowledge of the process and its environmental loading.
Every kind of evaluation requires the knowledge of input and output mass flows, as it will be
shown below. In addition, comparing input and output mass flows will help to give a complete list of
emissions, and avoid neglecting some of them.
The First Law of Thermodynamics

First-Law heat accounting should be always coupled to mass accounting as an unavoidable step
in any biophysical investigation. Sometimes the same item can be identified as a mass or heat source. For
instance, oil can be measured in kg of hydrocarbons or in joules of embodied or released combustion
heat. Both ways can be useful, depending upon the goal of the evaluation. In plastic polymers production,
oil is the substrate to be converted to the final product. Measuring oil in joules when it is used more as a
substrate than a fuel might not be practical. In electricity production, oil is the fuel; its combustion releases
heat to power the turbine and generate electricity. In both cases, some waste heat is released to the
environment, after the main product is generated. In times of cheap oil, waste heat flows are generally not
accounted for, as we focus on the main product. In times of decreasing oil availability or increasing costs,
we may realize that there still is a use potential in waste heat, depending upon its temperature, and may
define it as a by-product (for domestic heating or some industrial application). However, we should
always be aware that input heat flow must be equal to output heat flow. When heat is produced by
combustion to make a product, we have a mass output in the fonn of the product, and a waste heat output
equal to the input. When the product is also a fonn of energy, like electricity, the output will be the sum of
waste heat and produced electricity. Of course, this addition of flows of different quality is based on the
first law, i.e. it is an addition of heat equivalents and is perfonned only to ensure that all flows have been
included in the analysis. In fact, the inclusion of quality considerations requires first that an inventory of
flows be perfonned. For example, a process may release a heat flow, with different properties depending
on its temperature. Therefore, we should first quantifY the flows, then perfonn a quality assessment.
-21-

Environmental concerns may also push us to investigate the consequences of releasing to the
environment a resource that has not been exploited yet (i.e. a resource characterized by a high temperature
gradient relative to environmental temperature). Whatever our concerns may be, a careful description and
quantification of input and output heat flows is needed.
The Second Law of Thermo dynamics

All forms of energy are not equivalent with respect to their ability to produce useful work. While
heat is conserved, its ability to support a transformation process may decrease (increasing entropy). This
is very often neglected when evaluating input and output heat flows. For example, the energy value (i.e.
heat content) of agricultural residues and by-products from biomass fuel production (Turhollow and
Perlack,
1991; Marland and Turhollow, 1991) and recoverable waste heat from industrial activities are
accounted for as usable output in feasibility studies, to show the profitability of a given process. Everybody
should be aware that
1 kJ of fuel (say oil or bioethanol) is something different than 1 kJ of agricultural
residues as it is very unlikely to get the same amount of work from these two sources. A correct evaluation
requires a quality assessment to be done, from the point of view of the user. This user-side assessment can
be done by means of the concept exergy, i.e. evaluating input and output flows according to their ability
to produce useful work and calculating an exergy efficiency as a measure of good use (or misuse) of this
ability and an indication of possible improvements.
Factors of Scale
Scale is another factor that is very often misunderstood and neglected. It is not hard to understand
that a chemical released from a process is much more concentrated (and therefore harmful) in the local
surroundings than at the larger scale, where dilution and degradation processes may have occurred.
Therefore, something that might not be of large concern at the scale of the biosphere, might instead be
very worrying to local popUlations. Defining the system boundaries and making it clear at which
space-time scale an assessment is performed is very important, even if the scale of the assessment is
sometimes implicit in the context of the investigation. However, soon after goal definitions and scope are
clarified, a system diagram is absolutely required, to show input and output flows, interactions and one or
more space/time windows of interest. With the aid of a systems diagram, compiling an inventory of
relevant input and output flows and evaluating potential environmental impacts are much easier steps.
Some input flows may be negligible if the local scale is investigated, and become very important
at a larger spatial scale. Other inputs have a lifetime that exceeds the time scale of the analysis. For
instance, assets and structure should be discounted over 20-25 years, while a car lifetime might be assumed
to be about
5 years. Finally, if we expand the scale of our investigation to the time needed for oil and
mineral ores production by environmental processes, we are able to explore other factors that deal with
the environmental support to human economies, the human appropriation of the environmental work and
the renewability of resources. It clearly appears why evaluations should be able to give information about
all scales of interest.
Looking at Figure
1, assume we are evaluating a power plant, where natural gas is used to
produce electricity. The local scale only includes the plant components and buildings. An input mass
balance at this scale (over the actual plant area for one year) should only include the actual mass of
components and building materials discounted over plant lifetime plus supplied fuel. The same fraction
of building materials from decommissioning plus gaseous emissions should be accounted for as mass
output. An energy (exergy) balance should only account for input natural gas and output electricity and
waste heat. An emergy balance would also take into consideration direct environmental inputs and services
and high transformity inputs such as labor for construction, operation and maintenance.
As the scale is expanded to include the manufacturing process of plant components (boiler,
turbine, insulating materials, etc.) and plant building materials such as concrete, additional mass and
energy inputs should be accounted for. For instance, the huge amount of electricity needed for making
components from primary minerals and some additional labor cannot be neglected. Both electricity and
-22-
Chapter 2. Energy. Emergy and Embodied Exergy. ..
GIDbal
Environment
Figure 1. The hierarchy of time and spatial scales that should be considered when evaluating a
production process
labor have no associated mass even at this larger scale, but they largely contribute to the energy and
emergy balance.
If the scale is further expanded, the mass of raw minerals that have been excavated to extract the
pure metals for plant components (iron is 25-30 % of raw iron ore), as well as combustion oil used in
electricity production would largely contribute to all of the calculated indicators. At this larger scale, raw
oil used up in the extraction and refining of minerals and the oil itself should also be accounted for. When
the scale is such that items are primary materials made available by free ecosystem work over long time
periods (e.g., mineral production over geological times), the environmental contribution should also be
included. It would not affect the mass and energy balance, but will likely be of importance in the emergy
evaluation. Finally, emergy evaluation has a built-in memory of time scale.
It is therefore advisable that each process be investigated through several windows of interest, to
capture all aspects of a process from the local scale up to the interface with the natural ecosystem.
THE RATIONALE OF AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT IN BIOPHYSICAL
ANALYSES. THE STATE OF mE ART.
Thermodynamics cannot be the only basis for policy, nor can it become a new theory of economic
value. It can, instead, do something that is much more important. "In addition to providing a biophysical
basis to economic descriptions, it may help to expand the scope of economics, awayfrom a single numeraire
or standard of valuation, towardsystems thinking and a muiti-criteriaframework" (Martinez-A1ier, 1998).
For this to be done, it must be accepted that different problems may require different methodologies for
their solution. Each approach may only answer a given set of questions and may require the support of
other methodologies for a more complete view of system's behaviour. The correct use and integration of
complementary approaches might ease descriptions and enhance understanding of complex systems
dynamics, including human economies.
-23-
Chapter 2. Energy. Emergy and Embodied Exergy. ..

Demand for the integration of methodologies has been huge during the 1990's. Previous studies
in the first two decades after energy analyses had come to the attention of many (70's and 80's) where
mostly devoted to assess and demonstrate the superiority of a given approach compared to others (see, for
example, IFIAS, 1974 and Siesser, 1998). During the last three decades new scientific conceptualizations
have been developed, among which are system thinking, hierarchical theory, non-linear dynamics, fractal
geometry, and complex systems analysis. It is now increasingly clear that different approaches are very
often required by the very nature of the problems we deal with, in order to build a set of complementary
descriptions, able to provide different assessments or different views of changes as defined on different
space-time scales. Biophysical analyses make it possible to bridge these different perspectives. The values
of variables described in the system at a certain level will affect and be affected by the value of variables
describing the system at a different level.
An early assessment of this problem and a call for integration was made by the economist
c.F. Kiker (I992). Comparing available energy (exergy) analysis and emergy accounting methodologies,
he came to the conclusion that "while the background of available energy and emergy analysts are
substantially difef rent, the underlying conceptual bases are suffiCiently the same for the two methods to
be usedjointly. If clear analytical boundaries are specified for human controlled systems, for natural
systems and for systems derivedfrom the interaction of these two types, available energy analysis and
emergy analysis can be used together to evaluate thefund of service from these systems". He concluded
that "what is needed now are real world examples that actually do this".
Brown and Herendeen (1998) have more recently compared the embodied energy approach and
the emergy approach, looking for similarities and trying to make a clear assessment of differences and
still unresolved questions.
Giampietro et al. (1998), applying concepts of complex systems theory to socio-economic systems
described as adaptive dissipative holarchies, underline that "improvements in efficiency can only be defined
at a particular point in time and spoce (by adopting a quasi-steady state view),' whereas improvements in
adaptability can only be definedfrom an evolutionaryperspective (by losing track of details). Short-term
and long-term perspectives cannot be collapsed into a single description. "
Frankl and Gamberale (1998) present the Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach as a tool for
energy policy "to identifY (fUture) optimal solutions which maximize environmental benefits, ... to identify
priorities for orienting research anddevelopment activities and identifying best fiscal andmarket incentive
measures". These authors recall that, according to ISOIDIS 14040 (ISO, 1996; SETAC, 1993),
Life-CycleAnalysis is a teclmique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated
with a product, by:
compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs of a system;
evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs;
interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to the goals of the study.
In their paper, they underline that "LCA results should not be reduced to a simple overall
conclusion, since trade-offs and complexities exist for the systems analyzed at different stages of their Ii/e
cycle", and that "there is no single methodto conduct LCAs...LCA is a valuable analytical tool in decision
making process in conjunclion with other tools". Clearly LCA could benefit gready from integration with
other approaches, like exergy and emergy evaluations.
Finally, a call for integrating energy analysis methodologies has come from scientists attending
the International Workshop "Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy" (porto
Venere, Italy, 1998), to improve the definition of scales, boundaries, methods of analysis as well as to
define policy initiatives and research priorities that will be required to generate a balanced pattern of
humanity and environment. In a final Workshop document (Ulgiati et al., 1998) they challenge the scientific
community to reframe previous insights and research activity using a systems perspective, that enhances
the complementarity of approaches, system thinking, and the use of multi-scale multi-criteria evaluation
tools.
-24-
Chapter 2. Energy. Emergy and Embodied Exergy.Oo

Approaches Which Truncate the Accounting at the Interface
Fossil Fuels-Society
The well known embodied energy approach (IFIAS,
1974) calculates the sum of direct and
indirect inputs supporting a process, only accounting for "market" energy (fossil fuels and their substitutes
like hydroelectricity, geothermal electricity and nuclear electricity, by means of an oil equivalence
calculation). Market energies are those forms of energy which are relatively scarce, high quality or non
renewable and can be assigned an economic cost. Embodiment of energy in labor is not accounted for, so
that labor becomes a negligible input, in comparison with the intensity of market energies, no matter its
contribution in terms of information. Free natural inputs like solar radiation, rain, etc. are not accounted
for in embodied energy analysis. A very clear assessment of the methodology and the achievements of
embodied energy analysis, as well as of its relationship to the economy has been given by Herendeen
(1998). The basic principles and algebra of the embodied energy approach are discussed in Brown and
Herendeen (1998).
Szargut and Morris (1987), and Szargut (1998) have introduced a cumulative exergy consumption,
defined as the "total consumption of exergy of natural resources connected with the fabrication of the
consideredproduct and appearing in all the links of the network ofproductionprocesses". Szargut (1998)
also wrote that "the calculation can comprise all the natural resources of exergy or only the unrestorable
resources. The last case is usually more interesting". When only unrestorable resources are accounted
for, the cumulative exergy consumption was also called "ecological cost". A very interesting evaluation
of cumulative exergy consumption and ecological costs for the economy of Poland as well as for selected
industrial processes is presented in Szargut
Valero
(1998).
(1998) builds up new steps with his "exergoecological cost". First, he suggests that all
exergies and exergy costs are calculated relative to a Legal Reference Environment, that the Community
of Scientists should adopt to make calculations comparable and usable. Then he acknowledges the
contribution of solar energy in maintaining the planet and its biosphere in a far from equilibrium state, to
which he assigns a "zero exergy" value, by convention. Finally, commenting on Life Cycle Assessments
and the need to take care of pollution from economic activities, he writes "the onlyform of sustainability
is an imitation of nature. Or in other words. to work in cycles "from the cradle to the cradle" using solar
exergy because it is natural exergy which we can have forfree and in sufficient abundance". The whole
process is shown in Figure 2. Valero also writes "Any carbon dioxide emitted must be remedied with
reforestation. water has to bepurified to the same level as that in which it was taken. materials have to be
recycled,Oo.AII these actions consume exergy andthis should be added to our calculations... The value of
the total cost measured in units of exergy we will call the 'exergoecological cost' and the larger for a
product or service is, the more unsustainable it will be. As only solar energy. that of the tides and the
inside of the Earth are.free and renewable. these will not be included in the cost of calculation". This way
of accounting for the ecological cost of replacing resources that are depleted. or of disposing and abating
pollutants is surprisingly close to the one suggested by U1giati et al. (1995) and U1giati and Brown (1998),
by means of emergy based indicators. Convergence of concepts by some authors is larger than expected.
Finally, an "extended exergy" approach was suggested by Delle Site and Sciubba
(1999) as a
form of cumulative exergy consumption, also applied to the calculation of the extended exergy value of
labor and to the relationship of total exergy budget of a national economy and its total Gross National
Product.
Approaches Which Truncate the Accounting (somewhere) at the Interface

Biosphere-Society
Emergy has already been defined and discussed elsewhere in this paper. Solar emergy accounts
for all direct and indirect inputs to a process on the basis of the independent energy sources to the biosphere,
including the environmental support that is required to maintain the planet far from equilibrium. The total
emergy driving a process becomes a measure of the self-organization activity of the planet converging to
25
/I
/o-r
1""
"" 1
So/ar energy
/'
Nature
Iijecycle
oj a prodlCt
Reslctues
Techl1lJ logica!
abo/emen t process
Techl1lJlogica! process oj replacement

oj lrtlterials from the dead Ref Env.
..
.
c---------'
Figure 2. Diagram shawing cyclic, ".from cradle to cradle" evaluation of the exergy costs of a product,
including abatement of pollutants and replacement of resources used up. A legal Reference Environment
is shown. (Valero, 1998)
make that process possible, a measure of the environmental work necessary for providing a given resource.
In other words, past and present ecosystems have worked to make a resource available, be it the present
oxygen stock in the atmosphere or the present stock of gold or oil deep in the planet.
Giampietro and Pimentel (1991) have developed a similar, even if simplified, approach,
introducing their Biosphere Space-Time Activity (BIOSTA) as a measure of environmental, life-supporting
work. While units in emergy accounting are solar emergy joules, units in the BIOSTAapproach are space
x time units, like square meters x seconds.
Finally, the Ecological Footprint introduced by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) portrays
environmental impact, by measuring the land area of different kinds required to support a given population
and economy. Units here are area units, like square kilometres. According to these authors, all developed
nations, except Canada and Australia, have footprints that exceed their endowment of ecologically
productive land.
In some ways, the BIOSTA and the Ecological Footprint approaches are simplified versions of
the Emergy Accounting, but escape the difficult task and criticisms related to accounting procedures and
bookkeeping in emergy analysis and calculation of transformities. What is very important is that they
share with the Emergy approach the awareness that life support cannot be only expressed in terms of
market energy expenditure, but requires a deep evaluation of free environmental inputs.
The Search for an Algebra of Biophysical Approaches

Most of the above approaches have developed their own algebra to account for quantity and
quality of input flows as well as for their allocation to output products and by-products. Concepts like
energy intensities, transformities, exetgetic cost, etc., have been deeply discussed elsewhere (among
others: Brown and Herendeen, 1996; Valero, 1998) and do not need to be stressed here again. Just as an
example, the concepts of energy, emergy and exergy intensities can be found in every approach and could
-26-

be studied in parallel. Allocation of total input to products and by-products is different in the emergy and
exergy approach. In the emergy algebra the allocation of inputs depends on whether the output flows are
splits or byproducts. When the output flows are splits, total input is assigned them in proportion to the
energy carried by each flow. Instead, if the product flows are byproducts, total input emergy is assigned
to each of them and transformities calculated accordingly. However, sometimes it is not easy to decide
whether a flow is a split or a byproduct. In exergy analysis, the input exergy is always assigned in proportion
to the exergy content of each product flow.
None ofthese algebraic rules appears to be fundamental for the characterization ofeach approach,
so that they could also be partially modified, to reach an integrated algebra. This is a task that should not
be undervalued, as it deals with principles and their mathematical relationships, and might allow a better
understanding of each approach. Examples of this kind of theoretical approach, aiming at developing
common principles and equations, can be found in Giannantoni (\ 999).
PROPOSAL OF A CODE OF PRACTICE FOR BIOPHYSICAL ANALYSES

AND EMERGY ACCOUNTING
Common features can be explicitly or implicitly found in the different methodologies of
evaluation. For instance, an inventory of inputs is always needed. The inventory is done by measuring
inputs in many different ways (grams, joules, dollars, hours, etc.), then converting them in the units
required by the approach, and finally assigning weight or quality or cost factors to each of the inputs.
When inputs have been converted into normalized measures, the total amount required as well as
performance or efficiency indicators can be calculated. This means that, a part from few differences in
algebra as indicated above, most ofthe approaches have the same formal structure, only differing in the
truncation point, as discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. The convergence of the approaches is so evident
that it would be a pity and a huge scientific loss and waste of time not to be aware of this and act
accordingly. Wetherefore suggest that the following code of practice be adopted. It will help avoid having
incomparable or incomplete results create more problems than they solve.
A. IdentifYing the system:
collect information about the system or the process to be investigated and share them with all of
the investigators;
select a boundary for the system under investigation. As results may be very different according
to the space-time scale chosen, it is largely advisable that the investigation is carried out at different
space-time scales;
draw a systems diagram showing the windows of interest.
B. QuantifYing input and output flows
Mass Balance: for each window of interest, list and quantifY inputs and outputs, in terms of their
masses. This allows a check on missing mass flows (output mass must equal input mass). Items
that cannot be quantified in terms of mass at the scale of the investigation (electricity, labor,
services, solar energy) should be left blank. Their mass might be accounted for at a different
scale (for instance, the mass of oil needed to produce electricity, at the larger, regional scale of
electricity production), or they might be accounted for directly in an energy (exergy) table.
First Law Energy Balance (heat flows): list and quantifY inputs and outputs (including waste
flows) in terms oftheir Higher Heating Value. This allows a check on missing heat flows (output
heat flows must equal input heat flows).
Second Law Energy Balance (exergy flows): list and quantifY inputs and outputs (including waste
flows) in terms of their available energy relative to the environment (exergy). This offers a way to
account for all inputs, by means ofthe same numeraire (exergy). It might also give a clearer picture
of the available resources that have not been included in the mass table as well as show possible
structural improvements to the system which could decrease exergy losses and maximize the output(s).
An exergy value could be assigned to labor and services, according to nene Site and Sciubba (1999).
-27-

C. Evaluating perfonnance (accounting for quality):
Emergy accounting: multiply each exergy input by an appropriate transfonnity and get the emergy
used up to make each item available. In so doing, the interface of tbe economy and biosphere
would be explored, without any risk ofincomplete accounting procedure. Emergy would clearly
be calculated as "embodied exergy of one kind", as it should be. The choice of exergy as basic
numeraire, instead of heat of combustion (H.H.V, L.H.V, U.H.v., entbalpy) would solve tbe
problem of ditTerent values that can be found in the literature and that also atTect emergy
evaluations.
Calculating perfonnance and efficiency indicators: Indicators based upon emergy accounting
Suggest possibl e use of results for science or policy.
should be compared to other indicators based upon mass, energy and exergy evaluations.
Benefits of the Investigation Itself

Several advantages can be listed, thatjustify the choice of such a complex procedure.
I) All inputs and all outputs are accounted for, as required by LCA procedures. Pollutants or by-products
that are not tbe goal oftbe process are also accounted for.
2) The investigation is carried out at ditTerent space-tim e scales.

3) A comparison witb other procedures can be made. This might allow a better understanding of specific
aspects ofthe process. It also might make acceptance of results easier to a larger number of scientists
and policy makers.
4) Emergy evaluations would b e clearly linked to an exergy table of inputs and outputs. This would
finally stop unjustified criticisms about tbe lack of a tbennodynamic basis for emergy evaluations.
5) Each approach would contribute to special aspects of tbe investigation. For instance, assume tbat
production of Phosphate fertilizer is investigated. When tbe goal is just to know if a given chemical
reaction is likely to take place, classical free-energy studies will be enough. If tbe focus is on the
environmental impact, mass balance is a necessary tool: each output species might be multiplied by a
toxicological or impact coefficient, to assess its contribution to increased danger for tbe environment
(for instance, global warming potential of CO2, CH., etc.). If tbe goal is to optimize tbe production
plant to get a product witb a smaller amount of input energy and material, exergy accounting will be
a better tool. Finally, iftbe problem is understanding tbe environmental support to tbe real production
process (extraction and processing of inputs + making and running the production plant), emergy
accounting cannot be avoided. Concerned policy makers and public opinion might pay more attention
to analyses which highlight ditTerent aspects of the problem, allowing to choose in dependence of
specific goals or urgent needs.
Benefits to the Emergy Accounting Approach

Can emergy accounting benefit from integration witb otber procedures? Emergy analysts have
received many criticisms fortbeir bookkeeping procedures and tbennodynamic assumptions (for instance,
AAAS, 1992; Brown and Herendeen, 1996). We must acknowledge that some of those criticisms were
correct, while otbers were only due to a lack ofknowledge of emergy accounting procedures. The explicit
acceptance ofthe above code ofpractice is nothing new for many emergy analysts, who implicitly perfonn
most of tbe above steps. However, it might help to gain a larger acceptance by conventional energy
analysts, by LCA analysts (who always account for mass inputs and outputs and who are still searching
for quality coeffici ents for their inventories), by exergy analysts (who are getting closer to emergy
accounting, by developing cumulative exergy consumption calculations), as well as by policy makers,
who have always been reluctant to accept single-numeraire evaluations (policy and politics are multifaceted,
trade-otTsystems, who take care ofcontrasting, irreducible interests and do not like constraining analyses).
A larger use of a well defined accounting procedure would help tbe development oftbe emergy
tbeory and tbe accomplishment of largely overdue investigations, like the "emergy evaluation of tbe
Handbook ofChemistry", suggested by Howard T. Odum years ago (Odum, 1991). Emergy analysts have
-28-

a great opportunity to contribute to the growing development in biophysical analyses, but this task requires
a strong effort towards a more refined evaluation procedure as well as towards a larger integration with
other existing approaches.
Benefits to Non-emergy Accounting Approaches

Most non-emergy approaches do not account for the free services that a system receives from
the environment (e.g., photosynthetic activity driven by the solar radiation, dilution of pollutants by the
wind, etc) nor have they an accounting procedure for human labor, societal services and information, i.e.
for those flows who carry a negligible energy but are supported by a huge indirect flow of resources.
Non-emergy approaches value nOlU'enewable resources from the environment, such as crude oil or minerals,
only depending on what human technology is able to extract from them (user-side quality). Integration of
these methodologies with emergy accounting procedures will make them able to:
focus on the role ofthe environment in support of human dominated processes;
perform a donor-side quality assessment as a complement of user-side assessments;
evaluate processes that are directly based only on small flows of physical carriers, but supported by
huge indirect flows of resources, such as the creation and processing of information;
expand the time scale of the analysis, to include the "memory" of resource flows converging to the
evaluate in a quantitative way those resource flows and storages that have no market (such as fresh
system under investigation.

water, biodiversity, fertile topsoil, etc) and cannot be evaluated in monetary terms.
Assess renewability of resources on the basis ofboth space and time convergence required to make
them.
Assess the environmental impact of processes based on matching of high quality and low quality
resources.
All of these benefits might provide considerable insight to all kinds ofLCAs, with special focus
to the impact assessment step. The International Standard Office, Bruxelles, clearly "recognizes that
LCAis still at an early stage ofdevelopment. Some phases ofthe LCA technique, such as impact assessment,
are still in relative infancy. Considerable work remains to be done and practical experience gained in
order to further develop the level ofLCA practice"(ISO 14040/97). Accounting for quality of resources
by means ofthe emergy and exergy approaches as designed above might provide a powerful investigation
tool for comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments.
CONCLUSION
Should we expect further steps towards integration of biophysical approaches? Actually,
there is an apparent convergence of emergy and exergy approaches. The concept of "cumulative exergy
consumption" is a measure of the effort needed to make something and it is based on the same rationale
than emergy accounting. Both exergy and emergy approaches can integrate mass flow evaluations and LCAs.
Their joint use i s likely to have synergic effects and lead to a deeper understanding of complex
phenomena. Sometimes there are spatial and time scales where a given approach applies better, due to its
definition and procedures, therefore it is very unlikely that approaches converge and meIge completely. Instead,
we expect that energy analysts understand where and when different approaches are likely to provide
complementary information as well as which aspects ofa process can be better illuminated by agiven approach.
REFERENCES
AAAS,
1992. A symposium on emergy analysis, chaired by Howard Odum, held at the annual meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, 7 February 1992.
Atkins, P.w.,
Ayres R.u.,
1994. Physical Chemistry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; fifth edition, pp. l 031.
1995. Life Cycle Analysis: A critique. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 14: 199-223.
-29-

Ayres R.u. and Martinas K, 1994. Waste potential entropy: The ultimate ecotoxic? INSEAD Working
Paper 94/361EPS, Centre for the Management of Environmental Resources, Fointainebleau,
France. pp.24.
Ayres RU. and Masini A, 1998. Waste Exergy as a Measure of Potential Hann. In: Advances in Energy
Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M.,
Herendeen R.A., and Mayumi K (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp. 1 13-128.
Brown M.T. and Herendeen R., 1996. Embodied energy analysis and emergy analysis: a comparative
view. Ecological Economics, 19: 219-235.
Delle Site C. and Sciubba E., 1999. An application of the ef.ended energy accounting technique to an
s
ethanol distillation process. Proceedings of the 1 International Conference on Solid Waste.
Rome, 7-9 April, 1999; G. Miele, L. Rubini, M. Carlini, and M. Villarini Editors; pp.420-435.
Frankl P. and GamberaleM., 1998. The methodology ofLife-Cycle Assessment (LCA) and its application
to the energy sector. In: Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy.
Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Herendeen RA, and Mayumi K (Eds). Musis Publisher,
Roma, Italy; pp.241-256.
Giampietro M. and Pimentel D., 199 1 . Energy analysis models to study the biophysical limits for human
exploitation ofnatural processes. In Ecological Physical Chemistry, Rossi C. and Tiezzi E. Editors,
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, 139-184.
GiampietroM., Mayumi K, and Pastore G., 1998. ADynamic Model ofSocio-economic Systems described
as Adaptive Dissipative Holarchies. In: Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology
and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Herendeen RA, and Mayumi K (Eds).
Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp. 1 67-190.
Giannantoni C., 1999. Toward a Mathematical Formulation ofthe Maximum Em-Power Principle. Paper
presented at the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference: Energy Quality and
Transformities. Gainesville, Florida, USA, September 2-4, 1999. This Book of Proceedings.
Herendeen RA, 1998. Embodied Energy, embodied everything...now what? In: Advances in Energy
Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M.,
Herendeen RA, and Mayumi K (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp. 13-48.
IFIAS, International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study, 1974. Energy Analysis Workshop on
Methodology and Conventions. Stockholm. M. Siesser editor.
ISO, 1996. International Standard Organization, Paris. Norm draft ISO 14040.
J"rgensen, S.E. 1992. Integration of ecosystem theories: a pattern. K1uwer Acad. Pub!., , Boston. 383 p.
Kiker C.F., 1992. Emergy and Available Energy Analyses: Are these consistent means for delineating
natural and artifactal capital? Paper presented at The Second Meeting ofthe International Society
for Ecological Economics, 3-6 August 1992, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kuemmel R and Linderberger D:, 1998. Energy, technical progress, and industrial growth. In: Advances
in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro
M., Herendeen RA., and Mayumi K (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp.207-222.
Lazzaretto A., Macor A, MirandolaA., and StoppatoA., 1998. Potentialities and limits ofexergoeconomic
methods in the design, analysis and diagnosis of exergy conversion plants. In: Advances in
Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro
M., Herendeen RA, and Mayumi K (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp. 5 15-530.
Lotka A.J., 1922a. Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, U.S., 8: 147-150.
-30-

Lotka A.I., 1922b. Natural selection as a Physical Principle. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 8: 1 5 1 - 1 5 5 .
Lyons G.I., Lunny F., and Pollock H.P., 1985. A procedure for estimating the value offorest fuels. Biomass,
8: 283-300.
Marland G., and Turhollow A.F., 199 1 . C02 emissions from the production and combustion of fuel
eihanol from com. Energy, 1 6 ( 1 l112): 1307- 1 3 16.
Martinez-A1ier J., 1 998. Personal communication.
Odum H.T., 1983. Maximum power and efficiency: a rebuttal. Ecological Modelling, 20: 71-82.
Odum H. T., 1988. Self organization, transformity and information. Science, 242: 1 1 32-1139.
Odum H.T., 1 99 1 . Emergy and biogeochemical cycles. In: Ecological Physical Chemistry, C.Rossi and
E.Tiezzi editors, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 25-56.
Odum H.T., 1 994. Ecological and General Systems. An Introduction to Systems Ecology. University
Press of Colorado. Pp.644.
Odum H. T., 1 996. Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley
& Sons, N.Y.
Odum H.T. and Pinkerton R.C., 1955. Time's speed regulator: the optimum efficiency for maximum
power output in physical and biological systems. American Scientist, 43: 33 1-343.
Scienceman D., 1 987. Energy and Emergy. In: Environmental Economics (pp.257-276), Pillet G. and
Murota T. editors, Roland Leimgruber, Geneva, Switzerland, 308 pp.
SETAC, Society ofEnv. Chemistry and Toxicology, 1993. Life Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice.
Slesser M., 1998. Text ofa message from Prof. Malcom Slesserto the Workshop Participants. In: Advances
in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M. T., Giampietro
M., Herendeen R.A., and Mayumi
K. (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp.62S-627.
Smil V, 1991. General Energetics. Energy in the Biosphere and Civilization. Wiley, New York, 367 pp.
Svirezhev, Y. 1 997. Exergy ofihe Biosphere. Ecological Modelling 96:309-3 10.
Szargut J., Morris D.R., and Steward F.R., 1988. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical and metallurgical
processes, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, London.
SzargutJ., 1998. Exergy Analysis ofThermal Processes. Ecological Cost. In: Advances in Energy Studies.
Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Herendeen
R.A., and Mayumi
K. (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; p. 77-97.
Turhollow A.F. and Perlack R.D., 1991. Emissions of C02 from energy crop production. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 1 (3): 129-135.
Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Bastianoni S., and Marchettini N., 1 995. Emergy-based indices and ratios to
evaluate ihe sustainable use of resources. Ecological Engineering, S : 5 19-53 1 .
U1giati S. and Brown M.T., 1998. Monitoring patterns ofsustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems.
Ecological Modelling, 108: 23-36.
Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Herendeen R.A., and Mayumi
K. (Eds), 1 998. Advances in
Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp.642.
Valero A., 1998. Thermoeconomics as a Conceptual Basis for Energy-Ecological Analysis. In: Advances
in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. U1giati S., Brown M. T., Giampietro
M., Herendeen R.A., and Mayumi
Wackemagel
K. (Eds). Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; p.415-444.
M. and Rees w., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Publishers.
-3 1-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
3
The Transformity of Riverine Sediments in the
Mississippi Delta
Jay F. Martin
ABSTRACT
The transformity for riverine sediments specific to the Mississippi delta was determined to be
sej/g. The calculation accounted for the accumulated solar em joules (sej) that were required to
weather the rock and deliver the sedimentsfrom the Mississippi river basin to the delta. This amount was
then divided by the annual mass of sediments reaching the delta to calculate the transformity of the
sediments in units of solar emjoules per gram. An emergy Signature diagram identified riverine sediments
as the largest natural input of emergy to river diversions. Determining the traniformity of riverine
sediments is a critical step in completing a thorough emergy analysis of river diversions to determine if
the benefitsfrom these projects merit the required economic investments.
6.28 E8
INTRODUCTION
By transforming flows of energy and material into the amount of emergy required for their
production, emergy analysis provides a basis to compare dissimilar flows, such as natural resources and
economic inputs. This ability makes emergy analysis a valuable tool to evaluate management plans
operating at the interface between natural and economic systems. River diversions, which rely on economic
investments and flows of riverine natural resources, have been used in deltas and river basins to create
and sustain marsh habitats (Lane et al. 1999, Templet and Meyer-Arendt 1988), remove nutrients (Lane et
al. 1999, Reilly et al 1999), and to ensure navigation (Mirza 1998). The overall goal of this project is to
perform emergy analyses of river diversions within the Mississippi delta to determine if the benefits of
sustaining and creating marshes merit the economic investments required for their construction and
maintenance. Before performing an emergy analysis the transformity, the emergy per unit energy or
mass, must be known for each flow entering and exiting the system, including riverine sediments. The
focus of this paper will be to quantify the transformity of riverine sediments in the Mississippi delta.
The calculation of a transformity of riverine sediments specific to the Mississippi delta was
necessitated because of the integral role of the sediments in the functioning of river diversions and the
sensitivity of the results to the transformity of riverine sediments. Previously, Odum (1996) calculated
the transformity of the sediments in the global sedimentary cycle to be 1E9 sej/g. In this calculation the
total annual emergy input to the geobiosphere was divided by the average mass of sediment uplifted
annually across the continental areas of the earth. This spatially averaged transformity has been utilized
for riverine sediments in previous emergy analyses of deltas (Day et al. 1997) and river basins (Brown
and McClanahan 1996). Because the emergy input, rate of geologic uplift, and rock density vary across
river basins the transformity of riverine sediments specific to an individual delta depends upon the
characteristics of the river basin. One of the main goals of river diversions in the Mississippi delta is to
capture and direct riverine sediment to hydraulically isolated marshes. The increased supply of sediment
will build elevation, sustaining and creating marsh habitat and reducing the conversion of these areas to
open water (Martin et af. 2000, Day et al. 1997). Land loss is a pervasive problem within the Louisiana
coastal zone where 4000 km' of marsh habitat have been converted to open water areas over the past 60
-33-
Chapter 3.
The Transformity of Riverine Sediments...
years (Britsch and Dunbar 1993). Preliminary emergy analysis results revealed that riverine sediments
are the largest emergy input to river diversions and, therefore, that the results would be highly dependent
upon the transformity of these sediments.
Transformity is defined as the ratio obtained by dividing the total emergy that was used in a
process by either the energy, mass, or cost of the product yielded (Odum 1988). For example, the
transformity of corn is 8.3E4 sejll (Odum 1996). Energy necessary for the production of corn on a
contemporary U.S. farm includes the environmental energies of sun, rain, wind and soil and the human
inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, labor, and management. The transformity value means that
8.3E4 solar joules are necessary to create these inputs and, therefore, required to produce each joule of
energy in corn. Transformities are used to convert different energies and products to emergy of the same
type and, therefore occupy a central role when performing emergy analyses.
Viewed holistically, sediments, as with all cycled materials, are characterized by a gain of energy
quality, or transformity, as they are concentrated or processed. As they become more diffuse in another
phase of the cycle, energy availability and emergy are lost, resulting in a decrease of transformity (Odum
1996). Mineral sediments reach a minimum transformity and concentration just prior to entering a stream
(Figures I and 2). The geopotential energy of the riverine system works on the sediments, concentrating
them and increasing their emergy and transformity as they flow downstream. The recycling of aluminum
cans offers an opportunity to demonstrate these concepts with familiar material and energy flows. The
aluminum of a can is at a minimal transformity just after being utilized as a beverage container. lust as
the transformity of sediments begins to increase when they enter a stream, the transformity of aluminum
cans increases when the consumer invest energy to increase their concentration by collecting the cans for
recycling. As the geopotential energy of the river basin increases the concentration of the sediments, the
energy of labor and fuels are utilized to collect the cans, eventually delivering them to a processing plant
where they are again rendered into usable aluminum. Sediments reach a maximum transformity when
subsidence,
uplift &
() .<O\II"CC
D jllterali.,..
sediments
-go
Figure 1. The system diagram of the sediment cycle illustrates the increase in trans/romity and
concentration of sediments prior to stream capture of eroded mountain sediments. Sun energy evaporates ocean
water to form rain that erodes m ountain sediments and creates river geopotential.
concentrates the sediments following stream capture and delivers them to the delta.
geological energies reform and elevate the sediments.
The geopotential
Over long time periods
During the cycle the transformity and concentration
of sediments reaches a maximum in mountian sediments and minimum in sediments prior to stream capture.
-34-
Chapter 3. The 7ran.formity ofRiverille SedIments. .
rock in mountains
J/
/
I
f
sediments prior to stream capture
Concentration
Figure 2. During the sediment cycle both trans/armity alld concentration increase as the
sediments are caplltred by streams alld transported to the delta alld overiongperiods of time reworked,
buried and elevated to jorm rock in mountains (solid line). As the sedimellls are eroded from
mountains both the trallsjormity and concentration decline (dashed lille).
they are highly concentrated and reworked by earth energies and uplifted to form mountains. The
investment of labor and fuel energies necessary to render usable aluminum into final products such as
cans, results in the maximum transformity for the cycled aluminum. Similar to the erosion of sediments
the aluminum loses transformity as spatial concentration is lost through distribution and during the use of
the product.
METHODS
After using the system diagram (Figure I) to identifY geopotential energy as responsible for
increasing the emergy and transformity of the sediments, the next step was to quantifY the energy flows
producing the geopotential energy of the Mississippi basin. Following the work ofRomitelli ( 1997), the
sources of energy contributing to the geopotential of river water are rain and geological uplift. Rainfall
produces river flow and stimulates erosion of sediments. Tectonic uplift caused by earth energies is
needed to create a slope to direct and concentrate riverine flow.
The total weight of rainfall across the basin was calculated as the product of the basin area, the
average rainfall across the basin, and the density of rain water (Table I). The average annual rainfall
across the basin, 0.799m, was calculated in a previous study of the Mississippi basin (Odum et al. 1987)
and is in agreement with the United States national average of 0.890, considering the low rainfall that
characterizes the western portion of the basin. The annual mass of rainfall, 2.67 EI8 glyr, was then
multiplied by the emergy per mass for rainfall, 8.99 E4 sejlg (Romitelli 1997), to quantify the equivalent
amount of solar energy required to produce this amount of rainfall, 2.40 E23 sejlyr (Table
I). The emergy
per mass for rainfall quantifies the amount of embodied solar energy used to create rainfall, by transforming
energies in radiative heating and wind into solar emjoules.
The annual mass of sediments uplifted each year was determined by multiplying the annual rate
of uplift, the rock density, and the basin area experiencing active uplift. The area of active geologic uplift
was determined as all areas with an elevation greater then 1000m above sea level and amounted to 21%
of the basin area (Table I). With the exception of a small portion of easternTennessee (5500 km'), this
included the portion of the basin westward of the north-south line dividing the states of Kansas and
-35-
Chapter 3. The Transformity of Riverine Sediments...
Ta ble 1. The annual contribution of solar emjoules from rainfall and geologic energies was
calculated by multiplying their respective transformities by the grams of each component. The sediment
transformity was arrived at by summing the rainfall and geologic contributions and dividing by
the annual flow of sediments.
Annual
Flow
(g)
Transfonnity
(sej/g)
Annual
solar emjoules
(sejlyr)
1. Rainfall
2.67E+l8
8.99E+04
2.40E+23
2. Uplift
1.83E+14
1.00E+09
1.83E+23
3. Total annual solar emjoules

4. Annual flow of sediments to delta(g)
4.23E+23
6.20E+l4
5. Mississippi delta sediment transformity
6.82E+08
I. Annual rainfall=annual ht. rain O.799m(Odum et aI. 1987)'rain density I.OOE6 glm3'
basin area 3.34EI2m2
2. Annual rock uplifted=Uplift rate lOernllOOOyr (Ruddiman and Kutzback 1991)'
rock density 2.61E6 glm3'basin area experiencing uplift 7.0 IE I I m2
(Ruddiman et aI. 1991)
3. sum of row I and row 2
4. Roberts 1997
5. Row 3 divided by row 4
Colorado. This agrees with geological studies (Ruddiman et aI. 1989) finding rapid uplift in the Rocky
Mountains and negligible uplift in the Great Plains. The annual uplift experienced by this area has been
estimated as 10 cm/lOOOyr (Ruddiman and Kutzback 1991). Similar to the rain calculation the annual
mass of uplifted sediments, I.S3 EI4 glyr, was multiplied by an emergy per mass for the global sedimentary
cycle, I E9 sej Ig (Odum 1996). The total annual emergy contributed by geologic uplift was 1.83 E23 sej
Iyr (Table I).
The last step to calculating the transformity of the sediments was to sum the total emergy
contributed to the sediments and divide by the total mass of sediments reaching the delta (6.20 E l 4g1yr
Roberts 1997). The sum of rain and geologic emergy was 4.23 E23 sej. The resulting sediment transformity
after dividing by the mass of sediments was 6.S2ES sej Ig (Table I).
DISCUSSION
Because of variations between the characteristics of the Mississippi basin and global averages
the transformity for riverine sediments in the Mississippi delta was lower than the previously calculated
global sediment value of I E9 sej/g. The emergy per year per area, empower density, used to create and
deliver the sediments from the basin to the Mississippi delta was 1.27 E l l sej/m2/yr. This value is twice
that of the global average employed by Odum (1996). However, the Mississippi basin contributes three
times more sediment mass per area (185.6 glm2) than the global average. Although the Mississippi basin
has greater empower than the global average, the greater amount of sediment per area results in a
transformity that is 68 percent of the global average sediment transformity.
After determining the transformity of Mississippi delta sediments it was possible to calculate
the total embodied solar emjoules input to river diversions via sediments. Emergy signature diagrams
were then constructed to compare emergy contributed by sediments with other natural inputs to river
diversions and other coastal systems. These calculations were carried out for the Caemervon river diversion
(Lane et aI. 1999) located along the Mississippi river 20 km downstream of New Orleans. The annual
-36-
Chapter 3. The Transformity of Riverine Sediments ...
Caernervo" River Diversion
Texas Coastal Zone
6.00E+12
l.OOE+12
1.OOE+U
1.00E+l0
1.00E+'
1.00E+8
1.00E+7
1.00E+'
Figure 3. Emergy signature diagrams comparing the emergy inputs to the Caernervon river diversion
and Texas coastal zone. Riverine water use is nearly an order 0/magnitude greater and the sediments are
nearly two orders o/magnitude greater in the river diversion compared to the Texas coast. The protected
and more inland location of the diversion resulted in reduced tidal and wave inputs. Data for the Texas
coastal zone obtainedfrom Energy Systems in Texas and United States Policy Research Project (1987).
amount of sediments entering the diversion (l.57 E IZ g) was multiplied by the transformity to calculate
the total embodied solar emjoules input to the project via sediments (9.85 EZO sejlyr). Dividing by the
area of the diversion (195 km') resulted in an empower density of 5.05 E IZ sej/mZ/yr due to sediment
input (Figure 3). Riverine sediments captured by the Caemervon diversion represent the largest emergy
input to the system by almost an order of magnitude. Figure 3 also contains an emergy signature diagram
for the Te"as coastal zone. Standardized for area, the inputs to the river diversion in the Mississippi delta
(riverine sediments and riverine water use) are nearly an order of magnitude greater compared to the
Te"as coastal setting. This difference reflects the much greater area of the Mississippi river basin that
contributes water and sediment to the delta. The larger area leads to greater amounts of embodied energy
and a higher concentration of resources in the Mississippi delta.
CONCLUSION
Using data from the Mississippi river basin the transformity for riverine sediments specific to
the Mississippi delta was determined to be 6.Z8 E8 sej/g. With this value the amount of emergy contributed
by sediments to a river diversion could be calculated and compared with other natural inputs. The sediments
contributed the greatest amount of emergy and are a dominant energy input to river diversions. The nel<l
research priority will be to quantify the economic inputs required to construct and maintain river diversions
and to compare these costs to the renewable energies captured by the diversions and the e"ports from the
diversions. This will determine if the benefits derived from river diversions, including sustaining and
creating coastal marshes, and augmenting the production of coastal fisheries, merit the economic
investments required for construction and maintenance. Determining the transformity of riverine sediments
in the Mississippi delta was an integral component of this research.
-37-
Chapter 3. The Transformity of Riverine Sediments...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded by the Louisiana Sea Grant Program.
REFERENCES
Britsch, L.D., Dunbar, J.B. 1993. Land loss rates: Louisiana coastal plain. Journal of Coastal Research.
9(324-338).
Brown, M.T., McClanahan, T.R. 1996. Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River dam
proposals. Ecological Modelling. 91:105-130.
Day, J.W, Martin, J.F., Cardoch, L., Templet, P. H. 1997. System functioning as a basis for sustainable
management of deltaic ecosystems. Coastal Management. 25:115-153.
Energy Systems in Texas and the United States Policy Research Project. 1987. Ecology and economy:
"emergy" analysis and public policy in Texas. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.
Policy Research Project Report Number 78.
Lane, R.R., Day, J.W,Jr., Thibodeaux, B. 1999. Water quality analysis of a freshwater diversion at
Caernervon, Louisiana. Estuaries. 22(327-336).
Martin, J.F., White, M.W, Reyes, E., Kemp, G.P., Mashriqui, H., Day, J.W 2000. Evaluation of coastal
management plans with a spatial model: Mississippi delta, Louisiana, USA. Environmental
Management. 26:117-129.
Mirza, M.M.Q., 1998. Diversion of the Ganges water at Farakka and its effects on salinity in Bangladesh.
Environmental Management. 22(711-722).
Odum, H.T. 1988. Self organizaiion, troasformity, and information. Science. 242: 1132-1139.
Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Odum, H.T., Diamond, C., Brown, M.T. 1987. Energy systems overview of the Mississippi River Basin.
University of Florida, Center for Wetlands publication #87-1. Gainesville, FL.
Reilly, J.F., Home, A.J., Miller, C.D. 2000. Nitrate removal from drinking water supply with large
fee-surface constructed wetlands prior to graoundwater recharge. Ecological Engineering. 14
(3348).
Roberts, H.H. 1997. Dynamic changes of the Holocene Mississippi River delta plain: the delta cycle.
Journal of Coastal Research. 13:605-627.
Romitelli, M.S. 1997. Energy Analysis of Watersheds. Dissertation, University of Florida. 291p.
Ruddiman, WF., Kutzback, J.E. 1991. Plateau Uplift and Climatic Change. Scientific American. 3
(March): 66-75.
Ruddiman, WF., Prell, WL., Raymao, M.E. 1989.Late Cenozoic Uplift in Southern Asia and the American
West: Rationale for General Circulation Modeling Experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research.
94: 18379-18391.
Templet, P.H., Meyer-Arendt, K.J. 1988. Louisiana wetland loss: a regional water management approach
to the problem. Environmental Management. 12: 181-192.
-38-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
4
Emternalities
Theory and Assessment
Gonzague Pillet, David Maratian, Nicole Zingg'

and Sherry Brandt-Williams
ABSTRACT
Emtemalities are a figurative counterpart to economic externalities. They represent and are a
measure of the "environmental fraction" that is embodied in economic products but which is not
captured by commercial markets. In contrast, externalities stand for and dimension the "environmental
consequences" of economic production and consumption that spill over commercial markets.
This paper is in three parts. Emtemalities are explained in Section one: the theory of emtemalities
is presented together with related economic and eMergy backgrounds. A case study is developed in Section
two: emtemalities of the Swiss agriculture are assessed according to an eMergyprocedure and a monergy
based calculation. A brief survey of emternality assessments in Europe, USA, and Asia is given in Section
3: values have been collected for agriculture as a whole, national economies, and selected crops and
agro-products.
Economic externalities are evaluated according to individual preferences. They provide a basis
for environmental costs and benefits, and primarily focus on "going out " consequences of economic
activities on the environment. Emternalities have been ignored by economists as long as no preferences
beyond usual costs-were put on environmental fractions ''flOWing into" economic products. In other
words, what we call "emternalities" was left aside because no appropriate economic value was available.
In the assessment of externalities of the Swiss agriculture, economic analysis showed that
focusing on established extemalities leads to undervaluing agricultural costs and benefits since the maj or
environmental contributions to society have been omilled Flows of nature into agriculture must be
assessed Resultsfrom the assessment of emternalities into Swiss agriculture show that the contribution
from nature amounts to 19.6 % in the input share structure or 2.5E+21 em.! (solar joules) per year. or
more than 3 billion dollars in 1996.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This paper addresses the valuation of nature's contribution to economic activities. Our concern
is the environmental resource fraction that is used in economic production without being priced or accounted
for commercially. This environmental fraction is called "emtemality", and its dimension is defined by the
measurement of non-market environmental inputs into economic processes.
Because commercial markets do not capture emternalities, neither prices nor economic values
are available. In economic theory, emtemalities come into view as the quasi counterpart of established
economic extemalities, except that they designate unassessed inflowing environmental contributions
instead of unpriced, outflowing impacts of economic processes on the environment (see Fig. I).
Emternalities constitute a counterpart to externalities on a metaphoric basis. Io both cases, private ownership
is unclear. Both constitute unpriced inflows or outflows. One basic difference is that externalities are
internalized according to preference-related methods whereas emternalities are externalized according to
-39-
Chapler 4. Emlernalilies - Theory and Assessment
commodity inputs
Inflowing
Environmental
Fraction
o
emternalities
commodity outputs
Agriculture
externalities
Outflowing non
commodity
outputs
Emternalities Vs. externalities. Emternalities come into view as the counterpart ofeconomic exter
Figure 1.
nalities.
non-preference related approaches.
The particular prefix aims at emphasizing this "into" attribute
(as a variant of "en-", em- refers to "put into").

Externalities are a component of welfare economics. Meade
(1973: 16) defines these as
situations where actions of agents affect the production possibilities of the economy and especially the
welfare of people who are external to the decision. In other words, people who are not fully consenting
parties in reaching production decisions, as they are in sales and purchases, are impacted by production
outflows.
In the case of emlernalilies, there is no accessible market, and there is no joint decision. Buyers
and sellers do not exist as consenting parties to the environmental transaction. Notwithstanding, the
production possibilities of the economy as well as the welfare of people are very much concerned. The
flow of goods and services that economic activities generate and individuals enjoy is linked to the
"environmental fraction" in a way that is not reflected in the marketplace. They can, however, be mirrored
in real, non-economic terms (pillet,
1986: 81).
Ad vances in Theory and Proced ures

Advances have been made in the theory and valuation of externalities along two correlative
lines: understanding and valuation procedures. On the one hand, the economic concept of externality
evolved from nonmarket, incidental externalities to energy externalities, with energy used to quantify the
external, energy-ecology basis of any economy. On the other hand, the appraisal of externalities evolved
from welfare measurements-by means of individual preferences-to the ecological assessment of more
pervasive and structural effects applying input-output based materials and/or environmental accounting
procedures (see Table I).
Accordingly, economic externalities have been supplemented by new concepts used to designate
pervasive materials-based externalities (called environmental externalities on Table I), and structural
systems ecology-based emternalities (formerly called energy externalities). In parallel, stages of the
methodology evolved from established welfare and net energy measurements to exergy, eMergy, and
even eXtropy valuation procedures.
Methods for assessing nonmarket effects, therefore, differ, with methodological choices
constituting another difference between externalities and emternalities. Economic valuation methods
put emphasis on the environmental consequences of economic actions on individual preferences (which
are evaluated by way of direct, indirect or hypothetical markets) and economic costs.
From the perspective of the so-called environmental externalities (which are evaluated in
physical terms, using energy metrics), economic processes are considered to be exchanging matter and
energy with neighboring systems. Constant resource availability is usually assumed.
-40-
Chapter 4. Emternalities - Theory and Assessment
Table I. Progression in the Theory and Assessment of Extemalities

Concept &
Theory
Definition
Welfare Economics
1
.. 0
). j ilx/j;
General
[R] Resource
Equilibrium, 1o Analysis
Input; [WI
Waste Output
Viewpoint
ModeHng
Principles
Assessment
Pareto
Optimality
Contingent
Valuation and
other Methods;
Damage Costs
Ori2in
Economic
Externalities
1920
Environmental
Externalities
1972
Energy
Systems
Externalities
1983
Emlernalities
1999
Ecology;
Interfuced
EnvironmentEconomic
Systems
aUJI
--
Individual
Preferences
Functional
Incidental
Effects
Including Environmental Links
1-0
Pervasive
Effects
Autocatalyt
ic Design
emt
Application
ofPhysicai
Principles
Ecological
Energy Laws,
Economics
Maximwn
PowerPrinciple
Environmental
Fraction
1-0 Based
Materials
Accounting,
Energy Metrics
EMergy
Synthesis;
Monergy Based
$ Value Tenns
Source. aj/er Pillet (1986) and PasqU/er (1999)
In the case of emtemalities (which are evaluated in eMergy and GDP$-value terms),
environmental and economic systems are interfaced. The economic system might be considered itself an
ecosystem using free environmental flows as nonmarke! inputs into economic production and use.
Definition and Meas urement of Emternalities

Emtemalities are expressed as the environmental fraction inflowing into economic processes as
nonmarket, unpriced inputs from across the commercial boundary, Some environmental flows (e.g.,
amenities) can be directly captured by individuals by means of their utility function, and can consequently
be assessed according to their preferences. Emtemalities inflowing into economic processes and products
cannot be measured this way. They first need to be environmentally dimensioned (using non
preference-related'metrics), and then appraised in relative pecuniary terms. Once environmentally
dimensioned, emtemalities might also be further assessed according to preference-related methods.
I'
R+N=I
,,--F
"\
Proces s
Sink
Figure 2: Three-arm diagram Abbreviations: R: renewable environmental fraction, IN: non-renewable environmental
fraction, I: total environmental input, 1': recycled environmental fraction, F: inputs fed hack by markets; Y: Yield
41
An emtemality ratio is available for making comparisons. This ratio is defined as the proportion
(%) of the environmental fraction (I) in the entire set of inputs (I + F). F denotes the market based inputs
(see Table II and Fig. 2). Recycled organic matter produced within the process (I') might increase the
environmental fraction, and with it the emtemality ratio (emt). In contrast, soil used up might be taken
into account as negative emtemalities in as far as soil is a non-renewable---or slowly renewable-resource
relative to the system. As a consequence, emtemality ratios are twofold: one is a composite ratio, summing
up renewable (R) and non renewable (N) flows entering the economic process (R + N I); the other one
is called "renewable" and takes into account renewable flows of nature only (R). Differences in the two
ratios denote the importance or, to the contrary, the unimportance of soil losses in the process under
review. See Table II for ratio definitions.
=
Table n.
emt Ratio Definitions
I1(1+F), or (I+I')/(I+I'+F)
(R+N)/(R+N+F)
R/(R+N+F)
emt
composite emt
renewable emt
EMergy synthesis is the metric used for assessing components of this system so that emtemalities
can be expressed in absolute as well as in relative terms.' EMergy analysis allows all system parameters,
economic and environmental, to be calculated on a common energy basis using embodied solar joules, or
emjoules (seJ or emIl.
EMergy accounting evaluates the work previously done to make a product or service in emjoules.
All flows coming in (such as non-market inputs: sun, land, wind, as well as market inputs like seeds,
pesticides, fuel, services, etc.) that contribute to economic products, including the final product (e.g.,
sugarcane or rice yield) are included.
Further monetary assessment of emtemalities can be computed by using "monergy", the reverse
of the eMergy/$ ratio that is widely used with eMergy synthesis. The eMergy/$ ratio is a country specific
overall ratio of eMergy to dollar flow (emJ/$). This ratio is obtained by dividing the total eMergy used
within a country by the GDP$-value of the gross national product of this country. It follows that this
ratio---and hence monergy -varies across countries.
The monetary assessment of emtemalities can thus be obtained by multiplying the value of the
emt in GDP-$
environmental fraction in eMergy by the monergy of the country, or: emJ x $/emJ
correspondence. Resulting GDP$-values are called emvalues. Monergy is a variation on eMergy/money
ratios. Monergy turns such a ratio into a more traditional economical ratio, answering instantly the following
question: how much eMergy does one GDP-$ purchase in any given country?
=
EMTERNALITIES IN SWISS AGRICULTURE: AN ASSESSMENT

Analyzing the agricultural sector is a significant issue because the free environmental fraction
embodied in these economic products is significant and the environmental needs of this sector are
particularly obvious. Emtemalities in Swiss agriculture have been environmentally dimensioned according
to the eMergy synthesis method (Ecosys, 2000). Further explanation about the eMergy synthesis method
will follow (see Methodology).
The Swiss agriculture uses 15,813 km' (around 38% of the total area of Switzerland).
Agriculture represents 2.5% of the Swiss GDP and occupies around 150,000 persons. In the following
case study, data used are from 1995.
The aim of the study was inter alia to quantitatively assess emtemalities "flowing into"
agricultural processes in Switzerland. Agricultural activities were aggregated as shown in the
-42-
Chapter 4. Emterna/ilies - Theory andAssessment

Fig. 2 three-arm diagram. In such a diagram, environmental and market eMergy flows are combined in
order to produce agricultural products. Accordingly, agricultural processes mix environmental inputs (R)
and non-renewable environmental inputs (N) with market inputs (F), but rarely incorporate environmental
recycle (I').
METHODOL OGY
Three successive protocol-based steps were involved in assessing the environmental fraction
into products of the Swiss agriculture. First, all the inputs of the Swiss agricultural sector were inventoried
and classified according to their environmental (renewable or non-renewable) or market characteristics.
Table III presents this classification.
Table III. Inputs to Agriculture
EnvironmentallnJ)uts
Renewable
Non-renewable
Sun, rain chemical potential,
Net loss of topsoil
rain and snow geopotential,

earth cycle
Market Inputs
Electricity, lubricant, diesel,
gasoline, labor, fertilizers,
pesticides, mechanical equipment, seeds, assets, industrial
fodder fores
Second, actual data had to be collected with respect to the different inputs (area, weight, masses,
energy, and so on) and translated into energy terms (joules). Table N shows examples of energy calculations
for solar energy (renewable environmental input) and diesel for livestock production (market inputs).
Table N. Data Collection and Calculation (examples)

DATA
INPUTS
Solar energy
Land area
4. 13E+lO m'
(land area)(avg. insolation)(/10000)( l-aibedo)(4186 Jlkcal)
Insolation
1.19E+02 Kcal/cm'/y
Albedo
0,20
(% given as decimal)
1.S2E+20 JIy
ENERGY
Diesel for livestock prodnction
(total used)(energy content per kg)
Total used
1.84E+07 kgly
Energy content per kg
4.28 E+07 Jlkg
7.89E+14 JIy
ENERGY
The second step in the methodology also involved the calculation of eMergy flows. The eMergy
of each item was calculated by multiplying energy data by their solar transformity ratio (emJ/J)' derived
from previous studies. Table Vshows the eMergy contents of solar energy and diesel for livestock production
of the Swiss agriculture.
The third and last methodological step consisted of computing the results and ratios in order to
allow further interpretation and to simplifY international comparisons.
-43-
Table V. Calculating the eMergy Content of Solar and Diesel Flows with respect to their Solar
Transformity
Inp u ts
Energy
Solar energy
I. 52E+20 J
Transformity Ra tio s
I emJ/J
l.52E+20 emJ
Diesel for livestock production
7.89E+14 J
6.60E+04 emJ/J
O.52E+20 emJ
E M ergy
RESULTS
Main results involved eMergy valuation of emtemalities that are embodied in Swiss agriculture
and the GDP-$ value of those emtemalities (their emvalue).The eMergy input share structure of Swiss
agriculture was established. Further distinctions were made with respect to renewable and non-renewable
contributions from the environment.
The emtemality ratio (II(I+F was calculated for Swiss agriculture as a whole. Other ratios such
as the eMergy investment ratio (F/(R+N or the environmental pressure ratio were also calculated F+N)I
R) as a basis for the formulation of judgements concerning the efficiency and ecological impacts of the
Swiss agroecosystem (production side).
Emternalities in the Swiss agriculture amounted to 2,44E+21 emJ per year and represent 19.6%
of all inputs (emtemality ratio).This is equivalent to $3.39E9 per year (or $2,143/hectare/year).
Emtemalities were dominated by renewable environmental flows (2.28E+21 emJ). Non-nonrenewable
flows (soil used up: I. 61E+20 emJ/year) were negligible. Other ratios show that 4.1 emJ of market inputs
were invested per Joule of emtemality (eMergy investment ratio). Similarly, the environmental pressure
ratio shows that 4.5 emJ of market-based and nonrenewable inputs were invested for every emJ of renewable
emtemality.
Results are presented inTable VI with details for crops and livestock production.
Table VI. Assessment of Emternalities in the Agroecosystem of Switzerland
Swiss Agroecosystem
Expression
EMergy flows, values and ratios
Total
Crops
Livestock
2.28E+21
1.61E+20
I.IIE+21
7.86E+19
EMERGY FLOWS
Emternalities
I
2
3
Renewable inputs
Nonrenewable inputs
Total environmental fraction
Market inputs
Labor and energy
Goods an assets in crops prod.
emJ/.
emJ/.
emJ/.
2.28E+21
1.61E+20
2.44E+21
2.44E+21
1.19E+21
emJl.
6.56E+21
3.07E+21
3.52E+20
3.28E+21
3.07E+21
3.28E+21
4
5
6
7
emJ/a
Goods an assets in livestock prod. emlla
Total market fraction
emJ/.
Emtemslities
Nonrenewable emternalities
9.98E+21
EMVALUES
US$I. (I)
US$/a.lh.
US$/a
3.39E+09
2143
2.24E+08
4.9IE+21
6 .3S E+ 21
8.20E+21
3.39E+09
1.65E+09
2.24E+08
1.09E+08
EMERGY USE RATIOS
10
II
12
EmternaJity ratio
EMergy investment ratio
Net eMergy yield ratio
(R+N)I (R+N+F) 19.6%

4.1
F/(R+N)
27.8%
2.6
1.38
13
1.26
YIF
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE RATIOS
2.9
(F+N)IR
4.5
Environmental pressure ratio
14
Sustainability ratio
(YIF)I [(F+N)I R]
0.28
-44-
0.48
12.7%
6.9
1.53
7.5
0.21
Chapter 4. Emtemalities - Theory and Assessment
Emternality as s es s ments in Europe, North America, and Asia
T his third and last section consists of an examination of selected emternality assessments.
Collected figures concern either whole agroecosystems (Switzerland, Italy, China), national economies
(Switzerland, Italy, France) or selected crops (Switzerland, Florida, Japan) and agro-products (Swiss
wine, Japanese sake).
Emternalities in Selected Agroecosys tems
Swiss agriculture has already been introduced in this study (Ecosys, 2000); results for Italian
agriculture come from Ulgiati, Odum, and Bastianoni (1992), EMergy Analysis ofItalian Agricultural
system; the Role ofEnergy Quality andEnvironmental Inputs. Results concerning the Chinese agricultural
sectors are from Lan, Odum, and Liu (1998), Energy Flow andEMergy Analysis ofthe Agroecosystems of
China. Tables VII and VIII facilitate international comparisons from an emternality standpoint.
Table VII. Emternality Values and Ratios in Selected Agroecosystems
- Switzerland, Italy, China -
Emternalities
EMergy (solar
Emvalue (GDP
emjoules)
equivalent)
E+l5
emJIha/yr
E+21
emJlyr
GDPS/ha/yr (renewable
(composite) (composite) (composite)
Swiss Agriculture
Emternality Ratios
Renewable
Composite
Fraction
Ratio
Ratio
fraction)
1.5
2.4
2143
2000
19.6%
18.3%
Italian Agriculture
(1989)
1.J
18.7
763
712
16.5%
15.4%
Chinese Aericulture
(1988)
3.4
341.0
391
148
n.a
(1996)
n.a
Table VII sheds light on the importance of the environmental fraction-now called "emternality"
-that is embodied in the agroecosystems of Switzerland, Italy, and China. A comparative analysis reveals
that Chinese agriculture uses twice more emternalities than the Italian and Swiss agroecosystems.
Table VII also presents emvalues-the GDP-$ assessment----Qf emternalities of selected agroeco
systems. Swiss emternalities amount to 2,143 GDP-$ per hectare: 2.7 times the emvalue of Italian
emternalities and roughly 6 times the emvalue of Chinese emternalities. T hese discrepancies mirror the
monergy differences between Switzerland, Italy, and China. In other words, the $-value of emternalities
in Switzerland is high because the ratio between total eMergy used by the country from all sources during
the study period divided by the Swiss gross national product (of the same period) is particularly low. On
this ground, i t seems that the Swiss total production is composed of products having either a high market
value and/or a low eMergy content.
-45-

A more detailed outlook (see Table VIII) presents the renewable and non-renewable dimensions
of emtemalities. It appears that the Chinese agriculture uses more non-renewable environmental inputs
than renewable ones. This is not the case for Switzerland and Italy. Non-renewable emtemalities have a
negative sign because use of soils in these areas constitutes some unsustainable environmental pressure.
Table vm. Renewable and Non-renewable Environmental Fractions in Selected Agroecosystems Switzerland, Italy, China
Emternalities
Positive.
Renewable
E+IS emJlhalvr
Negative,
Non-renewable
E+l5 emJlhalvr
1.4
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.3
2.1
Swiss Agriculture
(1996)
Italian Agriculture
(1989)
Chinese Agriculture
(1988)
Emternalities in Selected National Economies

Emtemalities can also be assessed at a national economy scale. Accordingly, their values and
ratios might prove useful for grasping at a more accurate picture of national economies by assessing their
"overall" environmental fraction. Stages of the methodology in this analysis are the same as in Section 2.
Table IX shows values and ratios for Swiss, Italian, and French national economies. Emvalues
117 billion
19 billion for Switzerland and 83 billion for Italy. Emtemality ratios range from 10% (Italy) to
of inflowing environmental goods and services in these countries (GDP-$ per year) amountto
for France,
16% (Switzerland).
Table IX.
Emtemalities in Selected National Economies - Switzerland, Italy, France
CountrY
Switzerland
Casestudy
National
Economy
Ratios
Case Studies
Emtemality
EmtemaiitieS
Ratto
emIlyr
I/(I+ F)
136.6E+20
0.16
Environmenta1 EMergy/mOney
Loading
ratio .
emIIGDP$
FII
Emvalue
GDP-$ lyr
(macro-price)
4.73
.72E+12
GDP-SI983
I.90E+10
Italy'>
National
Economy
1207.6E+20
0.10
9.47
1.46E+l 2
GDP-SI989
8.27E+1O
France'
National
Economy
1440.4E+20
0.13
7.20
1.23E+12
GDP-$ 1992
In this studv. the reverse of this ratio dermes monergy.

a) PilletJOdum. 1984. 1987: hHJllliati et aL 1994: c) PaMJuier. 1999
-46-
11.71E+lO
Chapter 4. Emtemalities - Theory and Assessment
Emvalues and emtemality ratios are sensitive to the monergy level that goes with each national
economy-{)rits reverse ratio, the eMergy/money ratio as reported in Table IX. In Switzerland, for example,
there is simply less eMergy for every dollar of GDP than in other countries. This means that the money
assessment of emtemalities flowing into a particular national product is based on the "replacement" value
provided by the economic value of this national product in the nation that is the source of that product.
Emternalities in Selected Agricultural Crops and Agro-prod ucts
National scales deliver aggregated results on the amount of contributions the country's free
environment provides in overall production. Focusing on the production of specific goods allows further
analysis of differences between emtemality values and ratios. Emtemality assessments of selected crops
and agro-products will now be compared. Selected crops are vineyard grapes in Geneva (pillet, 1987,
1995), tomato, sugarcane and com grain in Florida (Brandt-Williams & Odum, 1998; Brandt-Williams,
1999; Brandt-Williams, 2000), and rice production at Takamatsu, Japan (pillet and Murota, 1990).
Agro-products are Geneva wine and Japanese sake productions. Results appear in Table X.
Table X. Emtemalities in Selected Crops and Agro-products in Geneva (Switzerland),
Florida (USA), and Takamatsu (Japan)
Emternality Ratios
EmteroaJities
Emvalue (GDP
equivalent)
EMergy (solar emjoules)

E+15
emJlha/yr
E+l9
emJlyr
(composite) (composite)
Geneva
Vineyard
L5
0.2
GDPSlha/yr
(composite)
GDPSIha/yr
(renewable
fraction)
2085
2070
Wine
Florida
Composite
Ratio
Renewable
Fraction
Ratio
19.3%
19.2%
1 5.1%
15.0%
Tomato
0.9
2.1
291
290
5. 8%
5.7"/0
Corn Grain
4. 1
17.3
1271
291
55.4%
12.7%
Sugarcane
1.6
19.9
586
329
3 4. 1%
22.2%
1140
13.1%
13.0%
1150
11.1%
11.0%
Rice
Japan
1.7
519
Sake
Table X illustrates important differences between emtemalities embodied in these five selected
crops. For example, the Geneva vineyard only uses 1. 5E+15 emJ per hectare whereas Florida com uses
4.IE+15 emJ per hectare per year. Emtemality ratios are split into composite (that is, renewable and
non-renewable emtemalities coming into cultivation) and renewable fraction ratios (that is, ratios
accounting for renewable emtemalities only).
Table XI shows absolute values for renewable and non-renewable emtemalities in selected crops.
T his helps u nderstand differences in emtemalities related to non-renewable and renewable
environmental fractions differentials. Com grain and sugarcane, with high soil erosion, are of special
concern. Tomatoes (grown with plastic soil liners), vineyards (with low tillage and sod between rows),
and rice (water terraces; small size family farming) avoid this particular non-renewable fraction
(negative emternalities).
-47-
Table XI. Renewable and Non-renewable Emtemalities in Selected Crops and Agro-products (eMergy
Inflow)
Positive,
Negative,
Renewable
Non-renewable
E+15
E+ 15 emJlhalyr
Vineyard
1.5
0.001
0.9
0.005
Corn
0.9
3.2
Sugarcane
1.1
0.5
1.7
0.01
Geneva
Wine
Tomato
Florida
Rice
Japan
Sake
DISCUSSION
This paper focused on an input to agricultural production often discounted in traditional economics
- environmental services. Valuation of environmental flows is an especially relevant issue in agriculture
with such tangible ties to the environment for production. This paper proposed the use of eMergy to
quantify these contributions and introduced three concepts aimed at presenting eMergy in a conceptual
framework familiar to traditional economists.
Emternalities and emternality ratios.

Emtemalities were proposed as a counterpart to the established practice of evaluating externalities.
EMergy was used to evaluate those environmental flows and work strictly outside of traditional market
valuation: sun, evapotranspiration, soil loss, etc. Two ratios comparing the fraction of total agricultural
inputs coming from the environment were presented, one aggregating renewable and non-renewable and
another relating only the renewable fraction. These ratios are an important step in understanding
sustainability of agricultural systems. Environmental services constitute almost 20% of Swiss agricultural
inputs.
Monergy. Monergy is a variation on eMergy/money ratios used in eMergy accounting. Monergy
is a more traditional economical ratio, providing an alternative view of eMergy as a commodity with a
price tag. In other words, how much eMergy does one GDP-$ purchase in any given country?
Environmental inputs contribute more than three billion emdollars to the Swiss agroecosystem in 1996.
CostlBenefit. Conversion of renewable energies (R) into marketable commodities was proposed
as a benefit to society. However, the use of non-renewabIes (N) might be considered a negative emtemality,
and therefore a cost associated with production. Emtemality and monergy evaluations were used to value
these costs and benefits, and could be used to propose future allocation of market dollars or point to areas
for conservation efforts.
-48-
Chapter 4. Emternalities - Theory andAssessment
Severai areas for further research are evident. This evaluation illustrated significant differences
in agricultural values between different cultures/nations. International trade and economic development
theories might bring considerable explanation to cross-national and cross-sectorial variations in the value
of emternalities in different agroecosystems. Further analysis might focus on emternality assessments,
fluctuations in output particularities, production techniques and conditions of production.
System boundaries and scale are also significant issues in agricultural evaluations. This study
evaluated agriculture at the scale of a single cultivated plot, then summed the results for all such plots in
each country. Soil use is therefore the only non-renewable resource included.
However, other non-renewable environmental resources are regularly consumed in agricultural
production, and their position in eMergy evaluation changes if agriculture is viewed as a multi-plot or
regional business. One obvious example is fertilizer use. If this purchased good is imported from outside
the boundary of study, it is not a non-renewable impacting the sustainability of local production - though
it may impact sustainability elsewhere. Yet, if the raw resource is extracted from storages within the
region where multiple farms are located, the non-renewable costs need to reflect this non-renewable
negative.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper evolved from a study done for the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture. Support for
this research was provided by Ecosys, Inc., Geneva. The authors are grateful to Urs Gantner, John Peet
and one anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
REFERENCES
BRANDT-WILLIAMS,
S. (2000): EMergy of Regional Agriculture, in: Handbook oj Emergy Evaluation:
A Compendium OJ Data jor Emergy Computation Issued in a Series oj Folios, Folio #3,
Gainesville, Center for Environmental Policy, forthcoming.

S. (1999): Evaluation oj Watershed Control ojTwo Central Florida Lakes: Newnans
Ph.D. Dissertation (Environmental Engineering Sciences), University of
Florida, 259 pp.
BRANDT-WILLIAMS,
Lake and Lake Weir,
S. & OnUM, H.T. (1998): Procedure for Agricultural EMergy Evaluation Illustrated
with Analysis of Tomato Production In Florida, in: Introduction to Ecological Engineering with
Brazilian Case Studies, Unicarnp
BRANDT-WILLIAMS,
Ecosys", Inc. (2000): Appreciation quantitative des externalitlis de I 'agriculture suisse / Externalities in
Swiss Agriculture: An Assessment, Office federal de I'agriculture I Swiss Federal Office of
Agriculture (OFAG-SFOA), Berne, 162 pp. + 62 pp. Annexes
LAN, S., H. T. ODUM, & X. Lru (1998): Energy flows and Emergy Analysis of the Agroecosystems of
China, ecologiC Science 17(1).
E. (1973): The Theory ojEconomic Externalities, A. W. Sijthoff, Leiden and Institut Unversitaire
de Hautes Etudes Internationales, Geneve (Collection d'Economie Intemationale 21 International
Economics Series - 2)
MEADE, 1.
PASQUIER, J.-L. (1999): Analyse eco-energetique et economie ecologique: jondements, methodes e t
applications, PhD Thesis (Economics), University of Versailles
Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, 360
pp.
PILLET,
G. (1986): From External Effects to Energy Externality: New proposals in Environmental

Economics, Hitotsubashi Journal oj Economics 27(1) 77-97
-49-
PILLET, G. (1987): Case Study of the Role of Environment as an Energy Externality in Geneva Vineyard
Cultivation and Wine Production, Environmental Conservation 14{l) 53-58
PILLET, G. (l995): Case Study of the Role of the Environment in Geneva Vineyard Cultivation and Wine
Production, 1972-1986, in: HALL, c.A. S (ed.): Maximum Power, The Ideas andApplications of
H. T. OOOm, Niwot, University Press of Colorado, 279-283
PILLET, G. & MUROTA,
T.
(1988, rev. 1990): Shadow-Pricing the Role of Environment as an Energy
Externality in Geneva s Vineyard & Wine, Louisiana Sugar-Cane-Alcohol, andJapanese Sake,
unpublished
PILLET, G. & On um HT. (l984): Energy Externality and The Economy of Switzerland, Revue suisse
,
d'economie polilique et de statistique / Swiss Journal o f Economic and Statistics
120(3) 409-435
PILLET, G. & OnUM, H.T. (l987): E' Energie, ecologie, economie, Geneva, Georg, 257 pp.
ULGIATI, S., OnUM, H. T. & BASTIANONI, S. (1992): EMergy Analysis of Italian Agricultural System. The
Role of Energy Quality and Environmental Inputs. Proceeding of the Second International
Workshop on Ecological Physical Chemistry, Milan, Italy, 25-29 May 1992, Trends in
Ecological Physical Chemistry 187-215
ULGIATI, S., OnUM, HT. & BASTIANONI, S. (1994): EMergy Use, Environmental Loading and Sustainability.
An EMergy Analysis ofItaly, Ecological Modeling 73 2 15-268
-50-
Annex: EMergy Table for Geneva Vineyard Cultivation

Emergy
Table - Geneva Vineyard Cultivation
Item
Actual Energy
Transformity
Emergy
(Raw units)
(emj/unit)
(emj/ba)
RENEWABLE
I
3.44E+13 J/ba
Direct Sun
3.44E+13
Rain
4.36E+1O J/ba
1.50E+04
6.54E+14
3-4
Organic matter + recycled vines
1.34E+10 J/ba
6.24E+04
8.37E+14
NONRENEWABLE SOURCES FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM
l .58E+08 J/ba
Soil used up
6.24E+04
9.86E+12
APPLIED ENERGY AND L ABOR
Electricity
1.23E+09 J/ba
l .59E+05
1.96E+14
Fuel
1.27E+10 J/ba
6.60E+04
8.38E+14
Services
9.04E+14
GOODS AND ASSETS FOR VINEYARDS
14
Potash fertilizers, K20
9.27E+07 J/ba
2.62E+06
2.43E+14
15
Nitrogen fertilizers, N
1.43E+08 J/ba
1. 69E+06
2.42E+14
16
Phosphate fertilizers, P205
1.07E+07 J/ba
4.14E+07
4.43E+14
17
Pesticides
8.05E+08 J/ba
6.60E+04
5.31E+13
3.96E+07 J/ba
1.01E+07
18
Capital
19
Machines & Wires
2.95E+15
Calculated Transformity
PRODUCTS OF VINEYARDS
24
Grape yield
4.00E+14
2.94E+l O J/ba
2.58E+OS
7.59E+15
The concept of embodied energy is based on Odum's energy hierarchy theory, which considers
that work - either from the environment or from economic p rocess - corresponds to energetic flows of
different concentration (less or more diffused energy). In order to compare different energetic concentrations
(like energy flows coming from the environment and from the market place), all energy flows are translated
into the most diffused kind of energy: solar joules (or emjoules). This transfer is done by computing
transformity rntios that indicate what amount of the most diffuse form of energy (solar energy) is embodied
into more concentrated energy flows. Transformity ratios tell us how many solar joules (emjoules) are
equivalent to one joule of a more concentrated form. In that sense, the transformity ratio (emJ/J) is a
measure of the energy qUality. Results are transformation of energy flows (as measured in joules) into
eMergy flows (as measured in emjoules). See also "Methodology" in Section 2.
2
Transfonnities
can
be used to assess the quality differences between different energy forms because it
increases with each energy transformation in a given process.
51
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
5
Emergy Analysis of the New Bolivia-Brazil Gas
Pipeline (Gasbol)
.M
Silvia Romitelli
ABSTRACT
An emergy analysis ofthe northern portion (1970 Ian) ofthe new 3065 Ian pipe/ine constructed
to bring natural gasfrom Bolivia to southern Brazilian states was performed Major emergy inputs to the
project were the services for the heavily equipped compression plants and the services and electricity for
the pipe production. The Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) was evaluated to compare the emergy that is delivered
by the project against the emergy that it takes to construct and operate it. Results indicated a favorable
EYR of 5.8, meaning that the project will be able to support development in the receiving areas. The
impact ofthe gas or electricityfrom gas onfive administrative regions ofSlio Paulo State was examined
It was proposed that an hierarchical pattern ofdevelopment less extreme than exists today among the
regions, should be established after Gasbol. These results reveal the importance ofthe emergy analysis
for the strategic environmental planning by the state.
INTRODUCTION
The goal of this paper is to evaluate the net emergy of the transported gas from Bolivia. The
emergy that will be delivered by the Bolivia- Brazil gas pipeline will be compared to the amount of
emergy that is being used to construct and operate the project. The evaluation will include the natural and
the economic resources that are being allocated to the project.
A 3065km pipeline is being constructed to bring natural gas from Bolivia to southern Brazilian
states. The aim of the project is to provide Brazil with a new and cleaner source of energy, that will be
used to generate electricity in future thermo power plants and to replace more polluting fuels (oil, diesel,
LPG, etc) used today in industry.
It is expected that the anival of this new source of primary energy will generate new developments
in southern Brazilian states. In fact, emergy theory indicates that the growth and prosperity in urban
civilization depends on the supply of fuels and electricity with high net emergy yield. This means that
economies depend on sources of fuels and electricity that deliver substantially much more emergy than is
required to obtain them.
The net emergy of Texas natural gas (on shore) was estimated as 10.3, one of the highest ratios
among the all the heat sources evaluated (oil, coal, rainforest logs, lignite, wood, peat, etc) (Odum, 1996).
However, a lot of natural and economic resources are required to transport gas from Bolivia to Brazil. The
project, with a total estimated cost of2 billion dollars, has already employed 10,000 workers, and buried
442,000 ton of pipes to complete its first stage (1970 km section).
The other point to be discussed by the paper is the potential impacts of the anival of this new
primary source of energy in the economic development pattern of the Sao Paulo State. Based on the
proposed volume of gas to be delivered in different regions of the State and on the demand for domestic
and industrial electrical energy exhibited in recent years in these areas, some tentative scenarios for
future economic growth of these areas will be proposed.
-53-
The pro.iect
stages. The first is the northern section, which is already
steel pipe 1970 kill long. funning from Santa Cmz. Bolivia
to ('ampinas, Sao Paulo State. The southern section is under construction now, and wiJl mIl for IISO-km
The projct.:t is being constructed in 2
completed, and which is a 32" diamete r carbon
connecting the Brazilian states of Sao Paulo to Rio Grande do Sui, with 24" to 16" diameter pipes
(Figure
I)
It will transport a flow of 16 million cubic meters per day dllring the first years, increasing to 30
m illion clIbic meters per day after 7
years of operation The whole project will be equipped with
compression stations and 27 metering stations
(city gale....')
16
where g as will be delivered to the major
r------------r-------------..------ .. -
..------------....--,
--.. ------- ....---
Northern Pipeline Section
Southern Pipeline Section
lJHlJGlJAI
Figure I.
Route (?/Ihc floliviaBr(lzil j!tlS pljJt!lInt' in the! ,"OIl1ht:rn BrazIlian.
Inset shows the location in Sowh
Americ(1. The norhtern section ofthe pIpeline is completed while the southers welton is undl'r con.vtruction,
-54-
Chapter
5. Emergy Analysis ojthe new Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline
consumers. It will be remotely monitored by a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (Scada),
interlinked and operated with the help of a satellite (petrobrasl Segen IGasbol,
1996)
The pipeline route intersects distinct ecological zones, including large wetlands areas (Bolivian
Chaco and Brazilian Pantanal), savanna ("cerrado"), semi-deciduous forests, Atlantic rainforest, and
grasslands ("campo limpo"). In the northern section, anthropogenic influences are prevalent, and pasture
is the dominant use of these lands. Other uses include eucalyptus plantations, sugar cane plantations and
smaller areas with a variety of crops (com and beans) (Petrobrasl Segen/ Gasbol,
1996).
The project crosses approximately 80 municipalities, and some environmentally protected areas
and Indian reservations. Socioeconomic compensations were provided for the neighboring small
communities, for the Indian reservations and forthe environmental protected areas (petrobrasiBiodinamica!
Prime Engenharia,
October
1997).
It took about 15 months to complete the first stage of project (the northern section), starting in
1997 and ending in December 1998. It required the collaboration of about 10,000 workers and
1,900 heavy machines. The construction followed an environmental management plan and was monitored
by independent consultant companies.

About sixty percent of the pipes were made in Brazil, and
40% were imported from Japan and
US. The heavy machines were largely imported from Europe and the US. From the factory and harbor in
Sao Paulo State, the pipes were transported largely by trucks to large storage areas located at some
strategic points along the pipeline route.
METHODS
To calculate all natural and economic resources that went into the implementation of the project,
an emergy analysis of the project was carried out. This methodology allows one to estimate all needed
resources for the construction and operation of the pipeline, using solar energy as a common currency.
Emergy indices and ratios of renewable to non-renewable, purchased to free or yielded resources, regularly
applied for similar projects, are helpful tools to evaluate the intensity and the economic-environmental
impacts of a new development.
Emergy a nalysis of the projectimplementation

The emergy evaluation was done for the
methodology indicated on Oduin
I 970-km northern section of the gas pipeline, using the

( 1996) and according to the following steps:
A check list of major resources and activities involved in the project implementation was prepared. It
included natural and agricultural production destroyed by the project; resources needed for pipe
production and transportation, for the pipeline construction and operation, and the resources for the
environmental and social compensations.
An aggregate diagram of the pipeline construction and operation was prepared, as shown in Figure2.
Data on natural and agricultural resources was collected from environmental reports on impact
evaluation, mitigation and monitoring prepared by Petrobras for State and Federal Agencies. Data on
resources and funds required for the construction and compensations were obtained from Petrobras
personnel, especially data on machinery and labor. Energetic requirements for the pipe and machinery
production and for their transport were based on the net energy analysis of the whole project performed
by Montes & Shaeffer,
1997.
Energetic calculations were done according to methodology indicated in Odum

transformities taken from Odum
A table containing the items evaluated, the energy used peritern, transformities and their solar emergy
was prepared. (Table
1) using spreadsheet. Footnotes on the table indicated the data sources and the
energetic calculations.
(1996) and
( 1996) and other publications on emergy.
Results of the Emergy analysis were also presented on bar graphs (Figures
-55-
3 and 4).
Chapter
5. Emergy Analysis of the new Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline
Pipeline Construction
Figure 2. Aggregated diagram o/the pipeline implementation and operation project.
Emergy i ndices for thewhole project
To have a complete appraisal of the project, an emergy analysis of resources required for 20-years of
project operation (from 2000 to 2019) was carried out.
Data on predicted volume of natural gas to be transported and used in the northern section was
obtained from Petrobras. Gas flows varying from 3.84 E9 m3 in year 2000 to 7.67E9 m3 in years
2007 to 20 19 are expected. The total volume of gas to be transported ( 1.40EI I m3) was multiplied for
its energy content (8966 kcal/m3) to estimate its energetic contribution to the 20 years project ( I ,26E15
kcal or 5,25EI 8J). Applying a gas transformity of 48,000 sej/J, the emergy contribution of the gas for
the whole project was then computed as 2.52E23 sej. This value was taken as the non-renewable
resource contribution to the whole project.
The renewable emergy contribution to the whole project was taken as the same as determined for the
project implementation.
The purchased resource contribution to the proj ect was taken as the emergy of the proj ect
implementation previously estimated ( 1,47E22 sej) plus the emergy of goods and services for 20
years project operation and maintenance. It was assumed that the money to be paid to Bolivia for the
gas would revert for goods and services for the project. The total cost of the previously estimated
volume of gas was 5.55E9 dollars. The emergy of the goods and services was then calculated,
multiplying by the emergy dollar ratio of Brazil (4,82EI2 sejl, taken from Comar 1998).
An aggregated diagram for the whole project was prepared, as shown in Figure 5. Then emergy
indices were then determined. The transformity of the transported gas was estimated dividing the
total emergy contribution to the project ( renewable, non-renewable plus purchased) by the energy to
be generated by the gas (4.99EI8J). The emergy yield ratio was computed dividing the emergy yield
(2.94E23 sej) by the emergy of the purchased resources.
-56-
Chapter 5. Emergy Analysis ofthe new Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline

Impact Evaluation
The impacts in Sao Paulo State due to the arrival ofthis new primary energy source were evaluated
according to the following procedures:
Five administrative regions of the Sao Paulo State - Aracatuba, Central, Campinas, Metropolitan Sao
Paulo Region (RMSP) and Sao Jose dos Campos - were selected.
Data on industrial and total electrical energy use per region for the years 1990, 1994 and 1997 were
obtained from Fundacao Seade.
Emergy of electrical energy use in the administrative regions for the 3 subsequent years were estimated.
Transformity for electricity was taken as 160,000 sejlI.
A graph of the empower density (emergy per area per year) calculated for the current (1997) and
future condition of the 5 regions was prepared. Based on Petrobras data for the city gates and project
data ofthe future thermo power plants, the amount of gas to be delivered and used as fuel or electricity
in each region was estimated. The emergy use in future conditions was then evaluated, using
transformity of 48,000 sej/J for the natural gas and the transformity of 160,000 sej/J for the electricity
generated by the gas.
A scenario of potential future development of each region was proposed.

RESULTS
Table 1 displays the results of a detailed energy analysis of the pipeline. The evaluation
incorporated all necessary resources for the 20 years operation of the gas pipeline, and was broken into
three major components: the natural resources losses, the pipe production and transportation and the
actual pipeline construction.
The natural resources losses
Impacts on natural resources due to clearing, earth works and the establishment of a 20 meters
right of way were evaluated, calculating biomass and gross primary production (GPP) losses of affected
forests, wet prairie and pastures. Losses on forests GPP shall last for the 20 years project operation, but it
was assumed that wet prairie and pasture ecosystems will recover in 5years and 1 year respectively
(following the 2 years project when production was also impeded).
Losses on the agricultural production of sugarcane and eucalyptus were calculated for the 20
years project considering those plantations are incompatible with the operation of the gas pipeline. For
the other agricultural production, losses were limited to the 2 yeas ofthe project implementation. Relatively
low rates of erosion were used in the emergy analysis of soil losses, considering that control measures
were employed during construction.
Figure 3 presents the estimated solar Emergy of the natural and agricultural losses due to the
project implementation. The graph shows that the loss of sugarcane (13.9 EI9 sej), eucalyptus (5.1E19
sej) and forests (L2E19 sej) production during the 2 years project construction and 20 operation, besides
the soil losses during construction (1.4E19 sej), were the major natural and agricultural resources required
for the project.
Pipe production and tran sportation
To evaluate the emergy resources contributing to pipe production, the weight of the 1970-km
pipeline was computed (4.42E5 ton). Estimates of the electrical energy input were based on an energetic
intensity index of 54.73 MJ/kg relative to the amount of energy required for making the pipe from iron
ore (Bousted &Hancok, 1979). Services were computed from an economic index provided by Petrobras
(U$ 1137 per ton ofpipe).
Results indicated that the fuel and labor emergy required for transporting the pipes was minor.
On the other hand, inputs for pipe production were among the major components of the project.
-57-
Chapter
5. Emergy Analysis ofthe new Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline
Table 1. Emergy Analysis of the implementation of the Bolivia-Brazil gas pipeline

(Northern Bound= 1970 Ian)
Note
unit
Unit Solar
Emergy
unit
Solar Emergy
El8 sej
8.63E+14
3.S6E+IS
1.04E+14
9.38E+14
1.20E+IS
3.0IE+IS
2.33E+IS
I.S3E+IS
3.87E+12
1.84E+14
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
9.86E+3
1.0SE+3
1.62E+4
1.7SE+3
2.37E+3
2.S2E+3
2.2IE+4
9.IOE+4
6.00E+4
7.34E+4
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sejlI
sej/J
8.S
3.7
1.7
1.6
2.8
7.6
SI.4
139.0
0.2
13.S
4.42E+II
2.42E+16
1.00E+3
S.0IE+8
g
J
pers
$
4.6SE+9
1.60E+S
6.IIE+16
4.82E+12
sej/J
sej/J
sej/pers.
sej/J
20S0.0
3870.0
61.1
2420.0
8.27E+14
4.35E+02
J
pers
6.60E+4
3.66E+16
sej/J
sejlpers
S4.6
IS.9
2.2SE+09
1.12E+14
7.72E+14
9.9SE+3
6.30E+6
3.17E+8
1.2SE+JO
g
6.60E+4
J
J
6.60E+4
pers. 3.66E+16
4.82E+I2
$
4.82E+12
$
sejlg
sej/J
sej/J
sej/pers.
sej/$
sej/$
28.0
7.4
SI.O
360.0
30.0
IS00.0
7.84E+8
1.3SE+7
1.00E+7
3.S0E+6
$
$
$
$
4.82E+12
4.82E+12
4.82E+12
4.82E+12
sej/$
sej/$
sejl$
sejl$
3800.0
6S.0
48.0
17.0
4.70E+6
3.00E+6
2.30E+6
6.20E+6
$
$
$
$
4.82E+12
4.82E+12
4.82E+12
4.82E+12
sej/$
sej/$
sej/$
sej/$
23.0
14.0
II.O
30.0
Natural Resources Losses
I
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
JO
B
Raw
Units
Item
Forest Biomass
Forest GPP (22 yrs)
Wet Prairie Biomass
Wet Prairie GPP (7yrs)
Pasture Biomass
Pasture GPP(4yrs losses)
Eucalyptus (22 yrs losses)
Sugarcane(22 yr losses)
Agriculture (2yrs losses)
Soil OM (2yrs losses)
Pipe Production and transportation

Production
II
12
13
14
Steel
Electricity
Labor
Services
IS
16
Fuel
Labor
Pipes Transportation
. C Pipeline Construction
Pipeline
17
18
19
20
21
22
Machines-mat.
Machines-energy
Fuel
Labor
Env. Consultancy
Services
23
24
2S
26
Compression Plants
City-Gates
River Crossings
Control System(SCADA)
Special Units Construction
Social Compensations
27 Indian Communities
28 Eco compensations
29 Small communities
30 Right of way
Footnotes given at end of the chapter.
-58-
Chapter
16
14
.'i?
0.
....
Isl
....
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
tl
.!
'lII
."
i
<Ii
:a
0
'l'I
0
'"
Figure 3. Emergy ofnatural and agricultural resource losses due to project implementation
PipelineConstruction
The evaluation of the emergy that went on the pipeline construction included the depreciation of
the heavy machines, the fuel and labor used. Also the engineering services for the construction, the
design and environmental control were incorporated. Emergy of goods and services for the compression
plants and city-gates, and for the compensation projects for the affected communities, Indians reserves
and environmentally protected areas were computed based on the Brazilian emeIgy/dollar ratio (Comar,
1998).
Table
1 presents the emergy inputs to the pipeline construction, where the compression
stations with heavily equipped units represented the highest emergy input. Results indicated that the
construction of the pipeline required intense laborpower, and labor was among major input to the pipeline
implementation.
Emergy for project implementation

Figure 4 and Table 1 presents an emergy summary for the whole project implementation,
including data from the natural and agriCUltural resources, the pipe production, and the pipeline construction.
It shows that major emergy inputs went into the pipe production (as electricity, services and steel) and
in the assemblage of the special units (compression plants, river crossings and SCADA). Natural
and agricultural inputs were relatively minor in this type of project.
Emergyfor project implementati on and operation

Figure 5 displays an aggregate diagram of the construction and 20 year operation of the pipeline.
Contributions to the project included a large proportion of non - renewable resources (2520E20 sej),
considerable amounts of purchased resources (413E20 sej) and a small proportion of renewable resources
(2E20sej).
-59-
450
400
""
Q
...
W
-
350
300
250
"-
200
150
CD
100
50
0
J
\
:II
..
0
'"
Nal& Ag Losses
.:
J!
Pipe Prod&Transp
'"
j
\
J!
'"
.ll'i
i!
!
Pipeline Const
Figure 4. Bar graph summarizing all emergy inputs to project implementation.
Emergy Indi c es
The transformity of the transported gas was calculated as 5.88E4 sej/J, which is a little higher
than the transformity of the natural gas at its source (4.8E4 sejl1). The transformity was estimated by
dividing the total Emergy inputs to the project (2.94E23sej) to the output energy (4.99EI81).
The Emergy yield ratio (EYR) of the project was estimated by dividing the Emergy of the output
to the Emergy of the purchased resources. This estimated ratio was 5.8, indicating that the transported
natural gas can compete in supplying primary energy to the Brazilian economy. Typically competitive
sources of fuels at present have ratios of 6 to 1 (Odum, 1996).
DISCUSSION
The netbenefit of the project
The transported gas will be a very competitive primary source of energy for the Brazilian states.
The Emergy yield ratio was estimated as 5.8, meaning that the project will provide a very positive resource
balance to the economy. Despite the apparently high cost of the construction of the project, the major
inputs for this type of project are free of economic costs. The gas used at the present time is a biological
product accumulated by nature in the past.
Impacts on State development
Graphs of the electrical empower density for the five administrative regions of Sao Paulo State
showed the different intensity levels on these regions They also present the current trend of development
-60-
Project
Implementation
E2 0 Se j
L..._ .. _ _ _
-1F-
-I4.99 El83
____
_____
_
__
__
_
N = 2.52 E23 sej

F= 1.47 E 22 + 2.66 E22 = 4.13 E22 sej
Y= 2.52 E23 sej
Transformity of transported gas= 2.94E23 sej
4.99 E18J
Emergy Yield Ratio = YIF= 2.93 E23sej
4.13 E22 sej
= 5.88E4 sejl]
= 5.80
Figure 5. Aggregated diagram ofthe major emergy inputs to the pipeline implementation and 20 years
ofoperation. Total non renewable (N) and purchased (F) emergy inputs as well as the transformity
and emergy yield ratio are also shawn.
in the State (Figure 6). Total electrical empower density was very intense in the Greater Sao Paulo region,
moderately intense in the neighboring Campinas and Sao Jose dos Campos and much less intense in the
Central and Aracatuba regions. Industrial energy represented around 80-90% of the electrical emergy use
per area in the more developed regions.
An increasing trend in total electrical empower density are taken place in all regions. However,
a slight decrease in industrial electrical empower density was identified for Greater Sao Paulo, suggesting
a saturation of the development in the area due to the scarcity of natural resources.
Examining the impacts. of this new source of energy in these regions it can be determined that:
The chosen locations for the delivery of gas or thermo power electricity generated by the gas follows
the matching concept of emergy theory. For the more developed areas the matching concept will
require a primary source with higher quality, flexibility and versatility such as
electricity, with
transformity around 160,000 sej/J, that will be used to support more sophisticated production systems.
On the other hand, the more rural and more environmentally rich areas will do well with primary
source with a relatively lower transformity (the natural gas with transformity around 50,000 sej/J).
The additional emergy that will be provided by the natural gas or by the electricity derived from the
gas will promote a hierarchical pattern of development intensity for the State similar to the observed
today (Figure 7). However, considering:
-61-
Figure 6. Graphs of trends (1990, 1994, and 1997years) of electrical empower density infive administrativ regions
of Sao Paulo State crossed by GASBOL.
Black bars represent industrial use and while bars represent total use.
Highest value in the y-axis is 3E12 sejlm'lyr for Greater Sao Paulo and is 3 Ell sejlm'lyr for the other regions.
a very favorable estimated EYR of the natural gas (- 6.0) and a less favorable EYR of the electricity
(- 2.5); and
a saturated condition verified in the developed centers and the abundance of environmental resources
in the more remote areas,
we suggest that the intensity of development will reach a more flattered curve, as proposed in Figure 7.
Such scenario will predict expanded growth on the more remote zones, and moderate growth on the
more developed regions.
These information should be very useful for strategic environmental planning of the State.
Ecological engineering solutions could be designed for the more remote regions, with an abundance of
space and other natural resources. On the other hand, more efficient and less wasteful uses of the already
scarce natural resources could be planned for the developed regions.
Comparing energeti c methodologies

A net energy analysis was performed for the construction and operation of the entire gas pipeline
(Montes & Shaeffer, 1999). The analysis took in to consideration the direct and indirect physical energy
required for the construction and assemblage of the pipelines and the compression stations, and the energy
for the operation of the project. Results indicated that the energetic costs of operating the gas pipeline
amounts around 4 to 5% of the energy provided by the project (or a energy yield ratio of 19 to I).
Although the net energy analysis shares some common procedures with the emergy analysis, the
emergy methodology is more comprehensive, being able to account for a larger range of resources. Also
emergy analysis, being based on general systems concepts allows a broader scope of applications,
including appropriate environmental policies.
62
Chapter
5.
Emergy Analysis
of the new Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline
Empower density of the primary energies contributing to the

administrative regions of S Paulo State
35
]:
30
j;!
. iii'
..
<::>
25
20
...,
>.
.-=
15
!!!
....
rJ
10
0
aracatuba
central
campinas
current -- .. - - future
RMSP
oil;
potential
S J Campos
Figure 7. Graphs of empower density of gas and electrical energy contributions to the five re gions,
considering the following scenarios: Current
(1997), Future (1997 plus gas and electrical emergy from
GASBOL). and potential scenario proposed especially due to differences in the EYR of gas and electricity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The autbor is grateful totbe Petrobras personnel. especially toAluisio Ferreira Filho for providing
general data on the project. Manuel Pacheco for the field data, Andre Becker for the operational data. and
Paulo Montes for sharing his net energy analysis of the project.
REFERENCES
Boustead.
1& G F Hancock, 1979. Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Comar, M. V
1998. Avaliacao emergetica de projetos agricolas e agro-industriais no Alto Rio Pardo: a
busca do Desenvolvimento Sustentavel. Doctoral Dissertation. Universidade Estadual de

Campinas. Campinas, Brazil. 197 pp.
Deshmuk,I.
1986. Ecology and Tropical Biology. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Cambridge,
Massachussets.
Fundacao Seade- www .eade m:g br
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica- wwwibge Oll! br
Mitsch W.
1. & 1.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
-63-

Montes, P.M.F. & R. Shaeffer.
1999. Analise Energetica de Sistema de Transporte de Gas. Presented at
the 2,d Brazilian Seminar on Pipes. 13 pp.

Odum, H. T.
1996. EnvironmentalAccounting. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York ..
Odum H. T. & J. A. Arding.
1991. Emergy Analysis of Shrimp Mariculture in Equador. Report to Coastal

87 pp.
Studies Institute. Univ. of Rhode Island, Narragansett. Center for Wetlands, Gainesville,
Padro, M. A. & M.T. Brown.
1997. Interface ecosystems with an oil spill in a Venezuelan tropical savannah.

8, 49-78 pp.
Ecological Engineering, vol.
Petrobrasl Biodinamical Prime Engenharia,
1997- Documentos para LI- Detalhamento dos Programas de
Controle Ambiental da Parte Brasileira do gasoduto- Volumes I and II.

Petrobrasl Segen/Gasbol,
1996. Gasoduto Bolivia- Brasil - Estudo de Impacto Ambiental- Relatorio
Consolidado.
Schlesinger w.H.
1991. Biogeochemistry: analysis of the global change. Academic Press, San Diego,
California.
Sinisgalli, P.A.A. 1997. Analise do Fluxo energetico-aplicacao ao caso da cadeia produtiva da celulose.
Master Thesis. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Silo Paulo, Brazil, JJSpp.
-64-
Chapter
Footnotes to Table 1
i.Forest Biomass Losses
(forested wetlands, upland forest)
(Area data from Petrobrasl BiodinamicalPrime Engenharia (1997))
Area= (14 wet ha+ l45 up ha)(MS) +20 ha (SP)
Standing Biomass trop.seasonal forest=32 kg/m2 (Schiesinger,1991)
Biomass energy content= 3.6Kcallg (Prado&Brown, 1997)
Forest biomass energy = area(ha)*IE4m2lha*biomass(kg/m2)*(IE3glkg)*(3.6kcal/g)*4186Jlkcal
Forest biomass 8.63E+14 J
Transformity of forest biomass = (ET(m/yr)*(1E6g!m3)*Gibbs (J/g)* Transformity of rainET (sejlJ)*turmover timel
biomass(Kg/m2)*(1000glkg)*(3.6kcallg)*4186Jlkcal)
Rain ET= 1.25 m/yr
Rain Gibbs Free Energy 4.94J/g
Transformity of rain ET= 1.54E+4 sej/J (Prado & Brown, 199&)
Turnover time of fores t= 50 years (assumed)
Transformity of forest biomass = 9. 86E+3 sej/J
2. Forest GPP affected (20 yrs)
Area= 179 ha (as before)
Net Primary Production (NPP)= 1200 g/m2lyr (Desmukh,1986)
Gross Primary Production=NPP/0.20=6000 g/m2lyr (Desmukh,1986)
Biomass energy content = 3.6 kcaUJ
Energy (22 yrs)=Area*(IE4 m2lha)* GPP(g!m2/yr)* 3.6kcal/g*4186Jlkcal*22yrs losses
Energy (22yrs)= 3.56E+15J
Transformity of forest GPP= (ET(mIyr)*(IE6g/m3)*Gibbs (J/g)* Transformity of rainET (sejlJ)1 GPP(g/m21
yr)*(3.6kcallg)* 4186Jlkcal)
Transformity of forest GPP=I.05E+3 sej/J
3. Wet Prairie Biomass
(estimated 57km of wetlands in Bolivia)
Area= 144 ha (Bolivia)
Area=126ha (MS)+ Iha (SP)
Total area= 247 ha
Standing biomass of marshes= 2.8 kg/m2 (Mitsch& Gosselink, 1986)
Biomass energy content= 3.6 kcallg
Wet prairie biomass energy=area (ha)*IE4m2Iha*biomass(kg/m2)*IE3g1kg*3.6kcallg*4186Jlkcal
Wet prairie biomass energy= 1.04E+14J
Transfomity of wet prairie biomass= ET(m/yr)*(1E6g/m3)*Gibbs (J/g)* Transformity of rainET (sejlJ)*turmover
time! biomass(Kg/m2)*(IOOOglkg)*(3.6kcallg)*4186Jlkcal)
Turnover time of wet prairie= 7 yr (assumed)
Transformity of wet prairie biomass= 1.62E+4sej/J
4.Wet Prairie GPP(7yr)
Assuming 2yr construction and 5 yes for ecosystem recovery
Area=247ha
NPP= IIOOg/m2Iyr (Mitsch&Gosselink,1986)
GPP= NPPIO.3=3600g!m2Iyr
Energy(7yr)= Area*(lE4 m2Iha)* GPP(g/m2lyr)* 3.6kcal/g*4186Jlkcal*7yrs losses
Energy(7yrs)= 9.38E+l4J
Traosformity of wet prairie GPP=(ET(m/yr)*( l E6g/m3)*Gibbs (J/g)* Transformity of rainET (sejlJ)! GPP(g!m2i
yr)*(3.6kcal/g)*4186Jlkcal)
Rain ET= 1.25m
Transformity of wet prairie GPP= I.75E+3 sejlJ
5. Pasture Biomass
Estimating 500km of pasture in Bolivia
Area=IOOO ha (Bolivia)
Area=962 ha (MS)+532 ha(SP)=
Total Area=2494 ha
Standing Biomass of savanna=3.2kg/m2 (Schlesinger, 1991)
Biomass energy content=3.6 kcallg
=
-65-
Chapter 5. Emergy Analysis ojthe new Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline

Pasture biomass energy area (ha)*IE4m2/ha*biomass(kglm2)*IE3g/kg*3.6kcallg*4186J/kcal
Pasture biomass energy1.20E+15J
Transformity of pasture biomass ET(m1yr)*( IE6g1m3)*Gibbs (J/g)* Transformity of rainET (sejlJ)*turmover timel
biomass(Kglm2)*(I000g/kg)*(3.6kcai/g)*4186J/kcal)
Rain ET 1. 0 m1yr
Turnover time of pasture 1.5 yrs (Prado&Brown,1997)
Transformity of pasture biomass 2.37E+3 sej/J
6. Pasture GPP affected (4 yrs)
Area 2494 ha
Net Primary Production (NPP)= 600 g/m2/yr (Schlesinger,1991)
Gross Primary Production=NPP/O.32000 g1m2/yr (
Biomass energy contenr-3.6 kcai/g
Energy (4 yrs)=Area*(1E4 m2tha)* GPP(glrn2lyr)* 3.6kcallg*4186Jlkcai*2yrs losses
Energy (4yrs)=3.0 i E+15J
Transformity of pasture GPP= (ET(m1yr)*(IE6g/m3)*Gibbs (J/g)* Transformity of rainET (sejlJ)1 GPP(glm21
yr)*(3.6kcal/g)*4186Jlkcai)
Rain ET= Imlyr
Transformity of pasture GPP=2.52E+3 sej/J
7. Eucaliptus (22 yrs losses)
Area= 123 ha (MS)+ 12ha (SP)=
Total area= 135 ha
(Area data from Petrobrasl BiodinamicalPrime Engenharia (1997
Average Production-lO.OOOkglhalyr=
Total Production 5,40E+06 kg/yr
(Eucalyptus production data from Sinisgaili (1998)
Energy tot production (kglyr)*IE3g1Kg*4.68Kcai/g*4186J/kcal*22 yrs losser
Energy= 2.33E+15 Jlyr
Transformity for Eucalyptus from Sinisgalli (1998)
8. Sugarcane (22 years losses)
Area 260 ha (SP)=
(Area data from Prime Engenharia (1997
Average Production80.000kglha/yr=
Total Production 2.08E+07 kglyr
(Production data from IBGE)
Energy tot production (kglyr)*IE3g/kg*0.20DM*4kcal/g*4186J/kcai*22 yrs losses
Energy= 1.53E+ 15Jlyr
9. Agriculture
Prod *area
Area
Prod
kglyr
Products
kglhalyr
ha
rice
29700
!1
2700
beans
3000
5
600
com
109200
2600
42
cotton
7800
6
1300
veg
300000
10
30000
60000
oranges
3
20000
coffee
4500
1500
3
Total
514200
80
6427.5
(** Production data from Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica)

Area 80 ha (ha)= 80 ha
Total Production= 5.14E+05 Kg/yr
Energy= tot production (kglyr)*IE3g/kg*0.20DM*4.5kcallg*4186Jlkcai*2 yrs losses
Energy= 3.87E+12 Jlyr
10. Soil OM
Area of bare soil=3395ha
(Sum of total crossed areas)
Soil Losses (4.5% slope)= 20 tonlhalyr
(Soil losses data from Roose, 1996 assuming some control due to the protective structures used
-66-

during construction)
Energy= soil loss (tonlha)*area(ha)*IE6g/ton*0.020M*5.4Kcal/g*4186Jlkcal*2 yrs losses
Energy= I.84E+14 J/yr
II. Steel
Length
Weightlsector
Thick
Sp weight
Sector
kg
m
kglm
1.28E+08
Santa Cruz- Corumba
5.57E+05
0.46
230.5
5.07E+07
Corumba- Miranda
2.20E+05
0.46
230.5
6. 8E+07
Miranda- Mimoso
3.03E+05
0.46
230.5
5.90E+07
Mimosa- Mirandopolis
2.56E+05
0.46
230.5
230.5
0.46
5.49E+07
2.38E+05
Mirandopolis-Ibitinga
2.79E+07
Ibitinga- SOO Carlos
I.21E+05
0.46
230.5
2.95E+07
Sao Carlos- Replan
1.20E+05
0.49
245.5
2.17E+07
Replan- Guararema
1.52E+05
0.38
142.6
(data on length from Petrobras/SegeniGasbol (1996) and on pipeweight
from Montes & Shaeffer (1999))
Weight= sum ofweightlsector(kg) *IE3g1kg
Steelweight=
4.42E+II g
12. Electricity
Energy requirement to praduce steel pipe from ore=fuel production energy + energy content offuels= 54,73MJlkg
(from Boustead & Hancock, 1979)
Weight of pipes= 4.42E+08 kg
Energy= energy requirement indexweight=
Energy= 2.42E+16J
13. Labor
1,000 peoplewith average 6 years of educationworking for I year
Emergy/person (6 yr education)= 6 . lIE+16sejlyr
(estimated based on Total Emergy for Brazil= 2.77E24 sej (Comar, 1998) and populationwith 6 years of education=
4.57E7 from Institute Brasileira de Geografia e Estatistica- year
1996
.
14. Services
Cost index for piper-1I34.5$1ton
(Index provided by Petrobras)
Weight of pipes= 4.42E+05 ton
Total Cost= cost index* weight=5.0IE+08$
15. Fuels
Assuming all pipeswere transported by trucks
Total length
Length No. trips
No. pipes
Pipeline
km
km
Route
m
1.07E+07
1950
2.75E+03
2.48E+04
2.97E+05
R Grande- R San Miguel
8.02E+06
1635
2.45E+03
2.21E+04
Rio S. Miguel- Corumba
2.65E+05
6.56E+06
1610
2.04E+03
1.83E+04
Corumba- Miranda
2.20E+05
6.17E+06
1100
2.81E+03
Miranda- Mimoso
2.53E+04
3.03E+05
4.84E+06
1020
2.37E+03
2. 13E+04
Mimosa- Mirandopolis
2.56E+05
5.66E+06
1285
2.20E+03
1.98E+04
2.38E+05
1.38E+06
310
2.23E+03
2.0IE+04
Ibitinga- Caropinas
2.41E+05
320
7.92E+02
1.27E+04
Carnpinas- Guararema
1.52E+05
QZE+O
4.39E+07
(considering the pipe length= 12m , the truck load of 12 pipes and the fuel consumption rate of
2kmII (Montes & Shaeffer(I999
2.19E+071iters
Diesel consumption=
Heat content=37.7 l MJIliter
Energy= heat content *diesel=8.27E+14 J
16 Labor
Considering the total length of the pipe routes= 4.39E7 km and assuming a daily route of600 km, the number of days
of actualwork was estimated)
Number of days of actualwork= 4.39E7 kml600 kmlday=73116days
Number of days including resting time=158947days
-67-

Number of drivers working during a year needed to transport pipes158947 days / 365 days435 drivers
Emergy/person (4 yr education)3.66 E + l6sej/yr
(estimated based on Total Emergy for Brazil 2.77E24 sej (Comar, 1998) and
population with 4 years of education 7.56E7 from Instituto Brasileiro de Geo e Estatistica yr-1996))
17. Heavy Machines - material on "used steel
Based on field data from sector 9 (Petrobras personnel)
Average weight of the heavy machines used in the constructionI I840kg/machine

Number of machines (notes from Petrobras lecture)1900units
Total weighF2.2SE+07kg
Considering an average life of the machines as 10 years, the "used" material dwing 1 year of construction was
assumed total weight!10
Used steel on the machine2.25E+06k 2.25E+09 g
18. Heavy Machines- energy on "used steel"
Energy requirement to produce steel machine from 0_ fuel production energy + energy content of fuels =50MJ/
kg(Boustead & Hancok, 1978)
Energy on "used machine"= weight of steel used on the machine (footnote 14)* 50 MJ/k
Energy on "used machine"=1.l2E+14J
19. Fuel
Based on field data from sector 9 (Petrobras personnel)
Fuel used! month/kg of machine0,060697Jl1month/kg of machine
Total weight (1900 machines)2.25E+07kg
Months of iroplementation15 months
Diesel used2.05E+07liters
Energy on diesel used 37.71MJlLiter' liters of diesel7.72E+14J
20. Labor
15 months for the construction 1.25 year
Workers (direct and indirectF7957 workers (notes from Petrobras lecture)
Emergy/person (4 yr education)3.66E + l 6 sejlyr
(estimated based on Total Emergy for Brazil 2.77E24 sej (Comar, 1998) and
population with 4 years of education= 7.56E7 from Inst. Bras. Geo e Estatistica- yr 1996))
21. Environmental Control Consultants
Consultancy costs for the Northern Bound (notes to Petrobras personnel)= 6.50E+06$
22. Services
distance
diarn
in
metropol
services
costs
Total
(US$)services
Santa Cruz- Corumba
5.57E+05
32
1.78E+07
5.03
8.97E+07
Corumba- Miranda
32
7.04E+06
5.78
4.07E+07
Miranda- Mimoso
2.20E+05
3.03E+05
32
9.70E+06
5.78
5.60E+07
Mimoso- Mirandopolis
2.56E+05
32
8.19E+06
5.78
4.73E+07
2.38E+05
32
7.62E+06
5.78
4.40E+07
Ibitinga- Sao Carlos
1.21E+05
32
3.87E+06
5.78
2.24E+07
Sao Carlos- Replan
L20E+05
24
2.88E+06
S.78
Replan- Guararema
l.52E+05
I 66E-H)7
3.17E+08
"(Services Costs / metropol from notes of Petrobras lecture)

Services= 3.1 7E+08 US$
23. Compression Stations (CS)
3 CS of 3x7000HP for ISE6m3/day
7 CS of 3x7000HP for 22E6m3/day
6CS of 4x7000HP and ICS of 3x7000HP for 27E6m3/d
14CS of 4x7000HP for 30E6m3/day
(Montes &Shaeffer, 1999)
Cost Index=2000US$1HP (notes from Petrobras)
Total COSF 14stations*4'7000HP'2000 7.84E+08$
24. City-gates
15 units predicted for the Northern Bound of pipeline in Brazil,
with maximum daily flows varying from 2.55E6 m3 to 3.6E6 m3
(Cost estimated from graph showing capacity & costs (US$) provided by Petrobras personnel)
-68-

Estimated costs l.35E+07$
25. River Crossings
Data provided by Petrobras personnel)
Costs (Goods & Services)1.00E+07$
26. Control System (SCADA)
Data provided by Petrobras personnel
Costs (Goods & Services)3.50E+06$
27,28,
29,30
Social compensations
Data from Petrobras personnel
-69-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
6
Transformities And Exergetic Cost - A Discussion
J.T.v. Pereira, and S.A.Nebra
ABSTRACT
The energetic, exergetic and emergetic analysis methods have been used to quantifY the work
done by man made systems, alone or together with natural ones, and assist the decision-makers. These
three methods start with the use of conservation principles of matter and energy applied to a system. In
the energetic analysis, all quantities of interest are easily computed, because they are related to
thermodynamic properties. However, this analysis fails to identifY losses of work and the effective use of
resources. The secondlaw of thermodynamics shows that only a part of the thermal energy is convertible
to work. This part is namedexergy. In an exergetic analysis, moreover than energyflows, exergyflows are
considered If an "environment datum" (pressure, temperature and composition) is deflned the exergy
could be considered a thermodynamic property. The concept of "exergetic cost" is used to make the
exergy accounting, i.e. to evaluate al/ the necessary exergy to get a product. Emergy is the available
energy used up directly or indirectly to make a product or service. The exergy flows are converted into
emergy by the use of the "transformities". This paper shows a Simplified exergy and emergy analysis of
a cement plant, pointing out the similarities and dissimilarities between these methods.
INTRODUCTION
A big effort has enforced in the most recent years to understand and point out solutions for the
environmental problems caused by human activities. There are several "methodologies", trying to deal
with this question, and in
this paper we focus on two of them. The "emergy" and "exergetic cost"
methodologies. These two methodologies are being used to quantify and qualify the work done by man
made systems, alone or together with the natural ones. The objective of this paper is to compare these
methodologies, by means of an application to the cement industry.
The cement industry is one of the most energy intensive, and it is also an important economic
activity in the majority of the countries. From the environmental point of view, this industry can produce
ecological damage, but at the same time, in the last years, extensive use of their kilns to incinerate dangerous
residues has been made. For these reasons, this industry is an important object of study.
Some data can show the economic weigh of this industry. In 1994, the world production was of
1.378 billion oftons, and Brazil produced 25.2 millions. The five major producers in the world are China,
Japan, United States, India and South Korea (Moura Santi, 1997).
In previous papers (Silva and Nebra, 1993; 1994) an exergetic analysis of the clinker production
process was performed. Subsequently, the analysis continued with the evaluation of the exergetic and
monetary cost (Silva and Nebra, 1995, 1996a), including the analysis of the use of secondary fuels (Silva,
et a1., 1994; Santos Rossi; et aI., 1995; Nebra and Silva, 1996b). A complete study, including monetary
costs of the fuels used and a review of ecological problems was reported by Silva (1994).
THE CEMENT INDUSTRY

Portland cement is the name given to a cement obtained by mixing together calcareous materials
and clay, or other silica-, a1umina-, and iron oxide-bearing materials, burning them at the clinkering
-71-
Chapter 6. Transjormities and Exergetic Cost - A Discussion

temperature
1450'C), and grinding the resulting clinker (95-97%) with gypsum (5-3%) and others
additives (Neville and Brooks, 1990). The Portland cement obtained from these mixing, ground in very
fine powder, in predetermined proportions, in the presence of water, initiates the hydration reactions
which conduct to its hardening.
The cement industry is characterized by intensive use of thermal and electrical energy. The
energetic efficiency of the cement factories can vary depending on raw mix, type of productive process,
characteristics of the equipment, fuel burned, level of automation, etc. (Cardoso and Direitinho, 1992).
The high consumption of thermal energy is due to the burning of clinker, which can be made
through two basics process: wet and dry process. The differences between both are set in the form of the raw
mix grinding, homogenizing and type of kiln utilized.
In the dry process (Fig. 1), the raw mix obtained must have maximum moisture of 1%, its
homogenizing is made in silos, normally with the use of compressed air. The homogenized charge is fed
in a rotary kiln, where it is subjected to preheating, calcination, sinterisation and cooling. The grinding
process absorbs more than 70% of all the electric energy used in a cement plant. In modem cement kiln
plants, the preheating and pre-calcination processes are made in cyclones that are in fact gas-particles
heat exchangers. The rest ofthe calcination process and the exothermic reactions of clinkering happen in
the interior of the rotary kiln where, moreover, begins the clinker cooling process, which finishes at the
external cooler.
The dry process is used in 98% of the cases in the Brazilian Industry (Moura Santi, 1997).
The refractory and fuel consumption as well as the formation of pollutants are linked directly to
the type of kiln used, which also presents distinct characteristics of emission of SOX, NOx and CO,
(Menon et al., 1993).
OPERAT IONAL DATA OF THE CEMENT PLANTS

As a test case, the most popular cement technology in Brazil was elected, which is the dry
system, without pre-calcination. All data were taken from Silva and Nebra (1996) and Silva (1994).
The cement plant with a four stages suspension pre-heater (Fig. 1), presents a productive clinker
capacity of 2000 tlday. The data utilized to analyze this plant were collected in an experimental work
realized by Vitral et al. (1992). Similar levels of operation and temperatures were found in Weber (1963).
The fuel used in this case was coal with an ash content of 24.9%, and a lower heating value of
25,392. kIlkg of coal. The chemical composition of coal and their ashes are presented in Table B, in the
Appendix.
The composition of raw mix utilized in the calculus was obtained considering the composition
of the clinker and the ashes incorporated to it during the burning.
ENERGYAND EXERGY
In order to get the exergy cost of a product it is necessary to calculate the exergy of each one of
the currents that enter and leave the control volume defined.
The control volume defined here includes the entire process of cement production. It starts with
the preparation of the raw mix, crushing and mixing the limestone and clay, and finishing with the grinding
and mixing of the clinker with gypsum to get the cement.
The exit gases constitute a stream that leaves the system. According to Lozano e Valero (1993),
and Bejan et al. (1996), when the exergetic cost is calculated, this stream is computed with zero exergetic
cost, because it is not a product.
The streams object of the analysis, with the respective values of enthalpy and exergy, are reported
in Table 1. All values are specific, referred to the production of a kilogram of cement, considering it as
obtained from a mix of 95% of clinker and 5% of gypsum.
-72
Chapter 6. Transformities and Exergetic Cost A Discussion

-
-345C
raw
mIX
80C
IWW mix
faao fUel
B80C
31100
OTARY
rrNi mIK
IrJIIcg cIq
LN
_Co air
788C
_r
13&1 C
:1'
clnkar ca
Figure 1.
82 C
Scheme a/the rotary kiln with suspension pre-heater and clinker grate cooler.
The enthalpy values of the solid streams, raw mix, gypsum and cement,' were obtained considering
them at 25C. The zero level of enthalpy was adopted at OC, as usual.
By definition, the exergy value of the electricity spent in the process is equal to its energetic
value.
The exergy of the raw mix, gypsum and cement was calculated following Szargut et al.
(I 988).
As the raw mix and the cement are a mixture of different materials, the exergy value of each one of the
components was summed up, considering the composition reported in Table A. As they were at 25C, the
only value considered was the standard chemical exergy.
The data utilized in this calculus: exergy of the gases, raw mix and clinker, and the specific heats
of composites were obtained from Carvalho et all (1977), and Perry and Chilton (1982).
Szargut etal., (1988) reported the reference substances and reference reaction adopted to calculate
the standard chemical exergy, for each one of the chemical elements. More details about reference
substances can be found in papers cited by the same authors.
The values of standard chemical energy of each one of the substances used in the calculation are
reported in Table C in the Appendix.
The fuel exergy was calculated from the lower heating value, following the methodology of the
above-cited authors.
73

-
Table 1. Energy, Exergy and Emergy of a Cement Plant, Dry Process

n
Fluxes
Transformity
Exergy
[kJ/kg]
[kJlkg]
(SeJ/kJ)
19.61
160.66
162.0
Odum,1996
3.18
Electricity
444.28
444.28
16.5
Brown 1986
7.33
Limestone
2
Transf. (E+4)
Energy
Ref.
Emergy (E+7)
(SeJ/kg)
Fuel (coal)
Goods & Servo
3420.00
3591.00
5.4
Brown 1991
18.47
4
5
Cement
9.40
936.92
3082.50
Present work
28.98
The fluxes 1, 2, 3 and 4 enter into the control volume, and the flux 5 is an outflow.
EXERGETIC COST
As suggested in Lozano and Valero (1993) and Bejan et al. (1996), this quantity was computed
using the data from Table 1, where Limestone
cement
=c
raw mix
+c
fuel
Rawmix + Additives, in the following way:
+c
ekctyricenogy
+c
additives
(1)
Therefore, the exergetic cost of a kilogram of cement is:
cement
4195.94 [kJ/ kg]
(2)
Their unitary cost is:
cemenl
c
=
cemmI
=4.48
(3)
ex
cemenI
So, to produce a unity of exergy contained in the cement we need an exergy amount provided by
different sources that is almost four and a half times higher.
It is convenient to observe that for limestone and clay only the chemical exergy as "exergetic
cost" at the entrance of the control volume were considered. That means that the exergy needed to extract
and carry them till the plant is not included in 3). The same consideration was applied to the fuel. The
exergy of the electricity used in the process was considered as equal to its value, without taking into
account that to produce it more exergy had to be used. This value can be adjusted considering the source
of the electrical energy. The exergy of the human work, as proposed by Szargut (1999), and exergy to
build and to repair the equipment used in the process was not considered.
EMERGY
Emergy is a solar reference for energy (SeJ
Solar Emergy Joule) and is defined as "the available
energy of one kind of previously used up directly and indirectly to make a service or product" (Odum,
H.T. 1996).
In order to get the emergy of a product it is necessary to calculate the available energy of each
one of the flows that enter the control volume. The evaluation of the emergy content is done by the
multiplication of the available energy of each flow by the corresponding transformity. The transformities
of several products are available by different sources. (Brown, M. T. 1986, Brown, M. T. and J. Arding
1991, Ulgiati, S. 1994, Odum, H T. 1995, Odum, HT. 1996)
-74-
Chapter 6. Transjormities and Exergetic Cost A Discussion

-
13.7
8.9
.11
3.18
GRINDER
&
MIXER
3.23
HEATER
ROTARYKUN
COOLER
PRE
RA
MIX
CUNK
GRINDER
&
MIXER
25.7
Figure 2. Emergy Flow in a Dry Process Cement Plant
It is assumed that the exit gases, as welt as the heat losses, have no emergy.
The total emergy of the cement is evaluated by the sum of the emergy of each flow that enters
the control volume, because it is assumed that each one of them came from a different source.
The energy, the exergy and the emergy values of the flows of a cement plant are presented
in Table 1, and the emergy flows in Figure 2. The emergy of water, soil losl, goods and services, usual
in an emergy table was not computed here because the information was not available.
SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARIT IES BETWEEN EXERGETIC COST

AND EMERGY
In the exergetic cost method, the exergy is evaluated from reference substances and reference
chemical reactions, for each one of the chemical elements. The coefficient of unitary exergetic cost is
evaluated as showed in equations 1, 2 and 3 above. In the emergetic method, Odum (1996) suggests ten
different methods to get the transformities. Only in one of these methods "Evaluating transformations in
published energy network diagrams", the determination of transformity is similar to the determination of
the coefficient of exergetic cost, showed above. In the nine others there are no similarities between them.
In the emergy method, there are no emergy losses in the process, because all energy losses
carrie d out zero emergy. The exergetic cost and the emergy content of the exit gases, and heat losses are
considered zero. All the exergy losses in the process are incorporated in the final product in both methods.
If there are more than one product, in the exergetic cost method, the total exergy entering the control
volume is shared between them. In the emergy method, all products carried out the same emergy.
Human labor, as welt as the "free" work of Nature, usually is not taken into account in the
exergetic cost method. Relative to that, the consideration that is made in the approach here used is that the
exergy of the materials that come from the Nature is computed considering only their concentration and
chemical composition compared to the most common (abundant) way the same chemical substances can
be found in the terrestrial crust.
-75-
Chapler 6. Traniformilies and Exergelic Cosl - A Discussion

CONCLUS IONS
In the exergetic cost analysis, it is possible to evaluate the environmental costs of the process.
Another control volume is defined, i.e. a control volume that includes the environment, but excludes the
process production. From the environmental point of view, considering only the matter involved, the
"nature" gives to the process, the limestone, clay, gypsum and coal, and received the cement and the
fumes.
The exergy of the fumes when they leave the first stage of the pre-heateris 546,44 fkJ/kg cement],
including physical and chemical exergy. Before being discharged, the gases must be cleaned and cooled,
in the factory or by the environment, in order to carry this current to an equilibrium state with the
atmosphere. Man or Nature must provide a quantity of available energy at leased equal to this value of
exergy in order to do that.
From the exergetic point of view, the "nature" has lost exergy, which was irreversibly destroyed .
,along the process, the nature has given four and a half (4 1/2) unities of exergy and received one (1). The
previous work done by nature, to make the limestone, the fuel and the soil lost in the mining process are
not taken into account.
From another point of view, considering the raw materials, their exergy, used to get the product
exergetic cost, can be seen as the minimal exergy the nature used to form them, from the most common
form of the same chemical substances in the terrestrial crust. This minimal exergy can be very different
than the value of nature effectively used.
In the emergy method, all the work done by nature prior to the process is taking into account,
because the emergy of the flows is the product of their exergy by the corresponding transforrnity. A
reference set of indexes based on emergy for the evaluation of process and whole economy, including a
new index (ESI - Emergy Sustainability Index), couId be found in Brown and U1giati (1997).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of FAPESP (Sao Paulo State (Brazil)
Research Foundation) and CNPq (Brazilian National Science Foundation)
REFERENCES
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G., and Moran, M., 1996 "Thermal Design and Optimization", John Wiley,
496 p,
Bogue, RH.; 1955, Chemistry of Portland Cement; Reinhold, New York.

Brown, M.T. 1986 Energy Analysis of the hydroelectric dam near Tucurui. Pp. 82-91 in Energy Systems
Overview of the Amazon Basin, ed. By H.T.Odum, M.T. Brown, and RA. Christianson. Report to
The Cousteau Foundation. Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida ,Gainesville(Pubi. 86-1). 190 pp.
Brown, M.T. and J. Arding 1991 Transformities Working Paper. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida.
Gainesvill e.
Brown, M.T. and S. U1giati 1997 Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring
economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation. Ecological Engineering
9 (1997) pg. 51-69.
Cardoso,C. and Direitinho,F.; 1992, Comparative Study on Energy Indicators for the Cement Sector in
Brazil and the E.C.C; CEEETAlIDAE, Seminary ECClBrazil, Energy Intensive Industrial Sectors,
IPT-SP, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Carvalho, I.LK et al.; 1977, Thermodynamic data for Metallurgists; Federal University of Minas Gerais;
Brazil. (in Portuguese)
Duda, WH., 1977, "Technological Handbook of Cement", Editores Tecnicos Asociados, S.A.; Barcelona,
-76-
Chapter 6. Transformities and Exergetic Cost - A Discussion

Spain. (in Spanish)
Fonseca,M.A.S et all; 1992, Comparative Study on Energy Indicators for the Cement Sector in Brazil and in
the E.C.C.; Seminary ECClBrazil, IPT, Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 23 to 25.
Kotas,TJ.; 1985, The Exergy Method of Thermal Plant Analysis; Butterworths, Great Britain.
Lozano, M. A., Valero, A. 1993, "Theory of the Exergetic Cost"; Energy, VoU, No.9, pp. 939 - 960,
1993.
Menon,GJ. et a1.; 1993, Study of Combustion Process in Rotary Kiln; 3' Brazilian Cement Congress,
ABCP, Sao Paulo-SP, Brazil, pp.479-497. (in Portuguese)
Moura Santi, A. M., 1997, "The Use of Residues as Complementary Fuels in the Cement Production
from the Point of View of the Energy, Society and Environment", MS. Thesis, Mechanical
Engineering Faculty, State University of Campinas, Silo Paulo, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Nebra, S. A. and Silva, R.J.; 1996b ,"The Use of Secondary Fuels at the Cement Industry"; Proceedings
: ESDA'96, Symposium on the Design of Energy Systems, Julio I - 4; Montpellier, France. V I,
pp. 165 - 172.
Neville,A.M. and Brooks,J.J.; 1990, Concrete Technology; Longman; Scientific & Technical, England.
Odum, HT 1995. "Emergy and Policy", Wiley & Sons, NY
Odum, H.T 1996 Enviromental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision-Making. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. pp. 370.
Perry,R.H and Chilton,C.H; 1982, Chemical Engineers Handbook; McGraw-Hill International Book
Company, Fifth Edition, International Student Edition.
Santos Rossi, L.F.; Nebra, S.A.; da Silva R.J. and Menon, G.J.; 1995,"Study of Emissions and Use of
Secondary Fuels in Cement Plants", ECOS'95 Symposium Annals - "Efficiency,
Costs,
Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems", July 11-14, Istanbul,
Turkey., pp. 724 - 728.
Silva and Nebra, 1993, "ExergeticAnalysis of Clinker Burning Process in Cement Industry", Proceedings.
of the Int. Conf. Energy Systems and Ecology (ENSEC'93), Cracow, Poland, July 5-9, V2, pp.
739- 745.
Silva,R.J., Nebra,S.A., Rossi,L.F.S.; 1993, Emission and Control of Pollutants in Cement Industry; Third
International Conference on Waste Management in the Chemical and Petrochemical Industries,
Salvador-BA, Brazil, CETREL-IAWQ, Vol. I, pp.363-370.
Silva, R.J.; Rossi, F.S.; Nebra, S.A.; 1994, "Consideration about the use of Secondary Fuels in Cement
Plants"; 7th. International Symposium on Transport Phenomena in Manufacturing Processes;
Acapulco, Mexico, August 28-31.
Silva and Nebra, 1994, "Comparative Exergetic Analysis of the Clinker Production Processes, in the
Cement Industry", Proceedings. of the Florence World Energy Research Symposium
(FLOWERS'94), Florence, Italy, July 6- 8, pp.951- 958.
Silva, 1994, "Energetic Analysis of Production Plants of Portland Cement", Doctoral Thesis, Univ. of
Campinas, S. P., Brazil, Publication FEM- 55194, 242 P (in Portuguese).
Silva and Nebra, 1995, "Thermoeconomics Analysis of Cement Production Plants", Proc. nf the Conf.
Efficiency, Costs, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems
(ECOS'95), Istanbul, Turkey, July 11-15, pp. 496- 501.
-77-
Chapter 6, Transjormilies and Exergetic Cost - A Discussion

Silva, R. 1. and Nebra, S, A,; 1996a , "Thennoeconomic Comparative Analysis of Different Process of
Cement Production", Proceedings: ECOS'96, Efficiency, Costs, Optimization, Simulation and
Environmental Aspects of Energy Systems, Stockholm, Sweden, June 25 - 27, pp. l I9 a 125,
Szargut, J" Morris, D,R" Steward, FR.; 1988, Exergy Analysis of Thennal, Chemical, and Metallurgical
Processes; Hemisphere, USA.
Szargut, 1., 1999; "Depletion of the Unrestorable Natural Exergy Resources as a Measure of the Ecological
Cosf', Proceedings of ECOS'99: Efficiency Costs, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental
Aspects of Energy Systems, June 8-10, T okyo, Japan, pp, 42-45,
Ulgiati, S"
Odum, H.T., and Bastianoni, S, 1994, "Emergy analysis, environmental loading and
sustainability, An emergy analysis ofItaly",
Ecological Modeling 73:215-268,
Vitral,J.R.C,; Abdala,1.M. and Silva,R,I.; 1992, Data for a Thermal Balance in a Rotary Kiln; Cia de Cimento
Portland Paraiso; Brazil, February; February 10 to 14, (in Portuguese)
Weber,P,; "Heat Transfer in Rotary Kilns"; Zement-Kalk-Gips, English Special Edition, Bauverlag GmbH,
Gennany, 1963,
APPENDIX
Table A. Chemical Composition Analysis of the Raw Mix, Clinker and Exit Gases, For Dry Process ROTARY KILN W ITH FOUR STAGES PRE-HEATER.
Composition of raw mix
Clinker Composition at
Gases Composition
at the system inlet
rotary kiln exit
at pre-heater exit
[kmollkg clinker]
[kmollkg clinker]
[kmollkg clinker]
CaCO,
0,0 II807
C,S
0,001255
CO,
0,019779
SiO,
0,003558
C,S
0,002337
H,0
0,003176
AI,0,
0,000575
C,A
0,000449
SO,
0,000028
Fe,0,
0,000l I7
C.AF
0,000156
0,
0,001459
MgCO,
0,000236
MgO
0,000248
N,
0,039752
CaO
0,000182
K,0
0,000058
0,000085
Na,0
0,000017
CaO
SO,
0,000 l I4
K,SO.
K,0
0,000109
Na,SO.
0,000008
0,000015
TiO,
0,000008
TiO,
0,000015
CaSO.
0,000115
H,0
0,000956
Na,O
MgO
-78-

-
Table B. Chemical Composition of Coal and Ash (Weber, 1963).

Chemical Composition of Mineral Coal
Chemical Composition of Ash - Mineral Coal
75,2%
CaO
4,4%
4,1 %
SiO,
47,0%
1,20/0
AlP,
24,0%
2,6%
Fep, -
11,2%
1,2%
MgO
H,0 -
0,8 %
2,7%
SO,
4,2%
Ash - 14,9 %
K,O
3,8%
Volat.Const. - 19,6%
Nap
0,8%
Table C. Standard Chemical Exergy (25C, 1 atm) of the components.

Raw mix
Clinker at
Gases
at the system inlet
rotary kiln exit
at pre-heater exit
[kJ/mol]
[kJf mol]
[kJfmol]
CaCO,
1.00
C,S
95.70
CO,
SiO,
1.90
C,S
219.80
H,0
9.50
A1,O,
Fe,O,
200.40
C,A
500.60
SO,
313.40
16.50
C.AF
644.284
0,
37.90
MgO
66.80
N,
39.70
MgCO,
CaO
110.20
CaO
110.20
K,O
413.10
SO,
249.10
K,SO.
35.00
Kp
413.10
Na,SO.
296.20
296.20
TiO,
21.40
21.40
CaSO.
8.20
N ap
no,
Hp
0.90
MgO
66.80
-79-
Nap
19.87
0.720
296.20
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
7
Emergy Evaluation of Ecosystems: A Basis For
Environmental Decision Making
Eliana Bardi and Mark T. Brown
ABSTRACT
Emergy evaluations of three typicalwetland ecosystems in north central Floridawere conducted
to asses the relative values of several ecological functions (sometimes called ecosystem services) and
main ecosystem storages (sometimes called natural capital). The three ecosystem types were: a forested
wetland, a shrub-scrub wetland, and a marsh wetland. The main driving energies, internal processes
and storages were evaluated.
Emergy evaluation of ecosystem services yielded total emdollar values of services that ranged
from 4,372 em$/halyr to 7,355 em$ha/yr. The emdollar value of natural capital of wetlands ranged from
6 million to 11 million em$lhectare.
The concept of replacement value is explored using the emergy values of both ecosystem services
and natural capital. Replacement values of the three wetland types expressed in emdollars were
approximately: 640,000, 1,107,000, and 1,554,000 em$lhafor marsh, shrub-scrub, and forestedwetland
respectively.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been an increasing interest in alternative valuing techniques that can
recognize and incorporate ecological values into decision-making frameworks, especially related to impacts
and losses of ecosystems and their attendant ecological functions. Of particular interest are wetlands.
The population at large has recognized the inherent ecological importance of wetlands and as a result,
governmental agencies from federal down to local levels have institoted regulatory initiatives to protect
them. With protection comes the inevitable question ... what is it we are protecting, and how much is it
worth?
In the process of developing a more quantitative approach to assessing the values of ecosystems,
hybrid terms, like "natural capital" and "environmental services" have been used to refer to the structure
and function of ecological systems. We consider these hybrid terms because they borrow from economics
the meanings of "capital" (an asset ,stock or storage of value), and services (work done for others). These
terms are used to describe, to a wider audience, what it is we are protecting ... the natural capital of
ecosystems and their environmental services. In other words, we are trying to protect ecological assets
(plants, animals, biomass, soils, etc) and ecological functions (the work done by ecosystems for
humans ... gross primary production, transpiration of water, etc.). The terms carry with them an intuitive
grasp of value .... capital is valuable, services are valuable. Therefore by calling biomass natural capital
instead of an ecosystem storage, a stronger meaning of value is conveyed. In this paper we use the terms
natural capital and ecological storage interchangeably, as we use the terms environmental services and
ecological functions to more or less mean the same thing.
Parallel to this interest in alternative valuing, has been an increased interest in replacing andlor
repairing ecosystems when eliminated or damaged. There is more and more a need for replacing lost
values and repairing damaged ecosystems to regain value. The question of what is it worth is even more
important under these circumstances. How much should we invest in replacing and repairing?
-81-
Chapter 7. Emergy Evaluation ojEcosystems. . .

More and more these days, governmental agencies whose role i s protecting wetlands and other
ecological resources are willing to trade off one system for another. When the elimination of a protected
ecological resource is unavoidable, agencies increasingly ask that it be replaced by constructing another
at a different location. Again, how much is it worth, and how much should we spend?
Answering the question, how much is it worth? .. in the past has often fallen hack on value
based on the costs of replacement. In this value system, an ecosystem's worth is what it costs to construct
a new one. However, this value in no way measures the natural capital or environmental services of an
ecosystem ... it only provides a measure of the costs of building a new one. Clearly what is needed is a
quantitative approach to valuing the capital and services of ecosystem directly. In this paper we employ
the concepts of emergy analysis to value environmental services and natural capital of three types of
wetland communities as a demonstration of how emergy evaluation can be used to develop a quantitative
policy framework.
METHODS
Description of Wetland Types
Three different wetland ecosystem types were evaluated: a forested wetland, a shrub-scrub
wetland, and a herbaceous wetland. Brief descriptions of each of the ecosystems follow (ecosystem
descriptions after Brown et ai, 199Oa. 1990b, and 1988).
Forested wetland
One of the most common forested wetlands in north central Florida is the
cypress dome. Cypress dome are found in the poorly drained flatwoods that dominate the coastal planes
and central uplands. Where the flatwoods exhibit extremely low relief, depressional areas that are deeper
than marshes often support stands of cypress commonly called cypress domes because of their domed
shape when viewed from the side. Standing water can occur in cypress domes from 50%-90"10 of the
time. Pond cypress (Taxodium ascend ens) is often the only canopy species, but can be mixed with black
gum (Nyssa sylvatica), pond pine (Pinus serotina), slash pine (P. elliottii) , red maple (Acer rubrum), and
one or more of the bay species, red hay (Persea borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), loblolly bay
(G01rfonia lasianthus). The understory can be relatively diverse having fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Virginia
willow (Itea virginica) and numerous others, depending on the hydroperiod. Vegetation at ground level
is often sparse, depending on the duration of inundation.
The most frequent herbaceous species are:
lemon bacopa (Bacopa caroliana), chain fern (Woodwardia virginiana), coinwort (Centella asiatica),
maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). The ecotone consists of species of both communities, including shrubs
for instance, wax myrtle, (Myrica cerijera); stagger-bush, (Lyoniajerruginea); gallberry ( I1ex glabra);
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and vines like, greenbriar, (Smilax bona-nox); blackberry (Rubus artibujolious);
muscadine grape (Vitus rotundifolia); and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium semprevirens).
HerbaceQus marshes - Shallow marshes are common throughout central Florida, interspersed
throughout pine flatwoods in topographic low areas. Shallow marshs are typically circular in shape and
vary from quite small (less than one half acre) to large (tens of acres). Depth of standing water during the
rainy season is typically 25 to 55 centimeters. Most flatwoods marshes are relatively oligotrophic, where
the main source of nutrients is rainfall and minor surface drainage from small surrounding watersheds.
Flatwoods marshes often appear as circular in shape and sometimes support tree species only along their
fringes. Grading down from flatwoods into a marsh, the vegetation associations often go from flatwoods
either through a fringe of mesic oaks (e.g., laurel oak, Quercus laurijolia; live oak, Q. virginiana; and
water oak, Q. nigra) to pond cypress, (Taxodium ascendens) ,and black gum, (Nyssa sylvatica ) into the
marsh vegetation, or directly from the flatwoods into the marsh bordered by shrubs typical of a cypress
dome ecotone. Shallow marshes are common where inundation is frequent and depths of inundation are
less than 0.5 meters. Marsh vegetation consists of a diverse mix of species (between regions and from
marsh to marsh). However, dominant in the grassy shallow marshes are several species which consistently
-82-
Chapter 7. Emergy Evaluation oj Ecosystems...

occur and are often dominant: maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), St. John's Wort (Hypericum
jasiculatum), yellow-eyed grass (Xyris spp), marsh fleabane (Pluchea spp), and pickerel-weed (Pontedaria
cordata). Also occurring are sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense), spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa), soft rush
(Juncus effosus), and , maidencane (Panicum. hemitomon), to name but a few. With deeper inundation,
longer hydroperiods and accumulations of organic matter, broad-leaved marshes occur (sometimes called
flag ponds) dominated by the follow.ing species: pickerelweed (Pontedaria. cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria
spp.), fire flag (Thalia genicula/a), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), and cattail (Typha, spp.).
Shmb- scrub wetland The shrub-scrub wetland can be relatively diverse or dominated by only
-
a few species depending on hydrology and fire regime. When diverse, they may be dominated by both
woody shrubs and herbaceous wetland vegetation.
Common woody shrub species include: Carolina
willow (Salix Caroliana), fetterbush (Lyonia. lucida), wax myrtle (Myrica cerijera), dahoon holly (I1ex
cassine), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Virginia willow (Itea virginica) at varying dominance
depending on the hydroperiod. Many of the same herbaceous species found in marshes occur in the
shrub-scrub wetland, but at much reduced densities. They might include, lemon bacopa (Bacopa caroliana),
sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), chain fern (Woodwardia virginiana), coinwort
(Centella asiatica), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). In some instances, the shrub-scrub wetland might
be dominated by only one or two the wooody species and bave higher densities of herbaceous vegetation.
The ecotone can consist of species of both upland and wetland communities, including shrubs, for instance,
wax myrtle (!vfyrica cerijera), stagger-bush (Lyonia jerruginea), gallberry (I1ex glabra), fetterbush
(L. lucida), and vines like greenbriar (Smilax bona-nox), blackberry (Rubus artibujolious), muscadine
grape (Vitus rotundijolia), catbrier (Smilax laurijolia), and yellow jessamine (Gelsemium semprevirens).
System Boundaries and Evaluated Parameters
Figure 1 illustrates the system boundary for the wetland evaluations showing the various
parameters of the wetlands included in the evaluations. For illustrative purposes, half of the wetland is
shown as a forested wetland and the other half as a marsh. Underlying geologic structure was included
within the system boundary. The evaluations were done for 1 hectare (2.5 acres) of typical wetland.
Area
1 hectare
r--------------l
SYSTEM
I
I
BOUNDARY
I
...... CLAYEY
i?
LENSES
:::::rTI .,
I
Figure 1. System bouru:laries used in evaluations ojwetland ecosystems.

evaluated and the boundary included underlying geologic structure.
83
TOP OF
HAWTHORNE FORMATION
A one hectare area oj each wetland was
Chapter
7.
Emergy Evaluation ofEcosystems...
Figure
2 is a generalized systems diagram of a wetland showing the main driving energies,
environmental services and storages (natural capital) that were evaluated for each of the three wetlands.
Five dominate driving energies were evaluated: sunlight, wind, rainfall, run-in (surface water runoff
from the surrounding watershed) and the emergy contribution from geologic processes (eroded limestone).
The main material storages of biomass, water, peat and basin structure were evaluated.
Driving energies and ecosystem storages interact in several processes that generate ecosystem
services. Three services (or ecosystem functions) of wetlands were evaluated including: the transpiration
of water, gross primary production
(GPP) and water recharge (infiltration).
Mass and Energy Flows

Data from the literature were used to evaluate the mass and energy flows for each of the
ecosystems. We assumed that the wetlands were located in north central Florida, were I hectare in size
and occupied a relatively flat, poorly drained landscape dominated by pine flatwoods. Sunlight, wind,
and rainfall were taken as average conditions for the north central Florida location. Run-in (surface
runoff into the wetland) for forested wetlands was taken from Hiemburg (1984) while a runoff coefficient
of 0.36 was assumed for run-in for marsh and shrub-scrub wetlands. A watershed to wetland ratio of! to
1 was assumed for the three wetland types. The geologic input to the forested wetland was taken as 2.75
mm
of limestone eroded each year, based on the calculations of Odum (1984) where the amount of
limestone eroded from the interaction of acidic waters leaching through the underlying limestone creates
and maintains the wetland depression. The geologic input to shrub-scrub and marsh wetlands was assumed
to be proportional to infiltration rates compared to the forested wetland: 38% and 48% less for the
shrub-scrub and marsh wetlands respectively.
Total driving emergy for the wetlands was the sum of transpiration, and geologic input.
Transpiration is the use of water for biological production while the geologic flows result from the erosion
of limestone built historically. Geologic input of emergy can be added to present day annual emergy use
without double counting.
'E-
Surface Runoff
Infiltration
WetlandEcosystem
Figure 2.
Systems diagram of wetland ecosystem showing the inventory offlows and storages that were evaluated
for each system.
-84-
Chapter 7. Emergy Evaluation oj Ecosystems".

Ecosystem Services
GPP was estimated by summing published data for net primary production and community
respiration. The annual emergy driving GPP was taken as the sum of transpiration and geologic input.
Rates of transpiration and infiltration were estimated from published literature and transformities were
calculated as the weighted average of the transformities of rainfall and run-in.
Ecosystem Storages (Natural capital)

Main storages evaluated in each wetland included: biomass, water, peat, and basin structure
(or landform). As is shown in Figure 2 basin structure and landform are extremely important to maintaining
hydrologic condition tbat are cbaracteristic of wetlands. Generally, the emergy of ecosystem storages
was calculated by multiplying the annual emergy required to make the storage by the turnover time.
Quantities of each storage were obtained from the literature. Basin structure was calculated differently
for forested wetlands compared to shrub-scrub and marsh wetlands. Odum (1984) estimated the erosion
rate of limestone beneath cypress wetlands at 2.75 mm/year and therefore the time to generate a 50 cm
deep depression was 1818 years. The emergy of the basin structure then is the annual driving emergy
multiplied by 1818 years. In like manner, the emergy of shrub-scrub and marsh wetland basin structure
was calculated based on the amount of material eroded and the number of years required. Erosion rate
was proportional to the infiltration rate relative to the cypress wetland.
Calculation of Transformities.
Transformities for driving energies of sunlight, wind, chemical potential energy of rain and
geologic input were taken from Odum, (1996). The one remaining source, chemical potential of run-in,
was calculated as 2.85 times the transformity of rain, assuming a run-off coefficient of 0.39 for forested
wetlands and 0.36 for shrub-scrub wetlands.
Transformities for ecosystems services of transpiration, infiltration, and gross primary production
(GPP) were calculated from the annual driving energies. A weighted average of rainfall and run-in was
used to calculate the transformities for transpiration and infiltration using the rational that these flows are
a mixture of the two emergy inputs. The emergy driving GPP was the sum of water used (transpiration)
and geologic input. The rational of using both is that transpiration is required to drive biological processes
and the limestone that is eroded is geologic contribution from a geologic storage built long ago. Both the
biologic and geologic processes are coupled and are required for GPP. The transformity was calculated as
the sum of the annual water use and contribution from geologic input divided by the energy of annual
GPP.
Transformities for storages of the three ecosystems were calculated using the emergy driving
the systems. Transformity of water storage was assumed to be a weighted average of rainfall and run-in.
Live biomass was the sum of all living biomass including trees, shrubs and understory vegetation. The
transformity for biomass was calculated by multiplying annual emergy inputs (sum of transpiration and
geologic input) by turnover time then dividing by the energy of standing stock. Organic soil (peat) results
from the accumulation of un-decomposed plant matter. We assumed a turnover time calculated using an
annual accumulation rate of 4mm/yr and the average depth of peat in the wetland. Emergy of the peat
storage was calculated as the annual emergy input to the ecosystem multiplied by turnover time and when
divided by the energy content of the soil storage yielded the transformity.
Transformity of basin structure in the wetlands was calculated by dividing the ernergy required
(annual inflowing emergy multiplied by time for development) by the geopotential energy of the displaced
limestone.
-85-
Chapter 7. Emergy Evaluation ofEcosystems...

Emdollar Evaluation
For comparative purposes and to provide units more familiar to the public. emergy values were
expressed as emdollars. Emdollars were calculated by dividing the emergy value of environmental
services and natural capital by the emergy/money conversion ratio for the USA economy in 1998, which
was equal to 1.12E+l 2 sej/$. The emergy money ratio was calculated by dividing the GDP of the U.S.
economy by the total emergy used in driving the economy. As such, the ratio expresses the amount of
emergy required per dollar of circulation. By dividing emergy flows and storages of the ecosystems by
the emergy money ratio, the flows and storages are equated with the amount of currency they could drive
in circulation. The emergy/money ratio for 1998 was obtained using the data in Odum ( 1996) and extending
the relationship three years past the last date for which there were data.
RESULTS
Emergy Evaluation of Wetland Values
The emergy evaluation tables for the three typical wetland types are included as Appendix Tables
Al through A6. Details of calculations and data sources are given as footnotes to each table. The main
differences in the annual driving energies between the wetland systems resulted from differences in
run-in and the major driving energy of geologic input .. In all, the evaluated forested wetland had almost
1. 5 times the annual driving energy than a typical shrub-scrub wetland and about 1.75 times more annual
energy input than a typical marsh wetland. Nearly all this difference results from differences in estimated
geologic inputs.
The storage of biomass in the three wetland types varies from a high of nearly 26 0 El5 sej/.ha in
forested wetlands to a low of7. 4 EI5 sej/ha in marsh wetlands. Peat storage was largest in the forested
wetland ( 1220 E15 sej/ha) and smallest in marsh wetlands (693 EI5 sej/ha). The emergy value of peat in
shrub-scrub wetlands was about 1114 El 5 sej/ha. The storage of water in the wetlands was assumed to be
the water content of the peat soils plus the average standing water in the wetland (estimated as half the
wetland depth). The emergy value of water stored in the wetlands was relatively small compared to the
storage of peat (from 1.06 E15 to 1.39 El 5 sej/ha). Basin structure, the result of thousands of years of
geologic work, was the highest emergy storage in each of the wetland systems, varying from a high of
11.4 EI8 sej/ha in forested wetlands to a low of 6.2 EI8 sej/ha in marsh wetlands.
Transfonnities of ecosystem components
Table I summ arizes transforrnities of ecosystem flows and storages that were calculated as part
of this study. Transforrnities are shown as ranges representing the highest and lowest values calculated.
Biomass transforrnities were between 4.2 E3 and 4.3 E3 sejlI. The transforrnity for all flows and the
storage of water was the same, based on a weighted average of rainfall ( 18.2 E3 sej/J) and run-in (which
varied from 46.2 E3 to 51.9 E3 sej/J). Calculated transforrnities for stored biomass in the wetlands,
which was hased on an estimate of total dry weight of biomass, including trees, shrubs, and herbs varied
from 69.1 E3 to73.4 E3 sej/J. The transforrnity for hasin structure varied from 4.6 Ell to 1. 0 E12 sej/j.
On a mass basis, the emergy per gram of material that was eroded to make the basins for each of the
wetlands was 1.24 E9 sejlg (marsh), l.I 5 E9 sejlg (shrub-scrub), and 1.12 E9 sejlg (cypress).
Emdollar values of wetlands
Representative emdollar values of the driving emergy, ecosystem services and natural capital
for each of the wetlands is given in the last column of each of the evaluation tables (Tables A I-A6) amd
summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The annual emdollar value of ecosystem services is summarized in Table
2. The total annual emdollar value of ecosystem services in forested wetlands was calculated as 7.355
-86-
Chapter 7. Emergy Evaluation ofEcosystems . . .

Table
1.
Transfonnities of ecosystem flows and storages

Transfonnity
Item
Flaws (Env. Services)
4207 - 4319
GPP
Transpiration
26096 - 26928
infiltration
26096 - 26928
46225 - 51867
Run-in (landscape runoff)

Storages (Natural Capitalj
Stored water
26096 - 26928
Biomass
69129 - 73426
Basin structure
4.6 E l l - 1.0 EI2
em$ lhaIyr, composed of transpiration (880 em$/ha), GPP (5,797 em$/ha, and infiltration (672 emS/ha/
yr). Also given are the emdollar values of services for the shrub-scrub and marsh wetlands. Total services
were 5,3290 emSlhalyr and 4,372 emSlhalyr for the shrub-scrub and marsh wetlands respectively.
Representative emdollar values of major ecosystem storages in the three wetland ecosystem
types are summarized in Table 3. The total calculated emdollar value of natural capital in the three
wetland types ranged from 6.1 million to 11.4 million em$/ha. The largest values were for basin structure,
which accounted for about 87"/0 of these calculated total emdollar values. The storage of peat had the
second largest emdollar value ranging from 0.6 million to approximately 1.Imillion emS/ha. The range of
emdollar values for live biomass was relatively large. The emdollar value of forested wetland biomass
was about 35 times as large as that of a typical marsh wetland. Typical shrub-scrub wetlands have
biomass emdollar values about 12 times those of marsh wetlands. Finally, the emdollar values of stored
water are the lowest of the four storages evaluated accounting for less thanl% of total stored values.
Replacement Values of Wetlands
Table 4 summarizes the estimated replacement values of each ecosystem assuming complete
elimination. The environmental services lost are calculated as the annual services times half the recovery
time of the newly constructed ecosystem (assuming construction of new wetlands to replace those
destroyed) to reflect that as a newly constructed wetland matures some services are replaced each year
until the mature system has developed. Recovery times are estimated to be 80, 16, and 8 years for
forested, shrub/scrub, and marsh wetlands respectively. The value of ecosystem structure (natural capital)
that is destroyed is equal to the sum of biomass, peat and water shown in Table 3. The storage value of
Table 2. Summary of emdollar values of environmental services for forested, shrub-scrub, and marsh
wetlands. (from Tables A-I, A-3, and A-5)
Ecosystem Type
Transpiration
Infiltration
GPP
(1998 em$lhalyr)
Forested Wetland
Shrub/Scrub Wetland
Freshwater Marsh
886
934
641
5,797
3,979
3,293
-'07-
672
477
438
Total
7,355
5,390
4,372
Table 3. Summary of emdollar values of natural capital for forested, shrubscrub, and marsh wetlands.
(from Tables A2, A4, and A6)
Ecosystem Type
Live Biomass Pet
Forested Wetland
Shrub/Scrub Wetland
Freshwater Marsh
231,880
79,577
6,586
1,089,836
994,716
619,112
Water
Basin Structure Total
(1998 em$/ha)
1,007
1,242
947
10,149,728
$6,197,853
5,544,020
11,472,451
7,273,389
6,170,664
Table 4. Summary of replacement values per hectare assuming complete elimination of wetland
ecosystem.
Ecosystem Type
Environmental Services (a> Natural Capital (b)
Total value")
(1998 emS/ha)
Forested Wetland
$231,880
$1,322,723
$1,554,603
Shrub/Scrub Wetland
$31,831
$1,075,536
$1,107,366
Freshwater Marsh
$13,173
$626,645
$639,817
(a) replacement value of environmental setV:ices is the emdollar value ofGPPover 112 recovery time. We used 80, 16, and 8
years for forested. shrub/scrub, and marsh systems respectively.
(b) Replacement values of natural capital are the sum of storages in each ecosystem. The loss of basin structure was not
considered
c) Total replacement value is the sum of environmental services and natw"al capital.
basin structure was not included in the totals for natural capital since elimination of a wetland does not
eliminate the underground geologic structure (see Figure 1). The total calculated replacement values
range between 0.6 million and 1.6 million em$/ha.
DISCUSSION
Emergy and Emdollilr Values of Wetlands
Much work is contributed by nature to human society, and while economic prices recognize
human work, they often fail to account for the values of ecological systems that are important contributions
to the earth's life support system. In recent years there has been increasing interest in alternative valuing
techniques that can recognize and incorporate ecological values into public policy decision making
framework. Traditional economic valuing techniques have been messaged so that monetary values can be
calculated for ecosystems and their services in the absence of markets (see for instance Costanza et. aI,
1998 or Daily, 1997). Yet these attempts fail from a scientific perspective, since they are based on
"willingness-to-pay" and in no way reflect the values of the services and natural capital of ecosystems
(Brown and Ulgiati, 1999).
The emdollar values of structure and environmental services (Tables 2 and 3) can b e used to
determine an approximate monetary value for wetlands and their environmental services. On an annual
basis wetlands provide between 4,372 and 7,355 emdollars per hectare of value to regional human
-88-

economies. Their natural capital is worth between 639,000 and 1.5 million emdollars per hectare. These
values could be used to determine the. monetary costs for replacing services and natural capital lost as a
result of development actions. In the case of degradation, an appropriate loss value could be calculated
based on the percent of ecosystem function lost times the emdollar value times the area. If a forested
wetland were cut, the appropriate loss value could be calculated from the biomass storage and GPP.
Evaluating Replacement Values

In the calculation of replacement values (Table 4) we assumed that the wetland ecosystem was
eliminated. Replacement value was the sum of natural capital and ecosystem services. Our mtional was
as follows: When a wetland is eliminated vegetation is cut, peat is removed, water is drained, and the
depression might be filled and covered with roads or buildings, and consequently the annual services are
lost since the wetland no longer exists. A wetland that is eliminated and not replaced, cannot contribute
environmental services and therefore the loss of environmental services continues to add up, indefinitely.
On the other hand if the wetland is replaced, then eventually, the new wetland will provide the services
that were provided by the original wetland. Since a constructed wetland is a growing system, each year
there is an incremental replacement of the lost services. If one assumes a linear regrowth and that the
constructed wetland eventually
achieves the same level of ecological organization, then half the
environmental services are lost over the replacement time. Therefore, the emdollar value of structure was
added to half the environmental services for the period of regrowth.
Mitigation and Wetland Ecosystem Values

The current trend in public policy concerning wetlands and losses resulting from their development
is "no net loss". It is believed that no net loss can be achieved by constructing wetlands to replace those
that are eliminated or enhancing degraded wetlands to replace functions and values lost. In some cases a
wetland may be built "on-site," in others, it may be built elsewhere and an appropriate change levied to
recover the costs of construction (and profit, when private "mitigation banks" are involved). Sometimes
the money is used by a government agency to pay for enhancement of degmded wetlands, again with the
idea of no net loss.
Charges levied by Florida agencies, for instance, appear to stem from the costs of construction
and in some ways have been arrived at from the standpoint of "what the market will bare;." They reflect
the costs of building wetlands, including land acquisition, planning, construction, and monitoring. These
values are costs in economic terms based on actual (or maybe perceiVed) costs to construct wetlands in
Florida, but in no way do they reflect the value of environmental services or structure that is lost when a
wetland is destroyed. Unfortunately, it is assumed by many, that since the "going rate" for wetlands is
$75,000 per acre ($187,5001 hal, this value is equal to their value to society. The costs of building a
wetland are not related to the ecosystem values that are derived from the living system. A better measure
of what society loses with each hectare of wetland conversion is suggested by the replacement values
calculated in this study. Seventy-five thousand dollars per acre is from 113" to 118'" of the value of
ecosystem services and natuml capital that is lost with the elimination of wetlands by development.
REFERENCES
Abtew,W. 1996. Evapotranspiration Measurements and Modeling For Three Wetland Systems In South
Florida. Water Resources Bulletin 32(3):465-473.
Brinson, MM. and R Rheinhardt. 1996. The Role Of Reference Wetlands In Functional Assessment
and Mitigation. Ecological Applications 6(1):69-76.
-89-
Chapter 7. Emergy Evaluation ojEcosystems ...
Brown, M. T., J. Schaeffer and K Brandt. 1990. Buffer ZonesJor Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in East
Central Florida. Final Report to the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Winter
Park, FL: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 185 pp.
Brown, M. T., C. S. Luthin, J. Tucker, R Hamann, J. Schaefer, L. Wayne, and M. Dickinson. 1990.
Econlockhatchee River Basin Natural Resources and Development and Protection Plan. Final
Report to St. Johns River Water Management District. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida. 330 pp.
Brown, M T., and J. Schaefer. 1988. Buffer ZonesJor W ater, Wetlands, and Wildlife. Final Report to the
St. Johns River Water Management District. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida. 176 pp.
Brown, M T., and S. Ulgiati. 1999. Emergy Evaluation of the Biosphere and Natural Capital. AMBIO.
Vol 28N06. Pp.486-492
Brown, PH. and C.L. Lant. 1999. The Effects Of Wetland Mitigation Banking On The Achievement Of
No-Net-Loss. Environmental Management 23(3):333-345.
Brown, S.L. 1981. A Comparison Of The Structure, Primary Productivity, And Transpiration Of Cypress
Ecosystems In Florida. Ecological Monographs 51:403-27.
Brown, S.L., S.W. Cowles, and H. T. Odum. 1984. Metabolism and Transpiration of Cypress Domes in
North-Central Florida. In: Cypress Swamps, KC. Ewel and H.T. Odum, eds. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, FL., USA.
Costanza, R, d'Arge, R, deGroot, R,Farber, S., Grasso, M, Hannon, B., Limburg, K, Naeem, S., O'Neill,
R, Paruelo, J., Raskin, RG., Sutton, P, and van den Belt, M 1997. The Value Of The World's
Ecosystem Services And Natural Capital. Nature 387: 253-60.
Daly, G (ed) 1997. Natures Services: Societal Dependence On Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
Washington DC, USA.
Flohrschutz, E.W. 1978. Dwarf Cypress In The Bigcypress Swamp Of South-Western Florida. Master's
Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Heimburg, K 1984. Hydrology Of North-Central Florida Cypress Domes. In: Cypress Swamps, KC.
Ewel and H.T. Odum, eds. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL., USA.
Henning, D.1989. Atlas of the Surface Heat Balance of the Continents: Components and Parameters
Estimated from Climatological Data. Gebruder Borntraeger. Berlin, Stuttgart.
Liu, S. 1996. Evapotranspiration From Cypress Wetlands and Slash Pine Uplands in North-Central Florida.
Dissertation, University of Florida.
Nessel, J.K. and S.E. Bayley. 1984. Distribution and Dynamics of Organic Matter and Phospohorus in a
Sewage-Enriched Cypress Swamp. In: Cypress Swamps, KC. Ewel and H.T. Odum, eds.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL., USA.
NOAA. 1985. Climatological Data, Florida.
Odum H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley
& Sons, N.Y
Odum, H.T. 1984. Surnrnary: Cypress Swamps and Their Regional Role. In: Cypress Swamps, KC.
Ewel and H.T. Odum, eds. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL., USA.
Rushton, B. 1996. Hydrologic Budget For A Freshwater Marsh In Florida. Water Resources Bulletin
32(1):13-21.
Schwartz, L.N. 1989. Nutrient, Carbon, And Water Dynamics Of A Titi Shrub Ecosystem In Apalachicola,
Florida. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville.
-90-
Chapter
7.
Spangler, D.P. 1984. Geologic Variability Among Six Cypress Domes In North-Central Florida. In:
Cypress Swamps, K.C. Ewel and HT. Odum, eds. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL,
USA.
Zedler, lB. 1996. Ecological Issues In Wetland Mitigation: An Introduction To The Forum. Ecological
Applications 6(1):33-37.
Zolteck, J., S.E. Bayley, A.I Hermann, L.R Tortora, and T.I Dolan. 1979. Removal Of Nutrients From
Treated Municipal Wastewater By Freshwater Marshes. Final Report to the City of Clermont,
Florida. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville.
TableA-l. Emergy evaluation of annual driving energies and environmental services of forested
wetlands.
Note Item
Data
Units
Transformity Solar Emergy

(sej/unit)
(E+15 sej/yr)
emS Value'
(1998 emS/yr)
Energy Sources
Sun
4.19E+13
Jlhalyr
0.04
37
Wind
3. 15E+09
Jlhalyr
1496
0.005
Rain, chemical potential
6.41+10
J/halyr
18199
1.17
1,044
Run-in, chemical potential 2.51+10
Jlhalyr
46225
1.16
1,040
Geologic input
5.50E+06
g/haIyr
1.00E+09
5.50
4,911
886
Functions (Env. Services)

6
Transpiration (water use )
3.80E+1O
Jlhalyr
26096
0.99
GPP
1.54E+12
Jlhalyr
4207
6.49
5,797
Infiltration
2.88E+I0
Jlhalyr
26096
0.75
672
emS = solar emelJlY in column 6 divided by 1.12 sejl$ for U.S. in 1998.
Notes to TableA-I.
I
SOLAR INSOLATION
Area of wetland =
Mean Net Radiation :::
m'
1.00E+04
(Henning 1989)
Ly
274
(1.00 E4 m')(274 Ly)(lO CalIm'lLy)(4186 J/Cal)(365 days)
Transformity =
4.19E+13
J/halyr
defmed as I
WIND
(Odnm, 1996)
Boundary Layer Height =
1000
Density =
1.23
Kg/m'
Eddy Ditr. Coefficient =
2.25
1.9 E -03
m'/s
(Odnm 1996)
m/sec/m
(Odnm 1996)
1.00E+04
m'/ha
Wind Gradient =
Area
(boundary layer height)(density)(eddy diff. Coeff.)(3.15E7 sec/yr)

(wind. gradient)'(area)
Transfonnity =
3.IE+09
J/halyr
1,496
sej/J
-91-
(Odnm 1996)
Chapter
7.
Notes to Table A-I continued

3
RAIN, CHEMICAL POTENTIAL

Area
Rainfall
LOOE+{)4
1.3
m'lha
mlyr
Gibbs Free Energy
4.94
Jig
(NOAA 1985)
(LOOE+{)4 m'lha)(1.3 m)(4.94 J/g)(1.00E+{)6 g/m')

6.42E+l0
4
18,199
Transformity
RUN IN, CHEMICAL POTENTIAL
Run-in
0.51
Area
Gibbs Free Energy
LOOE+{)4
4.94
Jlha/yr
(Odum 1996)
mlyr
(Heimberg 1984)
m'lha
Jig
(1.04 mlyr)(1.00E+{)4 m'lha)(LOOE+{)6 g/m')(4.94 Jig)

Transformity
2.52E+10
Jlha/yr
46,225
(calculated as 2.54
transformity of rain assuming total
rainfall is required to generate 39% avg. runo()fi:)

5
GEOLOGIC INPUT
Limestone Eroded =
Density of Limestone =
Transformity =
6
0.02750
cm/yr
g/cm'
2
(0.0275 cmlyr)(LOOE+{)8 cm'lha)(2 g/cm')
5.50E+{)6
g/ba/yr
LOOE+09
Sej/g
(Odum 1996)
m/yr
Jig
(estimate from Heimberg, 1984)
WATER USE (TRANSPIRATION)

Transpiration
0.77
Gibbs Free Energy =
(Odum 1984)
4.94
(0.77 m)(LOOE+{)4 m'lha)(LOOE+{)6 g/m')(4.94 Jig)

3.80E+IO
Jlhalyr
Transformity
7
26,096
(Calculated as weighted average of rain and run-in)
GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Net Primmy Production
Plant respiration
(Brown, Cowles, and Odum 1984)

bl Clhalyr
6.13
(6.13 blIhalyr) (1,000,000 g/bl) (8 kcal/g) (4186 Jlkcal)
2.05E+l l
J/lha/yr
39.96
bl Clha/yr
(Brown, Cowles, and Odum 1984)
(39.96 blIha) (1,000,000 g/bl) (8 kcal/g) (4186 Jlkcal)
l . 34E+12
Jlha/yr
Gross Production
L54E+12
Jlha/yr
Total annual emew =
Sum oftranspiratioD and geologic input
Transfonnity
6.49E+15
Sejlha/yr
(6.49E+15 Sejlha/yr I 1.54E+12 Jlha/yr )
4,207
sej/J
INFILTRATION
Infiltration Rate
0.0016
m/day
Gibbs free energy
4.94
Jig
(Heimberg 1984)
(0.0016 m/d)(365 d/yr)(4.94 J/g)(LOOE+{)6 g/m')(LOOE+{)4 m'lha)

Transformity
2.88E+IO
Jlha/yr
26,096
(Calculated as weighted average of rainfall and run-in)
-92-
Emergy evaluation of storages of natural capital in forested wetlands
TableA-2.
Note Item
Data
Units
Transformity Solar Emergy em$Value'

(sej/unit)
(E+15 sej)
(1998
73162
259.71
231,880
emS)
Structure (Natural Capital)

1
Live Biomass
2
3
Peat
Water
Basin Structure
emS
3.55E+12
J/ha
8.1 6E+12
JIha
1 49536
1220.62
1,089,836
4.32E+l0
2.44E+07
JIha
26096
1.13
1,007
JIha
4.66E+1l
11367.70
10,149,728
solar eme'l!Y in column 6 divided by 1.12 sejl$ for U.S. i n 1998.
Notes to TableA-2.
LIVE BIOMASS
I
212
tnlha dry weight
(212 tnlha) (1,000,000 gltn) (4 CalIg) (4186 J/kcal)
Jlha
3.55E+12
Biomass
Energy=::
Time to maturity
Total annual emergy
=
Transformity
2
yrs
40
sum transpiration, and geologic input
6.49E+l 5
Sejlha/yr
(6.55E+15 sejlhalyr 40 yrs) I 3.55E+12 Jlha
73,162
sejlJ
PEAT
Peat Storage Heat Content Bulk density % organic matter
Time to dey. peat
Peat
7.50E+03
5.20
0.50
=
Total annual eme'l!Y Transfonnity

3
(Brown, 1978)
0.10
188
m'lha
CalIg
glm'
as decimal
(average, Spangler 1984)

(estimate from Nessel and Bayley, 1984)
(estimate from Nessel and Bayley, (984)
yrs@4mm1yr
(7.50E+03 m'lha)(l.OO E+06 cm'/m')(5.2 CalIg)(4186 J/kcal) (0.IO)(.5g1m')

Jlha
8.16E+12
Sum of transpiration and geologic input
6.49E+l5
Sejlha/yr
(6.55E+l5 Sejlha/yr' 188 yrs) I 8.16E+12 Jlba
sejlJ
149,536
WATER
Volume of water taken as 89.6% moisture content of the volume of peat plus avg. standing water
Peat water
6.72E+03
m'
2.03E+03
Avg. water depth
JIg
4.94
Gibbs Free Ene'l!Y
(8.75E+03 m')(1.00E+06 glm')(4.94 JIg)
4.32E+IO
26,096
Jlba
Transformity:
BASIN STRUCTURE
Energy in Basin
Density
Mass displaced height
gravity
(density)(mass displ.)(htl2)(grevity)(2.38E-1i CalIeQl)(4186 J/Cal)

2
glcm'
50
em)
50
cm
em/s'
980
Time
2.44E+07
1818
total annual eme'l!Y -
Jlba
yrs
(Odum (984)
(Odum 1984)

6.25E+15
Sejlyr
-93-

Notes to TableA-2 continued
Transformity
(6.25E+ l 5 sejlyr * 1818) I 2.44E+07 Jib.
4.66E+11
sej/J
Table A-3. Emergy evaluation of annual driving energies and environmental services of shrub-scrub
wetlands.
Note Item
Data
Units
Transformity Solar Emergy em$Value*

(sej/unit)
(E+15
sej/yr)
(1998 em$/yr)
Energy Sources
I
Sun
2
3
Wind
0.04
37
1496
0.00
4.19E+13 J/halyr
3.15E+09 J/halyr
6.42E+10 J/halyr
18199
1.17
1,044
Run-in, chemical potential
2.25E+10
J/halyr
51867
1.17
Geologic input
3.41E+06
g/ha/yr 1.0E+09
3.41
1,041
3,045
3.89E+10
J/halyr
26928
1.05
GPP
1.05E+12
1.98E+!O
J/halyr
4261
26928
4.46
5
6
7
Infiltration
J/halyr
0.53
934
3,979
477
* emS solar emergy in column 6 divided by 1.12 sej/S for U.S. in 1998.
Notes to TableA-3
SOLAR INSOLATION
1
Area of wetland
Mean Net Radiation
Transformity
WIND
Boundary Layer Height

Density
Eddy Diff. Coefficient
1.00E+04
274
m'
(Henning 1989)
(1.00 E4 m')(274 Ly)(10 Cal/m'/Ly)(4186 J/Cal)(365 days)
4.19E+13
Jibalyr
defmed as I
(Odum 1996)
1000
1.23
2.25
1.9 E-03
1.00E+04
m
Kg/m'
m'ls
m/sec/m
Wmd Gradient
Area
m'iba
(boundary I.yer height)(density)(eddy diff. Coeff.)
(3.l5E7 seclyr)(wind. gradient)'(area)
3.l E+09
Jibalyr
1,496
sej/J
Transfonnity
Area
1.00E+04
m'iba
1.3
Rainfall
mIyr
Gibbs Free Energy
4.94
J/g2
(1.00E+04 m'iba)(1.3 m)(4.94 J/g)(1.00E+06 g/m')
6.42E+ 10
Jibalyr
Transfonnity
18,199
Based on watershed area of 1 hectare and runoff coeff 0[0.35
Run-in
0.455
mlyr
(Odum 1996)
(Odum 1996)
(Odum 1996)
-94-
(NOAA 1985)
(Odum 1996)
(Schwartz, 1989)

Notes to Table A-3 continued
Area::;;
LOOE+{)4
m'lha
Gibbs Free Energy -
4.94
Jig
(0.91 m/yr)(l.00E+{)4 m'lha)(l.00E+06 g/m')(4.94 Jig)

Transformity
2.25E+lO
Jlha/yr
51,867
(calculated as 2.85 * transformity of rain assuming total

rainfall is required to generate 35% run-oft)
GEOLOGIC INPU T
Limestone Eroded -
0.01705
Density of Limestone =
cm/yr
g/cm3
(38% less than Cypress based on filtration)
(0.01705 cm/yr)(LOOE+{)8 cm'lha)(2 g/cm')

Transformity 6
3.41E+{)6
g/halyr
l.00E+{)9
Sej/g
(Odmn 1996)
WATER USE ( TRANSPIRATION)

2155
Transpiration Gibbs Free Energy -
4.94
(estimate from Schwartz, 1989)
g H O/m'/day
Jig '
(2155g H O/m'/day)(365 days)( l .00E+{)4 m'lha)(4.94 Jig)

Transformity 7
3.89E+lo'
Jlhalyr
26928
GROSS PRJMARY PRODUCTION

Net Primary Production 551
(estimate from F1ohrschutz, 1978)

g C/m' /yr
(551 g C/m'/yr)(8 CalIg) (4186 J/C)(lE+4 m2lha)
Plant respiration -
L85E+II
J/lhalyr
1286
g C/m'/yr
(estimate from Flohrschutz, 1978)
(1286 g C/m'/yr)(8 CalIg) (4186 J/Cal)(IE+4 m2lha)

4.31E+II
Jlhalyr
Gross Production -
l.05E+12
Jlha/yr
Total annual emergy =
Sum. of transpiration and geologic input

4.46E+15
Sejlhalyr
(4.46 E+l5 Sejlhalyr I l.05E+l2 Jlhalyr )
Transformity -
4261
8
(Smn of NPP and 2*respiration)
sej/J
INFILTRATION.
Infiltration Rate -
0.0011
m/day
Gibbs free energy -
4.94
Jig
(estimate based on water balance)
(0.0016 m/d)(365d/yr)(4.94 J/g)(l.00E+{)6 g/m')(l.00E+{)4 m'lha)

Transformity
TableA-4.
l.98E+lO
Jlhalyr
26928
(Calculated as weighted average of water and run-in)
Emergy evaluation of storages of natural capital in shrub-scrub wetlands
Note Item
Data
Units
Transformity
Solar Emergy
emS Value'
(sej/unit)
(E+l5 sej)
(1998 emS)

1 . 29E+1 2
JIha
69129
89.13
79,577
Peat
6.53E+12
JIha
170606
5. 1 7E+lO
8.79E+06
JIha
26928
7.9E+II
1114.08
1.39
994,716
Water
6941.60
6,197,853
Live Biomass
2
3
4
Basin Structure
JIha
emS - solar emergy in colmnn 6 divided by 1.12 sej/$ for U.S. in 1998.
-95-
1,242
Chapter
7.
Notes to Table A-4.

LIVE BIOMASS
Biomass
7700
g/m'
(8400 glm'/yr) (1.00E+04 m'lha) (4 Callg) (4186 llkcal)
1.29E+12
Total
ann.
emergy
4.46E+15
20
Sejlhalyr
yrs
(estimate)
(4.66 E+l5 sejlhalyr * 20 yrs) 11.41 E+l2 I
69129
Sej/J
Peat Storage ==
1.00E+04
Heat Content
5.20
m'lha
kcallg
PEAT
=
Density of Peat
% organic matter
Time to dey. peat =
Total
ann.
(Schwartz, 1989)
0.50
g/cm'
(Schwartz, 1989)
0.06
250
as decimal
(Schwartz, 1989)
6.53E+l2
Jlhalyr
(estimate)
yrs@4mmlyr
(1.00E+04 m'lha)(1.00E+06 cm'/m')(0.5g1cm')(0.06)(5.2 kcallg)(4186Jlkcal)
Peat =
emergy = Sum of transpiration and geologic input

Sejlha/yr
4.46E+15
(4.66 E+l5 Sejlha/yr * 250)
Transformity =
170606
3
Jlha
==
Time =
Transfomtity
(Schwartz, 1989)
I 6.53E+12 Jlhalyr
Sej/J
WATER
Volume of water taken as 89.6% moisture content of volume of peat plus avg. standing water
Peat water
8.96E+03
1.50E+03
Gibbs Free Enrgy
J ig
4.94
(10.06E+03 m')(1.00E+06 glm')(4.94 Jig)
5.17E+10
Jlhalyr
Transformity:
4
m3
Avg. water depth=
26,928
BASIN STRUCTURE
Energy in Basin =
Density
(density)(mass displ.)(htl2)(gravity)(2.38E-1I Callerg)(4186 J/Cal)

2
glcm'
(Odum 1984)
em3
30
Mass displaced
height =
gravity =
30
cm
980
em/51
8.79E+06
Time
Total
ann.
1760
ernergy
Jlha
yrs
(3Ocm/.01705cmlyr)

3.94E+15
Transformity
(assume avg. dept of 30 cm)
Sejlyr
(3.94E+l5 sejlyr * 1760) 18.79E+06 Jih.

7.90E+1I
sej/J
-96-
Chapter
7.
Emergy Evaluation ojEcosystems...
Emetgy evaluation of annual driving energies and environmental services of marsh

wetlands.
Table A-S.
Note Item
Energy Sources
Sun
Wind
Run-in, chemical potential
Geologic input
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
GPP
Infiltration
em$
Data
Units
4. 1 9E+13
3.1 5E+09
6.42E+l0
2.25E+ 1 0
2. 97E+06
Jlhalyr
J/ha/yr
J/ha/yr
Jlhalyr
g/ha/yr
Transformity Solar Emergy

(sej/unit)
(E+ 1 5 sej/yr)
2.67E+1O Jlhalyr
8.54E+ l l Jlhalyr
L82E+l0 Jlhalyr
0.04
0.005
1 .1 7
1.17
2.97
1496
18199
51867
LOOE+09
26928
4319
26928
em$Value*
(I 998em$yr)
37
4
1,044
1 ,041
2,652
0.72
3.69
0.49
641
3,293
438
solar ernelID' in column 6 divided by L 12 sejl$ for U.S. in 1998.
Notes to TableA-5.
SOLAR INSOLATION
I
Area ofwetland
Mean Net Radiation
1.00E+04
m'
274
Ly
(Henning, 1989)
(1.00 E4 m')(274 Ly)(lO Callm'lLy)(4186 J/Cal)(365 days)

4.l9E+13
2
Jlhalyr
delmed as I
Transformity =
WIND
Boundary Layer Height =
1000
Density
1.23
Eddy
Diff. Coefficient
Wmd Gradient =
Area
2.25
1.9 E03
m
Kglm'
(Odum 1996)
m'/s
(Odum 1996)
m/sec/m
m'lha
1.00E+04
(boundary layer height)(density)(eddy diff.
Coeff.)
2
(3.15E7 seclyr)(wind. gradient) (area)
3.IE+09
Transformity =
3
Jlhalyr
(Odum 1996)
1,496
Area
Rainfall
Gibbs Free EnelID' =
1.00E+04
m'lha
1.3
mlyr
4.94
J/g2
(NOAA 1985)
(1.00E+04 m'lha)(1.3 m)(4.94 J/g)(1.00E+06 glm')

6.42E+ 10
Transformity =
4
Jlhalyr
(Odum 1996)
18,199

Assume I to I watershed to wetland ratio and run-offcoefficient of 0.35
Run-in =
0.455
Area
1.00E+04
m'lha
4.94
J/g
Gibbs Free Energy =
mlyr
(0.406 mlyr)(1.00E+04 m'lha)(1.00E+06 glm')(4.94 Jig)

2.25E+I 0
Jlhalyr
CJ7

Notes to
TableA-5 continued
51,867
Transformity:
(calculated as 2.85 '" transformity of rain assuming

total rainfall is required to generate 35% run-off)
GEOLOGIC INPUT
Limestone Eroded
Density of Limestone
::=
0.01485
cmlyr
g/em3
(44% less than Cypress based on filtration)
(0.01898 cmlyr)(1.00E+08 cm'lha)(2 glcm')

Transformity
6
2.97E+06
g/ba/yr
1.00E+09
Sej/g
(Odum 1996)
WATER USE (TR ANSPIRATION)

(estimate from Zolteck, 1979;Abtew, 1996; Rushton, 1996)
mlyr
0.54
Transpiration
4.94
Gibbs Free Energy
Jig
(0.64 m)(1.00E+04 m'lha)(1.00E+06 glm')(4.94 Jig)

2.67E+10
7
26928
Transformity
GROSS PRIMARY PRODUCTION
Net Primary Production
Jlha/yr
(Calculated as weighted average of water and run-in)
Respiration
Net Primary Production
Plant respiration =
(estimate from Zolteck et aI., 1979)

g/m'lyr
600
(600 glm'Iyr)(4 CaIlg) (4186 J/Cal)(1.00E+04 m'lha)
1.00E+11
J/lha/yr
3000
g/m'lyr
(based on 80% of GPP)
(2800 glm21yr)(4 CaIlg) (4186 J/Cal)(1.00E+04 m2lha)

5.02E+11
Gross Production =
Total annual emergy
3.69E+15
Transformity
Respiration)
Sejlhalyr
(3.69 E+15 Sejlha/yr I 8.54E+11 Jlhalyr)
4319
8
Jlha/yr
(smn of NPP and 1.5

Jlhalyr
8.54E+11
sej/J
INFILTRATION
Estimate from Rushton, 1996; 31 % of water loss in marsh due to seepage.
Infiltration Rate
0.37
Gibbs free energy
mIyr
J/g
4.94
(0.48 m/yr)(4.94 J/g)(1.00E+06 glm')(1.00E+04 m'lha)

1.82E+10
Jlhalyr
26928
Transformity
(Calculated as weighted average of rain and
run-in)
Table A6. Emergy evaluation of storages of natural capital in marsh wetlands
Note Item
Data
Units
Transfonnity
(sej/unit)
Solar Emergy
(E+1 5 sej)
em$Value'
emS)
(1998
Live Biomass
1.00E+1I
J/ha
73426
7.38
693.41
Peat
3.77E+12
J/ha
183870
Water
3.94E+10
26928
Basin Structure
6. I OE+06
J/ha
J/ha
emS
1 . 0E +1 2
solar emergy in column 6 divided by 1.12 sej/S for U.S. in 1998.
98-
1.06
6209.30
6,586
619,112
947
5,544,020

Notes to Table A-6.
LIVE BIOMASS
600
g dry weightlm'
(600 glm'/yr) (4 Callg) (4186 J/keal)(l.OOE-t{)4 m'lha)
Biomass =
1.00E+l l
Jlha
Total ann. emergy = Sum of transpiration and geologic input

Time =
Transfonnity
3.69E+ l 5
Sejlha/yr
yrs
(3.69 E + l 5 sejlha/yr * 2 yrs)/ l .OOE+ l l Jlha/yr

sej/J
73426
2
PEAT
Peat Storage
m'lha
CaIIg
0.11
0.21
g dry matter/em'
% organic matter =
(as decimal)
Time to dey. peat =
188
yrs @ 4 mm/yr
(estimate from Zolteek et aI., 1979)

(estimate)
Peat =
(7.50E+03 m'lha)(l.OO E+06 em'/m')(5.2 keallg)(4186 J/kea1)(Q.07 glem')
Density of Peat =
3.77E+l2
Total ano. Emergy
Jlha/yr
3.69E+15
Transformity =
Sejlha/yr
(3.69 E + l 5 Sejlha/yr * 188)
I 3.77E+13 Jlha/yr
183870
(Zolteek et aI., 1979)
7.50E+03
5.20
Heat Content
WATER
Volume of watcr taken as 89.6% moisture contcnt of volume of peat plus avg. standing water
Peat water =
6.72E+03
Avg. water depth=
1.25E+03
m'lha
m'lha
Gibbs Free Erugy =
4.94
Jig
(7.97E+03 m'lha)(l .00E+06 glm')(4.94 Jig)

Transfonnity
4
3.94E+10
Jlha/yr
26,928
BASIN STRUCTURE
Energy in Basin
(density)(mass displ.)(htl2)(gravity)(2.38E-l l Callerg)(4186 J/CaI)
Density
glem'
Mass displaced =
height =
25
25
em)
em
gravity
980
emls'
6.JOE+06
Jlha
1684
yrs
Time =
To.t
ann .
emergy
(assume 25 em depth)
(25eml.OI485emlyr)

3.69E+15
Transfonnity =
(Odum 1984)
Sejlyr
(3.69E+15 s/yr * 1684yrs) 1 6.IE+06 Jlha

1.02E+12
sej/J
-99-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
8
Emergy Analysis of Tomato Production Systems
Charlotte Lagerberg
ABSTRACT
Theoretical systems of Swedish conventional and organic tomato production were compared
using emergy analysis. The systems dijJered mainly with respect to fertilizer strategy. The effects of replacing
fossilfuels for heating with a wood derivedfuel was also analysed Replacing thefuel was shown to have
a larger effect on the sustainability of the systems than had the difference in fertilizer use. It was found
that a high yield is an important step to improve the resource efficiency of the organic production systems.
The replacement of fossilfuel for greenhouse heating with more renewable locally producedfuels, such
as low transformity logging residue, did enhance significantly the sustainability of the tomato production
systems.
INTRODUCTION
Sweden produces about 25percent of the tomatoes consumed annually by its population. The
domestic production of tomatoes is only for fresh consumption and is an important greenhouse crop. The
production is a resource intensive business requiring large amounts of inputs and yielding large output.
Using calculations of accumulated fuel energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions, the justification of
Swedish domestic tomato production has sometimes been debated (Carlsson-Kanyama, \998). Emergy
analysis was performed to shed further light on the resource use, environmental loading and sustainability
of theoretical systems for conventional and organic tomato production. Apart from the different fertilizer
strategies employed by the two systems, the effects of replacing fossil fuels for heating with a wood
derived fuel was studied.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The conventional tomato production system was designed to correspond to a typical well managed
greenhouse nursery in the Southwestern part of Sweden, which is the major tomato producing district.
The production took place in a Venlo type glass greenhouse. The crop was grown in a soilless system with
rockwool substrate and inorganic fertilizers for nutrient supply. The production period was normal for the
district with seeding taking place in December and harvest from mid March to late October.
The organic system was based on an experimental system by Garedal and Lundegard (1998).
The organic crop was grown in beds. The substrate for the beds contained soil, straw, manure and peat
and was fertilized with red clover mulch during the growing season. The organic crop was placed in the
same type of greenhouse as the conventional crop. Both systems used only biological control. Because of
the very short season of the original organic experimental system, the production period was prolonged to
a more realistic one, i.e. the one used for the conventional system. Inputs were extrapolated accordingly
and the output was raised significantly. The harvest was set to 42 kg/m' and 35kg/m' for the conventional
and organic system respectively. The area of the nurseries were 13500m' of which 9000m' was covered
area and 4500 m' were outside gravel and grass covered grounds. Handling, sorting and packing of the
fruit took place in the 1000m' of non-plant area of the greenhouse.
-101-
Chapter 8. Emergy Analysis of Tomato Production Systems

Oil and propane were used to heat the conventional system, the propane also supplying carbon
to the system, while the organic system was heated with oil. To explore the systems further the oil for
heating was replaced with domestic wood powder from logging residue (Doherty,
1995).
The studies were perfonned at company level, i.e. the entire nurseries, specialized in tomato
production were analysed (Figure \). The systems are described more thoroughly in Lagerberg and Brown
( \999) and Lagerberg et al. ( \999) respectively.
The perfonnance and interpretation of emergy analysis has been thoroughly described by e.g.
Odum
(1996) and Ulgiati et al. ( 1994). Some purchased inputs were not regarded as 100 percent non
renewable, since this would have obstructed the analyses, but were placed within the systems boundaries.
Consequently, the boundaries were expanded to include wood powder production. Regarding the organic
system, straw, manure and clover mulch were considered to be purchased from nearby farms and were
'
derived from a portion of semilocally renewable resources. Based on emergy analyses' of the substrate
components,
39%, 20% and 43% of the emergy of straw, manure and clover mulch was considered to be
of renewable origin. Thirty-seven percent of the wood powder transfonnity was regarded as renewable
(Doherty,
\995).
RESULTS
The overall resource use was greater in the conventional tomato production systems (Figures
and
3). When expressed per unit output, the resource use was however less than in the organic cases.
The renewable energies driving the oil heated systems were very small, amounting to less than
9 percent renewable resources

3percent of the total emergy of the conventional
one percent. The wood powder heated systems were driven by 7 and
respectively. Fertilizers and substrate constituted about
oil heated system whereas substrate and clover mulch contributed about 7 percent to the organic oil
Tomato
production
1-----.... Market
Company
Figure 1. Systems overview of a company producing greenhouse tomatoes forfresh consumption.
-102-
Chapter 8. Emergy Analysis oj Tomato Production Systems

heated system. Thirty-seven percent of the emergy of the conventional oil heated system was attributed to
direct and indirect human labor. The corresponding figure for the organic system was 39 percent.
The overall resources required to produce tomatoes was less for the systems using wood powder
for heating. These systems also showed lower non-renewable to renewable ratios, less environmental
loading and larger sustainability than the systems using oil.
DISCUSSION
The replacement of oil by heating with wood powder had greater impact on the environmental
stress and sustainability of the system than had the different fertilizer strategies of the conventional and
the organic system. The analyzed conventional systems were shown to utilize resources more efficiently
than the organic systems, which used more resources per unit output tomatoes. This points to the importance
of having a high yield in organic as well as conventional tomato production. Furthermore, the wood
powder heated systems were more resource efficient than the oil heated systems. Wood powder, which is
"'"
90
Conventional tomato poductlon

.oil heating
c wood
powder heating
80
70
80
..
50
11
40
"
63
30
20
10
7
0.2
0.01
Local renewable
0.3
local non-renewable
Purchased from outside
Human services
Oil heating system
Wood powder heating system
Emergy yield
1.98x1018sejlyear
1.S1x1 018 sejlyear
Emergy investment ratio
480
13.5
Non-renewable to renewable ratio
6230
Empower density
1.5x1 014 sejlm2
1.1x1 014 sejlm2
Environmenlal loading ratio
9910
14
Emergy suslainablity index
0.0001
0.08
Emergy per mass
5.9xl 0" seVkg tresh weight
4.5xl0" seVkg tresh weight
Transfonnity
7.0x108 sejlJ tomatoes
5.4x108 sej/J tomatoes
Figure 2. Resource use and emergyindices regarding the conventional tomato production system. Source: Lagerberg
and Brown (1999).
-103-
100
Organio tomato produolion
90
oil heating
C wood powder heating
80
70
.,
80
j
59
.. 50
39
<40
" 30
20
9
10
0.2
Local renewable
0.2
0.3
Local non-renewable
Purchased from outside
Human servlcea
011 heating system
Wood powder heating system
Emergy yield
1.9Oxl 0" sejlyear
1.35xl 0" sejlyear
Emergy investment ratio
242
10
Non-renewable to renewable ratio
270
Empower density
1.4x1014 sej/m2
1.Ox1 014 sej/m2
Environmentelloading ratio
441
10
Emergy suslainablity index
0.002
0.11
Emergy per mass
6.8x10" sej/kg fresh weight
4.8x10" sej/kg fresh weight
Trensformity
8.1xl O' sej/J lomatoes
5.7x106 sej/J tomatoes
Figure 3. Resource use and emergy indices regarding the organic tomato production system.
Source: Lagerberg
ef al. (/999).
a lower transformity fuel partly derived from renewable sources, lowers the transformity of the tomatoes
thus raising the efficiency of resource use. It also results in a larger fraction of renewable resource use
which in tum lowers the environmental loading and increases the sustainability of the system using this
fuel.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to give credit to Drs Mark T. Brown, mla Gertsson, Rolf Larsen and Lena
Giiredal for their contributions to various components of the work upon which this paper is based. The
participation in the conference "First Biennial Conference on Emergy Analysis" in Gainesville, Florida,
USA, was financed by travel grants from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and the
Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture (KSLA).
- 104-
REFERENCES
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 1998. Food consumption patterns and their influence on climate change. Greenhouse
gas emissions in the life-cycle of tomatoes and carrots consumed in Sweden. Ambio 27(7).528-534.
Doherty, S. 1. 1995. Emergy
evaluation of and limits to forest production. A dissertation presented to the
graduate school of the University of Florida in partial fullfillment of the requirements for the degree
of doctor of philosophy. Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA.
(Lycopericon
esculentum Mill.) in limited beds fertilized with locally produced mulches: effects on growth and
yield. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 16, 173-189.
Garedal, L. and Lundegiirdh, B. 1998. Ecological cultivation of greenhouse tomatoes
Lagerberg, C. and Brown, M. T. 1999. Improving agricultural sustainability: the case of
Swedish
greenhouse tomatoes. Journal of Cleaner Production 7, 421-434.

Lagerberg, C. Gertsson, U. Larsen, R. and Garedal, L. 1999. Emergy evaluation offive tomato production
systems. (submitted to Scientia Horticulturae).

Odum, H. T. (1996).
Environmental accounting. Emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley,
New York.
Uigiati, S. Odum, H. T. and Bastianoni, S. 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability.
An emergy analysis of Italy.
Ecological Modelling 73, 215-268.
-105-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
9
Sustainable Use of Potable Water in Florida: an Emergy
Analysis of Water Supply and Treatment Alternatives
Andres A. Buenjil
ABSTRACT
In this study, different water supply and treatment alternatives in Florida were evaluated with
emergy analysis to suggest policiesjor maximizing the contributions of water to the economies ofboth
nature and society. Emergy represents all the previous work required to generate a product or provide a
service. Since economic costs only recognize human work and services and not the work ofnature, emergy
analysis is a tool that complements benefit-cost evaluations for selecting the most appropriate development
alternative. Six ways of producing potable water for different cities in Florida were investigated:
I) treating deep groundwater {Gainesville}; 2) treating river water {Tampo}; 3) treating brackish
groundwater {Dunedin}; 4) treating and transporting surficial groundwater {Florida Keys aqueduct}; 5)
desalinating seawater with old (early 19BO s) reverse osmosis technology {Stock Island}; and 6)
desalinating seawater with current reverse osmosis technology [Tampo Bay}. The results show that the
value ofpotable water rangesfrom 9.1 EB solar emjouleslliter (sej/L) for the river water source to 5.4 E9
sej/L for the seawater source (Stock Island). The macroeconomic value ofpotable water rangedfrom 2.3
emdollarsl1000 gallons (Em$11000 gal) for the river water source to 23.2 Em$11000 gal for the seawater
source (Stock Island). The Emergy Yield Ratios (i.e. emergy of potable water per emergy of purchased
inputs) for the production ofdrinking water rangedfrom 3.2 for the groundwater source (Gainesville) to
1.03 for the seawater source (Tampo Bay). The Emergy Investment Ratios (i.e. emergy of purchased
inputs per emergy offree inputs) rangedfrom 0.45 for the groundwater source (Gainesville) to 36.1 for
the seawater source (Tampo BUy). The transformities ofdrinking water rangedfrom 1.B E5 sejlJ for the
river water source to 1.1 E6 sejlJ for the seawater source (Stock Island). This study shows that for the
production ofdrinking water, groundwater resources can stimulate the local economy more than saltwater
resources. In addition, the production of potable water from groundwater is less dependant of non
renewable energy than the production of potable waterfrom brackish groundwater or seawater.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to calculate production-based values of water to detennine the
most appropriate and effective sources of water or treatment options to supply communities in Florida
with potable water. This was accomplished by using emergy analysis. Emergy is a measure of all the
previous work required to generate a product or service (Odum, 1996). Emergy analysis is based on a
donor system of value, where the value of products are based on how much work was required to produce
them. Emergy analysis also corrects for different types and qualities of energy by transfonning all inputs
back to one common denominator (solar emjoules). This makes emergy evaluations appropriate for
examining biophysical systems. Since traditional benefit-cost analyses are based on a user system of
value (i.e. how much humans are willing to pay for something), they typically ignore the work of nature
and other "externalities" that are part of the production process. Thus, emergy analysis can be used to
complement traditional economic studies for deciding among feasible alternatives.
Six methods for producing potable water for different cities in Florida were evaluated with
emergy analysis. The potable water systems analyzed were:
1 07
I) treating deep groundwater [Gainesville];
Chapter 9. Sustainable Use ofPotable Water in Florida: ...

2) treating river water [Tampa]; 3) treating brackish groundwater [Dunedin]; 4) treating surficial
groundwater and transporting it along a 130-mile long pipeline [Florida Keys]; 5) desalinating seawater
with old (early 1980's) reverse osmosis technology [Stock Island]; and 6) desalinating seawater with
current reverse osmosis technology [Tampa Bay]. Figure I shows the approximate location of the water
treatment/supply systems evaluated.
Figure 1. Approximate location of the water treatment systems analyzed:
1) Murphree Water Treatment Plant in
Gainesville, 2) Hillsborough River Water Treatment Plant in Tampa; 3) City of Dunedin Reverse Osmosis Water
Treatment Plant; 4) Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority from Florida City to Key /fest; 5) Stock Island desalination
Plant; and
6) Tampa Bay desalination Plant.
The two principal methods for producing drinking water for public supply are groundwater and
surface water treatment. Groundwater treatment is typically the simplest and least expensive way of
generating potable water. This is because the quality of groundwater is commonly higher than surface
water and, thus, requires less treatment for producing drinking water. In Florida, most of groundwater
treatment plants use lime (CaO) to increase the pH of the raw water. At a high pH calcium and magnesium
ions precipitate and decrease the hardness of water. Although calcium hardness, the principal type of
hardness in Florida, does not present much threat to human health, it is removed to prevent the clogging
of pipes and boilers with calcium carbonate. Treatment of surface water (e.g. lakes and rivers) is more
complicated than groundwater. Surface water treatment includes several physical unit processes
(e_g. settling of suspended solids and filtration) and chemical unit operations (e.g. coagulation and
disinfection). Of the approximately 1000 public drinking water utilities in Florida which supply 99.5% of
-108-

the public water supply of the state, less than 20 plants rely on surface water as their primary water source
(Fernald and Purdum, 1998). A third method for producing drinking water is desalination of brackish
groundwater or seawater. Desalinating brackish groundwater along coastal cities with reverse osmosis
(RO) is one of the fastest-growing water purification technologies in Florida (Fernald and Purdum, 1998).
Although Florida has more than 2,000 miles of coastline, direct seawater desalination has been limited
due to high energy and large capital costs required for production. Large-scale seawater distillation has
been practiced in the Caribbean, but has not been cost-effective in Florida. Collection of rainwater for
public supply is not practical in Florida due to the flat topography of the state.
The principal source of drinking water in the state is the Floridan aquifer system, which is one of
the most productive aquifers in the world (Fernald and Purdum, 1998). Another important aquifer is the
Biscayne, a surficial aquifer system in the southeastern part of the state that supplies most of the fresh
water to Miami and its surrounding urban area. Combined, the Floridan and the Biscayne provide nearly
90% of the state's drinking, irrigation, and recreational water (Heath and Conover, 1981).
The holistic value of drinking water depends on the previous work of nature and humans to
collect, purify, and distribute the water; not on how much humans are willing to pay for the water coming
out of their faucet. Furthermore, depending on the quality of the water source, the value and price of
potable water changes. For e"ample, fresh water from the upper Floridan aquifer system, which is basically
potable, is of a higher value than non-readily drinkable water from a river. This is because through natural
filtration processes many contaminants are removed from the water as it percolates though the ground.
Similarly, the value of water increases as it is treated and becomes potable. Thus, the real value of potable
water is a function of its source and type of treatment.
The distribution of potable water use for a typical household in the United States is roughly as
follows: outdoor use (50%), toilets (14%), showers (9%), cloth washers (10"/0), faucets (8%), leaks (7%),
dishwashers and baths (1.5%), and cooking and drinking 0.5%) (American Water Works Association,
1999). Consequently, most of the drinking water supplied by public utilities is being used for activities
that do not require potable water. In spite of the aesthetics and health concerns, flushing potable water
down the toilet or using it to irrigate lawns is a very inefficient utilization of this indispensable resource.
Such practices can not be sustained in the long term. Therefore, it is essential to effectively select water
sources and treatment alternatives as well as policies that dictate how water resources should be used.
This approach will promote the long-term well being of society and nature.
METHODS
A complete e"planation of the methodology of emergy analysis is presented in Odum, 1996. The
principle steps for the emergy analyses shown in this report are briefly described below.
Systems diagrams
Potable water alternatives were diagrammed for each potable water alternative using the energy
systems language (Odum, 1971). The principle variables, sources, processes, and energy flows required
for each potable water system were illustrated in the diagrams. The main flows and storages of these
diagrams were evaluated in the emergy tables.
Data collection
The information required to quantify the storage and emergy flows in the systems diagrams was
obtained from the literature, technical reports and personal interviews. Assumptions were made when
data was unavailable. These assumptions are indicated in the emergy tables' footnotes.
109

Emergy tables
Emergy evaluation tables were generated from the systems diagrams. Each energy input required
for the production of drinking water was multiplied by its appropriate transformity (or emergy-per-unit)
to generate its emergy contribution in solar emjoules per year (sej/year).
Transformity and emergy-per-unit calculations

Once the total emergy budget was obtained from summing all the input rows in the emergy
tables, the transformity (or emergy-per-unit) of potable water was calculated by dividing the total emergy
of potable water by its energy content (e.g. chemical potential energy of water).
RESULTS
Figure 2 illustrates the systems diagram for the Murphree Water Treatment Plant, a 22 million
gallons per day (mgd) groundwater treatment facility that supplies most of Gainesville's drinking water.
The darkest box in this diagram indicates the system boundary for the emergy evaluation. Inputs crossing
this boundary (see numbers on diagram) were used to generate the emergy evaluation table (Table
I).
This table includes several emergy-per-unit values of potable water that were calculated from the total
emergy value of the potable water produced. Table 2 shows several emergy indices and ratios from the
production of drinking water at the Murphree plant. The same indices and ratios were calculated for the
other 5 potable water alternatives. These indices serve as emergy statistics to compare each potable water
production process. The Appendix presents the notes that document the input data and calculations
required to generate the values in Tables 1 and 2.
E",.,..
transpi'atlOn
Evaporation
.""""
,.-.....
3
>-f--+--lHfSO,L
-
City of
Gainesville
pot... .
7-------l_ groundWater
out
B biomass; P price; E environment

MWfP Murphree Water Treatment Plant
=
"!!'
Heat sink
Figure 2. Systems Diagram o/he Murphree Water Treatment Plant in Gainesville, Florida (22 million gallons/day).
-110-

Table 1. Emergy evaluation of the drinking water produced at the Murphree Water Treatment Plant in
Gainesville, Florida (22 million gallons/day).
Emergy
Energy
Note
Item
Unit
per unit
Data
Solar
Em$"
Emergy (sej)
Emergy
year 2000
perlOOO gal
(E18 sej/yr) (E6 US$/yr)
Unit/year
(sej/unit)
1.4E+14
3.0E+OS
42.6
2.1
(E12)
RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Ground Water
48.4
S.84
2.4
0.29
PURCHASED & OPERATIONAL INPUTS
Operating &
1.6E+06
l.3E+12
Maintenance
3
Electricity
5.3E+13
1.6E+OS
8.S
9.7
1.16
Chemicals ($)
I.SE+06
l.3E+12
2.0
2.2
0.27
Chemicals (kg)
kg
S.6E+06
1.0E+12
S.6
6.4
0.77
Plant Construction
4.4E+OS
l .3E+12
0.6
0.6
0.08
kg
2.9E+OS
1.2E+12
0.4
0.4
O.OS
kg
1.4E+OS
1.8E+12
lU
ill
lLQ:I.
61.9
70.4
8.5
& Upgrading
Plant Assets
(concrete)
Plant Assets
(steel & iron)
Total emergy of drinking water (before the

distribution system)
EMERGY PER UNIT OF POTABLE WATER (before the distribution system)
Potable water
10 Potable water
11 Potable water
gall
7.30E+09
8.SE+09
61.9
70.4
7.2E+06
8.7E+12
61.9
70.4
1.4E+14
4.54E+OS
61.9
70.4
12 Potable water
2.8E+13
2.2E+06
61.9
70.4
13 Drinking water
1.4E+14
4.4E+OS
59.8
68.0
"
Emdollars
emergy flow in column 5 divided by:
- 1 1 1-
8.80E+11
sej/US$ for 2000.
Chapter 9. Sustainable Use ofPotable Water in Florida:...

Table 2. Emergy indices and ratios for the drinking water produced at the Murphree Water Treatment
Plant.
Note
Short expression
Name of Index
Quantity
14
Emergy Investment Ratio(EJR)
(p +S) I(N + R)
0.45
15
Emergy Yield Ratio(EYR)
Y /(p+S)
3.20
NonrenewablelRenewable(N/R)
17
Ratio of Emergy Benefit to the Purchaser(EBP) in 1994
18
2000 Em-dollar value of potable water per 1000 gallons
EM$I$
EM$ I 1000 gal
19
Transformity of potable water
sej / J
20
Emergy per 1000 gal of potable water
21
sej I1000 gal

Sej IL
Emergy per L of potable water
l&gend:
p Electricity, Fuels, goods & materials
local non-renewable resources
y total emergy of potable water
sej solar emjoules
=
0.34
(N + P) / R
16
6.66
4.42
4.54E+05
8.49E+12
2.24E+09
s services (all monetmy flows)

R renewable resources
Em$ emdollar value
J joules
=
The other 5 emergy evaluations were conducted in the same fashion as the Murphree Water
Treatment Plant. The systems diagrams, emergy tables, and footnotes for these alternatives are not included
in this paper but will be published in the doctoral dissertation(Buenfil, 2000). Table 3 summarizes the
results of the six water systems evaluated. The emergy values shown in this table represent only the
potable water leaving the treatment facilities and do not include the emergy of the distribution system
(except for the Florida Keys aqueduct, where the aqueduct itself is included in the evaluation).
DISCUSSION
Comparison of Alternatives
Transformities are dynamic. They can vary for the same commodity or process depending on
the boundary (scale), production process, place, and time of production. Transformities for different
methods of producing the same commodity can be used as indicators of the efficiency of production
(Odum, 1996). The process with the lowesttransformity is the most eflicient. Thus, from the six alternatives
evaluated, the production of drinking water from ihe Hillsborough River is the most emergy efficient
(Table 3). However, the low transformity of the drinking water produced from the Hillsborough River
Plant is partly a consequence of economies of scale(e.g. this plant produces about 3 times more potable
water than the Murphree plant, which translates into a relatively lower treatment cost per unit volume of
finished water). In addition, the low transformity of this potable water is also a reflection of the low
transformity of the water source(Le. 0.5 ES sej/J).
The reason why the groundwater facilities in Gainesville and Dunedin produce potable water
with relatively high transformities is because the transformity of the water source, the Floridan aquifer, is
very high (Le. 3.0 ES sej/J). Furthermore due to the high transformity of Floridan groundwater, both
facilities produced water with the largest Emergy Yield Ratios(Le. emergy of potable water per emergy
of purchased inputs) and the lowest Emergy Investment Ratios (Le. emergy of purchased inputs per
emergy of free inputs). This indicates that the ratio of purchased emergy(emergy from human work and
-112-
Chapter 9. Sustainable Use ofPotable Water in Florida:...

Table
3. Results of the emergy analysis for the six potable water alternatives evaluated.
Description
/ supply systems
I ) Gainesville 2) Twnpa 3) Dunerun
Water treatment
Location
Type of water treatment
Water source
Av g. TDS of water
source (ppt)
Plant capacity (mgd)
gw
Floridan
aquif.
0.25
22
4)FL Keys
5) Stock Is.
6) TwnpaBay
Surface
gw
gw/aqueduct
RO (old tech) RO (new tech)
Hills. R. brackish gw Biscayne aquif
Seawater
Seawater
0.22
0.43
0.35
37.0
26.0
62
5.6
15
1.0
0.3
0.6
1.5
0.1
3.45
6.0
0.6
2.1
0.3
0.4
9.46
1.9
3.8
2.1
0.8
1.9
10.6
25
0.8
1.3
14.6
0.5
3.2
20.40
0.2
0.2
7.0
0.1
0.7
8.2
Emergy Values (IE12 sejllOOO gal)
Water used
Operation & maintenance
Fuels & electricity
Chemicals & supplies
Plant assets
Total emergy of water
5.8
0.3
1.2
1.0
0.2
8.49
EMERGY INDICES & RATIOS

(EIR)
Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR)
NonrenewablelRenewable
0.45
2.55
0.57
4.50
23.93
36.11
3.20
0.34
1.39
1.98
2.75
0.38
1.22
1.80
1.04
18.01
1.03
32.04
2.48
4.43
1.77
7.07
5.18
2.25
6.18
6.95
23.18
13.24
1.20
1.84
5.18
10.50
2.15
(NIR)
6.66
Emergy Benefit to the
Purchaser (Em$/$)
4.42
2000 Em$ value of
water/WOO gal
0.98
Consumer cost/lOOO gals
($/IOOOgals)
Transformity of potable 4.54E+05
water (sejlJ)
2.99E+05
Transformity of water
source (sej/J)
Emergy per L of potable 2.24E+09
water (sejlL)
I&gend'
gw groundwater
TDS total dissolved solids
Hills. R. Hillsborough River
=
1.84E+05
5.06E+05
5.68E+05
1.l0E+06
4.4IE+05
4.85E+04
2.74E+05
8.83E+04
2.80E+04
2.80E+04
9.IIE+08
2.50E+09
2.81E+o9
5.39E+09
2.18E+09
mgd million gallons per day

ppt parts per thousand
RO reverse osmosis
=
services) to "free" emergy (emergy from nature) for the groundwater systems are lower than the other
potable water systems evaluated (Table 3). In other words, nature subsidizes the low treatment requirements
to yield potable water.
The RO desalination processes had the highest Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR) of the six water
systems evaluated. This i s due to the huge electrical power required to force seawater though the
semi-permeable membranes to separate the salts from the water. The Tampa Bay RO plant had an EIR of
36.1 and the Stock Island plant had an EIR of23.9. Both of these values are much greater than the average
EIR for the state of Florida, which is approximately 7 (Odum et al., 1998). This suggests that the matching
of environmental emergy with the emergy of human services and technology required for seawater
desalination is more intense than the surrounding economy and, in the long term, may not compete with
other similar economic activities.
-113-

The desalination plant in Tampa is being built next to a power station and is expected to start
operating in 2003. Being next to the power station will allow the desalination facility to have an inexpensive
and reliable source of electricity. In addition, to avoid special permitting for the development of the
desalination facility, the concentrated brine and filter backwash water from the desalination plant will be
diluted with the discharge of the power station. The power station generates electricity from coal, which
is not predicted to become globally exhausted for at least two centuries (Rogner, 1997). Since the useful
life of the desalination plant is less than 50 years, running out of coal to generate the electricity required
to operate the desalination process may not be of concern to sustain the production of potable water.
However, if other fossil fuels, such as oil, become scarcer within the next 50 years (International Energy
Agency, 1998; Campbell and Laberrere, 1998), electrical energy may become more valuable to the
economy. Furthermore, since oil is used directly or indirectly to run the modem human economy, as oil
becomes scarce and the cost of oil increases the cost; of producing other forms of energy increases as
well. For example, oil provides approximately 50% of the fuel used for the extraction of coal (Costanza
et al., 1996). Thus, in the near future it may not be economically feasible to use large quantities of
electricity to produce drinking water that could be produced more efficiently from rivers such as the
Hillsborough. The very low Emergy Yield Ratios for the RO desalinated water produced in Tampa and
Stock Island (1.03 and 1.04, respectively) indicate that seawater desalination is not a source of net emergy
and may actually be a drain of resources to society.
Relevance of Results
Tampa Bay is the second most populous metropolitan area in Florida with more than 2.1 million
people (Marth and Marth, 1997). Because of rapid urbanization, saltwater intrusion, legal limits of fresh
groundwater extraction from nearby counties, and a high chloride concentration of the Floridan groundwater
surrounding the bay, Tampa Bay presents one of the most challenging potable water supply problems of
the state. However, these constraints have also created one of the most progressive regions in terms of
water conservation and implementation o f new water treatment technologies. An example of such
technologies is the projected 25-mgd desalination plant that will become the largest RO seawater
desalination facility in the world (Lindeman, personal communication). The results from this emergy
study are significant because current politics and public opinion perceive desalination as the best way to
solve Tampa Bay's water scarcity problems, The desalination plant was preferred over a controversial
project that proposed to recycle treated wastewater back to the headwaters of the Hillsborough River,
thus, closing the loop of human-used water in the region. The selection of desalinating seawater instead
of recycling treated wastewater was not based on public health but on the negative perception of drinking
"sewage water" (Lindeman, personal communication). This emergy study has shown that producing
potable water from the Hillsborough River is not only more sustainable (assuming that there are no major
repercussions in the quality and quantity of the water down stream of the treatment facility), but also
more efficient than the RO desalination process. Furthermore, the relatively high Emergy Investment
Ratio and low Emergy Yield Ratio for the RO desalination technology indicate that this potable water
production alternative is not competitive with more traditional alternatives (e.g. groundwater and surface
water treatment).
Potable water is a valuable resource and should not be wasted. If brackish water or reclaimed
water (treated wastewater) were used instead of drinking water to irrigate lawns, flush toilets, wash cars,
and extinguish fires, there may not be a need for building the 25-mgd desalination plant. The expected
100 million dollars required to construct this plant and the 7.5 million to operate it per year (Stone &
Webster, 1999) could be used to develop at least part of the appropriate infrastructure to reduce the
demand of drinking water and to promote the appropriate utilization of treated wastewater.
- 1 14-
Chapter 9. Sustainable Use o/Potable Water in Florida: ...

CONCLUSIONS
Different water supply and treatment alternatives in Florida were evaluated with emergy
analysis to suggest which potable water systems are more appropriate for maximizing the long-term well
being of both nature and society. The results indicate that producing drinking water from surface water
sources may be more appropriate than producing drinking water from groundwater sources. In tum,
generating drinking water from groundwater may be more favorable than producing potable water from
seawater. Nevertheless, proximity and quality of water resources will affect this general conclusion.
This study showed that water has very different values and, thus, thorough and holistic studies
should be performed to determine the most appropriate way of allocating water resources. The value of
potable water has been underestimated by society, resulting in superfluous uses of potable water (e.g.
using potable water to irrigate lawns). It is, therefore, necessary to design and implement appropriate
mechanisms to prevent wasting this vital resource. With the construction of the desalination plant, Tampa
Bay will temporarily meet its potable water demand by extending its ecological footprint (e.g. by using
more coal, generating more air pollution, and increasing salinity concentrations in Tampa Bay).
However, as fossil-fuel energy becomes scarcer and population continues to grow, this approach may
prove unsustainable in the near future. An emergy evaluation, such as the one presented in this study,
could have complemented traditional economic analysis to select the most sustainable potable water
supply system for Tampa Bay.
REFERENCES
American Water Works Association, 1999. Water Use Inside and outside the home. Internet address:
http://www.waterwiser.orglframeset.cfm
Buenfil, A. A. 2000 (forthcoming in Dec.). The Value of Water in Florida: a Quantitative Study of the
Importance of Water for Humans and the Rest of Nature. Doctoral dissertation. Department of
Environmental Engineering Sciences. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Buranakam, Vorasun. 1998. Evaluation of Recycling and Reuse of Building Materials using the Emergy
Analysis Method. Doctoral Dissertation; College of Architecture, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Campbell, C.I. and I.R. Laherrere. 1998. The End of Cheap Oil. Scientific American. Vol. 279, No.3;
pp.60-65.
Costanza, R., I. Martinez-Alier, and S. Olman (editors). 1996. Getting Down to Earth: Practical
Applications of Ecological Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics Series,
Island Press; p. 314.
Fernald, E.A. and E.D. Purdum (editors). 1992. Atlas of Florida. Institute of Science and Public Affairs.
Florida State University. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Fernald, E.A. and E.D. Purdum (editors). 1998. Water Resources Atlas of Florida. Institute of Science
and Public Affairs. Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Heath, R.C. and 'C.S. Conover. 1981. Hydrologic Almanac of Florida. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Geological Survey. Open field report No. 81-1107. Tallahassee, Florida.
International Energy Agency. 1998. World energy prospects to 2020. Paper prepared for the G8 energy
ministers' meeting Moscow, 31 March-April I.
Lindeman D. Personal communication with Donald E. Lindeman, Project Engineer of Tampa Bay water.
Iune 15, 1999; Clearwater, Florida.
-115-

Marth D. and M. Marth. 1997. The 1998 Florida Almanac. Fourteenth Edition. Swuanee River Press,
Brandford, Florida.
Murphree Water Treatment Plant, 1994. Yearly Summary Fiscal Year 1993-1994, Murphree Water
Treatment Plant, Gainesville, Florida.
Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment Power and Society. Wiley Interscience; John Wiley & Sons Inc, New
York.
Odum, H T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Environmental Decision Making. John
Wiley & Sons. New York.
Odum, H T., E.C. Odum, and M. T. Brown. 1998. Environment and Society in Florida. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida; p. 129.
Richardson, D . 1996. Personal Interview with David Richardson, Gainesville Regional Vtilities'
administrator. October 4, 1996; Gainesville, Florida.
Rogner, HH 1997. An Assessment of World Hydrocarbon Resources. Annual Review ofEnergy and the
Environment. Vol. 22; pp. 217-62.

Stone & Webster. 1999. Response to the Best and Final Offer Seawater Desalination Water Supply Project.
Report submitted to Tampa Bay Water by PB Water. February 17; Boston, Massachusetts.
-116-

Appendix Notes for the emergy evaluation of the drinking water produced at the Murphree Water
Treatment Plant in Gainesville, Florida (footnotes for Tables 1 and 2).

Groundwater, J
water pumped per year

A nnual chemical energy of water
=
Transformity
2
Total KW h used
Total armual energy used
Transformity
Chemicals, $
Tot. cost of chemical usage in the plant
Emergy per dollar ratio in 1994
=
2.99E+05
$/yr
sej/$
1,622,182
1.30E+12
(Richardson, 1996)
(Correlated value from Odum, 95; p.314)
KWh
J Iyr
sej/J
1.48E+07
5.3IE+13
1.60E+05
(MW'phree Water Treatment Plan 1994)

(KWh)(3.6 E6 JIKWh)
(Odum, 95; p.305)
$/yr
sej/$
1,519,832
1.30E+12

kglyr
kglyr
kglyr
kglyr
kglyr
sejlkg
4,308,351
517,286
68,705
693,733
5,588,075
1.00E+l2

(MW'phree Water Treatment Plant, 1994)
(a+b+c+d)
assumed the same as limestone or coal:
(Odum, 1996; p. 310)
Chemicals, kg
a) Total lime used in 1994

b) Total chlorine used in 1994
c) Total f1uosilicic acid used in 1994
d) Total liquid CO used in 1994
Tot. weight of chei'nicals used in 1994
Emergy per weight
=
sej/J

(galslyr)(1 m'/264.17 gals)(4.90 J/g)(1
E6 glm')
(Buenfil, 2000)
Electricity, J
=
7.68E+09
1.42E+14
Operating and Maintenance, $
A vg. operating and maintenance cost

3
gals/yr
J/yr
Plant Construction and Upgrading, $
Total depreciated costs for the construction

and upgrading of Water Treatment Plant= $
plant life
yrs
Total Assets of plant
$Iyr
sej/$
15,297,840
35
437081
1.30E+12
(Richardson, 1996)
[estimated)
($/useful plant life)
ton
yr
kglyr
sejlkg
10000
35
285714
1.23E+12
[estimated)
[estimated)
(tons)(lOOO kglton)/(useful plant life)
(Buranakarn, 1998; p. 175)
ton
yr
kglyr
sejlkg
5000
35
142857
1.80E+l2
[estimated)
[estimated)
(tons)(I000 kglton)/(useful plant life)
(Odum, 1996; p. 192)
gals/yr
%
gals/yr
sejlyr
sej/gal
7.68E+09
95
7.30E+09
6.19E+19
8.49E+09
(Murphree Water Treatment Plan 1994)

[assumed)
(galslyr)(%recovery 1100)
(sum of items I to 8)
(sej/yr)I(gallyr)
1994$
galslyr
$Iyr
sejlyr
sej/$
0.98
7.30E+09
7.15E+06
6.19E+19
8.66E+12

(see note 6)
($/1000 gal)(gal)/IOOO
(sum of items I to 8)
(sejlyr) I($/yr)
galslyr
7.30E+09
(galslyr)(%recovery I 100)
Plant Assets (concrete, with out services), kg
Total mass of concrete

Average useful life of plant
Total concrete
Emergy per mass of concrete
=
Plant Assets (steel & iron), kg
Total mass of steel & iron

Average useful life of plant
Total steel & iron
Emergy per mass of steel
Drinking Water Produced, gaUons
water pumped per year

% recovery from inflow
Total drinking water produced
Total emergy of drinking water (Y)
Emergy per gallon of drinking water
10 Drinking Water Produced, $
Economic value of water ($/1000 gal)
Total $ of water to distribution system
Emergy per 1994$ of drinking water
I I Drinking Water Produced, J
=
-117-

J/yr
1.36E+14
sejlyr
sejlJ
6.19E+19
4.54E+05
(galfyr)(1 m'l 264. 17 gal)(4.94 J/g)( IE6

glm')
(swn of items I to 8)
(sejlyr) I (J/yr)
glyr
Total mass of water
sejlyr
Emergy per weight of drinking water sejlg
2.76E+13
6.19E+19
2.24E+06
(galslyr)(1 m'/264.l7 gals)(1 E6 g/ m')

(swn of items I to 8)
(sej/yr) I (g/yr)
sej/yr
J/yr
sejlJ
5.73E+19
1.36E+14
4.20E+05
(total emergy - services) y-s

(same as note 10)
(sej/yr) I (J1yr)
sejlyr
sejlyr
sejlyr
sejlyr
1.469E+19
4.653E+18
4.26E+19
0.45
(P Electricity, Fuels, goods & materials)

(s services -all money f1ows-)
(N local non-renewable resources)
(R renewable resources)
(P+S) I (N+R)
6.194E+19
3.2
0.34
(Y total emergy of potable water)

(Y) I (P+S)
(P IR)
Total energy of water

Transformity of drinking water
12
Drinking Water Produced, g

:=
13
Drinking water without services, J
Emergy of potable water

Energy of potable water
Transformity with out services
14
Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR)
Items 3+5+7+8
s Item 2+4+6
N negligible
R Item I
15
sejlyr
NonrenewableIRenewable (N/R)
Ratio of Emergy benefilto the purchaser (in 1994)
EM$ value of water

EM$/yr 4.8E+07
6.53
EM$
EM $ value of water per 1000 gals
0.98
S
Market price of water per 1000 gals
6.66
Emergy Benefit to the Purchaser (EBP)
18
Y items I t09
16
17
(Y)/(sej/1994$ ratio)
(EMS/yr)/(gals/yr)*1000
(Murphree Water Treatment Plan 1994)
(EMS) I (S)
2000 Em-dollar value of potable water per 1000 gal, EMS/lOOO gal
2000 EMS/lOOO gal
4.42
19
20
4.54E+05
Transformity of potable water, sej/J
Emergy per 1000 gal of potable water, sej/lOOO gal
21
Emergy per L of potable water, sejlL
Emergy per 1000 gal of potable water

Emergy per L of potable water
(1994 EM$/IOOO gall)(sejl2000$)/(sejl

1994S)
(see note 9)
8.49E+12
(Y)/(gals producedlyr)*I000
2.24E+09
(Y)/(gals producedlyr)/(3.786Ugal)
- 1 18-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
10
Simulating Emergy and Materials in
Hierarchical Steps
Howard T. Odum
ABSTRACT
Understanding the selforganization of systems of nature and environment requires synthesis of
several principles for the hierarchy of territories, energy transformations, the coupling of material cycles,
the formation of centers, and the concentration of emergy and matter. These relationships were combined
in a BASIC computer program HIERSTEP. bas that simulates the properties of hierarchical steps of a
system in steady state, each level calculated from inputs from the next lower, less concentrated level.
Simulations are useful for controlled experimentation on the efe
f cts of changes on hierarchical
characteristics. Results are either printed as numbers or plotted as heights on a bar graph on logarithmic
vertical scale. The output plot shows steps increasing or decreasing with hierarchical level from left to
right. Parameters calculated for each level in the hierarchy include: area of territory, number of centers,
area of centers, area of each center, energyflow, empower, coupled materialflow, areal empower density,
areal mass flux density, transformity of flaw, emergy per gram offlow, storage turnover times, emergy
stored. and matter stored QuestiOns raised by this exercise are used to discuss hypotheses for the
organization of ecosystems, landscapes, and economies. The process of combining the relationships into
one program identifies parameters that need to be evaluated in real systems. For example, a material
energy function relates the amount of a material cycle that is coupled to available energy in a transformation
as afunction of the level in energy hierarchy.
INTRODUCTION
Study of the hierarchy of nature has a long history with many approaches and concepts (Allen
and Starr,
1982; Clarke, 1946; Mandelbrot, 1982; Margalef, 1958; Mesarovic et al., 1970;
Odum,
1982;
Patee, 1973; Steele, 1976; Weiss, 1971; Whyte and Wilson, 1969; Zipf, 1941), to mention a few. Hierarchy
involves the relationship of scales, energy transformations, material concentrations and cycles, spatial
organization of territories and centers, controls, system reinforcements, and pUlsing impacts. Berry et al.
(1976) reviewed the concepts of hierarchy in human settlements that started in the tenth century with later
measures proposed by Zipf (l941) and Doxiadis (1977). Emergy and transformity and related indices
used to characterize energy and material hierarchies were summarized by this author (1996). In this
paper many of these properties are combined into a computer simulation program that relates each to the
others, directly or indirectly. Running the program with various changes in parameters and mechanisms
is an experimental research tool for understanding the steps of hierarchy. Procedures used in BASIC
simulation are given in detail elsewhere (Odum and Odum
2000).
Program Development
in Table
The various concepts of energy hierarchy and its coupling to one material cycle are summarized
I.
These relationships were combined in a BASIC language computer simulation program
(HIERSTEP.bas) that plots bar graphs for each variable in successive levels starting with the values of the
-119-
Chapter 10. Simulating Emergy andMaterials in Hierarchical Steps
(a) Hierarchical
Levels
Each line Marks

An Inward and
Return Pathway
(b) Centers and Energy Flow
(c) Material Flow
Figure 1. Diagram of four levels of energy hierarchy programmed in the BASIC model HIERSTEP.bas.
(a) Spatial sketch of the centers and pathways converging toward centers; (b) energy systems diagram with
energy flows transforming, feeding back reinforcement actions, and dispersing; (c) material circulation added
10 energy systems diagram to show processes of concentration, recycle and dispersal. Shaded symbols represent
material storage in a transformation unit.
-120-

Table 1
Relationships introduced into the hierarchical steps program
HIERSTEP.bas in Table 3
, = new parameters for data evaluation.
Calculations were made with energy flows and materials circulating through the system at a steady state
(flows constant).
Hierarchical level
(L)
was started at
I and increased
by step (S =
I) in
calculating the properties of the
next level.
109j divided by
1000). There was one center for each territOI)'. Area of each center
Aec was a set fraction (Ca= 0.05)' and area of all these centers times their number: Ac =(Aec)(nc).
Area of a territOl)' at each level at was calculated for the first level as the total area (A =1 x
the number of territories (nc
For the next levels the number of territorial centers converging outputs was (Cr =6)' so that the next level
was increased in area with each step by 6 and the number of centers and territories divided by 6.
The area of all the centers at a higher level Ac' was the fraction (Sf= 0.3)* of the area of all the centers
at the lower level. Ac
(Sf)(Ac).
The number of centers nco is the total area divided by the area of each territol)' at that level. (nc =Nat)
Constant empower (emp) was flowing through the whole area. (emp = 1 x
1020).
Constant low quality inflowing energy Je was spread over the whole area.
At each energy transformation sending flow to the next level, fraction of energy transformed was the
efficiency
(Eff=0.1).
Transformity of the flows was the empower (emp) divided by the energy flow (1e).
The total mass of a material M' at the low level was spread over the whole area (M= I x
107).
Flow of the mass from the background level was coupled to the flow of energy Je according to the ratio me
and Jm = (me)(Je). But the coupling me' was increased with the level changing with the coefficient
fmc and level L. Thus, me
(me)(fmc)(L). These properties represent the tendencies of different
materials to be coupled to available energy transformations according to their quality.

Empower density is the empower divided by the area of centers at that level. (empd = emp/ac)
Emergy per mass for the flows is the empower divided by the mass flow (empg= emp/Jm)
The concentration of material flow in centers (material flux density)' is the material flow at a level
divided by the area of its centers (mfld
Jm/ac).
Steady state storages were calculated from the flows times the turnover times which increase with scale
(level).
Turnover time ofthe storages in each center R was increased by a factor Rf* althe next hierarchical level
where Rf=
10.
Storage of materials is the flow of materials at a level times its time for accumulation (turnover time) and
ms
(Jm)(R).
Storage of emergy is the empower at a level times its turnover time ems= (emp)(R).
Areal concentration of materials mc' is the material storage in centers at a level divided by the area.of
those centers (mc= ms/ac).
12 1
Chapter 10. Simulating Emergy and Materials in Hierarchical Steps

(a) Spatial Properties on Two Levels
ac
Area of All Centers at a Level
aec
Area of One Center

A
Whole Area
at = Territory of a Center
(b) Properties of One Center

0
o 0

mx
Mass Stored
mc
Mass Concentration
ens
Available Energy Stored
ems = Emergy Stored
Mass Flow Jm
emg
Energy Flow Je
Emergy per Mass
Empower Flow
Figure 2. Diagrams identifYing some parameters and abbreviations used in the program mERSTEP.bas. (a) Spatial
properties; (b) concentration o/materials and storing a/available energy in a transformation center.
background environment. Figure 1a is a spatial sketch of different levels of tenitory and tenitorial
centers, each concentrating and transforming flows of energy, empower, and materials which are passed
then to the next higher, more concentrated level. Figure 1 b is the energy systems diagram of the background
and four levels of concentrating. The hierarchical characteristics that were calculated and plotted are
listed in Table 2 and some are illustrated in Figure 2. Figure
has the bar graphs generated by the
computer simulation with the initial calibration.

The process of combining the various relationships, required new attention to the equations for
some relationships, forcing some new parameters to be defined. As a general synthesis of concepts, the
model identifies measurements (Table 2) that need to be calculated from data of various kinds of systems
to further test theories about hierarchical relationships. These parameters, necessarily introduced to make
the principles mutually consistent, are marked with *.
-122-

Running the model with different numerical values for parameters is an experimental test of
their effect on the energy hierarchy and material cycles.
The values of the parameters included in the
program in Table 3 were those found by trial and error until all the graphs were semiqualitatively
consistent with the definitions and theoretical relationships in Table 1. In other words, ideas of energy
systems hierarchy were tested for self consistency with a synthetic simulation of the change of properties
with steps in hierarchical level. T his kind of simulation may be a new methodology for investigating
systems hierarchy.
Table 2
P arameters for each level used in the program HlERSTEP.bas.
* indicates new properties to measure

{'.eometcy and Time:
A
Whole area
al
Area of a territory
Ca
Fraction that the center occupies in its territory
ac
Area of all the centers at a level
aee
Area of one center at a level
sf
Fraction of area of centers at a lower level occupied by
center at the next level'
ne
Number of centers at a level
1 areas
Number of level
Cr
R
rf
Number of centers converging to a center at the nextlevel

Replacement time of a center storage
Change in replacement time with hierarchical step'
Energy;
Je
Energy inflow for the whole area
eff
Efficiency of energy transformation in each step
ens
Energy stored in centers at a level
Materials:
M
Total materials
me
Mass concentration at the low level.
me
Materials transformed per unit available energy used
(material coupling factor)'
meo
fmc
ms
mnd
Initial material coupling factor'

Change in material coupling factor with level'
Mass stored in centers at a level
Material flux density
Emergy:
emp
Empower for the whole area
Ir
Transformity of flows
empd
empg
emler
ems
emg
Areal empower density

Emergy per mass in flows
Empower per territory
Emergy stored in centers at a level
Emergy per mass stored
123
lE20
lE19
--
lE18
Area of Centers
1 0 Log(ac)-l 0
Material Flow
1 0 Log(Jm)-1 0
Energy Flow
1 0 Log(Je)-100
lE17
5E7
1 E5
4E4
3
Level
1 .5E7 4.5E6
1.3E5
2.4E4 1 .9E4
Level
Area Empower Density

1 0 Log(empd)-1 0
7.4E 1 3
6.7E 1 2
1 Ell
2.2E1 3
Transformity
1 0 Log(tr)+1 0
Area of One Center

1 0 Log(aec)-1 0
3
Level
__--
--
2.9E5
9E4 1 .SE5
5E3
3
Level
Emergy per Material

1 0 Log(empg)-50
3
Level
Material Flux Density

1 0 Log(mfld)+1 00
.002 .0027
x 1 01 5
3
Level
Emergy per Gram Mat.

1 0 Log(emg)-100
.005 .0142
5.2El
3
Level
Material Concentratr.
1 0 Log(mc)+ 100
4.2E15
2.5E15
Level
Material Stored
1 0 Log(ms)-10
IE5
5.2
4.2
2.5
.01
.027
.53
. 1 4.2
--
L9E7
2 4E6 -4E5 -'
-
3
Level
Emergy Stored
5*Log(ems)+ 1 0
lE23
lE21 lE22
--
--
lEl0
1
1
3
Level
Figure 3.
3
Level
Level
Properties generated by the program HIERSTEP. basfrom the initial conditions assigned in lines J 00-360
in Table 3.
-124-
Program HIERSTEP. bas

The program HIERSTEP.bas, with its statements, is listed in Table 3.
The first part of the
program (lines 10-350) has the initial conditions of the lowest level of hierarchy and scaling factors.
There is one plot statement in line 420 plotting a variableY (to be selected for each run) as a function of
the level L. The lines 430-450 plot a bar according to the value ofY at the first level. Then the program
steps to the next level (line 500) and reevaluates the variables (lines 510-700), returning on line 710 to the
plot statement where the next bar is plotted, and so on until there is only one hierarchical center remaining.
Then, with line 700, the program goes to the END in line 800.
The user types in the item to be plotted on theY axis in the parenthesis in line 410. To represent
the wide range of magnitudes in the different levels of hierarchy, plots are on logarithmic scale. In order
to keep each item on the screen, screen factors were added by giving various plus or minus values toYO,
which causes the plot to shift up or down on the screen. Graphical outputs from 12 different runs were
Table 3
Listing of the BASIC program HIERSTEP.bas.
Load a form of basic such as QBASIC. Use its menu to open the program. Type in a property to be
graphed in the parenthesis of Line 410 (example: (tr) to plot transformity. Use menu to select RUN. Or,
print out values of a variable such as tr for levels by adding the following line: 402 PRINT tr: GOTO 500.
10
REM PC: HIERSTEP.bas (Properties of hierarchical steps)
IS CLS
20
SCREEN 1,0
30
COLOR 7,0
40
LINE (0, 0)-(200, 180), 3, B
45 S = I:REM Step =1
50
L = I:REM Start at level #1
80
REM Scaling Factors
DZ = I: REM increment FOR counting barWIDTH plot

84 DX = I: REM Horizontal increment FOR plotting bar
83
86 XO
I: REM Factor for scaling horizontal axis
90 YO
10: REM Factor for scaling vertical axis
100
REM First Level conditions and relationships
102
emp = 1E+20: REM Empower sej/time of the whole area A
105
M = IE+07:REM Materials in lowest level
11 0
N = 1000: REM number of level I units and territories
120
leo = 1E+20:REM initial energy flow of the whole area
130
Je = Jeo:REM energy flow
140
eff=.I: REM fraction of energy transformed in each step
ISO
R = l:REM initial replacement time
160
Rf= IO:REM factor changing replacment time with level
170
tr = emp/Je:REM initial transformity ofenergy flow of small areas
180
A= 1E+09:REMWhole area
MIA:REM Mass concentration at the low level
185
mc
190
at = AIN:REM area of each small territory
200
Ca = .05:REM Center fraction of territory area
210
aec
220
Sf = .3:REM area factor change per step
Ca*atREM Area of each center
-125-
Table 3 HIERSTEPbas (continued)

230 empd emp/A:REM empower density of whole area
240 fmc = 2:REM factor changing material/energy coupling with level
250 meo = IE-I3:REM material coupling to energy flow
260 Jm =meo*mc*Je:REM flow of materials at the first level
270 ms =Jm*R:REM Mass stored
280 empg =emp/Jm:REM emergy/mass in flows
290 Cr = 6:REM Number of centers converging to higher level center
300 nc =N:REM number of first level centers =number of territories
310 ac = aec*nc:REM area of the centers on the first level
320 mfld = Jm/ac:REM material flux density in centers of the first level
330 emter = emp/nc:REM empower per territol)'
340 ems =I:REM emergy stored in background level
350 emg =empgims:REM emergy per mass stored
360 me =JrnlJe:REM materials transformed per unit energy, first level
400 REM Start of bar plotting or value printing Loop
4 lO Y=IO*LOG( empd)/2.3 I: REM Substitute variable here to be plotted
415 YO =10
420 PSET (XlXO, 180 - (Y- YO)), 3: REM Plotting whatever is in Line 410
430 Z = Z + DZ: REM bar width counter
440 X=X+DX
450 IF Z < 50 GOTO 400: REM
460 Z =I
500 L= L + S:REM steps program to next energy transformation level
505 me= fmc*L*me:REM changed material/energy flow coupling
507 emp =emp:REM empower transfer
510 Je= Je*eff
520 Jm = me*Je:REM flow of materials at this level
530 at =at*Cr:REM area of each territol)'
550 tr =emp/Je
560 R = R *Rf:REM replacement time for this level
570 nc A lat:REM Number of centers
580 ac= ac*Sf: REM Area of centers
590 aec = aclnc: REM Area of each center
600 empd = emp/ac:REM empower density of centers
610 empg = emp/JmREM empower per mass flowing
620 mfld =Jm/ac:REM material flux density in centers
625 efld =Jelac:REM energy flux density in centers
630 ms Jm*R:REM Mass stored at the level
640 emter=emp/nc:REM empower per territol)'
650 mc ms/ac:REM mass concentration
660 ems =emp*R:REM emergy stored at the level
670 emg= ems/ms:REM emergy per mass stored
680 ens = JeIR:REM energy stored
700 IF nc <I GOTO 800
710 IF X <320 GOTO 400
800 END
=
-126-

assembled in Figure
2.
Each was obtained by changing what was plotted in line
410
and its screen
shifting factorin line 415. For example, to plot transformity of the flow for each level, type tr in line 410:
Y = 5*Log(Tr)
where 5 is a scaling factor for graphical presentation and YO is 10 shifting the plot up on the screen.
When evaluated from real examples, the model is another way to generate hierarchical characteristics
such as transformities, empower densities, emergy per mass values plus the new parameters whose
meaning may require more investigation.
REFERENCES
Allen, TF.H. and TB. Starr.
Hierarchy, Perspectives in Ecological Complexity, Univ. of Chicago
1982.
Press, Chicago, IL.

Berry, B.J.L., E.C. Conkling and D.M. Ray.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Clarke, G.L.
529
1976.
The Geography of Economic Systems. Prentice-Hall,
pp.
Elements of Ecology. Eco!. Monogr. 16:321-335.
1959.
Doxiadis, C.A.
1977.
Ecology and Ekistics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Mandelbrot, B.
1982.
The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Margalef, R
Temporal succession and spatial heterogeneity in phytoplankton. pp.
1958.
323-341
in
Perspectives in Marine Biology, ed. by A.A. Buzaatti-Traverso. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley,
CA,
621
pp.
Mesarovic, M.D., M. Mako, and Y Takahara.
1970.
Theol)' of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.

Odum, H.T
1982.
Pulsing, power and hierarchy. pp.
33-59
in Energetics and Systems, ed. by w.J.
Mitsch, RK. Ragade, RW. Bosserman and J.A. Dillon, Jr. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor,
Mich.
Odum, H.T.
1996.
Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making. John Wiley,
Odum, H.T and E.C. Odum.

Press, San Diego,
2000.
455 pp.
1973.
Steele, J.
Application of theoretical models in ecology. J. Theor. Bio!.
Weiss, P.B.
1973.
Hierarchy Theol)', the Challenge of Complex Systems. Brazillier, NY
Zipf, G.K.
1941.
63 :443-451.
Hierarchy Organized Systems in Theol)' and Practice. Hafner, NY
Whyte, L.L. and A.G. Wilson.
pp:
Modeling for All Scales, An Introduction to Simulation. Academic
Patee, H.H., ed.
1976.
NY 373
1969.
Hierarchical Structures. Elsevier, NY
National Unity and Disunity. Principia Press, Bloomington, IN,
-127-
407
pp.
158
pp.
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
11
The Hierarchical Pattern of Energy Flow in Ecological
Economic Systems Representing Three Geographic Scales
David R.
Tilley
and Mark T. Brown
ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates the ubiquity of the hierarchical property of energyflow in ecological
economic systems by evaluating power (energyflow) and empower (emergyflow) spectra for i} the entire
state of North Carolina, USA (lE7ha), ii} a mountain county in western North Carolina (Macon, lE5 hay,
and iii} a high-relief watershed within Macon county (Wine Spring Creek, lE3 hay. Power and empower
spectra were found by plotting energy and solar emergy use as a function of solar transformity. Solar
emergy is defined as the solar energy previously required directly and indirectly to make a product or
service, and solar transformity is defined as the solar emergy per available energy (exergy). The power
spectra provided evidence that a log-log relationship of energy use and energy quality was robust across
multiple scales. The empower spectra provided a holistic tool for assessing the relative importance of
each driving energy and gave the means to uniquely and succinctly identifY the systems structure of an
ecological-economic system. To gain a better holistic perspective of ecological-economic systems, we
suggest that the power and empower spectra become standard for emergy evaluations.
INTRODUCTION
Odum (1996) proposed that energy flow in open systems, such as ecological-economic systems,
was hierarchical with large flows of low quality (i.e., low transformity) energy feeding the base of the
energy network and less and less high quality forms of energy (i.e., high transformity) being processed at
the top of the energy web. This paper demonstrates the ubiquity of the hierarchical property of energy
flow in ecological-economic systems using evaluations of systems representing three different geographic
scales. The hierarchical energy pattern is depicted with power (energy flow) and empower (emergy flow)
spectra developed for i) the entire state of North Carolina ( lE7ha), ii) a mountain county in western North
Carolina (Macon, IE5 ha), and iii) a high-relief watershed within Macon county (Wine Spring Creek,
IE3 ha).
The combined systems of nature and humanity have as their common basis and fundamental
attribute the processing of energy for development and growth. Emergy evaluation has been developed
as a systems analysis tool that allows any system's energy flows to be evaluated on a common basis (i.e.,
their ultimate source energy) and thus provides holistic overview on how systems organize and assists in
identifying the main forces driving a system. Solar emergy, defined as the solar energy previously required
directly and indirectly to make a product or service (Odum 1996), and solar transformity, defined as the
solar emergy per available energy (exergy), were used to evaluate the energy-flow network structure of
three ecological-economic systems. By plotting energy and emergy use as functions of solar transformity,
insight into how various forms of energy interact to operate complex ecological-economic systems was
gained.
-129-
Chapter 11. The Hierarchical Pattern ojEnergy Flow...
In general there is a search for tools and methodologies that offer holistic overview of systems
of all kinds, especially ecological-economic systems. Emergy evaluation has been employed as such a
methodology for the past 25-30 years. Here, we stress the utility of the power and empower spectra in
capturing, into one picture, the energy dynamics of complex systems and thus provide a much-needed
tool for assessing systems in holistic overview. Additionally, the power and empower spectra may prove
useful for interpolating and extrapolating for unknown or never-before-calculated solar transformities.
Odum (1996) suggested that due to the dissipation of energy during a system's energy
transformations, a log-log plot of energy use versus solar transformity (i.e., a power spectra) would give
a straight, negatively-sloped line. The slope is a function of the efficiencies of the series of energy
transformations (output per input). A network of high efficiency processes would give a flatter slope than
a network of low efficiency processes. This paper gives direct evidence that the log-log relationship is
robust across multiple scales, but that the slope varies slightly depending upon the intensity of emergy
use.
For the empower spectra (emergy use versus solar transformity) the relationship is a semi-log
one. By analyzing the empower spectra ofan ecological-economic system an understanding of the relative
importance of each type of energy source becomes evident (Tilley 1999). If empower spectra are proven
to be unique for each ecological-economic system, then it is a means of quickly and succinctly identifying
a system. That is, the empower spectra is a unique identifier of a system.
METHODS
Description of Systems
North Carolina spans over 800 km from the Atlantic Ocean to the Appalachian Mountains. The
state's 135,53 I km2 (52,286 sq. mi.) is situated between latitudes 33.5N and 36.5N, and longitudes 75.5N
and 84.3N. Under Koppen's climatological system, the State is humid sub-tropical. The mean annual
temperature for the state is 15C.
Macon County encompasses 134,000 ha of the southern Appalachian Mountains of western
North Carolina. Altitudes within the county range from 600 m where the Little Tennessee River crosses
into Swain County to over 1660 m at Wine Spring Bald. The mean elevation is 988 m. Climate is marine
tropical with abundant precipitation (1350 mm y'!) that includes some snowfall. All energy use data
presented here was taken from Tilley (1999).
The 1130 ha Wine Spring Creek (WSC) watershed lies within the Nantahala National Forest of
the North Carolina Blue Ridge physiographic province in western Macon County (35 Latitude, 83
Longitude). Elevations in the basin range from 1660m at Wine Spring Bald to 900m at Nantahala Lake.
The basin is unpopulated (U.S. Forest Service, 1995), but receives over 10,000 tourists per year (Cordell
et al. 1996). All energy use data presented here was taken from Tilley (1999).
Emergy Evaluation
Methods used to evaluate energy and emergy flow were those given by Odum (I 996). Data
shown in the power and empower spectra and their supporting calculations can be found in Tilley (1999).
RESULTS
North Carolina
The systems diagram of North Carolina (Figure I) shows the role of externally supplied
environmental and economic energies in supporting the interconnections of the state's main ecological
-130-
Chapter 11. The Hierarchical Pattern ofEnergy Flow...

and economic units. Beginning on the left of the diagram, the main ecosystems (coastal zone, forests, and
agriculture) seized the diverse spectrum of environmental energies--sun, wind (vapor deficit and kinetic
energy), rain, tides, waves and geologic uplift-and transformed them to ecosystem goods and services
available for economic production and life support.
Mineral deposits (phosphate and aquifers) and
mountains provided the foundation for such industries as hydroelectric power production, phosphate
mining and logging.
Continuing rightward in the diagram, the economic sectors of electric power
generation, mining, logging, manufacturing and commercial services transformed the goods and services
of the ecosystems, with the assistance of imported fuels and services, into products and services for
peoples' consumption. Furthesrto the right in the diagram, N.C. traded goods and services, and exchanged
money with outside markets and the federal government. The state also attracted tourists to its beaches
and mountains. At every energy transformation, energy was irreversibly lost to the heat sink, shown at
the bottom of the diagram.
Figure 2a shows the power (energy used) spectra for North Carolina, while Figure 2b shows the
empower spectra. The spectra demonstrated the hierarchical property of energy use. That is, the vast
majority of incoming energy was in the form of low transformity sunlight, while the highest quality
energy source (human metabolism for immigrants and tourists) contributed nearly the least amount of
energy (Figure 2a). When energies were instead expressed as empower, the numerical differences between
the sources were less, but still ranged well over two orders of magnitude (Figure 2b). Interesting to note
was how the mid-quality energy sources
(1E4 to IE5 sej/J) vacillated in sequence with increasing
transformity (Figure 2b).
'@
en"
Gov't
North Carolina
Figure 1. Systems diagram o/North Carolina (1992).
-131-
Chapler 11. The Hierarchical Pattern ofEnergy Flow...
Macon County, N.C.

Figure 3 shows the systems diagram of Macon County highlighting the fundamental relationship
that existed between forest ecosystems, mountains, and economy.
Covering,
84% of the county land
surface, forested ecosystems transformed the dilute, low transformity energies of sun, vapor deficit, wind,
water, and geologic uplift into ecological commodities. Rainfall in the county, above the state average,
was aided by the mountain system. These two main features of the landscape, forests and mountains,
together provided the environmental basis for much of the county's economic activities.
1.ooE+21
1.ooE+19
1.00E+17
1.ooE+15
1.ooE+13 --------r---.---
1E+O
1E+4
1E+2
1E+6
1E+8
Transformity (solar emjoules/Joule)

600 .-------p.---,
c
A
1E+4
1E+2
1E+6
1E+8
Tralsformity (sola- EmjoulesfJaule)
Figure 2. Power (a) and empower (h) sp ectra o/the main resource inputs used in North Carolina, ca. 1992.
Abbreviations: S-sunlight, V-water vapor deficit, W-kinetic wind, RG-geopotentialo/rain, T-tide, RC-chemical
potentialo/rain, B-waves, G-geologic uplift, C-coal, F-wood, N -natural gas, D-soil, P-petroleum, HE-hydroelectricity,
NE-nucJear electricity, A-agricultural crops, L-livestock, PH- p hosphate mined & used, H-human migration
and tourism.
-132-
Chapter 11. The Hierarchical Pal/ern ofEnergy Flow...
ForesL
D.R. Tilley. 1997
Macon County, N. C.
Figure 3. Systems diagram ofMacon County. NC. (1992).
Shown in Figure 4 are the power and empower spectra developed for Macon County. The
county's power spectrum demonstrated the hierarchical property of energy use, just as the spectra for
North Carolina did. The use of low quality energy (e.g., sunlight) was vastly greater than the use of high
transformity energies such as that associated with tourists and migrants (Figure 4a). The empower spectrum
in Figure 4b highlighted the significance of electricity and tourism in ihe county. Electricity use (2.2 E20
sej/y) was about four and a half (4.5) times that of transpiration. Total people flux (tourism plus net
migration) at 3.2 E20 sej/y was 6.7 times transpiration.
Wine Spring Creek watershed (N.C.)
Figure 5 shows the system diagram of Wine Spring Creek (WSC) watershed. The diagram
emphasizes the multipurpose role of the watershed. In addition to the forest and mountain capturing the
energies of the environment the diagram reveals the interconnections of environment and economy, and
highlights the fact that the environment is the basis of the humanbuilt infrastructure and eco-tourism.
Figure 6 shows power and empower spectra for the WSC, which highlight the hierarchical property
of energy use. Solar energy (solar transformity I sej/J) was five orders of magnitude (10') more abundant
than human energy (solar transformity 2.4E6 sej/J). Figure 6b shows the empower spectra of the Wine
Spring Creek watershed. Normalizing energy flows to solar emergy flows reduced the vast discrepancies
seen in the power spectra; emergy flows were within an order of magnitude of each other in the empower
spectra.
=
Comparison of Power Spectra Across Three Spatial Scales
In Figure 7 the power spectra of three ecologicaleconomic systems (North Carolina-1E7 ha,
Macon County-IE5 ha, Wine Spring Creek watershed-IE3 ha) are compared. In addition to
-133-
Chapter 11. The Hierarchical Pattern ofEner gy Flow...
1.00E+20 -,:------,
1.00E+18
.c:-.
.....
8-
1.00E+16
!'S
1.00E+14
1.00E+12
1E+O
1E+2
1E+4
1E+8
1E+6
Tra1sformity (&>Ia- emjoulesfJoule)
4.0 ,..-----,
H
----.
.
!'S
>.
';;y
'"
5'''6
.......
><
.......
'-'
3.0
2.0
1.0
RG
0.0
B
1E+O
1E+4
1E+2
1E+6
1E+8
Tra1sformity (&>Ia- emjoulesfJoule)
Figure 4. Power (a) and empower (b) spectra ofthe main resource inputs used in Macon County, N.c. (/992).
Abbreviations: S-sunlight. V-water vapor deficit, W-kinetic wind, RG-geopotential ofrain, RC-chemical potential of
rain, G-geologic uplift, F-wood, P-petroleum, E-electricity, A-agricultural crops, L-Iivestock, H-human migration
and tourism.
-134-
Chapler 11. The Hierarchical Pattern ofEnergy Flow...
Environment
Tilley, 1999
Wine
Spring
Creek
watershed
Figure 5. Systems diagram ofthe environmental-economic interface of Wine Spring Creek watershed
demonstrating the robustness of the log-log relationship of energy use versus energy quality, the graphs
reveal the differences and similarities of the different sized systems. The largest system, North Carolina,
had the highest curve over the entire range of solar transformities; use of all energy forms was greater
than.that for the county or watershed. As for similarities, the (log-log) slopes for each of the three power
curves were between -0.97 and -0.79 (Figure 7).
A power density (energy use per area) spectra, which combined data from the three ecological
economic systems and standardized it by dividing energy use by the respective area of use, is shown in
Figure 8 with a fitted curve and a 95% confidence interval. Regression equations are given for the mean,
lower confidence interval, and upper confidence interval. The mean power density (J/haly) is a negative
power function of solar transformity (sej/J); that is, for each order of magnitude increase in solar
transformity, power density decreased one order of magnitude (Figure 8).
Comparison of Power Spectra of Environmental Driving Energies of three U.S.
States
To further demonstrate the Ubiquity and robustness of the hierarchial pattern of energy flow in
complex systems, the "natural" power and empower spectra of two other U.S. states, Florida and Texas,
were compared to North Carolina. The differences in the use of renewable, environmental energy inputs
in the three states are demonstrated in power density spectra (Figure 9a) and empower density (sej/haly)
spectra (Figure 9b). From the empower density spectra (Figure 9b) the greater role played by wind
energy in Texas, as compared to North Carolina and Florida, is evident. In North Carolina and especially
Florida, the greater significance of the chemical energy of rain is demonstrated. Table I lists the renewable
energy sources used in North Carolina, Texas (Odum and Odum, 1987) and Florida (Odum et al. 1998)
according to their solar transformity.
-135-
C hapter 11. The Hierarchical Pattern ofEnergy Flow...
'>-
.,,,,
"'"
"""
0
'"
U>
;;;,
,.
'"
0
....
1.0E+14
1.0E+13
1.0E+12
1.0E+ll
1.0E+l0
1.0E+09
1.0E+OO
1E+O
lE+2
lE+6
lE+4
1E+8
Tra1s'ormity (sej/J)
1000
900
.r-
.:---
}
!:!
'" :=!
E.
600
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
B
lE+O
lE+1
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
Tra1s'ormily (sej/J)
Figure 6. P ower (a) and empower (b) spectra of environmental energy inputs to Wine Spring Creek watershed
S-sunlighr, V-vapor saturation deficit, W-wind,RG-geopotential precip itation, ET-evapotranspiration, D-deepheat,
F-jUe/s, H-human service.
Table 1. Average annual use of renewable energy sources in North Carolina, Texas and Florida.
Energy Source
Solar Transfonnity (sej/J)
Sunlight
Saturation deficit
Wind, kinetic
Rain, geopotential
Tide
Rain, chemical
Waves
Earth Cycle
I
590
1500
10500
16800
18200
30600
34400
North Carolina-
8.65E+20
1.61E+19
5.41E+18
1.69E+17
l.I2E+16
9.74E+17
1.80E+16
2.16E+17
Tilley (1999)
Odum and Odum (I987)
, Odum, Odum and Brown (I998)
b
-136-
Thxnb
Power ()/.y.)
3.48E+21
n.a. n.a.
1.95E+20
2.29E+18
4.45E+16
2.23E+18
2.30E+17
7.00E+17
ElllI:ida'
1.70E+21
3.60E+18
3.60E+15
l.I2E+17
2.20E+18
1.23E+17
1.40E+17
Chapter 11, The Hierarchical Pal/ern ojEnergy Flow,,,
25
Npd
Mpd
23
Wpd
21
0
P..
....
0
17
00
0
...:I
;' 15
0
-
1 ,O,89IogT+ 19.3
O
O,O,79IogT+16,9
I
19
og
10"
Il.Il.
..,#
;.
o
North Carolina
'"
Wine Spring Cr.
watershed
Macon county, N,C,
--
ICPCO
' ....... WSC extrapolated
N.C. extrapolated
Il.
Il.
13
11
9
7
5
0
10
12
Logarithm o f Solar Transformity,
14
16
18
20
10" sej/J
Figure 7. Comp arison ofpower spectra /or three ecological-economic systems.
DISCUSSION
Four types of energy spectra (power, power density, empower, and empower density) were
demonstrated as tools for assessing ecological-economic systems in holistic overview, The energy spectra
can show in one picture the relative importance of the different energy forcing functions, as well as the
intensity at which a system is operating.
The empower spectra that were developed for the state of North Carolina (Figure 2b), the county
of Macon (Figure 4b), and the forested watershed of Wine Spring Creek (Figure 6b) all clearly showed
the importance of non-renewable, fossil fuel energies as driving forces in ecological-economic systems,
The power spectra shown in Figures 2a, 4a, 6a, and 9a demonstrated the robustness of the
hierarchical pattern of energy flow in ecological-economic systems, This clearly demonstrated, when
evaluating ecological-economic systems, why it is more informative to compare the different forms of
energy on a common basis, such as emergy, rather than simply on a heat equivalent or exergy basis.
Comparing the flow of different forms of energy on the basis of available energy will likely result in the
analyst concluding that energy is not an appropriate metric for systems analysis, For example, in North
Carolina, the exergy (available energy) of the petroleum consumed was orders of magnitude less than the
exergy provided by sunlight, the vapor deficit, or wind, and approximately equivalent to the Gibb's free
energy of rain, but obviously these free, environmental forms of energy were important to the overall
functioning of the state economy, Transforming each energy form to solar emergy expresses all on a
-1 37-
Chapter 11. The Hierarchical Pal/ern ofEnergy Flow".
16
15
obselVed
--
predicted
14
13
- - - - - . lower 95% C.l.
"
"
&>
. - . - .. upper 95% C.I.
12
til
c
"
ll
0
....
ll..
gf
.....l
"
10
'
'.
986IogT+15.4
- 1 0-O
Power denS'1t yUCI-
Power densitymean
'
Power dens!tyLCI
"
OI.033IogT+14.9
,
'IOl.080logT+l4.4
6
0
6
X
Logarithm of Solar Transfomrity, lO scj/J
Figure 8. Mean power density spectra with upper and lower conjidence intervals (Vel & LeI) which combinesdata
from the three ecological-economic systems studied (N.c., Macon, WSC).
common basis, which allows direct numerical comparison as is evidenced from the empower spectra in
Figures 2b, 4b, 6b, and 9b.
Emergy analysis of ecological-economic systems has been carried out for several decades,
evaluating many countries around the world. To gain the extra holistic perspective which we seek by
conducting emergy analyses, we propose that the power and empower spectra become a standard step in
the evaluation process. We are just now beginning to evaluate countries and regional economies with the
various energy spectra, so the potential for gaining a more thorough understanding of how these systems
are organized is wide-open. Hopefully, knowledge gained will lead to better environmental policies and
a more systems-minded populace.
-138-
A
-0-- North
lE+l0
Carolina
200
lE+06
100
1 E+04 +--_-""t-""'t-'-""'t"""";
lE+O lE+l lE+2 lE+3 lE+4 lE+5
>o lE+l0 -,:---
400 -r-------,
-e- Texas
Qj!
c
..
Qj
Q.
-0-- North Carolina
300
lE+08
E
::2.
400
-e- Texas
"I
Of
lE+08
..
o
....
lE+06
oj!
1 E+04 -I-'--"'I-""'/-""'tt--
lE+O
lE+l
lE+2
lE+l0
lE+3 lE+4
lE+5 ..
--ir- Florida
E
w
lE+OB
300
200
100

400 -,-------,
--ir- Florida
300
200
lE+06
100
1 E+04 -I---'"'i-='i-'-""'t---'F-'-,",
lE+O
lE+l
lE+2
lE+3 lE+4
lE+5
Figure 9. Power density spectra (a) and empower density spectra (0) o/three u.s. states.
13 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this research was provided by the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory of the
U.S. Department o f Agriculture Forest Service, Mark T. Brown, principal investigator
(contract #A8FS-9, 961-113).
REFERERENCES
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and environmental decision making. John
Wiley, New York. 370 pp.
Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum. 1987. Ecology and Economy: Emergy Analysis and Public Policy in Texas.
L.B.J. School of Public Affairs and Texas Dept. of Agriculture (policy Research Publication 78).
Univ. of Texas, Austin 178 pp.
Odum, H. T., E.C. Odum, and M. T. Brown, 1998. Environment and Society in Florida. St. Lucie Press,
Boca Raton, Florida
Tilley, D.R., 1999. Emergy basis of forest systems. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida,
Gainesville. 296 pp.
-140-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
12
Emergy Evaluation of Material Cycles and Recycle Options
M T.
Brown and Vorasun Buranakarn
ABSTRACT
Emergy used in the Ii/e cycles oj major building materials as well as the emergy inputs to waste
disposal and recycle systems were evaluated The emergy per mass jor building materials variedfrom a
low ojO.88 E9 sejlg jor wood to a high oj 12.53 E9 sejlg jor aluminum. Generally, emergy per mass is a
good indicator oj recycle-ability, where materials with high emergy per mass are more recyclable.
Recycling added between 1% (cement) and 234% (woo4! to the emergy inputs per gram oj building
materials. The analysis oj materials suggested that recycle oj wood may not be odvantages on a large
scale, but metals, plastic, and glass have very positive benefits.
Two types oj solid waste disposal systems were evaluated: municipal solid wastes (MSW), and
construction and demolition wastes (C&D wastes). Expressed as emergy, the costs oj collecting, sorting
and landfilling (for 25 years) MSWwere 251. 0 E6 sejlg , 8.2 E6 sejlg and 37.9 E6 sejlg respectively. The
costs oj demolition, collection, sorting and landfilling C&D wastes were 49.0 E6 sejlg, 21.7 E6 sejlg, 6.7
E6 sejlg, and 11. 7 E6 sejlg respectively
Three different recycle trajectories were identified and analyzed: 1} material recycle. 2} by
product use, and 3} adaptive reuse. Four recycle indices measuring the benefits oj various recycle
systems suggested that materials that have large refining costs have greatest potential jor high recycle
benefits and that highest benefits appear to accruefrom material recycle systems, followed by adaptive
reuse systems and then by byproduct reuse systems.
INTRODUCTION
All systems recycle. The bisosphere is a network of continually recycling materials and
information in alternating cycles of convergence and divergence. As materials converge or become more
concentrated they gain in quality, increasing their potentials to drive useful work in proportion to their
concentrations relative to the environment. As their potentials are used, materials diverge, or become
more dispersed in the landscape, only to be concentrated again at another time and place. Fitting the
patterns of humanity to these material cycling pathways has become paramount in importance as our
numbers and influence on the biosphere increases.
The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the convergence of materials into human economic assets
their eventual disposal, and three pathways of recycle. Some materials are recycled back to the
environment through land fills, and disposal across the landscape (ie litter) shown by the pathway
numbered one. Some materials are recycled via geologic processes (pathway #2) through erosion
sedimentation, and some are actively recycled (pathway #3) into the stockpile of materials used by
economic systems, for instance steel recycle. It is this third pathway that is the subject of this paper.
Until very recently, humans gave little thought to the processes of recycle, using the free work of
the environment to dispose and dilute by-products and wastes from an ever eXRanding conglomeration of
technology, infrastructure and culture. However as humanity enters the 21 century and the limits to
both space and resources are felt, efficient use of resources becomes more important, and more attention
-141-
Chapter
12. Emergy Evaluations oj Material Cycles and Recycle Options
Environmental
Systems
Economic
Systems
Biosphere
Figure 1. The material and energy pathways ofthe biosphere showing the convergence in the assets ofhumans and
emphasizing the waste and recycle pathways.
is given to recycle and reuse. The evaluations of materials and resource recycle systems in this study
provide needed insight into the complex questions facing humanity concerning wise use.
Relationships between resource quality and recycle-ability, the total life cycle emergy costs of materials,
the costs of waste disposal and recycle, and their benefits to society were investigated in the hopes of
providing perspectives and tools for decision making regarding material selection and recycle options in
the future.
METHODS
Emergy in materials and the costs of construction, demolition, disposal, and recycle were
evaluated using a variety of data sources and standard emergy evaluation techniques. In the interest of
space, the full evaluations are not presented here. The full emergy evaluation tables including all
calculations and data sources can be found in Buranakam ( 1 998).
Emergy Evaluation of Materials
The emergy of nine materials used in buildings were evaluated: Wood, concrete, cement, glass,
clay brick, ceramic tile, steel, plastic, and aluminum. Emergy in materials was evaluated by analyzing
national statistics from the Census of Manufacturers (1982 through 1992). All inputs of materials, energy
and labor were expressed in emergy and summed to determine the total emergy per gram of material
produced. The emergy of materials reported here includes human services (labor).
-142-
Chapter
12.
Emergy Evaluations of Material Cycles and Recycle Options
Emergy Evaluation of Construction, Demolition, and Disposal

Evaluation of construction was based on one building (10,900 sq ft) on the University ofFlorida
Campus where total material take offs were used to evaluate the weights of various building materials
used in construction, as well as fuels, electricity and labor. The resulting emergy per gram was the total
emergy used in construction (fuels, electricity, machines, and labor) divided by the total mass of material
in the building. The total emergy included labor.
Demolition emergy was evaluated using the total emergy in fuels, electricity, machines, and
labor used in demolishing a 28,664 sq.ft building on the University of Florida Campus. The resulting
emergy per gram of demolished material was calculated as the total emergy used in demolition divided
by the total mass of material in the building. The total emergy included labor.
Two different material disposal systems were evaluated: 1.) Municipal solid waste (MSW), and
2.) construction and demolition wastes (C&DW). Data for the MSW evaluation were obtained from the
City of Gainesville,FL including the material, energy and labor costs of collection, sorting and landfilling
(50 year life span). Data for the C&DW evaluation were obtained from a C&D sorting facility in
Gainesville, FL, while transportation costs were averaged based on haul distance and emergy costs per
mile.
Evaluation of the emergy used for land filling of MSW was based on Data for the City of
Gainesville, FL land fill and included total fuels, electricity, machines, and labor. The resulting emergy
per gram of land filled material was calculated as the total emergy used by the land fill divided by the total
mass of material in the land fill. The total emergy included labor.
Evaluation of the emergy used for land filling C&D wastes was based on data for the MSW land
fill with the exception that drainage system and liner were not included. The resulting emergy per gram of
land filled C&D material was calculated as the total emergy used by the land fill divided by the total mass
of material in the land fill. The total emergy included the emergy in human services.
Comparison of Major Building Materials

To compare different materials several, indices were calculated using emergy content, dollar
costs, and useful life. The emergy content of each material was analyzed using standard emergy
evaluation techniques. Total emergy commitment for material products was calculated as the sum of
emergy content of the material and emergy of production. Life cycle emergy of materials was calculated
as the sum of emergy in the material product with demolition, collection, and disposal costs.
Using building cost code calculators (RS Means, 1998) the dollar costs per gram of material
were determined for each material and expressed as grams per dollar (g/$). Price of building materials
are usually given in varying units of measure such as dollars per board foot (lumber) dollars per cubic
foot. (concrete) and so forth. To standardize price and better utilize price information, prices were
expressed as mass of material per dollar. First prices of materials from the literature and current cost
estimate guides were compiled and expressed as units of material per dollar (ie board feetl$). Then mass
units per reporting unit were calculated using average mass per unit from the literature (ie glboard foot).
Finally dollars per unit mass were calculated by multiplying reporting unit per dollar by ratio of mass per
reporting unit (ie. board feetl$ glboard foot gI$). The following indices were calculated for each
material:
=
price (P) - the ratio of dollars paid to mass of material received. P= gI$
Emergy per mass - the total emergy required to make a material per unit of mass.
Units are sej/g.

Emprice - the ratio of the emergy per mass to price. The units of emprice are sej/$
Life Cycle emeq:y intensity - the sum of emergy required to make a building material, and
dispose of it, either through recycle or landfilling. Units are sejlg
-143-
Chapter
12. Emergy Evaluations of Material Cycles and Recycle Options
Recycling Indices
Figure
2 shows aggregated patterns of material use. In the top diagram, the refining of raw
materials entering from the left requires an emergy input of fuels, goods and services (Aj). Transforming
the refined materials into a material product requires emergy inputs of fuels, goods, and services
(Bj)'
The emergy in the product is the sum of the emergy in the raw materials and the emergy inputs for
refining and transforming
(Rj +Aj+B1). After use, the product is disposed of requiring emergy inputs of
(Cj). The emergy of disposal includes lifetime
fuels, goods and services for collection and disposal
requirements for maintenance and operation of the landfill as well as the one time emergy used in
Conventional Solid Waste System
Raw
R2
Resource
A2
--Ir-;;:;:1 ""''''''-'''
Recycle
System
Life cycle trajectory of material use. Conventional trajectory ends in landfill (top), while the
recycle trajectory returns materials to thai stage in the life cycle where their quality matches that of the
resource quality.
Figure 2.
-144-
Chapter
12. Emergy Evaluations ofMaterial Cycles and Recycle Options
collection(F I}' The emergy content of the waste product (EI), is the sum of all emergy inputs
(R I+AI+BI+CI+FI)'
An aggregated recycling system is shown in the bottom diagram in Figure 2. Raw resources
inflow and are refined requiring an emergy input of fuels goods and services (A2). At this point in the
process, the recycled material is substitutable for the output from the refining stage; thus the input to the
transformation stage is composed of some material from the raw resource pathway, and some material
from the recycle pathway. Transformation requires an emergy input of fuels, goods and services (B2)'
The emergy in the product is the sum of the emergy in the raw materials and all the emergy inputs
required to maintain the cycle of the material system (R2+A2+B2+C2+F2).
Several recycle indices were calculated for the materials evaluated. Using Figure 2 as a guide
the following indices were calculated and compared for each material and recycle pattern: .
Recycle Benefit B.atilL(RBRl - the ratio of emergy used in providing a material from raw
resources (AI) to the emergy used in recycle (C2+F2). RBR All (C2+F2)
Re<;ycle Yield Ratio (RYR) The ratio of emergy in recycled material (RI +A!+BI) to emergy
used for recycle (C2+F2). RYR (RI+AI+BI) I (C2+F2).
Landfill tQRecycieRatio (LRR) The ratio of emergy required for landfilling a material (CI+F I)
to the emergy required for recycle (C2+F2). LRR (CI+F I) I (C2+F2)
Recycle Efficjency Ratjo (RER) - The ratio of material and energy conserved, when recycled
materials are used, to the emergy required for recycle. RER [(RI+AI+BI+CI) I (C2+F2)
=
RESULTS
Emergy evaluation of building materials
Given in Table I are the emergy and economic values for 9 primary building materials. In the
second and third columns emergy per mass is from the evaluations by Buranakam (1998) and Haukoos
(1995). In the fourth column dollar costs for the building materials on a mass basis are given. It is
important to note that the price given here is the amount of material received for money spent, thus the
higher the number, the more material received for dollar. Earth materials (concrete, cement, clay bricks)
Table 1. Characteristics of building materials
Buranakarn (I 998)Haukoos (1995)
Material
Glass
(E9 sej/g)
(E9 sej/g)
Price'
(gI$)
Empriceb
(sej/$)
Buyer
Advantage'
2.16
4.26
289
9.3E+!1
0.8
Steel
4.13
2.77
Ceramic tile wI recycled glass 3.06
510
1.8E+12
1.8
709
2.2E+12
2.2
Wood lumber
0.88
2628
3.0E+12
2.5
Aluminum
12.53
329
4.IE+12
4.1
Plastic (PVC)
5.85
1533
9.0E+12
9.0
Cement
1.97
Clay brick
2.32
Concrete
1.54
1.4
2.37
1.28
a). From Buranakarn (1998)
7845
1.7E+l3
14.2
7325
1.7E+13
17.0
20186
2.8E+13
23.7
b). Average of column 2 and column 3 times price (column 4)

c). Emprice (column 5) divided by averge emergy per dollar for USA economy (1.2 EI2 sej!$)
-145-
Chapter
have the highest mass per dollar. In the fifth column, the average emprice is given. Emprice is the
emergy of the material (average of columns 2 and 3) divided by money paid for the product. Its units are
sej/$. Emprice is an expression of the emergy one receives in the material for each dollar paid for the
material. As with the price, earth materials have the highest emergy per dollar. The final column, buyer
advantage, is the emprice divided by the average emergy per dollar in the USA economy. In essence it is
the ratio of the emergy received to the average emergy represented by the money spent for the material.
On the average, a dollar in 1998 would purchase 1.2 E12 sej. So the number in the last column indicates
how many times more emergy one receives for a dollars worth of the material than if the dollar was spent
for an average mix of USA goods and services.
Life cycle emergy intensity measures the total emergy used for a material from "cradle to grave."
Table 2 gives life cycle emergy intensities for the main building materials expressed as emergy per gram
(sej/g). Each column represents a different stage in the life cycle of the materials. The emergy required
to produce (including the emergy of the material itselt) per gram of material produced is given in the first
column. The emergy used in construction (Column 3) was evaluated for an entire building, thus it is the
same for each material. ..it represents the average emergy used per gram of building, during
construction. The emergy used in demolition was calculated in the same manner so it represents the
average emergy used per gram of building demolished. Collection and landfilling are also averages. Of
interest is that costs of construction are over one order of magnitude larger than the emergy used in
demolition. Collection and landfilling are very small compared to construction costs as well.
By far, aluminum has the highest life cycle emergy intensity. The majority of emergy used is in
the refining process (67%). Plastics have the next highest life cycle emergy intensity, Highest emergy
inputs to the life cycle of plastics are in the raw resource (about 45% of total inputs (Buranakarn, 1998).
Steel has a life cycle emergy intensity about 39% of that of aluminum and glass has an emergy intensity
similar to that of steel. Earth materials like ceramic tiles, clay brick and cement, have intermediate life
cycle emergy intensities, while wood and concrete have the lowest.
Table 2. Life Cycle Emergy Intensity of Building Materials
Material producr
Constructionb
Demolition'
Collection'
Landfill'
Total
(E9 sej/g)
Material
Wood lumber
0.88
1.4
2.14
0.15
0.022
0.01
3.5
Concrete
1.54
1.28
2.14
0.15
0.022
0.01
3.7
Cement
1.97
2.37
2.14
0.15
0.022
0.01
4.5
Clay brick
Ceramic tile w/
2.32
2.14
0.15
0.022
0.01
4.6
3.06
2.14
0.15
0.022
0.01
5.4
0.01
5.5
om
5.8
recycled glass
Glass
2.16
4.26
2.14
0.15
0.022
Steel
4.13
2.77
2.14
0.15
0.022
Plastic (PVC)
5.85
Aluminum
12.53
2.14
0.15
0.022
0.01
8.2
2.14
0.15
0.022
om
14.9
0). Buranakam, 1998 and Haokoos (1995)

b). Buranakam (1998)
c). Table 3
d). Average of colwnn
2 plus sum of colwnns 3, 4, 5, and 6
146
Chapter
Emergy Evaluation of Waste Disposal

Two types of waste disposal systems were evaluated.
Municipal solid wastes (MSW) and
construction and demolition wastes (C&D). Table 3 summarizes the emergy analyses of MSW and C&D
wastes using the data from Buranakarn (1998).
MSW is usually collected at curb side, therefore the
analysis includes significant amounts of truck transport and labor costs for collection (total costs
251.0
E6 sej/g). Sorting costs were about 1130'" of collection costs, while the emergy costs of landfilling
(includes the lifetime O&M costs for 25 year life of the landfill) were almost 117'" the collection costs.
Obviously the emergy used in curbside collection dominates the emergy costs of MSW handling and
disposal.
The largest emergy cost for C&D wastes is the cost of demolition, evaluated as 153.9 E6 sej/g.
Hauling costs are about 117'" this amount (21.7 E6 sej/g), while sorting amounts to about 4% of the
demolition costs. We estimated the costs of landfilling C & D wastes, based on MSW costs without
special drainage facilities and liners to be 11.7 E6 sej/g (assuming a 25 year life of land fill)
Emergy Evaluation of Recycle Options

The recycle systems for each of the main building materials were evaluated to compare costs and
benefits of recycle. We have identified three different recycle trajectories (Figure 3): material recycle,
by-product use, and adaptive reuse. Material recycle is a pattern in which materials are reused as part of
the raw material inputs to produce the same or similar product. By-product use is a recycle pattern in
which the by-product of a process is used in the production of another product. Adaptive reuse involves
the reuse of a post consumer product as input per a different product. Each of the material recycle systems
are described briefly below.
Cement with fly ash - In this material recycle system, fly ash from a coal fired power plant is
substituted for a portion of the input cement. This type of recycle system is considered a by-product use.
The benefit from fly ash use is a reduction in the amount of cement necessary in the final
product. The costs associated with substitution are related to transport of the fly ash to the cement
production facility.
Concrete with recycle concrete aggregate
In the recycle alternative, concrete is broken up and
used for aggregate in the making of a lower grade of concrete suitable for non structural applications..
This is considered material recycle.
Table 3. Emergy intensity of solid waste collection and disposal

(after Buranakan, 1998)
ServIce
Emergy
(E6 sej/g)
Mumcipa! Solid Wastes

Collection
251.0
Separating
8.2
Landfilling
37.9
Construction and Demolition Wastes

Demolition
153.9
Truck transportation
21.7
Sorting
6.7
Landfilling
11.7
-147-
Chapter
12. Emergy Evaluations of Material Cycles alld Recycle Options
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 3. Material and recycle trajectories.
c) by-product use, and d) adaptive reuse.
oj conventional material trajectory, b) maten"al recycle trajectory,
-148-
Chopter
Clay brick with oil contaminated soil - This system is considered a by-product use, since wood
wastes (sawdust) are substituted for some of the fuel used in the making of bricks. lowering the amount of
fuel necessary to fire the brick.
St!:cl..recycle
Steel is easily recycled.
The conventional recycle systems for steel are
considered a material recycle. The main recycle inputs are in transportation.
Aluminum
=YCk
Aluminum is easily recycled.
The conventional recycle systems for
aluminum are considered material recycle. The main recycle inputs are in transportation.
Wood recycle The wood recycle system is considered a material recycle. The recycle pathway
-
is relatively intensive because of the labor and transport inputs.
Recycle plastic
Recycled plastic is made into plastic lumber. The production of plastic lumber
is an adaptive reuse of post consumer paper and plastic.
Significant amounts of emergy are used in
collection, sorting and transport.

Listed in the thind through the seventh columns of Table 4 are data for the eight material recycle
options. In the third column, the emergy of the recycled material is given.
In the fourth column, the
emergy of the material that is saved as a result of the recycled material is given.
In most cases the
recycled material has a higher emergy per gram than the material that is saved. The fourth column lists
the collection costs. Lowest collection costs (21.7 E6 sej/g) are associated with materials that require
only hauling. The intermediate collection costs (175.6 E6 sej/g) are associated with C&D wastes that
require demolition and hauling, and the highest collection costs (259.2 E6 sej/g) are associated with
materials that are collected as part ofMSW. Sorting costs (sixth column) reflect the intensity of effort.
For instance, wood recycle is very labor intensive as each piece of lumber must be handled, cleaned of
nails etc, and potentially resawn. Finally, disposal costs are either in a linedMSW landfill (37.9 E6 sejl
g) or an unlined C&D landfill (11.7 E6 sej/g).
Indices of Recycle-abiJity
Table 5 summarizes the recycle indices for the main building materials and their recycle
systems. Four recycle indices are given: Recycle Benefit Ratio (RBR), Recycle Yield Ratio (RYR),
Landfill Recycle Ratio (LRR) and the Recycle Efficiency Ratio (RER).
Refer to Figure 2 for letter
designations of pathways of emergy used to evaluate the various indices.

The recycle benefit ratio measures the benefit of recycling a material that results in lower
demand for raw material inputs and processing energy. It is the ratio of the emergy saved to the emergy
costs of recycling. The higher the ratio the better. Highest RBRs were found for cement with fly ash,
aluminum, and steel. The lowest ratio (in fact less than 1) is for the recycle of used lumber.
The recycle yield ratio is the ratio of emergy value of recycled material to the costs of recycle. It
measures the emergy value of recycle material received by society for the emergy invested. The larger
the ratio the better yield for invested emergy. Significant yields are obtained with recycle systems for fly
ash, aluminum, recycled concrete aggregate, recycled plastic and steel. Much lower, but still important is
the RYRs for glass. Again wood has the lowest ratio.
The landfill recycle ratio is an index that measures the benefit of recycling verses landfilling. It
is the ratio of the costs of landfilling (including the emergy in the material itself) to the costs of recycling.
The higher the ratio the better, since it is an index of savings ... the higher the ratio the more emergy is
saved. Fly ash has the highest LRR followed by aluminum, recycled concrete aggregate, plastic and
steel. Wood has the lowest LRR.
The last column in Table 5 is the recycle efficiency ratio (RER) which is a measure of
efficiency by comparing the costs of producing a material from raw resources to the emergy costs
invested in recycling.
Again the higher the ratio the better. Fl y ash, aluminum, and steel have the
highest efficiencies. All the other material have intermediate RFRs with the exception of wood, which is less
than one.
-149-
Q
{5
Table 4. Emergy used in recycling materials

Material
I
.....
Recycle System
BY-product use
Cement WIth fly ash
Concrete with recycled aggregate Material recycle
Clay Bricl< - sawdust fired
By-product reuse
Recycled steel
Material recycle
Recycled aluminum
Material recycle
Recycled lumber
Material recycle
Plastic lumber from recycled plastic Adaptive reuse
Ceramic tile from recycled glass
Adaptive reuse
....
!"
Recycled material' Material savings' Collection
(E6 sej/g)
14000
4820
0.016
3090
11965
3219
5578
2160
(E 6 sej/g)
(E 6 sej/g)
1000
21.7
1000
175.6
21.7
175.6
259.2
175.6
259.2
259.2
141.8
2830
11700
879
879
1000
Sorting
Disposal
(E 6 sej/ g)
(E 6 sej/ g)
--37.9
16.6
6.7
8.2
2164
8.2
13.2
11.7
37.9
11.7
37.9
11.7
37.9
11.7
"
'<
...
Q
"
"
a). Emergy required to produce the recycled material. Does not include collection. sorting or disposal
b). Emergy value oflbe material being replaced by Ibe recycled material.
8'
a
Chapter
Table 5. Recycle Indices of Building Materials

Material
RBR
RYR
LRR
RER
Recycled lumber
0.4
1.4
1.4
0.4
Plastic lumber from recycled plastic
2.9
20.9
21.0
3.3
Ceramic tile from recycled glass
3.5
7.9
8.0
3.7
Concrete with recycled aggregate
4.9
25.1
25.1
5.2
Clay Brick - sawdust fired
2.4
O.OO[
1.7
6.5
Recycled steel
14.6
[7.0
17.0
[5.5
Recycled aluminum
38.3
44.7
44.9
43.8
Cement with fly ash
16.8
645.2
646.9
46.1
RBR
Recycle Benefit Ratio
ratio of the emergy used in providing a material from raw resource (A,) to the
emergy used in recycling the material C2+F2)' The larger the ratio the greater the advantage of recycle.
RBR
A,I (C2+F2)
RYR Recycle Yield Ratio ratio of the emergy in the material (R,+A,+B,) to the emergy used to recycle
(C2+F2). A large ratio indicates greater yield. RYR (R,+A,+B,) I (C2+F2)
LRR
Landfill to Recycle Ratio
ratio of emergy used to land fill a material to the emergy used to recycle the
material. The higher the ratio the larger the benefit from recycling. LRR
RER
Recycle Efficiency Ratio
(C,+F ,)1 (C2+F2)
ratio of material and energy conserved (R,+A,+B,+C,) to the emergy required
for recycle (C2+F2) when a recycled material is substituted for a raw resource. RER
(R,+A,+B,+C,)I (C,+F2)
DISCUSSION
Emergy and Building Materials
Emergy of building materials includes all the emergy required to make the material, including
the emergies of the environment that were necessary to concentrate the raw material by natural processes.
The total required emergy, expressed as emergy per mass (sej/g) was given in Table I.
Materials
investigated had emergy per mass values that ranged from 0.88 E9 sejlg to 12.5 E9 sej/g. The general
pattern is that the more refined the material product, the higher the emergy per gram.
Thus steel,
aluminum, plastics and float glass have emergy per mass values that range from about 4E9sej/g to 12.5E9
sejlg, while wood, concrete, ceramic tile, and bricks range from 0.8E9 to 3E9 sej/g.
Emergy theory suggests that quality and versatility of a material may be related to emergy per
"mass. The larger the emergy per mass, the more valuable and versatile the product. The highest emergy
per mass values are associated with aluminum (12.5 E9 sej/g) and plastic (5.9 E9 sej/g). These materials
may be the most versatile and may have the greatest potentials for recycle.
Price has long been the single most important comparative tool for evaluating materials. In
Tab[e I the price of materials expressed as mass per dollar (g/S) were given. The larger the number the
more mass is obtained for the expenditure of a dollar, and as might be expected, the more finished a
material, the [ower the mass purchased per dollar. Therefore glass, steel, and aluminum have relatively
low mass per dollar prices since they are more finished. On the other hand, concrete, cement, and clay
brick have the largest mass per dollar. Price is directly related to human service, so those materials that
-151-
Chapter
have the lowest mass per dollar are most often those that have large inputs of human service in their
production
Emprice (emergy-price) is the emergy received for each dollar paid for a material. The fifth
column inTable I gives the emprice for the evaluated materials. The emprice varies from a high of 28
E12 sej/$ (concrete) to a low of 0.93 E12 sej/$. The emprice is an indicator of the amount of human
service that is required in the production process of a material. Very high emprices (17 - 28 E12 sej/S) are
associated with raw resources and primary building materials, which require relatively smaller amounts
of human service in production, while low emprices (1.0 E12 sej/S) are indicative of materials having
large demands for human service in production. Buyer advantage is another way of describing emprice.
It represents relative "emergy advantage" in that it is a ratio of what one receives when purchasing a
material to what one would receive for an average dollar expenditure in the economy. In essence the
higher the emergy advantage, the more value one receives and the more work processes it can drive.
Generally raw resources have higher emergy advantage while finished products are lower.
The life cycle emergy intensity, given in the last column ofTable2, is the total emergy used in
the life cycle of a material (expressed as sej/g), including the emergy required to make it and that
necessary to collect and dispose of i!. The higher the number the higher the commitment of emergy over
the life time of a material. Comparison between the emergy per mass and life cycle emergy for each
material indicates the relative portion of the total emergy that is necessary for collection and disposal.
Raw resources have a greater percentage of their total life cycle emergy intensity in the construction
phases, while more finished products have more of their life cycle emergy in the material production
phases. Comparison of the emergy associated with the various stages shows the relatively small percent
of a material's life cycle that is involved in the demolition, collection and landfilling phases.
The relationship between emergy per mass of the conventional material process and that
required for recycle as a percent of the conventional process suggests the likelihood of recycle becoming
a significant aspect of a material's cycle. Using the emergy per gram inTable 1 and the emergy required
for recycle in Table 4, percent of material cycle can be calculated. For instance, it requires only an
additional 2.1% emergy input to recycle aluminum while the increase to recycle wood lumber represents
an increase of 234% emergy commitment over the conventional process. Steel requires an additional
6.1% emergy input for recycle, while plastic from recycled post consumer plastic requires and additional
4.6% emergy input.
Recycle Indices
Several recycle indices were developed to evaluate the appropriateness of different recycle
systems. Taken together, these recycle indices provide information regarding the appropriateness of a
particular material recycle system. It is quite apparent that steel and aluminum exhibit high ratios across
all the indices. Primary materials like cement, concrete and clay brick exhibit moderate values for the
ratios across all indices. Wood, on the other hand exhibits index values less than 1.0, calling into question
the potential for large scale recycle of wood lumber.
Individual, the recycle "indices provide comparative analysis to evaluate various recycle
systems relative to each other. The RBR provides information relative to the potential savings that can
result if a material is recycled and substituted for a raw resource. All the materials evaluated in this study,
with the exception of wood lumber had very high RBRs.The RBR for wood was less than 1.0 suggesting
that there is little benefit from recycling. Although this value represents an average value. In some cases
either where wood is scarce, or the quality of the wood is very high, recycle would probably show
positive RBRs.
The recycle yield ratio evaluates the net benefit that society receives for recycling. It's a
measure of what society gets in emergy for its emergy investment in recycle. Very high yields result form
a small investment of emergy to transport aluminum and plastics and recycled concrete as aggregate.
Recycled steel has a relatively high ratio as well, while the recycle of lumber is only 1.411 and sawdust
does not provide a positive net yield. The recycle of fly ash has an extremely high RYR because the
-152-
Chapter
emergy of fly ash is very large. The RYR is similar in concept to the Emergy Yield R atio (EYR) used to
express the net benefits to society from energy sources. Generally fossil fuel energy sources have EYR's
of about
1011.
Several of the material recycle systems have yield ratios more than twice that
characteristic of the fossil fuels .

The landfill recycle ratios (LRR) for all the material recycle systems studied, were greater than
one, indicating that investments in recycling these materials are beneficial in the long run. The LRR is
calculated by adding the emergy used for landfilling to the emergy of the material, since if landfill ed, a
material is lost to society and represents a cost. The long term benefits to recycle are significant
suggesting that it costs society between 1.5 and 650 times the emergy to land fill material than to recycle
them. The costs to society for landfilling plastics, steel, and aluminum are between
21 and 45 times what
it costs to recycle them.

Comparing the emergy used in a recycle pathway to the emergy saved by substituting a recycled
material for a raw product is one way of measuring efficiency. In this study this comparison was achieved
as a ratio and was termed recycle efficiency ratio (RER). It was defined as the ratio of the emergy costs
of recycling the emergy of a material product from the raw resource that was not used because the
recycled material was substituted for it. High efficiencies can be achieved through recycling ... anywhere
from 3.311 if recycled plastic is used in place of lumber, to
4611 iffly ash is substituted for cement. The
general trends are that metals have the highest efficiencies while earth materials have efficiencies
between
311 to 6/1.
Recycle Trajectories
It is apparent that there are several different material recycle trajectories. Three different recycle
trajectories were identified and analyzed:
1)
2)
3)
material recycle
by-product use, and
adaptive reuse
Judging effectiveness of recycle is the same for each trajectory, ie. the recycle of a material
should result in a net savings of energy and resources. Criteria to judge appropriateness is related to
whether the recycle of a material requires more energy, resources, andlor service than processing raw
material to produce a product. The savings might include less transportation, less nonrenewable energy
required for refining, and lower landfill costs. Added costs include collection and separation, as well as
transportation.
Evaluating recycle patterns and looking for general trends suggests that the highest benefits to
society appear to accrue from material recycle trajectories, followed by by-product reuse trajectories, and
finally by adaptive reuse. Material recycle trajectories have high overall values for most of the recycle
indices because material reuse substitutes directly for raw resources and refining energy. By-product
reuse, is often used as disposal, and therefore the by-product incorporated into a new product remains as
a small percentage of the total material input. Yet because by-products often have very high emergy their
disposal within a recycle pathway can often be very beneficial. This is the case fot fly ash. Saw dust on
the other hand has relatively low emergy, so its recycle is not as beneficial. Adaptive reuse systems vary,
depending on the material substitution. In general they are at the low end of the material trajectories
evaluated.
Summary and Conclusions

The following conclusions regarding materials and material quality were developed:
I. Emergy per mass may be a good indicator of recycle-ability. It appears that materials with
high emergy per mass are more recyclable.
2. The emprice (emergy received for money spent) is highest for primary building materials like
concrete and clay brick, and lowest for materials that contain more human services.
153
Chapter
3. Quality and versatility of a material are related to emergy per mass. The larger the emergy per
mass, the more valuable and versatile the product and the greater the potential for recycle.
4. Price, expressed as mass per dollar is inverse to the amount of human service inputs to a
material's production.
Recycle indices were developed that have the potential to provide insight regarding material
trajectories within recycle patterns. Three recycle patterns were identified that had different material
trajectories. Four recycle indices were developed to evaluate recycle patterns as provide needed informa
tion on the appropriateness of recycle options. The following conclusions were drawn from the analysis
of recycling patterns:
1. Materials that have large refining costs have greatest potential for high recycle benefits, as
recycled materials are substituted for raw resources.
2. It appears that materials that require fewer inputs in their refining stages are less likely to
exhibit positive recycle benefits.
3. The highest benefits to society appear to accrue from material recycle trajectories. The ben
efits from adaptive reuse and by-product reuse trajectories are varied, but still positive.
4. The landfill recycle ratios for all the material recycle systems studied were much larger than
one (with the exception of wood), indicating that investments in recycling materials yield very positive
returns when compared with landfill alternatives.
5. The yields from recycling are extremely high, for the most part, far greater than the yields that
society obtains from energy sources indicating the very important contributions that effective recycling
systems will have in the long run.
REFERENCES
Buranakarn, V 1998. Evaluation of recycling and reuse of building materials using the emergy analysis
method. Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Architeture, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL.
Census of Manufacturers, 1992. Industrial Series. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Sta
tistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
Haukoos, D.S. 1995. Sustainable Architecture and its relationship to industrial building. Masters thesis,
Department of Architecture, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Odum, H. T. 1996. Environmental Accounting. John Wiley, New York.
RS Means, 1998. Building Construction Cost Data. S6 edition. R.S. Means Company, Inc. Kingston,
Mass.
-154-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
13
Toward a Mathematical Formulation of the
Maximum Em-Power Principle
Corrado Giannantoni
ABSTRACT
Thispaper aims atpresenting a possible lOgical route toward a mathematical formulation of the
well-known "Maximum Em-Power Principle" (Lotka-Odum) in accordance with its several and equivalent
general verbal definitions existing in literature. To this purpose the three following successive steps will
be considered: (i) a rigorous definition of Emergy in mathematical terms; (ii) a general mathematical
formulation of the Emergy Balance Equation (stated according to Emergetic Algebra and globally valid
for Systems no matter how complex); (iii) the jundamental logical presuppositions for a possible
mathematical formulation of the "Maximum Em-Power Principle ".
For the sake of generality, the three previous conceptual steps will be also analysed at three
different hierarchical levels of time-dynamic system behaviour: steady state conditions, stationary
conditions and generally variable conditions. The paper will not (expressly) deal with the question as to
whether the considered Principle is the so-called "Fourth Thermodynamic Principle" or not, but only
with the possibility of establishing solid bases for a correct answer to this question (ever present as
sub-Jacent thought). Nevertheless, the work dane up to now (and here presented in a very synthetic
form) should be already sufficient to understand that we are frying to mathematically express something
which is (very likely) more than a Thermadynamic Principle.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The "Maximum Em-Power Principle" (Lotka-Odum) is generally considered as the "Fourth
Thermodynamic Principle" (mainly) because ofitspractical validity for a very wide class of physical and
biological systems, although its general formulation is not yet rigorously defined in mathematical terms.
Under these conditions it is very difficult to answer the following fundamental questions:
Is the "Maximum Em-Power Principle" a
Thermodynamic Principle? Is it really independent
from other well-known Principles (likeEnergy conservation andExergy degradation)? In order to give a
contribution to a definitive answer to these questions we have begun analysing a possible resolutive route
that should lead to a fundamental result: a general mathematical formulation of the considered Principle.
The logical way we have hypothesised may be therefore articulated in the following three
successive:
(i) a rigorous definition ofEmergy in mathematical terms
(ii) the statement of a pertinentEmergy Balance Equation (according toEmergetic Algebra)
(iii) the fundamental logical presuppositions for a possible mathematical formulation of the
"MaximumEm-Power Principle".
Each of the previous steps will be also analysed, for the sake of generality, at three different
hierarchical levels of time-dynamic system behaviour:
steady state conditions, stationary conditions and
generally variable conditions.
-155-
Chapter 13. Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum EmPower Principle

2. Mathematical Definition of Emergy
The verbal definition ofEmergy given by Prof. H. T. Odum (1984) is, in reality, a very general
definition. It may be considered valid under completely variable conditions too. The reference to solar
availableEnergy is only apractical way in order to calculate its value. Its definition, in fact, may be based
on whatever other form of reference availableEnergy.
In spite of its wide and recognised generality, Emergy is evaluated (in practical and usual
applications) preferably with reference to steady state conditions (especially for those natural systems
that have reached their optimum "working point" as a consequence of natural selective processes) and
these values are also the basis for Transformity calculations. In addition, when Systems are analysed
under more general conditions (e.g., stationary conditions), the previous Transformities are used without
substantial modifications andEmergy variations are assumed to be mainly due to time variations of some
associated variable quantities (e.g., mass,Energy, etc.). This usual procedure however does not exclude
that, in much more general studies, Transformities might also be thought of as functions of time.
Taking into account the basic perspective assumed in the development of this work, it is clear
that an Emergy definition should be the most general possible. We re-propose a completely general
mathematical definition ofEmergy (Ref. [7],[8]) that will be now analysed in more detail.
From a mathematical point of view, the general verbal definition of Emergy given by Prof.
Odum as the total solar equivalent available Energy directly and indirectly used up to generate a specific
form ofEnergy (or product) may be expressed in terms ofExergy through the specific rules of Emerge tic
Algebra (see par. 3) which reflect the fact that Emergy is not a conservative quantity.
In fact we may define a quantity
Em*(t)
where
Exeq(.)
and
Exeq(.)
(2. 1)
fEXeq("r:)dr:
is defined as
Exeq(. )
.
Em'{t) as follows
Jc(x'Y,z,.) p(x,y,z, .). ex(x,y,z, .)V
(2.2)
D (r)
is the instantaneous equivalent Exergy Power used up during the process of
generating a specific product.

InEq. (2.2) c is a dimensional structural factor (whose dimensions are sej/J, that is solar emergy
joules per joule) which depends, among other tltings, on co-injection or co-production factors (as we will
see later) and it is defined in such a way as to summarise all the rules of the Emergetic Algebra (this is the
reason for the term "equivalent"); D*(. ) is the Domain of integration which defines the quantity of the
considered matter, p (x,y,z,.) is the mass density, ex(x,y,z,.) is the specific Exergy, while
Newton's "dot" notation inEq. (2.1) stands for the total derivative with respect to time.
It is then easy to recognise that, when we assume a Lagrangian perspective and steady state
conditions,Eq. (2.1) defines the traditional and usual concept ofEmergy, while under absolutely variable
conditionsEq. (2.1) definesEmergy in its widest and most general conception.
2.1 Detailed analysis of the proposed mathematical definition of Emergy
I) "Solid Circle "Definition:Equation (2. I) depends on the structuralfactor c(x ,y,Z,.) which,
in tum, is strictly related to the concept of Transformity, and thus it is also dependent on the Emergy
Balance Equation. Therefore its rigorous meaning will become completely clear after having shown its
relationship with Transformity and having stated a general formulation of theEmergy BalanceEquation.
-156-
2) Basic reference to Exergy:
of the following fundamental reasons:

(i) the expression "available
the definition ofEmergy in terms ofExergy is preferable because
energy" (especially in Anglo-Saxon literature) generally stands for
"Exergy"; although these two concepts are practically interchangeable in the case of very simple
systems, they are not really equivalent for those very complex ones: total Exergy in fact is
always an additive function ofthe corresponding sub-system quantities, whereas available energy
generally is not (Ref. [6]);
(ii) reference toExergy also constitutes a very solid thermodynamic starting point for Emergy
definition, although this fact should not lead to thinking that Emergy might be (in any case)
reduced toExergy.
In fact, specific rules ofEmergy accountability constitute what really and actually traniforms the considered
exergetic contributions into a wholly new and diffe rent quantity. So that the difference in dimensional
unilS is not simply a conventional way of expressing "identical" contributions (just considered differently),
but they are a consequential expression of a new "dimension" according to which "we are looking at
things".
3) Lagrangian perspective: it seems to be the most adequate perspective, at least as far as the
definition ofEmergy is concemed. In fact it corresponds to the usual "perspective" of evaluating (according
to Emergetic Algebra) all the exergetic contributions spent (during the past, from a pre-defined time
origin) in order to generate a "given system" at present under consideration.
This perspective, especially and properly indicated for Emergy definition, does not exclude an
alternative (and equivalent) Eulerian description which, vice-versa, seems to be more suitable for
formulating anEmergy Balance Equation (as we will see afterwards).
4) TIme origin definition: time origin may be chosen in an arbitrary way: Eq. (2.1), in fact, is
written under the only hypothesis that the time
present time.
(upper extreme of the integral) corresponds to the
Moreover, as far as the presence of the quantity
-00 is concerned, it is evident that this
mathematical lower extreme enables us to choose the best indicated time extreme according to the specific
system under consideration. In fact in our analyses the lower time extreme cannot be less than the origin
of the Universe. In addition, for usual analyses, a time extreme not lower than the origin ofEarth is surely
more appropriate. In any case it is sufficient to assume all the concerned quantities to be equal to zero
when the variable of integration is less than the prefixed lower extreme.
5) Relative Emergy values: what has just been recalled may be also expressed in an alternative
way which will prove particularly useful in the analysis of the next point as well.
In factEq (2.1) may be re-written as follows
Em'(t) Emo + JEx./-r:)dr:
(2.3)
to
so that what we previously said is equivalent to neglecting
Emo and this corresponds to the fact of

relative values ofEmergy. On the other hand we are not interested in absolute Emergy
values, but only in definite Emergy variations (like we usually do for Energy too).
6) Reference to solar Emergy: this reference, although not obligatory, suggests some other
interesting considerations concerning the relative value ofEmergy assumed as reference. In fact, if we
calculateEmergy associated with solar Energy by assuming as lower time extreme the time corresponding
to the origin of the Sun (6-7 billion years ago) and as reference available energy ( exergy) the one
associated with cosmic radiation, we may find, according to definition (2.1), a huge value that, on the
other hand, is not of practical interest for our usual Emergy Analyses. It is then common practice to
(conventionally) assume Solar Emergy as (numerically) "equivalent" to its corresponding available energy
( exergy) and this, in turn, is equivalent to assuming solar Transformity equal to I sej/J.
'
considering only
157

This practical way of operating (that may be extended to whatever fonn of available Energy
afundamental aspect that has to be clearly pointed out: any conventional

generally and rigorously valid only ifwe
demonstrate that Emergy is a state variable (at least in the most general sense of Systems Theory).
assumed as reference) implies
assumption, as far as the Exergy of reference is concerned, is
7) Total derivative: the geometric surface of the ideal control Domain
D" (-r:) (that delimits the
System under consideration) is generally in movement in our reference system (Lagrangian perspective),
while flows of different quantities (mass,Energy,Exergy, etc.) pass though the frontier (in both directions),
that is they are characterised by a relative velocity with respect to the domain frontier.
It is then clear that
total derivative (see expression (2.2 is the most appropriate derivation

inside the control Domain and through its frontier. At this stage
technique to account for both variations:
there are several possibilities of expressing these tenns according to the specific aspects under consideration.
In this theoretical context we have chosen the most general expression for a control Domain in movement
with an absolutely arbitrary distribution of velocity in its internal parts, and especially on its frontier.
Thus, by remembering the LeibnitzTheorem, we may write
a
d
d
-Ex,q(t)=- !(c'P'ex)-d,V=- !(c.p.ex )'V+ J(c.p.ex).vmd,S
dt 0 (T)
at 0 (T)
dt
aO'(T)
whereV
,n
{aD"('r:)] .
= v,(x,y,z;r:)' n
(2.4)
is the distribution o f system velocities normal to the
frontie
2.2 Direct relationship between the Structural Factor
c(x,y,z ,.)
and
Transformity
an integral of volume
(extended to the Domain D" (t through the pertinent values of the "local" properties [p(x,y,z,t)
andex(x,y,z,t) 1 at the same time t and through a Comprehensive structural factor C(x,y,z,t)
TheEmergy value at the time given byEq. (2.1) may also be expressed as
considered as a function of the same
"local' time-space co-ordinates:

(2.5).
Em(t) = !C(x,y,z,t) p(x,y,z,t) ex(x,y,z , t)ct.V

D" (t)
If we now compare the obtained expression with the one that gives the same Emergy value
through the concept ofTransfonnity
Em(t) = !cex,y,z,t). p(x,y,z,t)ex(x,y,z,t)d3V = Tr(t) Jp(x,y,z,t) 'ex(x,y,z,t)d,V
(2.6)
D-(t)
D (I)
we can draw some interesting conclusions:
(i)Transfonnity is a mean value (referred to the Domain
D* (t
that directly relates total Emergy
t ) to the corresponding content of available Energy (or Exergy) in the system (at the
t);
(at the time

same time
(ii) its concept (and its corresponding value) is directly associated to structural "properties" that
show the
progressive increase of information content acquired by the system during all the
productive process (seeEq. (2.1) and especially thestructural factor
c(x,y, z,.) inEq. (2.2;
(iii) this increased content of infonnation is the "Quality" that, even though associated to a
relational capacity is
"work" (which, according to Prof. Odum, cannot be
limited amount of available Energy, "qualifies" this Energy as far as its

concerned, that is its capacity of doing
158

reduced to the mere mechanical work);
(iv)Eq. (2.6) also contributes to (even more clearly) pointing outthe profound difference between
the Emergy concept and more traditional Energetic (or Exergetic) concepts;
(v) Moreover Eq. (2.6) shows that there is also an alternative possibility of determining
Traniformity, that is not only through an external procedure (the traditional one), but also
through the direct <internal) determination of the global content of information which is present
in the system at the considered time.
As far as this last aspect is concerned, we may observe that this evaluation procedure is not very
often followed by various Scientists (probably because it is a little more difficult), although Prof. Odum
indicates how to relate both quantities through the general concepts of Information Theory (Ref. [4]).
3. Emergy Balance Equation (in steady state and variable conditions)
An Emergy Balance Equation that might be defined as completely general (that is applicable
under whatever conditions, as in the case of the Energy Balance Equation) has not been formulated yet.
There are some Emergy Accounting Procedures that constitute the so-called Emergetic Algebra.
Before dealing with a possible general balance equation it is worth recalling the fundamental rules that
have to be taken into account in a generalisation process, by also remembering that these rules generally
refer to steady state conditions (Ref. [3]):
1st rule: "All Source Emergy to a Process is assigned to the Process's output"
2nd rule:"By-products from a Process have the total Emergy assigned to each pathway"
3rd rule "When a pathway splits, the Emergy is assigned to each "leg" of the split based on their
percent of the total Energy flow on the pathway"
4th rule "Emergy cannot be counted twice within a system. In particular:
a) Emergy in feedbacks should not be double counted
b) by-products, when reunited cannot be summed".
In the perspective of formulating an absolutely general mathematical Emergy Balance Equation,
it is really fundamental to distinguish between Emergy sub-System Balances and Global System Balance.
3.1 Emergy Sub-System Balances
Ifwe consider a very simple sub-System like a co-production process in steady state conditions
(Fig.la), according to the above mentioned rules we may write in Emergy units, but also in Emergetic
flows
Em(u) =.!.Em{Yl) + .!.Em{Y2) + o Em{Y3)

2
with
Em{yJ = Em{Y2)
The two coefficients
(3.1)
(3.2)
may be defined as "co-production coefficients" in the sense that they

2
properly express the fact that each considered <<output is actually "one out of the two" by-products,
whereas the "zero" coefficient expresses that there is <<no co-productive correlatioID> with the other two
(or more) by-products.
In general, in the case of more than 2 by-products, we may write (by neglecting uninfluential
terms)
-159-
Chapter 13, Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum EmPower Principle
2"d Equivalent mathematical model
I" Equivaleut mathematical model
1/2 Em(y}
Em(u)
Em(u)
--. L..
1/2 Em(
1,
-'
O.Em(
Em(y}
_V
__
__
--.
__
Em(y}
Figures 1,a & 1,b. Mathematical models for a co-production process
Em(u)
I
Pj' Em(yJ
j
(3.3)
_I
where
13,
132
..... P.
=
(3.4)
=
n
The same considerations may be applied to input quantities too, In fact input quantities are not
alwaysEmergetically independent (like solarEmergy and geothermal Emergy), Thus we may analogously
consider the Emergetic "sum" of such inputs through similar co-injection coefficients
( j) in order to
a
synthetically write
(3.5)
On the other hand, if inputs are Emergetically independent, their co-injection coefficients are
equal to I (otherwise there is a certain co-dependence in their <dn-jectiofl ofEmergy into the considered
sub-System),
In order to get a general formulation that might be valid (in perspective) under completely
variable conditions too, it is useful to "translate" in a "mathematically equivalent form" the Emergetic
rules previously presented, Eq, (3, I) may be, for instance, re-written as follows
Em(u) + (u) = Em(y,) + Em{y,)
(3.6)
where (u) is an Emergy flow Source Term (depending on input quantities, see Fig, I,b)
which accounts for the exact amount that makes Eq, (3.6) algebraically equivalent to Eq, (3, I), that is
-160-
(3.7)
<l>(u) Em(u)
=
In the case of n by-products
(n .. 2 ) , Ibe Source Term is then given by the expression
<l>(u) (n - l)Em(u)
(3.8)
Such a procedure may be analogously followed for whatever elementary sub-System.

Let us consider, as a furtber example, an interaction process (Fig. 2,a).
According to Ibe first rule of Emergetic Algebra we may write (in steady state conditions)
Em(u,} +Em(uz} Em(y)
(3.9)
Output Emergy may be also written in a form of product
Em{y)
kem Em(u,} Em(uz}
(3.10)
where k"" is given by

k em
Em(u,}+Em(uz}
Em(u,}. Em(uz}
(3.11)
At Ibis stage Eq. (3.9) may be easily re-structured in Ibe same form as Eq. (3.6) by introducing
a Source Term <l>(u, u,.} so Ibat, in steady state conditions, it might give the same quantitative balance
(see also Fig. 2,b)
Basic mathematical model
Equivalent mathematical model
Em(u}
Em(u}
Em(u)
Em(u)
kem Em(u)
Em(u}
Figures. 2,a & 2,b. Mathematical models for an interaction process
-161-
Em(y)
Chapter 13. Mathemalical Formulation of the Maximum EmPower Principle

(3.12)
But
{u, ,u,) may assume, in principle, a more general structure; like (e.g.) the following one
(3.14)
It is then clear that, if we are analysing an interaction process under steady state conditions,
we will certainly assume
k:'"
kern
(3.15)
but the Source Term, under generally variable conditions, could also be different from the one
considered in steady state conditions. This is the reason for having assumed a more general structure.
Another simple sub-System that may sometime be very useful to represent in a mathematically
equivalent way (as we will see later on) is the "split process"(Fig.3a). This one, in fact, may be modelled
as an "equivalent" "co-production process" (Fig.3b).
To this purpose it is sufficient to write the following equivalent balance
Ern(u)
!. Ern(y,) + 1. Ern(y,)
x
(3.16)
I-x
with
(3.17)
I-x
wherex and (i-x) are the pertinent percent of the total Energy flow. Moreover, in the case of
particular necessity, a "split process" may also be mathematically represented through an equivalent
Source Term, in the same way as already shown for a "co-production process".
As a conclusion of this paragraph we can say that this mathematically equivalent procedure
Basic mathematical model
E_ m(_ u_
+-1 +<
...
..
Equivalent mathematical model
Ern(yj=x
Em(u)
__
.
Em(u)
Em(y;JJ=(I- x )
,-____,.,
Em(yJ
x
Em(y}
I- x
"co-production"
Em(u)
Figures. J,a & J,b. Mathematical modelsfor a split process

-162-
_1

based on the possible consideration of particular "Source Terms" has the following specific
advantages:
(i) it is a procedure perfectly adherent to the rules of Emergetic Algebra
(ii) it may be applied to the analysis of whatever sub-System
(iii) it is already perspectively orientated at formulating a General Emergy Balance in a
structural analogy with other Thermodynamic Balances.
3.2 Emergy Balance Equation for Complex Systems
Given a complex System made up of n elementary sub-Systems, we may say that, in principle,
the Whole System is completely described (from an Emergetic point of view) by n linear equations (like
Eqs. (3.6) or (3.12)) corresponding to the considered sub-Systems. However this mathematical
representation does not allow us to point out all thepeculiarities ofEmergy Analysis. A more significative
mathematical representation may be obtained by carrying out a Global Emergy Balance (for the Whole
System) structured in such a way as to point out "total equivalent input/output Emergy contributions" to
the System. Therefore, through an adequate linear combination of the n linear equations describing the n
corresponding sub-Systems, we may always write (by taking especially into account the 4th rule of
Emergetic Algebra) the following Global Emergetic Balance Equation (in steady state conditions)
(3.18)
where
ai,PI
ai't'l
,
R.'
are the co-injection and co-production coefficients for each sub-System

are their associated re-normalisation factors (referred to the Whole System)
;(,1Iz " ',Urn ) is the "equivalent' Source Term relative to the k- th
Y k ' Y;
sub-System
, are the corresponding "weight" and its associated re-normalisationjactor.
Some more details about the quantities present in Eq. (3.18) will be given afterwards with reference
to a more general equation carried out in the next paragraph.
3.3 Emergy Balance Equation in variable conditions
As previously mentioned, the introduction of "Source Terms" is also (and mainly) useful in the
perspective of formulating a General Balance Equation valid under conditions however variable. Firstly,
because each Source is now an ef
f ective dynamic term, generally different from zero (whereas in steady
state conditions it may be just an "equivalent" static term). Secondly, because each specific contribution
(previously depending only on input quantities) may be now higher than the one due to a perfect
. input-output sub-System balance. Thirdly, because the presence of a Source Term is essential in order to
give a general structure to each balance equation. In fact each sub-System equation may in this way be
easily completed by simply adding a pertinent and specific Accumulation Term.
Let us consider Eq. (3.1) as an example of possible generalisation procedure of the Balance
Equation. Eq. (3.1) now evidently becomes (through Eq. (3.7) and in terms of Eulerian description)
(3.19)
-163-
Chapter J3. Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum EmPower Principle

where the "dot" stands for Emergyjlow (or Em-power) and the Accumulation Term
AD ) is given by
AD(r) fC(x,y,z,t). p(x,y,z,t) 'ex(x,y,z,t)d,Y

D(t)
(3.20)
If we now follow the same procedure (previously described in steady state conditions) in order
to carry out a unique Global Balance Equation (for the Whole System) we may consequently write
(3.21)
where the only "structural novelty", with respect to Eq. (3.18), is represented by the Global
Accumulation Term
AD, (t) . This term (as will prove clearer through a detailed analysis of a specific
example) does not reduce to a simple "sum" of the n sub-System accumulation terms, but is given by an
appropriate sum of " n equivalent" accumulation terms, each one (in tum) expressed as a linear combination
of all the real sub-System contributions. That is, in formulae:
Av,(t)
0; '0,'.4,;, (ALI ,An, ..,AD.) o; '0,' Ii;' AD}

=
; ..1
, ...1
j-l
(3.22)
The deepest meaning of this term, which is worthy of particular attention, will be illustrated
through an application of the Global Balance Equation to a suffIciently Complex System (Fig. 4)(Ref.
20,000
7500
f-""-I--t Y
30,000
L..:,....Jr---'--r--;-
Flows are emergy (sej/time)

Figure 4. A sufficiently complex system analyzed under different conditions
-164-
Chapter 13. Mathematical Formulation ofthe Maximum EmPower Principle

[3]). This practical application will also illustrate the meaning of some other terms that appear in equation
(3.21) and contemporarily show, through a detailed analysis of the considered System, the wide and
comprehensive potentialities of the stated Global Balance Equation (3.21).
Let us then consider the System shown in Fig. 4 under some successive ditTerent conditions:
A) Steady state conditions, without equivalent Source Terms [in D and E].
Under these conditions Eq. (3.21) becomes
1 Em(S) + 1 Em(F) =.!.E m(Z) +1.

2
with
[4' Em(Y)]
(3.23)
(3.24)
only two
As we can see, there is no necessity of particular input co-injection factors because there are
independent inputs (at the level of the Whole System), whereas one of the two by-products (see
co-production factors
2' ) implies a re-normalisation factor equal to 4, because of the global structure of
the System.
B) Steady state conditions, with two equivalent Source Terms [in D and E]. Equation (3.21) may
be now written as follows
1 Em(S) + 1 Em(F) + 4>D+ ci>E = Em(Z) + 6' Em(Y)
(3.25)
with
.
I> E
1
I>D
2
(3.26)
Equation (3.25) is perfectly equivalent to Eq.
(3.23). The only difference is the explicit presence

static Source Terms and a modified re-normalisationfactor (equal to 6).
C) Variable conditions, with two equivalent quasi-static Source Terms [in D and E], and two
of equivalent
Accumulation Terms [in D and E].

Equation (3.21) now assumes the following structure
1 Em(S) + 1 Em(F) + $+ $ = A; +A; + Em(z) +
at
at
where
[6' Em(Y) ]
(3.27)
(3.28)
.
l '
cI> = 2-cI>D
(3.29)
and
(3.30)
(3.31)
-165-
As it is easy to recognise from Eq. (3.31), the Equivalent Accumulation Term associated to the
sub-System E does not only depend on its proper contribution, however "amplified" by the particular
sub-System productive structure
(6
EE
2 ), but also on a contribution (although reduced,
S DD
= 2" )
1
due to the sub-System D, which proceeds it. The different "incidence" (or "weight") of the two respective
Equivalent Accumulation Terms can be considered as an evident expression of the different hierarchical
value of their corresponding "stocked"Emergy.
These two general effects (sufficiently brought out even by the simple structure ofEqs (3.30)
and (3.31) respectively) are still more relevant if we consider the following more articulated case.
D) Variable cOnditions
[ F{t), S{t)], with two (equivalent) quasi-static Source Terms [in D and
E), andfive Accumulation Terms [in A,B,C,D andE).

In this caseEq. (3.21) will contain three additional Equivalent Accumulation Terms that may be
expressed by an identical formal structure like the one already included in Eq. (3.22), that is
A;( .40, ,An" ,An.) is,; Anj

(3.32)
where the coefficients s express, through their specific "incidence", the contribution that each
=
1-1
sub-System gives to the i-th considered Equivalent Accumulation Term, according to the corresponding
hierarchical position of each one in the connective structure of the Whole System.
T herefore, if we considerEq. (3.22) (in the light ofEq. (3.32 we may easily recognise that the
Accumulated Emergy in the System does not reduce just to the sum of all the Tanks of Information, but is
increasedby an additional contribution due to the Information content corresponding to both theproductive
structure and the connective structure of the System, in itself considered as a Whole.
Some similar considerations may be extended to the analysis of the equivalent Source Terms, as
we will immediately see by considering the two following examples.
Let us start with a little more complicated case:
ns[ F{t), S{t)]. with two (equivalent) quasi-static
E) Variable conditiO
two dynamic Source
Terms [in D and E), and five Accumulation Terms [in A,B,C,D and E).
If we now suppose the presence of two real dynamic Source Terms (in addition to the
quasi-static ones) in the sub-Systems D and E, their contribution will also extend their influence on the
sub-Systems C, B and A. In fact, if we structure the considered Source Terms as follows
.
.
(3.33)
.
n{t) n.o{t)+ Xnn.d{t)

.
.
E{t) = E.O{t)+ XEE.d{t)
=
the4J!namiccontributions
(3.34)
n.d{t) and E.d{t) respectively, "amplified" by the co-productive
structure of the pertinent sub-System (see coefficients XD and XE), determine two different effects:
- the appearance of three "equivalent" Source Terms also in sub-Systems C, B and A;
- the amplification of their specific contributions through feed-back pathways. In this case, in
fact, we can not apply the 4th rule of Emergetic Algebra (e.g., in sub-Systems A and B), because these
contributions are generated in different sub-Systems that follow the above mentioned ones.
In order to better analyse this last aspect, we prefer to consider an even more general case
-166-
F) Variable cOnditions F(t) , S( t) ] , with two (equivalent) quasi-static + two dynamic Source Tenns
[in D and E], plus three dynamic Source Tenns [in A,B,C] andfive Accumulation Tenns [in A,B,C,D and E].
We will limit our consideration to only those aspects concerning the Source Tenns and their
effects.
As already shown in the case of Equivalent Accumulation Tenns, each Equivalent Source Term
(see Eq. (3.24 may be structured in an analogous way
n
(3.35)
<II;(,,
..
J A;" '<11,
,u
r-'
This expression is strictly linear if there are no amplification effects due to feed-back pathways.
In this case the coefficients
express, through their specific "incidence", the hierarchical contribution
that each sub-System furnishes to each considered Equivalent Source Tenn. In fact, analogously to what
we showed about Accumulation Tenns, each Source that "follows" another one generally "amplifies" its
proper contribution, not only because of the specific sub-System productive structure, but also because of
its "higher" position in the hierarchical structure of the W hole System.
If, on the contrary, there are amplification efef cts due to feed-back pathways, Eq. (3.35) becomes
(in general) non-linear because coefficients
do not only depend on the reciprocal position of the
Sources, but also on their respective instantaneous values.
Under these conditions the System may become unstable (or not) according to some appropriate
corrective actions which depend on the self-organising capacities of the System.
In the latter case, some stable conditions may actually be reached and these may correspond to .
different and persistent oscillating behaviours characterised by the fact of being in stationary conditions.
Before endingthis paragraph, we want to point out anotherfundamental aspect that characterises
the System in its complex, by emphasising that this aspect is also very well reflected in the General
Balance Equation (3.21). This equation, in fact, does not exclusively give the totalEmergy Power "coming
out" from the System, but (in general) a higher comprehensive contribution due to the accounted additional
effect constituted by the Circulating Emergy Flow in the System.
A;"
A;"
This quantity, ifEq. (3.21) is supposed to bealready structured in its standard form', may be
defined as
Eme,,"
p;. P,' Em(y,) E m{y,)

f:f
f:f
p
(3.36)
and corresponds to the Flow of Information through the feed-back pathways of the System.
We may easily show this effect in steady state conditions Gust for simplicity). In fact such a
demonstration
does not constitute a lack of generality. Let us then consider Eq. (3.25). Its second
simple
me.mber is ex.actly equal to the sum of two contributions: Output Emergy Flow [which is equal
to Em(Z) +
Em(Y)] and Circulating EmergyFlow [which is equal to
5 E m(Y)].
4. Presuppositions for a Mathematical formulation of the "Maximum Em-Power
Principle"
As initially mentioned, in this paper we will not (expressly) deal with the mathematical fonnulation
of the Maximum Em-Power Principle, but only with its most correct presuppositions for such a possible
fonnulation. To this purpose it is worth pointing out some basic results already carried out:
(i) a rigorous and general definition of Emergy, which is valid in conditions however variable;
, In this fonn each input
and internal
contribution to the System has its corresponding effect directly and exclUSively
expressed in tenns of output quantities.
Under these conditions we always have that

-167-
(p; . P,) 1 ,
..
for I =
1,2, . .
p.

In addition, it is worth recalling that the considered Global Balance Equation, while it accounts
for input and output quantities as a global result of the different co-injective or co-productive sub-System
structures, it contemporarily accounts for three distinct additional contributions:
- Accumulation Terms, amplified by both the productive and connective structure of the System;
- Source Terms, characterised by similar (productive and connective) amplification effects;
- Circulating EmergyFlow, which quantifies the Flow of Information through feed-back pathways.
It is then clear that these three mentioned aspects (besides those pertaining to input/output
quantities) are already sufficient to understand that the Maximum Em-Power Principle implies optimum
working conditions (for the Whole System) which in general do not correspond to maximum efficiency
conditions for each sub-System (each one in itself considered), but to those particular and local "working
conditions" that foctually realise the reciprocal "best fit" among sub-Systems in order to maximise the
global behaviour of the System as a Whole.
5. Conclusions
Although this work is to be considered as still being in progress (in particular as far as the
hypothesised final result is concerned), its logical bases and corresponding main achieved results seem to
constitute valid presuppositions which may orientate future attempts at formulating a mathematical version
of the "Maximum Em-Power Principle", at least under simplified conditions (steady state and stationary
conditions).
At the same time, the work done up to now (and here presented in very synthetic form) should be
already sufficient to understand that we are trying to mathematically express something which is (very
likely) more than a Thermodynamic Principle.
6; References
I. J. Szargut,
D. R. Morris,
F. R. Steward. Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical and Metallurgical
Processes. Hemisphere Publ. Corp., USA,
1988.
2. H. T. Odum. Self-Organization, Transformiry and Information. Science, Vol 242, pp. 1132-1139, 25
November 1988.
3. M. T. Brown. Workshop on Emergy Analysis. Siena, 20-25 September, 1993.
4. H. T. Odum. Ecological and General Systems. An Introduction to Systems Ecology. Re. Edition.
University Press Colorado, 1994.
5. H. T. Odum. Public Policy and Maximum Empower Principle. Net EMERGYEvaluation of Alternative
Energy Sources. Lectures at ENEA Head quarters, 24 May, 1995.
6. R. A. Gaggioli. Available Energy and Exergy. Int. Journal of Applied Thermodynamics, Vol.
(No. 1-4), pp. 1-8, 1998.
7. C. Giannantoni. Environment, Energy, Economy, Politics and Rights. Proceedings of Advances in

Energy Studies, Porto Venere, Italy, 27-31 May 1998. Ed. MUSIS, Rome, 1998, pp. 541-558.
8. C. Giannantoni. Integrated Approach to the Analysis of Investments by Means of Three Synthetic
-168-
Chapter 13. Mathematical Formulation o/the Maximum EmPower Principle
8. C. Giannantoni. Integrated Approach to the Analysis of Investments by Means of Three Synthetic

Economic Indicators: Energetic, Exergetic and Emergetic DCF (Discounted Cash Flow).
International Conference on Indices and Indicators of Sustainable Development. St. Petersburg,
Russia,
lJ-16 July, 1999.
16
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
14
Emergy Analysis Of Channel Catfish Farming In
Alabama, USA
E.
Ortega, J.F. Queiroz, c. E. Boyd,. and Jose M G. Ferraz
ABSTRACT
The data concerning the environmental status of channel catfish farming in Central West Alabama,
conducted by Auburn University, allow one to describe,for study purposes, a typical catfish farm with 40
ha occupied by ponds. Diagrams and spreadsheets were prepared in order to obtain emergy indexes to
evaluate channel catfish production systems. The emergy indexes obtained are the following: Traniformity
650 000 sej/J, Renewability
24%; Emergy YieldRatio 1.32; Emergy Investment Ratio 3.0 and

3.2; Emergy Exchange Ratio
1.7. Although these indexes revealed
some similarity with USA conventional agriculture systems, catfish production was shown to be less
dependent on non-renewable resources and its renewability is greater than other animal meat production
systems. Finally. it is discussed how, through the adoption of best management practices, the above
indexes for catfish farming may be improved
Key Words: Aquaculture, Emergy Indexes, Sustainability.

INTRODUCTION
The world must choose between a "New Green Revolution" based on the energy of fossil sources
or "Sustainable Agriculture" based on renewable resources (Ortega, 1997 and 1998). Aquaculture, like
other biological production systems, depends on external and internal sources of energy that may be
regarded as renewable and non-renewable. An appropriate measurement of energy flows in ecosystems
could allow the measurement of their sustainability, for that purpose it is suggested to use Emergy, the
"available energy used in ecosystems for production of resources" (Odum, 1971, 1983 and 1986). The
proportion of renewable emergy used in relation to the total emergy consumed, is the index that measures
the renewability of the system (Odum, 1996). This quantitative evaluation of sustainability could help the
development of public policies according to the Agenda 21 Agreements (Ortega, 2000). The Emergy
Indexes could provide scientific information to support public policies for environmental protection,
such as taxes for water consumption and water pollution, in the transition to more sustainable aquaculture
systems.
According to data provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the maximum sustainable
yield for global capture fisheries of traditional aquatic species has already reached the sustainable limit of
100 million of metric tones per year. Initiatives to reduce capture originated a FAO Protocol, signed by
more than 120 countries, to decrease progressively the volume of capture fisheries, beginning in 2003
(FAO, 1997). Meanwhile, the world demand for fish continued to grow, due to population growth but
also due to health concerns with less fat and cholesterol. Aquaculture is an alternative to supply the
increasing demand for good quality aquatic food at competitive prices but, as fisheries, also has limits.
Aquaculture is defined as the culture of aquatic organisms for human consumption and industry
use. References of fish culture in China appeared 4,000 years ago. In 1996 world aquaculture contributed
with more than 35 million metric tons of fish/year. The Asian countries contribute with more than 80% of
the world aquaculture production. Catfish farming in the USA began in the I 940s and became the largest
-171-
Chapter 14. Emergy Analysis o/Channel Catfish Farming in Alabama

aquaculture activity in the country. In 1993, more than 200,000 tons of catfish were produced in 59,000
hectares of ponds (3,500 kg/halyear). This activity is concentrated in the Southeast, and in Central West
Alabama, catfish farming has had more than three decades of continuous economic success. During the
past few years, a great increase in productivity was reached by the use of better feed, higher densities of
fish per cubic meter of water, treatment of diseases and more efficient practices to control water quality.
These technological developments allowed for more profits through a decrease in production costs and
lead to the expansion of cultivated area (Boyd and Tucker, 1995), but public concerns in relation with the
environment have recently appeared. Therefore, aquaculture must work towards the development of
production systems based on "Best Management Practices" to prevent, mitigate and solve adverse
environmental impacts (Boyd and Schmittou, 1999).
MATERIALS
Catfish (letalurns punctalus) farming is generally done in large man made ponds, in former
croplands or pastures. According to Boyd and Tucker (1995) the ponds most frequently used in West
Alabama are watershed and levee types. The ponds use runoff water and water pumped from wells or
adjacent streams. The ponds have steel tubes that, in the periods of intense rain, allow for drainage of
excess water. Complete drainage of ponds is done only every 6 to 10 years. The renewal of pond water is
avoided for economic reasons. The size of the catfish farms varies from 4 to 60 hectares and the flooded
area usually occupies 85% of farm. An economical size, for optimum benefit was estimated to be around
40 ha. The area of the ponds varies from 0.1 to 15 ha (average 5.4 ha) and pond depth from 1.2 to 1.5
meters. The basin drainage area that delivers water to watershed ponds is 6.32 ha per I ha of pond . The
characteristic topography is gently rolling prairie and the source of water is rain, run off, wells and water
streams.
Net seepage from ponds averages 1.5 mmJday (0.556 m3/m'lday) which does not represent risk
of contamination of ground water by percolation of the compounds added to the ponds like lime, salt,
chemical fertilizers and feed. Phosphate is usually adsorbed by pond soils and sediments and bound in
largely unavailable form. Masuda and Boyd (1994), working with experimental channel catfish ponds at
Auburn University, found that more than 66% of the phosphate added to feeds was bound in bottom soils.
In a recent study (Boyd et al., 2000) demonstrated that adding salt to reduce problems of nitrite intoxication,
does not appear to be a significant problem down stream. The amounts added do not raise chloride
concentrations above levels tolerated by freshwater species endemic to the region. Therefore, since the
chloride concentration in pond water is not high, its concentration in ground water produced by seepage
might be low.
Every year the ponds are stocked with fingerlings, 10 to 15 cm long, produced in 7 to 10 months
by hatchery farms. The type of feed used by the catfish industry consists of commercial pellets with 2836% crude protein. The ratio between the weight of feed and fish produced in the pond is known as food
conversion rate (FCR) and generally decreases with the increase of stocking density and feeding rates.
Catfish are grown in ponds with stocking densities of 10,000 to 12,000 fishlha and after 6 to 8 months
they reach 400 to 600 grams. Then the catfish are seined, usually without draining ponds, and taken out of
the ponds with a crane and placed alive in special trucks for transportation to fish processing plants,
located in the area.
Aerators are used to maintain good levels of dissolved oxygen in the ponds. Aeration power
applied to ponds varies from 1.5 up to 6 HP.fha. Most catfish farmers do not use more than 3 HP.fha
(Boyd and Tucker, 1995). Normally, neither water exchange nor effiuent treatments in settling basins or
wetlands are used. Reconstruction of embankments is done when necessary and sediments are not disposed
outside the ponds. Chemical products, such as lime, fertilizers, salt and algaecides are frequently used.
Culture of another fish species, such as grass carp, is a common practice for macrophyte control. In many
cases, the infiltration of water compensates the amount of water that is being pumped from the aquifers to
supply the levee ponds. Electricity for pumping and aeration consumes 1,200 to 9,000 kWhlha per crop.
Representative values are 3,000 and 4,000 kWhlha for humid and arid climates, respectively. Depending
172
Chapter 14. Emergy Analysis ojChannel Catfish Farming in Alabama

on humidity of climates (evaporation rate), infiltration, and draining frequency the electricity used for
water supply and level maintenance varies from 500 to 2,000 kWh/ha (Shelton and Boyd, 1993).
Catfish farmers normally received US$ 1.76 per kg of catfish and the electricity usually costs
US$ 0.06 to 0.10 per kWh in the Southeast of the USA. Electricity expenses constitute a small portion of
catfish production cost (Boyd et aI., 2000). The farm budget includes construction and maintenance of
ponds, fingerlings production, mechanized fish feeding with trucks, mechanized fish seining, transport of
supplies and other products, and farmer's family consumption.
The labor force is small and usually consists of a manager and some field workers to feed the
fish on farms bigger than 80 ha. In smaller farms, the family assumes direct responsibility for maintenance,
production and control of ponds. The intensity of work is larger during summer due to greater feed
consumption and also due to problems with water quality - mainly eutrophication -, which requires aeration.
Normally, families involved with catfish farming in Alabama have a good living standard. Small children
-usually two per family -livewith their parents until 17-18 years old, when they leave their homes to go
to College.
Nowadays, catfish farming is being questioned from the ecological point of view. Main concerns
are the large amounts of feed with high protein levels required to produce catfish in ponds, the chemical
substances added to ponds and electric power demand for pumping and aeration. If seining is not done
properly, sediments could be suspended and go down-stream, causing problems with water quality. Besides
the adoption of the best management practices, such as those proposed by Boyd and coworkers (1995,
1999, and 2000), it will be necessary to develop more sustainable systems according to Agenda 21
Agreements. New production models must be discussed between the research centers, governmental
agencies and producers, in order to reduce environmental impacts. In this study, Emergy Analysis is used
to understand aquaculture systems performance and, in future research and it will be used to quantify the
costibenefit ratio of issues promoted by environmental regulations. If these efforts are successful, this
technique could induce progressive environmental advances leading to more sustainable aquaculture
systems.
water infiltr3tion
in local aquifer
gca....
w"""'wilh
"---t-----'\
OlgatUc matter and
aquifer stream
....:::::=:::
:::
==_:::::"'"'
:: <MrlI:+ """"
",
"
Figure 1.
poDd infiltration
Energyflows diagram of a catfish farm in Central West Alabama, USA
-173-
soluble solids
with
Chapter
J 4.
Emergy Analysis of Channel Ca!ftsh Farming in Alabama
A graphical description of catfish fanning in West Alabama is provided in Figure 1. All inputs of
a typical catfish farm with 40 ha of grow-out ponds were considered, including contributions from
nature and inputs from main economy. The flows can be transformed into emergy flows using
"transformities" (Odum, 1996) and could be aggregated (Figure 2) as renewable (R) and non-renewable
(N) nature resources; materials (M) and services (S) from economy and interpreted using emergy ratios
(Odum, 1996),listed below.
Transformity: Tr = (Y/Qp) it expresses how much resources are needed to outcome a specific
product. Y is the emergy used to obtain a certain product. Qp is the energy of product.
Renewability: %R = 100 (RIY) - it evaluates the sustainabiJity of any kind of production system.
It is expressed in percentage (%R), and is defined as the relationship between the emergy of renewable
resources (R), such as, rain, sediments, superficial and ground water, biodiversity and soil, divided by
total emergy used to produce a product (Y).
Emergy Yield Ratio: EYR (Y/F) it measures the incorporation of emergy from nature and
it is expressed as the ratio of total emergy invested (y), from nature (I) and economy (F), per unit of
economy feedback (F), that considers material and services used.
Emergy Investment Ratio: EIR (FII) it shows the relationship between the sum of materials
and services (M + S) involved in the production process, expressed as economy feedback (F), and the
sum of renewable and non-renewable natural resources expressed as (I). I is equal to R + N.
Environmental Loading Ratio: ELR N+F)IR) it represents the relationship between the
non-renewable resources (N+F), divided by the renewable resources (R).
Emergy Exchange Ratio: EER Y/[($).(sejl$) it shows the relationship between the emergy
of product divided by emergy contained in the money received by its selling.
Transformity of human labor In Alabama catfish fanns usually the family takes care of the
system operation. It was possible to estimate family consumption (material and services) and the work
done by one person dedicated full time to carry out all production activities.
-
Economy resources
F= M+S= 1399
Nature resources
I=R+N=466
ir=:R=20
r-:===::::==
S=470
Total Emergy
Y=I +F= 1865
Aquaculture
Pond
1--+--. Catfish
5107 kg' year tha

2.89 E13 JI year tha
Emergy flows are multiplied by

E13 sej/year tha
Figure 2. Aggregated Emergyflows diagram
of a catfish farm in Central West Alabama.
-174-
Chapter 14. Emergy Analysis o/Channel Ca!fish Farming in Alabama

Sustainable Fish Farming Practices - Emergy indexes could be improved by the adoption of
Best Management Practices (BMP's) described by Boyd et al., (2000). Their use may reduce impacts
caused by site limitations, bad design, and poor management. For example:
Reduction of erosion and deterioration of water quality
It can be avoided (a) protecting the adjacent areas of catfish ponds with grass cover on denuded
areas, (b) providing grass cover on the interior and exterior of pond embankments, (c) diverting excess
water flow of large watersheds away from ponds, (e) minimizing erosion of pond bottoms and embankments
caused by aerators placed at wrong sites.
Reduction of down stream pollution
It can be mitigated through: (a) avoiding discharge of water during final seining, (b) avoiding
leaving ponds empty during winter, (c) shutting valves when ponds are empty, (d) closing valves when
renovating inside earthwork, (e) using sediment removed from pond to repair the embankments, (I)
extending drain pipes beyond the base of the embankments, (g) constructing ditches to minimize erosion,
(h) using concrete structures to reduced the water current along the drainage channels, (i) extending
drainage pipes until the streams to avoid bank erosion and releasing pond effiuents into natural wetlands.
Overcome of pond support capacity
It can be prevented by avoiding (a) excessive fish density and (b) excessive feed use.
RESULTS
Emergy evaluation of channel catfish farming is given in Table I. A summary of monetary costs
and emdollar values of the resource use in channel catfish farming is given in Table 2. Emergy flows
supporting channel catfish farming are summarized in Figure 2.
Transformity was calculated dividing the emergy used (Y 1.865 EI6 sej/y/ha) by the energy
that catfish supplies when it is consumed as food (Qp 2.89 EIO J/y/ha). The value obtained, 646,152
sej/J is similar to vegetable products transformity, which vary from 100,000 to 1,000,000 and slightly
lower than other animal production systems in USA, such as, confined poultry and pigs (1,500,000).
The renewability (%R) obtained for catfish production in West Central Alabama is 24%. In
other words, 76% of the emergy to produce a catfish comes from non-renewable resources (fossil fuels),
which could characterize a non-sustainable system. Through the use of ecological techniques, regional
planning and environmental policy this index could increase. Natural systems have renewability values
close to 100%. The adoption of more sustainable techniques by catfish farmers, which might take profit
from the use of natural energy sources, such as, run-off and biodiversity, could improve this system. Solar
and also wind energy could be used for aerators and water pumps. Integration of animal breeding like,
poultry and pigs, combining agriculture and forestry with aquaculture systems could provide ways to
reduce the input of commercial feed in a polyculture fisb production. Nowadays, fossil fuels supply the
energy used in production systems all over the world. If they begin to decrease in the next decades the
systems with lower percentage of renewability will face serious problems.
The emergy yield ratio obtained for catfish farming in West Central Alabama (1.33) is better
than farm production systems using conventional agriculture, which are normally lower (1.10). This
index could increase, from a minimum of 1.0 to values around 2 to 3 through the incorporation of ecological
procedures, such as the integration of forestry and catfish systems.
The emergy investment ratio and the environmental loading rate have very close values. The
EIR and ELR values obtained for the catfish industry in West Alabama varies from 3.0 to 3.2, values
which are lower than the average for agriculture (7) and for animal breeding (8). Thus, when these
indexes are compared to other animal production systems in use in the USA, the catfish industry appears
to show better ecological behavior than poultry, pigs and cattle breeding whose values, on average, bigger
(12.0).
The emergy exchange ratio shows that catfish production systems are losing emergy through
exchange with the external system, which is composed of owners of the processing plants - their main
fish buyers. Catfish systems in West Alabama spend 1.7 times more emergy to produce their fish than
the value received in sales.
-175-
Chapter
Table
1.
14.
Emergy Analysis afChannel Catfish Farming in Alabama
Eme rgy Accounting Table

Empower
Resource
Quantity
Units
Conversion
Slflow
Units
factor
Transformity
x E+13
(sej/unit)
sejfylba
Renewable
1.33
0.42
0.72
Rain
Watershed water
Water from well
m3/m2/ yr 4.94E+1O
m3/m2/ yr 4.94E+I0
m'fm'lyr 4.94E+1O
6.57E+10
3.16E+10
3.56E+10
Jfylba
Jfylba
Jfylba
1.83E+04
4.85E+O
4.85E+04
119.9
153.2
172.4
6.43
8.22
9.24
9.04E+05
2.78E+09
Jfylba
7.38E+04
20.5
1.10
$fylba
$fylba
$fylba
fishfylba
kg/ylba 3.39E+06
kg/ylba
kg/ylba
kg/ylba
kg/ylba
kgfylba
$fylba
kWh/ylba 3.60E+06
160.0
160.0
160.0
1.75E+02
2.12E+IO
113.0
12.0
0.5
30.0
800.0
15.0
1.1E+I0
$fylba
$fylba
$lylba
$fylba
Jfylba
kgfylba
kg/ylba
kgfylba
kg/ylba
kg/ylba
$lylba
Jfylba
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
2.00E+05
1.00E+12
1.I0E+12
8.24E+14
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
2.00E+05
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.9
423.8
11.3
1.3
42.8
3.8
100.0
1.9
216.0
0.67
0.67
0.67
1.17
22.73
0.61
0.07
2.30
0.20
5.36
0.10
11.58
Non-renewable
Watershed sediment 3076.00
kg/ylba
Materials
Ponds and channels 160.0
160.0
House and bam
160.0
Machinery
3500
Fingerlings
6250.0
Feed
113.0
Lime
12.0
Fertilizers
0.5
Herbicide
30.0
Algaecide -CuS04
Nitrite control-NaCl 800.0
15.0
Other products
3000.0
Electricity
Fuel
230.0
kgfylba
4.48E+07
1.03E+1O
Jlylba
6.60E+04
68.0
3.65
daysfylba
$lylha
$fylba
$lylha
$fylba
$fylba
$fylba
1.23E+07
1.15E+08
50.0
120.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
Jfylba
$fylba
$lylba
$fylba
$fylba
$lylba
$lylba
3.65E+07
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
417.9
6.3
15.0
12.5
6.3
0.0
12.5
22.41
0.33
0.79
0.66
0.33
0.00
0.66
Services
9.1
Family labor
Extemal labor force 50.0
Extern. managementl20.0
100.0
Public services
50.0
Insurance
0.0
Subsidy
Loan
100.0
Catfish farm production

Total mass produced
5107
kgfylba
Conversion factor
Energy
Emergy of product
5.65E+06
2.89E+IO
1.86E+16
J/kg
Jfylba
sejlylba
Results
Aggregated Emergy
Flow
R
N
I
M
S
F
Y
x E+13
(sejfylba)
445.5.0
20.5
466.0
928.3
470.4
1398.7
1 864 7
Price
1.76
Sales
8999
Emergy of sales
money
I.IE+16
Emergy Indexes
Transformity
Emergy Yield ratio
Renewability (%)
Emergy Exchange Ratio
-176-
US$/kg
US $lylba
sejlylba
Shorten
Value
Tr
EYR
EIR
ELR
%R
EER
646152
1.33
3.0 0
3.1 9
23.89
1.66
Chapter 14. Emergy Analysis of Channel Catfish Farming in Alabama

Table 2. Monetary costs and emdollar values of resources flows in channel catfish farming
Resource
Rain
Watershed water
Water from well
Watershed sediment
Ponds and channels
House and barn
Machinery
Fingerlings
Fee d
Lime
Fertilizers
Herbicide
AlgaecideCuS04
Nitrite controlNaCI
Other products
Electricity
Fuel
Family lahor
External lahor force
External management
Public services
Insurance
Subsidy
Loan
Quantity
1.33
0.42
0.72
3076.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3500
6250.0
113.0
12.0
0.5
30.0
800.0
15.0
3000.0
230.0
77.0
50.0
120.0
100.0
50.0
0
100.0
Un its
Unitary price
m3/m2year
m3/m2year
m3/ m2 year
kg/y/ha
$/y/ha
$Iy/ha
$/y/ha
lis bly/ha
kg/y/ha
kg/y/ha
kg/y/ha
k giy/ha
kg/y/ha
kg/y/ha
$/y/ha
kWhly/ha
kg/y/ha
b Iy/ha
$Iy/ha
$/y/ha
$Iy/ha
$/ylha
$lylha
$Iy/ha
Monetary cost
(US$Iy/ha)
0
0
0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
175.0
2,500.0
1.7
3.2
4.6
54.0
1,704.0
15.0
210.0
161.0
1,216.4
50.0
120.0
100.0
50.0
0
100.0
0
0
0
0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.050
0.400
0.015
0.270
8.850
1.800
2.130
1.000
0.070
0.700
15.79
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6,764.9
Total
Economic rentability:
Net income
Sales Economic Cost
3270
Annual expenses
Economic Production Cost
5729
57,1 %
-177-
Emdollars
(US$/y/ha)
959.2
1,225.7
1,378.9
164.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
175.0
3,390.7
90.4
10.6
342.8
30.0
800.0
15.0
1,728.0
544.1
3343.5
SO.O
120.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
14,917.6
Chapter 14. Emergy Analysis ofChannel Catfish Farming in Alabama

DISCUSSION
Levee ponds probably have worse emergy indices than watershed ponds because they have
fewer contributions from nature and demand more construction efforts.
The intensification of catfish production systems through the development of more sophisticated
techniques over the last years provided better economic yields but reduced ecological performance. In
order to achieve better economic yields farmers invested in machinery that led to higher inputs and costs
per area of production. The increase offish stocking will demand the increase of feed supply to the ponds,
and this situation could lead to the accumulation of greater amounts of uneaten feed and faeces on the
pond bottom. In this case the organic matter decomposing rate could be overcome causing the increasing
of BOD and the reduction ofFCR. Boyd et aI (2000) suggests the adoption of lower stocking and feeding
rates which will improve emergy yield rate, due to the reduction of fingerling acquisition, feed consumption
and environmental loading rate. These measures will promote better water quality conditions, recovery
of food conversion rate and less stress to culture fish reducing disease occurrence. This approach will
directly improve the survival and the productivity rates.
USA aquaculture could face problems due to market opening in consequence of globalization.
Thus, production systems based on non-renewable natural resources may not be able to compete with
systems characterized by lower economic investment (F) aod greater contribution by nature (I), and may
become uneconomical. New technical designs combined with regional planning and trade rules must be
considered to evaluate and conduct development strategies for systems, which now demand higher
non-renewable inputs.
CONCLUSIONS
Agriculture systems currently used in the USA are dependent on non-renewable resources, such
as fertilizers, pesticides and chemical products, involved in the manufacture of basic ingredients and
services. The emergy indexes obtained for the catfish industry in West Alabama confirms that dependence,
but it is smaller compared to other animal protein production systems.
The price of petroleum is kept below its real value, creating a subsidy to the products, directly
and indirectly obtained from it Nevertheless, this resource is limited and according to specialists like
Campbell (1997), oil crises cannot be avoided in the near future and strategies to reduce the dependence
on fossil fuels must be taken into consideration for further development planning.
The applications of the BMP's will allow some improvement of the efficiency of aquaculture
systems in general by reducing loses of soil by erosion and water by overllow, run off, seepage, evaporation
and harvest As materials and services also count in the calculations of the total emergy used to produce
a certain product, they need to be well managed. For example, by using better fish feeds with lower
concentrations of protein of animal origin there will be a lower potential to pollute the water in the
fishponds.
Better fish feeds means better food conversion rates, which also means better water quality,
effluents with lower concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous and minor eutrophication of water streams.
This also implies in lower costs of production, due to better efficiency of feed uptake by the fish which
has a direct impact on the quantity of materials needed for fish production, like mechanical aerators and
fish feed. W here a low quality fish feed is used combined with poor pond management, an increase in
services such as the amount of aeration, disease control and algae bloom control, will occur.
Besides this, the recommendations for more sl.\stainable agricultural systems, suggested by the
Agenda 2 1 Documents, at global and national levels, could be a guidance to make progressive adjustments
to reduce environmental and social impacts caused by the production systems presently in use all over the
world.
Catfish farming in West Alabama has already proved its profitability over the last decades and
its benefits in improving the standards of life in that particular region in the USA. The biggest challenge
for the catfish industry will be the development and adoption of culture systems and management techniques
less dependent on non-renewable resources. Further studies need to be realized in order to answer these
questions.
-178-

Suggestions For Future Studies
Some innovations in relation emergy methodology were achieved, such as identification of family
consumption and calculation of labor transformity and inclusion of economical accounting side by side
with emergy flows in the same spreadsheet. However new achievements will be necessary for future
emergy calculations regarding the description and measurement of water, phosphorous and sodium cycles,
estimation or measurement of seepage water (quantity and quality), discussion of how to consider NaCl
(as renewable or not). As well as the substitution of money flows by material or energy flows when
possible. Better description of the correspondence between BMPs and Emergy Indexes is necessary. A
complete study of liquid, gaseous and solid effluents, estimation of emergy needed for effluent treatment.
The application of mathematical models and computer simulation to verify the positive effects of the
adoption of sustainable practices will be done in further studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express our gratitude to Ms. Hilary Castle de Menezes, Carla Lanzotti, Mara Cornelio and
Maria Conghos of FE A-Unicamp for their kind support in the preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
Boyd, C. E. 1995. Bottom Soils, Sediment and Pond Aquaculture. Chapman and Hall,
New York. 348 pages.
Boyd, C. E., Queiroz, J. F., W hitis, G. N., Rowan, M., Lee, J., and Amit Gross. 2000. Environmental
Assessment of Channel Catfish Farming in Alabama. Journal of world Aqua culture sociaty.
Vol. 31, No.4 p 511-544.
Boyd, C. E. and C. S. Tucker. 1995. Sustainability of channel catfish farming. World
Aquaculture 26:45-53.
Boyd, C. E. and H R. Schmittou. 1999. Achievement of sustainable aquaculture through environmental
management. Aquaculture Economics and Management. Volume 3, No.1. 1999. 59-69 pp.
Campbell, C. J. 1997. "The Coming Oil Crises", Multi-Science Publishing Company & Petroconsultants.
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1997. Aquaculture Production Statistics
1985-1994, 1997. Fisheries Circular No. 815. Revision 8. Fishery Information, Data and
Statistics Unit, FAO Fisheries Department, Rome, Italy.
-
Masuda, K. and C. E. Boyd. 1994. Effects of aeration, alum treatment, liming and organic matter application
on phosphorus exchange between pond soil and water in aquaculture ponds at Auburn, Alabama.
Journal of the WorldAquaculture Society 25:405-416.
Odum, H T., 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Odum, HT. 1983, 1993. Ecological and General Systems (formerly Systems Ecology). Univ. Press of
Colorado, CO.
Odum, H.T. 1986. Emergy in ecosystems. pp. 337-369 in Environmental Monographs and Symposia, ed.
by N. Polunin, John Wiley, NY
Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making. John Wiley, NY 370 pp.
Odum, H T., 1998. Emergy Evaluation, in "Advances in Energy Studies: Energy Flows in Ecology and
Economy", Proceedings ofInternational Workshop held at Porto Venere, Italy, May 26-30, 1998,
ed. by mgiati, S.; Brown, M. T., Giampietro, M.; Mayumi, K. & Henderson, R. MUSIS, Rome,
Italy, pages 99 -112.
-179-

Ortega, E., 1997. "Sustainable Development and Integrated Systems for Food and Energy Production".
First Workshop on New Paradigms of Science, Federal University of Silo Carlos, SP, Brazil,
October 26. bttp'flwww unicamp brlfeaJortega/sustain/Slidel btm
Ortega,
E., 1998.
"Contabilidade Ambiental e Economica de Projetos Agro-industriais", Conference at
XVI Brazilian Food Science and Technology Congress; RI. http'Uwwwunicamp brlfea/ortega/
SJls tain/sljdeO ] btm

Ortega, E., 2000. "A sustentabilidade na produyiio de alimentos e a Agenda 21 do Brasil", Conference at
XVII Brazilian Food Science and Technology Congress, CEo http'/lwwwllnicampbrlfealortega/
agenda2 ]!index btm
Shelton, J. L. Jr. and C. E. Boyd. 1993. Water budgets for aquaculture ponds supplied by runoff with
reference to effiuent volume. Journal of Applied Aquaculture 2(1): 1-27.
Appendix Table. Calculation of transfonnity of labor used in channel catfish farming
Family consumption
Resource
Units
Quantity
Factor
Flow
SI units
Tr
(sej/unit)
Water
Electricity
Food
Clothes
Health
Education
Leisure
Telephone
Fuel
36000.0
4000.0
116.8
80.0
kglylha
kWh/ylha
kglylha
$/ylha
80.0
$Iy/ha
80.0
$lylha
80.0
30.0
$lylha
$/ylha
200.0
$lylha
4940.00
3.6E+{)6
1.02E+{)7
1.78E+{)8
1.4E+1O
J/ylha
J/ylha
1.2E+{)9
80.0
J/ylha
$/ylha
$/ylha
$lylha
$/ylha
5.00E+{)5
$Iylha
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
80.0
80.0
80.0
30.0
200.0
1.00E+{)5
2.00E+{)5
$Iylha
1.25E+12
1.25E+12
. 0.10
15.44
10.0
1.25E+12
10.0
sejlhalyear
J/ha year
Energy of farm local labor
1.15E+{)8
Energy per day
1.23E+{)7
J/day
Transformity (energy basis)
3.65E+{)7
sej/J
Transformity (time basis)
45.8E+!4
sej/day
Transformity (time basis)
5.70E+13
sejlhour
-180-
1.8
10.0
10.0
4.18E+15
288.0
59.4
1.25E+12
Family labor transformity

Emergy consumed by family
Emergy
(sejlylha)
3.8
25.0
3.19
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.20
1.34
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
15
Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horti
cultural Production in Botucatu, Sao Paulo State, Brazil
Vito Comar
ABSTRACT
The horticultural production systems of two farms within the same climatic area and region
were evaluated using emergy on a hectare basis. Chacara SantoAntonio counts with fertile, well drained
soil where a couple manage crops, transport and sales with 9 permanent workers. It has a mean monthly
production of 8,600 kg in an intensive plantation of 3.5 ha. Estancia Demetria is run by the Biodynamic
22 permanent workers, and produces monthly

19,000 kg of vegetables on 12. 74 ha. Both farms make extensive use of water.
The emergy evaluation of both farms showed that: 1) The organic system studied, as it is practised
Institute on poor. sandy and easily eroded soil, using

around
today, demonstrates greater dependence on exogenous human inputs, which could be prejudicial in a
future of resource scarcity; 2) Both farms have to resolve more appropriately their water use and diminish
their intake by intelligent changes in the system of getting water to their crop;
3) The emergy evaluation
should account for environmental services to dilute pollutants generated and spread over the landscape
by negative values on the productionfunction.
1. INTRODUCTION
The search for more environmentally sustainable agricultural production processes is related to
cultural acceptance of new farming techniques that foster them.
It has been recognised that organic agricultural systems are less dependent on exogenous energy
sources than conventional ones (Odum,
1996; Baptista, 1993; Ehlers, 1996) and that they display in
various degrees the capacity to recuperate soil structure and micro-fauna diversity (Brazilian Ministry for
Environment,
1995; Ehlers, 1996 ). This would possibly allow for more sustainable agricultural production
systems.
The horticultural production systems of two farms within the same climatic area and region
were evaluated using emergy on a hectare basis. Chacara Santo Antonio counts with fertile, well drained
soil where a couple manage crops, transport and sales with 9 permanent workers. It has a mean monthly
production of
8 ,600 kg in an intensive plantation of 3. 5 ha. Estancia Demetria is run by the Biodynamic
Institute on poor, sandy and easily eroded soil, using 22 permanent workers, and produces monthly around
19 ,000 kg of vegetables on 12.74 ha. Both farms make extensive use of water.
2. METHODS
2.1 System diagrams and emergy tables
The methodology for emergy evaluation of general production systems has been described by
H.T. Odum (Odum, 1996 ). In this paper the horticultural production systems of both farms have been
-181-
Chapter
15.
Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horticultural
summarised by energy systems diagrams (see Figure I and 2). Yearly emergy flows on an hectare basis
have been added to the paths that connect outside energy and materials supplying sources (circles outside
system limits) to production components (bullet type box). The diagrams have been aggregated below the
detailed ones, cumulating all emergy flows. For this reason, their values, which are part of the Results
section, are presented in Methods.
Emergy tables have been compiled according to the above cited methodology and emergy indices
used are discussed in Section D.
2.2 Conventional system of horticultural production -Chacara Santo Antonio,

Botucatu County
This small farm of
5 .2 ha produces a monthly average of 8 ,600 kg of horticultural products

3.5 ha. It is situated next to Estancia Demetria (700 m) in dystrophic
using an intensive crop area of
purple clay Latossol, which is deep, well drained and of high fertility. The owners, Mr. Joaquim and wife
work in the administration of the farm, in the delivery of production and he operates the tractor. They
employ 9 pennanent workers.
2.3 Biodynamic vegetable production system - Demetria Farm, Botucatu

County
This farm of 145.2 ha, has a mean monthly vegetable production of 19,225 kg, using an area of
12.74 ha. It is just 700 meters away from Fazenda Joaquim, on sandy, medium texture, low fertility and
erosion susceptible soil. It is run by a society connected to the Biodynamic Institute, which practices the
principles of Biodynamic agriculture in its production system, using biological processed of soil
recomposition and imported Biodynamic products. These are naturally made and act as catalysts in the
growth process.
22 pennanent staff work in the garden the year round. The administrative part of the
main farm, which includes cattle raising and other activities, takes also care of the management system of
the vegetable garden. 2 tractors are partly used in the horticultural work, for the preparation of the lanes,
transport and incorporation of farm-produced cow manure, several activities for crop treatment and the
transport of production to market. An irrigation system of 12 water ejectors is being used with a deep well
pump, within the property, which is practically used the year round, except two rainy months.
2.4 Indices used - Emergy Ratios

The calculated
Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR), YIF, is the proportion between emergy produced
(Y - yield) and emergy provided by human inputs (F - Feedback) and represents a contribution of emergy
surplus to the region's economy. The
Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR ), FII, shows the relationship
between human emergy inputs (F - Feedback) and environmental inputs (I - Inputs, both renewable and
non-renewable).
The
Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR), (F + N) I R, is the ratio between the sum of
human-contributed emergies and of natural non-renewable resources and all incident renewable emergies.
The
Emergy Sustainability Index (SI), is the ratio between EYR and ELR, being a measure of
the sustainability of the process; greater EYRs over smaller ELRs detennine a more sustainable system.
The transformity is the amount of emergy, energetic solar equivalents (sej), necessary to produce
I Joule of a specific product. It is the ratio obtained dividing the total emergy used by the energy produced
by the process. Its dimensions are emergy per energy. It is calculated by summing all emergy flows which
enter the process and dividing this total by the energy of the resulting p roduct. Transfonnities are used to
convert different types of energy to energy of the same type.
The
Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER, Emergy of the product over emergy paid for it) represents
the bargaining power between emergy found in the products sold and the emergy which is received in
money (in emergy equivalents). Nonnally, because of the fact of not accounting for contributions from
-182-
Chapter
15.
nature in economics budgets and in price composition, agricultural products are invariably several times
more valuable in emergy terms than the price which they are paid for.
2.5 Assumptions
Manpower and administrative proportions of invested inputs

Manpower was divided into man hours for the 9 permanent hired workers (calculated in expended
calories and converted into Joules, administrative expenses and social compensation costs were calculated
on a dollar base and manpower for the owners was calculated in expended calories. These values were
then converted on a common emergy basis in sej/halyear, as part of the human inputs (F).
3. RESULTS
3.1 Conventional horticultural farm - Chacara Santo Antonio
Emergy evaluation of the conventional horticultural system is given in Table 1 and summarized
in Figure 1.
The emergy evaluation (Table I) of this system suggests the following points:
The great quantity of water being pumped from the river;
I.
2.
The proportion of manpower invested in human inputs as the major contribution;
3.
The relatively high use of organic manure.
3.1.1 The great quantity of pumped river water
The daily average of pumped river water is of 300,000 liters, which represents in emergy terms
9S.7% of all natural resources contributions to the process of horticultural production. This is equivalent
to 108.64% of all human contributions, or feedback (F), to the same process.
3.1.2 Manpower proportion in invested inputs
Manpower was divided into man hours for the 9 permanent hired workers (calculated in
expended calories and converted into Joules, resulting in 7.13 E9 J/halyear, Table I , line 12), administra
tive expenses and social compensation costs (on a dollar base, corresponding to 2,230 $/halyear, Table I ,
line 13) and manpower for the owners (calculated in expended calories, 2.18 E9 J/halyear). Converting
these values on a common emergy basis, a total of 2,682.28 EI6 sej/halyear is reached, corresponding to
SS. 03% of all human inputs, or F.
3.1.3 The relatively high use of organic manure
$600 are invested monthly for cow dung, as organic manure, representing 20.65% of human
inputs to production, by large the second highest item in F, after manpower costs, with 991. S4 E 13 sej/hal
year. W hich favors the principle of the integration between agricultural production, in this case of
horticultural produce, and animal husbandry.
3.2 Biodynamic vegetable production system - Demetria Farm
The emergy evaluation of the biodynamic prOduction system is given in Table 2 and
summarized in Figure 2.
The emergy evaluation (Table 2) of this system leads to some important considerations:
I. The large quantity of well-pumped water;
-1&3-
Chapter 15. Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horticultural
Table 1:
Emergy evaluation table for the horticultural production system of Chacar. Santo Antonio.
Note
Item
Unit/year Transformity
sej/unit
Solar eMergy
E13sejlhalyr
116.03
85.30
5216.81
33.23
1.13
0.83
50.88
0.32
5451.36
53.17
148.73
991.54
132.21
13.77
103.94
28.71
368.69
1426.23
1074.17
141.88
372.02
1.45
9.67
1.29
0.13
1.01
0.28
3.60
13.91
10.48
1.38
3.63
4801.89
46.83
10253.26
100.00
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRIBUTION ( I )
2
3
FEEDBACK (F)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
7.74E+1O 1.50E+04
J 2.08E+1O 4.IOE+04
Well pumped water
J 1.27E+12 4.IIE+04
River pumped water
J 5.27E+09 6.30E+04
Soil loss due to soil use
SUM OFENV. EMERGY CONTRIBUTIONS ( I )
Rain's chemical potential
Human Inputs
$ 3.09E+02
2.06E+03
$ 2.74E+02
Chemical fertilizer
$ 2.86E+01
Insecticides
J 1.96E+ 10
Fuels (tractor)
g 4.29E+04
Machinery
J 1. 84E+10
Electricity
J 7.13E+09
Manpower (man-hours)
Manpower (contracted -money) $ 2.23E+03
J 2.18E+09
Manpower (owners couple)
$ 7.72E+02
Invested infrastructure
TOTAL HUMAN CONTRIBUTION (F)
Seeds
Purchased cow dung
4. 82E+ 12
4. 82E+12
4. 82E+12
4.82E+12
5.30E+04
6.70E+09
2.00E+05
2.00E+06
4. 82E+12
6.50E+05
4. 82E+12
PRODUCTION PROCESS (Y)
16
Horticultural production
g 4.32E+ 11 2.37E+05
Footnotes given at end of chapter.
2. Manpower as the major contribution in invested inputs;

3. The high use of cow dung as organic manure.
3.2.1 The large quantity of well-pumped water
The mean daily quantity of well-pumped water is of 450,050 liters, except during around 2
months per year, which represents in emergy terms 93.56% of all natural resource contributions to the
vegetable production process. This is equivalent to 34% of all environmental (I) and human, or 'feedback'
(F) contributions to the same process.
Here also, like for Chacara SI. Antonio, although a proportion of this water returns to the
underground water table, most is lost through evaporation in the aspersion process, a lot is lost through
subsequent evaporation to its partial absorption in the soil, and a certain amount is incorporated in the
organic tissues of vegetables. This production system is totally dependent on a great amount of water
intake.
-184-
15.
Chapter
Chemical
fertilizers
:' 10253.3
Vegetables
Chacara St. Antonio (6.2 hal
4801.89
Flows in E13 sej/ha/year
F
Human
Inputs
1+ N
Environmental
Contrlbutions
64 1 36
---"=-'-"'''-'"1
Vegetable production
system
10253.26
Flows in E13 s8j1ha/year
Figure 1.
Horticultural production system o/Chacara SantoAntonio, Botucatu.
3.2.2 Proportion of manpower in invested inputs

Manpower was divided into manhours, for the 22 workers (calculated in expended calories and
converted in Joules, resulting in 4.7 9 E 9 J/ha/year, Table 2), administrative expenses and labor taxes
(on a dollar basis, corresponding to 1, 880 $/ha/year). Converting these values in emergy terms we reach
a total of 1, 865 .80 E 1 3 sej/ha/year, hich correspond to 46.95% of all inputs of human contribution, or F.
3.2.3 The great usage of cow dung as organic manure

Monthly $7 80,00 are being used to buy cow dung from outside the system, as organic manure,
and an additional 19, 5 00 kg per month of cow dung produced in the adjacent Sitio Bahia (a section of
E stancia Demetria), which together represent 14.7 3% of human contributions to production, the second
item in importance ofF, after labor, with 957.7 9 E 1 3 sej/ha/year and administration of 9 08.01 E 13 sejl
ha/year. This makes the case for the need of integration between agricultural production, in this case
vegetables, and animal husbandry.
-185-
Chapter
Table 2.
15.
Emergy Evaluation ojOrganic and Conventional Horticultural
Emergy evaluation of the vegetable production system of Estancia Demetria., Botucatu County SP
(values per hectare)
Note
Item
Unit/year
Transformity Solar eMergy

E13 sej/halyr
sej/unit
1
Rain chemical potential
7. 74E+1O
l.50E+04
116.03
Well-pumped water
5. 28E+i1
4.11E+04
2169 . 13
34.47
Soil loss due to soil use
5.27E+09
6.30E+04
33.23
0.53
2318.39
36.85
544.80
8.66
SUM OFENVIRONMENTAL EMERGY

CONTRIBUTIONS ( I )
1.84
FEEDBACK (F) - Inpllts from hllman contriblltions

4
Seeds
1.13E+03
4.82E+12
Produced cow dung
Cow dung purchased
5.38E+i0
1 .06E+05
570.49
9.07
7.35E+02
4.82E+12
354.12
Biodynamic ingredients
5.63
l .57E+02
4.82E+i2
75.67
Fuels (tractor)
1. 20
3.11E+1O
5.30E+04
164.74
2.62
Machinery
10
Electricity
2.35E+04
6.70E+09
1 5.78
0.25
1.0IE+IO
2.00E+05
202.01
3.21
1l
Labor (man-hours)
4.79E+09
2.00E+06
9 57.79
15.22
12
Labor (administration)
13
Invested goods
1.88E+03
4.82E+12
908.01
14.43
3.74E+02
4.82E+12
180.21
2.86
3973.62
63.15
6292.01
100.00
TOTAL HUMAN CONTRIBUTION (F)

PRODUCTIVE PROCESS (Y)
14
2.65E+l l
3 . 28E+05
Footnotes given at end of chapter.
3.3 Emergy ratios and comparisons

3.3.1 Santo Antonio's (Conventional) Emergy Ratios
The calculated Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) of 2.1 4 represents a contribution of 1.14 of emergy
surplus to the region's economy. The Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR ) of 0.88 denotes a low ratio
between human and environmental inputs. This is mainly due to the high free emergy contribution of
river water and not to the fact of there being a small human input. This ratio is almost twice inferior to its
Botucatu regional counterpart, of 1.66, and indicates that the farm's production system is quite competitive
in relation to the others in the region. This is again due, by large, to the great availability of free river
water which alleviates the relationship between human investments and the contribution of natural
resources.
-186-
Chapter
15.
Electricity
/6694.1
. Vegetables
Estancia Demitria (146.2 hal
Flows in E13 seJ/ha/year
F
6,370.7
1+ N
Environmental
Contributions
Human
Inputs
Vegetable
Production
System
2 318.39
8,689.14
Vegetable Production
Flows In E13 sejlhalyear

=
Figure 2. Vegetable production system a/Estancia Demetria, Botucatu.
EMERGYRATIOS
YIF
Emergy InveSbnent Ratio (EIR)
Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR)

Sustainability Ratio (SI)
2.14
F II
=
EYR I ELR
0.88
(F + N) I R
=
0.89
(Y I F) I [(F+ N) I R)
Horticulture Transfonnity Total Emergyl Production (energy)

(545I,4+4801,9)EI3sejlyear/4,32 EIlJIyear=
( I + F) Emergy I (Y) Energy
2.39
2.37E+OS
sej/J
The Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR), the ratio between the sum of human-contributed
emergies and of natural non-renewable resources (in this case soil loss of 33.23 EI3 sej/halyear), and all
incident renewable emergies (rain's chemical potential, 116.03 EI3 sej/halyear, well water, 85.3 EI3 sejl
halyear, and river pumped water, 5216.81 EI3 sej/halyear), is of 0.89, that is, there is 11% more of
renewable emergy than human and non-renewable ones.
The Emergy Sustainability Index (SI), or the ratio between EYR and ELR, is of2.039, which
is relatively high, as the process uses up much renewable river water emergy. This question will be
-187-
Chapter 15. Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horticultural

discussed in more detail in the comparison between this production system and the Biodynamic one of
Estancia Demetria.
The transformity for this horticultural system resulted in 2.3 7 E5 sej/J, which means that 237.000
Joules of original solar emergy are necessary for the production of! Joule of horticultural energy. Compared
to the values obtained in studies of United States horticultural systems, this would be considered a medium
value for that country. Considering the highly industrialized American production processes it can be
concluded that this transformity is relatively high for Brazilian conditions (no comparative Brazilian
studies are as yet available besides those developed in this paper).
The Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER, Emergy of the product over emergy paid for it) represents
the bargaining power between emergy found in the products sold and the emergy which is received in
money (in emergy equivalents). Normally, because of the fact of not accounting for contributions from
nature in economics budgets and in price composition, agricultural products are invariably several times
more valuable in emergy terms than the price which they are paid for. The Emergy Exchange Ratio for
Chacara St. Antonio is of 2.577, which means that, as a production system, this farm offers 2.577 times
more emergy than that it receives in corresponding monetary value. Compared to milk production of the
milk farms studied in Pardinho County (Comar 1998), which have Emergy Exchange Ratios of 4 up to 6,
these horticultural products are achieving a reasonable exchange value for its products.
3.3.2 Demetria's (Organic) Emergy Ratios

The ratio between produced and used emergy (EYR
Emergy Yield Ratio), is of 1.56, which
represents a contribution of just 0.56 of emergy 'surplus' to the regional economy, indicating a low
degree of efficiency in this production process (the quality of Biodynamic ally grown vegetables is not the
question here). The ration of human invested emergy to naturally contributed emergy (EIR
Emergy
Investment Ratio), is of 1.71, which denotes a relatively low ratio between human and natural resources
contribution. This is mainly due to the high manpower contribution, 1,865.80 E13 sej/halyear, of cow
dung, 925 E13 sej/halyear and of seeds, 544.8 E13 sej/halyear.
EMERGY RATIOS
Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) Y / F

Emergy Investment Ratio(EIR) F / I
Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) (F + N) / R
Sustainability Index(SI) EYR / ELR (Y / F) / [(F+ N)/ R]
Vegetable Transfonnity
Total Emergy/ Production(energy)
( I+ F ) eMergy /( Y ) energy
(2318.39+3973.62)EI3 sej/year / 2.65E l l J/year=
=
1.71
0.90
1.58
1.75
2.37E+05
sej/J
The Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR), ratio between the sum of human contributed emergies
and of non-renewable resources (in this case soil loss due to soil use, of 33.23 E13 sej/halyear), and all
incident renewable emergies (rain's chemical potential, 116.03 E13 sej/halyear, well-pumped water
2,169.13 E13 sej/ha/year), is of 1.75, this means that there are 1.75 times more human contributions than
. renewable and non-renewable ones.
Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI), or ratio between EYRand ELR, is of 0.90, which is relatively
low. This question will be taken up further on in the comparison between this production system and the
Biodynamic one of Estancia Demetria.
The transformity for the vegetables results in 2.37 E5 sej/J, which means that 237.000 Joules of
original solar emergy are necessary to the production of 1 Joule of energy in the vegetables of this
Biodynamic system; curiously this is exactly the same value for the transformity of the conventional
production system of Chacara Santo Antonio.
The Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER
Emergy of the productlEmergy paid for it), which
represents the buying power between the emergy present in the products sold and the emergy equivalent
-
-188-
Chapter
J5.
of what is received in money is of0.724 , forDemetria's vegetable production, or, as a production unit this
farm receives in monetary equivalents 1.38 times more emergy than it produces. Compared to the vegetable
production ofChacara SantoAntonio, which has an Emergy Exchange Ratio of2.577 (3 .56 times greater),
this vegetable production system is getting an extremely high exchange value, 3.56 times better than that
of SantoAntonio and quite uncommon for this type of product.
3.4 Comparing Demetria's and Santo Antonio evaluations
Table 3 compares emergy evaluation results for Estancia Demetria and St. Antonio.
The most important question of this comparison is related to water use, which is fundarnent.al in
all vegetable production processes. Due to the intensity of this vit.al resource, the other environment.al and
human inputs become secondary.
As already mentioned, the river water pumped from Chacara St. Antonio represents 50 , 8 8%
(5 ,216 .8 1 E13 sej/halyear) of all used emergies in the process of vegetable production, being the greatest
emergy contribution in the system, followed by manpower with 15.29% (1 ,568.11 EI3 sej/halyear),
administrative expenses, 10.48%(1, 074.17 E13 sej/halyear), and the important contribution of purchased
cow dung of9 .67% (991.54 E13 sej/halyear). Goods invested in the farm come next with 3.63% (372.02
E13 sej/halyear) jointly with purchased electricity, 3.60% (368 ,69 E13 sej/hal year), essential to the
functioning of the aspersion and irrigation pumps.
In theDemetria system, administrative expenses of38 .04%(3 , 3 05 . 14 EI3 sej/halyear) represent
the greatest emergy input, and not water with just24.96%(2.169 , 13 E13 sej/hal year), which means that
the system becomes less efficient because of an admittistrative system which requires more staff and pays
for more taxes. This is the cause of a great difference between the two systems in the exploitation of
natural resources, as quantified and qualified by the emergy indices.
Thus, Chacara St. Antonio's performance is by far superior in:
Its Emergy Yield Ratio of2.14 as against 1.58 of Demetria's;
Its Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR), 0.88 as againstDemetria's more 'loaded' index of I. 7 1;
Its Environment.al LoadingRatio (ELR) of a much 'lighter' 0.89 as against Demetria's 1.75;
Environment.al Sustainability Index (SI) of2.39 as against just 0 .90 of Demetria's;
Here, Demetria's horticultural production gains extravagantly, as this ratio is ofO. 724 , that is, as
a production uitit this farm receives 1.38 times more emergy in money equivalents than what it produces.
Compared with Chacara St. Antonio's horticultural production, which has an emergy exchange ratio of
2 .577 , this production system is able to get a very high and quite unusual exchange value forits products.
The use of electricity for the pumping of water, which is greater for St. Antonio, of368.69 E13
sej/halyear(3 ,60% of tot.al emergy use), than atDemetria, 202.0 1 E13 sej/halyear(3.2%), is indicative of
the relationship between the size of the production unit and its efficiency in the use of this input. The St.
Antonio farm produces vegetables in just 3.5 ha inasmuch asDemetria is using 12.74 ha, with a better
payoff of elect.ricity per hectare of production area.

4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Water use
Although a proportion of this water returns to the underground water system, the greatest part is
lost through evaporation in the aspersion process, quite a lot is lost in its subsequent evaporation to its
partial absorption by the soil and the remaining proportion is incorporated in the organic tissue of the
produce. It would be important to research these proportions to best identify the way to diminish the
unnecessary waste of this fundarnent.al and progressively scarcer resource.
-189-
Chapter 15. Emergy Evaluation ofOrganic and Conventional Horticultural
Table 3. Comparing emergy evaluations ror Demetria and 5to. Antonio, Values per Hectare
Demetria
Sto.Antonio
Solar Emergy
Solar Emergy
E13 sejlhalyear
E13 sejlha/year
1
2
3
4
Rain's chemical potential (R)
1.84
34.47
33.23
0.53
116.03
85.30
5,216.81
33.23
2,318.39
36.85
5,451.36
544.80
570.49
354.12
75.67
8.66
9.07
5.63
1.20
116.03
2.169.13
Well-pumped water (R)

River-pumped water (R)
50il loss due to soil use (N)

Sum of Environmental Emergies contribution ( I )
1.13
0.83
50.88
0.32
53.17
FEEDBACK (F) - Inputs from human contributions

5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
5eeds (M)
Produced cow manure (R)
Purchased manure
(M)
Biodynamic preparations (M)
Machinery (M)
Electricity (M)
Man-hours (5)
Manpower (administration) (5)
Invested goods (M)
Total Human Contribution ( F )
1.45
991.54
9.67
164.74
15.78
202.01
957.79
908.01
180.21
2.62
0.25
3.21
15.22
14.43
2.86
132.21
13.77
103.94
28.71
368.69
1,568.11
1,074.17
372,02
3,973.62
63.15
4,801.89
6,292.01
100.00
10,253.26
Chemical fertilizers (M)

Insecticides (M)
Fuel (tractor) (M)
148.73
1.29
0.13
1.01
0.28
3.60
15.29
10.48
3.63
46.83
PRODUCTIVE PROCESS (y)

17
Vegetable Production
100.00
EMERGYRATIOS
1.58
1.71
1.75
0.9
2.37E+05
0.724

Environment Loading Ratio (ELR)
Sustainability Index (51)
Vegetables Transformity (sej I 1)

Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER)
2.14
0.88
0.89
2.39
2.37E+05
1.38
It is in any case important to alert the producer of the dependence of his production system of the
intake of excessive quantities of river water, something which, when multiplied by the number of producers
of the region, becomes too heavy a drain for this type of resource.
A very important aspect of the agricultural question is, though, that of the value attributed to the
production of agricultural goods which are invariably underestimated by the market that doesn't account
for the work of the environment and the contribution of natural resources to the production process. The
Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER) is here fundamental to know, by evaluating how much emergy is handed
out in the products, what is the more realistic exchange value between the product which is sold and its
sale price, that is, the ratio of the emergy of the product for the emergy paid for it. This represents the
190
Chapter
15.
Emergy Evaluation ofOrganic and Conventional Horticultural
buying power between the emergy present in the products being sold and the emergy of what is monetarily
received (in emergy equivalents).
An analysis of market prices shows that horticultural Biodynamic products are from 20 to 25%
higher, or more in some cases, than the conventionally produced ones. This price differentiation policy is
what has saved this production unit's performance. The price is related to the better quality of Biodynamic
products, the production of which grants the absence of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and entails a
sophisticated recycling process with the application of Biodynamic preparations helping crop growth.
Products aspect and taste are also quite different from the conventional ones, offering quality to an
appreciative market, especially in large cities, demanding in 'organically' grown products.
4.2 Soil factor

A brief analysis of soil, as a determining function of volume and quality of vegetable production,
is now due. Estancia Demetria is on extremely poor soil, red and yellow Podzolic soil, which is sandy, of
low fertility and erosion prone. Although this soil has not assisted vegetable production, the fact of the
farm being situated on it could prove the capacity of the Biodynamic system to reconstitute it and gradually
improve it. This could only be proved by chemical analysis on consecutive years, which is beyond the
scope of the present work.
Present data show the great dependence of both systems on cow dung manure. At Demetria, 3
truck-loads of this manure are bought per week and 3 more are brought in from the adjacent Sitio Bahia,
a section of the same farm complex, which husbands cows for milk production, totaling 468 tons per year.
That is, almost 40 tons per month are being distributed on the 12.74 hectares of crops. This is equivalent
to 3.06 tons per hectare per month.
An approximate calculation of cow dung consumption at Chacara St. Antonio (Distrophic
Latossol) deep, clay, well drained and high fertility soil, results in 4.3 tons per hectare per month, around
25% more than the quantity used at Demetria. At St. Antonio chemical manure is added, for this, its
production is 1.63 times greater (61.38%), 29,500 kglhalyear, as against 18,108 kglhalyear of Demetria.
Obviously, the question of fertilizers and chemical pesticides and herbicides, used by Chacara
St. Antonio, which partially return to the river's water and percolate through to groundwater, is of
fundamental importance in areas of great agricultural activity, principally in regions adjacent to rivers.
Long range results and their risk to the environment are well known, but are not inbuilt in the present
emergy evaluation, neither is the retention of chemical elements in produced foods. These factors must be
verified by other approaches of quantitative and qualitative chemical analyses. In this sense, the apparent
benefits of a greater production must be weighed against the damages that these noxious elements cause
to the human population's wellbeing, to society in general and to the environment.
Another factor not taken into account by the present evaluation is the deterioration of the soil by
the continued and massive use of chemical fertilizers which destroy soil microfauna, responsible for
nutrient recycling and for making available the macro and micro nutrients fundamental to plant growth.
Superficial site observation indicates that the Biodynamic system of Estancia Demetria is able not only to
maintain soil microfauna, but also to fortifY and diversifY itby systematic soil recomposition using proven
soil-management practices and by its Biodynamic preparations. These assist plant growth by acting as
biological complements. Unfortunately this question was beyond the present study.
The emergy evaluation, as it was applied, doesn't offer sufficient support to these important
questions. For this, an evaluation of nutrients and macro and micro elements flows between the various
components of the studied production systems would be required.
4.3 Other Emergy Ratios

Observing the comparative results of the 2 production units in Table 4, the dependence of the
Demetria's systeme on purchased inputs becomes clear (goods and services: ratio of acquired emergy to
free emergy of 1.7\), COnfilIDed by the ratio of developed to environmental emergy of 1. 75. In this sense,
-191-
Chapter
15.
Table 4: Comparison of the ratios of the 2 production units.

Type of Ratio
Formula
Value for
Demetria
Value for
St.Antonio
Adquired 1 Free
(M+S) 1(R+N)
I. 71
0.88
Non-Renewable! Renewable
(N+M)/ R
0.94
0.40
Services 1 Free
S/(N+R)
0.80
0.48
Services 1 Resources
S/(R+N+M)
0.42
0.35
(N+M+S)/ R
1.75
0.89
Developed 1 Environmental
Santo Antonio's system is I,97 less dependent of imported emergy(1.7510.89), as it is greatly benefiting
because of the constant availability of free river water. The Ratio of Services to Free Emergy(S 1 [N + R])
of Estancia Demetria is 1.67 times greater than that of Chacara Santo Antonio, but this must be mainly
attributed to two factors:
a)
the high proportion of river water used by Chacara Santo Antonio (50.88% of all incident
emergy in the production process), exactly half, inasmuch as this is 1.48 times less, 34.47%, in
water use of Estancia Demetria;
b)
Demetria's higher administrative costs, ofl4.43%, as against 10.48% of SantoAntonio, inasmuch

as labor is practically the same for both farms, 15.22% and 15.29"/0, respectively, of total emergies
(Table 4).
4.4 Demetria e St. Antonio inserted within Botucatu County

The Emergy Yield Ratio(EIR) of Botucatu County, that is, the ratio of human invested emergy
to resident emergy within the municipal economy, defined by the equation:
m..._tu F 1 (R + N), is of 1.65. Human investments are 1.65 times greater than what is being
=
contributed by natural resources. Any production process inserted within Botucatu County should, to
become sustainable from an ecological and economical integration viewpoint, fluctuate around this index.
Thus, if Demetria's EIR is of 1.71, being 1.04 times greater than the County's ElR, it would
make its vegetable production process unsustainable in the long run, were it not for its search for markets
outside of the county which would value more its products, or which would obtain substantially higher
prices to achieve an Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER) much greater than I, thus granting an adequate
emergy return for its maintenance and survival. Chacara St. Antonio, though, with an EIR of just 0.88,
which is 1.88 times inferior to that of the county, could well increase its emergy investments in upraising
its farm's standards (soil recuperation, reposition of riparian vegetation, etc.), to be able to balance and
equal the EIR",Iu""" Another consideration is that river water consumption by this vegetable production
unit is very high. For this one could use different irrigation techniques other than aspersion and reduce
substantially this environmental contribution, which would be conserved to achieve more benefits by
other human or natural processes. In this way, the EIR would be elevated, probably not needing
readjustments with the county's EIR.
This emergy reallocation must be seen as a corrective intervention in these production systems,
to revitalize natutal ecosystem flows, creating dynamic equilibria between environment and human needs.
Of course, present malfunctions cannot be j ust corrected by changes in scientific methodologies, in their
technical and technological applications, but by a set of educational, administrative, political and social
measures which would involve the gradual and planned establishment of a deep ecological sensitivity
and action and the progressive implementation of its implications for society's modes of production.
The farms' Emergy Density is of 6.29 EI2 sej/m2 for Demetria and 10.3 EI2 sej/m2 of St.
Antonio(Table 5).
-192-
Chapter
J5.
Table 5. Emergy Densities of Estancia Demetria and ofChacara St. Antonio.
Emergy Densities
Demetria
sej / m'
St.Antonio
sej 1 m'
Emergy Density
6.29E+12
IO.3E+12
Renewable Emergy Density
2.29E+12
5.42E+12
Inasmuch as theirRenewable EmergyDensities are of 2.29 EI2 sej/m2 forDemetria e 5.42 EI2
sej/m2 for St. Antonio (Table 4).
The fact of Demetria's Emergy Density being 2.75 times its Renewable Emergy Density, when
St. Antonio's is just 1.9 times, denotes a greater dependence on human contributions to the vegetable
production system of the former, which could jeopardize it would they become difficult or scarce.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The emergy evaluation of both farms showed that:
The organic system demonstrates greater dependence on exogenous human inputs, which could be
prejudicial in a future of resource scarcity;
Both farms have to resolve more appropriately their water use and diminish their intake by intelligent
changes in the system of getting water to their crop;
The emergy evaluation should account for environmental services to dilute pollutants generated and
spread over the landscape by negative values on the production function.
In addition to the emergy evaluation, a nitrogen and phosphate flow study should clarify some
of the relationships between farms production and the environment into which they are embedded, which
would also allow for a more detailed comparison of the two systems.
REFERENCES
Baptista, M.B. da C. 1993. Principios da Agricultura Altemativa. Anais do 1 Simposio de Agricultura
Ecologica. lAC. 24 a 27 de Agosto de 1993. Campinas. F undaiio Cargill. 429p.
Comar M. V 1998. Avaliao emergetica de projetos agricolas e agro-industriais no Alto Rio Pardo: a
busca do Desenvolvimento Sustentilvel (Emergy Evaluation of agricultural and agro-industrial
projects in the HighRio Pardo region: the search for SustainableDevelopment). PhD dissertation,
Campinas State U niversity - UNICAMP. Sao Paulo. Brazil.
Ehlers, E. 1996. Agricultura Sustentilvel - Origens e Perspectivas de urn novo paradigma. Ed. Livros da
Terra, Sao Paulo. 178p.
MINISTERIODEDOMEIO AMBIENTEEDOSRECURSOSHIDRICOS EDAAMAZONIALEGAL.
1995. "Os Ecossistemas Brasileiros e os Principais Macrovetores deDesenvolvimento. Subsidios
ao Planejamento da Gestao Ambiental". Minisrerio de do Meio Ambiente e dosRecursos Hidricos
e da Amazonia Legal. Brasilia, DF, 1995
Odum H.T.,1996."Environmentai Accounting.Emergy and EnvironmentalDecision Making". John Wiley

& Sons,INC.
-193-
Chapter
15.
Emergy Evaluation o/ Organic and Conventional Horticultural
Appendix - Emergy table notes for Estancia Demetria and Chacara St. Antonio.
Emergy table notes for Table 1 (Chacara St. Antonio)
2
3
4
Rain's chemical potential (area, ha)(mean annual precipitation, m)(Gibbs's free energy, Jig):
7.74E+10
J//hal year
( I ha)[10000 m2/ha](1.547 m/year)(S J/g)[IE6 glm3]=
Well water: (literalbour)(hourslday)(daysl year)(J/kg)/S.2 ha =
= (500 Iitlhr)(12 hr/day)[365 daysl year](1 kgllit)(4.94 E4 J/kg)/5.2 ha= 2.0SE+10
litlhal year
River-pumped water: Qiterslday)(daysl year)(J/kg)1 3.5 ha=
1.27E+12
J//hal year
(300000 lit/day)[300 dayl year][1 kg/Iit](4,94 E4 J/kg) I 3.5 ha=
Soil loss due to soil use: (weight, t/year)(% organic matter)(caloric value, kcal/g):
(5 t/ year)[1E6 glt](0.07 g MO/g soil)(3.6 kcal/g)[4IS6 J/kcal]
S.27E+09
J//hal year
Seeds: (value in $Imonth)(monthsl year) = (90 $/month)
[12 months! year]1 3.5 ha =
3.09E+02
$/halyear
Purchased cow duog:( value in $/month)(monthsl year)=
(600 $/month)[12monthsi year]/ 3.S ha =
2.06E+03
$/halyear
Chemical fertil:( value in $/monthXmonthsi year) =
2.74E+02
(SO $/month)[12 monthsl year]! 35 ha =
$/halyear
Insecticides: (value in $1 year) = 100 $Iyear I 3.5 ha
2.86E+OI
$/halyear
Fuel used: (hours tractor, hrXliters usedlhour, litlhr)(caloric value,
J/t)1 3.5 ha = (20S hrs tractor/year)(7.5litlhr)(44 E9 J/t)/[IOOO lit] I
1.96E+10
J//halyear
3.5 ha =
4.29E+04
Machinery:{! tractorXI500 kg)[IOOO g/kg] 13.5 hai l O year =
glhalyear
Electricity: (consumptionlmonth in KWA)(monthslyear)(conversions)/ 3.5 ha =
(1500 KWAImonth)[12 monthslyear][860 kcai/kWh][4IS6 J/kcal] I
3.5 ha =
I.S4E+10
J//halyear
External manpower(man-hours):(9 people)(36S - 100 days)(2500 kcal/day)[4186 J/kcal] 1 3.5 ha =
{9(265days)(2S00kcai/day)[4186 J/kcal]}/3.5ha=
7.13E+09
J//halyear
External manpower:premiums+administrative expenses=
2.23E+03
$/halyear
(3S0+300)$/month[12m1yr]!3.5ha=
Manpower (owners): (man-dayalbalyear)(energy expend./personlday, J/personlday)/ 3.5 ha =
[365 dayalbalyear](2 people)(2.5 E3 Kcall people Iday)
2.18E+09
J//halyear
[4186 J/kcal] / 3.5 ha =
Invested goods:[(property/IOO years)+(homesl40 years)+ (machines/15 years)+(equipment/IO
years)]/3.Sha=
= [(52000 m2)(1.07 $/m2)1I00 years+(210 m2)(180 $Im2)/40 years+
7.72E+02
$/halyear
(15000 $)/15 years+(2000 $)/10 years]!3.5ha=
Vegetable production (production per year, kglhalyear)(caloric value, kcal/g)(conversion KcaI/J)=
4.32E+II
J//halyear
(29500 kglhalyearX3.5kcal/g)[4186 J/kcal][IE3 g/kg]=
=
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
Emergy table notes for Table 2 (Estancia Demetria)

Rain's chemical potential: (area, ha)(meao annual rainfall, m)(Gibbs Free Energy, Jig):
I
7.74E+10 J/halyear
( I ha)[IOOOO m2iha](1.547 mlyear)(5 J/g)[IE6 glm3] =
2
Well water: (iiterslday)(dayslyear)(J/kg)1 12.74 ha=
5.28E+II J/halyear
(454050 lit/day)[300 daylyear][1 kgllit](4,94 E4 J/kg) 1 12,74 ha=
3
Soil loss due to soil use (weight, t/year)(% organic matter)(caIoric value, kcal/g):
(5 t/year)[1E6 glt](0.07 g OMig soil)(3.6 kcal/g)[4186 J/kcal] =
5.27E+09 J/halyear
4
Seeds: (value in $/month)(monthslyear) = (1200 $/month)
1.I3E+03
$
[12 months/year]! I2.74 ha =
5
Produced cow dung: (kglyr)(cal.val.)(dry weight.)= (234000 kglyear)(3.5 kcaI/g)(0.2)
-194-
Chapter
15.
Emergy Evaluation ofOrganic and Conventional Horticultural
[4186 Jlkcal][IE3 g/kg]1 12.74 ha =
Purchased cow dung:(value in $/month)(monthslyr) =
Biodynamic preparations: (value in $/year) = (2000 $/year]1 12.74 ha =
(120$)(78 truck/year)1I2.74 ha =
5.38E+10 J/halyear
7.35E+02
$/halyear
1.57E+02
$/halyear
3.11E+10
J/halyear
Used fuels: (hours tractor, hr)(1iters /hour, litlhrXcaloric value, J/t)1 12.74 ha =
Machinery:(2 tractors)(1500 kg)[1000 g/kg] 112,74 hailO years =
10
Electricity: (consumption/year in KWA)(conversion)1 12 .. 74 ha =
11
External manpower (man-hours):(22 people)(365 - 100 days)(2500 kcallday)[4186 Jlkcal] I
12
External manpower ($): administrative expenses=
13
Invested goods:[(propertyIlOO years)+(shedsl40 years)+
(1200 hrs tractor/year)(7.5litlhr)(44 E9 J/t)/[1000 lit] I 12.74 ha =
= (35900 KWAlyear][860 kcaiIkWh][4186 JIkca1] 1 12.74 ha =
2.35E+04
glhalyear
1.01E+lO
J/halyear
12.74 ha = 22 (265days)(2500kcal/day)[4186 Jlkcal]}/12.74

ha=
.
4.79E+09
J/halyear
(2000 $/month)[12 m/a] 1 12.74 ha =
6.86E+03
$/year
(machinesll5 years)+(equipmentilO years)]112.74 ha=
= [(127400 m2)(1.07 $/m2)1100 years+(200 m2)(180 $/m2)/40 years+

14
(15000 $)115 years+( 15000 $)110 years ]/12. 74ha=
3,4 7E+02
$/halyear
Vegetable production: (yearly production, kglhalyear)(caloric value, kcal/g)(conversion Kcall

2.65E+11 J/halyear
J)/ha = (18108 kglhalyear)(3.5 kcal/g)[4186 Jlkcal][IE3 g/kg] =
-195-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
16
Embodied Energy And Emergy Analysis Of Wastewater
Treatment Using Wetlands
Jae-Young Ko, Jay Martin, and John W. Day
ABSTRACT
In the Mississippi delta of Louisiana, wetlands have been used to provide tertiary treatment to
municipal wastewater as an alternative to more energy- and capital- intensive conventional methods. In
addition to providing the same services as conventional methods, i.e., removal of nutrients and suspended
solids, wetland utilization generates economic savings, and ecological benefits such as increased primary
productivity and sediment accretion. Increased input of mineral matter and increased organic soil formation
by in situ plant production reduce the sediment accretion deficit: a mqjor focus of coastal management in
Louisiana. m, used a cost-benefit analysis and two energy analysis techniques: embodied energy and
emergy. to assess the holistic impacts of treating municipal wastewater using wetlands. Using these three
accounting techniques we compared a wetland treatment system with a conventional sand filtration system
for the tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater. Characteristics of a typical tertiary wetland treatment
facility were based on averages of multiple sites in Louisiana. The benefit-cost ratio favored the wetland
method by two times following the cost-benefit method, 6.19 times using the embodied energy approach.
and 10. 73 times using the emergy analysis. This case study identifies similarities and the differences of
these accounting techniques. Embodied energy analysis emphasizes material and energyflowsfrom the
human economy, while emergy analysis identifies and quantifies the inputs from natural ecosystems, in
addition toflowsfrom the human economy.
INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we compare three different accounting techniques: cost-benefit analysis, embodied
energy analysis and emergy analysis to account for natural services relative to the human economy.
Using these three techniques we compare the cost effectiveness and energy efficiency of wetland treatment
systems versus conventional tertiary treatment systems in removing nutrients and suspended solids from
municipal wastewater. The wetland treatment systems are located within the Louisiana coastal zone,
where state guidelines have been established for the use of hydrologically isolated natural wetlands for
municipal wastewater treatment. Data were averaged from the four sites to calculate characteristics for
an average wetland treatment system (Figure I).
Both wetland and conventional treatment systems rely on biological and physical processes to
treat wastewater. However, natural energies drive the multiple functions in wetlands including physical
settling, chemical precipitation, adsorption, and biological processes (Nichols 1983; Ewel and Odum
1984). Specifically, the nutrients of inflowing wastewater can be taken up in several different pathways:
I) plant uptake, 2) burial in bottom sediment, 3) nitrification and denitrification, and 4) the residue in the
treated water. Suspended solids in wastewater follow two different pathways: I) burial, and 2) the residue
in the treated water (Figure 2). The benefits of using natural wetlands for treating municipal wastewater
include improved effluent water quality, increased productivity of vegelation, increased sediment accretion
rates to compensate for subsidence, and financial and energy savings (Breaux and Day1994; Day et al.
2000).
-197-
Chapter 16. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis of Wastewater. ..
Louisiana
Amelia
Figure 1. Data were averaged from these four wetland wastewater treatment systems for a typical town in
the coastal Louisiana zone.
Wastewater after
secondary treatment
N2
Treated water to
natural habitat
Ida
e
Bottom
sedimentsIElevation/Buriai
Energy systems diagram of wastewater treatment using wetlands. Wetlands remove nutrients and retain
suspended solids by physical settling, chemical precipitation and adsorption, and biological metabolism. The processes
are controlled by natural energies such as sunlight, wind, and rain. Numbers refer to the note numbers of Table 5.
Figure 2.
-198-
Chapter J 6. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis of Wastewater. ..
f) 8 ee
Eno'ne
Wastewater after
secondary b'Ntment
C.pltal Coa.
1.3,4,,5,6
Flocculation
Q eOft>
. Ot
I
7,8,9
Sedlmentlltlon
Treated water to
natural habitat
Filtration
Water
NP
10
For Landfilling
Energy systems diagram a/the sandfiltration method Chemicals are added to increase flocculation of
suspended solids Jar increased effiCiency of sedimentation and filtration. The process is operated by electrical
energy. Numbers refer to the note numbers a/Table 4.
Figure 3.
Locally land loss in the coastal zone, principally due to lack of sedimentation, is one of the
major environmental problems in Louisiana (Bauman et a1. 1984; Day and Templet I989;Day et al. 1997;
Kesel 1988; Templet and Meyer-Arendt 1988). The addition of wastewater effiuent was found to increase
the accretion rate enough to maintain wetlands (Day et a1. 2000; Rybczyk et a1. 1998).
Conventional treatment systems depend on imported, non-renewable inputs including chemicals
and other capital investment. The sand filtration method, one of major conventional treatment options,
consists of three major steps of treatment: flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration (Figure 3). Thus, in
this paper, we compare sand filtration and wetland treatment for improving municipal wastewater quality
with different benefits and costs.
This paper is an effort to account for different benefits and costs of these two treatment systems
in a holistic manner using three different accounting techniques. Each of these three techniques has its
own common unit to value system flows. Cost-benefit analysis uses money, while embodied energy uses
fossil fuel-based embodied energy (usually as Btu) and emergy analysis uses solar power-based embodied
energy (usually as solar emjoules(sej. The project allowed us to compare procedures and identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the three accounting techniques.
METHODS
The four wetland sites in coastal Louisiana vary in population served, treatment capacity, nutrient
loading rate, wetland size, and the distance between existing secondary wastewater treatment facilities
and the receiving wetlands. From these four sites we derived characteristics of a typical wetland treatment
facility in coastal Louisiana (Table I). We used the three techniques mentioned to assess the environmental
benefits and financial costs of the wetland treatment systems. Using these same three techniques, we also
calculated the benefits and costs of a conventional sand filtration system designed for tertiary treatment
of municipal wastewater in treating the same amount of municipal wastewater (Viessman and Hammer
1998).
-199-
Chapter 16. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis of Wastewater...

Table 1. A Typical Wastewater System Was Derived From Data Collected For The Four Sites Within
Coastal Louisiana.
Town
Serving population
St. Bernard
Amelia
Breaux Bridge
2,500
6,500
1.00
1.00
1.44
4.001.86
0.96
1.87
2.03
7.76
2.14
0.11
1,012
0.94
1,475
0.43
1,536
3.88
1,425
0.38
1,362
40
2,520
640
Thibodaux
17,000
Typical Town
8,700
Wastewater generation
(MGD)
Total nitrogen loading
(pjm'/yr)
Total phosphorus loading
(pjm'/yr)
Total wetlands (ha)
Distance between plant &
wetlands (meters)
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-benefit analysis has been frequently used for environmental impact analysis (Hanley, et, al
1997), and is required for federally funded environmental projects in the United States. Market price is
used to account for costs and benefits of projects in consideration.
This technique is based on the
"willingness-to-pay" principle, which implies that the values of environmental projects depend on human
perceptions, rather than a biophysical basis.
Conventional tertiary treatment system: We estimated capital and annual costs of operation and
maintenance (O&M) for a typical sand filtration facility with a capacity of 1.86 million-gallons-per-day
(MGD) (Table 3). We used two different cost functions: 1) capital cost per MGD a*(MGD)'"(where
a constant) and 2) O&M cost per MGD b*(MGD),"'12) (where b constant) (Smith 1978).
=
We included the costs of land acquisition, a transfer pump, filter & equipment, and construction
of the facility in capital costs, which were adjusted from the analysis done by Breaux (1992) using the
cost function of capital cost. Costs of electricity, labor, chemicals, and sludge disposal were considered
as O&M costs and we derived from the existing literature (Hernandez 1978; Kibby and Hernandez 1976;
Letterman and Cullen 1985; Rogers 1999; Sedlak 1991). Detailed information is given in Appendix A.
The present values of annual costs for O&M were calculated assuming 1) the life span of the plant is 30
years, and 2) a discount rate of 9 percent (Breaux 1992).
Wetland treatment system: Treated wastewater and wetland maintenance were included as benefits
of the wetland treatment system. The financial benefits of treating wastewater using wetlands was assumed
to be the same as the wastewater treatment cost of the conventional system.
The benefit of wetland
maintenance was calculated by multiplying the area of wetland affected by the median value of annual
state-wide wetland maintenance costs (e.g., transporting dredged soils from other places), $65, in Louisiana
(Suhayda et al. 1991). We did not include the benefit of additional net primary production (NPP), because
the cost-benefit analysis is based on the willingness-to-pay principle, in which the value depends on how
much a person is willing to pay for the benefit. People in general may not want to spend money to make
trees grow a little faster, even though the increased NPP is important from ecological standpoint.
We considered the costs of a pump station, force main, and a baseline ecological characterization,
as capital investments. O&M costs included property lease payments (only true in one case), wetland
monitoring work, and other costs such as electricity costs of pumping, and wetland maintenance (Table
3). We estimated those costs by adjusting the costs for a 4 MGD-wetland treatment facility (Breaux
1992) using the cost functions. The present values of annual costs for O&M were calculated using the
same assumptions as the conventional wastewater treatment system.
-200-

Embodied Energy Analysis
Embodied energy (BE) analysis is "the process of determining the energy required directly and
indirectly to allow a system (usually an economic system) to produce a specified good or service" (Brown
and Herendeen
1996, p.220). The major objective of the embodied energy analysis is to minimize
conventional (fossil) energy inputs per unit of desired system output. This technique has been used for a
biophysical analysis of the US economic activities (e.g., Costanza 1980) and a comparative assessment
between new power plant construction and a community insulation program (Hall et al. 1979).
For this project, we used the energy intensity values of services and goods published by the
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
(1990). We applied the linear best fit trend line to
extrapolate the values to reflect changes for 1992, which is the base year for this study. Financial costs
were multiplied by the extrapolated energy intensity values to estimate the embodied energies for the
coSts. The annual embodied energy costs for
O&M were multiplied by thirty .to calculate the embodied
energies for thirty years, the life span of facilities. The biophysical flow cannot be discounted.
Conventional tertiary treatment system: The financial costs for capita! investments were multiplied
by the extrapolated energy intensity values to calculate embodied energies for the capita! investments.
We used the extrapolated median energy intensity of economic outputs for land cost of the sand filIiation
plant, the extrapolated intensity of general industrial machinery and equipment for the transfer pump, the
extrapolated value of stone and clay products for filter and equipment, and the value of new construction
for engineering.
3.37 to estimate the embodied energy

3.37 Btu of oil is required to produce I Btu of electricity (US OTA1990), due
We adjusted the electricity consumed by multiplying by

for the electricity, because
to the thermodynamic inefficiency.
The extrapolated energy intensity of maintenance and repair
construction was used for labor input, and the extrapolated value of chemicals was applied for polymer
and lime. Sludge disposal was considered as maintenance and repair work. The benefit of the conventional
tertiary treatment method is assumed to be equal to the. cost of the treatment method, because the primary
obj ective of the treatment is to meet the water quality standard mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System(NPDES) permit.
Wetland treatment system: We assumed that the embodied energy savings using wetlands would
I) the
primary objective of the treatment is to meet the water quality, and 2) the wetland system can meet the
be equal to the embodied energy required for mandated conventional treatment standards, because
water quality criteria as the conventional system does.
We estimated the environmental benefit of
maintaining wetlands by multiplying the extrapolated energy intensity of maintenance and repair
construction by the median cost of maintaining wetlands. The following procedure was utilized to calculate
the benefit of increased NPP:
I ) the mean additional above-ground net primary productivity, which is the
sum of stem growth and litterfall, was determined from field data; 2) the additional productivity was then
extrapolated to the typical size of wetland (Table
I); 3) the estimated additional net productivity was

4) the
converted to gross primary productivity by multiplying by a factor of 1.42 (Turner et al. 1988);
additional biomass was converted to fossil fuel-based energy value by multiplying by an energy quality
factor ofO.OS (Turner et al. 1988).
We multiplied the financial costs by the extrapolated energy intensities to calculate embodied
energies for the corresponding financial costs. We used the extrapolated intensity of general industrial
machinery and equipment for the cost of the pump station. The energy intensity of pipeline was used for
the force main. We used the energy intensity of state and local government enterprise to estimate the
embodied energy of survey and monitoring costs. Wetlands were assumed to be privately-owned. We
used the median energy intensity of non-energy products for the land lease and used the extrapolated
energy intensity of maintenance and repair construction to estimate the embodied energy for other
O&M
costs in operating the wetland system. The annual embodied energy cost was multiplied by thirty to
estimate the accumulated embodied energy of
O&M for the life span of the wetland system.
-201-

Emergy Analysis
Emergy analysis is a "technique of quantitative analysis which determines the values of non
monied and monied resources, services, and commodities in common units of the solar energy it took to
make them .(Brown and Herendeen 1996, p.220)." Emergy analysis has been used for a holistic
cost-effectiveness analysis of building a dam (e.g., Brown and McClanahan 1996) and energy and material
dependence of the Italian national economy (Ulgiati et a1. 1994).
The sand filtration facility requires inputs of imported chemicals and other human-made factors,
while the wetland system depends on natural free energies. Thus we assumed that the environmental
input for the sand filtration system is the land to be used for the facility building (Table 4). We included
sunlight, rain, and wind as environmental inputs for the wetland system (Table 5). We used the transformity
values from the existing literature (Odum 1996, Odum and Odum 1987).
Conventionaitertiary treatment system: We calculated the emergy value ofIbe benefits of treated
wastewater using the following procedure: 1) the volume of treated wastewater was converted to mass
units; 2) the mass of treated wastewater was converted to an energy unit by multiplying by the Gibbs free
energy (4.94 J/g); and 4) the energy of wastewater was multiplied by the transformity of wastewater.
Land was included as an environmental input for conventional treatment. Like Ibe cost-benefit
analysis, and embodied energy analysis, we included expenditures for land acquisition, transfer pump,
filter&equipment, and engineering for capital costs. We multiplied the financial cost of those capital
items by Ibe ratio of solar emergy to Ibe US gross national product, which was 1.43E+12 sej/$ for 1992
(Odum 1996,p.314).
Electricity consumed was multiplied by the transformity of electricity to calculate the emergy
value of electrical energy. The required amount of lime was multiplied by Ibe solar emergy per mass for
limestone to estimate Ibe emergy value of lime. The costs of labor, polymer, and sludge disposal were
converted to emergy values by multiplying byIbe solar emergy to dolIar ratio for the US national economy.
Table 2. Cost-benefit analysis and embodied energy analysis of a conventional sand-filtration tertiary
treatment method
Item
Raw
unit
Cost
(US $)
(unit)
Energy
intensity/quality
Embodied
(unit)
energy
(mega Btu)
Capital Cost
Land
Transfer pump
Filter & equipment
Engineering
292
18,018
74,020
18,992
US $IMGD
US $IMGD
US $IMGD
US $IMGD
828
51,108
174,134
44,679
11,968
11,496
30,522
14,088
BtulUS '92$
BtulUS '92$
BtulUS '92$
BtulUS '92$
10
588
5,315
629
7,461
55,335
US $/yr
US $/yr
76,652
568,493
3.37
12,773
BtulBtu
BtulUS '92$
36,778
21,204
1,700
10,218
2,000
76,714
US $/yr
US $/yr
US $/yr
US $/yr
17,465
104,976
20,547
36,620
36,620
12,773
BtulUS '92$
BtulUS '92$
BtulUS '92$
1,868
11,226
766
O&MCost
Electrical energy
Labor
Chemicals
Polymer
Lime
S ludge disposal
Sub-total
Total Cost
1,058,882
Footnotes given at the end of this chapter.

-202-
78,384

Wetland treatment system: We included sunlight, rain, and wind energies as environmental inputs
to the wetland. We considered the Albedo effect, to estimate the actual sunlight absorbed in the wetlands.
The volume of local rain was converted to emergy value after considering evapotraspiration rate and the
transformity of rain. Diffusion, vertical wind gradient, and air dentisy were considered to determine the
energy of the wind. The wind energy was then multiplied by a wind transformity to quantify the solar
emjoules (sej) required to produce the wind energy.
The emergy benefit of treated wastewater in a wetland was assumed to be equivalent to that of
the treated water using the conventional system, because the transformities of the treated wastewater
from the two systems are assumed to be the same. The increased biomass was converted to emergy by
multiplying the trasformity of above-ground live biomass. We used an average accretion rate (Rybczyk
et a1. 1998), and transformity of peat to calculate the emergy value of maintaining wetlands. The emergy
costs of building and operating the wetland system were calculated by mUltiplying the financial costs by
the emergy to dollar ratio for the US economy for 1992.
RESULTS
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The capital cost for a sand filtration facility with a capacity of 1.86 MGD was estimated as
which is the sum of costs including land acquisition, transfer pump, filter&equipment, and
construction. The annual O&M cost of the facility was estimated as $76,714, which includes electricity,
$270,750,
Table 3. Cost-Benefit Analysis And Embodied Energy Analysis Of Wetland Treatment System
Item
Raw
unit
Cost
(unit)
(US $)
Energy
intensity/quality
Embodied
(unit)
energ y
(meg a Btu)
Benefits
Treated water
1,05&,882
Wetland maintenance 65
US$lha
Additional NPP
drywt.
207
373,961
BtuJUS '92$
13,948
Fossil fueV
g/m'/yr
Total
78,384
12,773
0.05
biomass
1,432,843
39,190
131,522
COSTS
Capital Costs
Pump station
17,044
US$IMGD
48,345
BtuJUS '92$
556
Force main
2,000
FI@1!lS/ft
80,000
12,281
BtuJUS '92$
982
Survey
5,000
US$
5,000
10,876
BtuJUS '92$
Sub-total
11,496
54
1,592
133,345
O&MCosts
Land lease
6,000
US$/yr
61,642
11,968
BtuJUS '92$
2,154
Monitoring
45,000
US$/yr
462,314
10,876
BtuJUS '92$
14,683
7,390
US$/yr
75,922
12,773
BtuJUS '92$
2,832
58,390
US$/yr
Other
Sub total
-
Total
Benefit-Cost Ratio
733,223
21,261
1.95
6.19
-203-
Chapter 16. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis 0/ Wastewater. ..

Table 4. Emergy analysis of conventional sand filtration wastewater treatment system
Note
Item
Input
Transformity
(Unit)
(Unit)
Arutual emergy
Cumulative
( sej)
emergy ( sej)
Environment&llnput
Land
2.238
Sqrneter
6.29E+1O
Sej/sq ml-yr
l.41E+14
4.22E+ l5
SejlJ
5.17E+17
l.55E+19
SejiUS '92$
1.18E+15
1.18E+15
Emergy Benefits
2
Usable water
l.26E+13
Jlyr
4.IOE+{)4
US$
l.43E+12
Emergy Costs
Capital Cost
3
Land purchase
828
Transfer pump
51,108
US$
l.43E+12
SejlUS '92$
7.3IE+16
7.3IE+16
Fil ter&equipment
174,134
US$
l.43E+12
Sej/US '92$
2.49E+17
2.49E+17
Engineering
44,679
US$
l.43E+12
SejiUS '92$
6.39E+16
6.39E+16
O&MCost
7
El ectrical energy
3.84E+1I
1.59E-+{)5
Sej/!
6.IIE+16
1.83E+18
Labor
55,335
US Slyr
1.43E+12
Sej/US '92$
7.91E+16
2.37E+18
Chemicals
1.43E+12
10
Jlyr
Polymer
1,700
US$
SejiUS '92$
2.43E+15
7.29E+16
Lime
133
Tonnelyr
l.OOE-+{)9
Sejlg
1.33E+17
3.99E+18
Sludge disposal
2,000
US$lyr
l.43E+12
SejiUS '92$
2.86E+15
8.58E+ l6
Total Cost
8.74E+18
Benefit-Cost Ratio
1.77

labor, chemicals, and sludge disposal. The combined cost of capital and present value of the accumulated
annual costs was about $1,000,000 (Table 2).
Assuming that the benefit-cost ratio of the conventional system is one, because the primary
objective of the treatment is to meet the water quality criteria mandated by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The benefit-cost ratio of the wetland system is about 1.95, due to
the additional positive effects of wetlands maintenance and lower cost of the wetland system (Table 3).
The capital cost of the wetland system was estimated as $133,345, while the sand filtration system costs
$270,750 for treating the same amount of wastewater. The annual O&M cost for the conventional system
was estimated as $76,714, while that for the wetland system as $58,390. Thus, the economic savings from
using wetlands are estimated as $137,405 for capital cost, and $18, 324 per year for O&M cost. The
result of the cost-benefit analysis shows that the wetland system is more cost-effective than the sand
'
filtration system.
Embodied energy analysis
78 giga Btu would be used to treat wastewater over thirty years if the sand filtration system is
employed, which includes capital costs and accumulated O&M costs. The embodied energy required for
the wetlands system for the same period was estimated as 21 gigaBtu. The wetland system is about 3.7
times more energy efficient than the sand filtration system from a biophysical standpoint. In other words,
the embodied energy saving of 57 giga Btu over thirty years is equal to 9,800 barrel's of crude oil (1
-204-

Table 5. Emergy Analysis Of Wetland Wastewater Treatment System
Note
Item
Input
Transfonnity
(Unit)
(Unit)
Annual emergy
(sej)
Cumulative
emergy (sej)
Renewable Resources
SWlIight
2.l3E+!6
Jlyr
Rain, chemical
3.26E+13
Wmd, kinetic
6.26E+I2
Treated wastewater
1.26E+13
Additional NPP
1.94E+13
Organic sediment
4.98E+l3
Jlyr
1.00E-KJO
Sej/J
2.13E+16
6.39E+!7
Jlyr
1.82E-KJ4
SejlJ
5.93E+17
1.78E+19
Jlyr
1.50E-KJ3
Sej/J
9.39E+15
2.82E+17
Jlyr
4.IOE-KJ4
Sej/J
5.17E+17
1.55E+I9
Jlyr
6.96E-KJ3
SejlJ
1.35E+I7
4.05E+I8
1.90E-KJ4
Sej/J
9.46E+17
Emergy Benefits
2.84E+19
4.80E+19
Total
Emergy Costs
7
Pwnp station
Force main
Survey of property
4.83E-KJ4
US '92$
1.43E+12
SejlUS '92$
8.00E-KJ4
US '92$
1.43E+12
SejlUS '92$
3.81E+I5
3.81E+15
5.00E-KJ3
US '92$
1.43E+12
SejlUS '92$
7.15E+15
7.I5E+I5
4.96E+I5
4.96E+I5
O&M
10
Land lease
6.00E-KJ3
US '92$lyr
1.43E+I2
SejlUS '92$
8.58E+15
2.57E+17
11
Monitoring
4.50E-KJ4
US '92$lyr
1.43E+I2
SejlUS '92$
6.44E+16
1.93E+I8
Other
7.39E-KJ3
US '92$lyr
1.43E+12
SejlUS '92$
1.06E+I6
12
3.I7E+17
2.52E+18
Total
19
Benefit-Cost Ratio

barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.SE+06 Btu). After we included the benefits of wetland maintenance and
additional NPP growth, the wetland system was 6.19 times more energy efficient than the conventional
treatment system (Table 6).
Emergy Analysis
The total emergy cost of the sand filtration system was estimated as S. 74E+ IS sej (Table 4). The
most significant costs associated with the sand filtration system were lime, labor, followed by electrical
energy, all of which are imported resources.
Thus, the emergy analysis clearly demonstrated the
characteristics of the capital- and labor- intensive conventional system. The total emergy cost of the
wetland system was estimated as 2.52E+1S sej. The emergy cost of the wetland system was lower than
that of the conventional system, due to environmental contributions including sunlight, rain, and wind
(Table 5). The chemical potential of rain was the single most important renewable resource. The emergy
benefit-cost ratio (or emergy yield ratio) of the conventional system was estimated as 1.77, while the ratio
of the wetland system was 19, due to lower inputs and additional benefits (Table 4&5). The emergy
analysis also suggests that the wetland maintenance through organic soil building is more important than
treating wastewater.
The monitoring cost for the wetland, which is mandated by state regulation, was the single
largest emergy cost in operating the wetland system. The emergy analysis also showed the impact of
distance between the secondary treatment facility and the wetland for the wetland treatment system.
-205-

Table 6. Integrated benefit-cost table of wastewater treatment and cost-effectiveness ratio for a typical
town in Louisiana. The costs are averaged total annual cost, in which capital cost and present value of
O&M cost are added and divided by thirty years. The benefits include wastewater treatment and other
additional benefits. Cost-effectiveness ratio is the ratio of the wetland system over the sand filtration
system with regard to benefit-cost ratio of each method.
Cost-benefit
Embodied energy
Emergy
Benefit
Cost
35,296 ($)
35,296 ($)
2,613 (mega Btu)

2,613 (mega Btu)
5.17E+I 7 (sej)
2.91E+17 (sej)
Benefit
Cost
Cost-effectiveness Ratio
47,761 ($)
24,441 ($)
4,384 (mega Btu)

709 (mega Btu)
1.95
1.60E+18 (sej)
8.40E+16 (sej)
10.73
System\Analysis
Sand filtration
Wetlands
6.19
DISCUSSION
The three accounting techniques demonstrated that the wetland treatment system is more
cost-effective and energy-efficient than the sand filtration system in removing nutrients and suspended
solids from secondarily treated municipal wastewater and that the wetland system provides additional
environment benefits. Thus, the relative cost-effectiveness ratio of the wetland system to the conventional
system, which is defined as the benefit-cost ratio of the wetland system divided by that of sand filtration
system, was 1.95 by the cost-benefit analysis, 6.19 by the embodied energy analysis, and 10.73 by the
emergy analysis (Table 6). If the wetland can be located adjacent to the facility, then the emergy cost for
the wetland system will significantly drop. Further, enhancement of wetlands quality using wastewater
will generate additional fmancial benefit through wetland mitigation banks (Edmonds et al. 1997; Keating
et al. 1997).
Methodologically, the cost-benefit technique does not consider non-monetary benefits, while it
provides the more familiar monetary outputs. The embodied energy technique has a relative strength in
showing more detailed energy intensities of human economy and provides benefits and energy savings in
relatively easily understandable oil equivalent information, which allows us to quantify the benefits of
wetlands in terms of oil savings. The emergy technique quantifies nature's service to human economy
and explains why tbe wetland system is more cost-effective than the conventional system in treating
wastewater. However, presently it depends on limited numbers of transformity, which may be resolved
by further studies of developing more transformaties for diverse economic sectors.
Non-renewable resources have been more rapidly exhausted than commonly perceived (Campbell
and Lahernire 1998). However market price reflects the amount of resources available in a market, not in
reserves and market price is subject to people's short-term self-interest, not a sustainable base (Hall
1992). Thus, we argue that cost-benefit analysis, which is based on market price, cannot alone provide a
sound accounting technique and that biophysical approaches should be more emphasized. Biophysical
approaches provide quantified information of the contribution of renewable resources, and describes
physical flows, thermodynamic transformations, and use efficiencies of renewable and non-renewable
resources. This information is needed in designing the sustainable development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Andres Buenfil and Dr. Mark Brown for their help in finalizing the emergy analysis.
Funding for the research was provided by the Louisiana Sea Grant Program.
-206-

7. REFERENCES
Baumann, RH, J.w. Day Jr, and C.A. Miller. 1984. Mississippi deltaic wetland survival: Sedimentation
versus coastal submergence. Science 224: 1093-9S.
Breaux, A.M. 1992. The use of hydrologically altered wetlands to treat wastewater in coastal Louisiana.
PhD Dissertation. Louisiana State University. Unpublished.
Breaux, A.M. and 1. W.Day Jr. 1994. Policy considerations for wetland wastewater treatment in the coastal
zone: A case study for Louisiana. Coastal Management 22: 28S-307.
Brown, M. T., and T.R. McClanahan. 1996. Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and MeKong River
dam proposals. Ecological Modelling 91: IOS-130.
Campbell, C.J. and J.H Lahem\re. 1998. The end of cheap oil. Scientific American 287(3):78-83.
Costanza, R 1980. Embodied Energy and Economic Valuation. Science 210:1219-1224.
Costanza, R, C. Neill, S.G. Leibowitz, J.R. Fruci, L. M. Bahr, 1. W. Day. 1983. Ecological Models of the
Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region: Data Collection and Presentation. Fish and Wildlife Service.
US Dept. of the Interior. Washington DC. FWSIOBS-82/68.
Day, 1. W. Jr., and P.H Templet. 1989. Consequences of sea level rise: implications from the Mississippi
delta. Coastal Management 17:241-2S7.
Day, J.w. Jr., J.F. Martin, L. Cardoch and P.H Templet. 1997. System functioning as a basis for sustainable
management of deltaic ecosystems. Coastal Management 2S: IIS-IS3.
Day, J.W. Jr., L. Cardoch, J.M. Rybczyk, and W. Conner. 2000. An ecological and economic overview of
wetland wastewater assimilation in coastal Louisiana. In the Proceedings of Wetlands and
Remidation. (In Press). From the internatinal conference: Wetlands & Remediation. November
16-17, 1999. Hilton Hotel. Salk Lake City, Utah.
Edmonds, C.P., D.M. Keating, and S. Stanwick. 1997. Wetland mitigation. Appraisal Journal 6S(I):
72-76.
Ewel, K.C. and HT. Odum.(Eds.). 1984. Cypress Swamps. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, F1.
Hall, C. A.S. 1992. Economic development or developing economics: what are our priorities? In M.K.
Wali (Ed.). Ecosystem Relahilitation. SPB Academic Publishing. Hague, Netherlands.
Hall, C.A.S., M.Lavine, and J. Sloane. 1979. Efficiency of energy delivery systems: I. An economic and
energy analysis. Environmental Management 3(6): 493-S04.
Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren, and B. White. 1997. Environmental Economics In Theory and Practice. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Hernandez, D.J. 1978. Energy Consumption of Advanced Wastewater Treatment at Ely, Minnesota.
EPA-60017-78-001. US EPA. Corvallis, Oregon.
Keating, D.M., C. Edmonds, and S. Stanwick. 1997. A conceptual framework for appraising wetland
mitigation banks. Appraisal Journal 6S(2): 16S-170.
Kesel, R.H 1988. The decline in the suspended load of the lower Mississippi River and its influence on
adjacent wetlands. Enviromnental Geology and Water Sciences 11(3): 271-281.
Kibby, H and D.J. Hernandez. 1976. Environmental Impacts of Advanced Wastewater Treatment at Ely,
Minnesota. EPA-600/3-76-092. US EPA, Corvallis. Oregon.
Letterman, RD., and T.R Cullen, Ir. 1985. Project Summary: Slow Sand Filter Maintenance: Costs and
Effects on Water Quality. EPA-600/S2-8S/OS6. Cincinnati, OH.
-207-
Chapter 16. Embodied Energy and Emergy Analysis of Waslewaler. ..

Mitch, W. J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd Ed. Van Reinhold. New York.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1981. Local Climatological Data: New
Orleans, LA. National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.
Nichols, D.S. 1983. Capacity of natural Wetlands to remove nutrients from wastewater. Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation 55(5): 495-505.
Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental Accounting. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Odum, H.T., and E.e. Odum. 1987. Ecology and Economy: "Emergy" analysis and Public Policy in
Texas. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Austin, Texas.
Rogers, J.e. 1999. Determination and Correction of Error in the Louisiana Solid Waste Database. Master's
thesis. Louisiana State University.
Rybczyk, J.M., J.C. Callaway, and J.w. Day Jr. 1998. A relative elevation model for a subsiding coastal
forested wetland receiving wastewater effiuent. Ecological Modelling 112: 23-44.
Sedlak, R I. 1991. Phosphorus and Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater. 2"" Ed. Lewis Publishers.
Smith, R 1978. Total Energy Consumption for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA-600/2-78-149.
US EPA. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Suhayda, J.H., G. P. Kemp, R.S. Jones, and J. Peckham. 1991. Restoration of wetlands using pipeline
transported sediments. In GCSSEPM foundation 12fu Annual research conference. Program and
Abstracts. December 5, 1991.pp. 257-262.
Templet, P.H. and KJ. Meyer-Arendt. 1988. Louisiana wetland Loss: A regional water management
approach to the Problem. Environmental Management 12: 181-192.
Turner, M.G. E.P. Odum, R Costanza, and T.M. Springer. 1988. Market and nonmarket values of the
Georgia Landscape. Environmental Management 12(2): 209-217.
U1giati, S., H.T.Odum and S. Bastianoni. 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability:
An emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling 73: 215-268.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Energy Use and the U.S. Economy,
OTA-BP-E-57. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office.
Viessman, W. Jr., and M. 1. Hammer. 1998. Water Supply and Pollution Control. Addison-Wesley. Menlo
Park, California.
-208-

APPENDICES
AppendixA. Variables used for the sandjiltration system (Table 2)

1. electricity price: 7 cent per kwh (Sedlak 1991, p.69)
2. labor hours for O&M: 1,190 hours per year for scraping, resanding, and maintenance (Letterman and
Cullen 1985, p.4)
3. labor cost: $25 per hour (Sedlak 1991, p.130)
4. polymer input and price: 0.15 mg per liter and $2 per pound (Sedlak 1991, p.130).
5. lime input and price: 275 mglL for a return activated sludge (RAS) feed, 25 % flow to the stripper, and
75% of elutriation flow. $70 per short ton (Sedlak 1991, p.187). Lime usage (as CaO) = (275 mg!
L)*(1.86 MGD)*(0.25)*(0.75)*(365 dayslyr)=291,948 Ib/yr.
6. sludge volume: TSS of inflowing water 35 mglL. Mandated TSS of discharging water = 15 mglL.
V(ft'(gal=WsI[(slI00)rS], where V= volume of sludge, ft'(gal), Ws=weight of dry solids (lb), s=solid
content, %, r=unit weight of water, 62.4lb/ft', S=specific gravity of wet sludge (normally assumed as
one) (Viessman and Hammer 1998,p.637). Assumption of 20% of concentration, similar to wet clay.
Volume of sludge = 1.86 *(35-15)*8.34/(0.20*62.4)=24.84 ft'/day. 20% of the sludge is solid, which is
4.97 ft', and 80% is water, which is 19.87 ft', whose weight = 19.87*8.34=165.716 Ibs. The total weight
of daily sludge 310.437+165.716=476.153 Ibs. For a year 476.153*365=173, 7961bs, which is 87 short
tons.
7. tipping fee for landfilling in Louisiana: $23 per short ton (Roger 1999).
=
Appendix B. Notes to Table 4 (emergy analysis of sandjiltration)

I.Land: 2 acres are needed for 4 MGD (Breaux I 992,p.176). The cost function of capital cost is
a=(MGD)**0.68. From this information, the land cost for typical case 2,238 square meter. Transformity
of land = 6.29E+14 sej/ha-yr (Odum 1996,p.II0).
2. Usable water: Energy(J)= (1.86*10' gallon)*(365 dayslyr)*(3.7853 liter/gallon)*(1 kglliter* 1000 g/
kg)*(4.94 JIg Gibbs)=1.26E+13 J/yr. Tranformity of wastewater is 4. lE4 Sej/J (Odum 1987,p.143).
3. Land purchase: land acquisition cost for 4 MGD = $,3000 (Breaux 1992,p.176). The cost function for
capital cost = a*(MGD)068 Then the land cost for the typical case of 1.86 MGD= $828. The emergy-to
dollar ratio for 1992 is 1.43E+ 12 sej/$.
4. Transfer pump: the transfer pump cost for 4 MGD is $185,000 (Breaux 1992,p.176). The cost function
of capital cost is a*(MGD)**0.68. From this information, the pump cost for the typical case of 1.86
MGD S51,108.
5. Filter&equipment: the filter&equipment cost for 4MGD is $760,000 (Breaux 1992,p.176). The cost
function for capital cost is a*(MGD)**0.68. From the two information, the filter&equipment cost for the
typical case is $174,134.
6. Engineering: the engineering cost for 4 MGD is S195,000 (Breaux 1992,p.176). The cost function is
a*(MGD)**0.68. From this information, the engineering cost for the typical case is $44,679.
7. Electrical energy: 266.4 kwh of electricity are consumed daily for clarifier operation, sludge pumping,
sludge thickener, and filter operation (air compressors, backwashing, etc.) for the tertiary treatment for
the capacity of 1.5 MGD (Smith 1978,p.6). The cost function of O&M is a*(MGD)(ol2) for trickling filter
plants. From this information, the typical case will be 106, 587 kwh for a year.
Energy(J)= (106,587 kwh)*(3.606 E+6 J/kwh). Transformity of electricity = l.59E+5 sej/j (Odum and
Odum 1987, p.1l4)
8. Labor: the labor hours of scraping, resanding, and day-tn-day maintenance for 1.5 MGD is 1,833
hourslyr (Letterman and Cullen 1985). The cost function of O&M cost is a*(MGD)<"'I2). From this
information, the typical case will be 2,213 hours for a year. The labor cost is $25 (Sedlak 1991, p.130).
9.Chemiclus: polymer input 0.15 mgIL (Kibby and Hernandez 1976, p.14). The price of polymer is $21
lbs (Sedlak 1991,p.130). Polymer cost (1.86MGD)*(0.15 mgIL)*(3.7853 liter/gallon)*(O.OOI g!
mg)*(O.OOI kg/g)*(2.2046Ibs/kg)*(S2.00/lbs)=SI,700.
Lime: from assumptions in which 1). An return activated sludge (RAS) feed, 2). 25 % flow to the stripper,
and 3).elutriation water flow of 75 % (Sedlak 1991,p.187). The lime usage (as CaO)=(275 mgIL)*(1.86
MGD)*(0.25)*(0.75)*( l liter/0.26418 gallon)*(lg/I000 mg)*( l lb/453.59 gramme)*(365 dayslyr)*(2000
lb/short ton)*(O. 90718 tonne/short ton)= 133 tonnes. Transformity of limestone = 1.0 E+09 sej/g (Odum
1996,p.46).
10.Sludge disposal: For 1.86 MGD, the TSS of inflowing water 35 mgIL from the average of the four
sites. The assumed TSS of discharging water after tertiary treatment is 15 mgIL for average, which is
=
-209-

mandated by the pennit. Volume of sludge, V (ft3 (gal WsI[ (slIOO)rS], where V volume of sludge,
ft3(gal). Wseight of dry solids, ssolid content, %, punit weight of water, 62.4lb/ft3, Sspecific
gravity of wet sludge (nonnally as one) (Viessman and Hammer 1998,.p.637 and 638). 20% of solid,
which is similar to wet clay, is assumed. The solids in sludge is 1.86*(35-15)*8.34 31O.248 lbslday.
The total weight of sludge 310.248 + 0.8*24.86*8.34 475.964 lbslday. For year, 475.964 lbs*365 87
short ton. The tipping fee in Louisiana in 1994 is $23/ton (Rogers 1999).
The disposal cost 87 ton* $23 $2,000/yr.
Appendix C. Notes to Table 5 (emergy analysis of wetland treatment system)
I. Sunlight: total area 560 ha 5.60E+06 square meter. Insolation 5.94E+9 J/square meter/yr (Costanza
et al. 1983). Albedo 36%(Costanza et al. 1983). Energy(JF (5.60E+06 square meter)*(5.94E+9 JI
square meter/yr)*(1-0.36) 2.13E+16 J/yr.
2. Rain, chemical potential energy: total area 560 ha 5.60E+06 square meter. Rainfall 1.51 m1yr
(NO A A 1981). Evapotranspiration rate 1.18 m/yr (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Energy (J) (5.60E+6
squre meter)*(1.18 m1yr)*(1000 kg/cubic meter)*(4.94E+3 J/kg Gibbs) 3.26E+13 J. Transfonnity of
rain 1.82E+04 (Odum 1996,p.124).
3. Wind, kinetic: total area 560 ha 5.60E+06 square meter. Average eddy diffusion coefficient
14.74 squre meterlsec. Average vertical wind gradient 4.42E-3/sec. Height 100 m. Density of air
1.23 kg/cubic meter. Energy (1) (5.60E+06)*(100 m)*( 1.23 kg/cubic meter)*(14.74 squre meterl
sec)*(4.42E-3/sec)**2*(3.15E+07 sec/yr) 6.26E+12 J. Transfonnity of wind 1,496 sej/J (Odum
1996,p.309).
4. Treated wastewater: Energy (J) (1.86E+06 gal/day)*(365 day/yr)*(3.7853 liter/gal)* (IE+03 cubic
cmlliter)*(1 gramll cubic cm)*(4.94J/gram GibbsF 1.26E+ 13 J/yr. Transfonnity of wastewater 4.1E+04
sej/J (Odum 1987,p.143).
5. Additional NPP: From field data, the average additional NPP is 207 dry weight gramlsquare meter/yr.
One tonnne of wood biomass 4E+06 Cal plant production (Turner et al. 1988). Energy(JF (207 g/sq
meter/yr)*(560 ha)*(IO,OOO square meterlha)*(IE-6 tonne/gram)*(4E+6 Cal plant productionl
tonne)*( 4186 J/kcal) I.94E+13 J/yr. Transfonnity of above-ground live biomass 6,962 sej/J (Odum
1996, p.1I6).
6. Organic sediment building: The average accretion rate, due to wastewater effluent is 0.40 cmlyr (Rybczyk,
et at. 1998). Dry weight of peat 10.4 % and heat content of peat is 9.2E+3 Btullb dry (Odum 1996,p.86).
Energy (J) (5.60E+06 square meter)* (O.4 cm)*(1 meterl lOO cm)*(IE+06 g/cubic meter)*(10.4
percent)*(9.2E+03 Btullb dry)*(1054 J/Btu)/(4.5359E+02 gram/lb) 4.98E+13 J. Transfonnity of peat
1.9E+4 sej/J (Odum 1996, p.86).
7, 8, 9,10,11, & 12: Estimated financial costs were multiplied by the emergy to dollar ratio, which is
1.43E+12 sej/$ for 1992.
210
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
17
Sweden Food System Analysis
Susanne Johansson, Steven Doherty. Torbjorn Rydberg
ABSTRACT
The resource basis of the Swedish food system in 1996, including farm production, processing,
distribution and consumption was analysed to quantify investments, environmental support and loading.
Local environmental sources accounted for 38% of farm production support and 11 % of food system
resources. Intermediate industry and market sectors were most resource consumptive (64% of total). Two
sectors most important to human sustenance, form production and.foodpreparation, required comparatively
little resources (17% and 10% percent, respectively). Resource-use per food product output increased 5
foldfrom 1.6E5 sej/J for farm products to 7.5E5 sej/J for consumed food products. Greatest percent
increase in resource-use, economic investment, and environmental loading occurred between farm and
processing sectors. Food system products require 3 times the investment and generate almost 5 times the
load on the environment than national aggregate resource-use, identifying food products as high quality,
value-added market commodities. Because sustainable farm production is scaled to renewable resources
and local ecosystems, demandfrom subsequent food system sectors shouldfit local production limits and
the role of imported foods should not exceed aggregate regional investments. Food security requires
reducing the indirect human service component in food processing, distribution and marketing sectors
while increasing local labor. Sustainability requires reconnecting production and consumption. Further
tightening of the foadsystem extent includes reducing intermediate foodsector demands, transport distances
and reliance on imports.
INTRODUCTION
Today, human impacts on ecosystems worldwide, combined with growing human population
and consumption, challenge our collective abilities to meet basic human needs. With more mouths to
feed, projected declines in fossil fuels to subsidise agricultural production, and increased land-use pressure
for limited arable lands, food security in the future is at risk. Confounding these circumstances is the
globalisation of markets, expanding the boundaries between farms and households and increasing the
network of resource demands supporting food as a commodity. This includes value-added economic
sectors starting at farm production and harvest, through processing, packaging, distribution, storage and
market sales, to preparation and consumption by final consumers.
By considering the entire food system, inefficiencies, inequities and impacts can be identified,
providing indicators for change needed to organise a more secure and sustainable food supply. In this
study, the Swedish food system in 1996 was analysed using emergy as a meaSure of direct and indirect
resource support and environmental load.
BACKGROUND
Today, approximately 90% of the food mass consumed in Sweden is processed domestically
(Statistics Sweden 1997b; 1998b). Imported foods comprise one quarter of the total supply (kg), with the
majority dispatched by trade partners within the European Community (Iordbruksverket 1998). Domestic
-211-
Chapter 17. Sweden Food System Analysis

farm production includes agricultural crops (mainly wheat, rye, oats, barley, potatoes, sugar beets, rape
seed), horticultural crops (mainly tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, apples), and animal products (mainly beef,
pork, eggs, dairy, fish). Primary import food commodities include fruits, vegetables, green coffee beans,
wine, salmon, beef and chocolate (Jordbruksverket 1998). Currently Sweden imports twice as much food
mass as it exports (Jordbruksverket 1998). Food supplied to Swedes in 1996, including byproducts not
consumed and spoilage (e.g., peels, seeds, bones, fats) averaged 758 kg/p (Statistics Sweden I 997b;
1998b).
Deutsch (1999) estimates 4 million hectares of arable land area were required to produce food
consumed in Sweden in 1994. With almost 3 million ha of arable land and 0.5 million ha of improved
pasture (Statistics Sweden, 1997b), a sparse population density (21.5 p/ha) and with relatively low
population growth, Sweden has the possibility to be self-sufficient in food production.
A15% decrease in
import production between 1962 and 1994 was computed by Duetsch (1999), lending further credence to
the prospect of food security.
However, other trends indicate a lowering of self-sufficiency and an increase in environmental
impact, often hidden in non-local farm production of imports and through resource support of indirect
services (Rydberg 1991). Industrialisation of domestic farm production has resulted in elevated use of
fertilizers, chemicals and fossil fuels, and an estimated annual loss of 1 million tonnes of organic matter
from cultivated topsoil (Johansson 1998; Lillieskold and Nilsson 1997). Sintilar non-local impacts are
inferred from a documented shift from rural to industrial production of imported foods (Duetsch 1999).
Direct energy used for food systems in Sweden measured 17% of the total national energy
supply in 1993 (Uhlin 1997) (a corresponding percentage was estimated for the U.S. in the 1970's; Singh
1986). The consumer sector, including food storage, preparation, and consumption, constituted the greatest
percentage of direct energy used (40%) within the Swedish food system (Uhlin 1997). Direct energy used
for food transport measured 7-11% of the total use, with transportation costs increasing from the farm
sector to the household (Uhlin 1997).
A survey in
Denmark measured one-third of family resources and
environmental impact was attributed to food consumption (Forbrugerstyrelsen 1996).
CONCEPTS
The metaphor of a 'foodshed', analogous to a watershed, was introduced by Getz (1991) to
articulate where food comes from and the network of transformations necessary to get it to the consumer.
Kloppenburg et al (1996) developed the foodshed concept as a methodological unit of analysis that provides
an investigative and planning framework as well as a pedagogic tool.
Dahlberg (1993) presents a systems approach for analysing foodsheds, including impacts as
well as resource demands. This systems study further develops the foodshed concept by tracking, in
aggregate, the total resource network converged and transformed within the Swedish food system, using
solar emergy as a common basis for accounting.
Fundamentals of emergy analysis are based in systems ecology principles, thermodynamic laws
and recognition of biophysical limits to conversion processes. The postulate of self-organisation states
that complex adaptive systems yield hierarchical designs that generate useful energy transformations
(e.g., Odum 1984). Hierarchies produce structures and patterns that reinforce lower level processes,
enhancing system performance. Thus, products and processes resultant from nested interactions, have
contributions or impacts commensurate with their developmental history. Emergy, as a donor-based measure
of direct and indirect resources used to generate or maintain a product or service (Odum 1996), equates
inputs and use as utility metrics. Nevertheless, a balanced accounting of total resource requirements
allows for identification of system inefficiencies and inference of impacts due to resource loading.
METHODS
Quantitative information on environmental parameters, resource-use, labor and market subsidies
supporting the Swedish food system in 1996 were assembled from published literature and national
212

statistical abstracts. Baseline data, reported as available energy (1), mass (kg), or international dollars
(USD) required to generate annual output quantities of various food items, were compiled and summed
for each sector. Citations and computations are referenced as footnotes corresponding to line item numbers
in tables and similarly noted in the text. Estimates and assumptions stemming from inadequate or
unavailable data are also stated in footnotes.
The analysis is organised into four process sectors of the Swedish food system following
Andersson (1998): 1) farm production; 2) processing; 3) distribution; and 4) consumption. Import and
export food products were also evaluated. Methods follow Odum 1996 and are described in detail elsewhere
in the symposia proceedings. Resource data are converted into solar emergy (sej) using referenced
transformation ratios(sej/I, sej/kg, or sej/USD) and aggregated for input variables (F.)
and output quantities
I
0) corresponding to each of 4 sectors (i). Estimates and calculations of resources supporting direct
labour and indirect human services supporting purchased goods are also footnoted.
Indices and ratios are calculated for resource-use
(FI) within and between sectors (I) and for
production output (1.)

following Odum(1996) and Brown and Ulgiati (I 998): Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR.)
I
I
=
YIJ.,; Emergy Investment ratio (EIR.)

= };F J(R+N); Environmental loading ratio (ELR.) = (};F .+N)/
I
I
I
R; and Emergy Sustainabilily Index(ESI) EYRfELR Input summaries and index values are used to
f
facilitate comparisons, to generate perspectives, and to articulate an expanded concept of the foodshed.
Results are reported in solar emjoules(sej), as per cent of solar emergy used within a sector Orlo support
a resource flow, or as index values of solar emergy use.
=
RESULTS
Table 1 details inputs, identified by line items (J.i), to the Swedish food system, organised
within process sectors (F) and summed for food product output (I). Local renewable sources(R) includes
direct solar insolation over cultivated lands and greenhouses(item 1.1), and annual precipitation allocated
to evapotranspiration (item 1.2) or runoff(item 1.3). Local nonrenewable resources (N) includes loss of
soil organic malter on cultivated lands (item 1.4). Farm production (F,) includes inputs supporting
cultivation, management and harvesting for agriculture, horticulture and fisheries (items 1.5-1.15);
industrial processing (F,) includes refinement and packaging inputs (items 1.20-1.25); distribution (F,)
includes inputs to wholesale and retail markets (items 1.26-1.31); consumption (FJ includes fuels and
electricity used in storage and preparation in the household (items 1.32-1.34). Transportation costs are
allocated within each sector. Import foods are added in and export foods are subtracted from the food
system to account only for the food consumed domestically.
Table 2 and Figure I summarise the analysis. Local, renewable sources (R) contributed 11 % of
resources supporting domestic farm production (I,) and only 3% of all food system resources supporting
final consumption (JJ. Soil organic matter used up (N), constituted 73% of local resources(R+N)' 28%
of resources used in farm production (I,) and 8% of food system resources. The economic component of
the whole food system (FI .J thus accounted for 89"/0 of total resources used (y), with indirect services in
purchased goods (S) drawing the largest share of resources (66%), followed by purchased materials and
energy (G, 21%) and local labor(S, 3%). Resources used in imported foods were estimated at 9"/0 of total
food system resources. Import and export foods each used about 15% of resources in production and
processing (F I.') '
The distribution and marketing sector (F,) required the greatest quantity of purchased resources
(40% of total), followed by the processing sector (F,) using 24%. Farm production (F,) and consumption
(FJ required fewer resources(16% and 10%, respectively). Resources required for food sector products
(i.e., solar transformity) increased almost 5 fold from 1.6E5 sejlI for farm products to 7.5E5 sej/I for
consumed foods. Indirect services supporting purchased goods were greatest for processing and distribution
(76% and 85% of sector total, respectively), and lowest for farm production(55%) and consumer end-use
-213-
Cha pter 17. Sweden Food System Analysis

Table 1.
Food system supporting Swedish food consumers 1996.
Item-note
Component
Conversion
(sej/unit)
Data
(1, kg, USD)
R Renewable resource-use:
1 Solar insolation
2 Rainfall, evapotranspiration
3 Rainfall, runoff
N
F,
J
J
1.8E+04
2.8E+04
0.83
12.91
1.60
5.65E+16
7.2E+04
40.69
J
J
5.6E+04
I.3E+05
1.5E+10
1.0E+12
1.1E+12
3.8E+12
3.9E+12
1.2E+12
1.2E+12'
4.1+12 b
1.2E+l2'
1.6E+05 d
2.4E+05'
7.63
6.73
0.24
2.12
0.47
7.31
0.83
6.06
1.10
7.04
49.05
144.61
40.81
1.1+06
3.5E+06
8.5E+04
6.8E+04
4.78
20.44
0.12
20.84
5.6E+04
I.3E+05
1.2E+12
1.2E+12
4.6E+12b
1.2E+12'
3.3E+05 f
4.04
11.09
5.62
1.47
2.80
79.71
269.02
5.6E+04
I.3E+05
1.2E+12
1.2E+12
4.6E+12'
1.2E+12'
6.0E+05
6.06
16.92
2.73
1.20
4.62
177.82
478.36
Purchased resource-use in farm production:
5 Fuel
6 Electricity
7 Pesticides
8 Calcium oxide
9 Potassium fertilizer
10 Nitrogen fertilizer
11 Phosphorous fertilizer
12 Machinery
13 Buildings
14 Direct labor
15 Indirect services'
J. Farmfood products:
J",Ex port food:
J import food:
.
16 Meat
17 Fish
18 Sugar
19 Other
F,
8.27E+19
7.09E+16
5.71+15
Non-renewable resource-use:
4 Soil organic matter

F,
Solar emergy
(E20 sejlyr)
1.36E+16
5.30E+15
1.61E+09
2.12E+08
4.24E+07
1. 92E+08
2. 13E+07
4. 93E+08
8.96E+07
1.53E+08
3.99E+09
9.22E+16
1.69E+16
2.76E+14
5.84E+14
1.42E+14
3.06E+16
Purchased resource-use in processing:
20 Fuel
21 Electricity
22 Machinery
23 Buildings
24 Direct labor
J, Processed f ood products:
7.20E+ l5
8.73E+15
4.51+08
1.20E+08
6.09E+07
6.48E+09
8.26E+16
26 Fuel
27 Electricity
28 Machinery
29 Buildings
30 Direct labor
J, Food products at markets:
1.08E+16
1.33E+16
2.22E+08
9.79E+07
9.94E+07
1.45E+10
8.02E+16
g
kg
kg
kg
kg
USD
USD
hrs
USD
J
J
J
J
J
J
USD
USD
hrs
USD
Purcbased resource-use in food distribution:
-214-
USD
USD
hrs
USD
J

Table 1. (cont.)
Item-note component
data
(J,
kg,
USD)
conversion
solar emergy
(sej/unit)
(E20 sej/yr)
F, Purchased resource-use in food preparation:
32 Fuel
9.80E+15
33 Electricity
2.58E+16
1.01E+09
J, Consumed/ood products:
7.05E+!6
J
J
USD
J
5.6E+04
5.50
l.3E+05
32.83
1.2E+12,
12.45
7.5E+05
529.14
Footnotes to rable 1 found at the end of the chapter.
(25%). Fuels and electricity were intennediate demands within food sectors. Local labour was highest in
the farm production sector, measured both as labour-hours employed and as per cent of sector resources
(F )
i
The greatest percent increase in food product transformities was between farm products (I,) and
processed foods (I,) and lowest between market products (J,) and consumer foods (JJ. This trend is also
evidenced in the relative percent investment increases (EIR.) and declining yields (EYR.) measured between
,
food sectors. Environmental loading (ELR ) increased with additional purchases supporting each food
1
fa""
production
J3
,
529.1
slorage.
preparation
J4
,
,
40.8
export food
E20 sej/yr
Solar
7.50
transformlly (E5 aejlJ):
1.51
326
(+108%)
5.97
(+83%)
Emergy Investment ratio, EfR:
1.6
3.8
(+138">
1.6
(+1DO'lfo)
8., (+11%)
Eme<gy yietI ratb,EYR:
1.6
1.3
(-19%)
1.1
(-15%)
1.1 (-1+0%)
16.7
(+96%)
30.'
(+82%>
E"""IIY
envi'onmenlal 1oadng.E1R,
Figure 1.
33.'
(+2M6)
(+10%)
Aggregated systems diagram of the Swedish food system. 1996. Variables are identified in Table 1
and summarised in Table 2; indices are defined in methods. Resouroe inputs (R. N. Fi) identified outside the
food system frameare reported as E2() se}lyr and inside the frame as per cent of resources used in the food
system (529.IE20 se}). Per cent diiforence of index values between sectors are given in parentheses. Rounding to
whole numbers results in slight overestimates.
-215-

product sector, with the greatest percent difference between farm production and processing (96%) and
lowest between distribution and consumption sectors (10%). Environmental loading (ELR,) of S.5 was
calculated at the farm level, with a disproportion of purchased goods (F , ) and soil loss (N) relative to
local environment (R). Overall, economic investments (F) used in the whole food system measured almost
S.5 times greater than local environmental sources (E), loading the environment more than 30 to 1 by the
time food products are processed, distributed, and consumed.
DISCUSSION
National index values for 1996 (Lagerberg et ai, 1999) are compared with food system index values
to place the results of this study into a national context. The Swedish food system invests almost 3 times as
much purchased resources relative to local environmental support (EIR) than the national aggregate resource
use (S.4 and 3.0, respectively). Environmental loading (ELR) resulting from production of consumer foods
(JJ measured almost 5 times greater than the load generated at the national level (33.4 compared with 6.S).
These indicators equate consumer food products with high quality commodities. Greenhouse tomatoes are an
example, with EIR index values, before processing, distribution and consumption, ranging from 10 to 4S0,
depending on method of production (Lagerberg et ai, 1999). In fact, resource-use per economic product for
the food system measured 1.5 times greater than the same national index (Table 2). Food sustainability would
require resource-use (solar transfonnity and EIR) below the national average for econontic and industry
activities and higher net yields (EYR).
This analysis identifies contributions from local labour and environmental support are small relative
to fuels, purchased goods and indirect services. With food prices influenced by consumer preference, profits
accrue at markets and intennediate sectors, where indirect services are greatest, restricting farm income and
drawing attention away from necessery environmental support. Subsidies may exacerbate inefficiencies if
investments are directed
at accelerated production to meet market demands and not environmental limits.
Because farm products are refined and transfonned into consumer goods and widely distributed to markets
far from the source of production, food prices and resource-use may be inflated above ntinimum costs and
requirements.
Two food sectors integral to basic human sustenance (farm production and food preparation) require
fewer resources than sectors involved in food commoditisation (processing and marketing). Environmental
loading is correspondingly higher for intennediate sectors. While local direct impacts may be minimal and
may even be reduced through local actions (e.g., organic farnting), indirect impacts are generated at regional,
national and global scales where human services supporting intennediate food product sectors are based. A
consequence may be that responsible actions by producers and consumers are lessened by the econontic
engines of industry and markets.
Until recently, food production relied on local and ecological knowledge. Education in food storage
and preparation, offered within communities for farms and fantilies, are no longer common. Industry and
markets have obfuscated food production boundaries and diluted the role of local institutions. Emerging
service economies have drawn workers away from ruraI areas, extending families and consumers beyond
their communities and diminishing the need for local knowledge. Because agriculture is biophysically linked
to environmental limits, management efforts, fuel and agre-chemical subsidies have dintinishing returns to
production. Efforts toward sustainable food supplies should base delivery on environment and farm production
capacities. Other actions include reducing intennediate sector demands, transport distances and indirect services,
and increasing institutions, labour, and knowledge supporting farms and local ecosystems. Reconnecting
production and consumption of local foods is a necessery step toward food system sustainability.
-216-

Table 2. Resource
summaries of the Swedish food system,
1996.
Components
E20 sej/yr
Indigenous environmental components (E
R+N):
Local renewable sources
Local nonrenewable resources
Economic components (F
G+L+S):
Purchased materials
Direct labor
Indirect services
Total resource-use in whole food system
(Y
E+F):
% of total'
56.0
11
15.3
40.7
473.1
89
109.6
21
14.5
349.2
66
529.1
100
Food tradeb:
JIm
Import food products
46.2
17
JEx
Export food products
40.8
15
Purchased resource-use with food product sectors:

F1
Farm food products
88.6
17
F2
Refined, processed food
124.4
24
F3
Food delivered to market..
209.3
40
F.
Prepared food for consumption
50.8
10
Food system resource-use / purchased food price'
2.12E+12
sejlUSD
National aggregate resourcesused / GDP"
1.44E+l2
sejlUSD
Table 2 footnotes.
R items 1-3; Table I
item 4; Table I
items 5-13,20-23,26-29,32-33, plus (0.35J'm)' minus (1,); Table I
L
items 14,24,30; Table I
S
items 15,25,31,34 plus (0.65' J,,,); Table I
J'm items 16-19; Table I
JE>< Table I
F, items 5-15; Table I
a
resource component! total food system resource-nse,529.IE20 sejlyr,19% (item J4; Table I)
b
Food trade per cent of food system resources through processing [(E+FI+F2); item J2,Table I]
% J'm [(46.2E20 sej) 1(269.0E20 sej)] (100'10)
% JE>< [(40.8E20 sej) 1 (269.0E20 sej)] (100'10)
c
(y, 529.IE20 sej) 1 (1.67El l SEK 16.7 SEKlUSD, 1996)
d
Lagerberg et al 1999
N
217
REFERENCES
Anderson, K. 1998. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Food Products and Production Systems. Ph.D.
thesis. School of Environmental Sciences, Department of Food Science, Chalmers University of
Technology. Gothenburg, Sweden.
Brandt, M., Jutman, T. & A1exandersson, H. 1994. Sveriges vattenbalans. Arsmedelvllrden 1961-1990 av
Nederbord, Avdunstning och Avrioning. SMlll hydro10gi Nr 49, 1994. Norrkoping. (In Swedish)
Brown, M.T. & Arding, J. 1991. Transformities. Working paper. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA.
Deutsch, L. 1999. Ecosystem Appropriation through Industrial Intensification and trade: Swedish
Agriculture 1962-1994. Masters Degree thesis. Dep. of Systems Ecology. Stockholm University.
Doherty, S.1., Nilsson, P.O. & Odum, H.T. 1993. Systems Analysis of Forest Production and Industries in
Sweden. Report to: The Swedish State Power Board and The Royal Academy of Agricultural
Sciences.
Eggertsson-Karlstrom, C. (Ed.) 1998. SMlll VMer och Vatten. Norrkoping. (In Swedish)
Forbrugerstyrelsen. 1996. Miljllbelastningen ved familiens aktiviteter. Resultater fra en kortlregning af
ressourceforbrug og udledninger till miljllet fra 22 aktiviteteri en modelfamilie. Rapport 1996.1.
Copenhagen. (In Danish)
Hammer, M. 1991. Sweden's herring fisheries: A comparison between coastal, offshore and industrial
fisheries. In: Emergy analysis: A biophysical bridging between the economies of humanity and
nature. Nilsson, P.O. & Doherty, S.1. (eds.). A report of initial studies to Vattenfall and the Royal
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johansson, W. 1998. Kol i Sveriges aIcer- och betesmark. (In Swedish)
Jordbruksverket. 1998. Sveriges utrikeshandel med jordbruksvaror och livsmedel 1995-1997. Rapport
1998:12. (In Swedish)
Lagerberg, C., Doherty, S. & Nilsson, P. O. 1999. Evaluation of the resource efficiency and sustainability
of the Swedish economy using emergy based indices. Paper II in: Lagerberg C., Emergy Analysis
of the Resource Use in Greenhouse Crop Production and of the Resource Basis of the Swedish
Economy. Agraria 191, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae.
Lagerberg, C., Gertsson, U., Larsen, R. and L. GlIredai. 1999. Emergy evaluation of five greenhouse
tomato production systems. Paper III in: Lagerberg C., Emergy Analysis of the Resource Use in
Greenhouse Crop Production and of the Resource Basis of the Swedish Economy. Agraria 191,
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae.
Lillieskold, M. & Nilsson, J. (Eds.) 1997. Kol i marken. Konsekvenser av markanvandning i skogs- och
jordbruksmark. Naturvardsverket. Stockholm.
Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ec.ology: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 644 pp.
Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental Accounting - Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York. 370 pp.
OKQ8. 1999. Leif Persson. Personal communication.
Rydberg, T. 1991. Emergianalys - perspektiv pa dagens ekologiska lantbruk. In: Hook, K. & Wivstad, M.
(Eds.) Ekologiskt lantbruk infur framtiden. Konferens 1991. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.
Uppsala. pp. 88-95. Conference proceedings. (In Swedish)
-218-
Cha pter 17. Sweden Food System Analysis
Sellers, W. 1965. Physical Climatology. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Singh, R.P. 1986. Energy in food processing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier Science
PublishersB . V.
StatisticsSweden 1996. Naturmiljon i siffror. TheNatural Environment inFigures. (Limited information
in English)
StatisticsSweden. 1997a. Det yrkesmiissigafisket i sotvatten 1996. Preliminiira uppgifter. J 56SM 9701.
Fishing inInlandWaters byCommercialFishermen 1996, Preliminary data. (Limited information
in English)
Statistics Sweden. 1997b. Jordbruksstatistisk arsbok 1997. Yearbook of agricultural statistics. (Limited
information in English)
Statistics Sweden. 1997c. Triidgardsinventeringen 1997. Uppgifter avseende 1996. J 10 SM 9702. The
1997 Horticulture Census concerning 1996. (Limited information in English)
Statistics Sweden. 1998a. Ftlrsiiljning av kalk ftlr jord- och trildgardsbruk, for kalkning av sjoar och
vattendrag samt for skogskalkning under 1997. Na 30 SM 9802. Sales of lime for agricultural
and horticultural purposes, for lakes and rivers and for woodlands in 1997. (Limited information
in English)
Statistics Sweden. 1998b. Niir mat kommer pa tal. Tabeller om livsmedel 1998. Tables on food 1998.
(Limited information in English)
StatisticsSweden. 1998c. Saltsjtlfisketstangsterunder 1996. Definitiva uppgifter. J 55SM 9701. Swedish
sea-fisheries during 1996. Definitive data.(Limited information in English)
Statistics Sweden. 1998d. Vattenbruk 1996. J 60 SM 9701. Aquaculture in Sweden in 1996. (Limited
information in English)
Statistics Sweden. 1998e. Arliga energibalanser 1995-1996. E 20 SM 9805.
Statistics Sweden. 1999. Statistical database. Limited access on the internet. http'flwwwscb se
SverigesNationalatlas.1995. Klimat, sjoar och vattehdrag. (In Swedish)
TheNationalFoodAdministration, 1985. Svinnet iIivsmedelshanteringen. Food wastage inSweden. The
journalV arFOdaVolume 37 supplement 1. Uppsala, Sweden. (Summary in English)
Uhlin, H-E. 1997. Energifloden i Iivsmedelskedjan. Rapport 4732. Energy flows in the food system.
Naturvardsverket, Stockholm, Sweden. (InSwedish)
Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T. & Bastianoni, S. 1993. EMergy Analysis ofItalianAgriculturai System. Therole
of Energy Quality and EnvironmentalInputs. In: Bonati, L. ( Ed.) Trends in EcologicalPhysical
Chemistry. International workshop on ecological 'physical chemistry2 1992,
Milano. pp. 187-214.
Uppsala Energi AB. 1999.SusanneWaxin.Personal communication.
-219-

Food system resources (529.IE20sej) measured 15% of national resource base, 1996 (3598E20 sej;
a.
Lagerberg et al 1999). National sej/GDP was reduced proportionally to estimate supporting indirect human
services within the food system: (I.44EI2 sejlUSD, 1996; Lagerberg etal I999)*(0.85) - 1.2EI2 sejlUSD
b.
c.
(4.01+16 sej/p-yr; Lagerberg et aI 1999) I (365 dayslyr) I (24 hrs/day) -4.65E+12 sej/hr
Economic costs of production within sectors FI,F2,F3 and F4 (items 1.15, 1.25,1.31, 1.34) are proportioned
to cost of food products sold to consumers from known costs and percentages.
d.
(R+N+F,) iJ, -( l 44.6E20 sej) I (9.22EI6 1) - 1.6E+05 sej/J
e.
Solar transformity for export foods, J"" estimated as average for farm food products (ST" item d)
(R+N+F,+F,) I J, - (269.0E20 sej) I (8.26EI6 1) - 3.3E+05 sej/J
processed food products (ST" item 1).
g.
h.
I.
and
(R+N+F,+F,+F,) I J, - (478.4E20 sej) I (S.02E16 1) - 6.0E+05 sej/J
(R+N+F,+F,+F,+F,) I J, - (529.IE20 sej) I (7.05E16 1) -7.5E+05 sej/J
Solar insolation received on arable land, grazing land and greenhouses
3.58E+10 [m', land area] (Statistics
Sweden, 1997b, 1997c) x 8.50E+OI [kcallcm', insolation] (Eggertsson-Karlstr6 m, 1998) x 0.35 [% albedo
given as a decimal; average for bare soil, meadows, fields, snow covered ground] (SeUers, 1965) x 10000
[cm'/m'] x 4.19E+03 [Jlkcal]- 8.27E+19 J. Solar transformity by definition I sej/J.
2.
Chemical potential energy of evapotranspired rainfall on arable land,grazing land and greenhouses-3.58E+10
[m', land area] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b, 1997c) x 0.73 [m, precipitation] (Brandt et ai, 1994) x 0.55 [%
transpiration given as a decimal] (Sveriges Nationalallas, 1995) x 1000 [kg/m',water density] x 4.94E+03 [JI
3.
kg, gibbs free energy]-7.09E+16 J. Solar transformity from Odum (1996).

Geopotential energy of runoff on arable land and grazing land - 3.58E+10 [m', land area] (Statistics Sweden,
1997b, 1997c) x 0.329 [m, runofi] (SMHI, 1994) x 5 [m, mean elevation] x 1.00E+04 [kg/m', water density]
x 9.80 [mis', gravity]- 5.71+15 J. Solar transformity from Odum (1996).
4.
Organic matter lost on arable land - 2.50E+ l 2 [g] (Johansson,1998; Lilliesk61d & Nilsson,1997) x 5.4 [kcall
g] x 4186 [Jlk cal]- S.65E+16 J. Solartransformity from Odum (1996).
5.
Fuel used at farms for heating and machine use - 3.82E+08 [I, fuel] (Uhlin, 1997; Statistics Sweden, 1997b) x
3.56E+07 [In, energy content]- I .36E+16 J. Solar transformity from Lagerberg, et al (1999). Data on fuel
use for heating greenhouses not included.
6.
Electticity used in agriculture,forestry and fisheries (Statistics Sweden, 19980)- 5.30E+15 J. Solar transformity
from Lagerberg, et aI (1999). Electticity-use data for forestry was included with agriculture and fisheries data
7.
and was not excluded here.

Pesticides used in farm production - 1.53E+09 [g, agriculture use] (Jordbruksverket, 1997) + 7.65E+07 [g,
horticulture use; estimated at 5% of agriculture use]-1.61E+09 g. Solar emergy per mass from Brown &
Arding (1991).
8.
Calcium oxide sold to the agricultural and horticultural sectors - 2.12E+08 kg (Statistics Sweden, 1998a). Solar
9.
Potassium fertilizer sold to the agricultural and horticultural sector
emergy per mass from Odum (1996).

=
4.24E+07 kg (Statistics Sweden, 1997b).
Solaremergy per mass from Odum (1996).
10. Nitrogen fertilizer sold to the agricultural and horticultural sector 1.92E+08 kg (Statistics Sweden, 1997b).
Solaremergy per mass from Odum (1996).
II. Phosphorous fertilizer sold to the agricultural and horticultural sector -2.13E+07 kg (Statistics Sweden, 1997b).
=
Solar emergy per mass from Odum (1996).
12.
Tra<:tors, ma<:hinery and tools used - 3.30E+09 [SEK] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b) x 6.70 [SEKlUSD, 1996
exchange rate] 4.93E+08 USD. Multiplier - solar emergy per GDP (note a).
13.
Building construction and maintenance -6.00E+08 [SEK] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b) x 6.70 [SEKlUSD, 1996
exchange rate] 8.96E+07 USD. Multiplier - solar emergy per GDP (note a).
14. Labour hours in agriculture, horticulture,fishing and hunting - 6.80E+04 [people working] (Statistics Sweden,
1997b) x 45 [hrsIweek] (Statistics Sweden, (997b) x 50 [weekslyr] -I.53E+08 hrs. Multiplier = solar emergy
per hour (note b).
15.
Expenditures for purchased resources used in agriculture, horticulture and fisheries 1.67E+II [SEK, cost of
consumed food] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b) x 0.16* [% of cost, given as a decimal] 16.70 [SEKlUSD, 1996
=
J,
exchange rate] - 3.99E+09 USD. Multiplier -solar emergy per GDP (note a).
Farm food products - 7.I3E+16 [J, agricultural crops]+ 2.03E+16 [1, animal products] + 6.26E+14 [J,
fish]
9.22E+16 J. Solar transformity calculated from this study (note c).
-220-

Agricultural crops 4.42E+09 [kg] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b, 1997c) x 3.85E+03 [kcal/kg] x 4.19E+03 [J/
kcal]7.I3E+16 J
Animal products (5.48E+08 [kg, meat from husbanchy famts] + 1.90E+06 [kg, reindeer meat) + 1.59E+07
[kg, wild game) + 7.14E+07 [kg, egg) + 3.26E+09 [kg, milk))(Statistics Sweden, 1997b) 3.89E+09 [kg,
meat, milk and eggs] x 0.22 [% protein, given as decimal) x 2.37E+07 [J/kg protein)2.03E+16 J
Fish from fish famts, inland waters and sea 1.25E+08 [kg, fish)(Statistics Sweden, 1998c, 1997a, 1998d) x
5.02E+06 [J/kg)6.26E+l 4 J
JEo< Food export1.55E+16 [J, energy in cereal]+ 2.79E+14 [J, energy in meat) + 1.08E+15 [J, energy in fish)
1.69E+16 J. Solar transformity calculated from this study(item e).
Cereal exported
9.65E+OS [kg)(Stalistics Sweden, 1999) x 3.85E+03 [kcal/kg) x 4.19E+03 [J/kcal)
1.55E+16 J
Meat export5.35E+07 [kg, meal] (Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 0.22 [% protein given as decimal) x 2.37E+07
[J/kg protein] 2.79E + l 4 J
Fish export 2.14E+OS [kg, fish](Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 5.02E+06 [J/kg) 1.08E+15 J
J
im Food importitems 16+17+18+19
16. Meat import5.27E+07 [kg, meat] (Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 0.22 [% protein given as decimal] x 2.37E+07
[J/kg protein] 2.76E+14 J. Solar transformity from Ulgiati, el al(1993).
17. Fish import1.l6E+08 [kg, fish](Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 5.02E+06 [J/kg)
S.84E+14 J. Solar transformity
from Hammer(1991).
IS.
Sugar import8.35E+06 [kg, sugar](Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 1.70E+07 [J/kg)1.42E+14 J. Solartransformity
from Ulgiati, et al(1993).

19. Others imports of grain products, vegetables, froil and nuts, coffee, tea, daily products and eggs 1.90E+09
[kg)(Slatistics Sweden, 1999) x 3.85E+03 [kcal/kg] x 4.19E+03 [J/kcal) 3.06E+16 J. Solar transformity
from Brown &Arding( l991).
20. Fuel used in processing 2 [TWh, transportation] x 3.60E+l 5 [JffWh, diesel] 7.20E+1S J.(Transportation
used in processing and distribution sectors, 5 TWh/yr; Uhlin (1997) estimates 40% used in processing and
21.
60% in distribution. Solar transformity from Lageroerg, el al (1999).

Electricity used in processing 2.43E+06 [MWh) (Stat. Sweden, 1999) x 3.60E+09 [JIMWh) 8.73E+lS J.
Solar transformity from Lagerberg, el al(1999).

22. Machinery use and inventory in processing 3.06E+09 [SEK) (Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 6.70 [SEKJUSO,
1996 exchange rate] 4.57E+08 USD. Multipliersolar emergy per GOP(note a).
23. Building construction and maintenance in processing8.03E+OS [SEK](Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 6.70 [SEKI
usn, 1996 exchange rate] 1.20E+08 USD. Multipliersolar emergyfGOP(note a).

24. Labour hours in processing 6.09E+07 [hrs](Statistics Sweden, 1999). Multiplier solar emergy per hour
(note b).
25. Expenditures for purchased resources used in processing 1.67E+ II [SEK, cost of consumed food] (Statistics
Sweden, 1997b) x 0.26* [% of cos given as a decimal) f 6.70 [SEKJUSO, 1996 exchange rate)
solar emergy per GOP(note a).
USD. Multiplier
6.48E+09
J, Processed food products4.42E+16 [J, grain and other crop products] + 1.27E+16 [J, meal and daily products)
+ 7.95E+14 [J, fish products] + 2.4SE+16 [J, other food products) S.26E+16 J(Statistics Sweden, 1997b,
1995b). Solar transformity calculated from this study (item d).
26. Fuel used in distribution
3 [TWh, transportation) x 3.60E+15 [JffWh) 1.08E+16 J (see note 20). Solar
transfonnity from Lagerberg, el al(1999).

27. Electricity used in distribution 3.70E+OO [TWh)(Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 3.60E+15 [JffWh)
J. Solar transformity from Lagerberg, et al(1999).
1.33E+16
1.49E+09 [SEK) (Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 6.70 [SEKJUSO,

2S. Machinery use and inventory in distribulion
1996 exchange rate)2.22E+08 USD. Multipliersolar emergy per GOP(note a).
29. Building construction and maintenance in distribution 6.56E+08 [SEK) (Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 6.70
[SEKJUSO, 1996 exchange rate] 9.79E+07 USD. Multiplier solar emergy per GOP(note a).
30.
Labour hours in distribution 6.76E+04 [people working] (Statistics Sweden, 1999) x 30 [average working
hours per person per week) x 49 [work weeks per person per year]9.94E+07 hr. Multipliersolar emergy
per hour (note b).

31. Expenditures for purchased resources used in distribution1.67E+II [SEK, cost of consumed food)(Statistics
Sweden, 1997b) x O.5S* [% of costs, given as decimal] f 6.70 [SEKJUSO, 1996 exchange rate)1.4SE+l0
USD. Multiplier solar emergy per GOP(note a).
J,Foodproducts bought at markets
4.30E+16 [J, grain and other crop products) + 1.23E+16 [J, meat and daily
-22 1 -
Chapter 17. SwedenFoodSystemAnalysis

products] + 7.72E+14 [J, fish] + 7.72E+14 [1, other food products] = 8.02E+16J. Solartransfonnity calculated
from this study (item e).
Grain and other crop products 2.67E+09 [kg] (Statistics Sweden. 1997b) x 3.S5E+03 [kcalJkg] x 4. 19E+03 [J/
kcal] = 4.30E+16 J
Meat and dairy products = 2.35E+09 [kg] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b; Statistics Sweden, 1995b x 0.22 [% protein
given as decimal] x 2.37E+07 [J/kg protein] = 1.23E+16 J
Fish products = 1.54E+OS [kg] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b) x 5.02E+06 [J/kg] = 7.72E+14 J
Other food products = l.50E+09 [kg] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b) x 3.S5E+03 [kcal/kg] x 4. 19E+03 [J/kcal]
2.41E+!6 J
32. Fuel used by consumers for food related transports 9.80E+15 J. Solar transfonnity from Lagerberg, et aI
(1999). petrol = 2.64E+05 [m'] (Ublin, 1997) x 1000 [Urn'] x 3.56E+07 [JII] = 9.40E+15 J; diesel = 1.12E+04
[m'] (Uhlin, 1997) x 1000 [Urn'] x 3.56E+07 [JII] = 3.97E+14 1.
33. Electricity used in households for storage, cooking and washing = 7.IS [TWh, electricity] (Uhlin, 1997) x
3.60E+15 [J/TWh] 2.58E+16 J. Solar transfonnity from Lagerberg, et aI (1999).
34. Expenditures for purchased resources used in food consumption 3.24E+S [USD, cost for fuel] 6.S6E+OS
[USD, cost for electricity] = I.OIE+09 USD. Multiplier solar emergy per GDP (note a).
Fuel use by consumers = 2 .75E+OS [I, petrol] (Uhlin, 1997) x 7 .S9 [SEKII, mean price for petrol 1996] (OK
QS, personal communication) x 6.70 [SEKlUSD, 1996 exchange rate] = 3.24E+OS USD
Electricity use by consumers = 7 .IS [TWh, electricity] x IE+09 [kWhlfWh] x 0.64 [SEKlkWh, price for
electricity] (Uppsala EnergiAB, personal communication) x 6. 70 [SEKlUSD, 1996 exchange rate] = 6.S6E+OS
USD
J, Consumed food products = S.02E+!6 [J, note35] (Statistics Sweden, 1997b, 1995b) x O.SS (12% lost in the
household as waste ) 7.OSE+16 J
=
-222-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
18
Spatial Transformities for Alachua County, Florida
J.
David Lambert
ABSTRACT
A spatial
EMERGY
model was created for Alachua County, Florida that was based on a
generalized emergy diagram model for equal size (one-hectare) land area units. The diagram models
each of the major inputs and storages of emergy that might occur in each land unit. A geographic
information system (GIS) was used to create the model and study the spatial distribution of each EMERGY
flow and storage included in the diagram. Previously published transformities were used to calculate
EMERGY densities
from estimated energy flows and storages associated with each land unit.
energy estimates were based on very detailed
GIS
These
databases. This paper repons on the results of the
spatial Iransformities that were calculated for the land use classifications, urban planning units, and
neighborhoods in the study area. These spatial transformities provide an energy quality measure that can
be used for landscape analysis and planning.
INTRODUCTION
Odum and others (Odum and Brown, 1976; Constanza, 1975, Brown, 1980, Odum, 1983, 1996;
Whitfield, 1994; Huang, 1998) have proposed that the spatial distribution of different types of energy
flows and storages in urban systems tend to follow patterns based on the level of transformity for each
particular flow or storage.
For example, low transformity energy flows tend to
compared to higher transformity flows.
be widely dispersed
In terms of the spatial arrangement of urban systems, these
studies predict tbat a city center will bave a higher total energy flow transformity than the less developed
suburbs surrounding the city center, and that rural areas outside the city will have the lowest transformity
for total energy flows. In the case of storages, there are usually many smaller, lower transformity storages
that are widely dispersed, and there are usually fewer of the larger, higher transformity storages. Once
again, in terms of the urban spatial pattern, this observation suggests that a city center will bave a higher
total energy storage transformity than suburbs.
Because of the large inputs of high-transformity
nonrenewable resources and human services that are required to develop and maintain all forms of urban
structure, it is likely that the transformities for urban storages will be larger than those for natural structure
in the surrounding areas.
These studies suggest that urban and regional systems may develop similar spatial patterns in
terms of energy transformation hierarchies.
If the existence of these spatial patterns could be shown to be
general and predictable, then this knowledge could serve as a theoretical basis for a unique approach to
urban and regional land use planning. However, additional studies of other urban areas are required in
order to demonstrate the general and predictable nature of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, the non
standard methnds used in previous studies make direct quantitative comparisons of the results difficult.
Therefore, a general methnd is needed for the spatial mndeling of energy flows and storages that will
allow direct comparison of the spatial patterns observed in different studies.
The unit mndel system diagram shown in Figure 1 is proposed as a general basis for spatial
mndeling of the EMERGY flows and storages in equal-size units of land area in an urban andlor regional
system. The diagram shows how the
EMERGY sources from outside the
land area unit mndel system
flow in and interact with other flows through production processes that maintain or build storages of
223
Chapter 18. Spatial Transformities for Alachua County, Florida
EMERGY. This model does not attempt to model flows between different land area units-each unit is
considered to be a separate unit model system with flows coming from unspecified points outside of the
unit model system and going to unspecified points outside the unit system.
METHODS
Using the land area unit model system diagmm as a theoretical basis, a detailed study was
conducted of the spatial patterns of energy tmnsformation hierarchy in Alachua County, Florida, USA
(Lambert, 1999). A GIS spatial model was created for this study in which the individual stomge and flow
components of the spatial model correspond to elements of the land area unit model system diagram
(Figure I). In the spatial model each component is modeled as a data set called a 'grid'. A grid is a spatial
data set that divides the study area into equal-size, IOO-meter square (one hectare) land area units called
'cells',
To create the spatial model, the magnitude of each energy flow into each land area unit and each
energy storage within each land area unit was estimated based on the characteristics and features of each
land area unit (Lambert, 1999). A very detailed and comprehensive GIS database provided the mw data
for these estimates. The EMERGY associated with each energy flow or stomge was calculated using the
appropriate transformities for each type of energy flow or stomge. Calculations for EMERGY in storages
include considemtions of past contributions. All calculations of energy storages and flows were based on
data from either 1993 or 1994.
The value associated with each cell in a component grid represents either the total energy or
EMERGY stored or the total energy or EMERGY flow per year occurring in the geogmphic area of that
cell. The values for all component grids representing EMERGY storage (referred to here as EMSIDRAGE)
are in units of solar emjoules per hectare (sejlha) and are referred to as 'component EMSTORAGE
.--.,...
Figure 1.
ENERGY Flow
Evalu.ted
.. .. EMEAQY Flow
Nol EvalUlited
_._.__
EMEROY Storage
EMERGYflows and storages evaluatedfor each land area unit in the spatial model. Individualflow
and storage elements have been numbered 10 provide cross-references in the text (see Table 1).
Nole: GPP
gross primary production.
-224-
Chapter 18. Spatial Transformitiesfor Alachua County, Florida

density' values.
The energy storage component grid values are in units of joules per hectare (j/ha).
Materials with a tumover time of less than a year are calculated in the model as flows.
EMERGY flows are measured as the total annual flow of solar emjoules per hectare per year
(sej/ha/yr). Energy flows are measured in units of joules per hectare per year (jlha/yr). EMPOWER has
been defined as the EMERGY flow per unit of time and'EMPOWER density' as the EMPOWER per unit
of area (EMPOWER/area) (Odum, 1996). In this model, the numbers associated with each cell in each of
the EMERGY flow component grids represent the 'component EMPOWER density' of each cell.
The number of grids in the spatial model is directly related to the complexity of the diagrammatic
model. For instance, urban structure could have been represented by a single storage tank in the diagram
and as a single component grid in the complementary spatial model. In this model, urban structure was
modeled more discretely with separate tanks in the diagram, and separate grids in the spatial model. In
the spatial model, a'component grid' may be composed of the sum of two or more 'subcomponent grids.'
For example, in the spatial model the 'urban built structure' component grid is the sum of the subcomponent
grids representing the storages in the buildings, transportation infrastructure, and utility infrastructure.
A primary purpose of creating each of these subcomponent grids separately was to facilitate the
processing of the original source GIS data layers. However, in this study subcomponent grids were also
considered to be discrete elements of their associated component flow or storage that were potentially
worthy of being used independently in planning analyses. Table I lists the component and subcomponent
grids included in the spatial model and includes a cross reference to the numbers used in Figure I to
identifY the individual flow and storage elements in the land area unit diagram model that are included in
the spatial model.
The cell values of several of the component grids that represent flows of EMERGY were added
together to create a 'Total EMERGY Consumption' analytical grid. The values in this grid represent
'Total Consumption EMPOWER density' for each grid cell. The values represent the sum of the EMERGY
in renewable resources used (as measured by transpiratioll-<llement#1 in Figure I), water used in buildings
and agriculture (element#3 in Figure
use-element #4 in Figure
I), all fuels used (including transportation, building, and agricultural
I), all goods used (and EMERGY in services associated with the goods
element#5 in Figure I), and in-situ human services (element #6 in Figure
I).
To prevent'double-counting'
of EMERGY flows, the component grids representing gross primary productivity, waste generation, and
waste recycling are not included in this summation. In order to be able to calculate the transformity of
'Total EMERGY Consumption', the complementary component grids that represent flows of energy
were also added together to create a 'Total Energy Consumption' analytical grid.
The component grids that represent all of the storages of EMERGY were added together to
create a 'Total EMSTORAGE' analytical grid (sum of values for elements 9a, 9b, 9c, lOa, lOb, IOc, and
11 in Figure
I). The values in this grid represent 'Total EMSTORAGE density' for each grid cell. To be
able to calculate a transformity for the'Total' EMERGY in storage, the component grids that represent all
of the storages of energy were also added together to create a 'Total Energy Storage' analytical grid.
Comparatjve studies. Three comparative studies were conducted in which spatial transformities
were calculated for various land area units by dividing the 'total' EMERGY flows or storages by the
'total' energy flows or storages occurring in a land area. There are many ways to categorize land areas
into units that can be described and analyzed. Three of the most common ways that planners categorize
land areas were used for these studies:
I) land use/cover classification schemes, 2) boundaries of
governance or management (called 'planning units' for this study), and, 3) land development units (such
as neighborhoods).
In the first comparative study, the magnitudes of EMERGY flows and storages and the spatial
transformities were calculated for the land areas associated with land use classification codes. The Florida
Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) (FDOT, 1985) was the system used in this study
as the basis land use/cover classification. In the Alachua County land use and cover GIS database, there
are 163 FLUCCS 'level 3' land use classes and the 36 'level 2' classes. These large numbers of classes
resulted in large lists of statistics that were difficult to digest. Therefore, to facilitate further analysis and
to possibly improve comprehension of the results, a more aggregated land use classification scheme was
-225-
Chapter 18. Spatial Traniformities for Alachua County, Florida

Table 1. Component and subcomponent (shown shaded) grids representing flows and storages of energy
and EMERGY that were included in the spatial model.
General Category
Description of Individual Flows/Storages

Calculated
Fig. 1
Element
FLOWS
Renewable Resources Used
Transpiration
Natural Systems Metabolism
Gross primary productivity
Water Used by Man
Water used for domestic, commercial, and
Direct Use of Fuels and
Sum of use in buildings, grounds,
agricultural purposes
Electricity
Goods/Services Consumption
agriculture, and transportation
3
4
Use for transportation
4a
Use in buildings, lawns, and agriculture
4b
Consumable and durable goods (and indirect

services) used
Human Services
'In situ' services from local people
Solid and Liqnid Wastes
Solid/liquid wastes not recycled
Recycled Wastes
Recycled solid wastes
. STORAGES
Natural Systems Structure
(includes agriculture, forestry,
Sum of biomass, surface and ground

water, and organic matter in soils
9
and urban forest)

Biomass
9a
Surface and groundwater
9b
Organic matter in soil

. Urban System Structure
People
Sum of buildings, roads and utilities infrastructure
9c
10
Buildings
lOa
Roads
lOb
Utilities infrastructure
10e
11
Storage in humans
created that only has 10 classes. This new scheme is similar to the 'level I ' classification scheme used for
the FLUCCS except that the more generalized 'residential' classification in the FLUCCS was expanded
to include the more specific 'Iow-density', 'medium-density', and 'high-density' residential classes.
Each grid in the spatial model was assigned an aggregated land use class code hased on the code
values in the spatially corresponding polygon of the land use and cover GIS database. By having land use
codes for each cell, basic summary statistics could be created for those land areas (cells) associated with
each classification code.
The following summary statistics were calculated for the land areas associated with each land
use/cover classification: the class sum of the 'total EMERGY consumption' flow and 'total EMERGY
storage' (the sum of the EMERGY density values in all of the cells with the same class code), the class
sum of the 'total energy consumption' flow and 'total energy storage' (the sum of the energy density
values in all of the cells with the same class code), the class transformities (calculated by dividing the
class sum for 'total' EMERGY flow or storage by the class sum for 'total' energy flow or storage), the
-226-
Chapter 18. Spatial Transfomlitiesfor Alachua County, Florida
percentage of the total area of the county represented by the area of the class, and the percentage of the
county-wide total EMERGY flow or storage represented by the class sum.
In the second comparative study, four 'planning units' were defined to facilitate comparison of
their EMPOWER and EMSTORAGE characteristics. The 'City of Gainesville' planning unit was defined
spatially by the city limits. The 'Urban Services Area' planning unit was defined by drawing a polygon
around the area contiguous to Gainesville that receives city utility services. The 'Other Incorporated
Areas' planning unit includes those areas within the legal limits of the following small towns: Alachua,
High Springs, Newberry, Archer, Micanopy, Hawthorne, Waldo, and La Crosse. All other areas belong to
the 'Alachua County' planning unit. Using the same approach used for the land classification study,
summary statistics and spatial transformities were calculated for the land areas associated with each
planning unit.
In the final comparative study, four representative neighborhoods were chosen to facilitate
comparison of the EMPOWER and EMSTORAGE characteristics of the different types of residential
development. In order to make fair comparisons, a 70-hectare representative' sample' area was selected
within each neighborhood. The 'Millhopper Ranchettes' neighborhood was chosen to represent the typical
5-acre ranchette developments that are found along the suburban fringe in Alachua County. 'The Hammock'
subdivision was chosen to represent 'up-scale' developments with larger homes and I to 2-acre lots. The
'Northwood Oaks' subdivision was chosen to represent typical neighborhoods in Gainesville on .25 to
.3-acre lots. The 'Florida Park' neighborhood was chosen to represent the more densely populated
neighborhoods found near the University of Florida and downtown Gainesville. Summary statistics and
spatial transformities were calculated for the 70-hectare sampled land areas associated with each
neighborhood.
RESULTS
LarulllsJ:..Clasfi
sj catjon Study., Table 2 lists the EMPOWER summary statistics that were
calculated for each 'aggregated' land classification. The 'total consumption EMPOWER class density'
(sej/classlyr) and 'total consumption energy flow class density' (j/classlyr) rates were calculated for each
aggregated land class (Table 2 lists these as the 'sum, EI8 sej/yr). The class transformities and percentages
were calculated using methods described previously. The table is sorted in descending order according to
the transformity calculated for each aggregated land class. Based on intuition, there are no obvious
anomalies in the rank order of the land class transformities.
Table 3 lists the EMSTORAGE summary statistics for each aggregated land class. The 'total
EMSTORAGE class density' (sej/class) and 'total energy storage class density' (j/class) was calculated
for each aggregated land class (Table 3 lists these values as the 'sum, E20 sej). The land class EMSTORAGE
transformities and percentages of the total county-wide EMSTORAGE were also calculated for the new
land classes. Table 3 is sorted in descending order according to the EMSTORAGE transformity calculated
for each aggregated land class. Based on the same intuition used to evaluate the EMPOWER aggregated
land class transformities, there are no anomalies in the rank order of the EMSTORAGE aggregated class
transfonnities.
Table 2 lists the percentage of the county-wide total EMPOWER or energy flow represented by
the class sum. This simple statistic provides some insight into the relative amount of the county-wide
total flows that is contributed by each land use classification. A notably large contribution to the total
annual EMPOWER for the county comes from the medium-density residential ld class (24.6%). The
institutional, high-density residential, and commercial and services land classes all make similar percentage
contributions to the total annual EMPOWER for the county (approximately 15.6% each), and low-density
residential contributes about 11.5% of the county total EMPOWER The importance of these simple
statistics is more evident when one realizes that these classes account for about 83% of the total annual
EMPOWER for the county. This type of statistic could be useful for characterizing and comparing
different counties and regions.
-227-
Chapter 18. Spatial Transformities forAlachua County, Florida

Statistics summarized by 'aggregated' land use classification categories for the county-wide
Table 2,
total consumption annual EMPOWER and energy flow consumption densities. Each transformity was
calculated by dividing the sum of the annual total consumption EMPOWERfor the total area of each land
use category by the sum of the annual total energy flow for the area of the same classification.
Description
No. of
cells
(# hal
%of
Co-wide
area
Sum,
El8
sejlyr
Sum,
El2
j/yr
EMPOWER
Spatial
Transformity
%of
Co-wide
total .ej/yr
0/0 of
Co-wide
total jly
(.ej/j)
Institutional
1,203
0.48
4,313.9
16,332
264,142
15.61
3.78
1,287
0.51
4,327.3
21,679
199,610
15.66
5.01
1,672
0.67
4,297.1
27,000
159,153
15.55
6.25
1,450
0.58
871.0
7,926
109,890
3.15
1.83
6,544
2.61
6,794.0
79,974
84,953
24.58
18.50
19,120
7.62
3,191.7
63,014
50,651
11.55
14.58
2,740
1.09
690.4
27,946
24,704
2.50
6.46
Residential High Density

CommerciaU
Services
Industrial!
Extractive
Residential Medium Density
Residential -
Low Density
Transportation!
Utilities
Wetlands!
Water
Agriculture
Upland Forest
44,767
17.84
253.1
12,719
19,895
0.92
2.94
66,617
26.55
1,002.3
56,588
17,713
3.63
13.09
105,541
42.06
1,897.9
119,084
15,937
6.87
27.55
In general, the land classes with the highest EMPOWER spatial transformities represent the
lowest percentages of the total area of the county and land classes with the lowest spatial transformities
represent the largest percentages of the county. For example, the highest 'spatial transformity (264,142
sej/j)was associated with the 'Institutional' classification which only represents 0.48% of the total county
area. On the other hand, the lowest spatial transformity (15,937 sej/j) was associated with the 'Upland
Forest' land classification, which represents about 42% of the total county area.
Table 3 lists the percentage of the county-wide total EMSTORAGE or energy storage that is
represented by each of the class sum values. The 'medium-density residential' class contributed the
largest amount (23.4%) to the total EMSTORAGE. This class also contributed the largest percentage
(24.6%) of the total EMPOWER. A few other comparisons include: the 'high-density residential' class
contributed 15.9% of the total EMSTORAGE (compared to 15.7% of the total EMPOWER); the
'commercial and services' class contributed 13.6% of the total EMSTORAGE (compared to 15.5% of the
total EMPOWER); the 'institutional' class contributed 15% of the total EMSTORAGE (compared to
15.6% of the total EMPOWER); and, the 'low-density residential' class contributed 11.4% of the total
EMSTORAGE (compared to 11.5% of the total EMPOWER). The contributions by the land areas
associated with these codes account for about 79"/0 of the total EMSTORAGE and 83% of th total
annual EMPOWER.
These comparative statistics for percentages of county-wide total EMSTORAGE and
EMPOWERseem to point to a pattern for urban land classes in which the percentages of the total county
wide EMERGY flow being very similar to the percentages of the total EMERGY storage. It is not clear
that this pattern would be a general one for all urban landscapes. It does, however, point to the need for
more studies using general methods that allow quantitative comparisons.
Planning Unit Study As noted previously, there are many ways to categorize land areas into
units that can be described and analyzed. This study uses 'planning units' whose boundaries are defined
-228-
Chapter 18. Spatial TransJormitiesJor Alachua County, Florida

Table 3. Statistics summarized by the 'aggregated' land use classification categories for the county-wide
total annual EMSTORAGE and total energy storage density. Each transformity was calculated by dividing
the sum of the total EMSTORAGE for the total area of each land use category by the sum of the total
energy storage for the area of the same classification.
Description
Sum,
EMSTORAGE
Ell
Spatial
Tranofonnity
(oej/i)
%of
Co-wide
total
sej
%of
Co-wide
Total joules
7,786,939
15.07
0.65
23,337
4,694,518
15.89
1.14
935
20,638
4,529,940
13.56
1.01
0.58
138
8,456
1,631,637
2.00
0.41
2.61
1611
103,198
1,560,810
23.36
5.05
7.62
785
194,509
403,353
11.38
9.52
No. of
ceDs
(# hal
0/0 of
Co-wide
area
Sum,E20
1,203
0.48
1039
13,342
1,287
0.51
1096
1,672
0.67
1,450
Medium Density 6,544
Institutional
sej
joules
ResidentialHigh Density
Commercial!
Services
Industrial!
Extractive
Residential Residential -
Low Density
19,120
Transportation!
Utilities
Agriculture
Upland Forest
Wetlands! Water
2,740
1.09
79
24,605
322,276
U5
1.20
66,617
26.55
333,574
89,795
4.34
16.33
105,541
42.06
299
649
842,312
77,059
9.41
41.24
44,767
17.84
265
478,519
55,393
3.84
23.43
by governance or management.
It is hoped that comparison of the EMERGY flow and storage
characteristics of planning units will provide useful insights for urban planners.
Table
4 lists the EMPOWER summary statistics for each planning unit. Using the methods
described previously, total annual EMPOWER of consumption unit densities (sej/unitlyr) and total annual energy flow unit densities (j/unitlyr) were calculated for each planning unit. The total EMPOWER of
consumption transformities were calculated for each unit using the sum EMERGY and energy values for
each unit. The percentage of total county-wide total energy flow and EMPOWER represented by the sum
flows through the area of each planning unit was also calculated
The EMPOWER part of Table 4 is sorted in descending order according to the EMPOWER of
consumption spatial transformities calculated for each planning unit. The rank order and relative magnitude
of the calculated transformities is both intuitive and consistent with the trends observed in previous
calculations.
The transformities of each planning unit reflect the relative EMPOWER intensities of each unit.
For example, the City of Gainesville, with the highest EMPOWER transformity, occupies only 5% of the
area of the county, but accounts for 56% of the total county-wide EMERGY flow. On the other hand, the
Alachua Couno/ unit, with the lowest EMPOWER transformity, occupies about 79"/0 of the area, but only
contributes 14.6% of the EMERGY flow. But, the county unit contributes about 76% of the county-wide
total enelgy flow. The urban services area, which could be characterized by calling the area 'suburban',
occupies 6% of the area and contributes about 21% of the total EMERGY flow.
Using these statistics, the average EMPOWER density for the urban services areas was found to
be about 32% as large as the average EMPOWER density of the City of Gainesville (using figures adjusted
for the same area). The average EMPOWER density in the county unit was only 2% as large as the
average EMPOWER density for the city.
These comparisons of percentages indicate the relative
EMPOWER intensity levels between the planning units.
-229-
Chapter 18. Spatial Transjormitiesfor Alachua County, Florida
Table 4.
Statistics summarized by "Planning Unit" categories for the county-wide total annual EMPOWER of
consumption, total energy flow of consumption, total EMSTORAGE. and total energy storage. Each spatial
transformity was calculated by dividing the sum of the total annual EMPOWER or total EMSTORAGE for the total
area of each planning unit by the sum of the total energy flow or storage for the area of the planning unit.
EMPOWER
Planning Unit
No. of
ceUs
(# ba)
%of
Cowide
area
%of
Co.-wide
total
Sum,
El8
Sej/yr
Sum,
El2
J/yr
%of
Co.-wide
total
sej/yr
EMPOWER
Spatial
Transformity
j/yr
(.ej/j)
City of Gainesville
12,641
5.04
15,503.5
56.09
119,868
27.73
129,339
Urban Services Area

Otber Incorporated
Areas
Alacbua County
15,109
6.02
5,905.2
21.37
68,761
15.91
85,881
24,018
9.57
2,196.5
7.95
46,610
10.78
47,124
199,248
79.38
4,033.7
14.59
197,071
45.58
20,469
EMSTORAGE
Planning Unit
Sum,
E20
sej
City of Gainesville
3,659.4
Urban Services Area
1,363.8
Otber Incorporated Areas (small towns)

Alacbua County
%of
Co.-wide
total sej
Sum,
El2
joules
%of
EMSTORAGE
Co.-wide
Spatial
total
Transformity
joules
(sej/j)
53.07
160,272
171,552
8.40
794,976
496.1
7.19
163,453
8.00
303,497
1,376.5
19.96
1,547,582
75.75
88,943
7.84
2,283,220
. Table 4 also lists the EMSTORAGE summary statistics for each planning unit. Total
EMSTORAGE unit densities (sej/unit), total energy storage unit densities G/unit), total EMSTORAGE
transformities, and the percentages of total county-wide total energy storage and EMSTORAGE were
calculated using methods described previously. The EMSTORAGE part of Table 4 is also sorted in
descending order according to the EMSTORAGE transformities calculated for each planning unit. The
rank order of transformities is the same as the rank order found for the EMPOWER transformities.
The table reveals patterns for the distribution of EMSTORAGE that are similar to those observed
for EMPOWER Using the same comparison, the City of Gainesville (highest transformity, 5% of the
area of the County), accounts for 53% of the total county-wide EMSTORAGE, and the Alachua County
unit (lowest transforinity, 79% of the area) contributes 20% of the EMSTORAGE. The county unit
contributes about 76% of the county-wide total energy storage. The average EMSTORAGE density for
the urban services areas was found to be about 31% of the average EMSTORAGE density for the City of
Gainesville (compared to 32% of EMPOWER density), and the average EMSTORAGE density in the
county unit was only about 2% as large as the average EMPOWER density for the city (compared to 2%
of EMPOWER density).
Neillhborhood Study The neighborhood study is the third study in which comparisons are made
between different land areas of the county using EMERGY-related statistics as the basis of comparison.
Neighborhoods are one of the many ways that planners categorize land areas into units that can be studied
and described. Each neighborhood was chosen to represent an alternative type of residential development.
A 70-hectare area within each neighborhood was chosen as a sample area for the study.
-230-
Chapter 18. Spatial Traniformitiesfor Alachua County, Florida
Table 5. Statistics for 'representative neighborhoods' were calculated for the total annual EMPOWER of
consumption, total annual energy of consumption flow, total EMSTORAGE, and total energy storage.
Each spatial transformity was calculated by dividing the sum of the annual total EMPOWER or
EMSTORAGE for the sampled area (70 hal of each neighborhood by the sum of the energy flow or
storage for that area of the neighborhood.
EMPOWER
Neighborhood
Florida Park
Northwood Oaks
The Hammock
MiUhopper
Ranchette.
%of
Co.wide
total .ej/yr
Sum,
El8
Sej/yr
%of
No. of
Co-wide
ceDi
(# ha)
area
Sum,
El2
J/yr
%of
Co.-wide total
j/yr
EMPOWER
Spatial
T ransformity
(.ejli)
.03
217.08
0.79
1,589.97
0.37
136,534
.03
110.45
0.40
975.87
0.23
113,179
70
.03
23.52
0.09
401.80
0.09
58,52
70
.03
7.24
0.03
132.16
0,03
54,746
70
70
Neighborhood
Sum,
El8
Sej/yr
of
Co.-wide
total .ei/yr
0/0
EMSTORAGE
%of
Sum,
Co.-wide total
E12
J/yr
j/yr
EMPOWER
Spatial
T raasformity
(scj/j)
Florida Park
5,559.70
0.81
1,343.84
0.07
4,137,166
Northwood Oaks
2,673.90
0.39
1,221.62
0.06
2,188,817
572.81
0.08
933.64
0.05
613,522
195.44
0.03
660.74
0.03
295,786
The Hammock
MiUhopper Ranchette.
Table 5 lists the total EMPOWER of consumption summary statistics for each neighborhood.
Using the same methods described previously for the land class and planning unit studies., the total annual
EMPOWER of consumption neighborhood densities (sej/neighborhoodlyr) and total annual energy of
consumption flow neighborhood densities (i/neighborhoodlyr) were calculated.
The EMPOWER of
consumption spatial transformities were calculated for each neighborhood using the sum EMERGY and
energy values for each neighborhood.
The percentage of total county-wide total annual energy of
consumption flow and EMPOWER of consumption represented by the sum flows through the area of
each neighborhood was also calculated.
Table 5 is sorted in descending order according to the total annual EMPOWER of consumption
spatial transformities calculated for each neighborhood. Intuitively, the rank order of the neighborhood
transformities reflects the relative population densities of each neighborhood. For instance, the EMPOWER
neighborhood density of the 'Florida Park' neighborhood is about 30 times that of the 'Millhopper
Ranchettes' neighborhood. This EMPOWER density relationship corresponds closely with the population
density relationship ('Florida Park' has 27 times more residents than the 'Ranchettes' neighborhood).
The percentage of county-wide total EMPOWER represented by the 'Millhopper Ranchettes' neighborhood
flows is .03%, compared t o .79% for the 'Florida Park' neighborhood. It is interesting that the total flows
percentage for the 'Ranchettes' is equal to the percent of the county area (.03%), however, no relation
between the two statistics is immediately obvious.
Table 5 also lists the total EMSTORAGE summary statistics for each neighborhood. The total
EMSTORAGE neighborhood densities (sejl neighborhood), energy storage neighborhood densities (il
neighborhood), EMSTORAGE spatial transformities, and the percentages of total county-wide total energy
-231-

storage and EMSTORAGE were calculated using methods described previously. The EMSTORAGE
part of Table 5 is sorted in descending order according to theEMSTORAGE transformities calculated for
each neighborhood. The rank order of transformities is the same as the mnk order found for theEMPOWER
spatial transformities.
The table reveals patterns for the distribution ofEMSTORAGE that are similar to those observed
for EMPOWER In particular, the values for the percentages of total county-wide EMSTORAGE are
almost the same as the percentages of total county-wide EMPOWER This is a pattern that has been
observed previously in the land classification study. The magnitudes of the totalEMSTORAGE spatial
transformities calculated for the neighborhoods reflect the number of buildings found in the neighborhoods.
For example, there are 15.6 times more buildings in the 'Florida Park' neighborhood than in the 'Millhopper
Ranchettes' neighborhood, and the neighborhood transformity for 'Florida Park' is about 14 times that of
the 'Ranchettes' neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
Based on the results presented here, the land area unit modeling method is an appropriate and
promising approach for modeling the spatial patterns of energy and EMERGY flows and stomges in
urban and regional landscapes. The method has the major advantage of being general enough that it can
be used to study any urban system landscape with the results being directly comparable with results from
studies of other urban systems. Hence, the real value of this work will be realized only when others
implement this modeling method for other urhan systems. These future researchers should be able to
compare the patterns observed in their systems with the ones presented in this study.
There are, of course, some weaknesses in the approach presented in this study. For instance, to
realize the full potential of comparable results, subsequent studies should be preceded by consensus on
the values for transformities that should be used to convert various forms of energy values intoEMERGY
values.
A complicating factor for those using this modeling approach is that currently there is little
standardization in the methods used to attribute urban feature GIS databases. Hence, different algorithms
may have to be applied to estimate the energy in these features.
The spatial model presented in this study was designed with the objective in mind of being able
to study spatial patterns of energy in relation to spatially recognizable elements of urban systems. This
objective required a level of detail work that is not typical ofEMERGY analysis methods that have been
used previously to study urban systems. For instance, using methods described by Odum (1996) for
EMERGY analysis, total flows and storages (or rates) would be estimated from litemture sources and
calculations (that may be similar to those used in this study), and the values would be entered into a
spreadsheet or simulation program. In a typical analysis, these estimates are based on readily available
statistical data for definable urban units such as cities or counties. These summary statistics (such as total
annual sales of fuel, total population, total square footage of buildings, etc.) are simply converted to
energy andEMERGY units using algorithms and transformities and plugged into the model.
On the other hand, if one wants to create a spatial model, these values must also be spatially
distributed to the proper locations. This extra requirement presents a real challenge. Previous studies
that have modeled the spatial distributions of energy have used the land use classification maps to distribute
all of the total energy flow and stomge data according to estimated avemge density mtes. In contrast, this
study used the approach of calculating most of the flow and stomge estimates based on the attributes, of
individual features (buildings, roads, etc.) in the urban landscape.
This method results in more spatially precise patterns that reflect the true variation and texture
of the urban pattern. Of course, this approach was not possible, or practical, previously because GIS
databases such as those used in this study were not readily available, and it was not pmctical to manipulate
the data with the computer hardware that was available. It is important to point out that there were still
some cases in this study where it was most appropriate to spatially distribute the flows and stomges in a
manner similar to using average density rates for land classes. This was the case for any of the flows or
storages that were more evenly distributed throughout the landscape. The flows that were distributed
232
Chapter 18. Spatial Transjonnitiesjor Alachua County. Florida

according to average densities include gross primary production and renewable resources used
(transpiration). The storages that were distributed in this manner were biomass. water, and organic matter
in soils.
The most important advantage that the feature-based distribution method provides is that the
results based on this method reveal more recognizable relationships between different urhan system
elements than would be observable using the land classes method alone. For instance, within the area of
some land classes, clustered patterns of high flow and storage density surrounded by, or interspersed with
pockets of, lower density areas can be observed. Observation of this type of pattern would not possible in
maps generated using the average density distribution method. It is, however, this type of observation
that may become important for characterizing urban system patterns as more studies are done and
comparisons are made between different urban systems.
In general, this study appears to support the hypotheses proposed by others (Odum, 1971; Odum
and Brown, 1976; Constanza, 1975, Brown, 1980, Odum, 1983, 1996; Whitfield, 1994; Huang, 1998)
about the spatial distribution of energy flows and storages according to the level of transformity for the
flow or storage. For instance, this study found that the lower transformity component flows are more
widely dispersed compared to the higher transformity component flows. The results also show that there
is a 'city center' that has a higher total consumption transformity than the suburbs surrounding the city
center, and that rural areas outside the city have the lowest total consumption transformity. In the case of
storages, the study area has many smailer, lower transformity storages that are widely dispersed, and
fewer of the lalger, higher transformity storages.
Closjna Remarks
This study
has demonstrated that spatial patterns of energy distribution can
be modeled at a high level of detail. However, one may want to ask the question in the end as to whether
or not the detail adds enough new insight to be worth the enormous effort required to manipulate such
latge amounts of data. The answer to that question may have to wait until more studies are done at this
level of spatial detail. However, one perspective on the one-hectare resolution of this model is that this is
a land area unit that may correspond to the 'sense of place' experienced by humans that live in, and move
through, the landscape. From this perspective, the concept of 'EMSENSE of place' is proposed (as the
author's EM-prefix contribution).
EMSENSE is defined here as a state of mind that a person attains
when they begin to see the landscape around them in terms of the EMERGY that is in the flows that
support the processes that build the storages that are real wealth. It is proposed that once a person's
EMSENSE is fully developed, they will forever see their surroundings in terms of the EMERGY in the
environmental and economic processes and in the natural and built structure.
REFERENCES
Brown, M. T. 1980. Energy Basis for Hierarchies inUrban and Regional Landscapes. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences,University of Florida, Gainesville.
Costanza, R 1975. The Spatial Distribution of LandUse Subsystems, Incoming Energy, and EnergyUse
in South Florida from 1900 to 1973. Master's Thesis, Department of Architecture,University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 1985. Florida LandUse, Cover and Forms Classification
System. Technical Procedure Document No. 550-0IO-001-A.
State Topographic Bureau,
Thematic Mapping Section. Author, Tallahassee.

Huang, S.,-L.
1998. Spatial Hierarchy ofUrhan Enelgetic System.
In: S. Ulgiati, ed., Advances in
Energy Studies-Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy-Proceedings of the International

Workshop held May, 1998. Museum of Science and Scientific Information, Rome.
Lambert, J.D.. 1999. A Spatial Emergy Model for Alachua County, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
ofUrhan and Regional Planning,University of Florida, Gainesville.
-233-

Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power, and Society. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Odum, HT. 1983. Systems Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Odum, H T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Environmental Decision Making. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Odum, HT. andMT. Brown, eds. 1976. Carrying Capacity of Man and Nature in South Florida. Final
contract report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences and Center for Wetlands, University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Whitfield, D.F. 1994. EMERGY Basis for Urban Land Use Patterns in Jacksonville, Florida. Master's
Thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Florida, Gainesville.
-234-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
19
An Energy Hierarchy Law For Biogeochemical Cycles
Howard T. Odum
ABSTRACT
The coupling of the biogeochemical cycles to the energy transformation hierarchy explains the
skewed distribution of materials with concentration. When selforganization converges and concentrates
high quality energy in centers, materials are also concentrated by the production functions. Because
available energy has to be used up to concentrate materials, the quantity of material flow also has to
decrease in each successive step in a series of energy transformations. The decreasingflow but increasing
concentration of materials in biogeoqhemical cycles is proposed as a 6th energy law, a principle of
material hierarchy.
Trace materials at or near the biogeosphere background concentrations are carried inflows of
air, waters, and earth crust as unspecific components with the same emergy per mass of the carrier. But
at greater concentration, specific autocatalytic processes develop that concentrate materialsfurther, use
more available energy and incorporate more empower. A lead example shows emergy per mass increasing
with concentration beyond a threshold
Each type of material occupies a zone in the emergylmass spectrum where its energy interactions
amplify production. Air and water are in a lower emergy range while biological materials and heavy
metals are at higher levels. Diagrams of material cycles can be improved by arranging storages and
flawsfrom left to right in order of increasing concentration and emergy per mass.
IN T RODUC'rION
Biogeochemistry, the study of material cycles, concerns the quantities and processes by which
materials circulate. Textbooks describe processes on the many scales from molecular reactions to global
and cosmic self organization (Rankarna and Sahama, 1950; Mason, 1966; Siegel, 1974; Bowen, 1979;
Drever, 1988;
Dobrovolsky, 1994; Brownlow, 1996;
Schlesinger, 1997).
Interesting, non-random
distributions of chemical elements have been described without adequate explanation.
Quantitative
diagrams of the cycles of elements have been arranged in many arbitrary formats, hard to compare from
one paper to another, the only common principle being the conservation of matter. Many recent papers
evaluate numerically material recycling and materials in the life cycle of cities and nations (Adriaanse et
al., 1977). But mostly, the materials are considered separate from the energetics on which they depend.
In this paper the coupling of material cycles to the universal energy hierarchy is explained using emergy
concepts and suggested as a new energy law.
First, let's review energy hierarchy concepts and the
relationship of energy to material concentration.
Review of Energy Hierarchy Concepts

The energy hierarchy concept was developed by generalizing from ecological food chain examples
(Odum, 1971, 1976, 1987, 1996) and offered as a 5th energy law- one that follows from the 2nd law and
the 4th energy law, Lotka's concept of self organizing for maximum power (1922a, 1922b):
-235-
Chapter 19. An Energy Hierarchy Lawjar Biogeochemical Cycles

Feedback Control Loops
(a)
(b)
(c)
I
j
I
I
I
10
102
-----..
-<
(d)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
103
Transformity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
100
104
---I....
Increasing Untt Size and Size ofTerrttory
(e )
----i
..
Increasing Period and Pulse Amplnude
Figure 1. Sketches summarizing energy hierarchy concepts. (aj Web of energy transformahon processes (rectangles)
arranged in series with energy decreasingfrom left to right; (b) energy system diagram of energy webs aggregated
into a linear chain. Sources are aggregated into one by expressingj/ows in empower units of one kind before adding.
Other numbers are typical energyflows at steady state; (cj energy spectrum: energyflow is plotted as afonction of
transformity on logarithmic scales increasingfi'om left to right (I'ransformity emergylavailable energy); (d) sizes
of unit centers and territories increasing with scalefrom left to right; (e) periods and intensities a/energy accumulation,
pulsing, and turnover time increasingfrom left to right.
-236-
Chapter 19. An Energy Hierarchy Law for Biogeochemical Cycles

An energy transformation is a work process that converts one or more kinds of available energy
into a different type of available energy.
All energy transformations can be arranged in a series, and the position of an energy flow in the
series is marked by the transformity, where
Transformity is the emergy per unit available energy, and
Emergy is the available energy (exergy) of one kind required to be used up previously directly
and indirectly to generate the inputs for an energy transformation. If solar energy is used as the common
denominator and all available energies are expressed as solar emergy, the transformities are greater than
one.
The flow of usable available energy through a network is power. The flow of emergy is called
empower. (Empower emergy flow per time.)
Units of emergy are emjoules of one kind of energy. Typical units used are solar emjoules
(abbreviated sej) and for solar lransformity solar emjoules per joule (abbreviated as sej/J).
The energy hierarchy concepts can be visualized with energy systems diagrams (Odum, 1966,
1971, 1983, 1994) that separate the scales with small fast turnover units on the left and items of larger
scale of space and time on the right (Figure I). Figure la is a network of energy transformations, which
is aggregated into a linear series in Figure lb. Available energy decreases with each transformation step,
butthe transformity increases from left to right. In Figure Ie available energy flow is plotted as a function
of the increasing transformily on logarithmic coordinates. This plot is an energy hierarchy spectrum.
The higher the transformily the more available energy of another kind was required to make it.
According to the energy hierarchy concepts, transformations that survive the natural selection processes
of self organization reinforced their supporting network with a feedback of its energy output even though
its energy flow is less. Commensurate reinforcement with less energy is possible because the systems
concentrate the output spatially (Figure Id) and accumulate the products and deliver their feedback actions
in pulses (Ie).
In terms of Latka's principle, each transformation that survives self organization is organized to
help maximize its power while reinforcing the network. However, the high level transformation processes
(lower power flow on the right) are just as important as the low level processes (higher power flows on
the left. Maximum power might be misunderstood to mean giving priority to low level processes. In
Figure I b the empower is the same through the whole series. Therefore, the 4th energy law is clarified by
stating it as the principle of selforganization for maximum empower.
=
Spatial Convergence
From observation and theory, the series of energy transformations in the universal energy hierarchy
converge their transformed energies to more concentrated centers even as the total energy transformed
decreases (Figures Ie). One of the reasons for this is that reinforcement feedbacks needed to prevail in
self organization can be commensurate with what was required in their formation if they concentrate in
area. Centers and the supporting territories of these centers increase with successive transformations
along the series from left to right (Figure Zd). An example of spatial hierarchy generated by self organization
is the vivid pattern of night lights of cities and towns as seen from satellite.
Accumulation and Pulsing
As suggested by pulses shown in Figure Ze, units higher in the energy hierarchy (higher
transformity) have longer periods of accumulating energy storage but sharper pulses in their feedback
actions. Examples are the energy feedbacks of carnivores, storms, governments, and earthquakes to their
areas. By storing longer and concentrating their impact from smaller concentrated centers in shorter
times, the lesser energy of higher units can have enough impact to reinforce their supporting energy
transformation chain (a design that fits the maximum empower principle). The universal pulsing increases
in period and intensity along the series of increasing scale from small scale molecular oscillations to large
scale earthquakes (Figure Ze).
-237-
(a) Concentration
Gradient
Energy Concentration and

Emergy per Unit Mass
..
fi!-!
.
.
..
.
.... IIi
..
.
.

.
\i
..
.
...
Natural uepreclatlon
(Second Law)
(b) Process of
Concentrating
Materials
Materials
(c) Emergy
per Mass
I---;:::::====::
(d) Emergy and Materials into Production

Dispersed
Material
.
..
.
.
.

Production
Process
Figure 2. Sketch showing consumption ofavailable energy necessary to increase material concentration and emergy
per mass. (a) Concentration materials indicated bydensityo/dots; (b) useo/available energy to increase concentration
and energy storage; (c) emergyper mass increase with concentration; (d) autocatalytic production process utilizing
available energy to Concentrate dispersed materials. Dotted lines energyflow only; solid lines material flow.
=
-238-

Energy Quality Increase
Energy flows to the right are more concentrated, have more effect per unit, are more flexible in
their uses, and in these senses are higher quality aspects accompanied by higher transformity. In other
words, after self organization, energy flow of higher transformity requires more for its support and has
more effect.
ENERGY COUPLING TO MATERIAL CYCLES

Principles relating energy, emergy, and materials are stated next as part of the reasoning for an
energy law of material distribution and processing.
Available Energy, Emergy, and Material Concentration

Using Figure 2, let's review the energetics of material concentration. According to the second
law, a concentration of material sketched on the right in Figure 2a spontaneously diffuses or otherwise
disperses to a lower concentration (to the left), losing the availability (exergy) of its stored energy in the
process. To concentrate the material requires coupling of the material to available energy (exergy) of
greater quantity that is degraded while pumping the dispersed material on the left to the concentrated
state on the right (Figure 2b). In open systems operating at competitive rates, more available energy is
degraded by the transformation than is stored.
Contributions of available energy to a transformation process add the emergy of that contribution.
The emergy of the newly concentrated material on the right in Figure 2b has that of the initial state plus
that of the available energy used up in the concentration process. Thus, any increase in concentration of
material requires an increase in the emergy per mass (typical units are emjoules per gram).
When
concentration increases in some part of a biogeocl1emical cycle, the emergy per mass increases. When
material disperses (right to left in Figure 3), the stored emergy decreases. The amount can be calculated
by estimating what emergy is required to restore its concentration again.
Background Concentrations and Production

If a material dispersed in the earth or its oceans and atmosphere is at the lowest concentration on
earth, it cannot disperse further spontaneously. It has no availability or emergy (relative to the earth).
In
our energy systems diagrams it has no heat sink. It is at the lowest energy state in its biogeochemical
cycle. The low concentration may have been produced by active processes elsewhere in the cycle.
However, if there is available energy in its local concentration or chemical reaction potential,
this exergy can be incorporated into a production process in which the material is a necessary part. The
emergy of that concentration contributes to the product. The material-containing product has the emergy
of the contribution from the energy and material sources (Figure 2d).
Critical Concentration for Specific Production

When materials are present in the earth solids, in waters or in atmosphere in tiny traces, they can
be carried along with the flows without any special recognition or specific participation by the process.
Let's refer to the main flow as a carrier. The trace materials are processed with the carrier.
Carrier
materials are circulated by sources of available energy, the small emergy added per gram of a trace
material is in proportion to its fraction of the mass of carrier. In Figure 3, a trace material (light stippling)
is shown carried along and slightly concentrated as a small percent of another flow (dark shading), thus
receiving its share of that emergy input.

When the trace material becomes concentrated enough for its individual properties to be
recognized and useful in self organization, it can become a necessary part of a production process. If the
available energy levels for this process are large enough, autocatalytic designs accelerate emergy inflow
-239-
Chapler
19.
An Energy Hierarchy Law jor Biogeochemical Cycles
Trace
Material at
Background
Autocatalytic
Process
Requiring
Trace Material
Trace Material
Embedded
in Carrier
Concentration
,-"
'
:Energy &';
\ Emergy .,
..
Dispersal
Recycle
...
....
..
..
..
..
.
..
Increasing EmergylMass
Energy Flow
0......
Carrier Fluid
Trace Material:
Figure 3. Coupling ofa trace material (solid lines) to energyflow and transformations (dotted lines) showing two
siages. On the left there is non-specific transport a/trace concentrations by a carrier material. On the right there is
a specific use ofthe trace material in an autocatalytic production process that accelerales energy use and material
concentration.
(the maximum empower principle). An autocatalytic entity forms, the box on the right in Figure 4. Here
the trace material is a necessary part of a unit's transformation. Examples are the incorporation of elements
into crystal formation in rocks or the incorporation of nutrients in plant production. In other words, there
is a critical concentration where a material becomes productive.
For example, there is a critical
concentration of sugar to support a microbial population. The situation is analogous to the critical point
in flow of a fluid when laminar flow shifts to turbulence, which is an autocatalytic momentum
transfonnatioR
As Figure 4 shows, the emergy per mass beyond the critical point is that of all the necessary
inputs to the transformation, not just a small percent of a carrier.
Thus, emergy per mass increases
sharply as material concentrations increase beyond the critical concentration.
Notice the increase in
slope of the graph of transformity and concentration of lead in Figure 4. Sherry Brandt-Williams (\999)
found a similar shaped graph for emergy per mass and the concentration of phosphorus.
Spatial Convergence of Material Concentration

Figure 5a diagrams the way dispersed materials are incorporated into a series of three energy
transformation processes (rectangular blocks).
Since each energy transformation converges and
concentrates the output of available energy spatially into centers, and since material concentrating is
coupled to energy transformations, then materials are spatially converged and concentrated into centers
also (Figure 5b)
-240-
Chapter 19. An Energy Hierarchy Lawfor Biogeochemical Cycles

.
8
Refined Lead
EMERGY
per mass
109
solar
emjoules
per gram
x
..
. .
./
Lead Ore ..... ..

. -- 0
..
.
.
..
...'"
""" w
Within Land .......
( Ocean
1.1. .
10.5
,
I
T
I
.....
.
.
'
..
.
.
....
I
,
-l-
..
Figure 4.
-..0
...
I
I
'
10+5
Lead Concentration, grams per cubic meter
10+8
Emergy per mass as afunction o/lead concentration (Odum, 2000a).
Decreasing Mass with Successive Energy Transformations
However, some materials are recycled from each stage (Figure 5) because the amount of materials
that is passed to higher concentration decreases. The total quantity of materials ,concentrated has to
decrease because the available energy to concentrate materials decreases. To be effective in use at a
higher level of the energy hierarchy, materials have to be transformed to higher concentration (maximum
empower principle). Higher concentrations increase the feedback potential of the materials to reinforce
the contributing web. But higher concentration requires more emergy use, and the system is limited by its
supporting emergy budget. Thus, there is an energetic explanation for the decrease in materials carried
forward with successive energy transformation (left to right in Figure 5).
For the case of one energy source from the left (Figure 6b), the empower flow is the same
through each transformation unit of the series. But the emergy per mass has to increase in order to
concentrate the mass. So less can be concentrated. Figure 6 shows the hyperbolic inverse relationship of
mass transfer and emergy per mass when empower J emp is constant.
Mass flow
empower/(emergy per mass)
Mass flow Jm is inverse to emergy per mass <Em), and the amount of mass that can be concentrated
for the next level decreases. Materials become distributed in an inverse relationship to their position in
the energy hierarchy. Emergy per mass, like transformity (emergy/energy), increases along the energy
hierarchy.
Skewed Distribution of Materials
Long discussed in geochemical literature is the skewed distribution of quantity of a chemical

and its concentration. Ahrens (1954) and many since (Miller and Goldberg, 1955; Middleton, 1970) have
emphasized the patterns by fitting the data to log normal distribution equations. See, for example, lead in
-241-
Chapter
19.
An Energy Hierarchy Law for Biogeochemical Cycles
(a) Materials Combined with Energy Flows
(b) Spatial Corw81roer1ce of Materials
CENTER=
Figure 5.
Spatial convergence of materials to centers because of their coupling to the convergence ofenergy.
(a) Materials and energy trans/ormation hierarchy on an energy systems diagram; (b) spatial pattern almaterial
circulation.
242
(a)
Background Concentration
Una of Contan! Empower Jemp
(emjouleSlhectare)
Em = (EmergylMass)
Jm= JempiEm
Emergy per Mass Em. emjoulEJSl1(ilogram
Emergy per gram

(c)
Log J m= Log Jemp - Log Em

Una of Constant
Empower Jemp
Figure 6.
Inverse relation a/materialflow and emergy per mass. (a) Inverse plot o/rate a/material concentration
and emergy per mass where emergyJIow is constant; (b) systems diagram ofthe circulation a/material (darkshading
driven by ajlow ofempower Jemp: (c) rate a/materials concentration as a function ofemergy per mass on double
logarithmic coordinates.
-243-

granites in Figure 7. The general prevalence of skewed distributions of materials may be interpreted as
evidence for the energy hierarchy basis for material processing.
Because the principles are general, the pattern may be expected in the self organizing systems of
humans as well as those in geology and ecology. Doxiadis (1977) found that the circulation of people in
human settlements followed the spatial hierarchy of landscapes, with larger scale circulation from the
higher centers. He showed that the mass of city buildings in centers increases as the area for the buildings
decreases so that the density of materials increases along the transformation series. However, the higher
the level the larger is the surrounding area that contributes. Even in cities with main emergy from fossil
fuels, the surrounding environmental areas are required to interact to maximize empower. The higher the
level the more empower support and accumulation there is (Figure 5). This means emergy per mass of
the materials in city structure increases along the transformation series to the centers.
Material Zones in the Energy Hierarchy

Production processes prevail when their inputs develop autocatalytic production units that
reinforce each other (maximum empower principle). But each material only participates in a limited
(a) Lead Distribution In Granites

15
Ahrens 1954
5 ppm Interval
Parts Per Million Lead
50
(b)
15 a;
/Log
Normal
10-
5
0
E
+-L4-L-/-....L.-+-IC:4--c:1
-1.2 0.0 0.5 1.6 2.4 3.2
.c
Log ppm
Lead
Figure 7.
Distribution of lead in granites as a jUnction of concentrations from Ahrens (1954). (a) Linear plot;
(b) log normal plot.
-244-
Chapter 19. An Energy Hierarchy Lawjor Biogeochemical Cycles

range of the energy transformation hierarchy where it can contribute production and empower. Its emergyl
mass indicates the position of a material concentration in the energy hierarchy. It also indicates where in
the emergy spectrum it is observed in amplifying interactions. Three transformity zones are drawn on the
energy-transformity spectrum in Figure 8a where several material cycles are coupled to different zones of
the energy hierarchy spectrum. Within each there is the concentration and dispersal phase and a skewed
material distribution that results with decreasing energy (small bar graphs in Figure 8a).
Many values of emergy per mass of concentrated materials are available (Brown 1995; Odum
1996; Buranakarn, 1998; Odum, 2000b).
The emergy per mass of material participation ranges over
many orders of magnitude for different materials. In Figure 8 emergy/mass zones are indicated for water
vapor in the atmosphere, fresh waters, and biogenic carbon in a rain forest.
(a) Material Spectrum
Biogeochemical Cycles
/
-.
-.-.
Zone of money
Circulation
-.
-.
1
1"10_---1
--
Log Emergy per Mass

(b) Exa mples
107
0%
.
'"
oVapor
106
104
u::
(ij
c
105
hotoSyn.
Water
103
Leaves
:Trunks
Q)
1ii 102
::;;
'"
.3
Ca rbon
10
1
1
104
106
108
Log Emergy per Mass, sej/g

Figure & Zones ofmaterial cycles ofmaterials in the hierarchical energy spectrum. (a) Energy hierarchical spectrum
from Figure / c showing the cycles ofdifforent materials in difforent zones; (b) log-/og plot ofmassflow as ajUnction
ofemergy per mass. See Endnote / .
-245-

On the earth, air circulates with energy interactions of low unit emergy. At the high end of the
emergy/mass spectrum there is mountain building and the circulation of gold.
Even within human
settlements there is recycle of silver at the right, aluminum in the middle, and carbon-dioxide more to the
left. Those to the right have less quantity and higher emergy per mass than those to the left. The reason
items are scarce is because more emergy is required. For overall efficiency, systems can self organize to
make more impact with the high emergy/mass of scarce materials hierarchically concentrated at high
concentration.
Corollary of Material Pulsing

Because the reinforcing, amplifYing feedback of each kind of energy occurs in pulses, the coupled
materials are released in pulses also. Since there is an increase in period and intensity of energy pulses
along the energy transformation series, the pulsing release of coupled materials also increases in period
and intensity. The higher concentrations of materials in higherlevel units can accelerate their own cycles
by their pulsing feedbacks. Examples are volcanic emissions, the pulsing release of wastes by birds and
mammals, and the pulsing recycle of waste materials in human affairs.
AN ENERGY LAW OF MATERIAL PROCESSING

The reasoning in the preceding sections about the coupling of materials to energy hierarchy
leads to a summarizing general principle:
Material cycles are hierarchically organized in a spectrum measured by emergy/mass that
determines mass flows, concentrations, production processes, and frequency of pulsed recycle.
This principle is a consequence of the relationship of materials and energy in a self organizing
universe. Perhaps it is useful to add it as #6 in the list of proposed energy laws in Table
I.
Or perhaps it
should be regarded as a corollary to the energy hierarchy principle (proposed 5th law).
Policies for Material Conservation and Recycling

Principles are useful if they help uS visualize simply the vast data on material flows and distribution
in our world. By recognizing the energy coupling, and using emergy and transformity indices of the
energy hierarchy, numerical values can help us manage materials, material cycling, and evaluation of
what is beneficial. By characterizing materials and their concentrations in units of emergy per gram,
perhaps we can select a priori where in the landscape materials best fit for sustainability of the whole
system.
Zone of Money Circulation in the Energy Hierarchy, Biogeoeconomics

The market economy operates in a zone of the energy hierarchy where emergy of human work is ,
appropriate. Money circulates in markets but not to lower emergy zones of nature and not with many
information transfers at very high emergy zones. Where the material cycle is within the zone of circulation
Tble 1.
Energy Laws Accepted and Proposedlst--Conservation
2nd--Spontaneous dispersal
3rd--No complexity of heat at absolute zero
4th--Self organization for maximum empower
5th--Energy transformations form a hierarchical series measured by transformity increase.
6th--Material cycles have hierarchical patterns measured by emergy/mass that determines its zone
and pulse frequency in the energy hierarchy.
-246-

of money on the scales of transfonnity and emergy/mass, the materials can be processed effectively with
market economy.
See the examples of this biogeoeconomics principle (Boggess, 1994).
High
concentrations of phosphorus in fertilizer and high waste concentrations were economical to process,
whereas circulating low concentrations to the environment was not economical. Materials with lower
emergy/mass have to be recycled to maximize benefit, but incentives may be needed. When dilute
materials with low emergy per mass values go to the environment, they need to be routed to the zone of
the landscape where that emergy per mass interacts appropriately.
SUMMARY
By recognizing the energy basis for material cycling, we can understand the often observed log
nonnal patterns of material distributions and the spatial convergence of biogeochemical cycles to centers
of concentration. A principle of universal material distribution and processing is proposed as a 6th energy
law. Materials of biogeochemical cycles are hierarchically organized because of the necessary coupling
of matter to the universal energy tran40rmation hierarchy. Material network diagrams used to represent
material flow budgets can be redrawn with a common structure from left to right in order of emergy/
mass. Concentrating pathways pass left to right while dispersing recycle to lower emergy flows from
right to left. More graphs are needed of emergy per mass vS material concentrations and plots of mass
flow vs emergy per mass.
Endnote for Figure 8

Emergy of atmosphere from Odum, 2000c, and Odum et aI., 2000; carbon flows for Tabonuco
rain forest in Puerto Rico from Odum, 1970; annual em ower of the forest estimated as sum of empower
of transpired rain: (1.71 m3/m2/yr raio)(IOOO kglm )(4.93 E3 Jlkg Gibbs energy relative to salty
leaves)(1.82 E4 sej/J) 1.53 Ell sej/m2/yr; and the empower of eroded rock previously uplifted: (erosion
=
162 glm2 /yr)(1.0 E9 sej/g)
1.62 E l l sej/m2 /yr.
REFERENCES
Adriaanse, A., S. Bringezu, A. Hammond, Y Moriguchi, E. Rodenburg, D. Rogish, and H. Schutz. 1997.
Resource Flows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies.
World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC, 65 pp.

Ahrens, L.H. 1954. The lognonnal distribution of the elements (part I). Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta 5:49-73; (part 2) 6: 21-131.
Boggess, C.F. 1994. The Biogeoeconics of Phosphorus in the Kissimmee Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Environmental Engineering Sciences,.Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 234 pp.
Brandt-Williams, S. 1999. Evaluation of watershed control of two central Florida Lakes: Newnans Lake
and Lake Weir. Ph.D. Dissertation, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida,
Gainesville, 257 pp.
Bowen, J.J.M. 1979. Environmental Chemistry of the Elements. Academic Press, London.
Brown, M.T. 1995. Emergy of Materials. Unpublished Class Notes.
Brownlow, A.H. 1996. Geochemistry. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 580 pp.
-247-

Buranakam, V.
1998. Evaluation of Recycling and Reuse of Building Materials Using the Emergy
Analysis Method. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Arch., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 251 pp.
Dobrovolsky, Vv. 1994. Biogeochemistry of the World's Land. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 363 pp.
Drever, J.I.
1988.
T he Geochemistry
of Natural Waters, 2nd Ed.
Pre ntice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 437 pp.

Doxiadis, C.A 1977. Ecology and Ekistics. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Lotka, AJ. I922a. Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proc. Nat!. Acad. Sci. 8: 147-151.
Lotka, AJ. 1922b. Natural selection as a physical principle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 8:151-154.
Mason, B. 1966. Principles of Geochemistry, 3rd Ed. John Wiley, NY.
Miller, R.L. and Goldberg, B.D.
1955.
The normal distribution in geochemistry.
Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 8:53-62.

Odum, H.T. 1967. Biological circuits and the marine systems of Texas. pp. 99-157 in Pollution and
Marine Ecology, ed. by T.A Olson and F.J. Burgess. Interscience, John Wiley, NY
Odum, R T. 1970. Summary, an emerging view of the ecological system atEl Verde, Puerto Rico. pp. 1191 through 1-277 in A Tropical Rainforest, ed. by H.T. Odum and R.F. Pigeon. Division of
Technical Information, Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, TN, 1600 pp.
Odum H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY, 331 pp.
Odum H.T. 1976. Energy quality and carrying capacity of the earth. Tropical Ecology 16(1):1-8.
Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology. John Wiley, NY, 644 pp.
Odum, R T. 1986. Enmergy in Ecosystems. pp. 337-369 in Ecosystem Theory and Application, ed. by
N. Polunin. John Wiley, NY, 446 pp.
Odum, H.T. 1988. Self organization, transformity, and information. Science 242:1132-1139.
Odum, RT. 1996. Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making. John Wiley, NY, 373 pp.
Odum, R T., M.T. Brown, and S. Brandt-Williams. 2000. Introduction and Global Budget, Handbook of
Emergy Evaluation. Folio #1, Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Center for Environmental
Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 16 pp.
Odum, R T. 2000a. Biogeochemical cycle of lead and the energy hierarchy. pp. 49-68 in Heavy Metals
in theEnvironment, Using Wetlands for Their Removal, by RT. Odum, W. Wojcik, L. Pritchard,
Jr., S. Ton, J.J. Delfino, M. Wojcik, J.D. Patel, S.J. Doherty and J. Stasik. Lewis Publ., Boca
Raton, FL, 325 pp.
Odum, R T. 2000b. Material Circulation,Energy Hierarchy, and Building Construction. Proceedings of
the Rinker Conference on Metabolism and Building Construction, Gainesville, Fl., 1999. College
of Architecture, Univ of Florida, Gainesville, manuscript 48 pp.
,
Odum, R T. 2000c. Emergy of Global Processes. Folio #2, Handbook ofEmergy Evaluation. Center for
Environmental Policy,Env. Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 30 pp.
Rankama, K. and Sahama, T.G. 1950. Geochemistry. Interscience, NY 591 pp.
,
Schlesinger, W.H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: an Analysis of Global Change. 2nd ed. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA, 588 pp.
Siegel, F.R. 1974. Applied Geochemistry. John Wiley, NY, 353 pp.
-248-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
20
Emergy, Transformity, and Potential Effect of Feedback in
Human Dominated Systems - Using Wastewater
as an Example
Johanna Bjorklund
ABSTRACT
That trormity measures value or potential effect is one of the hypotheses that form the basis
for emergy analysis. In a feedback. aflow that represents a small amount of high qualitative energy, and
accordingly has a high tran.iformity. exerts a large effect on processes upstream. Wastewater may be seen
as a feedback from human society to its surrounding environment. and it is evident that discharge of
untreated wastewater has strong effects on the recipient. The problem is to relate these effects to the
transformity of wastewater. To what extent is the transformity related to the costs for the most efficient.
environmentally selected, generation of wastewater (which would accordingly contain information on
potential effect) and to what extent is it an effect of ineffiCient resource use in society? In this paper is
argued that in human dominated system. a tran.iformity measures nothing but the amount of resources
that was required to produce the output.
Furthermore. one analysis of the resource use for conventional three step wastewater treatment
in comparison with biological treatment in a constructed wetland, complemented with conventional
mechanical and chemical treatment. shows that treatment in the constructed wetland demands slightly
more emergy. This analysis might indicate which system is most effiCient in treating wastewater, while
not giving any indications on the crucial question of the efficiency in the overall performance. This issue
and the implications of putting the system boundary for the analysis around a feedback in a man-made
system willforther be discussed in the paper.
FEEDBACK IN NATURAL SYSTEMS

The importance of feedback for the function of a self-organizing system is clearly stressed in the
theory of systems ecology, which is the foundation of emergy analysis. Odum (l994, p.
17) states that
"".high-quality energies achieve their maximum effect when they are fed back as an amplifier or
control action interacting with energy of lower quality".". This means that feedback, in a self-organizing
system, is a reinforcement from the output of a transformation to its supporting system, which maximizes
the effect. the empower.
A well known and illuminating example of a feedback is the recycling of nutrients from afish to
a plant in an aquarium (Figure I). In this system, nutrients in the form of manure from the fish are fed
back to the supporting system of the fish, the aquarium plants. It is important to notice that the feedback
is the flow in the system that represents the highest transformity.
-249-
Chapter 20. Transformity and Potential Effect of Feedback. ..

1000000
Material cycle
1
Producers
Figure 1. Diagram of the ecosystem in a sealed aquarium with daily inflow of solar energy. Numbers on
arrows indicate Iransformilies in sej/J. After Odum (1996)

What information does transformity contain?
" If items and flows have value because of the effects they can exert on a system,
and if their ability to act is in proportion to the energy used to develop them (after
selective elimination of those that do not), the value is proportional to the embodied
energy [emergy] in systems emerging from selection processes. The energy
transformation ratio [transformity], by giving the embodied energy per unit of actual
energy, provides an intensive factor for value in the way that temperature is an
intensive factor for heat" (Odum, 1994, s 252).
I conclude that "an intensive factor" is used in the meaning of "a measure", and if the above
hypothesis is valid, the transformity of a resource would be a measure of its value and potential effect.
This means that a flow with a large transformity represents an amount of high qualitative energy, which
may exert a large effect on processes upstream. However, there is an important constraint; this is only the
case "after selective elimination of those that do not". Odum (1994, p.256-257) also states that full empirical
testing of this hypothesis remains for the future.
The transformity for a resource has a lowest limit, which it approaches after a long period of
self-organization and selection. There is a natural selection for maximum empower, while the limit for a
transformity is set by the minimum emergy use that is required for a transformation to maximize empower
(Odum 1996, pp. 17 -18). The limit changes with time, as the result of e.g. pulses and mutations, but
thermodynamic laws set the definitive boundary, which in biological systems will probably never be
reached. Odum states that systems with transformities approaching the lower limit should be looked for
among systems "that have been in environmental and economic competition for a long time".
FEEDBACK IN MAN-MADE SYSTEMS
Systems Not Environmentally Selected
During my experience in analyzing feedback of human systems, especially human wastewater,
the unavoidable question is about what information the transformities calculated from such analyses
contain. Are they actually measures of value or potential effect or only measures of the amount of resources
used? To answer this question we not only have to deal with the problem that full empirical testing of the
-250-
Chapter 20. Tran.iformity and Potential Effect of Feedback...

theory that emergy i s a measure o f value has yet t o b e earned out, but also whether w e will ever know if
the system is an environmentally selected type which will prevail during the time scale considered. If we
do not know whether we are working with systems which are at all selected, we cannot tell to what degree
the amplifier effects are proportional to the transformity.
My argument is that to say something about the potential effect of a human feedback to an
ecosystem, based on the transformity of the feedback, it is not enough that a system in which the feedback
is generated has been in "economic competition" for a long time.
That a system has been economically tested does not mean that it maximizes empower on larger
scales during longer time scales. It does not automatically follow that it will be a prevailing or sustainable
system if we consider the whole geobiosphere. The capitalist system has proven to be a surviving economic
system but it is reasonable to doubt if it will be selected in larger and longer scales. How long will it
survive considering the assimilation processes in the geobiosphere for its wastes? That something is
selected in the economic system does not at all prove that it would maximize empower in a time scale
relevant for environmental systems. I argue that only in systems maximizing empower by environmental
selection has the transformity something definite to say about potential effect in respectto the environment.
Furthermore, to draw conclusions about sustainable patterns of resource use in subsystems, e.g.
different kinds of wastewater treatment systems in human society, is difficult. Even while applying a
holistic account as when using the emergy analysis, the calculated results may point at conclusions that
are suboptimizations as the whole system of which the subsystems are parts is not environmentally selected.
Figure 2. Overview diagram of the generation and the treatment of wastewater in a Swedish municipality.
Flows labelled a, b and part of c are contributing to emergy in wastewater leaving the households.
WWT wastewater treatment, Dep. deposit
-251-
Chapter 20. Traniformity and Potential Effect of Feedback. ..

The Example of Wastewater
In emergy analysis, wastewater should be considered a by-product of all activities that are the
outcomes of the drinking water (a) and the food (b) that we use (Figure 2). Use of energy and other
resources for transport, processing and food storage should also be included (part of flow c, Figure 2).
Wastewater therefore contains all the emergy for the generation of these resources.
An emergy analysis of wastewater leaving households in a Swedish town with about 9,500
inhabitants indicated that the emergy use in the generation of wastewater was about 6.3E+ 15 sej/person
and year and the transformity 3.8E+06 sej/J (Bjorklund et al., 2000). The analysis also revealed that the
total emergy used to treat the water in a conventional three-step treatment plant was approximately 2.0
E+14 sej/person and year. As the emergy in the untreated wastewater was more than one order of magnitude
larger than the emergy used to treat the water, one may conclude that the treatment of wastewater is cheap
and maybe not even commensurate with the cost of its generation.
It is reasonable to regard the high transformity of wastewater as a mirror of our lifestyle, e.g.
revealing the potential risk of large epidemic outlets caused by global food distributions and travel patterns.
Discharge of untreated wastewater has also been shown to have strong effects on the recipient waters. In
the same way the existence of dioxin could be an example of potential effects from wastes of our lifestyles.
Substances leaching from waste deposits causing genetic changes in fish might be another example, but
to what degree can we actually relate these effects to the waste or wastewater transformities?
Emergy analysis, as an instrument to evaluate processes in human dominated systems, would be
more accurate if we could tell to what extent the transformity of, e.g. wastewater, is an effect of inefficient
resource use in society and to what extent it is caused by the costs for most efficient, environmentally
selected, "production". As long as we cannot answer this question, the transformity for items evaluated
cannot be used as measure of value or amplifier effect and we do not know if the systems maximize
empower.
Difference in Output and Time Scale
Comparing the resource use for conventional three-step wastewater treatment with biological
treatment in a constructed wetland (complemented with conventional mechanical and chemical treatment)
the analysis reveals that conventional treatment uses slightly less resources in emergy terms (Table 1).
What does this result mean when the output from the two systems differs substantially? The
output of the conventional plant is the sewage sludge (which might be used as a soil improvement material
in agriculture or silviculture). The water could be considered an output, but on the other hand one might
assert that it is not. The water is not used in the treatment system and can therefore not be considered a
forcing function. So the removal of the nutrients is the actual output of wastewater treatment. N and NO
2
2
from denitrification might also be considered outputs.
Table
1. Comparative index of resource use for wastewater treatment in a' conven

tional three-step plant (WWTP) and a constructed wetland complemented with
mechanical and chemical treatment (TP+CW) (Geber & Bjorklund, submitted).
WWTJI
Index
'rp+<.:W
E+12 seJ
Total emergy use / p.e.
154
181
Total emergy use / kg Nreduced
62
76
Total emergy use / kg P reduced

Total emergy use / kg BOD reduced
212
10
238
13
-252-
Chapter 20. Transformity and Potential Effect of Feedback. ..

A most important output from the wetland system is increased biodiversity caused by the
construction of the wetland, as many animal species feed and nest in the wetland area. It is important to
recognize that the time scale for the recycling process will also differ between systems. The nutrients
discharged by the wastewater will be stored in the wetland (there is no harvest) and the build up of
nutrients in the system is an output in longer time scales as the wetland will eventually tum into a productive
forest or agricultural land.
Our results revealed that the wetland system used more emergy for the wastewater treatment per
kg reduced nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and organic matter (BOD) when the reduction efficiency of the
systems was similar. If the data is considered reliable we may conclude that the conventional system is
more efficient in treating wastewater than the system with the constructed wetland, but is this enough for
a comparison of the systems? I argue that a comparison aiming at giving guidance in sustainable patterns
of resource use have to consider the overall performance of the systems. However, this would be impossible
to indicate without knowing that the systems are maximizing empower, as they are generating vastly
different outputs. Either the systems compared ought to maximize empower or they ought to generate
exactly the same outputs. Accordingly, how would we actually examine if they are maximizing empower
as we will never find systems that generate exactly the same outputs?
CONCLUSIONS
Emergy analysis could be used to compare only one output from systems, e.g. the treatment of
wastewater with conventional systems or in wetlands, but then the consequence will be that this analysis
is nearly as reductionistic as other resource use analysis methods, and like these leads to conclusions that
might be sUboptimizations. Even if the method comprises a holistic account, the boundaries of the subsystem
analyzed might be set in such a way that inefficient resource use in the larger system (too young to be at
all environmentally selected) could not be recognized and that the result of the analysis might be different
from an analysis with more appropriate system boundaries. My conclusion is that one must have to
consider where to set the appropriate system boundaries for an emergy analysis and that the results
of an analysis of only the feedback in our economic system is difficult or even impossible to interpret.
Furthermore, transformities calculated in human affected systems are nothing but a measurement
of what has gone into producing the output. Drawing conclusions about potential effects based on
transformities may only be possible with transformities calculated in environmentally selected systems.
The question is then how much testing is sufficient and which systems are environmentally selected when
many of the ecosystems on Earth are changing fast as an effect of human influence.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I especially wish to thank Ulrika Geber, Swedish Agricultural University, for all the bewildered
discussions, which helped me develop and give a concrete form to my thoughts and for constructive
criticism of the manuscript. Thanks also to my supervisors Torbjorn Rydberg and Lennart Salomonson,
Swedish Agricultural University, for many developing discussions and insightful suggestions.
REFERENCES
Bjorklund, J., Geber, U. and Rydberg, T. 2000. Emergy analysis of municipal wastewater treatment and
generation of electricity from digestion of sewage sludge. Accepted for publication in Resources,
Conservation and Recycling.
Geber, U. and Bjorklund, J. Submitted. The relation between ecosystem services and purchased input in
Swedish wastewater treatment system - a case study. Submitted to Ecological Engineering.
Odum, H.T., 1994. General and Ecological Systems. An Introduction to Systems Ecology. Univ. Press of
Colorado, Niwot, 644 pp.
Odum, H. T., 1996. Environmental Accounting; Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley
& sons, Inc., New York, 370 pp.
-253-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
21
A Revised Solar Transformity for Tidal Energy Received by
the Earth and Dissipated Globally: Implications for Emergy
Analysis.
Daniel E. Campbell
ABSTRACT
Solar transformities for the tidal energy received by the earth and the tidal energy dissipated
globally can be calculated because both solar energy and the gravitational attraction of the sun and
moon drive independent processes that produce an annualfU
l X of geopotential energy in elevated ocean
water. 1 assume that the available geopotential energy of the world oceans is the same regardless of how
it is made; therefore, the transformity of the annua l geopotential energyflUX generated by solar emergy
should be apprOXimately equal to that generated by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon.
This approximate equality is plausible, because the maximum power principle implies that in the long
run the transformity of a product created by any process will approach the lowest thermodynamically
possible value. The annual emergy contributed by solar radiation (3.93 E24 sejyl) and the earth sdeep
heat (4.07 E24 sejyl) was divided by the difference between the geopotential energy generated annually
in the world oceans and the tidal energy dissipoted annually in shallow water (21.4 E19 Jyl 5.2 E19 J
yIJ to obtain a transformity of 24259 sej JI for the part of the ocean statal potential energy generated by
the solar heat engine, ifsolar emergy is the only important emergy source and 49383 sej JI ifboth the
solar heat engine andthe earth s deep heat contribute. Using the assumptions given above, the transformity
of the tidal energy dissipated globally is also approximately 24259 sej JI or 49383 sej J _I. The solar
emergy used up globally by the dissipotion of tidal energy is then 5.2 E19 Jyl mUltiplied by 24259 sej J
l or 49383 sej JI equaling 1.26 E24 sej yl or 2.58 E24 sej yl, respectively. The transformity of the
gravitational energy of the sun and moon received by the earth is then 1.26 E24 sej yl or 2.58 E24 sejy
1 divided by 8.515 E19 Jyl which equals 14797 sej JI or 30159 sej JI, respectively. Because the earth s
deep heat makes a negligible contribution to determining variations in the geopotential of the world
oceans except on long time scales, e.g., more than 1.0 E4 years, the solar transformity for the tides based
on solar emergy alone is preferable for emergy analyses on short time frames, e.g., less than 10,000
years. These revised solar transformities for tidal energy establish new planetary baselines for emergy
analysis, 9.26 E24 sejyl for short 1.0 E4 y) and 10.58 E24 sejyl for long period processes (>1.0 E4
y ). Spotial and temporal guidelines to avoid double counting in determining the emergy basis for local
phenomena were suggested based on implications of this analysis.
-
INTRODUCTION
Emergy Analysis (Odum
1996) is an assessment method that can evaluate the contributions of
humanity and nature to the overall well-being of an environmental system.
This is accomplished by
expressing all the products and services produced and consumed by a network of economic and ecological
components and processes in terms of a single quantity, the energy of one kind,
e.g., the solar joules, that
were required to produce them. This quantity, called emergy, is defined as all the available energy of one
255
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformily for Tidal Energy...

kind previously used up directly and indirectly to make a particular product or service (Odum 1996).
The emjoule or embodied joule (Odum \986) denotes the use of a particular kind of energy in the past
and, therefore, it is the appropriate unit for emergy. Solar emjoules are commonly used as the emergy
unit for evaluating environmental systems.
The transformily of a product or service is the emergy required to make a unit of that product or
service, e.g., \8,199 solar emjoules (sej) are required to make one joule (J) of chemical potential energy
in rain (Odum \996). By convention the transformity of solar energy is I. The available energy or
exergy contents of many products have been tabulated and are widely available, e.g., the Gibb's free
energies of reaction products are tabulated in the Hand Book of Physics and Chemistry. These quantities
can be easily converted to emergy by multiplying the exergy in joules by the appropriate transformity (sej
1'1). Therefore, transformities are the key pieces of new information needed to evaluate the emergy of
environmental products and services. Note that by convention transformities smaller than 1.0E5 sej J"
are reported to the nearest whole number because these values are often used as intermediaries in spreadsheet
calculations to determine other values. This convention is not intended to imply that a transformity is
known to 4 or 5 significant figures when the numbers input to the calculation are only reported to two or
three significant figures. The future success ofEmergy Analysis as a method for assessing environmental
systems will depend on developing accurate and consistent methods for calculating transformities,
documenting the uncertainty associated with these calculations, and developing a clear understanding of
how to use these factors in determining the emergy basis for economic and ecological products, services,
and systems.
The process of determining a new transformity begins by identifying all the energy
transformations that contribute to the formation of the product or service being evaluated. By definition
the solar transformity is the solar emergy required to make a joule of available energy in a product or
service, so the next step is to determine the minimum set of required inputs that represents the maximum
emergy contributed by independent emergy sources to produce a product, i.e, the emergy required without
double counting. For example, many natural products are produced by the transformation of energy in a
network (Figure I). All products that are generated by the transformation of the external energy sources
in the network are co-products of the same system and the emergy from all sources is required to make
any product in the network. Ifmore than one of these co-products contributes emergy to the formation of
a product or service under evaluation only the co-product contributing the highest emergy is counted. If
the emergy of other co-products is added to the emergy required to make the product or service being
evaluated, the emergy that the co-products contribute to the process will be counted more than once. The
method of calculation used here leads to a consideration of practical methods for minimizing the problem
of double counting in determining the emergy basis for natural products and services.
The largest system of interest to us in calculating transformities for environmental products and
services is the planetary web of processes that generates natural products such as the wind, rain, waves,
tides, etc. (FigureI). These global products often supply much of the energy transformed to make other
ecological and economic products and services. All products in the planetary web are created by the
transformation of the earth's three primary independent sources of energy which are (I) solar radiation,
(2) the earth's deep heat, and (3) the gravitational attraction of the sun and the moon. Furthermore, all
natural products and processes onEarth are created by the transformation of the energies in the products
of the planetary web. When these three primary energy sources to our earth are expressed in terms of a
single kind of energy, a planetary baseline is established for determining the transformities of products
and services provided on a global basis. The planetary baseline itself is primarily of academic interest
because, as long as all transformities are determined relative to the sarne baseline, the results of an analysis
will change little if the baseline is moved. The more interesting question is how should the products of
the planetary web be combined to determine the emergy basis for products and services without double
counting. In an appendix to Campbell (\998) Campbell and Odum applied the method used by Odum
and Odum (\983) to estimate the solar transformity of the earth's deep heat to calculate a revised
transformity for the tidal energy received by the earth and the tidal energy dissipated, globally. In this
paper I present the assumptions and calculations in more detail and consider the implications of this
-256-
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Traniformily for TIdal Energy...

approach for Emergy Analysis. In addition, I suggest a rationale for combining the three independent
energy sources to the planet to avoid double counting in the detennination of the emergy basis for economic
and ecological products and services.
METHODS
Odum and Odum (1983) used an elegant method to detennine the solar transfonnity of the
earth's deep heat. The key to making an equivalence between these two independent emergy sources was
to recognize that they both contribute to creating the same product , i.e., the earth's cycle of uplift and
subsidence. Over the long run the Maximum Power Principle will guide both of these processes toward
the lowest thermodynamically possible transformity in making the product. Therefore, the transformity
of the portion of the earth cycle driven by solar emergy will be approximately equal to the transformity of
the portion driven by the emergy from the earth's deep heat. The heat flux from the earth's crust is
commonly measured by geologists (Lachenbruch and Sass 19 7 7 , Decker 1987). This heat flow is the
result of the underlying geologic activity and the erosive action of wind and rain on the land surface. In
addition, solar emergy contributes to this heat flux through the burial of organic matter in sediments.
Odum and Odum (1983) found that the flux of residual heat from the earth's mantle and the heat generated
in the crust by radioactive decay had been estimated by Sclater et al. (1980). They estimated the solar
transformity of the earth's heat driving the cycle of uplift and subsidence by subtracting the geologic heat
fluxes (radioactive decay and residual heat flux) from the total heat flux out of the earth's surface. The
remaining heat flux from the crustal surface can be attributed to the part of the earth cycle driven by solar
emergy which passes energy downward into the crust as compression and chemical potentials (Odum
1996). The ratio of the annual solar emergy input to the planet divided by this energy flux is then the solar
transformity of the portion of the earth cycle driven by solar emergy. Since both the solar heat engine and
the earth's radioactive and residual heat contribute emergy to drive the same geologic process, i.e., the
earth cycle of crustal movements, by the logic given above we can assume that the solar transformity of
the earth's radioactive and deep heat contributing to the earth cycle will be approximately the same as that
estimated for the solar heat engine's contribution to the total crustal heat flux.
If the following four assumptions hold, the method of Odum and Odum (1983) can be applied
to determine the solar transformity of the tidal energy received and dissipated globally. (1) The annual
flux of available geopotential energy due to elevated water in worlds oceans is the same regardless of
source. Thus, the total available geopotential energy of elevated water in the world oceans will have the
same transformity as the available geopotential energy created by the gravitational attraction of the sun
and moon and the solar heat engine. (2) On the time scale of one year, the available geopotential energy
of the world's oceans is in steady state, thus all the available geopotential energy that is created in a given
year is dissipated in that year. If this assumption was on average false, there would be an accumulation or
decline of the total potential energy in the global ocean over a series of years and this is not observed.
(3) The elevation of the ocean surface relative to a reference level at a depth of 1 DOOm is caused by the
solar heat engine including its effect in delivering fresh water to the oceans, the gravitational pull of the
sun and moon, and the spatial distribution of continental land masses. (4) The dissipation of tidal energy
in the deep oceans is less than 0 .0 0 1 of that in shallow water (Miller 1966). Given these assumptions, the
solar transformity of the portion of the geopotential energy in the world oceans that is generated annually
by the solar heat engine can be estimated if the total and the fraction of the total generated annually by the
tides is known.
The following algebra may be used to determine the solar emergy contributed to the planetary
baseline by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon from which the transformities for the tidal
energy received, J R, and tidal energy dissipated globally, JTD' can be calculated. The annual flux of
geopotential energy, Jo, in the world oceans is made up of a portion generated by the solar heat engine, Js,
and a portion generated by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon, JT" The first step in calculating
a transformity is to determine the emergy sources used in producing the product in this case the annual
flux of available geopotential energy in the world oceans. There are only three possible emergy sources to
-257-
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformity for Tidal Energy...
imergybui.for the planetary web for

Oil time scales of
<10000 year. :
3.93 + 4.Q7 + 1.26 = 9.26
for> 1,000,000 years :
3.93 + 47 + 2.57 = 10.57
All flow. X li24 ..u y .,

Wind.
Rain
Tid..
Currents
Waves
Uplift
Land Albedo
S Albedo
Land
Planetary Web Produ .
Stream.
Global linergy Flow.
Figure 1. A partially evaluated diagram of the three independent energy sources supporting global
energyflows and generating available geopotential energy in the world oceans.
consider, solar emergy, EMs, the emergy in the earth's deep heat, E, and the emergy supplied by the
gravitational attraction of the sun and moon, EM,. . According to our assumptions the emergy basis for
creating the annual flux of geopotential energy in the world oceans must be either:
(I)
or
(2)
J;
Energy X Transformity or Em
t , and the transformity
;
;
of the total annual flux of geopotential energy in the world oceans, t , we can write the following
Using the fundamental relationship, Emergy
relations:
(3)
(4)
-258-
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformily for TIdal Energy...

where the subscripts I and 2 referto the two different emergy bases given in (I) and (2). By our assumptions
the available geopotential energy in the world oceans is the same product regardless of source, and therefore,
its emergy can be split according to the energy contributed in the various products. The transformity
i.e., the transformities of the available geopotential
(emergy/energy) of all the products must be equal,
"tGT' solar energy, "tGS' as well as the total ,"tG, are equal. In addition, the tidal
JTD, is approximately equal to the geopotential energy
created by the tide, JG T. Now "t TD
E + JTD may be substituted into equations (3) and (4) to give,
(5)
"t0l El + JTD (EME + El + EMs)
energy created by the tide,
energy dissipated annually in shallow water,

=
"tG2
Solving for
E + JTD
(E + EM. )
JG
(6)
El and E,
El
JTD ( EME + EMg)+ (JG - JTD)
and
(7)
(8)
All values in these two equations are known excep
El and E,
the emergy contributed to the
planetary baseline by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon for each of the two possible emergy
bases. After determining the
"tR2,
and dissipated,
by the earth,
JR
"tRl
'
"tTDl
El and E, the transformities for the tidal energy received, "tRl and
and "tTD2, can be calculated using the gravitational energy received annually
and the tidal energy dissipated in shallow water,
El
JR and "tR2
JTD.
E + JR
(9)
(10)
RESULTS
If the solar emergy flux to the earth,
EM"
is
3.93 E24 solar emjoules y'! (Odum 1996), the
gravitational energy transmitted to the earth, JR, is 8.5 I5 E19 joules y.! (Munk and MacDonald 1960), the
tidal energy transmitted to shallow water, J T' is 5.2 EI9 joules y'! (Miller 1966), and the annual production
of available gravitational potential energy in the top 1000 m of the global ocean, Jo' is 21.4
EI9 joules y'

! (Oort et aI. 1989), the following calculations and assumptions can be used to determine solartransformities
for the tidal energy dissipated and the tidal energy received by the earth. Alternatively, these numbers
can be substituted into the equations in the methods section to yield similar results.
The fraction of the available geopotential energy of the oceans created annually by solar emergy
is equal to the total available geopotential energy created annually minus the geopotential energy created
by the tide. If almost all of the available geopotential energy produced annually by gravitational attraction
is transmitted to shallow water and dissipated'there, the available geopotential energy produced annually
by solar emergy,
EM" is 16.2 E 19 joules y'!.
21.4 EI9 joules y'!
5.2 EI9 joules y.!
16.2 E 19 joules y.!
(II)
The solar transformity of the portion of the available geopotential energy created annually by the solar
heat engine, "tS2' is then:
-259-
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformity for Tidal Energy. ..

3.93 E24 joules y.! -;- 16.2 E 19 joules y.!
24259 sej ]-!
(12)
This is also the transfonnity for the portion of the available geopotential energy in the world oceans
generated by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon, "n' Transfonnity does not change when a
system shifts energy from potential to kinetic fonn with conservation. Since almost all the tidal geopotential
energy is transmitted to shallow water and dissipated there the solar !tansfonnity of the tidal energy
dissipated in shallow water is approximately the same as that of the tidal geopotential energy generated.
The emergy contributed to the planetary baseline by the tides, EM,." is then:
5.2 EI9 joules y'! X 24259 sej J'!
(13)
1.26 E24 sej y'!
The solar transfonnity of the gravitational energy of the sun and moon received by the earth,
1.26 E24 sej y'! -;- 8.515 EI9 joules y'!
"R2'
is then
(14)
14797 sej J'!
The new planetary baseline using this revised transfonnity for tidal energy is:
3.93 E24 sej y.!
4.07 E24 sej y.!
+ 1 .26
E24 sej y.!
9.26 E24 sej y'!
(15)
These transfonnities are correct if the only important emergy sources required to produce the
available geopotential energy of elevated water in the oceans are the gravitational attraction of the sun
and moon and the solar heat engine. However, it is well known that the elevation of the water surface in
the ocean also depends on the geometry and the distribution of land fonns both locally and globally
(Macmillan 1966). The distribution of landfonns is a consequence of the earth cycle as discussed above,
which requires a major input of emergy from radioactive decay and residual heat for its operation. This
emergy contributed by the earth's heat is also required to produce a given quantity of geopotential energy
in the world oceans. To see that there must be a geologic input to creating the potential energy of the
oceans imagine an earth without continents and thus no geologic input to the upper zone. Would the
oceanic geopotential energy created annually by the attraction of the sun and moon be different?
If the deep heat emergy from the earth contributes to the fonnation of the available geopotential
energy in the ocean by creating the distribiltion and geometry of the continental land masses and coastal
shelves, the non-tidal emergy input should be 8.0 E24 sej y'! (3.93 E24 sej y'! from solar and 4.07 E24 sej
y'! from deep heat of the earth E, (Odum 1996). The solar transfonnity of the geopotential energy in
,
the oceans created annually by the solar heat engine, "Sl, is now:
8.0 E24 sej y'! -;- 16.2 EI9 joules y'!
49383 sej J'!
(16)
By reasoning similar to that applied above this transfonnity can also be applied to the available geopotential
energy of the world oceans generated by the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon, "1'2' and to the
tidal energy dissipated in shallow water'"TD2' The solar emergy used up globally in the dissipation of
the available geopotential energy produced annually by the tides, EI' is then:
5.2 EI9 joules y.! x 49383 sej I'!
2.568 E24 sej y-!
(17)
and the solar transfonnity of the gravitational energy received by the earth, "R2' is:
2.568 E24 sej -;- 8.515 EI9joules y'!
30159 sej I'!
-260-
(18)
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformityfor Tidal Energy...
The new planetary baseline using the transfonnity for tidal energy received that includes the contribution
of earth processes is :
3.93 E24 sej y-'
4.07 E24 sej y.'
2.57 E24 sej y-'
10.57 E24 sej y.'
(19)
DISCUSSION
Figure I illustrates the planetary web of interactions between the earth's three independent energy
sources and the production systems of the land, oceans, and atmosphere. The three planetary system
components, oceans, atmosphere and land are completely interconnected by important feedbacks. For
example, the land surface elevation and roughness affect wind movement in the. atmosphere and the
atmospheric winds erode the land and redistribute particles over the earth's surface. Many other examples
of the connections between these planetary subsystems could be given but the important point is that all
the global energy flows are the products of this interconnected web. Solar energy interacts directly with
all three planetary subsystems, whereas the earth's deep heat contributes energy primarily to the oceanic
and terrestrial subsystems. The gravitational attraction of the sun and moon interacts most strongly with
the oceans, but it also results in lesser tidal effects in the atmosphere and land mass (Cartwright 1999).
The relative magnitude of the contribution that each of these three independent energy sources makes to
the production of eight global energy flows is shown in Table I. The contributions are classified as
(I) immediate, meaning that changes in the annual emergy supplied by a forcing function are reflected in
the global energy flux in that year; (2) long tenn, meaning that there is a substantial contribution of the
present state of an environmental variable to producing a global energy flow, but the emergy inputs
driving the variable must act for a long time, e.g., millions of years, to result in a substantial change in that
global energy flow; and (3) negligible, meaning that the emergy supplied by a source is so small relative
to other sources that it can be ignored for practical purposes. This table can be used to help avoid double
counting in detennining the emergy basis for local ecological and economic organization on our planet.
For example, if one emergy input is negligible for global energy flow, A, but makes an immediate
contribution to energy flow, B, and another independent emergy source makes an immediate contribution
to A but has a negligible influence on B, the two may be counted together in detennining the emergy
basis of a phenomenon without double counting. Therefore, the emergies of the tidal energy absorbed
and the chemical potential energy in rainfall can both be added to detennine the ernergy basis for
organization in a coastal region without double counting (see Table I). Emergy sources that make a
long-term contribution to a global energy flow do not need to be added to the emergy basis for organization
in a region on time scales very much shorter than their period of effective action. The period of effective
action might be defined as the time needed to produce a 1% change in the global energy flow.
Questions about double counting can also be clarified by considering the separation of input
emergies in space and time. Spatial separation of inputs avoids double counting. For example, the major
emergy inflows are often different over the land and water portions of a system composed of a coastal
body of water and its watershed. The primary emergy source for coastal waters is often the tidal energy
absorbed, whereas, over land it is often the chemical potential energy in rainfall. When these emergy
inputs are determined based on the respective water and land areas where each dominates there can be no
double counting. According to the infonnation in Table I the chemical potential energy of rainfall might
be added over the water area as well as the land with little risk of double counting. However, the emergy
in chemical potential energy of rainfall and in the physical energy of the wind could not be added over the
same area without double counting, since they are both immediate co-products of the solar heat engine.
Separation in time is a second test to detennine what emergy inputs should be counted as part of
the emergy basis of a product, service, or system. Transfonnities are calculated based on the time needed
to produce a product or service quickly and efficiently. In some cases the amount of a product that is
created depends on the energy previously used up over a very long period of time in a process that is a
part of a much larger system, e.g., the contributions of emergy from the earth's deep heat to creating the
-261-
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformity for Tidal Energy...

Table 1. An estimate of the nature of the contributions made by earth's three independent energy sources
to producing global energy flows within the planetary web.
Independent Energy Source
Global Energy Flow
Gravitational Attraction
Solar Radiation
Earth's Deep Heat
Wind
Immediate
Long term
Negligible
Rain, geopotential
Immediate
Long term
Negligible
Immediate
Negligible
Negligible
Waves
Immediate
Negligible
Negligible
Tides
Negligible
Long term
Immediate
Streams, geopotential
Immediate
Long term
Negligible
Streams, chemical potential
Immediate
Negligible
Negligible
Earth cycle
Immediate
Immediate
Negligible
tidal geopotential energy of the world oceans as discussed above. In such cases there is a legitimate
question of how these long term inputs should be handled.
A simple test for the separation of processes in time is to compare the change in production that
as
a consequence of the observed variations in the long period emergy input over a quick and
occurs
efficient production time to the change in production caused by variations in the immediate inputs during
the same time. If the change in production caused by variations in the long-term input are negligible
compared with the expected changes caused by the immediate inputs, the long-term input may be
considered as a constant. In this case, a negligible quantity of emergy is being supplied from the long
term process during the time period of an efficient production cycle. Emergy from the long-term process
is causing changes in the production cycle at an infinitesimally small rate, and therefore, it can be omitted
as an emergy input to the production process on short time scales. However, if the stored emergy in a
product from a larger system is being used up in a production process at a rate faster than it is being
replenished, the contributions of the long-term storage must be counted in the emergy basis for the short
term product, e.g., soil loss in agricultural production (Odum 1996).
Odum (1996) originally determined the transformity of the tidal energy dissipated by assuming
that tidal currents had the same transformity as the current in a large river, i.e., the Mississippi. He
obtained a value of 2 7 7 64 sej J.l for tidal energy dissipated and 16,842 sej J.l for tidal energy received.
These numbers are 13.8% greater than the values calculated in this paper using solar emergy alone. For
comparison the two best estimates for the tidal energy dissipated globally given in Miller (1966) differ by
11.2 %. The transformity of river current proves to be a good approximation for tidal current transformity,
when compared to the value calculated by this method. The present method follows that used by Odum
ahd Odum (1983) to estimate the transformity of the earth's deep heat, therefore, the solar emergy
contributed to the planetary baseline by the earth's deep heat and the emergy contributed by the gravitational
attraction of the sun and moon have now been determined in a consistent manner. The revised transformities
presented in this paper should be more accurate than those currently in use. However, two different
transformities for both the tidal energy received and tidal energy dissipated globally were calculated in
the results section. A question remains as to when each of these two alternatives should be used.
The argument on the temporal separation of the significant action by ernergy sources in a
production process presented above leads to the conclusion that the transformities for the tidal energy
dissipated and received globally based on solar emergy alone are the best ones to use in determining the
-262-
Chapter 21. A Revised Solar Transformity for Tidal Energy. ..

transfonnity of systems, products, and processes on short time scales,
e.g., 10,000 years or less.
This
assumes that the present configuration of the continents and oceans is essentially a constant over time
periods shorter than 10,000 years, therefore, the emergy contribution of the earth cycle to year to year
variations in the available geopotential of the world oceans is negligible. Effectively, no energy from the
earth cycle is used up in producing the tides on such short time scales. The larger global transfonnity for
tidal energy that includes the contribution of the earth's deep heat is appropriate for processes operating
on long time scales
(>I 0,000 years) over which the annual geopotential energy generated by the
gravitational attraction of the sun and moon could change as a result of continental drift sea level rise or
tall etc.
The conclusion from this discussion is that the emergy baseline for planetary products and
services is relative and may diffe r if the significant inputs to the production process change as a consequence
of shifting time scales or other relevant factors
,e.g., the development of our fossil fuel based industrial
society.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank H.T. Odum for his suggestions and counsel in developing these new transfonnities for
tidal energy. I thank G. Pesch, J. Kiddon, E. Dettmann, and Jonathan Garber for helpful internal reviews
of the manuscript. The opinions expressed in this paper are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of the USEPA or anyone else.
This paper is contribution number NHEERL-NAR-2170 of the Atlantic
Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
REFERENCES
Campbell, D.E. 1998. Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: An example
using the State of Maine. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 531-569.
Cartwright, D.E. 1999.
Tides, a Scientific History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 292.
Decker, ER 1987. Heat flow and radioactivity in Maine: first-Order results and preliminary interpretations.
Geophysical Research Letters 14, 256-259.
Lachenbruch, A.H., Sass, J.H. 1977. Heat flow in the United States and the thennal regime of the crust.
in: Heacock, J.G., Keller, G.v., Oliver, J.E., Simmons, G. (eds) The Earth s Crust. pp. 626-675.
American Geophysical Union, geophysical monograph 20, Washington, DC.
Macmillan, D.H. 1966.
Tides. American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, 240 pp.
Miller, G.A. 1966. The flux of tidal energy out of the deep oceans, J.
Munk, W.H.,MacDonald, G.F. 1960.
GeophySical Res., 71, 2485-2489.
The Rotation of the Earth:A Geophysical-Discussion; Cambridge
Univ. Press, London, 323 pp.
Odum, H.T. 1986. EMERGY in Ecosystems. In: Polunin, N. (ed) Ecosystem

337-369. Wiley, New York, 446 pp.
Theory andApplication. pp.
Odum, H.T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley
'
and Sons, NY. 370 pp.
Odum, H.T.,Odum, E.C. (eds.) 1983. EnergyAnalysis
Overview of Nations. Working Paper WP-83-82,
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, p. 469.
Oor!, AH., Ascher, S.C., Levitus, S., Peixoto, J.P. 1989. New estimates of the available potential energy
in the oceans, J.
Geophysical Res.,
94, 3187-3200.
Sclater, I.F., Taupart, G., Galson, J.D. 1980. The heat flow through the oceanic and continental crust and
the heat loss of the earth. Rev.
Geophys. Space Phys. 18:269-3 II
-263-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
22
Calculating Transformities with an Eigenvector Method
ABSTRACT
Eigenvalues-eigenvectors were used to calculate transformitiesfrom sets of emergy equations
representing energy traniformations. Transformity emergy, spelled with an um, "divided by available
energy. This procedure extends the calculation of energy quality measures introduced byMurray Patterson
in 1983. The method uses energy systems diagrams to organize data on the flow of available energy
through traniformation processes. For each transformation process, an equation is written with input
emergy equal to that of an output. Afier the data are combined with a matrix equation, transformities are
calculated by minimizing eigenvalues. A program is provided for the commercial software
MATHENfAl1CA, which solves the simultaneous emergy equations andprints out a vector of traniformities.
Comparisons are made between the transformities determined in this way with those previously estimated
with other methods. Examples include simple configurations, the ecosystem in Silver Springs, Florida,
and the estuary in Louisiana used by Tenne"baum (1988).
INTRODUCTION
Emergy, spelled with an urn" is the available energy (exergy) of one kind required to generate
the available energy (exergy) of other kinds. Calculating emergy has theoretical and practical importance
to energy analysis and public policies based on evaluating work of nature and the economy on a common
basis. This paper provides a convenient method for calculating transformities (the emergy per unit available
energy) from energy data of the environment and economy.
BACKG ROUND
Energy systems networks can be used to represent the essence of real systems, including complex
energy flows and transformation processes. The systems are often made quantitative by estimating values
of energy flows into and out of each transformation. Numerical values can be written on the pathways of
systems diagrams. Figures 1-6 give examples of such energy sysems networks in which the symbols
carry additional mathematic and energetic meaning (Odum, 1971, 1983, 1996). The diagrams represent
the energy transformation hierarchy concept by the position of items and flows. Flow of available energy
decreases as the quality of energy increases with successive energy transformation processes from left to
right. Each joule is capable of doing more when interacting with other energy flows. The energy flows
can also be represented in tabular ways amenable to matrix mathematics.
This concept of embodied energy was developed in the 1960's and given the name emergy in
1983 (Odum, 1986; Scienceman, 1987) so that items of all kinds (environment, fuels, chemicals,
infonnation) could be put on a common basis by expressing energy flows in units of one kind of available
energy previously used and expressed as emjoules. The emergy for one unit of available energy was
defined as the transformity. Transformities measure the position of each kind of energy in the natural
energy hierarchy in which different kinds are on different scale in the universal series of energy
transfonnations. Available energy (exergy) of different kinds should not be added to imply work until
-265-
Chapter 22. Calculating Transformities with an Eigenvector Method

Energy Flows at Steady state
Coal
J1 = 100
Energy
Transformaijon
Energ y
Joules per Time
70
2:...=_3
I-'J:.;:
'--..... Electrtcal
"'0
Energy
Used Energy
Emergy is the available energy of one kind used up to generate a flow

Emjoule is the unit of emergy
Transformity= emergy per unit energy with units: emjoulesJjoule
In this example::
Emergy flow of both input and outputs = 100 coal emjoulesllime
x1 = 1 by definition (the coal transformity of coal)
x2 = Coal transformHy of electrtcity = (100 coal emjoulesllime)/(30 electrtcal joulesllime)
= 3.33 coal emjoulesljoule electricity
Balance of emergy flows at steady state, 1 00 coal emjoules per time

x1'J1= 100.
Emergy Flow Equation:
Energy
. Transformation
x2"J2= 100
x1"J1 = x2"J2
x1"J1 - x2"J2 = 0
Figure 1. An
energy transformation with definitions.
multiplied by transformities to represent each in emergy units of one kind (Odum, 1996).
Most
transformation processes have more than one kind of energy input, which can be put on a common basis
as the emergy of one kind.
Where a system has been aggregated so that outputs are fed back as necessary interactions, and
for a process at steady state with storages constant, the emergy inputs to the transformation process may
be conserved in the output products. An emergy balance equation can be written for inputs and outputs
with emergy out equal to the sum of the emergy flows in (Figure I). Emergy of any flow is the product of
the energy times the transformity relating the emergy for one kind to that type of energy.
Transformity
was given various names during the development period and renamed transformity in 1983 (Odum, 1976,
1986, 1987). After 1983 , to avoid fractions, solar emergy was used, expressing transformities in terms of
the solar energy, the energy type with the largest flows but lowest concentration. In a summary book, ten
ways of estimating transformities were given with examples (Odum 1996).
In 1983 and later papers, Murray Patterson (1983, 1984, 1993 , 1998) expressed energy
transformation equations of systems networks in a matrix in which each row is a transformation process
equation and each energy flow is placed in a column according to the transformity. Figure
2 is a two
process example in which x's are transformities. Then he used linear algebra methods to estimate the
coefficients from the properties of the set of equations for the whole network, adjusting the values to
minimize the residual with a least squares method. The coefficient of one type of energy was given the
value
I, and the mathematical solution generated the other coefficient values. Patterson's method of
energy systems analysis appears to be an important way of estimating emergy and transformity. This
-266-

paper provides an eigenvalue method and a convenient computer program to facilitate these calculations
with standard software.
As Patterson has explained, real energy transformation networks evaluated for study may not be
in steady state. They may be incomplete in representing main energy flows. They may not be aggregated
so that each output carries all the input emergy. The calculations can still be made, and the results used to
describe the energy network, but the coefficients obtained in these cases will have additional error in
representing transforrnity that is defined as the necessary emergy required to relate energy on one scale to
that on another.
Emergy Equations and Definitions

Figure
I illustrates definitions with one energy transformation. Coal exergy is converted by a
transformation to electrical exergy. Emergy is defined as the available energy of one kind previously
used up in a transformation to make a useful energy flow of a different kind. Therefore, coal emergy in
coal emjoules required to generate one joule of electrical energy is called the coal transformity. It is the
quotient of one type of emergy flow divided by the energy flow of another kind. The example in Figure
I was simplified to contain only one input and one output. 1's are energy flows, and x's are transformities
of Type I energy.
Type of Energy
./---.
(a) Energy Flows at steady state; conservation of energy
j
Type 1
J2
TypeS
Type 3
JS
J3
Jl
(b) Example:
xl
2
x2
3
x3
4
x4
1
5
xS
JO
-J2
Jl
J2
-J3
J3
J4
-JS
r;-
TYPe2
energy flow, joules per time
95
10
-I
(c) Emergy Flow
xl"Jl
xS"J5
x3*J3
Emergy Balance Equations:
x1*J1
xl"J1
x2"J2
xS"J3 + x4"J4
x2*J2
xl *500
x2*S
xS"J3
xl "100+x2"S =x3"10
xS"JS
xS"10+x4"1 =xS"2
xl
2
x2
3
xS
4
x4
51
xS
500
-5
100
-10
10
(j
2
Type of Energy
.-A-.
Transformity
-2
Vector:
'lj
x2
x3
x4
xS
100
60
938
769
Energyflows, emergyflows. and emergy trans/ormation equations for a series a/ two energy transformations.
(a) Energyflows (J's); (b) numerical e:cample; (c) emergyflows and equations; tabular form for representing energy
flows in a matrix used by computer programs to calculate transformities (x s).
Figure 2.
-267-
Chapter 22. Calculating Transformilies with an Eigenvector Method
In a real energy systems network, there are usually two or more inputs to each transformation
(Figure 2). In any energy transformation, such as those in Figure 2a, the available energy used and the
energy output from each transformation can be expressed in the same emergy units equal to the energy
flow (J's) multiplied by one kind of transformity (x's). Pathways ofexergy dissipation have zero emergy
flow and areomitted. If the lowest transformity energy is solar, the units are solar emjoules. Figure 2c
has equations with an expression for the solar emergy flow accompanying each energy flow. The J's are
the flows of energy resulting from the previous transformations. The x's are the solar transfonnities.
There are as many such emergy equations in an energy network as there are energy
transfonnations. If the terms of each equation in Figure 2 are gathered on one side ofthe equals sign, the
output flows (on the right) become negative terms:
xl*J1
x2*J4 - x3*J3 =0
(I)
x3*J3 + x4*J4 - xS*JS =0
The equations can also be shown in a tabular form with the transfonnities (x's) across the top
(Figure 2). Energy flow data in this form are expressed in matrix fonn as
(2)
Mx=O
where M is the matrix of energy flow and x is the vector of transfonnities.
Drawing the diagrams and placing the energy flow values on the pathways is a way of making
sure energy flows fit the following energy laws. (I) The energy outflows at steady state equal the inflows.
(2) Available energy flows decrease in passing through a transfonnation. (3) If the diagram is drawn with
the left-right convention, the highest transfonnity with the smallest energy flows enters from the right as
a control to the transformation. The lowest transfonnity with the most energy inflows from the left. The
transformed output is intennediate in available energy content and transformity.
. EIGENVALUE-EIGENV ECTOR METHOD FOR CALCULATING
Emergy and Transformity
In papers starting in 1983, Patterson (1983, 1984, 1993) worked the web evaluating procedure
backwards, deriving the transfonnities from the set of equations where only the energy flows (J's) were
available. One type of energy was given a transfonnity of 1 (for electricity in some examples). He used
a least squares method to find the transformities that solve equation 2 with the least error. The following
is the new procedure using eigenvalue-eigenvectors.
In the matrix equation: Mx=0, M is an m x n matrix of m processes and n ingredient inputs and
outputs. Matrix M has the energy flows arranged in columns according to energy type as in Figures 2-4.
The vector x is the a col\lmn vector of coefficients (transformities) for these types of energy. An eigenvector
has the same result as the matrix when the eigenvector is multiplied by a set of numbers that are then
called eigenvalues (Appendix). The matrix product ofMx is set equal to Lx where the L is the matrix of
eigenvalues for an eigenvector x made up of the transfonnities.
(3)
Mx=Lx
By finding an eigenvector which has almost zero eigenvalues, the matrix equation approaches:
(4)
Mx =0
268-
where the values of the vector x is the set of transformities. In other words, the procedure solves the
equation. Whatever small values there are for the minimum eigenvalues L of that vector are the residue.
The residue exists because the equations and data are not perfect. For analyses of real systems where data
and equations are not perfect representations of the real transformations, the residual (error) can be
represented with the vector e in equation (5)
Mx + e
(5)
The A ppendix from Collins (I998) explains the mathematics further.

EVALUATING TRANSFORMITIES WITH MATHEMATICA
The program for the commercial software program MATHEMATICA is included (Table I) so
anyone can rapidly evaluate emergy and transformities from data of network energy flows with the
following procedure:
I. Load the program MATHEMATICA. To see if everything is ready, type in 2+2 and press the SHIFT
Key and ENTER. If things are working OK, the program calculates and places the answer 4 on the
screen.
2. Either type in the program in Table I or paste it to the MATHEMATICA screen via the clipboard, from
a stored file (available from the authors).
3. Type in the emergy equations like the ones in equation #1 above. A t the top of the blank screen write
the matrix of processes, one row for each energy transformation equation. In each equation one or
more ingredient input terms of the process are written with a plus sign and one output term with a
minus sign. The first number requires .0 to be included. The following is an example which shows
the use of punctuation without spaces for the two row, five column data matrix in Figure 2:
m={{IOO.O, 5,-IO,O,0},
{0, 0, 1O,1,-2}};
(6)
4. Press the SHIFT KEY and ENTER. The software follows the instructions in the program (Table I)
and prints out the transformity vector x. The items of the matrix of energy data are in the same order as
the column headings (kinds of energy). The program divides through by the smallest transformity and
rounds to get whole numbers.
Table 1. Program to enter into MATHEMATICA in order to calculate transformities from emergy
equations
}
m ={
MatrixForrn[m]
a Transpose[m] .m;
p = Eigenvectors[a];
err =m. Transpose[p];
MatrixForrn[err];
MatrixForrn[Transpose[p]];
Eigenvalues[a];
u Min[A bs[Take[Eigenvectors[a], -I]]];
t = (1/u) Take[Eigenvectors[a], -I];
MatrixForm[Transpose[t]]
=
m = matrix of energy flows from the emergy equations.
-269-
. menu. Label the

5. Save the result as a file andlor print out the screen with the PRINT item in the Fll.E
transformities with the name of the energy type.
Table 2 is an example of the result of running the program with the matrix for the simple example
in Figure 3 set up to be in steady state with emergy in equal emergy out. The matrix that was entered was
printed out so you can check it. At the bottom the transformities for the three kinds of energy were
printed as a column vector: 1, 1000, and 100. For this simple case each transformity can be checked by
dividing input emergy by output energy.
Explanation of the Program
Each line in the program (Table I) is a step in the calculations. Where the lines end in a semicolon,
the result of the calculation is not printed out. Remove the semicolon from any line which you want to
print. As written in Table I, only the input matrix, minimum eigenvalues of the eigenvector indicating
residue, and the transformity vector are printed.
The program first instructs the software to find the matrix a=M TM whereM T is the transpose
ofM.
Next it finds the eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of the matrix a. In MATHEMATICA
the eigenvectors are the columns of the transpose of the matrix p = eigenvectors[aJ.
The program finds the residual (error) matrix err =M*Transpose[p1 (inMATHEMATICA). A
given column represents the error of each process (row of M) according to the given column valuation.
The most efficient processes are those with the most negative error, supposing the components of the
corresponding eigenvector are all positive. More explanation is given in Appendix A.
Table 2. Output ofMATHEMATICA evaluating the three transformation system in Figure 3

a.((100.0,1, -11),
(100,2, -21),
(100,_0,-1))1
Jla1:daPono[al
_.....[alal
p.U....-..n[a]1
eft'.a._poae[pl I
Jla1:izrono[ettll
Jla1:izrono[AROpoa.[PI)1
U.......l.... [.)
".lIblllll.[""[U__nl.), -11111
1:. (1/ ..) ftlc.[li......_on[.), -11/
Jla1:izrono[_poa.I1:1 J
100. 1 -11
100 2 -21
100 0 -1
{30368.5, 199.549, 7.41222 x 10-",
270
Chapter 22. Calculating Transjormities with an Eigenvector Method
(a) Energy flow: joules per time
2
100
Energy Type:
2
1
3
11
-11
100
100
2t
100
100
-21
100
-1
270 Used energy, no availability

(b) Emergy Flows
Emergy Transformation Eq uation s
Transformies: xl, x2, x3
lOO'xl + 1'x2 -11'x3 =0

loo'xl + 2'X2 - 21'x3
lOO'xl +0
-1'x3 =0
I1'x3
(c)
Results
from
Calculation
By Setting
x3
Program:
xl = 0.Q1
x2 = 10
If X3 is 1 00,
Xl =1
X2 =1000
then
An energy web with three energy transformations and its emergy equations. (a) Energyflow and matrix
for entering data,; (b) emergy equations andflows.
Figure 3.
At the end the program divides the eigenvector (with the minimum eigenvalues) by the smallest
emergy, which becomes unity and the rest become whole numbers (transformities in emjoules of the
lowest energy type in the group). Thus, the final vector is expressed in transformities of the lowest
quality type of energy. These can be converted into solar transformities in solar emjoules/joule by
multiplying them each by the solar transformity of the lowest energy type in the group.
-271-
EVALUATION EXAMPLES
Evaluating Transformations with Energy Flows that Branch
Whereas the systems in Figures 2 and 3 had one output of each transformation without branching,
most networks have energy flows that branch. In aggregating the real world detail in an energy systems
diagram, two kinds of branches may be arranged. In the matrix a separate line is required for each
branch.
A co-product branch has two outputs of different energy type and transformity based on the
same input emergy. Figure 4 has an example with two input energy flows. For the transformation co
products for one line of the matrix, enter inputs of 100 and 10 and an output of -50. For the other line,
enter the same inputs 100 and 10 and a different output -200. For this simple example, you can check the
output transformities by dividing each output energy into the total input solar emergy 2000 sej (Figure
4a).
A split divides an energy flow of one kind into two flows, both of the same energy type and
transformity. The emergy is divided in the same proportion. A little energy disperses in the process, For
example, in Figure 5, the inputs to the organics are 2.8 and 57 with -40 the product. The energy of
organics splits 40 into flows of 15 and 25, All three have the same transformity and can be entered in the
same column. One branch of the split has the input 15 and output -13.8; the other branch has input 25 and
output -24,2.
=
(a) Block with Co-products, Outputs with Different Transformities

Energy Flows at Steady State
1000
10
solar
energy
x1=1
x1
'::':----X2
1000
Transformlty: x3 = 2000/50 = 40 sej/J

50
x1
x4
Transformily: x4
760
Energyltlme
2000/200
200
(b) Emergy Equations for Eigenvector Program, one output each:

x1*100 = x2*10
x1*1000
x2*10 = x3*50
x1*1000
x2*10 = x4*200
(c) Program Matrix: Energy' Flows Arranged by Transformlty :

x1
x2 x3
x4
{{1000,-1O,O,O},
.{1000,10,-50, O},
(1000,10,0,200}};
(d) Program Output, Transformlty Vector
x1
x2
x3
x4
Figure 4.
Evaluation of co-product pathways with a separate line for each output.
272
10 sej/J
Chapter 22. Calculating Traniformities with an Eigenvector Method
Solar Transformity
xl Solar Bner'l}'
by definition
x2 Xilletic energy
2.47 E5tIO.S
xl Llgbt ill.to plants
4.66 El/U24
..
22,902
'.1
x4 Grosa Plant Photoayath. 2.5285/57
4,385
x5 Net Plant produ.::tion
6,300
,,6 Orianl.c8 to o.t:dtUB
2.52 ISS/40
9.1!i 24/13.8
x7 Pood to Herbivores
1.58 E5124.2
x8 Herbivores to CarDiv.
1.5885/1.0
&r
6,630
6,529
158,000
x9 Carnivore. to 'l'op Carn. 1.5885/1),036

Di.VOre8 output
..
4.4 86
1.5885/0.0036.
4.4 87
Feedbacks and Recycle Omitted
Silver Springs Ecosystem
Figure 5. Energy systems diagram with steady state energyflawsfor Silver Springs Florida (modified from Odum,
/986). Solar transformities were calculated by dividing energy flows by the contributing emew. Emergyflow to
herbivores and detritusmicrozoa is split in proportion to energy branching.
Evaluating an Ecosystem in Silver Springs, Florida

An evaluation of an ecological system is provided next for Silver Springs, Florida (Odum, 1955),
using the energy systems diagram (Odum, 1986). In Figure 5 the ecosystem was aggregated into a long
chain, which allows estimation of emergy and transformities by inspection (dividing the input
emergy by the output energy at each step). in this procedure closed loops are eliminated since, their net
effect on steady state emergy is zero (Odum, 1996, Chapter 6). The emergy equations for the separate
energy transformations for Silver Springs are listed as Table 3, and the output of MATHEMATICA
program in Table 4 and Table 5.
The lowest quality energy is solar insolation, given the value I,
and the values are represented in units of solar transformity (sej/l).
Table 3. Emergy equations for the Silver Springs energy system in Figure 5
xl
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
247000*xl
4658*xl
8*x2 + 1124*x3
2. 8*x2 +57*x4
15*x5
25*x5
24.2*x7
l*x8
O.036*x9
Solar energy
kinetic energy
Light into plants
Gross photosynthesis
Net production
Organics to detritus
Organics to herbivores
Herbivores to carnivores
Carnivores to top carniv.
1O.8*x2
1124*x3
57*x4
40*x5
13.8*x6
24.2*x7
l*x8
O.036*x9
O.OO36*xIO
------------------- --------------- ---------------
273
Chapter 22. Calculating Transjormities with an Eigenvector Method
Table 4. Output ofMATHEMATIC A evaluating the transformities of Silver Springs energy flows in
Figure 5.
Out(2JIIsatr1xPor.. -
Out[')-
247342
-10.8
4658
-1124
1124
-57
2.8
57
-40.
15
-13.8
25
-24.2
24.2
-1
-0.036
0.036
-0.0036
{6.11998x 1010, 2.52796x 10', 6261.79, 1649.35,

649.705,149.381.14.0594,O.9733U, 0.00130724, 2.16298xlO-17}
Oat{llJI/trixPar.-
1.
22902.
4.14413
3296.04
6300.
6847.83
6508.26
157500.
4.375 x 10'
4.375 X 10'
The energy typeS In the Input matrix headings are the following: xl
solar energy, xl
kinetic energy of water, x3
solar energy to plants, x4gross photosynthesis, xS
net production, x6 organics to detritus, x7
energy to herbiVOres, x8
energy to carnivores, x9 energy to top
carnivores, xlO
outputs from top carnivores.
=
Table 5. Comparison of transformi ties for Silver Springs, Figure 5
Energy Type
xI
x2
x3
x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
xlO
Solar energy
Kinetic energy
Light into plants
Gross photosynthesis
Net production
Organics to detritus
Organics to herbivores
Herbivores to carnivores
Carnivores to top carniv.
Top carnivores
Pathway Ratios'
I
2.2E4
4. 1
3.3E3
6.3E3
6.9E3
6.5E3
1.57E5
4.4E6
4.4E7
Quotients from Figure 5

#Eigenvector from Table 4
-274-
Mathematica#
I
2.3 E4
4.1
4.4E3
6.3 E3
6.6E3
6.6E3
1.58E5
4.4E6
4.4E7
-0.29
0.06
....,
!'>
Q
;r
o.
"
-
.
E12 kilocalories/yr
Louisiana Coastal Ecosystem
Tennebaum (1988); Data: Bahr et al. (1982)
:,l
:
0;
t
0;;'
Figure 6.
Energy systems diagram with energyflows/or the Louisiana Coastal Ecosystem; modifiedfrom Tennenbaum (1988). See Table 6.
s.
8.
Table 6. Emergy equations using data from Tennebaum (1988) for energy transformation processes
of the Louisiana coastal system in Figure 4 described by Bahr et al. (1982)

Process
Input Energy Flows

EI2 kcal/yr
xl *I,729,503
xl*628,OS8
x2*369
x3 *13 4
x4* 25 +xS*94 +x7*9.41
+x8*O. S70 +X9*O.IS9
+xlO*0.29
x6*124
x7*6.5 4
x7*0.16S +x8*O.S2S
x8*0.279 + x9*0.221
Output Flow
EI2 kcal/yr
Solar wetland use to wetland production

Solar aquatic use to aquatic production
Wetland prod. to wetland net prod.
A quatic prod. to aquat. net prod.
Net production and consumer waste to partic . org.

Particulate organics to detritus, zooplank., mesozoa
Detritus etc. to consumers
Detritus and consumers to mid consumers
Consumers and mid consumers to upper consumers
x2*369
x3 *13 4
x4 *198
xS*94
x6*124
x7*16.18
x8*1.43
x9*0.42
xlO*0.31
Evaluating a Louisiana Estuarine System
Tennenbaum (1 988) used a pathway tracking method for calculating transformities in an

estuarine ecosystem energy network published by Bahr, Day, and Stone (1982). Figure 6 is the energy
systems diagram with energy flows on the pathways. The emergy equations for the separate energy
transformations are listed as Table 6, and transformity vector from the MATHEMATICA run in Table 7.
The network diagram has many splits, some indicated by inter-unit pathways that branch, and others
indicated by small squares . The lowest quality energy is solar insolation given the value I, so that the
other values are represented in units of solar transformity (sej/J).
Table 7. Comparison of transformities of the Louisiana coastal ecosystem calculated with three
methods.
Item
Solar energy utilized

Gross primary production
Net primary production
Suspended organic matter'
Detritus, microbiota , meiofauna
Lower consumers
Mid consumers
Upper consumers
Track Method a
I
4 .7E3
8.1E3
1.8E 4
l .36E5
1.46E6
4.0E6
S.2E6
Holistic
Inspectionb
4.7E3
9.3 E3
1.8E 4
1.40E S
1.41E6
5.6E6
8.0E6
EigenvectorC
I
4 . 7E3
6.7E3
9.0E4
6.63 E5
3 .04E6
4.1E6
S.6E6
a Pathway track summing by Tennebaum (1988). Explanation given by Odum (1996, page 99).
b Inspection from values on energy systems diagram which are aggregated with few branches.
c Results of MATHEMATICA program (Table I) with data from Table 6.
-276-
Chapter 22. Calculating Transfonnities with an Eigerrvector Method
COMPARISON OF TRANSFORMITIES WITH DIFFERENT METHODS

In his papers, Patterson uses the term energy quality equivalents forthe flows of the same energy
quality and quality coefficients for the values per unit energy. In 1998 he questioned whether these are
the same concepts as emergy and transformity. The results from simple evaluation of the energy chain
aggregation of the Silver Springs and Louisiana data are similar to those evaluated with the emergy
matrix method (Table 5). In Table 7 the results of this computation are compared with those of Tennenbaum
using two other methods.
We also evaluated a simplified energy network of New Zealand (patterson (1993) which he
described: "Although this is a hypothetical system, the conversion efficiencies are similar to those that
actually occur in the New Zealand energy system." He set electric power as I and evaluated the lower
quality energy types. When his values were all multiplied by 1.7E5 solar emjoules per joule electricity,
previously established solar transformity for electricity (Odum, 1996), the other kinds of energy had solar
transformity values of similar magnitude (in solar emjoulesljoule):
Odum 1996
Hypothetical NZ Energy
Electric Power (set equal)
1.7E5
1.7 E5
Oil Products
5.4E4
6.6 E4
Crude Oil
4.4E4
5.4 E4
Delivered Gas
7.3 E4
Pipeline
4.8 E4
SUMMARY
Eigenvalue-eigenvector computations provide a way to calculate transformities from emergy
balance equations, even when data only include a few of the many energy transformation processes in a
network. The new procedures in this paper facilitate Murray Patterson's method of computing energy
quality relationships from sets of energy transformation relationships. We find that Patterson's terms:
"quality equivalent unit" and "quality coefficient" represent the same properties of energy networks as
emergy and transformity. It is not tmethat emergy evaluations are only feed-forward calculations. Emergy
evaluations typically include inputs from higher quality (larger scale) as well as from lower quality (smaller
scale). This paper provides additional ways for calculating transformity and a convenient program to aid
application with commercial software. The program in this paper makes it easy to convert an energy
systems diagram that has energy values on its pathways into a set of transformities in a few minutes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We are grateful for the comments and critical review by Murray Patterson and Brian D. Fath.
-277-
APPENDIX
A Non-trivial Least Squares Solution of a Homogeneous System

and Proof of the Eigenvalue-Eigenvector method
D ennis Collins
Qyervjew oftbe method: Some systems analysts have derived systems of homogeneous equations
in which the number of processes corresponds to the number m of equations, and the number of commodities
corresponds to the number n of variables. The least
ares approximation of an m x n system ofMx 0
of homogeneous equations subject to the constraint x x= I is obtained through solving the eigenvalue
equation M T Mx =Ax. According to the eigenvalue-error formula, the error of selecting a given unit
eigenvector as a solution is equal to the eigenvalue corresponding to the given eigenvector, so that the
minimum error can be found by taking the eigenvector corresponding to minimum eigenvalue. The least
squares method relieves the analyst of the need to match m with n.
First consider that the squared 2-norm error due to selecting a given vector x as the solution of
Mx=0 is xT MT Mx. If this quantity is minimized with the constraint xT x = I according to the method
of Lagrange multipliers, it is necessary to solve the normal equations aLlaJG=0 for i 1,2,...,n where
L=xT MT Mx -A(x T X - I ) is the Lagrangian function, together with the unit vector constraint.
Calling the symmetric matrix MTM=A, the above equations reduce to
n
2 I Ajjxr2Axi=O
j=l
for i= 1,2, ... ,n or the eigenvalue equation Ax=Ax together with the unit vector constraint. According to
"Elementary Linear Algebra" (prindle Weber Schmidt, 1986) p. 332 by W. Keith Nicholson, the symmetric
matrix A has an orthonormal set of eigenvectors.
Next suppose A has two eigenvaluesA I and A2 withAl < AZ. Let x I and x2 be corresponding
eigenvectors, normalized to I . Then
T
T
T T
2
T
II Mx II1 =x I M Mx I = X I Axl =X I A I X I =A l <A 2=x2 A2 x2
=x 2T Ax2
2
II Mx211
Stated otherwise (the eigenvalue-error formula), the squared error due to the first eigenvector X I
is equal to the eigenvalueA l and less than the squared error due to the second eigenvector x2' Since the
norm is always greater than or equal to 0, the above result also shows that theA's (defined from A=MT
M) are greater than or equal to O.
Finally, the least squares residue (error) is obtained by taking an eigenvector x with the least
eigenvalue (necessarily, greater than or equal to 0). The paper "Working with Projective Space," by the
author (\998) explains how to select a unique eigenvector if the eigenspace corresponding to the minimum
eigenvalue has dimension greater than one.
In the above equations, it is important to realize that m may be much larger than n, so that the
system Mx 0 may have no non-trivial exact solution. Also, the solution does not depend on selection of
a "numeraire," but may reflect "quantum learning" if an eigenvector is selected whose eigenvalue is not
minimum. In terms of learning theory, the search for x may be considered to be a search for a vector that
is nearest to being orthogonal to all the previous rows of M.
If the rows of M are normalized first, say p DM where D is a diagonal matrix whose ith
diagonal entry is I /d i where d i is the norm of the ith row ofM, then the same analysis as above holds for
=
-278-

the new matrix p (in the tenninology of the author's 1998 paper "An approximate Least SquaresMethod in a
although the eigenvectors of pT p may be a (and in general will be) different
Projective-type Space," p.
from the eigenvectors ofM M itself. Thus, the above analysis shows that the l:Xl!&t least-squares error (on
the unit sphere) can be obtained by finding the minimum eigenvalue and eigenvector of pT p.
Although the author has still found no reference to the above facts, many others may have
discovered them in other settings.
The next two pages work out the exact solution of the Patterson example (cf. "An Approximate
Least SquaresMethod in a Projective-type Space"). The exact least squares error (squared) is found to be
0.029 versus 0.045 for Patterson's method (based on nonnalized answers); however Patterson's result is
still considerably better than the squared error (0.815) of the next-to-least eigenvector, and some part of
the extra error may be due to round,off.
Again it must be mentioned that there is a "How to gamble if you must" -aspect about getting the
exact minimum residue (error) for the systemMx = 0, since it seems more mathematical to nonnalize the
equations (i.e. the rows ofM) first and work on the unit sphere, as was done in a previous paper ("An
approximate Least SquaresMethod in a Projective-type space." 1998). However, the above results show
the approximation method of that paper gives exact answers for the row-nonnalized case. Further, the
normalization constant (actually the reciprocal) could be considered as a weight factor Wi for the i-th
equation, as is sometimes done in least squares theory, thereby bringing the Mx
0 case under the
=
weight-function umbrella.
REFERENCES
Bahr, C.M., J. W. Day and J.H. Stone. 1982. Energy cost-accounting of Louisiana fishery production.
Estuaries 5:209-215.
CoIlins, D. 1998. An approximate least squares method in projective type space. Manuscript.
Odum, H.T. 1957. Trophic structure and productivity of Silver Springs, Florida. Ecological Monographs
27:55-112.
Odum, H. T. 1971. Environment, Power, and Society. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Odum, H.T. 1976. Energy Quality and carrying capacity of the earth. Tropical Ecology 16(1): 1-8.
Odum, H.T.
1983, 1993. Ecological and General Systems (Systems Ecology). University Press of
Colorado, Niwot, 644 pp.

Odum, H.T. 1986. Enmergy in ecosystems. In: N. Polunin (Editor), Ecosystem Theory and Application.
John Wiley, New York, pp. 337-369.
Odum, H. T. 1988. Self-organization, transfonnity, and information. Science 242: 1132-I139.
Odum, H.T. 1991. Emergy and biogeochemical cycles. In: C. Rossi and E. Tiezzi (Editors), Ecological
Physical Chemistry: Proceedings of an International Workshop, 8-12 November 1990, Sienna,
Italy. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 25-56.
Odum, H.T.
1996.
Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Decision Making. John Wiley,
New York. 370 pp.

Patterson, M. 1983. Estimations of the quality of energy sources and uses. Energy Policy 2(4):346-359.
Patterson, M. 1984. Applications of Linear Modeling in Energy Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massey
University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
279
Patterson, M. 1993. Approaches to energy quality in energy analysis. International Journal of Global
Energy IssueS. Special Issue on Energy Analysis: 19-2 8.
Patterson, M. 1998. Understanding energy quality in ecological and economic systems. A brief explanation
ofQEM. pp. 257-274 in: Advances in Energy Studies, Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy.
Proceedings of the International Workshop, Porto Venere Italy. Musis, Rome, 642 pp.
Tennenbaum, S.E. 1988. Network energy expenditures for subsystem production. M.S. Thesis,
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 131 pp.
-280-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
23
Emergy Analysis And Trends For Ethanol Production In
Brazil
Lanzotti, C. R., Ortega, E. , Guerra, S.M G.
ABSTRACT
The sugarcane industry has always been an important economic activity in Brazil. This agra
industry showed its major growth during the last three decades due to the establishment in 1975 of the
National Program for Alcohol Production to face the world energy crisis. This industry has produced
great environmental damage and nowadays, is still generating problems, but new technologies with a
different kind of social and ecological impact may establish a new outlook. On the other hand, the
international market prices for raw materials and fossil oil are putting this activity under siege. This
research presents the emergy analysis of a typical alcohol distillery - sugarcane plantation system in the
State of Silo Paulo and identifies tendencies that will affect this industry. Emergy indices obtained for
ethanol production are Traniformity2,OOO,OOO sej/J, Renewability14%, Emergy Yield Ratio1.21,
Emergy Investment Ratio4. 72,Environmental Loading Ratio8.21 and the Emergy Exchange Ratio3.17.
INTRODUCTION
The State of Sao Paulo produces 200 x la' tons of sugarcane on 2.5 xlO' ha (33% of its arable
land). The value corresponds to 50% of Brazil's sugarcane production, generating jobs for 3 millions
inhabitants. The sugarcane industry has been responsible for several negative environmental impacts,
such as destruction of native forests, loss of rural production diversity and the release of effluents into
rivers. Nowadays the environmental load is aggravated by a set of problems such as soil erosion, pollution
of soils and aquifers with pesticides, air pollution resulting from the burning process during sugarcane
harvesting, destruction of the remaining biodiversity, elimination of the small and medium agriculture
farms, human exodus from rural areas, etc. The purpose of this study is to make an emergy analysis of the
sugar and ethanol industry in the State of Sao Paulo and to provide ideas on the possible trends that will
affect distilleries in the future.
MATERIAL AND METHODS

The factory studied is located in the best area for sugar cane production in the North East ofSlio
PauloState. It uses, on a yearly basis, 1.87 x lO' tons of sugar cane obtaied from 25,490 ha of plantation
lands. Its milling capacity is close to 10,000 tons of cane/day. The production ratios are 32.2 liters of
ethanol/ton of cane, 92.05 kg of sugar/ton of cane. The extraction efficiency is near to 99"/0 due to the
use of 6 mills and intense watering in the milling process. The alcohol produced is concentrated up to
99.5 %. The factory uses the bagasse for electric power generation fulfilling all its needs, with no surplus
for local sale. By-products such as filter cake and vinasse are used as fertilizers, diminishing the use of
synthetic chemical fertilizers.
28 1
Chapter 23. Emergy Analysis . . . of Ethanol Production in Brazil
Brief Explanation of Emergy Indices

Transformity (Tr=Y/Qp): the ratio obtained dividing the total of emergy, of one type, required to make
a product
(Y) by the energy of one kind contained in the product (Qp).
Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR=YIF): measures the ecosystem contribution to the economy. It is calculated
dividing the total emergy used
(Y) by
the emergy of Feedback from economy (F).
Emergy Investment Ratio (EIR=FII: measures the intensity of the economic development. It is
calculated dividing the economic Feedback emergy (F) by the environment emergy (I).
Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR=(N+F)IR): measures the environmental impact. It is calculated

by dividing the sum of non-renewable resources (free and purchased) by the renewable resources
emergy.
Emergy Excbange Ratio (EER= YI[S.(sejlS))): is calculated dividing the solar emergy flow of product
(Y) by the solar emergy of the money received (sej/$) in the sale of product ($).
Renewability (%R=lOO*RIY): shows the ratio of renewable resources to total resources used, considering
both flows in terms of emergy.
RESULTS
The emergy analysis of the alcohol production begins with a description of the system. The data of
a typical distillery were obtained from farmers and the production process is showed in Figures
The second step is to obtain the emergy flows. Table
and 2.
shows the energy, material and monetary flows,
the use of transformities for the conversion of units and finally the emergy flows. The data is arranged
according to its characteristics: nature contributions, materials and services from economy. The third step
is to calculate emergy indices and to evaluate ethanol production according with methodology (Odum,
1996). Table 2 shows some indices of production and Table 3 shows emergy indices.
The following trends were identified:
(a) New environmental laws were emitted to eliminate pre-harvest burning of sugarcane plantations.
As a result, mechanical harvesting was introduced and people become unemployed;
(b) The use of sugarcane by-products (vinasse and some others) in sugarcane plantations;
(c) Difficulties in establishing new industrial processes to use sugarcane or its by-products;
(d) Discovery of nitrogen fixation in sugarcane;
(e) Adoption ofSIG and GPS techniques on some farms;
(f)
An international scenario presenting great oscillations concerning prices of sugarcane, ethlll)ol and
fossil oil;
(g) International regulations for production, commercialization and quality certification;

(h) Adoption of organic production technologies;
(i)
Agrarian reform.
-282-
Chapter 23. Emergy Analysis .. .ojEthanol Production in Brazil
(9
8
e
8
"'
---
'\--->-----+---"'''''-+ Sugarcane
Fertizers
Soil
Biodiversity
- .
Figure 1.
....
. . . .
.. .
. .
Energyflow diagramfor sugarcane production
Lo;:'''''la''on0=1f====::::
Alcohol
Vinasse
--------+ y
Filter cake
Figure 2.
Energyflow diagramfor alcohol production
-283-
Chapter 23. Emergy Analysis ... of Ethanol Production in Brazil
Table 1. Emergy analysis of ethanol production from sugarcane

energy (Jlha.y)
mass (kglba.y)
money (Slha.y)
Notes
Transformity
Natural Resources
Reuewable
Emergy
Flows
sejlha.y
2,18E+15
1,36E+15
17,49
Rain
7.41E+10
Jiha.y
1.83E+04
1.35E+15
Water
3.34E+08
J iha.y
1.10E+05
3.67E+12
10,8
0,0
1.12E+1O
Jiha.y
7.38E+04
8.27E+14
6,6
9.21E+15
73,82
6.85E+15
54,86
8,0
1,6
28,4
12,8
4,1
18,96
0,2
13,7
0,0
2,3
2,7
Nou-Reuewable
3
Soil loss
Total Economy Resources

Agricultural production
Materials
4
Seedlings
270.00
$iha.y
3.70E+12
9.99E+14
2.00E+14
Lime
200
kglha.y
1.00E+12
Herbicide
4.30
kglha.y
8.24E+14
3.54E+15
Fertilizers
421
kglba.y
3.80E+12
1.60E+15
Fuels
7.67E+09
J iha.y
6.60E+04
9
10
5.06E+14
2.4E+15
Services
Manual Operation
3.09E+08
J iha.y
1.00E+05
3.09E+13
Mechanical Operation
3.42E+08
J iha.y
5.00E+06
1.71E+15
11
Administration
12.00
Siha.y
1.00E+07
1.20E+08
12
Depreciation
78.00
$iha.y
3.70E+12
2.89E+14
13
Taxes
91.60
$iha.y
3.70E+12
3.39E+14
Industrial productiou
1.1E+15
Materials
14
15
Chemical Products
16
17
Equipment
Industrial Construction
Electricity
kglba.y
3.80E+12
J iha.y
6. 72E+04
1.68E+13
7.75
kglha.y
1.40E+13
217.0
$iha.y
1.80E+12
3.70E+12
Labor
8.03E+14
1.17E+10
Services
18
2.52E+14
66.35
2.50E+08
2.43E+04
J iha.y
5.00E+05
1.17E+1O
1.2E+16
Total Emergy
Agricultural Productiou
1,358,000 tJy
Sugarcane produced
Sugarcane purchased form external growers
513,000 tJy
Total sugarcane used
1,871,000 tJy
Total area of sugarcane
25,490 ha
Sugarcane productivity
73.5 tlha.y
Price
14.5 $/t
Footnotes can be found at end of chapter
-284-
8,7
2,0
0,1
0,1
6,4
0.0
0.0
100
Table 2: Emergy indices for ethanol production in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Total quantity
Sugar
Alcohol
Bagasse
Vinasse
Filter cake
Ash
Sludge
Electricity
Steam
2.87 e06 sacs

7.51 e07 liters
5.41 e08 kg
9.02 e08 liters
7.71 e07 kg
7.87 e05 kg
3.93 e08 kg
2.17 e07 kWh
1.19 e09 kg
Industrial Production
Conversion
(2.87 e0611871000) x 60
(7.51 e0711871000)
(5.41 e0811871000)
(9.02 e08/1871000)
(7.71 e07l1871000)
(7.87 e0511871000)
(3.93 e0811871000)
(2.17 e07/1871000)
(1.19 e09/1871000)
Quantity produced per ton of

sugar-cane
92.05 kg
32.12 kg
289.28 kg
481.84 kg
41.19 kg
0.42 kg
209.89 kg
11.59 kWh
636.41 kg
Table 3: Table of emergy indices
R
N
I
M
S
F
Y
l .36E+15
8.27E+14
2.18E+l5
7.93E+15
2.37E+15
I.03E+16
1.25E+l6
Tr=Y/Qp
EYR = YIF
EIR=FII
ELR=(N+F)IR
%R=R/Y
EER=EprodlE$
ESI= EYRlELR
2.0E+06
1.21
4.72
8.21
0.11
3.17
0.26
Transformity
Emergy Yield Ratio
Environment Loading Ratio
Renewability (%)
Emergy Sustainability
DISCUSSION
The Transformity obtained for ethanol (2,000,000 sej/I) shows a relatively low value due to the great
efficiency of sugarcane in capturing solar energy.
The Emergy Yield Ratio (1.21) shows that ethanol production from sugarcane fixes solar energy; therefore,
it can be considered as an energy crop, not being, however, as efficient as a forest (2.0).
The Emergy Investment Ratio (4.72) is similar to the average values of agnculture products (3.0-7.0) but
lower when compared to urban industrial values.
The low value for renewability (0.11) indicates that this system uses greater amounts of non-renewable
resources in comparison to nature's renewable resources.
The Emergy Exchange Ratio of 3.17 shows that the sugarcane agricultural system delivers to urban
consumers much more energy than it receives from them.
-285-
Chapter 23. Emergy Analysis ...of Ethanol Production in Brazil

The Environment Loading Ratio (8.2 I) and Emergy Sustainability Index (0.26) show intermediate values.
The next step will be the preparation of emergy tables with new values for the inputs and outputs,
corresponding to each trend detected, and also the discussion of the emergy indices changes.
REFERENCES
Andrietta, M.G.S, 1998: Novas altemativas para subprodutos da cana-de-a9ucar, STAB, v. 16, n. 04.
Balastreire, L. A., 1998: Potencial de utiliza9lio dos conceitos de agricultura de precisao na cultura da
cana-de-a9ucar, STAB, v. 16, n. 04.
Borrero, M.A.Y. Urn metodo para avaliar os aspectos ambientais da Produ9lio de alcool combustivel e 0
conceito de eficiencia eco-ambiental. Campinas: Faculdade de Engenharia Meclinica, 2000, Tese
(Doutorado).
Berni, M.D.; BAJAY, S.Y., 1998: Implica95es energeticas e ambientais da elimina9lio das queimadas de
canaviais. Anais III Congresso Brasileiro de Planejamento Energetico, pp. 1-5.
Camargo de, C.A.; 1990: Conserva9ao de energia na industria do a9ucar e alcool: Manual de
recomendal'5es; IPT - Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnol6gicas, Sao Paulo.
Dobereiner, J.; 1999: A importlincia da fixa980 biol6gica de nitrogenio para a agricultura sustentavel
http-flgeocities corn([heIropicslCabaoal4792ffixacaooitrogeoio hun (20/07/99).
FNP CONSULTORIAE COMERCIO; 1999: AGRIANUAL 99 Anuario da Agricultura Brasileira; Editora
Argos Comunica9iio, Slio Paulo.

MINISTERIO DO MEIO AMBIENTE, DOS RECURSOS HiDRiCOS E DA AMAZONIA LEGAL,
1999: Projeto PNUD - BRA/94/016, Contrato no. 139/98; Area Tematica: Agricultura Sustentavel;
SP; (19/02/99).
MINISTERIO DE MINAS E ENERGIA; 1998: Balan9Q Energetico Nacional, Brasilia, DF, Brasil.
Nogueira, L.A.H. Analise da utiliza9lio de enersia na produ9ao de alcool de cana-de-al'ucar. Campinas:
Faculdade de Engenharia Meciinica, Unicamp, 1987, Tese (Doutorado).
Odum, H. T.; 1996: Environmental Accounting: Energy and Environmental Decision Making; John Wiley
& Sons; Inc. New York; USA.

Pavan, C. MoreiraFilho, C.; 1999: Agronomia e Biodiversidade. Bacterias fixadoras de nitrogenio na
agronomia e na biodiversidade.
http-tLgeotci jes corn([heIropjcslCabana/4792fagronomjaehjodjyersjdade hun (20/07/99).
Shikida, P..F.A; 1998: A evolu9ao diferenciada da agroindustria canavieira no Brasil de 1975 a 1995.
Edunioeste, Cascavel.
Walter, A.C.S.; 1993: Potencial Energetico da cana-de-al'ucar; STAB, v.ll, n.4, p. 29-34.
-286-
Footnotes: Calculations for Emergy Analysis
Table
Year:
1999
Emergy/dollar = 3.7 E 12 sej/dollar
Notes Item
CONVERSION
Flow
Total
Unit
7.4IE+IO
Jlba.y
3.34E+07
Jlba.y
1.l2 E+IO
Jlba.y
Agricultural production natural resources

Renewable resources
I
2
Rain
Water
1000*10000*4940
1,5 m3/m2.ha.y
1700000 m'lt. cane x 73.5 tlha x1000 x 5000
1700000m3
18710000 I sugarcane x I ha
Non-renewable Resources
3
Soil loss
1000*0.04*5400*4186
12.4 tI ha.y
Agricultural materials from Economy

4
5
6
Seeding
Lime
Herbicide
R oundup
0.12 kg/ha.y
0.11 tlha.y
Velpar
Gesepar
0.58 kg/ha.y
2.73Ilba.y
Agritin
0.39 tIha.y
Fertilizer
8.25.25
0.0984 tlba.y
8.8.32
0.068 tlha.y
18.05.27
Fuels
Transport of
inputs
Sugarcane
transport
Field
Operations
0.0908 tlha.y
0.0768 tlba.y
10
11
12
13
Manual
Operalidns
Mechanical.
Operations
Administration
Depreciation
Taxes
0.111 x0.75 kg
I hter
ha.y
2.73 1 x0.75 kg
I liter
ha.y
0.39 1 x0.75 kg
I liter
ha.y
0.087 I x1000 kg
0.0984 I x1000 kg
0.068 I x1000 kg
0.0908 t x1000 kg
0.0768 t x1000 kg
46.4 l1ha.y
95.35 lIha.y
0.024 ind.lba.y
0.034 ind.lba.y
12 $lba.y
78 $lba.y
91 $lba.y
120 I x0.7kg x10000kcal x4186 J

kg
ha.y
I bter
ikciil
46.4 1 x0.7 kgx10000 kcal x4186 J
kg
ha.y I liter
I kcal
95.35 1 x0.7 kgxlOoo0kcal x4186 J
ha.y
kg
I liter
Ikcal
X 8b x 120 dayS x 3200 ken) X 4186 J

I kcal
ha
p.
year
day
0.034 p. X 8h x120 days x2500kcal x 4186 J
Year
aay
i kcaf
ha
p.
Q 024 P
$!ha.y
1.17
kg/ha.y
kg/ha.y
kg/ha.y
0.12
0.08
kg/ha.y
kg/ha.y
0.58
2.05
kg/ha.y
kg/ha.y
0.29
kg/ha.y
200
4.29
87.00
98.40
kg/ha.y
kg/ha.y
kglba.y
68.00
kg/ha.y
90.80
kg/ha.y -
76.80
kg/ha.y
3.52E+9
J /ha.y
J Iba.y
1.36E+9
J Iba.y
2.79E+9
J Iba.y
l.09E+8
J Iba.y
l.42E+8
J Iba.y
12
78
91
$!ha.y
$!ha.y
$lba.y
7.67E+9
120 lIha.y
Services from Economy
1.561 x0.75 kg
ha.y I liter
270
421.00
0.087Ilba.y
12.00.36
17.05.24
121 x$22.51
(3700/18500)*1000kg
1.56 tIha.y
Garnil
Perflom
12 tlha.y
3700 tlha.y
Industrial production
14
Chemicals
66.35
-287-
kg/ha.y
Chapter 23. Emergy Analysis .. .of Ethanol Production in Brazil

SulfuricAcid
8252731
90100 I
Sodium
Hydroxide
Lubricants
15
Electricity
Produced
kWh
Purchased
kWh
16
17
18
56000 kg
70213 I
8252731 x 73.5 t canex I 83

1871000 t cane
Iha
90100 I x 73.5 tAnaxO.779
1871000 t cane
Iha
56000 J x 73 5 t cane
1871000 t cane
I ha
702131 x 73.5 t cane x 0.75
1871000 t cane
I ba
2.76
kg h
i a.y
2.20
kglha.y
2.07
kg iha.y
2.48E+08
21682042 kWh
21682042 kWh x 73.5 t canex 1000x 60x 60

1871000 t sugarcane I ha
3.07E+09 kWhlha.y
1750505 kWh
1750505 kWh x 73.5 t cane x 1000x 60x 60

1871000 t sugarcane I ba
2.48E+08 kWhlha.y
Equipment
Sugarcane processing track
Bagasse processing track
Washing equipment
Millstone
Steam turbine
Boiler
Distillery Stainless Steel
Distillery Steel
0.44 kg
1.76 kg
0.41 kg
1.07 kg
0.24 kg
1.51 kg
0.37 kg
1.95 kg
Industrial Construction
Industrial
Construction
Industrial
Building
Offices
Factory and
laboratory
59.33 kglha.y
10800 m'
7.75
0.44
1.76
0.41
1.07
0.24
1.51
0.37
1.95
kglha.y
kg iha.y
kglha.y
kglha.y
kglha.y
kglha.y
kglha.y
kglha.y
kglha.y
217.00
$iha.y
5000m'
5000 m' 118500 haxR $ 200 1 (m'x $ 1.82)
100.54
$ iha.y
300m2
1500 m'
300 m'l 18500 haxR $ 200 1(m'x $ 1.82)

1500m'/18500baxR $200 / (m'x $1.82)
6.03
30.16
$iha.y
$ihay
Tank
4000m'
4000m' 118500 hax R$ 200 1(m'x $ 1.82)
80.43
$iha.y
Labor
355
355 indo x 75 t canex 118x 3200x 4186

1871000 t sugarcane I ha
-288-
2.41E+05
pers1ha.y
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
24
Emergy Evaluatiou of the Environment and
Economy of Nicaragua
M. Cuadra and T.
Rydberg
ABSTRACT
This is a study of the environmental- economic system of Nicaragua, using emergy analysis as
the methodology. The analysis shows that the chemical potential energy in the rainfall is the most significant
inflowing energy to the country. The most important indigenous renewable energy was agricultural
production, representing 97 % of the indigenous renewable energy base of the country. The ratio of
exported to imported emergy was 2.1411, p/OCing Nicaragua as a resource producer country. The different
indices calculoted for Nicaragua (Emergy/$ ratio
15.8 E+ 12; Environmental Loading Ratio - Ell?
0.39; Emergy Investment Ratio - ElR 0.21; Net Yield Ratio - NYR 5.36 and Sustainability Index - SI
13.86) show thot Nicaragua has an undeveloped economy, with a poor technological level and low
=
intensity of economic development; low environmental stress and environmental loading. The indices
also indicate the low position of Nicaragua in the economic hierarchy of nations.
INTRODUCTION
The sustainable use of natural resources needs an evaluation system that is independent from
human values. Many research efforts in the area of economics have been accomplished with the
attempt to assign economical values to the environmental resources and services. The evaluation in an
economic analysis is based in the utilitarian value for humans, which means that all things have to have
some use for humans to have any value. Money and the system of price derived from the economic theory
have great difficulties evaluating in a proper .way the environmental services and natural capital
(Brown & Ulgiati, 1998). An approach like this has many limitations because the information needed to
estimate the utilitarian value for humans is difficult to obtain, especially for the ecological functions
that have so many direct and indirect effects and for the resources and services that might play important
roles in the future, but that we cannot antiCipate in the present (Bjorklund & Geber, 1997).
The evaluation of the environmental services based on the work of nature to generate them is
opposite to the economic analysis based on the utilitarian value or wiIIingness-to-pay. A new measure of
value, called emergy (which stands for energy memory) is used to quantitatively determine how to best
manage resources, populations and regional economies. The methodology of emergy analysis
(a donor-based evaluation) is based on the principles for the organization and optimization of
living systems developed from theories in systems ecology. (Lotka, 1922; von Bertalanffy, 1968;
Odum, 1983).
According to the above mentioned, this is a study of the economic and environmental system of
Nicaragua as one more of the studies of the interface between humanity and nature. One aspect of this
study focuses on the proportion of the emergy economy of Nicaragua that is derived from a renewable
base, as a measure of sustainability. Another aspect of interest was the total percent of the economy
that was derived from local resources versus imported resources and the percent of the emergy economy
tbat was exported.
O bjectives
The first objective of this paper was to analyze the resource basis of the economy of Nicaragua
(1995-99) using emergy-based indices to describe the environmental load and sustainability of the system.
A second objective was to detennine what is the international position of Nicaragua in the general hierarchy
of nations in terms of its ecological-economic system.
-289-
Chapter 24. Emergy Evaluation of.... Nicaragua
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Environment of Nicaragua
The Republic of Nicaragua is the largest country in Central America with an area of 120 254 kIn'
and located in the center of the Central American isthmus. Nicaragua is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to
the west and by the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Its neighbors are Honduras to the north, and Costa Rica to
the south. The climate of Nicaragua is tropical varying with altitude with a dry and a wet season. During
the year, the precipitations range from less than 800 mm/year in some areas, to more than 4000 mm of
rain per year in eastern Nicaragua. The average temperature is 26.5 "C.
In October of 1998, Hurricane Mitch, a class 5 at its highest, devastated Central America, leaving
disaster on its path. In Nicaragua, the heavy rains that followed the storm caused a mudslide at Volcan
Casita that buried several villages and killed around 4 000 people. Seismic activity is frequent in Nicaragua,
occasionally resulting in destructive earthquakes, like the one ocurred in 1972 that devastated the City of
Managua.
The Economy
Nicaragua has a developing economy based largely on agriculture. The gross national product's
(GNP) growth rate decreased from the mid-I970s mostly because of political and economic instability.
The GNP per capita is low by Central American standards, according to estimates of Banco Central de
Nicaragua (1998), Nicaragua's GNP for that year was 2.00 E+09 USD, equivalent to $440 per person per
year. Nicaragua's economic activity decreased during 1998 as the rate of inflation increased. The
international recession affected the country resulting in a reduction of the income from exports. For the
period 1997-2000 , Nicaragua obtained the forgiveness to pay 197 million dollars of its foreign debt. Its
internal economy was affected mainly by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, causing deaths, losses in
agricultural production and infrastructure, resulting in more inflation.
Methodology
The first step in the emergy analysis was the preliminary data assembling which consisted in the
collection of quantitative data (information on environmental parameters, use of resources, market
commodities and trade for Nicaragua) from various sources of scientific, economic and technical
literature, as well as national statistical yearbooks and databases of the country (BCN, 1998;
EUROPA, 1998, Incer, 1995; lNE, 1999-2000; lNEIER, 1997a-l997b-I999; Rivas, 1993; Salinas &
Rodriguez, 1998; Sclater et ai, 1980; UN, 1995; World Resources 1996-97, 1998-99).
Basic data were arranged into quantities per year and reported as available energy in Joules,
mass in g, or money flow in USD. Previous studies from different countries (Odum et ai, 1983; Odum &
Arding, 1991; Brown etal, 1992; Ulgiati et ai, 1994; Brown & McClanahan, 1996; Prado-Jatar & Brown,
1997; Lagerberg, 1999 ) were revised to facilitate comparisons. The emergy analysis table consists in a
list of items of main flows with raw data for every item listed and finally an evaluation of the listed
flows and storages in emergy units and macroeconomic dollars. Citations, calculations and estimates are
included as footnotes to each table corresponding to line item numbers. References for values
discussed in the text identify table-footnote notation. Transformities from previous studies were used for
the calculations (Brown et ai, 1993; Doherty, 1995; Odum et ai, 1987; Odum, 1996, among others).
The most important components of the emergy analysis table were grouped into an aggregated
emergy table and diagram. From the aggregations of computed values, indices of resource'use were
calculated to relate environmental sources, imports and exports to population, country area, resource
origin, economic product and trade. Emergy investment ratio (EIR), environmental loading ratio (ELR),
net yield ratio (NYR) and Sustainability Index (SI), were calculated for Nicaragua and compared
with similar ratios for a few other countries for discussion and comparison.
RESULTS
Table 1 gives detailed values of the emergy evaluation of Nicaragua's economy and Figures 1
and 2 summarize the annual resource flows.
-290-
Indigenous Resource Base of Nicaragua (1995-98)

Table 1 shows the indigenous resource base for Nicaragua, 1995-98. The mean annual precipitation
of 2.2 m of rain/year, was the most significant inflowing energy to the country,accounting for the maximum
value of the indigenous resource base (R). An estimated 76 % of the precipitation was used in
evapotranspiration and measured as chemical potential energy, supporting ecosystem production.
(Table 1, note 3). The remaining 24 % was runoff, collected in streams and measured as geopotential energy,
sculpting t h e landscape and redistributing nutrients and sediments (Table 1, note 4).
Tidal and wave energy comprised 28 % of the country's renewable resources, supporting the ocean's ecosystems.
Earth cycle is also an important renewable resource for the country contributing with eight per cent of
the renewable energies (Table 1, note 7) and is responsible for the frequent seismic actiVity in the country.
The most important indigenous renewable energy for the country was agricultural production
(Table 1, notes 9-11) representing 97 % of the indigenous renewable energy base of the country. The most
important non-renewable resource from within the country was topsoil representing 63 % of the non-renewable
resources (Table 1, note 16). Non-metal extraction was an important resource base for Nicaragua contributing
with 37 % of the emergy (Table 1, note 15).
Import of Fuels, Goods and Services to Nicaragua (1995-98)

T h e emergy of imported fuels coming to Nicaragua (Table 1, note 17) represents a
significant amount of the emergy imported to the country ( almost 32 %). Forty eight percent of
imported emergy comes from human services supporting imports (Table 1, note 26). The import of food,
agricultural and livestock products together contribute with almost 10 % of the imports (Table 1,
notes 20, 21). T he import of mechanical and transportation equipment (Table 1, note 25) represents
almost 5 % of the imported. Finally, approximately five percent is imported in various items like iron, steel,
minerals,plastics,rubber,chemicals,fertilizers, paper, textiles and tourism (Table 1,notes 18, 19,22,24,27).
Export Commodities From Nicaragua (1995-98)

Concerning the exports of Nicaragua, human services supporting exports represented almost
81 % of the total exported emergy (Table 1, note 35). Agriculture (including livestock, fisheries and
forest products) comprised almost 19 % of the exported emergy (Table 1, notes 28-31).
Summary of Flows in Nicaragua (1995-99).

A summary table of flows supporting Nicaragua's economy is given in Table 2. This is a
summary table of all the emergy inputs including imported fuels and goods (F and G), renewable resources
(R), non-renewable resources derived from within the country (No, NI and N,) and exports from the
economy. Together, indigenous natural resources and imports form the basis for Nicaragua's
ecosystems, lifestyle support, industries and markets. Indigenous renewable resources (R) are identified
as rain, waves, tides and earth cycle. They account for 77 % of the total emergy use (U) for Nicaragua Eleven
per cent of the Emergy use came from non-renewable material drawn from within the country (N). Internal
use of stored minerals,unrefined metals and other geologic materials (NI) represented almost 4 % of Nicaragua 's
annual emergy use (U), purchased fuels (F) comprised almost 6 %, another 3 % came from imported goods
(G), and 9 % contributed indirectly from services in support of imports (Pal) (Table 2).
Indices Using Emergy for Overview of Nicaragua. 1995-99

,
Total emergy use (U) for Nicaragua was estimated at 3.58 E+22 sej/year (Table 3, note 5),
representing 93 % of the total emergy inflows to the country (Table 3, note 4). The flow of imported emergy
(Table 3, note 3) represents almost 19 % of the total emergy used. On the other hand, the flow of
exported emergy (Table 3, note 6) represents 34 % of the total emergy used. Eighty eight per cent of the
emergy basis for Nicaragua's economy was derived from within the country (Table 3, note 7). There was a
negative relation of imports - exports (Table 3, note 8). In addition, the ratio of exported emergy to
imported emergy shows a relation of 2.14/1 (Table 3, note 9). A high percentage (77 %) of the emergy used in
Nicaragua's economy is derived from renewable souraes within the country (Table 3, note 10). Almost
one fifth (20 %) of the emergy basis used for Nicaragua's economy was purchased (Table 3, note 11).
291
Nine per cent of the country's emergy came from imported service (Table 3, note 12). 84 % of
the emergy used in the country was locally renewable (Table 3, note 13). More than one fourth
(or 0.27/1) of the total emergy of the economy of Nicaragua is derived from internal sources
(Table 3, note 14) that flow through urban centers. Nicaragua's resource use per unit area (Table 3, note
15) is 2.95 E+ 11 sej/year, while resource use per person (Table 3, note 16) is 8.21 E +15 sej/year.
Table 1.
Emergy evaluation of the resource base for Nicaragua (1995-98)
Note"
Item
Annual resource flow

(unit/year)
Transformity Solar emergy

(sej/unit)
(E+20 sej/year)
RENEW ABLE RESOURCES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sunlight
kinetic energy
Rain, chemical
Rain, geopotential
Waves
Tide
Eartb Cycle
Wind,
INDIGENOUS RENEWABLE ENERGY

8
Hydroelectricity
9
10
11
12
13
2.34E+19 J
3.18E+!5 J
1496
0.05
1.52E+18
J
5.08E+!7 J
18199
275.97
10488
53.25
1.78E+17 J
30550
54.50
l.34E+17 J
16842
22.54
6.68E+!6 J
34377
22.95
J
J
1.65E+OS
1.71
1.02E+OS
62.26
91.56
1.04E+!5
Agriculture Production
Livestock Production
Fisheries Production
Fuelwood Production
Forest Extraction
6.IOE+!6
4.92E+!5 J
1.86E+06
8.45E+12 J
S.ooE+06
0.42
2.76E+!6 J
6.60E+03
1.82
1.17E+!5 J
6.60E+03
0.08
NONRENEWABLE SOURCES FROM WITHIN SYSTEM

14 Metals
9.81E+OS
IS
16
Non-metals
Topsoil
IMPORTFUELS, GOODS
17
Crude Oil
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
30
31
32
33
34
35
1.00E+09
0.01
l.ooE+09
14.89
3.98E+!6 J
6.30E+04
25.10
3.9SE+16 J
S.40E+04
21.3S
g
8.09E+!0 g
1.00E+09
0.S7
l.ooE+09
0.81
5.7IE+!0
Iron & Steel

Minerals
Food & Agricultural Products
Livestock
Plastics & Rubber
Chemicals & Fertilizers
Paper &T extiles
Mechanical & Transp. Equipment
Service in imports
Tourism
4.ooE+!S J
1.02E+OS
4.08
1.42E+!4 J
1.86E+06
2.6S
3.37E+14 J
2.06E+OS
0.70
g
3.15E+!4 J
4.73E+!0 g
3.80E+08
0.48
1.27E+ll
EXPORT COMMODITIES:
28
Agricultural Crops
29
g
g
1.49E+!2
AND SERVICES:
6.94E+04
0.22
6.70E+09
3.17
1.48E+09 $
2.21E+!2
32.69
4.00E+07 $
2.2IE+12
0.88
5.08E+15 J
1.02E+OS
S.18
1.86E+06
S.92
2.30E+!4 J
5.ooE+06
11.50
4.99E+14 J
6.60E+03
0.03
l.ooE+09
0.00
5.5SE+!4 J
6.94E+04
0.38
3.80E+08
0.01
6.13E+08 $
1.58E+13
96.51
3.18E+!4
Livestock Products
Fishery Products
Forest Products
Metals
Paper & Wood Products
Chemicals
Service in exorts
4.08E+06
3.30E+09
Footootes to Table I are found at end of chapter.
-292-
0.23
' .. I
"ODP l..__
, ...2. " ,
t-..
B
I-:::;),,"--:-_
" -
__
23
"
-4- - ..
E+20sCljlYllIIr
E+9USD/yeat
Figure 1. Systems diagram summarizing annual resource flows (E+20 sejlyear) and gross domestic product (E+ 9
USDlyear) for Nicaragua (/995-99). Derivations for values an giVen in Table 2.

___-mports
F,G,P:z1
66.1
Indigenous
Sources
339 E20
E20
NICARAGUA
R,NO,N1,N2
142.6 E20
Exports
N2..P1E
Figure 2. AKK""gated diagram summarizing annual resource flows (E+20 sejlyear) for Nicaragua (/995-99). D
erivations for values are given in Table 2. Numbers on pathways are,given in E+ 20 sej/year:
The renewable carrying capacity of the country (Table 3, note 17) was 3.5 million
people, or around 78 % of today's population of 4.5 E+6 inhabitants. The developed carrying capacity
(Table 3, note 18) was 28 million people (more than 600 % of today's population).T he relation of
emergy use (U) to the GNP of Nicaragua was 15.8 E+12 sej/$ (Table 3, note 19).
DISCUSSION
Indices
The environmental loading ratio - ELR (Table 3, note 20) for Nicaragua was 0.3911 indicating a
low technological level as well as a low level of environmental stress. Nicaragua's Emergy I nvestment
Ratio - EIR (Table 3, note 21) was 0.2111 indicating a low intensity of economic development and
loading of the environment. Finally, Nicaragua's Net Yield Ratio - NYR (Table 3, note 22) was 5.36
indicating a high ability of the economy to make use of the local resources.
-293-
Sus tainability and E mergy U s e

T h e total emergy inflows to the country were 3.83 E+22 sej/year (Table 3 , note 4) and the
total emergy used (U) was 3.58 E+22 (Table 3, note 5) indicating that most of the inflowing emergy
to the country is used (93 %). The ratio of internal to rural resources used (Table 3, note 14) is a ratio that
relates the percent of emergy use that flows through urbanized areas to the renewable emergy that is
derived primarily from the rural landscape (Brown & McClanahan, 1996). In Nicaragua, this ratio is
0.27/ 1 suggesting that only about one fourth of the country's emergy use is derived from internal
sources that flow through urban centers. T his is low compared to countries like Thailand where 85 % of
their emergy use is derived from internal sources (Brown & McClanahan, 1996).
The calculated Sustainability Index - SI - (Table 3, note 23) for the economic-environmental
system of Nicaragua was 13.8611, which according to Ulgiati & Brown ( 1 998), indicates that
Nicaragua has an undeveloped economy. This is opposite to what has been found for countries like the
US (SI = 0.48), Sweden (SI = 0.19), Italy (SI = 0.17) and Taiwan (SI = 0.16) which have develOped
economies (Ulgiati & Brown, 1998; Lagerberg, 1999).
Carrying Capacity of Nicaragua's Environmental System

The renewable carrying capacity of Nicaragua (Table 3, note 17) was around 78 % of today's
population of 4.5 E+6inbabitants, representing the number of people that could be supported by renewable
sources alone, if the present living standard is maintained. This is a measure of the long-term, sustainable
carrying capacity for humans of a country's landscape (Brown & McClanahan, 1996). On the other hand,
the developed carrying capacity for Nicaragua (Table 3, note 18) was more than 600 % of today's population,
assuming the development of Nicaragua's economy to that which is characteristic of developed nations
like the US, but using Nicaragua's present living standard. This measurement assumes that the world
energy supplies are sufficient, and that the present living standard would be maintained in the future
(Brown & McClanahan, 1996).
Comparison Between Nations

The total annual emergy use by a nation measures its annual wealth (Odum, 1996). Nicaragua's
emergy use per year (Table 4) accounts toonly 0.15 % of the world's annual emergy use and 0.43 % of the
emergy use of the United States. Nicaragua's emergy use per person (Table 4), is more than 500 % higher
Table 2. Summary of Flows in Nicaragua (1995-99).

Variable
R
N
No
N
,
N2
F
G
I
P,I
E
P,E
X
P2
P
,
Solar emergy
(E20 sej/y)
Item
Renewable sources used (rain, tide, etc), maximum value 275.97

40.01
Nonrenewable resources from within Nicaragua
25.10
Dispersed Rural Source
14.90
Internal Use
23.03
Exported without Use
22.73
Imported Fuels and Minerals
11.30
Imported Goods
Dollars Paid for Imports
32.69
Emergy of Services in Imported Goods & Fuels
Dollars Received for Exports
119.55
Emergy Value of Goods and Services in Exports
GDP 1999 (BCN, 1999)
2.21E+12
World emergy/$ ratio, used in imports
1.58E+13
Nicaragua emergy/$ ratio
-294-
Dollars
1.48E+09
6.13E+08
2.27E+09
Table 3. Indices using emergy for overview of Nicaragua. 1995-99

Item Name of Index
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Expressiona
Renewable emergy flow

Flow from indigenous nonrenewable reserves
Flow of imported emergy
Total emergy inflows
Total emergy used, U
Total exported emergy
Fraction emergy use derived from home sources
Imports nUnus exports
Ratio ofExport to Imports
Fraction used, locally renewable
Fraction of use purchased
Fraction imported service
Fraction of use that is free
Ratio of internal to rural resources
Use per unit area
Use per person
Renewable carrying capacity at present living standard
Developed carrying capacity at same living standard
Ratio of use to GNP, emergy Idollar ratio
Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR)
Net Yield Ratio (NYR)
8ustainability Index (81)
R
N
F+G+P,I
R+N+F+G+P,I
NI+R+F+G+P,I
PIE
(No+N I +R)/u
(F+G+P,I)-(N,+ B+ P I E )
(N +PIE)/(F+G+P,I)
R jU (F+G+P,1)/U
P,IIU
(R+No)/U
(F+G+P,I+NI)/(R+NJ
U/(area)sej/m'
U/population (sej/person)
(RIU) (population)
8(R1U)(population)
PI =UlGNP sej/$
(No+NI+F+G+P,I)1R
F+G+P,IIR+N
U I (F+G+P ,1)
NYR /ELR
Quantity
2.76E+22
4.00E+21
6.67E+21
3.83E+22
3.58E+22
1.20E+22
88.4%
-7.59E+21
2.14
0.77
0.19
0.09
0.84
0.27
2.95E+1I
8.2!E+15
3.50E+06
2.80E+07
1.58E+13
0.39
0.21
5.36
13.86
Variables defmed and calculated in Tubk 2.
than the world average, but it is only around 54 % that of Brazil, and only 14 % the emergy use per
person in Australia (Odum, 1996). A high emergy use per person suggests a high standard of living in
more general terms than just income (Ulgiati et ai, 1 99 4) . The use of emergy per unit area in
Nicaragua was 2.95 E+ll sej/m', slightly higher than that from other countries more developed
like Thailand (2.9 E+ II sejlm') (Brown & McClanahan, 1996).
Nicaragua's GDP of 2.27 E+9 USD (Table 4) is one of the lowest in the world, comparable
only to that of Papua New Guinea and representing a negligible 0.08 % of the GDP of the United
States. The emergy 1$ ratio for the country (Table 4) is 790 % higher than the world average, more than
500 % higher than that of industrialized countries like the United States, but only a third that of
countries like Papua New Guinea having a high emergy 1$ ratio.
By dividing the annual Nicaraguan emergy use by the GNP of Nicaragua in 1999, the solar
emergy supporting Nicaragua's currency was calculated at 1.58 E+13 sej/$. This ratio, measure of
emergy -buying power of Nicaraguan currency converted to international dollars for that year, was very
high compared to the value of industrially developed countries in the world. The ratio obtained
for Nicaragua was almost 500 % higher than that of the US, 790 % higher than that for the world, and
more than I 000 % higher than that for Sweden. On the other hand, the ratio was 31 % of that calculated
for Papua New Guinea. Nicaragua's high emergy 1$ ratio indicates a low position in the economic
hierarchy, a low economic development and urban concentration, with little circulation of money.
Rural countries have high emergy 1$ ratio because more of the wealth goes directly from the
environment to the human consumer without money being paid (Odum, 1996).
-295-
Chapter 24. Emergy Evaluation of. ... Nicaragua
Balance of Trade
Around 31 per cent of the total inflowing emergy to the country is exported (Table 3,
note 6). This is low compared to countries like Thailand that exports almost twice of the emergy inflowing
to the country (Brown & McClanahan, 1996). The ratio of exported emergy to imported emergy
was 2.14/1, suggesting that Nicaragua is exporting more emergy than importing and losing emergy in the
trade. There was also a negative relation of imports-exports (Table 3, note 6). These results also
indicate that Nicaragua could be classified as a resource-producer country, because the emergy exports in
the country are higher than the emergy imports and because the country's exports are composed mainly
of mw resources.
CONCLUSIONS
Future Res earch and Suggest ions for Public Policy in Nicaragua
Because of its rich availability of natural resources, Nicaragua has become a producer of raw
resources for other countries. As a consequence, the economy has remained undeveloped and the standard
of living very low compared to most Latin American countries. We think that for Nicaragua to develop its
economy, more of those resources have to stay in the country. In that direction, we consider it is very
important to put more value into our exported raw products. The national economy of Nicaragua has to be
re-constructed to change from an undeveloped industry to a more technological industry exporting mainly
finished products. This could be achieved by importing more oil to develop the economy and upgrade our
raw exported resources. This will result in the enhancement of the standard of living and quality of life in
Nicaragua.
Without excluding other analyses that could complement our knowledge of the system, we think
that emergy evaluation could be applied in the future for studying the ecological-economic system of
Nicaragua and for answering certain policy questions: 1) What economic pattern will maximize emergy
in Nicaragua? 2) What is the future development of Nicaragua? Increase tourism? Increase agriculture
and livestock production for export? 3) Whatare the alternatives for sustainable development of Nicaragua?
During the last decade in Nicaragua, little efforts have been made to maintain the environmental
system of the country. The main agenda has been how to reduce the huge external debt by exporting more
of our raw resources to other countries. To balance the relationship between man and nature and to
Table 4. Summary of emergy indices of Nicaragua in comparison with other countries and the world.
New
Index
Brazil Australia Sweden Zealand World
Nicaragua
USA
PNG*
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(e)
(b)
(b)
358
83200
1205
17820
8850
3598
791
232000
2. GDP (E+9 USDlyear)
2.27
2600
2.3
214
139
250.5
26
!l600
2. Emergy/$ (E+12sej/$)
15.8
3.2
51.79
8.4
6.4
1.44
3.0
3. Population (E+6 people)
4.5
227
3.2
121
15
8.8
3.1
5044
8.2
29
37.7
15
59
40.7
26
1.6
26.9
1. Emergy Use (E+20sejlyear)
4. Emergy Use/person
(E+15sej/perlyear)
5. Area (E+10 m')
12
940
46.2
918
768
41
6. Population density (peoplelkm')
37.4
24.2
6.9
13.2
1.9
21.4
!l.5
7. Emergy use/area (E+ !lsej/m'lyear)
2.9
7.0
2.61
2.8
1.42
8.76
2.49
Papua
New Guinea; a) This study; b) Odum, 1996; c) Lagerberg, 1999.
-296-

improve the quality of life for the people in Nicaragua, a return from the economy must be made to
maintain the life-support systems of the nation.
We also consider important to evaluate the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes
(e.g. Hurricane Mitch in 1998), earthquakes, floodings and droughts, which can have catastrophic effects
on the ecological-economic system of Nicaragua. Another aspect of interest in future research will be the
study of the carrying capacity of Nicaragua in different past or future scenarios, including a comparison
with other countries, emergy indices and ratios.
On the other hand, it will be very useful to study the emergy exchanges and balance of trade
between Nicaragua and its major trading partners, such as the US, Central America, Venezuela and Germany.
The international cooperation and world economy would benefit and more equal relationships among
countries would be encouraged if the exchange between countries could be based on emergy rather than
money.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)
and its Department for Research Cooperation (SAREC) for providing financial support to the cooperation
program "UNA-SLU PhD Program" which financed this study. We also want to express our sincere
gratitude to Dr.Mark T. Brown at the University of Florida in Gainesville, for valuable comments on
previous drafts and to Dr. Johanna Bjorklund at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for wise
criticism of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Banco Central de Nicaragua. 1998. InformeAnual. Biblioteca del Banco Central de Nicaragua. Managua,
Nicaragua. 170 pp.
Bjorklund, J., & Geber, U. 1997. Emergy evaluation of a Swedish municipal waste water treatment plant.
Draft presented at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Ecology and
Crop Production Science. Uppsala, Sweden. Not published.
Brown. M. T., Green,
P., Gonz3lez, A., Venegas, J. 1992. Emergy analysis perspectives, public policy
options and development guidelines for the coastal zone of Nayarit, Mexico. Report to the
Cousteau Society and the Government of Nayarit, Mexico. Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources. University of Florida. Phelps Lab, Museum Road. Gainesville, FL. USA.
Brown, M. T., Woithe, R. D., Odum, H. T., Montague, C. L., and Odum, E. C. 1993. Emergy analysis
perspectives of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Report to the Costeau
Society. Center for Wetlands and Water Resources. University of Florida. USA. 122 pp.
Brown. M. T. & McClanahan, T. R. 1996. EMERGY analysis perspectives of T hailand and Mekong
River dam proposals. Ecological Modelling 91 (1996) 105-130.
Brown, M.T., & Ulgiati, S. 1998. Emergy Evaluation of Natural Capital and Biosphere Services. AMBIO.
[In Press]
Doherty, S. J. 1995. Emergy evaluation of and limits to forest production. Dissertation. Department of
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Ineer, J. 1995. Geograffa Dimimica de Nicaragua
,
INE. 1999. Instituto Nicaragiiense de Energfa Internet Home P.age: wwwinecom ni

INE. 2000. Instituto NicaragUense de Energfa. Departamento de Estadfsticas. Importaciones. Internet
Home Page: www joe com oj
INETER.
I 997a. Instituto NicaragUense de Estudios Territoriales. Departamento de Meteorologfa.
Meteorological data of Nicaragua. Managua, Nicaragua.

INETER. 1997b. Instituto Nicaragiiense de Estudios Territoriales. Departamento Meteorologfa Map of
the watersheds of Nicaragua Managua, Nicaragua.
297

Instituto Nicaraguense de Estudios Territoriales -INETER. 1999. Managua, Nicaragua.
Lagerberg, C. 1999. Emergy analysis of the resource use in greenhouse crop production and of the resource
basis of the Swedish economy. Doctoral thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Alnarp, 1999. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae. Agraria 191.
Lotka, A. J., 1922. Contributions to the energetics of evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 8: 147-151
Odum, H. T., 1983. Systems Ecology: An introduction. John Wiley, New York.
Odum, H. T. 1996. Environmental accounting: EMERGY and environmental decision making. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. USA. 370p.

Odum, H. T., Odum, E. c., Bosch, G., Braat, L. C., Dunn, W., Innes, G., Richardson, J. R., Scienceman,
D. M., Sendzimir, J. P., Smith, D. J., Thomas, M.
V. 1983. Energy analysis overview of nations.
September 1983. WP-83-82. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. A-2361.
Laxenburg, Austria.
Odum, H. T., Wang, F., Alexander, J. F., Gilliland, M.., Miller, M., and Sendzimir, J. 1987. Energy analysis
of environmental value. Center for Wetlands. University of Florida. Publication # 78-17.
Odum, H. T.,
& Arding, J. 1991. Emergy analysis of shrimp mariculture in Ecuador. Working Paper.
Environmental Engineering Sciences and Center for Wetlands. University of Florida.

Gainesville,
FL. 32611.prepared for Coastal Resources Center. University of Rhode Island.
Narraganset, R. I. USA. 86 p.
Prado-Jatar, M. A. and Brown, M. T. 1997. Interface ecosystems with an oil spill in a Venezuelan tropical
savannah. Ecological Engineering 8 (1997) 49-78.
Rivas, D. 1993. Factors Affecting Soil Erosion in Maize (Zea mays L.) and Pineapple (Ananas comosus
L) Stands in Ticuantepe, Nicaragua. A preliminary evaluation of the Universal Soil Loss Equation
using data from erosion plots. MSc. Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Dept.
of Soil Sciences. P.O Box 7014, S-750
Salinas, l.
07 Uppsala, Sweden. 71 pp.
& Rodfguez, J. 1998. La Evapotranspiraci6n potencial en Nicaragua. Instituto NicaragUense
de Tecnologfa Agropecuaria -INTA. Managua, Nicaragua.
Sclater, J. F., Taupart, G. and Galson, I. D. 1980. The heat flow through the oceanic and continental crust
and the heat loss of the eaith. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 18:269-311
The Europa World Yearbook. 1998. Volume II. p. 2516-2433. Europa Publications Limited 1998. London,
United Kingdom.
Ulgiati, S., Odum, H. T., Bastianoni, S. 1993. Emergy analysis of Italian agricultural system. The role of
energy quality and environmental inputs. In: Bonati, L. (ed). Trends in Ecological Physical
Chemistry. international Workshop on Ecological Physical Chemistry 2 1992.Milano, 187-214.
Ulgiati, S., Odum, H. T., Bastianoni, S. 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability. An
Emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling 73 (1994) 215-268.
Ulgiati, S. and Brown, M. T. 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made
ecosystems. Ec%
gicalModelling 108. (1998) 23-26.
United Nations. 1995. International Trade Statistics Yearbook. p. 724-731.

von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General System Theory. George Braziller, New York.
World Resources. 1996-97. Joint publication by The World Resources Institute, The United Nations
Environment Programme, The United Nations Development Programme and The World Bank.
Oxford University Press, New York.
World Resources. 1998-99. Joint publication by The World Resources Institute, The United Nations
Environment Programme, The United Nations Development Programme and The World Bank.
Oxford University Press, New York.
298
Chapter 24. Emergy Evaluation 0/.... Nicaragua

1
SOLAR ENERGY:
Continental shelf area =7.30E+1Om' (World Resources 1996-97); Land Area = 1. 21E+11 m' (World
Resources 1998-99) Insolation = I.92E+08 J/m'/yr (INETER, 1997a); Albedo = 0.372 (INETER, 1999.
Lic. Abraham Pineda. Pers. communication) Energy (J) = (area including shell)*(average insolation)*(l
albedo) = (_m')*C J/m'/y)*(1-0.372)(Brown & McClanahan, 1996) = 2.34E+19 J/yr Transformity by
definition 1 sej/J
WIND ENERGY:
Surface wind speed = 1.9 m/s (INETER, 1997); Area =1.21E+11 m'; Wind Energy = Wind energy ab
sorbed within each height interval, Jim' = [(speed

m' /2) = 3.18E+lS
@ 1000 m, m/s) ' -(speed @ interval, m/s) 'J x (1.23 kgl

J/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)
RAIN, CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY:
Land Area = 1.21E+11 m' (World Resources 1998-99); Rain (Land) = 2.26 m/yr (INETER, 1997b. Mapa
de cuencas hidrograficas) Evapotranspiration = 1.71 m/yr (Salinas & Rodriguez, 1998); Energy (land) (J)
= (area)*(evapotrans)*(Gibbs number) (Brown & McClanahan, 1996) = Cm')*Cm/yr)(1000kgl

m' )*(4.94E3 J/kg) = 1.03E+18 J/yr Continental shelf area = 7.30E+1O m' (World Resources 1996-97);
Rain (shell) = 1.36 m/yr (estimated as
60 % of total rain on land, cont.shelf area circa 60% land area);

(J) = (area of shell)(rain on shell)(Gibbs no.) = (m')(m/yr)(looo kg/m')(4.94E3 J/kg) =
4.90E+17 J/yr; Total Energy (J) = Energy(land) + Energy (shell) = I.S2E+18 J/yr Transformity from
Energy (shell)
Odum(l996)
RAIN, GEOPOTENTIAL ENERGY:
Area = 1.21E+ 11 m' (World Resources 1998-99); Rainfall = 2.26 m1yr (INETER, 1997. Mapa de cuencas
hidrograficas);Average elevation = 3.42E+02 m (Incer, J. 1995); Runoff = S.SlE-01 m/yr(Total rainfall
Evpt); Energy (J) = (area)(% runofl)(rainfall)(average elevation)(gravity) = Cm')Cm)(looo kg/m')(m)(9.B

m/s') (Brown & McClanahan, 1996) = S.08E+17 J/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)
WAVE ENERGY:
Shore Length = 9.10E+OS m (World Resources, 1996-97); Density =1.03E+03 kg/m'; Gravity = 9.BE+OO
m/see'; Wave height = O.S m Velocity = square root of (gravity)*(depth) = [(9.B m/sec')(10 m)]l12=
9.9E+OO m1see';Energy(J) = (shore length)(II8)(density)(gravity)(height squared)(velocity) (Odum, 1996.
p.298) = (9. 1E+Sm)*(I/B)(1.025E03 kglm')(9.Bm/sec')(1 m) ' (m/sec)(3. 154E07sec/yr) = 1.78E+17 J/yr
Transformity from Odum (1996)
TIDAL ENERGY:
Continental shelf area = 7.30E+ 10 m' (World Resources 1996-97);Average tide range =1 m ; Density =
1.03E+03 kg/m'; Tides/year = 3.65E+02 tides/year; Energy (J) = (shelf area)(O.5)(tides/y)(mean tidal
range)'(density of seawater)(gravity) = 1.34E+17 J/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)

EARTH C Y CLE:
7
Land Area = 1.21E+ l l m' (World Resources 1998-99); Heat flow = S.50E+OS J/m'/yr (Odum, 1996
p.lB9); Energy flow for young continents (2.0E6J/m')-world average (1.45E6J/m') Sclater et
Energy (J) = (1.21E+ll m')(l.50E+ll m')(Odum, 1996 p. IB9) = 6.68E+16

Odum(1996)
ai, 1980;
J/yr Transformity from
H Y DROELECTRICITY: (1998 data)
kilowatt hours/yr = 2.89E+08 kWhlyr (INE, 1999); Energy (J) = (kWhlyr)*(3.6 E+06J/kWh)= 1.04E+ 15
J/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)

9
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: (1998 data)
Production = 4.S1E+06 MT (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998); Used in the country = 4.17E+06MT ;
Energy (J) = (4.17 E+06 MT)*(IE06 glMT)*(3.5 kcal/g)*(41B6 J/kcal)(Brown & McClanahan, 1996) =
6.10E+16 J/yr Transformity Prado-Jatar & Brown (1997)

10
LI VESTOCK PRODUCTION: (1996 data)
Livestock production = 3.13E+OS MT (Europa, 1998); Used in the country = 2.94E+OS MT;Energy (J) =
(2.94E+06 MT)*(1E+06 g/MT)*(4 kcal/g)*(4186 J/kcal)(Brown & MCClanahan, 1996) = 4.92E+lS
yr Transformity from UIgiati et al (1993)
JI
11 FISHERIES PRODUCTION: (1998 data)

Catch = 1 . 42E+04 MT (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998); Used in the country = S.05E+02 MT; Energy
(J) = (S.OSE+02 MT)*(lE+06 glMT)*(4 kcal/g)*(4186 J/kcal)(Brown& McClanahan, 1996) =8ASE+12
J/yr Transformity from Brown et al (1993)
-299-
Chapter 24. Emergy Evaluation of. . . . Nicaragua

12 FUELWOOD PRODUCTION: (1995 data)
Fuelwood production: 3. 66E+06 m3 (Europa, 1998); Energy (J): (3.66E+06 m3)(0.5E6g/m')(3.6 kcall
g)(4186 J/kcal)(Brown & McClanahan, 1996) = 2.76E+16 J/yr Transformity from Doherty (1995)
13 FOREST EXTRACTION: (1995 data)
Harvest = 2.22E+05 m3 (Europa, 1998); Energy (J): (2.22E+05 mA3)(0.5E+06 g/m3)(3.6 kcal/g)(4186JI
kcal)(Brown & McClanahan, 1996): 1.67E+15 J/yr; Used in the country = 1.17E+15 J/yr(Production
Exports) Transformity from Doherty (1995)
14 METALS (Au,Ag) : (1998 data)
Production: 5.07E+OO MT/year (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998); Used in the country: 9.81E-01
MT ; Mass (g): (9.81E-01)*(IE6 g/MT) : 9.81E+05 g/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)
15 NON-METALS: (1998 data)
Production = 1.49E+06 MTIyr (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998); Mass (g): (1.49E+06MTIyr)* (1.0E6
g/MT) = 1.49E+12 g/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)
16 TOPSOIL:
Soil loss: 4.84 tonlhalyear (Rivas, 1993); Organic Matter= 3 %; Area = 1.21E+07 ha; Energy = (4.84
ton/halyr)*(1.0E6 gIMT)*(0.03)*(5.4 kcal/g)*(4186J/kcal)*(area) Adapted from Odum(1996) = 3.98E+16
Jlha/yr Transformity from Odum (1996)
17 CRUDE OIL: (1998 data)
Imports: 6.30E+Q6 bb/yr (lNE, 2000. Depto. de Estadfsticas. Importaciones.Web page); Energy (J):
(6.3 E6 barreIs/yr)*(6.28 E9 J/barrel) Odum, 1996. p.299 : 3.95E+16 J/yr Transformity from Odum
(1996)
18 IRON & STEEL :
Imports : 5.71E+04 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Mass (g) = (5.71E4 MT/yr)*(1E6 g/MT) : 5.71E+I0 g/yr
19 MINERALS : (metals, non-metals)
Imports: 8.09E+04 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Mass (g) : (8.09E4 MT/yr)*(1E+6 g/MT) = 8.09E+I0 g/yr
20 FOOD & AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS:
Imports = 2.73E+05 MT/yr(UN, 1995); Energy (J): (2.73E5 MT/yr)*(1E6g/MT)*(3.5 kcal/g)*(4186JI
kcal) = 4.00E+15 J/yr Transformity from Prado-Jatar & Brown (1997)
21 LIVESTOCK:
Imports: 8.50E+03 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Energy (J): (8.5E+03 MT/yr)*(IE6 g/MT)*(4 kcal/g)*(4186 JI
kcal) = 1.42E+14 J/yr Transformity from Ulgiati et al (1993)
22 PLASTICS & RUBBER:
Imports: 3.59E+04 MT/yr(UN, 1995); Energy(J): (3.59E4 MT/yr)*(I000 kglMT)*(9.4E6 J/kg) (Brown
& McClanahan, 1996) : 3.37E+14 J/yr Transformity from Odum et al (1983)
23 CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS:
Imports: 1.27E+05 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Mass (g) = (1.27 E5 MTI yr)*(lE6 g/MT) : 1.27E+ll g/yr
Transformity from Brown et al (1992)
24 PAPER & TEXTILES :
Imports: 2.1OE+04 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Energy (J): (2. lE4 MT/yr)*(IE6 glMT)*(15E03J/g) = 3.15E+14
J/yr Transformity from Doherty (1995)
25 MACHINERY, TRANSPORTATION & EQUIPMENT:
Imports: 4.73E+04 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Mass (g) : (4.73 E4 MT/yr)*(IE6g/MT) : 4. 73E+I0 g/yr
Transformity from Odum et al (1987)
26 IMPORTED SERVICES :
Dollar Value = I.48E+09 USD (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998) Transformity for services: average
emergy/$ ratio of Nicaragua's trading partners.
27 TOURISM : 1994 data
Dollar Value = 4.00E+Il7 USD (Europa, 1998) Transformity for services: average emergy/$ ratio of
Nicaragua's trading partners.
28 AGRICULTURAL CROPS (1998)
Exports: 3.47E+05 MT/yr (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998); Energy(J) = (3.47 E5 MT)*(lE06 gl
MT)*(3.5 kcal/g)*(4186 J/kcal)(Brown & McClanahan, 1996) = 5.08E+15 J/yrTransformity from Prado
Jatar & Brown (1997)
-3()()"

29 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS: (1998 data)
Exports = l.90E+04MT/yr (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998); Energy (J)
(1.9E+06 MT)*(1E+06 gl
MT)*(4 kcal/g)*(4186 J/kcal)(Brown & McClanahan, 1996) = 3.1SE+14 J/yr Transfonnity from Ulgiati
et al (1993)
30
RSHERY PRODUCTS:
Exports
1.37E+04 MT/yr (Banco Central de Nicaragua. 1998); Energy (J) = (1.37E+04 MT)*(1E+06
g/MT)*(4 kcallg)*(4186 J/kcal)(Brown & McClanahan. 1996) = 2.30E+14J/yr Transfonni ty from Browll
et al (1993)
31 FORESTRY PRODUCTS (1995)
Exports = 3.31E+04MT/yr (UN, 1995); Energy (J)
J/kcal) (Brown & McClanahan, 1996)
(3.31E+04MT)(1.0E+06 glMT)(3.6 kcal/g)(4186
4.99E+14J/yr Transfonnity from Doherty (1995)
32 METALS: (1998 data) (Ag,Au)

Exports
4.08E+OO MT/yr (Banco Central de Nicaragua. 1998); Mass (g)
(4.08 MT)*(1E6 glMT)
4.0SE+06 glyr Transfonnity from Odum (1996)
33 PAPER & WOOD PRODUCTS: (1995 data)
Exports
3.31E+04MT/yr (UN, 1995); Energy (J) = (3.31E+04 MT)(l.OE+06 glMT)(4.0 kcal/g)(4186
J/kcal) Odum. 1996. p. 301
5.55E+14J/yr Transfonnity from Doherty (1995)
34 CHEMICALS: (1995 data)

Exports
3.30E+03 MT/yr (UN, 1995); Energy (g)
(3.30E3 MT)*(IE6 g/MT)
3.30E+09 glyr
Transfonnity from Brown et al (1992)

35 SERVICES IN EXPORTS:
Dollar Value
study
6.13E+08 USD (Banco Central de Nicaragua, 1998) Transfonnity calculated from this
-301-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
25
Energy and Emergy Assessment of Municipal Waste
Collection. A case study.
Federico Luchi and Sergio Uigiati
ABSTRACT
Evaluating the environmental loading as well as environmentally sound improvements oj a
production process requires a careful investigation oj input and outputflows at the inteiface ofthe system
with the surrounding environment, considered both as a source and a Sink. In this paper, a joint massl
energylemergy approach to municipal waste collection is presented and discussed. The approach yields a
set oj indicators to be used jor city waste management. An integrated assessment oj municipal waste
collection and sorting in downtown Siena (Italy) and its outskirts is presented as a case study. A total oj
3./OE4 ton oj waste are collected per year, i.e. 1.31 Kg/person/day. An energy investment oj 390 kJ/kg
collected is needed, generating a CO, release oj 30.36 g/kg oj waste. Global emergy cost is 1. 36E8 seJl
g waste collected in downtown Siena, while it is 3.26E7 seJlg in the outskirts. Downtown energy and
emergy costsjor collection are always much higher than in the peripheric area, where collection is easier
due to larger streets and more mechanized collection procedures. Energy and emergy investments for
collection oj reusable materials are calculated and compared in the paper.
INTRODUCTION
Recent regulations introduced by the Italian Government to fulfil the European Union norms on
waste management, require tbat the maximum effort is performed to separate the reusable components of
solid waste, to process the remaining fraction for energy (electricity, heat), and finally to safely dispose
ashes and other non reusable fractions. It is believed that the additional economic and environmental
costs of this procedure would be easily covered, or at least equated, by the value of energy produced and
recycled materials. An evaluation project of waste collection in the city of Siena in the year 1997 has been
performed, to start monitoring the process performance over years, suggest technological or structural
cbanges, and compare alternatives.
Given the physical nature of downtown Siena (up on a hill, steep and narrow streets, no sidewalks),
daily waste collection is a bard task to perform. It is impossible to site large containers on the street side,
where people should deliver their daily garbage, due to lack of suitable space. The city administration
supplies families with plastic (low density polyethylene) bags, tbat they are invited to use for garbage,
separating reusable materials according to bag size and colour. Pre-selected wastes are then delivered on
the side of the streets in the early morning and band-collected by operators and small trucks. This form of
collection requires that garbage is collected very fast, in order not to bave it on the street for a long time,
and is therefore very labor intensive.
Outside the medieval walls, streets are larger, according to more modem structure of recent
neighbourhoods, and collection easier. People separate organic wastes and reusable materials at home
and deliver them to large containers sited at short distance from their homes. Waste collection is therefore
performed by means of large semi-automatic trucks, where only one operator per truck is required.
The evaluation presented in this paper takes into account the above physical differences,
calculating a set of efficiency and environmental indicators, that may be used to set policy by reinforcing
or cbanging the present way of dealing with the collection process.
-303-
Chapter 25. Energy and Emergy Assessment ofMunicipal Waste Collection
METHODS
Ajoint evaluation of mass, energy and emergy flows is used to evaluate the case study of waste
collection from different points of view. Integrating the results from each approach provides a deeper
understanding of process performance in terms of energy and material resources use.
Energy
Table 1 shows calculations of oil and energy equivalents of input items. Input mass flows are
multiplied by appropriate oil conversion coefficients from previous literature reports, to yield the amount.
of oil that is directly and indirectly used up to make each input item available. Coefficients account for
both energy content and energy embodied for eldraction and processing. Labor input (i.e. the actual
applied energy of labor) is not evaluated in conventional energy evaluations, as it is considered negligible
when compared to the energy supplied by other sources. Renewable inputs like solar, wind, and rain
energy are also not accounted for in conventional energy evaluations, as they are free and cause no
concern to economic analysts and policy makers. Therefore, the final result of an energy table is the
calculation of the oil equivalent cost of the product (g oillg product) or a conversion efficiency ratio
(output/input energy). The enetgy tables do not include factors that account for different qualities of
energy. Quality of energy has been and stiII is a crucial issue in energy analysis (Hall et al., 1986; Szargut
et aI., 1988; Smil, 1991; Odum, 1996; Ulgiati et al., 1998). Either quality is defined as the maximum
amount of work that can be eldracted by an energy flow (exergy, SzatgUt et aI., 1988), either it is defined
as a measure of direct and indirect environmental support to the energy flow itself (emergy, Odum, 1988),
energy halance needs to be enriched by means of these goal-oriented, thermodynamic-quality concepts,
according to the actual goal of the analysis.
Emergy and transformity

The actual energy content is different than the total energy previously degraded by the many
processes hierarchically converging to the final product. In order to account for this convetgence of
resources, Odum (1988, 1996) has introduced the concept of form emergy. Emergy is defined as the
amount of available energy of one kind (usually, solar energy) that is directly or indirectly required to
make a given product or to support a given flow'. Resource inputs are in turn yielded by another process
(or chain of processes), by which solar emergy is concentrated and upgraded (i.e., geologic formation of
oil from organic matter). On a unit basis, onejoule or giam of a given item bas been produced by dissipating
a certain amount of solar emergy. The amount of input emergy per unit output energy is called solar
transjormity. The solar transformity gives a measure of the convergence of solar emergy through a hierarchy
of processes or levels; it can therefore be considered a new kind of "quality" factor from the point of view
of the source, intended as a measure of the intensity of the biosphere support to a given item. The solar
emergy is usually measured in solar emergy joules (seJ); transformity is measured in solar emergy joules
per joule of product (seJlJ). Sometimes an item is expressed in different units (grams, kcal, dollars), so
that a suitable emergy convergence factor must be accordingly used instead of transformity. Many
transformities can be found in the scientific literature on emergy (for instance, Odum, 1996). When a
large set of transformities is available, other natural and economic processes can be evaluated by calculating
input flows, throughput flows, storages within the system, and final products, in emergy units. After
emergy flows to and storages in a process or system have been evaluated, it is possible to calculate a set
of indices and ratios that can be used for system description and policy making (Ulgiati et aI., 1995;
Ulgiati and Brown, 1998).
, Available energy relative to the environment taken as a reference level is called exergy by
many authors (Szargut et aI., 1988). Therefore, emergy might be defined as "embodied exergy of one
kind". These thermodynamic aspects of the emergy approach are not dealt with in this paper, which is
mainly focused on application to a case study. For further details on relationship of exergy and emergy,
the interested reader may like to refer to Ulgiati (2000).
-304-
Chapter 25. Energy and Emergy Assessment o/Municipal Waste Collection

Table 1. Mass, Energy and Carbon Flows in Municipal Waste Collection (Siena,Italy, 1997).
Note Item
Unit
Amount
(Unitsl yt)
Oil
Ref
Oil
Equivalent
for oil
used up
( glunit)
eqUlV.
(g/yr)
CO2
released
(*)
(gl yr)
Numbers in the first column refer to footnotes at the end of the Table; natural inputs (items 1 and 2) as
well as labor (items 10,19,30,35 and 43) have not been accounted for in the energy balance .
Time scale is one year; space scale is city limits.
General services
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
m2
Office buildings
Garages and stora ge buildings m2
Fuel for building heating
gl yr
Electricity
J/ yr
Service cars (steel)
g/yt
Fuel for service cars
Miscellaneous office paper

Total general services
gl yr
gl yr
40
3.20E+03
[a]
1.2SE+05
4.17E+05
2000
S.40E+02
[a]
1.6SE+06
5.4SE+06
S.00E+05
1.23E+00
[a]
9.S4E+05
3.21E+06
6.45E+!0
7.57E05
[b]
4.SSE+06
l.59E+07
6. 16E+04
3.42E+00
6.S6E+05
1.23E+OO
[c]
[a]
2.!1E+05
5.40E+06
6.64E+06
2.16E+07
l.l3E+05
9. 56E0I
[d]
1.0SE+05
3.50E+05
1.46E+07
4. 77E+07
Inner City Waste Collection

Selected wastes
II
12
13
Polyethylene bags
Small trucks, steel
Gasoline
Fraction of g eneral services
14
Paper
15
Glass
16
Iron and Steel
17
Aluminium
IS
Plastic material
20
Polyethylene ba gs
Mixed wastes
21
Small trucks, steel
22
Fuelfor small trucks
23
Large trucks,steel
24
25
Fuel for large trucks

Fraction of general services
Wastes collected
Outer City Waste Collection
g/yr
gl yr
g/yr
3.2SE+06
2.39E+OO
[d)
7.S3E+06
2.55E+07
2.S5E+05
3.42E+OO
[c)
9. 75E+05
3. I SE+06
5.33E+06
l .32E+00
[a]
gl yr
glyt
gl yr
3.60E+OS
3.00E02
9. 52E+07
2.40E02
5.02E+OS
1.53E03
g/ yr
glyr
5.50E+05
1.93E+07
g/yr
gl yr
7.04E+06
2.29E+07
4.63E+05
1.51E+06
[e)
1.0SE+07
3.52E+07
[e)
2.2SE+06
7.44E+06
[e)
7.65E+05
2.49E+06
2.79EOI
[e)
1.53E+05
5.00E+05
1.20EOI
[e)
2.3IE+06
7.53E+06
l.l9E+07
2.39E+00
2.S4E+07
9.27E+07
l.35E+06
3.42E+00
[d]
[c)
4.63E+06
1.51E+07
2.53E+07
l.32E+OO
[a)
3.34E+07
1.09E+OS
l.l4E+05
3.42E+OO
[c)
3.90E+05
1.27E+06
g/ yr
2.40E+06
1.23E+00
[a)
2. 95E+06
9.62E+06
glyr
7.30E+09
gl yr
gl yr
gl yr
g/yr
g/ yr
g/yr
glyr
3.46E+06
l.l3E+07
2.39E+OS
1.00E02
[e)
7.33E+07
2.00E+06
3.42E+OO
2.23E+07
3.00E+00
[c]
[a)
6.S4E+06
2.00E+06
6.00E+06
1.96E+07
1.43E+06
3.42E+OO
[c)
4.S7E+06
1.59E+07
1.60E+06
1.23E+OO
[a)
1.97E+06
6.41E+06
9.66E+05
Selected wastes
Common use collection items
26
Containers (steel)
27
Containers (plastic)
2S
Trucks (steel)
29
Fuel
Paper collection items
31
32
Containers ( glassfiber)
Trucks (steel)
33
Fuel
34
Fraction of g eneral services
Paper collected
3.00E+OO
[a)
2.90E+06
9.45E+06
glyr
glyt
1.43E+06
3.42E+OO
[c]
4.S7E+06
l.59E+07
2.00E+06
1.23E+00
[a)
2.46E+06
S.02E+06
1.47E+06
4.7SE+06
gl yr
3.09E+09
2.63E+07
S.56E+07
305-
S.49E03
re)
Chapter 25. Energy and Emergy Assessment o/Municipal Waste Collection

Table 1
(cont'd)
Note Item
Amount
Unit (Units/yr)
Oil
Equivalent
(glunit)
Ref.
for oil
eqUlV.
Oil
used up
(glyr)
CO2
released (*)
(glyr)
2.67E+06
1.9SE+06
2.46E+06
9.2IE+OS
4.12E+06
7.60E+OS
6.28E+OS
7.60E+06
8.69E+06
6.3SE+06
8.02E+06
3.00E+06
1.34E+07
2.48E+06
2.0SE+06
2.48E+07
S.62E+07
S.57E+06
7.18E+OS
1.6SE+07
8.77E+05
6.34E+06
1.23E+07
5.17E+07
8. 32E+06
I.S8E+08
1. 83E+08
1. 82E+07
2.34E+06
5.38E+07
2.86E+06
2.07E+07
4.00E+07
1.68E+08
2.71E+07
S.16E+08
Multimaterial collection items
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Containers (glassfiber)
Trucks (steel)
Fuel
Glass
Iron and Steel
Aluminum
Plastic material
glyr
glyr
glyr
8. 89E+OS
S.70E+OS
2.00E+06
3.00E+00
3.42E+OO
1.23E+OO
[ a]
[c]
[a]
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
8.20E+08
9.91E+08
4.48E+06
1.26E+08
S.03E-03
7.67E-04
1.40E-01
6.03E-02
[e ]
[e]
[ e]
[e ]
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
2. 3SE+07
1.63E+06
2.IOE+OS
4.83E+06
2.57E+05
4.80E+06
3.59E+06
4.20E+07
2.39E+OO
3.42E+OO
3.42E+OO
3.42E+00
3.42E+OO
1.32E+OO
3.42E+OO
1.23E+OO
[ d]
[e]
[c]
[ c]
[e]
[a]
[c]
[a]
glyr
1.75E+lO
9.03E-03
[e ]
Mixed wastes
44
4S
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Polyethylene bags
Containers A (steel)
Containers B (steel)
Containers C (steel)
Small trucks, steel
Fuel for small trucks
Large trucks, steel
Wastes collected
FINAL RESULTS OF WASTE COLLECTION PROCESS
Total waste processed

glyr 3.09E+10
glyr 2. 87E+08
Total oil equivalent used up
Total carbon dioxide released gly9. 37E+08
(*)
C02 release from oil combustion has been evaluated by Desmarquest, 1991,
as 3.42 g C02 per g of oil burnt). We calculated it as the ratio:
(C02 molecular weight) I (CHl.S molecular weight)=3.26
g C02lg oil equiv.
as each Carbon is typically linked to I.S Hydrogen atoms in average hydrocarbons
(Harte, 1988), while it is linked to 2 Oxygens in carbon dioxide.
References for oil equivalents:
[a]
[b ]
[c]
[d]
[e ]
Biondi et ai, 1989; Jarach, 1985; Pellizzi, 1992.

Our calculation, assuming 2.5 joules of oil input to the power plant to make I joule of
electricity. Input Joules are converted in grams of combustion oil by dividing by the oil
Lower Heating Value, 40604.2 Jig oil (ENEL, 1996. Resulting oil grams are then multiplied
by 1.23 g raw oil per gram refined oil [a].
Bowers, 1992, pages 119 and 121, refers two different figures: 0.96 for raw steel, 3.42 for
manufactured steel.
Calculated from Smil, 1991, p.209, converting joules to grams oil equivalent by dividing by
41860 Jig oil.
Calculated as a result of the evaluation performed in this work.
Deatailed data and calculations for Table 1 may be obtainedfrom the authors
-306-
THE CASE STUDY

A complete emergy evaluation of the city of Siena has not yet been performed, nor it is a goal of
the present paper. A diagram of the city waste generation and collection system is shown in Figure I. The
outside frame refers to the countryside, where agricultural and small industrial activities are located.
Resources support the autocatalytic cycle of assets and people, as well as the production of goods and
labor that are exported. The inner frame focuses on the city and the actual process of waste collection.
The smallest frame is the household sector where goods are used. Use processes yield wastes, that are
source selected by means of an emergy investment E!, and then collected and processed by means of an
investment E2. Waste collection is shown in the diagram as the final, unavoidable part of use processes.
Two independent processes using different collection techniques take place: collection of inner
city wastes and collection of outer city wastes. Each of these processes splits into three different, inde
pendent pathways related to the collection of: i) paper, ii) multimaterials (glass, iron, aluminium and
plastic), and iii) organic and miscellaneous materials. As most items (glass, plastics, metals) are collected
together, calculation of their energy costs of collection per unit mass requires a correct allocation of
energy investment. This can be done by considering that low density materials involve large volumes and
therefore require high collection expenses. We have therefore allocated collection expenses in proportion
to calculated volumes of materials (reported in the bottom lines of the Footnotes). Allocation of emergy
costs of collection has been done according to the same rationale of above energy costs. Instead, general
expenses (like office paper, office electricity, service cars) have been allocated in proportion to collected
masses.
Collection of organic and non reusable materials takes place every day, and accounts for the
largest amount of collected matter. Collection of materials to be recycled only occurs once per week.
Paper and iron account for the largest fractions of reusable materials that are collected. Reusable materi
als are delivered to transformation plants, in order to be recycled and used again. Organic and non reus
able fractions are concentrated and landfilled.
Focusing on the process of waste collection requires a deeper look into the organization of this
service, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. These figures illustrate the waste collection process in Figure I in
detail and show several pathways for waste collection and processing that occur in the city.
We may recognize three different kinds of inputs to the process:
a)
inputs to inner city collection
b)
inputs to outer city collection
c)
inputs ( administrative services) that are supplied to inner city and outer city processes.
Evaluation of inputs (a) and (b) is relatively simple. Common inputs (c) to both processes raise
instead the usual question if their emergy should split into the two different pathways (a) and (b), or 100"10
assigned to both of them. We believe that the two pathways are not by-product pathways. Each of them
might occur without the other one occurring. If both areas of city are served, the amount of services that
is supplied is larger, due to the larger task to be done. We therefore assigned each pathway a fraction of
the emergy of services, in proportion with the amount of wastes that are collected.
The same evaluation is required when inputs are allocated within (a) and (b) processes. Here we
have different kinds of materials, for which common services are also needed. Therefore, in addition to
specific inputs (for instance, the steel of paper containers) that can be easily allocated, we have inputs that
will have to be split further. A central office and facilities will always be required to coordinate the
process, no matter how much paper or glass is collected, but working time of employees and other re
sources used up should be assigned to the different sub-processes in proportion to their size. Of course,
we might figure out individual processes for paper collection, glass collection, organic waste collection,
and so on, each of them having their own coordinator, offices and facilities. This is unlikely to occur at
Siena, where the task required can be referred to only one Central Office with appropriate size. We felt
therefore more appropriate to assign to each sub-pathway (paper, iron, organic, etc.) a fraction of the total
emergy of services that have been supplied to the main pathways.
-307-
As regards to the nature of inputs, we have two different forms:
inputs that are used up while supplied (labor, fuel, etc.)

durable inputs, that must be discounted over their lifetime (trucks, buildings, contain
ers, etc.)
Discounting requires an estimate of lifetime of these inputs. We have chosen average values,
according to available data supplied by the city administration.
The evaluation procedure presented in this paper takes also into account the above physical
differences, among other factors. The final result is a set of efficiency and environmental indicators, that
may translate into a reinforcement or a change of the present way of dealing with the collection process.
Only this lalter is evaluated here, but the calculation procedure can be easily extended to other steps of the
process (recycling, combustion for heat and electricity, composting, etc.).
1)
2)
RESULTS
Results from analytical evaluations perfonmed in Tables 1 and 2 are presented and compared in
Tables 3 and 4. Average waste production per person was 1.3 kg/day. Energy invested was 9.3 g oil
equivalent per Kg of waste processed, while 30.4 g COjkg waste collected have been released The
lowest energy investment is required by outer city iron and steel collection (32 J/g), while inner city
aluminium collection demands the highest input ( 11672 J/g). The total emergy invested for waste
management was in the order of 1.9E18 seJlhr, that is about 0.1% of the total emergy flow supporting the
city life and activities (1.60E21 seJ/yr, estimated from Ulgiati and Russi, 1999). Again, the lowest
environmental support, indicated by an emergy cost of 2.53 E6 seJ/g, was required to collect iron outside
the medieval walls, while the highest demand is shown by inner city aluminium collection (2.58 E9 seJ/
g). In general, inner city collection is much more energy and emergy demanding than outside, due to the
difficult process of collection and the smaller amount of collected materials, as it can be inferred from
Table 5.
People
W .. Waste
Landfill
S "" Source SelectIon
Waste
CoIlectlon,
processing,
&!
City
transport
to
outside
market
countryside and industrial area
Production and Households sectors 0/ the city, with waste generation (W) and collection.
Wastes are source selected (8) and then delivered to city collection service. Wastes thai are not reused inproduction
systems, are lelivered to a landfill (l) and finally recycled or reused. 1 and E2 are energy services (
fuel, goods, Jabor) Invested to col/ect and process wastes.
Figure 1.
-308-
Chapter 25. Energy and Emergy Assessment a/Municipal Waste Collection
Reusable
Process 0/ collecting and concentrating dispersed materials to be recycled The first selection is
done by people, be/ore delivering the material to the collection operators. As materials are not completely
source-selected. a second selection process ;s needed after collection, be/ore delivering them to the recylcing /aciJity.
Figure 2.
...--...
"
Electricity
,,
Stor..ge &
tnansport
...--.
"""'"
Madllnery
centrated
paper to be recycled
Industry
Cal
---..
,,,'
Electricity
r,--''-:......
..J'---.::::
Wood chips
Cbl
Figure 3.
Comparison of two technological chains supplying cellulose 10 the paper industry.

of waste paper; b) fast growth wood plantation (after Bralia el 01., /999).
-309-
a) recycle

Energy and emergy evaluations give very similar ranking of collection costs. Allocation of costs
according to volumes of collected materials comes out to be the most important factor in cost calculation.
Labor costs are also allocated according to volumes, so that their inclusion in the emergy evaluation does
not change the overall picture. Labor appears to be the highest emergy input to the collection process.
This is specially true in inner city collection. It can be explained by the fact that inner city collection is
more labor intensive than outside. A small truck stops every
5-10 meters and an operator collects the
garbage bags that have been delivered by people. Therefore two operators per truck (driver and collector)
are involved in the process. The more mechanized collection perfonned in the more recently developed
areasof Siena results into a lower labor input, balanced by a higher fuel and machinery emergy inflow.
As a consequence, inner city collection always shows higher emergy costs per unit than outside (more
labor intensive versus a smaller amount collected).
The eme..gy cost of the paper collection process (data from Tables 3 and 4) has been compared
to an average value for plantation wood production and its delivery to the paperindustry (Figure 4). The
assumption is made that the raw wood and the raw recycled paper will have to undergo the same
manufacturing process to yield new paper. Therefore, they can be assigned the same quality from the
point of view of the paper production process. The environmental support required to supply new plantation
wood chips to the paper mill is about 1.04 E9 seJ/g, according to Bralia et al. (1999), while 2.47 E7 seJl
g are required for paper collection outside of the city walls. The advantage of collection can be expressed
by the ratio of collection to new production emergy costs (a kind of recycle index), which yields about
0.024. Inner city collection is largely inefficient (recycle index is 0.27). Again, inner city collection for
each material is much more emergy demanding than outside. The same calculation perfonned on an
energy hasis shows that 1.88 E3 Jig wood chips are required, compared to 355 Jig paper collected. The
energy recycle index is therefore
0.19, showing that collecting paper is less energy demanding than
production of new wood.
DISCUSSION
The calculation procedure followed in this analysis provides several results:
a)
Monitoring the efficiency of the collection process, by means of three indicators:
(I)
emergy cost of collected items (emergy invested per unit of material collected); (2)
energy intensity (oil equivalent of energy invested per unit mass of collected items);
(3) CO, released per mass of collected items. Time evolution of these three indicators
may supply a measure of the process performance year by year, also depending upon
organizational changes, technological irmovation (for instance, labor against machinery
or vice versa), and people response to the collection effort.
b)
Comparing collection results in different areas of the town. We present here a calculation
procedure accounting for inner city collection and outer city collection, but the procedure
can be easily modified to account for data in other situations from smaller areas of the
city. In so doing possible sources of and areas with inefficient peifonnance would be
easily detected, in order to suggest solutions (technological irmovation, structural
changes, taxation fonns, incentives). For exampl, less garbage taxes could be levied
to the areas that offer the best perfonnance.
c)
Comparing the environmental support required to collect one unit of different materials
t o be recycled or disposed.
d)
Comparing the environmental support required to concentrate specific wastes from

citizens' houses to the recycling plant to the same indicators calculated for the process
of extracting and transporting the raw material to the plant itself (for instance,
comparing trash paper to wood or cellulose paste).
-310-

Table 2.
Emergy Flows in Municipal Waste Collection (Siena, Italy, 1997)
Footnote Item
Unit Units/yr
Solar
Ref
transformity for
(sej/unit)
Transf
Solar emergy
(E14 sej/yr)
Numbers in the first column refer to footnotes at the end of the Table. Time scale is one year; space
scale is city limits.
General services
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
yrs
ger level labor
yrs
Executive labor
m2
Office buildings
Garages and storage buildings m2
J/yr
Fuel for building heating
J/yr
Electricity
glyr
Service cars (steel)
J/yr
Fuel for service cars
glyr
Miscellaneous office paper
sej/yr
Total general services
1.00E+00 7.47E+!6
2.00E+00 2.49E+16
n.a.
n.a.
3.56E+!0 6.60E+04
6.45E+!0 1.50E+05
6.16E+04 6.70E+09
2.30E+II 6.60E+04
1.13E+05 3.69E+09
[b]
[b]
[a]
If]
[d]
[a]
[e]
747.00
498.00
0.00
0.00
23.47
96.68
4.12
151.47
4.IS
1524.90
Inner City Waste Collection

Selected wastes
10
II
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
Labor
Polyethylene bags
Small trucks, steel
Fuel
Paper collected
Glass collected
Iron and Steel collected
Aluminium collected
Plastic material collected
yrs
J/yr
glyr
J/yr
5.00E+00
1.53E+II
2.85E+OS
2.27E+!1
2.49E+16
3.20E+04
6.70E+09
6.60E+04
[b]
[ c]
[d]
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
glyr
3.60E+08
9.52E+07
S.02E+08
S.50E+05
I. 93E+07
2.78E+08
2.22E+08
1.4IE+07
2.58E+09
l .lIE+09
[e]
[e]
[e]
[e]
[e]
yrs
J/yrs
glyr
J/yr
glyr
J/yr
3.35E+01
5.58E+II
I.3SE+06
1.08E+!2
1.14E+05
1.02E+II
2.49E+16
3.20E+04
6.70E+09
6.60E+04
6.70E+09
6.60E+04
[b]
[c]
[d]
glyr
J/yr
7.30E+09
3.97E+!3
1.34E+08
2.46E+04
[e]
[e]
glyr
J/yr
glyr
J/yr
2.00E+06
9.36E+1O
1.43E+06
8.50E+!0
6.70E+09
3.20E+04
6.70E+09
6.60E+04
[ d]
yrs
glyr
7.90E-01
9.66E+05
2.49E+16
3.00E+09
[a]
124S.00
49.14
19.10
149.60
48.27
1000.17
211.52
70.94
14.21
214.26
Mixed wastes
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Labor
Polyethylene bags
Small trucks, steel
Large trucks, steel
Wastes collected
Wastes collected
[a]
[d]
[d]
8341.50
178.63
90.70
710.60
7.64
67.32
360.79
9757.17
9757.17
Outer City Waste Collection

Selected wastes
Common collection items
26
27
28
29
Containers (steel)
Containers (plastic)
Trucks (steel)
Fuel
[c]
[d]
[d]
134.00
30.00
95.48
56.10
Paper collection items
30
31
Labor
-311-
[b]
If]
196.74
28.98

Table 2 (cont.)
Solar
Footnote
Item
Unit
Units/yr
(sejlunit)
#
32
Trucks (steel)
33
Fuel
34
Paper collected
giyr
J/yr
Ref.
transformity for
1.43E+06
6.70E+09
8.50E+1O
6.60E+04
Fraction of general selVices
Solar emergy
(E14 sej/yr)
Transf.
[d)
[d)
95.48
56.10
152.94
giyr
J/yr
3.09E+09
2.47E+07
4.45E+ I 3
1.7IE+03
[e)
[e)
763.77
[ c)
132.80
[f]
[d)
38.19
763.77
Multimaterial collection items

35
Labor
yrs
5.33E-0I
2.49E+I 6
36
8.89E+05
3.00E+09
37
Trucks (steel)
giyr.
giyr
5.70E+05
6.70E+09
8.50E+1O
6.60E+04
38
Fuel
J/yr

39
Glass
40
Iron and Steel
41
42
Aluminium
Plastic material
8.20E+08
1.65E+07
9.91E+08
2. 53E+06
g iyr
4.48E+06
4.62E+08
1.26E+08
I . 99E+08
J/yr
5.90E+12
4.24E+03
giyr
giyr
g iyr
[d)
26.67
56.10
95.%
[e)
135.75
[e)
[e)
250.28
[ e)
[e)
25.04
20.69
250.28
Mixed wastes
43
yrs
1.50E+01
2.49E+I6
Polyethylene bags
J/yrs
1.I0E+12
3.20E+04
Containers A (steel)
giyr
g iyr
1.63E+06
6.70E+09
2.I OE+05
6.70E+09
4.83E+06
6.70E+09
Labor
44
45
46
Containers B (steel)
47
Containers C (steel)
48
Small trucks, steel
49
50
Large trucks, steel
51
g iyr
n.3.=
Wastes collected
Wastes collected
[d)
[d)
[d)
[ e)
[f]
352.75
109.21
14.07
[d)
323.28
[d)
[a )
134.64
17.19
2.57E+05
6.70E+09
2.04E+11
6.60E+04
giyr
J/yr
3.59E+06
6.70E+09
1.79E+12
6.60E+04
[d)
1178.10
1.75E+1O
3.97E+07
6971.76
9.55E+I 3
7.30E+03
[e)
[e)
giyr
J/yr
[d)
not available
References for transformities:

[a)
[ b)
[c)
3735.00
giyr
J/yr

52
[b)
[c )
Odum,l9%
Labor evaluation in the year 1991 (Ulgiati, 1996).
Our estimate
Brown MT. and Ar ding J.,1991.

Resulting from calculation in this work
Ulgiati, 1996 (Report to ENEA)
Detdailed data and calculations for Table 2 may be obtainedfrom the authors
-312-
240.60
866.93
6971.76
Chapler 25. Energy and EmergyAssessment ofMunicipal Waste Collection

Table 3. Energy and Carbon Dioxide Indicators for Municipal Waste Collection (Siena, Italy,
(from Table
1997)
I)
Total waste collected

Waste production per person per day
Total energy invested in the process
Energy invested per unit waste collected
Oil used up per unit waste collected
Total C02 released
C02 released per unit waste collected
3.09E+07
1.31
1.20E+07
3.90E+05
9.32
9.37E+05
30.36
Kglyr
Kg/person/day
MJ/yr
J lkg waste
g oillkg waste
Kglyr
g C02lKg waste
Table 4. Emergy Based Indicators for Municipal Waste Collection (Siena, Italy,
Process evaluated (#)
1997) (from Table 2)
Total Emergy Flow
Emergy Cost of collection
(E14 sej/yr) (*)
(sej/g)
(**) (sej/J)
1000
764
2.78E+08
2.47E+07
1.68E+04
l.50E+03
212
136
2.22E+08
1. 65E+07
1.28E+06
9.5IE+04
71
25
1.41E+07
2.53E+06
1. 99E+03
3.56E+02
14
21
2.58E+09
4.62E+08
7.85E+04
1.40E+04
214
250
l.lIE+09
1. 99E+08
2.37E+04
4.24E+03
9757
6972
1.34E+08
3.97E+07
2.46E+04
7.30E+03
11268
8167
1.36E+08
3.62E+07
D.a.
Paper collection
Inner city
Outer city
GIIIlI. collection
Inner city
Outer city
Iron collection
Inner city
Outer city
Aluminium collection
Inner city
Outer city
PllIlItic collection
Inner city
Outer city
Mixed wlIlItes
Inner city
Outer city
Total wlIlIte collection
Inner city
Outer city
n.a.
n.a.= not applicable
(#) Calculated indicators refer to the collection process, not to the actual
production of the item from raw materials. For instance, we do not calculate the transformity of
paper, but the emergy cost of the process of concentrating dispersed paper into a storage building.
(0) Total emergy supporting the process

(00) Calculated emergy per mass values have been converted into emergy
per joule values by dividing by the exergy per gram (Szargut et aI., 1988) of each item.
-313-

Table 5. Energy Cost of Waste Collection (Siena, Italy, 1997). (Data from Tables I and 2)
Oil cost
of collection
Energy cost
of collection
(g oiVg collected) (JIg collected)
Emergy cost
of collection
(sej/g)
Inner City Collection

Iron and Steel
0.002
64
1.41E+07
Glass
0.024
1004
2.22E+08
Paper
0.030
1255
2.78E+08
Plastic materiiiI
0.120
5019
1.11E+09
Aluminium
0.279
11672
2.58E+09
Mixed wastes
0.010
420
1.34E+08
Outer City Collection

Iron and Steel
0.001
32
2.53E+06
Glass
0.005
210
1.65E+07
Paper
0.008
355
2.47E+07
Plastic material
0.060
2525
1.99E+08
Aluminium
0.140
5872
4. 62E+08
Mixed wastes
0.009
378
3.97E+07
Many aspects might be evaluated from our results. However, we would like to highlight some
of their possible consequences, if results were confirmed as a stable trend in the next y ears. Minimization
of energy investroent per unit of collected material may be the first step to suggest, in order to reach an
environmentally sound waste policy. The same can be done with carbon dioxide emissions. These latter
follow the same trend of energy invested, even if sometimes the shift to a different fuel may cbange
emissions more than proportionally to energy use. Energy costs and emissions of CO, are linked to the
amount and volumes of waste material processed. A procedure aimed at reducing the volume of low
density materials would largely decrease collection costs by diminishing the number of collection trips
required. Therefore, people might be invited to cut into smaller pieces or squash high volume items like
plastic bottles or cans or to flat cardboard boxes.
Emergy evaluation offers a way to weigh the environmental quality of inputs and outputs, based
on the environmental support needed to the process (sometimes called "ecological footprint"). Shifting to
a different organization, or technology or to a different material input might affect the global sustainability
of the process by decreasing its total emergy demand. At this regard, performance differences between
outer city and inner city collection process should be carefully evaluated. Energy and emergy collection
costs of inner city materials are very high as compared to outer city costs. The city administration might
reconsider the advisability of sorting and collecting materials in downtown Siena, turning to collection of
mixed waste without recovering reusable materials. The loss of reusable materials would not be significant,
while the saved resources could be invested to make the outer city collection more profitable (by advertising
to get a larger citizens' participation, by increasing the number of collection containers, and so on).
Labor is also an important issue. Its relevance is generally huge in the emergy evaluation (and
presumably in the economic cost ) of the process, but appears to be excessive in the inner city part of the
process. Trying to use semi-automatic collection trucks or technical devices might decrease the demand
for labor and increase the process performance. Even if this might appear as decreasing job opportonities,
we should be aware that collection cost is paid for by citizens. Saving on these waste collection costs
-314-
Chapter 25. Energy and EmergyAssessment a/Municipal Waste Collection

might free capital for other investments and expenses, thus creating new jobs in different economic
sectors of the city.
CONCLUSION
The proposed procedure aims at being used as a tool to improve the city waste management,
fulfilling the European and National regulations. Financial incentives, taxation policies and new regulations
could benefit from biophysical evaluations, in order to:
i) improve the performance of the process,
ii) increase global yield,
iii) increase recycle of still usable materials,
iv) remove low performance steps,
v) introduce technical and structural innovations,
vi) decrease the amount of waste materials to be disposed,
vii) favour citizens' collaboration,
viii) achieve a better state of the surrounding environment.
These goals cannot be reached without a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the investigated
process. The approach suggested in this paper appears to be able to provide both kinds of assessment and
therefore to become a reliable basis for waste management policies at the city scale.
REFERENCES
Ayres RU., Ayres L.W. and Martiruis K., 1996. Eco-Thermodynamics: Exergy and Life Cycle Analysis.
INSEAD Working Paper %119IEPS, Centre for the Management of Environmental Resources,
Fointainebleau, France. pp.22.
Biondi, P., Panaro, V, and PelIizzi, G. (Eds) 1989. Le Richieste di Energia del Sistema Agricolo
ltaliano.ENEA-CNR-PFE, LB-20 pp.389.
Bowers, W 1992. Agricultural field equipment. In: RC. Fluck (Ed.), Energy in Farm Production (Vol. 6
in the series Energy in World Agriculture, B.A. Stout, Editor in Chief). Elsevier,Amsterdam, pp.
117-129.
Bralia S., Luchi F., and Ulgiati S., 1999. Management of Municipal Solid Wastes. An Energy Assessment.
Proceedings of the
556-566;
I" International Conference of Solid Waste,Rome, Italy,April 7-9, 1999, pp.

G. Miele, L. Rubini, M. Carlini, and M. Villarini Editors, University of Rome "La
Sapienza" Publisher.
Brown M.T. and Arding I.E., 1991. Transformities Working Paper. Center for Wetlands, Environmental
Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Desmarquest J.P., 1991. CO, emissions resulting from the use of fuels from biomass. Paper presented by
the Institute Francais du Petrole at the
IX International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, ISAF,
Firenze (Italy), November 12-15. Proceedings, pp.927-932.

Ellington, R T., Mea, M. and EI-Sayed, D.A. 1993. The net greenhouse warming forcing of metbanol
produced from biomass. Biomass and Bioenergy 4: 405-418.
ENEL, Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica, 1996. Data supplied by the Engineering Department of the
oil fired power plant sited at Piombino (Livorno, Italy).
Hall C.A.S., Cleveland
c.I., and Kaufman R, 1986. Energy and Resource Quality. The Ecology of the
Economic Process. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Harte I., 1988. Consider a Spherical Cow. A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. University Science
-315-

Books. Mill Valley, California.
Jarach M., 1985. Sui valori di equivalenza per l'analisi e il bilancio energetici in a gricoltura. Rivista di
Ingegneria Agraria, 2, 102-114.
Italian Ministry of Environment, 1992. Annual Report on the State of the Environment in Italy,
1991, pp. 488.
Odum H.T., 1983. Systems Ecology. An Introduction. Wiley, New York. Pp.644.
Odum H. T., 1988. Self organization, transformity and information. Science, 242: 1132-1139.
Odum H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting . Emergy and Environmental Decision Makin g . John Wiley
&Sons, N.Y
Pellizzi, G. 1992. Use of Energy and Labour in Italian Agriculture. J. A gric. Eng . Res. 52: 111-119.
Shieh J.H. and Fan L.T.,1983. Ener gy and Exergy Estimation Usin g the Group Contribution Method. In:
Efficiency and costin g: Second Law analysis of processes. American Chemical Society
Symposium Series, N. 235. RC. Gaggioli, Editor. pp.351-371.
Smil V, 1991. General Ener getics. Energy in the Biosphere and Civilization. Wiley, New York, 367 pp.
Szargut J., Morris D.R, and Steward F.R, 1988. Exergy analysis of thermal,chemical and metallur gical
processes, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, London.
Ulg iati S., Odum H.T. and Bastianoni S., 1994. Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability: an
emergy analysis of Italy. Ecolog ical Modelling, 73, 215-268.
Ulgiati S. 1996. Evaluation of energy and environmental indicators based on Emergy Accounting, for
selected electricity production processes in Italy. Final Report to ENEA- National A gency for
New Technologies, Energy and the Environment, Research Contract n . 2780/ 95.
Ulgiati S., Brown MT., Giampietro M, Herendeen RA., and Mayumi K. (Eds), 1998. Advances in
Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy. Musis Publisher, Roma, Italy; pp.642.
Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Bastianoni S., and Marchettini N., 1995. Emergy-based indices and ratios to
evaluate the sustainable use of resources. Ecological En gineering, 5: 519-531.
Ulgiati S. and Brown MT., 1998. Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems.
Ecological Modelling, 108: 23-36.
Ulgiati S., 2000. Ener gy, Emergy and Embodied Exergy: Diverging or conver ging approaches? Paper
presented at the First Biennial Emer gy Analysis Research Conference: Energy Quality and
Transforrnities. Gainesville, Florida, USA, September 2-4, 1999. This Book of Proceedings.
Ulgiati, S. and Russi, D., 1999. Emergy Accounting of the Italian Economy. Unpublished manuscript.
-316-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
26
Sublimation
David M Scienceman and Florence Ledoux
ABSTRACT
Because Sigmund Freud attempted to apply his concepts of psychological forces and energies to
human psychology and culture, diagrams have been drawn to display his theories of sublimation, culture and
personality using the systems energy language of H. T. Odum (1971). Calibration of the human soul with the
units "soal, " "morgan, " and "bunyan" have been published already (Scienceman, 1989). Sublimation is the
transformation through negation of bodily (erotic) emergy (energies) into creation of the psyche (soul) and
culture.
INTRODUCTION (FIGURE 1)
According to Rapaport and Gill (1959), Sigmund Freud finally "defined metapsychology as the
study of the assumptions upon which the system of psychoanalytic theory is based," (p. 155). These
assumptions "must include the dynamic, economic, structural, genetic, and adaptive points of view" .. .
At the dynamic level, "(a) there are psychological forces, (b) psychological forces are defined by their
direction and magnitude, (c) the effect of simultaneously acting psychological forces may be the work of
each of these forces" ... At the economic level, "(a) there are psychological energies, (b) psychological
energies are subject to a law of entropy, (d) psychological energies are subject to transformations, which
increase or decrease their entropic tendency." Today we could describe Freud's psychological energies
as "information," bodily energies which have been highly transformed, or "bodily emergy of the psyche"
(soul).
A start has therefore been made to use the systems energy language ofH. T.Odum to draw some
basic diagrams describing the Freudian theories. But owing to place and time limitations, these diagrams
are mostly based on only two books, "Life Against Death" (Brown, 1970) and "What Freud Really Said"
(Stafford-Clark, 1965). First we must introduce some basic concepts, some misinterpreted. To Freud
"infantile sexuality" meant the bodily pleasure derived from all body functions by human infants;
"repression" meant the prevention of unconscious passions or desires from entering the conscious mind;
"libido, the sexual instinct, Eros" all refer to the driving force to achieve bodily pleasure and union with
the world; " destrudo, the death instinct, Thanatos" all refer to the opposed conflicting instinct; "id" refers
to the totality of unconscious forces, "ego" refers to the rational, conscious, mind, governed by the pleasure
and reality principles respectively; "superego" is human conscience.
Three diagrams are displayed. But first (Figure I), the basic concept of "sublimation," (apparently
mostly ignored today by modem psychoanalysts), 'is drawn, as described by Brown (1970) in an entire
section (pp. 126-159). he starts "The link between psychoanalysis and the science of human culture is the
concept of sublimation.".
It seems a psychological analogue to Marx's "exploitation" (transformation of human labour
power into social relations-capital), and Odum's "transformation to higher energies." A limited quantity
of libido is upgraded into higher human activities and thoughts during the process of repression, the
production of psychical entropy and the creation of the ego or soul, all summarized as "desexualization"
by Freud. "However much the repressed and sublimating adult may consciously deny it, the fact remains
317
Chapter
26.
Sublimation
that life is of the body and only life creates values; all values are body values" (Brown, p. 256). I refer to
body value as "bovalue" to clearly distinguish it from lavalue (Marx) and emvalue (Odum). "If money
were not excrement, it would be valueless" (p. 256).
disembodied libido
sublimations
unconscious
conscious
>"",-f--H surplus
limited
R
Figure 1.
psychical entropy
repression, negation
--::!o_ =--'-
"Sexual energy is bodily energy, and the desexualized is disembodied energy, or energy made soulfol. "
FREUD'S THEORY OF SUBLIMATION (FIGURE 2)

According to Brown's version of Freud, (Brown,
1970), "The drive to sublimate is the same as
the drive to produce an economic surplus," (p. 228). "Sublimation is the use made of bodily energy by a
soul which sets itself apart from the body" (p. 43). "Sublimations as desexualizations, are not really
deflections (changes of aim) of bodily EROS but negations" (p. 146).
"The mode in which higher
sublimations are connected with the lower regions of the body (as postulated by psychoanalytical theory)
is the dialectical affirmation-by-negation" (p. 145). "Sublimation is the continuation not of infantile
sexuality but of infantile dreaming ... organised by fantasies into the sexual organizations" .. "culture
therefore, the product of sublimation, is, in Plato's words, the imitation of an imitation; in Pindar's words,
the shadow of a dream" (p. 149).
FREUD'S THEORY OF PSYCmCAL STRUCTURE (FIGURE 3)

Freud's theories were initially based on his observing the endless return of neurotic symptoms,
hence the term repetition-compulsion, Stafford-Clark, (p.
8).
He subsequently proposed an aggregated
vision of the operation of the human mind. The Life instinct and the Death instinct, united in animals and
children, are separated in adults into conflicting forces. Using the basic pUlsing diagram of Odum et al.
(1988), Figure 3 shows how neuroses (N) enter the ego directly, but also are sublimated into religion and
culture (C). The loop "ID to EGO to SUPER-EGO to ID" causes repetition-compulsion as displayed in
the
and C graph. The influence of family (F) and environment (E) are also included.
dialectical theory is a precursor of modem "self-organization"?
-318-
Maybe tltis
Chapter 26. Sublimation
life instinct
death instinct
Land D are
pathways of fantasies the neurotic currency
(Brown, p. 150)
bodily energies
culture
CULTURE
EXTERNAL
WORLD
=
-T
negations
(sublimations)
Figure 2.
"Sublimation is the shadow 0/a dream. "
life instinct
Land Dare
death instinct
pathways of fantasies -
bodily energies
culture
the neurotic currency (Brown, p. 150)

---
--' CULTURE
EXTERNAL
__
WORLD
negations
=
(sublimations)
Figure 3.
Freud's theory o/psychical structure. L
}/euroses; C
Cu/turo; SE
Superogo; F
Lifo inslfnct. libido; D
Family; E
Environment.
-319-
Death instinct. destrudo; N
FREUD'S THEORY OF PERSONALITY (FIGURE 4)

Freud (1924) wrote that there are three stages of infantile sexual development, the oral, anal and
phallic, all of which are autoerotic in nature and magnitude (Brown, 1970, p. 39). When the infant later
enters puberty, there is a second efflorescence of these eroticisms, but now united into the genital
organization, with the functions of love and reproduction. If development is thwarted, fixations may
cause abnormal concentrations of libido into personalities, such as a fixation of anal eroticism into
parsimony or love of money. Under stress conditions, regression may cause the return to earlier levels of
development. The union of different erotisms was called the "amphimixis of erotisms" by Ferenczi
(1953), which we could today call "bodily (erotic) emergy."
0= oral
A anal
G = genital
F fixations
R regressions
P = phallic
sex
love
Figure 4.
Freud's theory of personality:
the transformation of erotisms into genitality.
-320-
REFERENCES
Brown, N. O. 1970. Life Against Death - The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History. First Sphere Books
Edition, London, U. K.
Ferenczi, S. 1953. Male and Female. Further Contributions to the Theory and Technique of Psychoanalysis.
Hogarth, London, pp. 249-260.
Freud, S. 1924. On the Transfonnation of Instincts with SpecialReference to AnalEroticism. Collected
Papers. International Psychoanalytic Library, London, pp. 164-171.
Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. Wiley-Interscience, New York, U.S.A.
Odum, H.T. et al. 1988. Energy, Environment and Public Policy. (UNEPReport No. 95), (p. 27).
Rapaport, D. and Merton M. Gill. 1959. The points of view and assumptions of metapsychology. The
International Journal of Psycho-analysis, Vol. XL, Parts 3-4, pp. 153-162.
Scienceman, D.M. 1989. The Emergence ofEmonomics. Proc. Int. Soc. Systems Sciences, Edinburgh,
Scotland, pp. 62-68.
Stafford-Clark, D. 1965. What Freud Really Said. Penguin Books, Ltd., Hammondsworth, UK
-321-
EMERGY SYNTHESIS:

Edited by
Mark T. Brown
Associate Editors

Naples, Florida
David Tilley

Kingsville, Teias
Sergio U1giati
University ofSiena
Siena, Italy
December, 2000

Gainesville, FL
iii
Index
Carrying Capacity 10
fitness 10
Accumulation Term 163
non-renewable 10
Agr oecosystem
of Nicaragua 294
emternalities of 45
renewable 10
Aluminum
Catfish farming 171
cost of waste collection 314
Cement
waste collection 310
emergy of 74
Aluminum
exergy cost 72
life cycle emergy intensity 146
recycle indices 151
recycle indices 151
Anhydrous gross calorific value 15
Central Place Theory 4
Aquaculture 171
Ceramic tile
Areal empower density 119
Areal mass flux density 119
Clay brick
Autocatalytic designs 239
Available energy
recycle indices 151
coupling of materials with 239
Concrete
recycle indices 151

Construction and demolition wastes 147
BASIC
Cost-Benefit analysis
simulation of hierarchies using 119
wastewater treatment 200
Biodynamic vegetable production 182
Critical concentration
Biogeochemical cycles 235
of materials 239
Biogeoeconomics 246
Biophysical analyses 23
Biosphere Space-Time Activity (BIOSTA) 26

Bolivia 53
Deep heat
Boltzman. L 3
transformity 257
Brazil 53
Desalination 114
ethanol production 281
gas pipeline 53
vegetable production 181
Ecological Footprint 26
Building construction
Economic
emergy used in 146
emternalities 39
Building demolition
externalities 39
emergy used in 146
Economics
Building materials
biophysical basis 23
emergy evaluation of 145
Ecosystem ser vices 81
Ego 317
Eigenvector
CaerneTVon river diversion 36
calculating transformities using 265
Carbon flows resulting from
Embodied energy 18
municipal waste collection 305
323
Emergy indices 14
Emdollar value
wetlands 86
Emergy 19
channel catfish farming 175

definition 14
accounting 15
accumulation and pulsing 237
greenhouse tomatoes (Sweden) 103
by-products 27
Nicaragua 294
definition 13
potable water 113

Swiss agriculture 44
double counting 256, 261

energy memory 20
Emergy of
general mathematical definition of 156
wastewater 252
Global Accumulation Term 164
Emergy per capita

definition 14
Lagrangian perspective of 157
Emergy per mass 239
land use storage of 227

memory 21
simulation of 127
self-organization 26
Emergy Sustainability Index

definition 14
spatial convergence of 237

spatial model of 223
synthesis I
of Nicaragua 295
Emergy I money ratio 8
organic vegetables (Brazil)production 188
definition 14
of Nicaragua 294
vegetable production (Brazil) 187

Emergy synthesis 1
Emergy accounting 4
benefits 28
Emergy Yield Ratio 9

code of practice 27
Emergy algebra 159
definition 14
Emergy balance equation 159
delivered natural gas 60
Emergy equations
of ethanol (Brazil) 285

organic vegetables (Brazil) 188
matrix form 268
potable water 114
Emergy evaluation of
Swedish food system 215
conventional horticulture (Brazil) 181
ethanol production (Brazil) 284
Geneva vineyard cultivation 51
material cycles 141
Emjoule
definition 14
Municipal Waste Collection (Siena, Italy) 311

natural gas pipeline (Brazil) 57
Empower 237
definition 14
Nicaragua 292
organic horticulture (Brazil) 181
Empower density
definition 14
potable water (Florida) III

recycle options 147
of land uses 227
sediments (Mississippi river) 35
Sao Paulo, Brazil 60
solid waste disposal 147
simulation of 127
spectra of 137
wetland ecosystems 86
Empower spectra 131
wetland wastewater treatment 197
Emprice
definition 143

EmternaIities 39
definition 14
agricultural crops 47
monetary assessment 42
Emtemality
ratios 42
-324-
Energy 1
embodied 20
as Heat 15
exergoecological cost 25
13
definition
extended 25
embodied 18, 20
waste 17
Energy hierarchy 4, 119
Exergy accounting 71
diagram of concepts 236

material zones in
Externalities
244
valuation of
pulsing of 237

Energy hierarchy law 235
Energy Laws
Feedback
246
1st Law of Thermodynamics 18,
in systems 249
246
Fifth Law of Thermodynamics
2nd Law of Thermodynamics 4, 22
Rorida
246
246
5th Law of Thermodynamics 4, 235, 246
6th Law of Thermodynamics 235, 246
emergy spectra of 137
4th Law of Thermodynamics 3, 235,
Energy quality 4, 19, 158
potable water 107

Foodshed 212
Form emergy 18
Fourth Law of Thermodynamics 246
and hierarchical position 239
Free-energy 16, 18
Energy systems analysis
Freud, Sigmund 317
eigenvalue method 266

Patterson's method 266
Energy transformation 237
Gibbs free-energy 16
splits and co-products of 272
GIS spatial model 224
Enthalpy 16
Glass
standard combustion 16
Environmental
contributions 8
recycle indices 151
decision making 8
Gravitational energy
loading 10
solar transformity of 260
services 9
transmitted to earth 259
support area 9
Gravitational potential energy
of oceans 259
Gross calorific value 15
conventional vegetables (Brazil) 187

definition
Gross Domestic Product (GOP) 8
14

of Nicaragua 294
Heat 1 8
anhydrous gross calorific value 15

Swiss agriculture
246
First Law of Thermodynamics 18, 21,
2nd law of Thermodynamics 246

3rd Law of Thermodynamics
40
gross calorific value 15
44
higher heat value 15
Ethanol
lower heat value 16
Hierarchical relationship 4, 129
Exergetic cost 71
Hierarchy 119
Exergoecological cost 25
material cycles 119
Exergy 16, 71
property of energy /low 4, 129
by-products 27
simulation of 123
chemical 17
cumulative 25
-325-
246
Monergy
I
Id
42, 48
Money circulation
317
246
Multicriteria evaluations
21
147
Iron
emergy of collecting
Municipal solid wastes
310
Landfill
emergy used in
Natural gas
146
Laws ofThennodynamics.
See also Energy laws

4, 235, 246
first law of 21, 246
fourth law of 3, 235, 246
second law of 22, 246
sixth law of 235, 246
third law of 246
impacts on
fifth law of
Life cycle emergy intensity

building materials
definition
146
24
Lotka, A.J. 3, 19, 20, 155, 235, 237. See also
balance of trade
296
currency buying power

emergy evaluation of
emergy use
296
289
296
14
North Carolina
129
emergy spectra of
137
Maximum power principle

Louisiana Estuarine System
Ocean geopotential energy

transfonnity of 260
276
Organic tomato production
M
Macon County, NC
Paper
21
cost of waste collection
Material concentration
energetics of
239
emergy used in
Material cycle
119, 141
119
Material zones 244
critical concentration
cost of waste collection
life cycle emergy intensity

recycle indices
MATHEMATICA
calculate transfonnities using,
Maximum empower prinCiple
269
3
and material concentration 241
mathematical fonnulation of 155
Maximum power principle 3, 19, 237
and transfonnity 257
Mississippi basin
36
33
banks 89
146
151
Power density
spectra of
137
131
Power spectra
Psychological energies
319
Pulsing
and hierarchical position
Q
Quality coefficient
197
314
Plastic (PVC)
239
241
sediment mass per area
14
definition
Plastic
Materials
skewed distribution of
3 10
Percent renewable emergy
Material hierarchy
wastewater treatment
314
Paper collection
Mississippi delta
101
129
Mass conservation
Mitigation
Nicaragua
definition
Life-Cycle Assessment
law of
57
Net Emergy Benefi ts
Non-renewable Emergy
143
transfonnities of
53
Natural resources
277
Quality equivalent unit

Quality factor
-326-
277
237
Sublimation 319
Sugarcane
Recycle 141
ethanol production (Brazil) 281
Recycle indices
Super-ego 320
of building materials 151
Sweden
Recycle trajectories 147
food system 211
Recycle-ability
tomato production 10 1
emergy indices of 149
Swiss agriculture
Recycled paper 310
emergy flows 44
Recycling indices
emtemalities 42
definitions 144
Renewable Emergy
definition 14
Territorial centers
Resident Emergy
sketch of 122
definition 14
Territory
Riverine sediments 33
simulation of 122
Texas
Scale
Third Law of Thermodynamics 246
emergy spectra of 137
factors of 22
Tidal energy
spatial 22
Second Law of Thermodynamics 4, 22, 246
Sediments
transmitted to shallows 259

Tomato production 101
Trace material
sources of emergy 35
critical concentration of 239
Self organization
Transformity 2, 4, 19
for maximum empower 237
and potential effect 249
Siena, Italy
calculating using eiganvector 265
solid wastes 303
comparison of different methods 277
Silver Springs, Florida
definition 14
ecosystem transformities 273
mathematical definition of 158
Sixth Law of Thermodynamics 235, 246
quality factor 5, 19
Solar emergy 2, 4, 19
simulation of 127
Solar emergy joule 19
Transformity of
Solar transformity. See Transformity
cement 74
Solar transformity of
channel catfish 175
gravitational energy 260
delivered natural gas 60
Solid waste
ethanol (Brazil) 285
collection and disposal 147
food products (Sweden) 215
production (Siena, Italy) 310
gravitational energy 260
Solid waste collection
emergy indices 313
land uses 227
Source term
potable water (Florida) 110
emergy flow 160
ri verine sediments 33
\
Spatial convergence
stored biomass 86
of energy and matter 237
tidal energy 255
Spatial transformities 223
transpiration 85
Steel
vegetables (Brazil) 188
wastewater 252
water in wetland 85
recycle indices 151
water sources 113
-327-
wetland GPP 85
wetland infiltration 85
u
Useful work 3
v
Vegetable production (Brazil) 182
w
Waste collection
emergy used in 146
Waste disposal 141
Wastewater treatment
wetlands 197
Water supply
emergy analysis of 107
Watershed
Wetland
ecosystem servies 8;
emdollar valu" 8('
mitigallon 89
natural capital 81
replacement values f57
Wetland ecosystem
Wine Spring Creek watershed 129
Wood lumber
recycle indices 151
-328-
DIRECTIONS
From Gainesville Airport to J.W. Reitz Union and Phelps Lab: when exiting airport, turn right onto 39th Ave.
Continue on 39th Avenue, past several intersections (main ones include Waldo Rd, Main Street and NW 6th Street). Turn
left onto NW 13th Street (you are now heading south). Continue on NW 13th Street past several intersections (main ones
will be NW 23rd Ave, NW 16th Ave, and University Avenue). The intersection between 13th Street and University Avenue
delineates the beginning of the University of Florida campus (on your right). Continue south on 13th Street for
approximately 0.5 miles, but stay in the right hand lane as you will soon turn right on Museum Road (also named SW 8th
Avenue). You are now entering campus so reduce your speed. Continue on Museum Rd past 2 stop lights. Shortly after
the second stop light you will see the UF Bookstore on your right, and the next right is the road to the entrance of the J.W.
Reitz Union. Straight across from that road is the Center for Environmental Policy -Phelps Lab.
From south (airports such as Orlando and Tampa) to J.W. Reitz Union and Phelps Lab: You will be heading north
on I-75. Take Exit 384 Gainesville/Archer. At the exit, take a right onto Archer Rd. (you are heading east).
Continue on Archer Rd. past several intersections (main ones include 34th Street). After approximately 0.9 miles from the
intersection with 34th Street, turn left on North South Drive (if you pass Shands on your left, you have gone too far; you
can turn around or continue reading for alternate ways*). You are now entering campus; reduce your speed. Continue on
North South Drive past one stop light. At the second stop light, Museum Rd, turn right. The Center for Environmental
Policy -Phelps Lab building is the second (small) on the right. Right across from the Center for Environmental Policy Phelps Lab building is the J.W. Reitz Union.
*If you miss North South Drive (you will see the Shands Hospital Buildings on your left), continue on Archer Rd. but stay on the left
hand lane as you will shortly come to a stop light intersecting SW 13th Street. Take a left on SW 13th Street. After about 0.1 mile,
take a left on Museum Rd. You are now entering campus so reduce your speed. Continue on Museum Rd past 2 stop lights. Shortly
after the second stop light you will see the UF Bookstore on your right, and the next right is the road to the entrance of the J.W. Reitz
Union. Straight across from that road is the Center for Environmental Policy -Phelps Lab.
From Gainesville Airport to Rush Lake Motel: when exiting airport, turn right onto 39th Ave. Continue on 39th
Avenue, past several intersections (main ones include Main Street and NW 6th Street). Turn left onto NW 13th Street
(you are now heading south). Continue on NW 13th Street past several intersections (main ones will be NW 23rd Ave, NW
16th Ave, and University Avenue. The intersection between 13th Street and University Avenue delineates the beginning of
the University of Florida campus (on your right hand side). Continue south on 13th Street, past several stop lights (main
ones include Archer Rd.). Take a right at SW 16th Avenue. Rush Lake Motel is approximately 0.2 miles down the road,
to the right, 1410 SW 16th Avenue.
From south (airports such as Orlando and Tampa) to Rush Lake Motel: You will be heading north on I-75. Take
Exit 384 Gainesville/Archer. At the exit, take a right onto Archer Rd. (you are heading east). Continue on Archer
Rd. past several intersections (main ones include 34th Street). After approximately 1.2 miles from the intersection with 34th
Street, bear right on SW 16th Ave. Continue for approximately 1 mile, and Rush Lake Motel will be on your left, 1410
SW 16th Avenue.
From Rush Lake Motel to J.W. Reitz Union and Phelps Lab: when exiting Rush Lake Motel, take a left on SW 16th
Avenue. Take a left on SW 13th Street. You will go past a few stoplights, then take a left on Museum Rd. (aka SW 8th
Avenue). You are now entering campus so reduce your speed. Continue on Museum Rd past 2 stop lights. Shortly after
the second stop light you will see the UF Bookstore on your right, and the next right is the road to the entrance of the
J.W. Reitz Union. Straight across from that road is the Center for Environmental Policy -Phelps Lab.
From North airports (Jacksonville) to J.W. Reitz Union and Phelps Lab: From the Jacksonville airport, you will take
I-95 south to 295 to 301 all the way to the town of Waldo. At that point you will bear right onto 24 (also named NE
Waldo Rd) towards Gainesville. Follow 24 for approximately 15 miles, then turn right on University Avenue (you are
now heading west). Continue on University Avenue for approximately 1.7 miles past several intersections (main ones
include Main Street and 6th Street). Turn left onto NW 13th Street (you are now heading south). The intersection
between 13th Street and University Avenue delineates the beginning of the University of Florida campus. Continue south
on 13th Street for approximately 0.5 miles, but stay in the right hand lane as you will turn right on Museum Road (also
named SW 8th Avenue). You are now entering campus so reduce your speed. Continue on Museum Rd past 2 stop lights.
Shortly after the second stop light you will see the UF Bookstore on your right, and the next right is the road to the
entrance of the J.W. Reitz Union. Straight across from that road is the Center for Environmental Policy -Phelps Lab.

1st Biennial Emergy Research Conference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st Biennial Emergy Research Conference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st Biennial Emergy Research Conference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emergy Systems | Center for Environmental Policy | University of Florida

1st Biennial Emergy Research Conference

Emergy Synthesis: Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology

1st Biennial Conference

Contributors, Preface, Acknowledgments

4. Emternalitie - Theory and Assessment

13. Toward a Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum Em-Power Principle

Emergy Systems | Center for Environmental Policy | University of Florida

22. Calculating Transformities with an Eigenvector Method

2003-2013 Emergy Systems | Center for Environmental Policy | University of Florida

Proceedings from the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference,

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Texas A&M University

The Center for Environmental Policy

The Center for Environmental Policy

Cover design by Sherry Brandt-Williams

Center for Environmental Policy

This book may be purchased for $15 from:

1. Emergy Synthesis: An Introduction

M T Brown, S. Brandt-Williams, D. TIlley, and S. U1giati

Gonzague Pillet, DavidMaradan, Nicole Zingg ,and

Maria Silvia Romitelli

J. TV. Pereira and S.A. Nebra

Eliana Bardi andMark T Brown

of Water Supply and Treatment Alternatives.

Systems Representing Three Geographic Scales

Mark. T Brown and Vorasun Buranakarn

E. Ortega, J.F. Queiroz, c.E. Boyd, and J.MG. Ferraz

15. Emergy Evaluation of Organic and Conventional Horticultural

Production in Botucatu, Sao Paulo State, Brazil

17. Sweden Food System Analysis

Dominated Systems - Using Wastewater as an Example

and Dissipated Glohally: Implications for Emergy Analysis.

Dennis Collins and Howard T. Odum

C. R Lanzotli, E. Ortega, and S. M G. Gue"a.

Margarita Cuadra and Torbjom Rydberg

I decided to title the series of proceedings that will

116450, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6450

Proceedings from the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference,

Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Texas A&M University

The Center for Environmental Policy

Emergy And Transformity

1 illustrates how emergy is assigned to an output flow, and how

(1). Transformities of the main

Energy in - Energy out...(E, +EZ+E3

Solar transformity of output

Solar mncrgy of outPUt

Latka suggested power maximization as a

At all scales, systems prevail through system

Emergy Accounting and Emergy Based Indicators

1996). Emergy accounting is organized as a top down approach

Energy circuit: A pathway' whose flow is proportional to the quantity in the

Interaction: Interactive intersection of two pathways coupled tOjJroduce an

Transaction: A unit that indicates a sale of goods or services (solid line) in

3 times Column 5).

Evaluating Net Emergy Benefits

They are expressed in equivalent renewable emergy and then the

Evaluating Development Alternatives

CONCLUDING REMARKS: EMERGY SYNTHESIS