Revision as of 21:38, 24 August 2006 editSholto Maud (talk | contribs)3,445 edits questions and discussion should go in discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:01, 8 November 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,442,535 edits Added bibcode. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Dominic3203 | Category:Systems theory | #UCB_Category 11/180 | ||
(438 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Total energy consumed, directly and indirectly, to make a product or service}} | |||
'''Emergy''' is any of several concepts, or all of them at the same time. It was originally coined by Dr. ] in collaboration with the late Professor ] as a means of making it distinct from other ] methodologies. In this context, "emergy" is a contraction of the term "'''em'''bodied en'''ergy'''". However Scienceman also used emergy to refer to the concept of ''energy memory'', and H.T.Odum used it to mean both '']'' energy and ''] property of energy use''. Some researchers maintain that it can be expressed as a scientific unit which is called the "emjoule", a contraction of "''em''ergy joule", or "embodied energy joule". In 1986, H.T.Odum also used the word 'enmergy' briefly, before using 'emergy' as a standard. Because it can be confused with the word 'energy', some authors use the 'eMergy', and 'EMERGY' notations to emphasize the difference. | |||
'''Emergy''' is the amount of energy consumed in direct and indirect transformations to make a product or service.<ref name="EnvAcct">{{cite book|first = Howard T.|title = Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making|url = {{google books |plainurl=y |id=P-ssAQAAMAAJ|page=370}}|year = 1996|publisher = Wiley|isbn = 978-0-471-11442-0|page = 370|last = Odum}}</ref> Emergy is a measure of quality differences between different 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. Emergy is measured in units of ''emjoule''s, a unit referring to the available energy consumed in transformations. Emergy accounts for different forms of energy and resources (e.g. sunlight, water, ], minerals, etc.) Each form is generated by transformation processes in nature and each has a different ability to support work in natural and in human systems. The recognition of these quality differences is a key concept. | |||
==History== | |||
==Emergy: a systems concept== | |||
According to the Emergy Systems school, like the concept of ], "Emergy is a systems concept that is context driven, and cannot be fully understood or utilized outside of systems context." This school has therefore promoted emergy as a concept that is useful for establishing the metric for a rigorous and quantitative ]. {{ref|Leone2005}} {{ref|Bakshi2000}} {{ref|Ukidwe2004}} {{ref|Brown1997}} {{ref|Brown1999}} According to Laganisa and Debeljakb: | |||
The theoretical and conceptual basis for the emergy methodology is grounded in ]{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}, ]<ref>von Bertalanffy. L. 1968. ]. George Braziller Publ. New York 295 p.</ref> and ].<ref name=SysEco>Odum, H. T. 1983. ''Systems Ecology: An Introduction''. John Wiley, NY. 644 p.</ref> Evolution of the theory by ] over the first thirty years is reviewed in ''Environmental Accounting''<ref name =EnvAcct/> and in the volume edited by C. A. S. Hall titled ''Maximum Power''.<ref name=SelfOrg>Odum, H.T., 1995. Self organization and maximum power. Chapter 28, pp. 311-364 in ''Maximum Power'', Ed. by C .A. S. Hall, University Press of Colorado, Niwot.</ref> | |||
<blockquote>The emergy synthesis method was introduced from | |||
Odum in the 1980s ... with the aim of taking into account the different quality of driving forces supporting a process and allowing | |||
their comparison on the same basis. It attempts to solve the | |||
problem of multi-quality inputs by transforming them to an | |||
equivalent of energy of a single quality, which is usually solar | |||
energy. (Laganisa & Debeljakb 2006, pp. 287-288). | |||
</blockquote> | |||
===Background=== | |||
==Definition in words== | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Emergy can be defined as the total solar equivalent available energy of one form that was used up directly and indirectly in the work of making a product or service (H.T.Odum 1996, H.T. & E.C.Odum 2000). | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Beginning in the 1950s, Odum analyzed ] in ecosystems (''e.g.'' ];<ref name=SilverSprings>Odum, H. T. 1957. Trophic structure and productivity of Silver Springs, Florida. ''Ecol. Monogr''. 27:55-112.</ref> ] in the south Pacific;<ref name=Eniwetok>Odum, H. T. and E. P. Odum. 1955. Trophic structure and productivity of a windward coral reef at Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands. ''Ecol. Monogr.'' 25:291-320.</ref> ], Texas<ref name=Texas>Odum, H. T. and C. M. Hoskin. 1958. Comparative studies of the metabolism of Texas Bays. ''Pubi. Inst. Mar. Sci.'', Univ. Tex. 5:16-46.</ref> and Puerto Rican rainforests,<ref name=PR>Odum, H. T. and R. F. Pigeon, eds. 1970. ''A Tropical Rain Forest''. Division of Technical Information, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1600 pp.</ref> amongst others) where energies in various forms at various scales were observed. His analysis of energy flow in ecosystems, and the differences in the ] of sunlight, fresh water currents, wind and ]s led him to make the suggestion that when two or more different energy sources drive a system, they cannot be added without first converting them to a common measure that accounts for their differences in energy quality. This led him to introduce the concept of "energy of one kind" as a common denominator with the name "energy cost".<ref name=FoodProd>Odum, H. T. 1967. Energetics of food production. In: The ''World Food Problem, Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Panel on World Food Supply, Vol. 3''. The Whitehouse. pp. 55-94.</ref> He then expanded the analysis to model food production in the 1960s,<ref name=FoodProd /> and in the 1970s to ]s.<ref name= Congress>Odum, H. T. ''et al.'' 1976. Net Energy Analysis of Alternatives for the United States. In ''U.S. Energy Policy: Trends and Goals'', Part V – Middle and Long-term Energy Policies and Alternatives. 94th Congress 2nd Session Committee Print. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives, 66-723, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash, DC. pp. 254–304.</ref><ref name=Man&Nature>Odum, H. T. and E. C. Odum. 1976. ''Energy Basis for Man and Nature''. McGraw-Hill, NY. 297 pp</ref> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Emergy expresses the cost of a process or a product in solar energy equivalents. The basic idea is that solar energy is our ultimate energy source and by expressing the value of products in emergy units, it becomes possible to compare apples and pears. (S.E.Jorgensen 2001, p. 61)</blockquote> | |||
Odum's first formal statement of what would later be termed emergy was in 1973: | |||
S.E. Jorgensen, S.N.Nielsen and H.Mejer write, "Emergy calculations have the same aim as ]: to capture the energy hidden in the organization and construction of living organisms." (1995, p. 103). H.T.Odum said that the notion of embodied exergy could be used to evaluate structure (1994, p. 266), and Chen (in press) goes further to define embodied exergy as emergy. | |||
<blockquote><blockquote>Energy is measured by calories, ]'s, kilowatthours, and other intraconvertable units, but energy has a scale of quality which is not indicated by these measures. The ability to do work for man depends on the energy quality and quantity and this is measurable by the amount of energy of a lower quality grade required to develop the higher grade. The scale of energy goes from dilute sunlight up to plant matter, to coal, from coal to oil, to electricity and up to the high quality efforts of computer and human ].<ref name=AMBIO>Odum, H. T. 1973. ''Energy, ecology and economics''. Royal Swedish Academy of Science. AMBIO 2(6):220-227.</ref></blockquote></blockquote> | |||
In 1975, he introduced a table of "Energy Quality Factors", kilocalories of sunlight energy required to make a kilocalorie of a higher quality energy,<ref name=NRGQuality>Odum, H. T. 1976. 'Energy quality and carrying capacity of the earth. Response at Prize Ceremony, Institute de la Vie, Paris. ''Tropical Ecology'' 16(l):1–8.</ref> the first mention of the ] principle which states that "energy quality is measured by the energy used in the transformations" from one type of energy to the next. | |||
Emergy measures value (]) of both energy and material resources within a common framework. 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. Non-emergy approaches to the evaluation of ecological, sociopolitical-economic, and industrial processes most often evaluate only nonrenewable resources, depending on what human technologies are able to extract from them (user-side ]). Furthermore, non-emergy approaches do not account for the free services that a system receives from the environment (e.g., the photosynthetic activity driven by the solar radiation, the dilution of pollutants by the wind, etc.) which are just as much a requirement for the productive process as are fossil fuels for example. Very few, if any evaluation methodologies have an accounting procedure for human labor, societal services and information. That is, for those flows which carry negligible energy but are supported by a huge indirect flow of resources and perform high quality control, innovation and maintenance actions. Emergy includes all of this, perhaps not perfectly, but in a way to help us understand that there is a huge network of supporting energies necessary to support any particular economic activity in our societies, and thereby provide better framework for making policy decision. For Shu-Li Huang and Chia-Wen Chen (2005) | |||
These energy quality factors, were placed on a fossil-fuel basis and called "Fossil Fuel Work Equivalents" (FFWE), and the quality of energies were measured based on a fossil fuel standard with rough equivalents of 1 kilocalorie of fossil fuel equal to 2000 kilocalories of sunlight. "Energy quality ratios" were computed by evaluating the quantity of energy in a transformation process to make a new form and were then used to convert different forms of energy to a common form, in this case fossil fuel equivalents. FFWE's were replaced with coal equivalents (CE) and by 1977, the system of evaluating quality was placed on a solar basis and termed solar equivalents (SE).<ref name=NRGAnalysis>Odum, H. T. 1977. Energy analysis, energy quality and environment. In ''Energy Analysis: A New Public Policy Tool'', M. W. Gilliland, ed. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Selected Symposium No. 9, Wash. DC. Westview Press. pp. 55–87.</ref> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
intensive and diversified emergy sources build up the structure and enhance metabolism in urban areas. (p. 49) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
===Embodied energy=== | |||
==Mathematical Definition== | |||
To understand the concept of emergy it is first necessary to understand ]: | |||
the real proportion of the energy that can drive ]. | |||
The term "]" was used for a time in the early 1980s to refer to energy quality differences in terms of their costs of generation, and a ratio called a "quality factor" for the calories (or joules) of one kind of energy required to make those of another.<ref name=EnvEdu>Odum, E. C., and Odum, H. T., 1980. Energy systems and environmental education. Pp. 213–231 in: ''Environmental Education- Principles, Methods and Applications'', Ed. by T. S. Bakshi and Z. Naveh. Plenum Press, New York.</ref> However, since the term embodied energy was used by other groups who were evaluating the fossil fuel energy required to generate products and were not including all energies or using the concept to imply quality, embodied energy was dropped in favor of "embodied solar calories", and the quality factors became known as "transformation ratios". | |||
<math> | |||
E_x = (Gibbs\ free\ energy) + (gravitational\ potential\ energy) + (kinetic\ energy) | |||
</math> | |||
===Introduction of the term "emergy"=== | |||
The ] is the available thermodynamic/chemical energy. | |||
Forms of energy such as radiation and thermal energy can not be converted completely to work, and have exergy content less than their energy content, see ]. | |||
Use of the term "embodied energy" for this concept was modified in 1986 when ], a visiting scholar at the University of Florida from Australia, suggested the term "emergy" and "emjoule" or "emcalorie" as the unit of measure to distinguish emergy units from units of available energy.<ref>Scienceman, D. M., 1987. "Energy and Emergy," in G. Pillet and T. Murota (eds), ''Environmental Economics: The Analysis of a Major Interface,'' R. Leimgruber, Geneva, pp. 257–276. (CFW-86-26)</ref> The term transformation ratio was shortened to ] in about the same time. It is important to note that throughout these twenty years, the baseline or the basis for evaluating forms of energy and resources shifted from organic matter to fossil fuels and finally to solar energy. | |||
The ''exergy power'' is the rate of change of exergy with time | |||
After 1986, the emergy methodology continued to develop as the community of scientists expanded and as new applied research into combined systems of humans and nature presented new conceptual and theoretical questions. The maturing of the emergy methodology resulted in more rigorous definitions of terms and nomenclature and refinement of the methods of calculating transformities. The {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160513233635/http://www.emergysociety.org/ |date=2016-05-13 }} and a biennial at the University of Florida support this research. | |||
<math> | |||
P_x = {d E_x \over dt} | |||
</math> | |||
===Chronology=== | |||
an equivalent of the concept of ] for exergy. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
Emergy is then defined as the integral of the exergy power over time | |||
|+Table 1: Development of emergy, transformity and conversion ratios. | |||
|- | |||
! Years !! Baseline !! Unit Emergy Values !! Units !! Reference | |||
|- | |||
| 1967–1971 || ] the baseline. All energies of higher quality (wood, peat, coal, oil, living ], etc.) expressed in units of organic matter. || Sunlight equivalent to organic matter = 1000 solar kilocalories per kilocalorie of organic matter. || g dry wt O.M.; kcal, conversion from OM to kcal = 5kcal/g dry wt. || <ref name=FoodProd/><ref name=EPS>Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY. 336 pp.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 1973–1980 || ]s and then ] the baseline. Energy of lower quality (sunlight, plants, wood, etc.) were expressed in units of fossil fuels and later in units of coal equivalents. || Direct sunlight equivalents of fossil fuels = 2000 solar kilocalories per fossil fuel kilocalorie || Fossil fuel ] (FFWE) and later, coal equivalents (CE) || <ref name= Congress /><ref name=Man&Nature /> | |||
|- | |||
| 1980–1982 || Global ] the baseline. All energies of higher quality (wind, rain, wave, organic matter, wood, fossil fuels, etc.) expressed in units of solar energy || 6800 global solar Calories per Calorie of available energy in coal || Global solar calories (GSE). || <ref name=SysEco/><ref>Odum, H. T., M. J. Lavine, F. C. Wang, M. A. Miller, J. F. Alexander Jr. and T. Butler. 1983. ''A Manual for Using Energy Analysis for Plant Siting with an Appendix on Energy Analysis of Environmental Values.'' Final report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2443 FINB-6155. Energy Analysis Workshop, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. 221 pp.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 1983–1986 || Recognized that solar energy, ], and ] momentum were basis for global processes. Total annual global sources equal to the sum of these (9.44 E24 solar joules/yr) || Embodied solar joules per joule of fossil fuels = 40,000 seJ/J || Embodied solar equivalents (SEJ) and later called "emergy" with nomenclature (seJ) || <ref>Odum, H. T. and E. C. Odum, eds. 1983. Energy Analysis Overview of Nations. Working Paper WP-83-82. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. 469 pp.</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| 1987–2000 || Further refinements of total energy driving global processes, Embodied solar energy renamed to EMERGY || Solar Emergy per Joule of coal energy ~ 40,000 solar emjoules/ Joule (seJ/J) named Transformity || seJ/J = Transformity; seJ/g = Specific emergy || <ref name=EnvAcct/> | |||
|- | |||
| 2000–present || Emergy driving the ] reevaluated as 15.83 E24 seJ/yr raising all previously calculated transformities by the ratio of 15.83/9.44 = 1.68 || Solar emergy per Joule of coal energy ~ 6.7 E 4 seJ/J || seJ/J = Transformity; seJ/g = Specific emergy || <ref>Odum, H. T., M. T. Brown and S. B. Williams. 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio #1 – Introduction and Global Budget. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 16 pp. Available on line at: {{cite web |url=http://emergysystems.org/folios.php |title=Archived copy |access-date=2010-06-04 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100909060211/http://emergysystems.org/folios.php |archive-date=2010-09-09 }}.</ref> | |||
|} | |||
==Definitions and examples== | |||
<math> | |||
E_m = \int_{t=-\infty}^{t_0} P_x dt | |||
</math> | |||
'''''Emergy'''''— amount of energy of one form that is used in transformations directly and indirectly to make a product or service. The unit of emergy is the '''emjoule''' or emergy joule. Using emergy, sunlight, fuel, electricity, and human service can be put on a common basis by expressing each of them in the emjoules of solar energy that is required to produce them. If solar emergy is the baseline, then the results are solar emjoules (abbreviated seJ). Although other baselines have been used, such as coal emjoules or electrical emjoules, in most cases emergy data are given in solar emjoules. | |||
i.e. the total change in exergy until <math>t_0</math>. | |||
This is a slight simplification of the formula in (Giannantoni 2002). | |||
'''''Unit Emergy Values (UEVs)''''' — the emergy required to generate one unit of output. Types of UEVs: | |||
<b>Solar emergy</b><br /> | |||
:'''''Transformity''''' — emergy input per unit of available energy output. For example, if 10,000 solar emjoules are required to generate a joule of wood, then the solar transformity of that wood is 10,000 solar emjoules per joule (abbreviated seJ/J). The solar transformity of the sunlight absorbed by the earth is 1.0 by definition. | |||
The unit of solar emergy is <math>U</math>. Brown and Ulgiati (2001) define the solar emergy of a flow coming out of a given process as the solar energy that is directly or indirectly required to drive the process itself. | |||
:'''''Specific emergy''''' — emergy per unit mass output. Specific emergy is usually expressed as solar emergy per gram (seJ/g). Because energy is required to concentrate materials, the unit emergy value of any substance increases with concentration. Elements and compounds not abundant in nature therefore have higher emergy/mass ratios when found in concentrated form since more environmental work is required to concentrate them, both spatially and chemically. | |||
<math> | |||
U = \sum _i Tr_i E_i | |||
</math> | |||
:'''''Emergy per unit money''''' — the emergy supporting the generation of one unit of economic product (expressed in monetary terms)''.'' It is used to convert money into emergy units. Since money is paid for goods and services, but not to the environment, the contribution to a process represented by monetary payments is the emergy that money purchases. The amount of resources that money buys depends on the amount of emergy supporting the economy and the amount of money circulating. An average emergy/money ratio in solar emjoules/$ can be calculated by dividing the total emergy use of a state or nation by its gross economic product. It varies by country and has been shown to decrease each year, which is one index of inflation. This emergy/money ratio is useful for evaluating service inputs given in money units where an average wage rate is appropriate. | |||
Where <math>E_i</math> is the available energy (or free energy) content of the <i>i</i> th independent input flow to the process, and <math>Tr_i</math> is the solar transformity of the <i>i</i> th input flow. The solar transformity of direct solar radiation (<math>Tr_s</math>) is set equalt to 1. | |||
:'''''Emergy per unit labor''''' — the emergy supporting one unit of direct labor applied to a process''.'' Workers apply their efforts to a process and in so doing they indirectly invest in it the emergy that made their labor possible (food, training, transport, etc). This emergy intensity is generally expressed as emergy per time (seJ/yr; seJ/hr), but emergy per money earned (seJ/$) is also used. Indirect labor required to make and supply the inputs to a process is generally measured with the dollar cost of services, so that its emergy intensity is calculated as seJ/$. | |||
==Development== | |||
Ten years after proposing the emergy nomenclature in 1987, D.M.Scienceman wrote that his suggestion came as a consequence of studying H.T.Odum's book ''Systems Ecology'' (later published as ''Ecological and General Systems'' 1994) for a period of about 2 years. With a background in mathematics and nuclear physics, Scienceman had never before heard of the ']' concept, and found Odum's use of it very confusing. It was out of this confusion that Scienceman proposed the emergy nomenclature as a means of ] and simplifying scientific discussions. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
"Owing to great confusion in the scientific literature, and in order to clearly distinguish the theories of H.T.Odum, new concepts - energy memory, emergy, transformity, informity, empower, emtropy, emformation, emtelligence, emprice, emdollars, emtrons and soals - are introduced plus their appropriate units." (Scienceman 1987, p. 275) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
With this new terminology, Scienceman sought to clarify two issues: 1/ the combining of energies of different ]; 2/ the process of embodying energies of different forms, or using them up. Scienceman (1997) noticed that the efficiency ratios used in engineering thermodynamics to quantify the transformations of energies from one form into another form were the same kind of ratios that H.T.Odum referred to as '''energy quality ratios'''. However in 1986 the National Bureau of Standards did not include any symbol for the notion of ']', a concept which is pivotal for understanding emergy, and later referred to by the term "energy transformation ratio", or "]". Scienceman and H.T.Odum subsequently collaborated on a linguistic project of simplifying and unifying the scientific lexicon by introducing and clarifying new terms. As H.T.Odum later noted, | |||
<blockquote> | |||
"In 1983 our concept of embodied energy (the available energy of one kind previously used up directly and indirectly in transformations to make a product or service) was given the name “EMERGY” and its unit names the “emjoule” or “emcalorie.” What is called an “energy transformation ratio” in this chapter was renamed the “]” with the unit “emjoule per Joule” (not a dimensionless ratio.)" (H.T.Odum 1994, p. 251.) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
:'''''Empower''''' — a flow of emergy (i.e., emergy per unit time)''.'' | |||
==Energy memory, energy in a body== | |||
Scienceman's inclusion of the term '''energy memory''' in the definition of the word '''emergy''' implies that the properties of physical-biological-chemical materials can be included within the domain of the emergy ]. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
"I now describe 'emergy' as meaning 'energy memory', meaning a measure of the quantity of original ] which has been totally used up or transformed into a new form of energy. The original form has disappeared and has become only a memory, a memory stored up in emergent properties and transformity." (Scienceman 1997, p. 210-211). | |||
</blockquote> | |||
As it is used by Scienceman, the term "energy memory" implies a "memory algebra" (1997, p.211), which does not appear to obey the "energy conservation algebra" (Ibid.). The energy conservation algebra simply states that the sum of the mass and energy must be conserved in any energy transformation, so that the sum of mass and energy in the universe remains constant forever (see for example Ohta 1994, p.3). However, while the sum of mass and energy in the universe remain constant forever, distributions of mass and energy in the universe do not remain constant forever. For example, the earth accumulates energy through the energy transformations carried out during photosynthesis. Another example is the ] growth of a ] organism. Consider also a simple closed electronic circuit with battery, and resistor. Because this circuit is closed, the quantity of electrons is constant. This is to say that the electrical form energy is conserved. However the chemical form of energy that provides the force to move electrons in this circuit is not conserved. The heat energy form dissipates across the resistor as the chemical form of energy performs the work of moving electrons. Depending how one understands the concepts of ] and ] systems, the circuit can be called closed to electron flow, but open to heat flow. In ] it is considered a closed system, but one that is isolated to electron flow, and not isolated to heat flow. | |||
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" | |||
The memory algebra was designed to give a quantitative account of non-conservative energy transformations. The memory algebra also seems to have a connection with the physiological application of the ] concept of "]" which is sometimes referred to as "]". In addition to this H.T.Odum offered the theory that the toxic action of any substance is proportional to the emergy. This theory was partly based on research which found that pollution stress was greater on organisms with higher ] (H.T.Odum 1994, p. 529). | |||
|+Table 2. Nomenclature | |||
G.P.Genoni, E.I.Meyer and A. Ulrich (2003) used the transformity measure to examine the hypothesis of a positive relationship between the “rarity” of a chemical element and its tendency to bioaccumulate. | |||
|- | |||
! Width= "75"|Term !! Width="200"|Definition !! Width="150"|Abbreviation !! Width="100"|Units | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="4" | '''''Extensive Properties''''' | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy || The amount of available energy of one type (usually solar) that is directly or indirectly required to generate a given output flow or storage of energy or matter. || E<sub>m</sub> || seJ (solar equivalent Joules) | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy Flow || Any flow of emergy associated with inflowing energy or materials to a system/process. || R=renewable flows;<br /> N= nonrenewable flows;<br /> F= imported flows;<br /> S= services || seJ*time<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| Gross Emergy Product || Total emergy annually used to drive a national or regional economy || GEP || seJ*yr<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="4" |'''''Product-related Intensive Properties''''' | |||
|- | |||
| Transformity || Emergy investment per unit process output of available energy || Τ<sub>r</sub> || seJ*J<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| Specific Emergy|| Emergy investment per unit process output of dry mass || S<sub>p</sub>E<sub>m</sub> || seJ*g<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy Intensity of currency || Emergy investment per unit of GDP generated in a country, region or process || EIC || seJ*curency<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="4" |'''''Space-related Intensive Properties''''' | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy Density || Emergy stored in a volume unit of a given material || E<sub>m</sub>D || seJ*volume<sup>−3</sup> | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="4" |'''''Time-related Intensive Properties''''' | |||
|- | |||
| Empower || Emergy flow (released, used) per unit time || E<sub>m</sub>P || seJ*time<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| Empower Intensity || Areal Empower (emergy released per unit time and area) || E<sub>m</sub>PI || seJ*time<sup>−1</sup>*area<sup>−1</sup> | |||
|- | |||
| Empower Density || Emergy released per unit time by a unit volume (e.g. a power plant or engine) || E<sub>m</sub>Pd || seJ*time<sup>−1</sup>*volume<sup>−3</sup> | |||
|- | |||
|colspan="4" |'''''Selected Performance Indicators''''' | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy released (used) || Total emergy investment in a process (measure of a process footprint) || U= N+R+F+S <br />(see Fig.1) || seJ | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy Yield Ratio || Total emergy released (used up) per unit of emergy invested || EYR= U/(F+S)<br />(see Fig.1) || — | |||
|- | |||
| Environmental Loading Ratio || Total nonrenewable and imported emergy released per unit of local renewable resource || ELR= (N+F+S)/R<br />(see Fig.1) || — | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy Sustainability Index || Emergy yield per unit of environmental loading || ESI= EYR/ELR<br />(see Fig.1) || — | |||
|- | |||
| Renewability || Percentage of total emergy released (used) that is renewable. || %REN= R/U<br />(see Fig.1) || — | |||
|- | |||
| Emergy Investment Ratio || Emergy investment needed to exploit one unit of local (renewable and nonrenewable) resource. || EIR= (F+S)/(R+N)<br /> (see Fig.1) || — | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
==Accounting method== | |||
==Transformity: the rationalization of quality == | |||
Like the ] concept, the concept of '''transformity''' was first introduced by Dr.D.M.Scienceman in collaboration with the late ]. In 1987 D.M.Scienceman proposed that the phrases, "]", "energy quality factor", and "energy transformation ratio", all used by H.T.Odum, be replaced by the word "transformity" (p. 261). This approach aims to solve a long standing issue about the relation of qualitative phenomena to quantitative phenomena often analysed in the physical sciences, which in turn is a synthesis of rationalism with ]. That is to say that it aims to quantify quality. | |||
Emergy accounting converts the thermodynamic basis of all forms of energy, resources and human services into equivalents of a single form of energy, usually solar. To evaluate a system, a system diagram organizes the evaluation and account for energy inputs and outflows. A table of the flows of resources, labor and energy is constructed from the diagram and all flows are evaluated. The final step involves interpreting the results.<ref name=EnvAcct /> | |||
<h4>Definition of transformity in words</h4> | |||
Scienceman then defined transformity as, | |||
<blockquote> | |||
"a quantitative variable describing the measurable property of a form of energy, its ability to amplify as feedback, relative to the source energy consumed in its formation, '''''under maximum power conditions'''''. As a quantitative variable analogous to themodynamic temperature, transformity requires specification of units." (1987, p. 261. My emphasis). | |||
</blockquote> | |||
In 1996 H.T.Odum defined transformity as, | |||
<blockquote> | |||
'''"the emergy of one type required to make a unit of energy of another type. For example, since 3 coal emjoules (cej) of coal and 1 cej of services are required to generate 1 J of electricity, the coal transformity of electricity is 4 cej/J"''' | |||
</blockquote> | |||
G.P.Genoni expanded on this definition and maintained that, "the energy input of one kind required to sustain one unit of energy of another kind, is used to quantify ]" (1997, p. 97). According to Scienceman, the concept of transformity introduces a new basic dimension into physics (1987, p. 261). | |||
===Purpose=== | |||
<h4>Definition as a ratio </h4> | |||
One part of the ] viewpoint associated with ] and ] is to contrast qualitatively different phenomena under transformation through quantitative ratios, with the aim of uncovering any constancy amidst the transformation change. Like the ] ratio, transformity is quantitatively defined by a simple input-output ratio. However the transformity ratio is the inverse of efficiency and involves both indirect and direct energy flows rather than simply direct input-output energy ratio of energy efficiency. This is to say that it is defined as the ratio of emergy input to ] output. | |||
In some cases, an evaluation is done to determine the fit of a development proposal within its environment. It also allows comparison of alternatives. Another purpose is to seek the best use of resources to maximize economic vitality. | |||
'''Original version:''' <math>Transformity = \frac{emergy \; input}{energy \; output}</math> | |||
===Systems diagram=== | |||
<h4>Development</h4> | |||
However, it was realised that the term "energy output" refers to both the ''useful'' energy output '''and''' the ''non-useful'' energy output. (Note: that as given by P.K.Nag, an alternative name for 'useful energy' is 'availability' or ''']''', and an alternative name for 'non-useful energy' is 'unavailability', or '''anergy''' (Nag 1984, p.156)). But as E.Sciubba and S.Ulgiati observed, the notion of transformity meant to capture the emergy invested per unit product, or useful output. The concept of Transformity was therefore further specified as the ratio of "input emergy dissipated (availability used up)" to the "unit output exergy" (Sciubba and Ulgiati 2005, p. 1957). | |||
] | |||
'''Revised version''': <math>Transformity = \frac{emergy \; input}{exergy \; output} </math> or <math>Tr = \frac{E_m}{E_x}</math> | |||
System diagrams show the inputs that are evaluated and summed to obtain the emergy of a flow. A diagram of a city and its regional support area is shown in Figure 1.<ref>Many example diagrams can be found at {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100309041649/http://www.emergysystems.org/symbols.php |date=2010-03-09 }}).</ref> | |||
(after Giannantoni 2002, p. 8) | |||
===Evaluation table=== | |||
Substituting in the mathematical definition of emergy given above. | |||
A table (see example below) of resource flows, labor and energy is constructed from the diagram. Raw data on inflows that cross the boundary are converted into emergy units, and then summed to obtain total emergy supporting the system. Energy flows per unit time (usually per year) are presented in the table as separate line items. | |||
<math> | |||
Tr = \frac {\int_{t=-\infty}^{t_0} P_x dt}{E_x} | |||
</math> | |||
::{| class="wikitable" | |||
==Empower and maximum empower== | |||
|+Table 3. Example emergy evaluation table | |||
'''Empower''' refers to the flow rate of ]: "The time rate of change of emergy is empower, analogous to the time rate of change of energy, power." (Scienceman 1987, p. 262.) '''Maximum empower''' therefore refers to the maximum flow rate of emergy. Considered as a principle, maximum empower has been proposed as a corrolary of the ] principle, and is assumed to describe the organisational law of ]. Accordingly H.T.Odum suggested that Lotka's ] principle be restated as the "Maximum Empower Principle" | |||
|- | |||
! Note !! Item<small>(name)</small> !! Data<small>(flow/time)</small> !! Units !! UEV <small>(seJ/unit)</small> !! Solar Emergy <small>(seJ/time)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| 1. || First item || xxx.x || J/yr || xxx.x || Em<sub>1</sub> | |||
|- | |||
| 2. || Second item || xxx.x || g/yr || xxx.x || Em<sub>2</sub> | |||
|- | |||
| -- || || || || || | |||
|- | |||
| n. || nth item || xxx.x || J/yr|| xxx.x || Em<sub>n</sub> | |||
|- | |||
| O. || Output || xxx.x || J/yr or g/yr || xxx.x || <math>\sum_{n}^1Em_i</math> | |||
|} | |||
;Legend | |||
* 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. | |||
*Column # 4 shows the units for each raw data item. | |||
*Column # 5 is the unit emergy value, expressed in solar emergy joules per unit. Sometimes, inputs are expressed in grams, hours, or dollars, therefore an appropriate UEV is used (sej/hr; sej/g; sej/$). | |||
*Column # 6 is the solar emergy of a given flow, calculated as the raw input times the UEV (Column 3 times Column 5). | |||
All tables are followed by footnotes that show citations for data and calculations. | |||
<blockquote> | |||
The "Maximum Em-Power Principle" (Lotka-Odum) is generally considered as the "Fourth Thermodynamic Principle" (mainly) because of its ''practical validity'' for a very wide class of physical and biological systems (C.Giannantoni 2000, § 13, p. 155) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
===Calculating unit values=== | |||
Citing H.T.Odum, J.L.Hau and B.R.Bakshi say that, "this principle determines which systems, ecological and economic, will survive over time and hence contribute to future systems" (2004, p.15). | |||
The table allows a unit emergy value to be calculated. The final, output row (row “O” in the example table above) is evaluated first in units of energy or mass. Then the input emergy is summed and the unit emergy value is calculated by dividing the emergy by the units of the output. | |||
<h4>Definition of the maximum empower principle in words</h4> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
In the self-organizational process, systems develop those parts, processes, and relationships that maximize useful empower. (H.T. & E.C. Odum 2000, p. 71). | |||
</blockquote> | |||
===Performance indicators=== | |||
"The ''maximum empower principle'' is a unifying concept that explains why there are material cycles, autocatalytic feedbacks, successional stages, spatial concentrations in centers, and pulsing over time. ''Designs prevail that maximize empower''" (H.T.Odum 2002, p. 60). This is to say that "those elements or individuals whose patterns of action do not result in maximum production tend to be replaced eventually" (H.T. & E.C.Odum 2000, p.71). M.T.Brown and S.Ulgiati both maintain that "The total available emergy flow drives the system behaviour according to the Maximum Empower Principle, determining the size of the system itself and its growth rate." (2001, p. 109). | |||
] | |||
<h4>Mathematical definition of the maximum empower principle</h4> | |||
Figure 2 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 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.). Several ratios, or indices are given in Figure 2 that assess the global performance of a process. | |||
* '''Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) —''' Emergy released (used up) per unit invested. The ratio is a measure of how much an investment enables a process to exploit local resources. | |||
* '''Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR''') — The ratio of nonrenewable and imported emergy use to renewable emergy use. It is an indicator of the pressure a transformation process exerts on the environment and can be considered a measure of ] stress due to a production (transformation activity). | |||
* '''Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI''') — The ratio of EYR to ELR. It measures the contribution of a resource or process to the economy per unit of environmental loading. | |||
* '''Areal Empower Intensity —''' The ratio of emergy use in the economy of a region to its area. Renewable and nonrenewable emergy density are calculated separately by dividing the total renewable emergy by area and the total nonrenewable emergy by area, respectively. | |||
Other ratios are useful depending on the type and scale of the system under evaluation. | |||
As a corrolary of ], a mathematical statement of the maximum empower efficiency principle still needs to be clarified - see ] | |||
* '''Percent Renewable Emergy (%Ren''') — The ratio of renewable emergy to total emergy use. In the long run, only processes with high %Ren are sustainable. | |||
* '''Emprice'''. The emprice of a commodity is the emergy one receives for the money spent in sej/$. | |||
* '''Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER''') — The ratio of emergy exchanged in a trade or purchase (what is received to what is given). The ratio is always expressed relative to a trading partner and is a measure of the relative trade advantage of one partner over the other. | |||
* '''Emergy per capita —''' The ratio of emergy use of a region or nation to the population. Emergy per capita can be used as a measure of potential, average standard of living of the population. | |||
* '''Emergy-based energy return on investment''' was introduced as a way to bridge and improve the concept of ] to also include environmental impacts.<ref name="Chen">{{cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Y.|last2=Feng|first2=L.|last3=Wang|first3=J.|last4=Höök|first4=M|title=Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation|journal=Energy|date=2017|volume=128|issue=6|pages=540–549|doi=10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.058|bibcode=2017Ene...128..540C }}</ref> | |||
==Uses== | |||
<h4>Acceptance</h4> | |||
Giannantoni maintains that the maximum empower principle is generally accepted as the fourth thermodynamic principle (see above quote and reference). However, for some scientists, there are two fundamental requirements for something to be considered a thermodynamic or energetic principle. Firstly is an experimental technique, or instrument, used to quantitatively measure the phenomenon of interest. In the case of maximum empower this would mean the specification of an instrument that '''measures''' 'empower'. A second requirement is a set of mathematical equations that demonstrate, in the current case, an experimentally testable relationship of the phenomenon of "empower" to other thermodynamic variables. A consequence of the first criteria is that serious scientific scholarship using the emergy nomenclature will need something like an "empower meter". Giannantoni has attempted to give the mathematics, however does not appear to have specified an empower meter by which to quantitatively measure empower. In conclusion, although the concept of maximum empower has been used in peer-reviewed journals to model and quantify the ecological-economic sustainability of a region and nation, the question remains as to whether it qualifies as the 4th thermodynamic law, and apparently will not be resolved until an empower meter or equivalent is constructed. While this remains the case, scientists may have difficulty accepting and using the concept to unify disciplines like physics, biology and chemistry. | |||
The recognition of the relevance of energy to the growth and dynamics of ] has resulted in increased emphasis on environmental evaluation methods that can account for and interpret the effects of matter and energy flows at all scales in systems of humanity and nature. The following table lists some general areas in which the emergy methodology has been employed. | |||
==Emergy accounting and emergy "analysis" vs emergy synthesis== | |||
] is a GLOBAL method of accounting concerned with the input of solar energy equity at the global level. The emergy accounting methodology seeks to account for the energy used in developing energy of higher quality, which are capable of controlling ecosystem and economic functions. M.T.Brown and S.Ulgiati say that emergy accounting is a "method of valuation" that, "uses the thermodynamic basis of all forms of energy and materials, but converts them into equivalents of one form of energy, usually sunlight." (1999, p. 4). Emergy "analysis", therefore aims to identify how this energy, and its comparable inputs as fossil fuels etc., are distributed. Emergy accounting assumes three things: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
1. That every sector of the world economy is, in the final analysis, dependent on the total global energy budget. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
2. None of the sectors of the world economy overlap in their function. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
3. Non-human sectors (i.e. non-human ecological systems) are included in the world economy | |||
</blockquote> | |||
The sum result of these assumptions is that all sectors considered together produce a "complete" economy. It therefore includes energy, emergy, commodity and money flows. The method rests heavily on H.T.Odum's use of the "] principle". In an evolutionary sense the use of this principle to analyse the world economy implies that the global economy will run close to optimal efficiently if and only if competition is unimpeded by cultural, communication, geographical, legal or other matters. However because emergy involves the combination of hetrogenous energy forms, D.M.Scienceman now only refers to ''']''', preferring to see the notion of "emergy analysis" as an oxymoron. | |||
::{| class="wikitable" Width="75%" | |||
==Emergy policy, environmental ethics and value theory== | |||
|+Table 4. Fields of Study | |||
====Value theory==== | |||
|- | |||
A controversial application of the concept is with respect to ]. For H.T.Odum, | |||
| '''''Emergy and ecosystems''''' | |||
“embodied energy is a measure of value, in one of the meanings of the word 'value'” (H.T.Odum 1994, p.251 - In this quote the term "embodied energy" is synonymous with "emergy", see ]). H.T.Odum (1996) understood emergy to encompass not only the above considerations, but also the human notion of ] as a "donor-type value." This conception has not yet received wide support or critical analysis by value theorists. In fact it is this application which seems to act as a block to the wider appeal of ] in the sciences and arts. This could be due to the attitude which regards the arts, qualitative aesthetics, and spiritual systems of value as incommensurable with rational scientific systems of quantitative value measurement and prediction. | |||
:Self-organization (<small>Odum, 1986; Odum, 1988)</small> | |||
====Environmental ethics==== | |||
:Aquatic and marine ecosystems <small>(Odum et al., 1978a; Odum and Arding, 1991; Brandt-Williams, 1999)</small> | |||
Further controversial implications of this conception of value are in the fields of legal theory and policy where H.T.Odum suggests a ] ethic. The kind of consequentialism employed is ] which seeks the quantitative maximization of value. Policies and laws that aim at long term sustainability are, according to this ethic, those that maximize value. From the perspective of emergy synthesis, "value" is defined as "empower". Therefore, from the perspective of emergy evaluation, policies and laws that aim at long term sustainability by maximizing value, consequently aim to maximize empower. ] speaking then, emergy theorists imbue the concept of empower with '''''both''''' scientific, and ] content. In this context the division between social and physical sciences melts into air. | |||
:Food webs and hierarchies <small>(Odum et al. 1999; Brown and Bardi, 2001)</small> | |||
:Ecosystem health <small>(Brown and Ulgiati, 2004)</small> | |||
:Forest ecosystems (<small>Doherty et al., 1995; Lu et al. 2006)</small> | |||
:Complexity <small>(Odum, 1987a; Odum, 1994; Brown and Cohen, 2008)</small> | |||
:Biodiversity <small>(Brown et al. 2006)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and Information''''' | |||
:Diversity and information <small>(Keitt, 1991; Odum, 1996, Jorgensen et al., 2004)</small> | |||
:Culture, Education, University <small>(Odum and Odum, 1980; Odum et al., 1995; Odum et al., 1978b)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and Agriculture''''' | |||
:Food production, agriculture <small>(Odum, 1984; Ulgiati et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2006; Cuadra and Rydberg, 2006; de Barros et al. 2009; Cavalett and Ortega, 2009)</small> | |||
: Livestock production <small>(Rótolo et al.2007)</small> | |||
:Agriculture and society<small> (Rydberg and Haden, 2006; Cuadra and Björklund, 2007; Lu, and Campbell, 2009)</small> | |||
:Soil erosion <small>(Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003; Cohen et al. 2006)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and energy sources and carriers''''' | |||
:Fossil fuels (<small>Odum et a.l 1976; Brown et al., 1993; Odum, 1996; Bargigli et al., 2004; Bastianoni et al. 2005; Bastianoni et al. 2009)</small> | |||
:Renewable and nonrenewable electricity <small>(Odum et al. 1983; Brown and Ulgiati, 2001; Ulgiati and Brown, 2001; Peng et al. 2008)</small> | |||
:Hydroelectric dams <small>(Brown and McClanahan, 1992)</small> | |||
:Biofuels <small>(Odum, 1980a; Odum and Odum, 1984; Carraretto et al., 2004; Dong et al. 2008; Felix and Tilley, 2009; Franzese et al., 2009)</small> | |||
:Hydrogen <small>(Barbir, 1992)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and the Economy''''' | |||
:National and international analyses (<small>Odum, 1987b; Brown, 2003; Cialani et al. 2003; Ferreyra and Brown. 2007; Lomas et al., 2008; Jiang et al., 2008)</small> | |||
:National Environmental Accounting Database https://www.emergy-nead.com/ and https://nead.um01.cn/home {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215224016/https://nead.um01.cn/home |date=2018-12-15 }} (Liu et al., 2017) | |||
:Trade <small>(Odum, 1984a; Brown, 2003)</small> | |||
:Environmental accounting <small>(Odum, 1996)</small> | |||
:Development policies <small>(Odum, 1980b)</small> | |||
:Sustainability <small>(Odum, 1973; Odum, 1976a; Brown and Ulgiati, 1999; Odum and Odum, 2002; Brown et al. 2009)</small> | |||
:Tourism (<small>Lei and Wang, 2008a; Lei et al., 2011; Vassallo et al., 2009)</small> | |||
:Gambling industry (<small>Lei et al., 2011)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and cities''''' | |||
:Spatial organization and urban development <small>(Odum et al., 1995b; Huang, 1998; Huang and Chen, 2005; Lei et al., 2008; Ascione, et al. 2009)</small> | |||
:] <small>(Huang et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2009)</small> | |||
:Transportation modes <small>(Federici, et al. 2003; Federici et al., 2008; Federici et al., 2009; Almeida et al., 2010 )</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and landscapes''''' | |||
:Spatial empower, Land development indicators<small> (Brown and Vivas, 2004; Reiss and Brown, 2007)</small> | |||
:Emergy in landforms <small>(Kangas, 2002)</small> | |||
:Watersheds<small> (Agostinho et al., 2010)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and ecological engineering''''' | |||
:Restoration models <small>(Prado-Jartar and Brown, 1996)</small> | |||
:Reclamation projects <small>(Brown, 2005; Lei and Wang, 2008b; Lu et al., 2009 )</small> | |||
:Artificial Ecosystems: wetlands, pond <small>(Odum, 1985)</small> | |||
:Waste treatment <small>(Kent et al. 2000; Grönlund, et al. 2004; Giberna et al. 2004; Lei and Wang, 2008c)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy, material flows and recycling''''' | |||
:Mining and minerals processing <small>(Odum, 1996; Pulselli et al.2008)</small> | |||
:Industrial production, ecodesign <small>(Zhang et al. 2009; Almeida et al., 2009)</small> | |||
:Recycling pattern in human-dominated ecosystems <small>(Brown and Buranakarn, 2003)</small> | |||
:Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation<small>(Chen et al, 2003)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and thermodynamics''''' | |||
:Efficiency and Power (O<small>dum and Pinkerton, 1955; Odum, 1995)</small> | |||
:Maximum Empower Principle<small> (Odum, 1975; Odum, 1983; Cai e al., 2004)</small> | |||
:Pulsing paradigm<small> (Odum, 1982; Odum, W.P. et al., 1995)</small> | |||
:Thermodynamic principles <small>(Giannantoni, 2002, 2003)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and systems modeling''''' | |||
:Energy systems language and modeling<small> (Odum, 1971; Odum, 1972)</small> | |||
:National sustainability <small>(Brown et al. 2009; Lei and Zhou, 2012)</small> | |||
:Sensitivity analysis, uncertainty (<small>Laganis and Debeljak, 2006; Ingwersen, 2010)</small> | |||
|- | |||
| '''''Emergy and policy''''' | |||
: Tools for decision makers <small>(Giannetti et al., 2006; Almeida, et al. 2007; Giannetti et al., 2010)</small> | |||
: Conservation and economic value <small>(Lu et al.2007)</small> | |||
|- | |||
|<blockquote><small> '''''References for each of the citations in this table are given in a separate list at the end of this article''''' </small></blockquote> | |||
|} | |||
==Controversies== | |||
<h3>Emergy and policy</h3> | |||
In terms of energy, and environmental resource policy, the main outcome of emergy theory is, according to H.T.Odum, that one should choose policies that maximise empower (i.e. maximize the flow rate of embodied energy). When sequestered energy is substituted for emergy, this means that policies with highest utility maximise sequestration. | |||
The concept of emergy has been controversial within academe including ecology, thermodynamics and economy.<ref>Ayres, R.U., 1998. Ecology vs. Economics: Confusing Production and Consumption. Center of the Management of Environmental Resources, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.</ref><ref>Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Stern, D.I., 2000. Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy. Ecol. Econ. 32, 301–317.</ref><ref>Hau JL, Bakshi BR. 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling 178:215–225.</ref><ref>Mansson, B.A., McGlade, J.M., 1993. Ecology, thermodynamics and H.T. Odum's conjectures. Oecologia 93, 582–596.</ref><ref>Silvert W. 1982. The theory of power and efficiency in ecology. Ecological Modelling 15:159–164.</ref><ref>Spreng, D.T., 1988. Net-Energy Analysis and the Energy Requirements of Energy Systems. Praeger Publishers, New York, 289 pp.</ref> Emergy theory has been criticized for allegedly offering an energy theory of value to replace other ].{{Citation needed|date = January 2016}} The stated goal of emergy evaluations is to provide an "ecocentric" valuation of systems, processes. Thus it does not purport to replace economic values but to provide additional information, from a different point of view.{{citation needed|date=May 2014}} | |||
==Notes== | |||
#{{note|Leone2005}}{{cite journal | author= M. Leone | title= The Quest for an Environmental Metric: Gazing at weather systems, a ground-breaking scientist spawned an ecological accounting standard that Wall Street might one day embrace | journal=CFO Publishing | year=2005 | volume= | issue= | pages= | url=http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/5300667?f=options}} | |||
#{{note|Bakshi2000}}{{cite journal | author= B.R. Bakshi | title= The A thermodynamic framework for ecologically conscious process systems engineering | journal= Computers and Chemical Engineering | year=2000 | volume= 24 | issue= | pages= 1767-1773 | url=http://www.che.eng.ohio-state.edu/~bakshi/ecopseCACE.pdf}} | |||
#{{note|Ukidwe2004}}{{cite journal | author= Heui-seok Yi, Jorge L. Hau, Nandan U. Ukidwe, and Bhavik R. Bakshi | title= Hierarchical Thermodynamic Metrics for Evaluating the Environmental Sustainability of Industrial Processes | journal= Environmental Progress | year=2004 | volume= 23 | issue= 4 | pages= 302-314 | url=http://www.che.eng.ohio-state.edu/~ukidwe/ukidwe_envprog.pdf}} | |||
#{{note|Brown1997}}{{cite journal | author= M.T. Brown and S. Ulgiati| title= Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustainability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound innovation | journal= Ecological Engineering | year=1997 | volume= 9 | issue= | pages= 51-69 | url=http://www.urbanecology.washington.edu/student_info/classes/spring2003/MBrown-Emergy-sustainability1997.pdf}} | |||
#{{note|Brown1999}}{{cite journal | author= M.T. Brown and S. Ulgiati| title= Emergy Evaluation of the Biosphere and Natural Capital | journal= Ambio | year=1999 | volume= 28 | issue= 6 | pages= | url=http://www.cfr.washington.edu/research.urbaneco/student_info/classes/spring2003/MBrown-emergy-biosphere-natural-capital.pdf}} | |||
The idea that a ] of sunlight is not equivalent to a calorie of fossil fuel or electricity strikes many as absurd, based on the ] definition of energy units as measures of heat (i.e. Joule's ]).<ref>Sciubba, E., 2010. On the Second-Law inconsistency of Emergy Analysis. Energy 35, 3696-3706.</ref> Others have rejected the concept as impractical since from their perspective it is impossible to objectively quantify the amount of sunlight that is required to produce a quantity of oil. In combining systems of humanity and nature and evaluating environmental input to economies, mainstream economists criticize the emergy methodology for disregarding market values.{{Citation needed|date = January 2016}} | |||
==References== | |||
*B.R. Bakshi (2000) 'A thermodynamic framework for ecologically conscious process systems engineering', Computers and Chemical Engineering 24, pp. 1767-1773. | |||
*S.Bastianoni (2000) 'The problem of co-production in environmental accounting by emergy analysis', Ecological Modelling 129, pp.187–193. | |||
*S.Bastianoni, F.M.Pulselli, M.Rustici (2006) Exergy versus emergy flow in ecosystems: Is there an order in maximizations?', Ecological Indicators 6, pp.58–62 | |||
* M.T. Brown and S. Ulgiati (2004) Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum's contributions to quantifying and understanding systems, ''Ecological Modelling'', Vol. 178, pp. 201-213. | |||
* T.T.Cai, T.W.Olsen and D.E.Campbell (2004) Maximum (em)power: A foundational principle linking man and nature', ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 178, Issue 1-2, pp. 115-119. | |||
* D.E.Campbell (2001) Proposal for including what is valuable to ecosystems in environmental assessments', ''Environmental Science and Technology'', Volume 35, Issue 14, pp. 2867-2873. | |||
* G.Q. Chen (2006) 'Scarcity of exergy and ecological evaluation based on embodied exergy', ''Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation'', 11, pp. 531–552 | |||
* B.D.Fath, B.C.Patten, and J.S.Choi (2001) Complementarity of ecological goal functions', ''Journal of Theoretical Biology'', Volume 208, Issue 4, pp. 493-506. | |||
* G.P. Genoni (1997) 'Towards a conceptual synthesis in ecotoxicology', ''OIKOS'', 80:1, pp. 96-106. | |||
* G.P. Genoni, E.I. Meyer and A.Ulrich (2003) 'Energy flow and elemental concentrations in the Steina River ecosystem (Black Forest,Germany)', ''Aquat. Sci.'', Vol. 65, pp. 143–157. | |||
* C.Giannantoni (2000) 'Toward a Mathematical Formulation of the Maximum Em-Power Principle', in M.T.Brown (ed.) ''Emergy Synthesis: Theory and applications of the emergy methodology'', Proceedings from the first biennial emergy analysis research conference, The Center for Environmental Policy, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. | |||
* C.Giannantoni (2002) ''The Maximum Em-Power Principle as the basis for Theromodynamics of Quality'', Servizi Grafici Editoriali, Padova. | |||
* C.Giannantoni (2006) 'Mathematics for generative processes: Living and non-living systems' Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 189, pp. 324–340. | |||
* Shu-Li Huang and Chia-Wen Chen (2005) 'Theory of urban energetics and mechanisms of urban development', ''Ecological Modelling'', 189, pp. 49–71. | |||
* J.L.Hau and B.R.Bakshi (2004) '', ''Ecological Modelling'', special issue in honor of H. T. Odum, vol. 178, pp. 215-225. | |||
* S.E. Jorgensen, S.N.Nielsen, H.Mejer (1995) 'Emergy, environ, exergy and ecological modelling', ''Ecological Modelling'', 77, pp. 99-109 | |||
* J.Laganisa, & M.Debeljakb (2006) 'Sensitivity analysis of the emergy flows at the solar salt production process in Slovenia', ''Journal of Ecological Modelling'', 194, pp. 287–295. | |||
* P.K.Nag (1984) ''Engineering Thermodynamics'', Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. | |||
* H.T.Odum (1986) in N.Polunin, Ed. ''Ecosystem Theory and Application'', Wiley, New York. | |||
* H.T.Odum (1988) 'Self-Organization, Transformity, and Information', ''Science'', Vol. 242, pp. 1132-1139. | |||
* H.T.Odum (1995) 'Self-Organization and Maximum Empower', in C.A.S.Hall (ed.) ''Maximum Power; The Ideas and Applications of H.T.Odum'', Colorado University Press, Colorado, pp. 311-330. | |||
* H.T.Odum (1996) ''Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making'', Wiley. | |||
* H.T.Odum (2002) 'Material circulation, energy hierarchy, and building construction', in C.J.Kibert, J.Sendzimir, and G.B.Guy (eds) ''Construction Ecology; Nature as the basis for green buildings'', Spon Press, New York. | |||
* H.T.Odum and E.C.Odum (1983)''Energy Analysis Overview of Nations'', Working Paper, WP-83-82. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute of Applied System Analysis. 469 pp. (CFW-83-21) | |||
* H.T.Odum and E.C.Odum (2000) ''A Prosperous way Down: Principles and Policies'', Colorado University Press, Colorado. | |||
* D.M.Scienceman (1987) 'Energy and Emergy.' In G. Pillet and T. Murota (eds), ''Environmental Economics: The Analysis of a Major Interface.'' Geneva: R. Leimgruber. pp. 257-276. (CFW-86-26) | |||
* D.M. Scienceman (1989) ' The Emergence of Emonomics'. In ''Proceedings of The International Society for General Systems Research Conference'' (July 2-7, 1989), Edinbrough, Scotland, 7 pp. (CFW-89-02). | |||
* D.M. Scienceman (1991) ''Emergy and Energy: The Form and Content of Ergon.'' Discussion paper. Gainesville: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida. 13 pp. (CFW-91-10) | |||
* D.M. Scienceman (1992) ''Emvalue and Lavalue'', Paper Prepared for th Annual Meeting of The International Society for the Systems Sciences, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. | |||
* D.M. Scienceman (1997) 'Letters to the Editor: Emergy definition', ''Ecological Engineering'', 9, pp. 209-212. | |||
* E. Sciubba, S. Ulgiatib (2005) 'Emergy and exergy analyses: Complementary methods or irreducible ideological options?' Energy 30, pp. 1953–1988. | |||
* S.E.Tennenbaum (1988) '''', MS Thesis. Gainesville, FL: University of FL, 131 pp. (CFW-88-08) | |||
* S.Ulgiati, H.T.Odum, S.Bastianoni (1994) 'Emergy use, environmental loading and sustainability. An emergy analysis of Italy', ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 73, Issue 3-4, Pages 215-268. | |||
* S.Ulgiati and M.T.Brown (1990) . | |||
* S.Ulgiati and M.T.Brown (2001) 'Emergy Accounting of Human-Dominated, Large-Scale Ecosystems', in S.E.Jorgensen (ed) ''Thermodynamics and Ecological Modelling'', CRC Press LLC, pp. 63-113. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* ] | |||
{{Portal|Business and economics|Ecology|Environment|Society}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
}} | |||
* ] | |||
==Notes== | |||
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}} | |||
;References for Table 4 | |||
{{refbegin}} | |||
:Agostinho, F., L.A. Ambrósio, E. Ortega. 2010. Assessment of a large watershed in Brazil using Emergy Evaluation and Geographical Information System. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 221, Issue 8, 24 April 2010, Pages 1209-1220 | |||
:Almeida, C.M.V.B., A.J.M. Rodrigues, S.H. Bonilla, B.F. Giannetti. 2010. Emergy as a tool for Ecodesign: evaluating materials selection for beverage packages in Brazil. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'', Volume 18, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 32-43 | |||
:Almeida, C.M.V.B., D. Borges Jr., S.H. Bonilla, B.F. Giannetti 2010. Identifying improvements in water management of bus-washing stations in Brazil Resources, Conservation and Recycling, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 February 2010 | |||
:Almeida, C.M.V.B., F.A. Barrella, B.F. Giannetti. 2007. Emergetic ternary diagrams: five examples for application in environmental accounting for decision-making. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'', Volume 15, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 63-74 | |||
:Ascione, M., L. Campanella, F. Cherubini, and S. Ulgiati. 2009. Environmental driving forces of urban growth and development: An emergy-based assessment of the city of Rome, Italy. '']'', Volume 93, Issues 3-4, 15 December 2009, Pages 238-249 | |||
:Barbir, F., 1992. Analysis and Modeling of Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Solar Hydrogen Energy System. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami, Florida, 176 pp. | |||
:Bargigli, S., M. Raugei, S. Ulgiati. 2004. Comparison of thermodynamic and environmental indexes of natural gas, syngas and hydrogen production processes. Energy, Volume 29, Issues 12-15, October–December 2004, Pages 2145-2159 | |||
:Bastianoni, S., D. Campbell, L.Susani, E. Tiezzi. 2005. The solar transformity of oil and petroleum natural gas. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 186, Issue 2, 15 August 2005, Pages 212-220 | |||
:Bastianoni, S., D.E. Campbell, R. Ridolfi, F.M. Pulselli. 2009. The solar transformity of petroleum fuels. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 220, Issue 1, 10 January 2009, Pages 40-50 | |||
:Brandt-Williams, S. 1999. Evaluation of watershed control of two Central Florida lakes : Newnans Lake and Lake Weir. PhD Dissertation, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. 287p. | |||
:Brown M.T. and Vivas M.B., 2004. A Landscape Development Intensity Index. Env. Monitoring and Assessment, in press. | |||
:Brown M.T., and Buranakarn V., 2003. Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and recycle options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38: 1-22. | |||
:Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, and S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting National Sustainability: the convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modelling 220: 3424-3438 | |||
:Brown, M.T. 2005. Landscape restoration following phosphate mining: 30 years of co-evolution of science, industry and regulation. ''Ecological Engineering'' 24: 309-329 | |||
:Brown, M.T. and Bardi, E., 2001. Emergy of Ecosystems. Folio No. 3 of Handbook of Emergy Evaluation The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville 93 p. (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_3.pdf{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}). | |||
:Brown, M.T. and T. McClanahan 1996. Emergy Analysis Perspectives for Thailand and Mekong River Dam Proposals. Ecological Modelling 91:pp105-130 | |||
:Brown, M.T., 2003. Resource Imperialism. Emergy Perspectives on Sustainability, International Trade and Balancing the Welfare of Nations. In: Book of Proceedings of the International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies. Reconsidering the Importance of Energy”. Porto Venere, Italy, 24–28 September 2002. S. Ulgiati, M.T. Brown, M. Giampietro, R.A. Herendeen, and K. Mayumi, Editors. SGE Publisher Padova, Italy, pp. 135-149. | |||
:Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy Evaluation of the Biosphere and Natural Capital. '']'', 28(6): 486-493. | |||
:Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 2002. The Role of Environmental Services in Electricity Production Processes. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'', 10: 321-334. | |||
:Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 2004. Emergy, Transformity, and Ecosystem Health. In: Handbook of Ecosystem Health. Sven E. Jorgensen Editor. ], New York. | |||
:Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen Emergy and Network Analysis. 2008. Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2008, Pages 1229-1239 | |||
:Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting national sustainability: The convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 220, Issue 23, 10 December 2009, Pages 3424-3438 | |||
:Brown, M.T., Woithe, R.D., Montague, C.L., Odum, H.T., and Odum, E.C., 1993. Emergy Analysis Perspectives of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Final Report to the ]. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 114 pp. | |||
:Cai, T. T., T. W Olsen, D. E Campbell. 2004. Maximum (em)power: a foundational principle linking man and nature. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 178, Issues 1-2, 15 October 2004, Pages 115-119 | |||
:Carraretto, C., A. Macor, A. Mirandola, A. Stoppato, S. Tonon. 2004. Biodiesel as alternative fuel: Experimental analysis and energetic evaluations. ''Energy'', Volume 29, Issues 12-15, October–December 2004, Pages 2195-2211 | |||
:Cavalett, O., E. Ortega . 2009. Emergy, nutrients balance, and economic assessment of soybean production and industrialization in Brazil. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'', Volume 17, Issue 8, May 2009, Pages 762-771 | |||
:Chen, Y., Feng, L., Wang, J., Höök, M., 2017. Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation. Energy, Volume 128, 1 June 2017, Pages 540-549 | |||
:Cialani, C., Russi, D., and Ulgiati, S., 2004. Investigating a 20-year national economic dynamics by means of emergy-based indicators. In: Brown, M.T., Campbell, D., Comar, V., Huang, S.L., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., and Ulgiati, S., (Editors), 2004. Emergy Synthesis. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology – 3. Book of Proceedings of the Third International Emergy Research Conference, Gainesville, FL, 29–31 January 2004. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. | |||
:Cohen, M.J. M.T. Brown, K.D. Shepherd. 2006. Estimating the environmental costs of soil erosion at multiple scales in Kenya using emergy synthesis. ''Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment'', Volume 114, Issues 2-4, June 2006, Pages 249-269 | |||
:Cuadra, M., J. Björklund. 2007. Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of agricultural crops in Nicaragua. Ecological Indicators, Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 133-149 | |||
:Cuadra, M., T. Rydberg. 2006. Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 196, Issues 3-4, 25 July 2006, Pages 421-433 | |||
:de Barros, I., J.M. Blazy, G. Stachetti Rodrigues, R. Tournebize, J.P. Cinna. 2009. Emergy evaluation and economic performance of banana cropping systems in Guadeloupe (French West Indies). ''Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment'', Volume 129, Issue 4, February 2009, Pages 437-449 | |||
:Doherty, S.J., Odum, H.T., and Nilsson, P.O., 1995. Systems Analysis of the Solar Emergy Basis for Forest Alternatives in Sweden. Final Report to the Swedish State Power Board, College of Forestry, Garpenberg, Sweden, 112 pp. | |||
:Dong, X., S. Ulgiati, M. Yan, X. Zhang, W.Gao. 2008. Energy and eMergy evaluation of bioethanol production from wheat in Henan Province, China. ''Energy Policy'', Volume 36, Issue 10, October 2008, Pages 3882-3892 | |||
:Federici, M., S. Ulgiati, D. Verdesca, R. Basosi. 2003. Efficiency and sustainability indicators for passenger and commodities transportation systems: The case of Siena, Italy. Ecological Indicators, Volume 3, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 155-169 | |||
:Federici, M., S. Ulgiati, R. Basosi. 2008. A thermodynamic, environmental and material flow analysis of the Italian highway and railway transport systems. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 760-775 | |||
:Federici, M., S. Ulgiati, R. Basosi. 2009. Air versus terrestrial transport modalities: An energy and environmental comparison. Energy, Volume 34, Issue 10, October 2009, Pages 1493-1503 | |||
:Felix, E. D.R. Tilley. 2009. Integrated energy, environmental and financial analysis of ethanol production from cellulosic switchgrass. Energy, Volume 34, Issue 4, April 2009, Pages 410-436 | |||
:Franzese, P.P., T. Rydberg, G.F. Russo, S. Ulgiati. 2009. Sustainable biomass production: A comparison between Gross Energy Requirement and Emergy Synthesis methods Ecological Indicators, Volume 9, Issue 5, September 2009, Pages 959-970 | |||
:Giannantoni C., 2002. The Maximum Em-Power Principle as the Basis for Thermodynamics of Quality. SGE Publisher, Padova, Italy, pp. 185. {{ISBN|88-86281-76-5}}. | |||
:Giannantoni, C., 2003. The Problem of the Initial Conditions and Their Physical Meaning in Linear Differential Equations of Fractional Order. ''Applied Mathematics and Computation'' 141, 87–102. | |||
:Giannetti, B.F., C.M.V.B. Almeida, S.H. Bonilla. 2010. Comparing emergy accounting with well-known sustainability metrics: The case of Southern Cone Common Market, Mercosur. ''Energy Policy'', Volume 38, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 3518-3526 | |||
:Giannetti, B.F., F.A. Barrella, C.M.V.B. Almeida. 2006. A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. '']'', Volume 14, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 201-210 | |||
:Grönlund, E., A. Klang, S. Falk, J. Hanæus. 2004. Sustainability of wastewater treatment with microalgae in cold climate, evaluated with emergy and socio-ecological principles. ''Ecological Engineering'', Volume 22, Issue 3, 1 May 2004, Pages 155-174 | |||
:Huang, S-L., C-W. Chen. 2005. Theory of urban energetics and mechanisms of urban development. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 189, Issues 1-2, 25 November 2005, Pages 49-71 | |||
:Huang, S-L., C-L. Lee, C-W. Chen. 2006. Socioeconomic metabolism in Taiwan: Emergy synthesis versus material flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 48, Issue 2, 15 August 2006, Pages 166-196 | |||
:Huang, S.L., 1998. Spatial Hierarchy of Urban Energetic Systems. In: Book of Proceedings of the International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy”. Porto Venere, Italy, 26–30 May 1998. S. Ulgiati, M.T. Brown, M. Giampietro, R.A. Herendeen, and K. Mayumi (Eds), MUSIS Publisher, Roma, Italy, pp. 499-514. | |||
:Ingwersen, W.W. 2010. Uncertainty characterization for emergy values. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 221, Issue 3, 10 February 2010, Pages 445-452 | |||
:Jiang, M.M., J.B. Zhou, B. Chen, G.Q. Chen. 2008. Emergy-based ecological account for the Chinese economy in 2004. ''Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation'', Volume 13, Issue 10, December 2008, Pages 2337-2356 | |||
:Jorgensen, S. E., H. T. Odum, M. T. Brown. 2004. Emergy and exergy stored in genetic information. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 178, Issues 1-2, 15 October 2004, Pages 11-16 | |||
:Kangas, P.C., 2002. Emergy of Landforms. Folio No. 5 of Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville 93 p. (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_5.pdf{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}) | |||
:Keitt, T.H., 1991. Hierarchical Organization of energy and information in a tropical rain forest ecosystem. M.S. Thesis, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 72 pp. | |||
:Kent, R., H.T. Odum and F.N. Scatena. 2000. Eutrophic overgrowth in the self organization of tropical wetlands illustrated with a study of swine wastes in rainforest plots. Ecol. Engr. 16(2000):255-269. | |||
:Laganis, J., M. Debeljak. 2006. Sensitivity analysis of the emergy flows at the solar salt production process in Slovenia. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 194, Issues 1-3, 25 March 2006, Pages 287-295 | |||
:Lefroy, E., T. Rydberg. 2003. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in southwestern Australia. ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 161, Issue 3, 15 March 2003, Pages 193-209 | |||
:Lei, K., Z. Wang. 2008a. Emergy synthesis of tourism-based urban ecosystem. ''Journal of Environmental Management'', Volume 88, Issue 4, September 2008, Pages 831-844 | |||
:Lei K., Z. Wang. 2008b. Emergy Synthesis and Simulation of Macao. ''Energy'', Volume 33, Issue 4, pages 613-625 | |||
:Lei K., Z. Wang. 2008c. Municipal Wastes and Their Solar Transformities: Emergy Synthesis for Macao. ''Waste management'', Volume 28, Issue 12, pages 2522-2531 | |||
:Lei K., Z. Wang, S.Tong. 2008. Holistic Emergy Analysis of Macao. ''Ecological Engineering'', Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 30-43 | |||
:Lei K., S. Zhou, D. Hu, Z. Wang. 2010. Ecological energy accounting for the gambling sector: A case study in Macao. ''Ecological complexity'', Volume 7, pages 149-155 | |||
:Lei K., S. Zhou, D. Hu, Z. Guo, A. Cao. 2011. Emergy analysis for tourism systems: Principles and a case study for Macao. ''Ecological complexity'', Volume 8, 192-200 | |||
:Lei K., S. Zhou. 2012. Per capita Resource Consumption and Resource Carrying Capacity: a Comparison of the Sustainability of 17 Mainstream Countries. ''Energy Policy'', Volume 42, pages 603-612 | |||
:Liu G.Y. et al., 2017. https://www.emergy-nead.com and http://nead.um01.cn/home {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215224016/https://nead.um01.cn/home |date=2018-12-15 }}. | |||
:Lomas, P.L., S. Álvarez, M. Rodríguez, C. Montes. 2008. Environmental accounting as a management tool in the Mediterranean context: The Spanish economy during the last 20 years. ''Journal of Environmental Management'', Volume 88, Issue 2, July 2008, Pages 326-347 | |||
:Lu, H-F., W-L.Kang, D.E. Campbell, H. Ren, Y-W. Tan, R-X. Feng, J-T. Luo, F-P. Chen. 2009. Emergy and economic evaluations of four fruit production systems on reclaimed wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. ''Ecological Engineering'', Volume 35, Issue 12, December 2009, Pages 1743-1757 | |||
:Lu, H. D.E. Campbell, Z. Li, H. Ren. 2006.Emergy synthesis of an agro-forest restoration system in lower subtropical China. ''Ecological Engineering'', Volume 27, Issue 3, 2 October 2006, Pages 175-192 | |||
:Lu, H., D. Campbell, J. Chen, P. Qin, H. Ren . 2007. Conservation and economic viability of nature reserves: An emergy evaluation of the Yancheng Biosphere Reserve. ''Biological Conservation'', Volume 139, Issues 3-4, October 2007, Pages 415-438 | |||
:Lu, H., D. E. Campbell. 2009. Ecological and economic dynamics of the Shunde agricultural system under China's small city development strategy. ''Journal of Environmental Management'', Volume 90, Issue 8, June 2009, Pages 2589-2600 | |||
:Martin, J.F., S.A.W. Diemont, E. Powell, M. Stanton, S. Levy-Tacher. 2006. Emergy evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with different scales and management. ''Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment'', Volume 115, Issues 1-4, July 2006, Pages 128-140 | |||
:Odum H.T. and E.C. Odum, 2001. A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. University Press of Colorado. | |||
: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: 331-343. | |||
: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: 1132-1139. | |||
:Odum H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y. | |||
:Odum, E.C., and Odum, H.T., 1980. Energy systems and environmental education. Pp. 213-231 in: ''Environmental :Education- Principles, Methods and Applications'', Ed. by T.S. Bakshi and Z. Naveh. ], New York. | |||
:Odum, E.C., and Odum, H.T., 1984. System of ethanol production from sugarcane in Brazil. '']'', 37(11): 1849-1855. | |||
:Odum, E.C., Odum, H.T., and Peterson, N.S., 1995a. Using simulation to introduce systems approach in education. Chapter 31, pp. 346-352, in ''Maximum Power'', ed. by C.A.S. Hall, ], Niwot. | |||
:Odum, H. T., Brown, M. T., Whitefield, L. S., Woithe, R., and Doherty, S., 1995b. Zonal Organization of Cities and Environment: A Study of Energy System Basis for Urban Society. A Report to the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, Center for Environmental Policy, ], Gainesville, FL. | |||
:Odum, H.T, M.T. Brown, and S. Ulgiati. 1999. Ecosystems as Energetic Systems. pp.281-302 in S.E. Jorgensen and F. Muller (eds) Handbook of Ecosystem Theories. CRC Press, New York | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1971a. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY. 336 pp. | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1971b. An energy circuit language for ecological and social systems: its physical basis. Pp. 139-211, in Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, Vol. 2, Ed. by B. Patten. Academic Press, New York. | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1972b. Chemical cycles with energy circuit models. Pp. 223-257, in ''Changing Chemistry of the Ocean'', ed. by D. Dryssen and D. Jagner. Nobel Symposium 20. Wiley, New York. | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1973. Energy, ecology and economics. ]. AMBIO 2(6):220-227. | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1976a. 'Energy quality and carrying capacity of the earth. Response at Prize Ceremony, Institute de la Vie, Paris. Tropical Ecology 16(l):1-8. | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1987a. Living with complexity. Pp. 19-85 in The ] in the Biosciences, 1987, Lectures. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. 87 pp | |||
:Odum, H.T. 1987b. Models for national, international, and global systems policy. Chapter 13, pp. 203-251, in ''Economic-Ecological Modeling'', ed. by L.C. Braat and W.F.J. Van Lierop. ] Science Publishing, New York, 329 pp. | |||
:Odum, H.T. et al. 1976. Net energy Analysis of Alternatives for the United States. In ''U.S. Energy Policy: Trends and Goals. Part V - Middle and Long-term Energy Policies and Alternatives''. 94th Congress 2nd Session Committee Print. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives, 66-723, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash, DC. pp. 254-304. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1975. Combining energy laws and corollaries of the maximum power principle with visual system mathematics. Pp. 239-263, in Ecosystems: Analysis and Prediction, ed. by Simon Levin. Proceedings of the conference on ecosystems at Alta, Utah. SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, Philadelphia. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1980a. Biomass and Florida's future. Pp. 58-67 in: A Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Development and Applications of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Congress. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1980b. Principle of environmental energy matching for estimating potential economic value: a rebuttal. ''Coastal Zone Management Journal'', 5(3): 239-243. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1982. Pulsing, power and hierarchy. Pp. 33-59, in ''Energetics and Systems'', ed. by ], R.K. Ragade, R. W. Bosserman, and J.A. Dillon Jr., Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1984a. Energy analysis of the environmental role in agriculture. Pp. 24-51, in ''Energy and Agriculture'', ed. by G. Stanhill. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 192 pp. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1985. Water conservation and wetland values. Pp. 98-111, in Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters, ed. by P.J. Godfrey, E.R. Kaynor, S. Pelezrski, and J. Benforado. ], New York. 473 pp. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1986. Enmergy in ecosystems. In Environmental Monographs and Symposia, N. Polunin, ed. ], NY. pp. 337-369. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology. ], Niwot. 644 pp. Revised edition of Systems Ecology, 1983, Wiley. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 1995. Self organization and maximum power. Chapter 28, pp. 311-364 in Maximum Power, Ed. by C.A.S. Hall, University Press of Colorado, Niwot. | |||
:Odum, H.T., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio #2 – Emergy of Global processes. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_2.pdf{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}) | |||
:Odum, H.T., and Arding, J.E., 1991. Emergy analysis of shrimp mariculture in Ecuador. Report to Coastal Studies Institute, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 87. | |||
:Odum, H.T., Gayle, T., Brown, M.T., and Waldman, J., 1978b. Energy analysis of the University of Florida. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. Unpublished manuscript. | |||
:Odum, H.T., Kemp, W., Sell, M., Boynton W., and Lehman, M., 1978a. Energy Analysis and the coupling of man and estuaries. Environmental Management, 1: 297-315. | |||
:Odum, H.T., Lavine, M.J., Wang, F.C., Miller, M.A., Alexander, J.F., and Butler, T., 1983. Manual for using energy analysis for plant siting. Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Report No. NUREG/CR-2443. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. Pp. 242. | |||
:Odum, H.T., M.T. Brown and S.B. Williams. 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio #1 - Introduction and Global Budget. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental . (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_1.pdf{{Dead link|date=March 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}) | |||
:Odum, W.P., Odum, E.P., and Odum, H.T., 1995c. Nature's Pulsing Paradigm. Estuaries 18(4): 547-555. | |||
:Peng, T., H.F. Lu, W.L. Wu, D.E. Campbell, G.S. Zhao, J.H. Zou, J. Chen. 2008. Should a small combined heat and power plant (CHP) open to its regional power and heat networks? Integrated economic, energy, and emergy evaluation of optimization plans for Jiufa CHP. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages 437-445 | |||
:Pizzigallo, A.C.I., C. Granai, S. Borsa. 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. ''Journal of Environmental Management'', Volume 86, Issue 2, January 2008, Pages 396-406 | |||
:Prado-Jatar, M.A., and Brown, M.T., 1997. Interface ecosystems with an oil spill in a Venezuelan tropical savannah. ''Ecological Engineering'', 8: 49-78. | |||
:Pulselli, R.M., E. Simoncini, R. Ridolfi, S. Bastianoni. 2008. Specific emergy of cement and concrete: An energy-based appraisal of building materials and their transport. Ecological Indicators, Volume 8, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 647-656 | |||
:Reiss, C.R. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Evaluation of Florida Palustrine Wetlands: Application of USEPA Levels 1, 2, and 3 Assessment Methods. ''Ecohealth'' 4:206-218. | |||
:Rótolo, G.C., T. Rydberg, G. Lieblein, C. Francis. 2007. Emergy evaluation of grazing cattle in Argentina's Pampas. ''Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment'', Volume 119, Issues 3-4, March 2007, Pages 383-395 | |||
:Rydberg, T., A.C. Haden. 2006. Emergy evaluations of Denmark and Danish agriculture: Assessing the influence of changing resource availability on the organization of agriculture and society. ''Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment'', Volume 117, Issues 2-3, November 2006, Pages 145-158 | |||
:Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., and Bastianoni, S., 1993. Emergy Analysis of Italian Agricultural System. The Role of Energy Quality and Environmental Inputs.In: ''Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry''. L. Bonati, U. Cosentino, M. Lasagni, G. Moro, D. Pitea and A. Schiraldi, Editors. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 187-215. | |||
:Ulgiati, S. and M.T. Brown. 2001. Emergy Evaluations and Environmental Loading of Alternative Electricity Production Systems. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'' 10:335-348 | |||
:S. Giberna, P. Barbieri, E. Reisenhofer, P. Plossi. 2004. Emergy analysis of the phase of operation of the incineration of municipal waste in Trieste | |||
:Vassallo, P., C. Paoli, D.R. Tilley, M. Fabiano. 2009. Energy and resource basis of an Italian coastal resort region integrated using emergy synthesis ''Journal of Environmental Management'', Volume 91, Issue 1, October 2009, Pages 277-289 | |||
:Zhang, X., W.Jiang, S. Deng, K. Peng. 2009. Emergy evaluation of the sustainability of Chinese steel production during 1998–2004. ''Journal of Cleaner Production'', Volume 17, Issue 11, July 2009, Pages 1030-1038 | |||
:Zhang, Y., Z. Yang, X.Yu. 2009. Evaluation of urban metabolism based on emergy synthesis: A case study for Beijing (China). ''Ecological Modelling'', Volume 220, Issues 13-14, 17 July 2009, Pages 1690-1696 | |||
{{refend}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* - University of Florida where publications, systems symbols and diagrams, templates, powerpoint lectures, etc. can be downloaded | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* Enrique Ortega has prepared a that correspond to FOLIO 4: Emergy analysis of agricultural systems of the State of Florida (USA). For Emergy calculator links scroll down to 2. Emergy Evaluation Tables for Florida Agriculture. | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* - The Ideas and Applications of H.T. Odum. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 454 pp, C. A. S., ed., 1995 | |||
*, Wayburn, Thomas L., Proceedings Engineering and Architecture Symposium, March 15-16, 1993, College of Engineering and Architecture, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas. | |||
* - A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. University Press of Colorado] | |||
* - SCALE: Software for CALculating Emergy Based on Life Cycle Inventories | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 08:01, 8 November 2024
Total energy consumed, directly and indirectly, to make a product or serviceEmergy is the amount of energy consumed in direct and indirect transformations to make a product or service. Emergy is a measure of quality differences between different 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. Emergy is measured in units of emjoules, a unit referring to the available energy consumed in transformations. Emergy accounts for different forms of energy and resources (e.g. sunlight, water, fossil fuels, minerals, etc.) Each form is generated by transformation processes in nature and each has a different ability to support work in natural and in human systems. The recognition of these quality differences is a key concept.
History
The theoretical and conceptual basis for the emergy methodology is grounded in thermodynamics, general system theory and systems ecology. Evolution of the theory by Howard T. Odum over the first thirty years is reviewed in Environmental Accounting and in the volume edited by C. A. S. Hall titled Maximum Power.
Background
Beginning in the 1950s, Odum analyzed energy flow in ecosystems (e.g. Silver Springs, Florida; Enewetak atoll in the south Pacific; Galveston Bay, Texas and Puerto Rican rainforests, amongst others) where energies in various forms at various scales were observed. His analysis of energy flow in ecosystems, and the differences in the potential energy of sunlight, fresh water currents, wind and ocean currents led him to make the suggestion that when two or more different energy sources drive a system, they cannot be added without first converting them to a common measure that accounts for their differences in energy quality. This led him to introduce the concept of "energy of one kind" as a common denominator with the name "energy cost". He then expanded the analysis to model food production in the 1960s, and in the 1970s to fossil fuels.
Odum's first formal statement of what would later be termed emergy was in 1973:
Energy is measured by calories, btu's, kilowatthours, and other intraconvertable units, but energy has a scale of quality which is not indicated by these measures. The ability to do work for man depends on the energy quality and quantity and this is measurable by the amount of energy of a lower quality grade required to develop the higher grade. The scale of energy goes from dilute sunlight up to plant matter, to coal, from coal to oil, to electricity and up to the high quality efforts of computer and human information processing.
In 1975, he introduced a table of "Energy Quality Factors", kilocalories of sunlight energy required to make a kilocalorie of a higher quality energy, the first mention of the energy hierarchy principle which states that "energy quality is measured by the energy used in the transformations" from one type of energy to the next.
These energy quality factors, were placed on a fossil-fuel basis and called "Fossil Fuel Work Equivalents" (FFWE), and the quality of energies were measured based on a fossil fuel standard with rough equivalents of 1 kilocalorie of fossil fuel equal to 2000 kilocalories of sunlight. "Energy quality ratios" were computed by evaluating the quantity of energy in a transformation process to make a new form and were then used to convert different forms of energy to a common form, in this case fossil fuel equivalents. FFWE's were replaced with coal equivalents (CE) and by 1977, the system of evaluating quality was placed on a solar basis and termed solar equivalents (SE).
Embodied energy
The term "embodied energy" was used for a time in the early 1980s to refer to energy quality differences in terms of their costs of generation, and a ratio called a "quality factor" for the calories (or joules) of one kind of energy required to make those of another. However, since the term embodied energy was used by other groups who were evaluating the fossil fuel energy required to generate products and were not including all energies or using the concept to imply quality, embodied energy was dropped in favor of "embodied solar calories", and the quality factors became known as "transformation ratios".
Introduction of the term "emergy"
Use of the term "embodied energy" for this concept was modified in 1986 when David Scienceman, a visiting scholar at the University of Florida from Australia, suggested the term "emergy" and "emjoule" or "emcalorie" as the unit of measure to distinguish emergy units from units of available energy. The term transformation ratio was shortened to transformity in about the same time. It is important to note that throughout these twenty years, the baseline or the basis for evaluating forms of energy and resources shifted from organic matter to fossil fuels and finally to solar energy.
After 1986, the emergy methodology continued to develop as the community of scientists expanded and as new applied research into combined systems of humans and nature presented new conceptual and theoretical questions. The maturing of the emergy methodology resulted in more rigorous definitions of terms and nomenclature and refinement of the methods of calculating transformities. The International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research Archived 2016-05-13 at the Wayback Machine and a biennial International Conference at the University of Florida support this research.
Chronology
Years | Baseline | Unit Emergy Values | Units | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
1967–1971 | Organic matter the baseline. All energies of higher quality (wood, peat, coal, oil, living biomass, etc.) expressed in units of organic matter. | Sunlight equivalent to organic matter = 1000 solar kilocalories per kilocalorie of organic matter. | g dry wt O.M.; kcal, conversion from OM to kcal = 5kcal/g dry wt. | |
1973–1980 | Fossil fuels and then coal the baseline. Energy of lower quality (sunlight, plants, wood, etc.) were expressed in units of fossil fuels and later in units of coal equivalents. | Direct sunlight equivalents of fossil fuels = 2000 solar kilocalories per fossil fuel kilocalorie | Fossil fuel work equivalents (FFWE) and later, coal equivalents (CE) | |
1980–1982 | Global solar energy the baseline. All energies of higher quality (wind, rain, wave, organic matter, wood, fossil fuels, etc.) expressed in units of solar energy | 6800 global solar Calories per Calorie of available energy in coal | Global solar calories (GSE). | |
1983–1986 | Recognized that solar energy, deep heat, and tidal momentum were basis for global processes. Total annual global sources equal to the sum of these (9.44 E24 solar joules/yr) | Embodied solar joules per joule of fossil fuels = 40,000 seJ/J | Embodied solar equivalents (SEJ) and later called "emergy" with nomenclature (seJ) | |
1987–2000 | Further refinements of total energy driving global processes, Embodied solar energy renamed to EMERGY | Solar Emergy per Joule of coal energy ~ 40,000 solar emjoules/ Joule (seJ/J) named Transformity | seJ/J = Transformity; seJ/g = Specific emergy | |
2000–present | Emergy driving the biosphere reevaluated as 15.83 E24 seJ/yr raising all previously calculated transformities by the ratio of 15.83/9.44 = 1.68 | Solar emergy per Joule of coal energy ~ 6.7 E 4 seJ/J | seJ/J = Transformity; seJ/g = Specific emergy |
Definitions and examples
Emergy— amount of energy of one form that is used in transformations directly and indirectly to make a product or service. The unit of emergy is the emjoule or emergy joule. Using emergy, sunlight, fuel, electricity, and human service can be put on a common basis by expressing each of them in the emjoules of solar energy that is required to produce them. If solar emergy is the baseline, then the results are solar emjoules (abbreviated seJ). Although other baselines have been used, such as coal emjoules or electrical emjoules, in most cases emergy data are given in solar emjoules.
Unit Emergy Values (UEVs) — the emergy required to generate one unit of output. Types of UEVs:
- Transformity — emergy input per unit of available energy output. For example, if 10,000 solar emjoules are required to generate a joule of wood, then the solar transformity of that wood is 10,000 solar emjoules per joule (abbreviated seJ/J). The solar transformity of the sunlight absorbed by the earth is 1.0 by definition.
- Specific emergy — emergy per unit mass output. Specific emergy is usually expressed as solar emergy per gram (seJ/g). Because energy is required to concentrate materials, the unit emergy value of any substance increases with concentration. Elements and compounds not abundant in nature therefore have higher emergy/mass ratios when found in concentrated form since more environmental work is required to concentrate them, both spatially and chemically.
- Emergy per unit money — the emergy supporting the generation of one unit of economic product (expressed in monetary terms). It is used to convert money into emergy units. Since money is paid for goods and services, but not to the environment, the contribution to a process represented by monetary payments is the emergy that money purchases. The amount of resources that money buys depends on the amount of emergy supporting the economy and the amount of money circulating. An average emergy/money ratio in solar emjoules/$ can be calculated by dividing the total emergy use of a state or nation by its gross economic product. It varies by country and has been shown to decrease each year, which is one index of inflation. This emergy/money ratio is useful for evaluating service inputs given in money units where an average wage rate is appropriate.
- Emergy per unit labor — the emergy supporting one unit of direct labor applied to a process. Workers apply their efforts to a process and in so doing they indirectly invest in it the emergy that made their labor possible (food, training, transport, etc). This emergy intensity is generally expressed as emergy per time (seJ/yr; seJ/hr), but emergy per money earned (seJ/$) is also used. Indirect labor required to make and supply the inputs to a process is generally measured with the dollar cost of services, so that its emergy intensity is calculated as seJ/$.
- Empower — a flow of emergy (i.e., emergy per unit time).
Term | Definition | Abbreviation | Units |
---|---|---|---|
Extensive Properties | |||
Emergy | The amount of available energy of one type (usually solar) that is directly or indirectly required to generate a given output flow or storage of energy or matter. | Em | seJ (solar equivalent Joules) |
Emergy Flow | Any flow of emergy associated with inflowing energy or materials to a system/process. | R=renewable flows; N= nonrenewable flows; F= imported flows; S= services |
seJ*time |
Gross Emergy Product | Total emergy annually used to drive a national or regional economy | GEP | seJ*yr |
Product-related Intensive Properties | |||
Transformity | Emergy investment per unit process output of available energy | Τr | seJ*J |
Specific Emergy | Emergy investment per unit process output of dry mass | SpEm | seJ*g |
Emergy Intensity of currency | Emergy investment per unit of GDP generated in a country, region or process | EIC | seJ*curency |
Space-related Intensive Properties | |||
Emergy Density | Emergy stored in a volume unit of a given material | EmD | seJ*volume |
Time-related Intensive Properties | |||
Empower | Emergy flow (released, used) per unit time | EmP | seJ*time |
Empower Intensity | Areal Empower (emergy released per unit time and area) | EmPI | seJ*time*area |
Empower Density | Emergy released per unit time by a unit volume (e.g. a power plant or engine) | EmPd | seJ*time*volume |
Selected Performance Indicators | |||
Emergy released (used) | Total emergy investment in a process (measure of a process footprint) | U= N+R+F+S (see Fig.1) |
seJ |
Emergy Yield Ratio | Total emergy released (used up) per unit of emergy invested | EYR= U/(F+S) (see Fig.1) |
— |
Environmental Loading Ratio | Total nonrenewable and imported emergy released per unit of local renewable resource | ELR= (N+F+S)/R (see Fig.1) |
— |
Emergy Sustainability Index | Emergy yield per unit of environmental loading | ESI= EYR/ELR (see Fig.1) |
— |
Renewability | Percentage of total emergy released (used) that is renewable. | %REN= R/U (see Fig.1) |
— |
Emergy Investment Ratio | Emergy investment needed to exploit one unit of local (renewable and nonrenewable) resource. | EIR= (F+S)/(R+N) (see Fig.1) |
— |
Accounting method
Emergy accounting converts the thermodynamic basis of all forms of energy, resources and human services into equivalents of a single form of energy, usually solar. To evaluate a system, a system diagram organizes the evaluation and account for energy inputs and outflows. A table of the flows of resources, labor and energy is constructed from the diagram and all flows are evaluated. The final step involves interpreting the results.
Purpose
In some cases, an evaluation is done to determine the fit of a development proposal within its environment. It also allows comparison of alternatives. Another purpose is to seek the best use of resources to maximize economic vitality.
Systems diagram
System diagrams show the inputs that are evaluated and summed to obtain the emergy of a flow. A diagram of a city and its regional support area is shown in Figure 1.
Evaluation table
A table (see example below) of resource flows, labor and energy is constructed from the diagram. Raw data on inflows that cross the boundary are converted into emergy units, and then summed to obtain total emergy supporting the system. Energy flows per unit time (usually per year) are presented in the table as separate line items.
Table 3. Example emergy evaluation table Note Item(name) Data(flow/time) Units UEV (seJ/unit) Solar Emergy (seJ/time) 1. First item xxx.x J/yr xxx.x Em1 2. Second item xxx.x g/yr xxx.x Em2 -- n. nth item xxx.x J/yr xxx.x Emn O. Output xxx.x J/yr or g/yr xxx.x
- Legend
- 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.
- Column # 4 shows the units for each raw data item.
- Column # 5 is the unit emergy value, expressed in solar emergy joules per unit. Sometimes, inputs are expressed in grams, hours, or dollars, therefore an appropriate UEV is used (sej/hr; sej/g; sej/$).
- Column # 6 is the solar emergy of a given flow, calculated as the raw input times the UEV (Column 3 times Column 5).
All tables are followed by footnotes that show citations for data and calculations.
Calculating unit values
The table allows a unit emergy value to be calculated. The final, output row (row “O” in the example table above) is evaluated first in units of energy or mass. Then the input emergy is summed and the unit emergy value is calculated by dividing the emergy by the units of the output.
Performance indicators
Figure 2 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 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.). Several ratios, or indices are given in Figure 2 that assess the global performance of a process.
- Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR) — Emergy released (used up) per unit invested. The ratio is a measure of how much an investment enables a process to exploit local resources.
- Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) — The ratio of nonrenewable and imported emergy use to renewable emergy use. It is an indicator of the pressure a transformation process exerts on the environment and can be considered a measure of ecosystem stress due to a production (transformation activity).
- Emergy Sustainability Index (ESI) — The ratio of EYR to ELR. It measures the contribution of a resource or process to the economy per unit of environmental loading.
- Areal Empower Intensity — The ratio of emergy use in the economy of a region to its area. Renewable and nonrenewable emergy density are calculated separately by dividing the total renewable emergy by area and the total nonrenewable emergy by area, respectively.
Other ratios are useful depending on the type and scale of the system under evaluation.
- Percent Renewable Emergy (%Ren) — The ratio of renewable emergy to total emergy use. In the long run, only processes with high %Ren are sustainable.
- Emprice. The emprice of a commodity is the emergy one receives for the money spent in sej/$.
- Emergy Exchange Ratio (EER) — The ratio of emergy exchanged in a trade or purchase (what is received to what is given). The ratio is always expressed relative to a trading partner and is a measure of the relative trade advantage of one partner over the other.
- Emergy per capita — The ratio of emergy use of a region or nation to the population. Emergy per capita can be used as a measure of potential, average standard of living of the population.
- Emergy-based energy return on investment was introduced as a way to bridge and improve the concept of Energy returned on energy invested to also include environmental impacts.
Uses
The recognition of the relevance of energy to the growth and dynamics of complex systems has resulted in increased emphasis on environmental evaluation methods that can account for and interpret the effects of matter and energy flows at all scales in systems of humanity and nature. The following table lists some general areas in which the emergy methodology has been employed.
Table 4. Fields of Study Emergy and ecosystems - Self-organization (Odum, 1986; Odum, 1988)
- Aquatic and marine ecosystems (Odum et al., 1978a; Odum and Arding, 1991; Brandt-Williams, 1999)
- Food webs and hierarchies (Odum et al. 1999; Brown and Bardi, 2001)
- Ecosystem health (Brown and Ulgiati, 2004)
- Forest ecosystems (Doherty et al., 1995; Lu et al. 2006)
- Complexity (Odum, 1987a; Odum, 1994; Brown and Cohen, 2008)
- Biodiversity (Brown et al. 2006)
Emergy and Information - Diversity and information (Keitt, 1991; Odum, 1996, Jorgensen et al., 2004)
- Culture, Education, University (Odum and Odum, 1980; Odum et al., 1995; Odum et al., 1978b)
Emergy and Agriculture - Food production, agriculture (Odum, 1984; Ulgiati et al. 1993; Martin et al. 2006; Cuadra and Rydberg, 2006; de Barros et al. 2009; Cavalett and Ortega, 2009)
- Livestock production (Rótolo et al.2007)
- Agriculture and society (Rydberg and Haden, 2006; Cuadra and Björklund, 2007; Lu, and Campbell, 2009)
- Soil erosion (Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003; Cohen et al. 2006)
Emergy and energy sources and carriers - Fossil fuels (Odum et a.l 1976; Brown et al., 1993; Odum, 1996; Bargigli et al., 2004; Bastianoni et al. 2005; Bastianoni et al. 2009)
- Renewable and nonrenewable electricity (Odum et al. 1983; Brown and Ulgiati, 2001; Ulgiati and Brown, 2001; Peng et al. 2008)
- Hydroelectric dams (Brown and McClanahan, 1992)
- Biofuels (Odum, 1980a; Odum and Odum, 1984; Carraretto et al., 2004; Dong et al. 2008; Felix and Tilley, 2009; Franzese et al., 2009)
- Hydrogen (Barbir, 1992)
Emergy and the Economy - National and international analyses (Odum, 1987b; Brown, 2003; Cialani et al. 2003; Ferreyra and Brown. 2007; Lomas et al., 2008; Jiang et al., 2008)
- National Environmental Accounting Database https://www.emergy-nead.com/ and https://nead.um01.cn/home Archived 2018-12-15 at the Wayback Machine (Liu et al., 2017)
- Trade (Odum, 1984a; Brown, 2003)
- Environmental accounting (Odum, 1996)
- Development policies (Odum, 1980b)
- Sustainability (Odum, 1973; Odum, 1976a; Brown and Ulgiati, 1999; Odum and Odum, 2002; Brown et al. 2009)
- Tourism (Lei and Wang, 2008a; Lei et al., 2011; Vassallo et al., 2009)
- Gambling industry (Lei et al., 2011)
Emergy and cities - Spatial organization and urban development (Odum et al., 1995b; Huang, 1998; Huang and Chen, 2005; Lei et al., 2008; Ascione, et al. 2009)
- Urban metabolism (Huang et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2009)
- Transportation modes (Federici, et al. 2003; Federici et al., 2008; Federici et al., 2009; Almeida et al., 2010 )
Emergy and landscapes - Spatial empower, Land development indicators (Brown and Vivas, 2004; Reiss and Brown, 2007)
- Emergy in landforms (Kangas, 2002)
- Watersheds (Agostinho et al., 2010)
Emergy and ecological engineering - Restoration models (Prado-Jartar and Brown, 1996)
- Reclamation projects (Brown, 2005; Lei and Wang, 2008b; Lu et al., 2009 )
- Artificial Ecosystems: wetlands, pond (Odum, 1985)
- Waste treatment (Kent et al. 2000; Grönlund, et al. 2004; Giberna et al. 2004; Lei and Wang, 2008c)
Emergy, material flows and recycling - Mining and minerals processing (Odum, 1996; Pulselli et al.2008)
- Industrial production, ecodesign (Zhang et al. 2009; Almeida et al., 2009)
- Recycling pattern in human-dominated ecosystems (Brown and Buranakarn, 2003)
- Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation(Chen et al, 2003)
Emergy and thermodynamics - Efficiency and Power (Odum and Pinkerton, 1955; Odum, 1995)
- Maximum Empower Principle (Odum, 1975; Odum, 1983; Cai e al., 2004)
- Pulsing paradigm (Odum, 1982; Odum, W.P. et al., 1995)
- Thermodynamic principles (Giannantoni, 2002, 2003)
Emergy and systems modeling - Energy systems language and modeling (Odum, 1971; Odum, 1972)
- National sustainability (Brown et al. 2009; Lei and Zhou, 2012)
- Sensitivity analysis, uncertainty (Laganis and Debeljak, 2006; Ingwersen, 2010)
Emergy and policy - Tools for decision makers (Giannetti et al., 2006; Almeida, et al. 2007; Giannetti et al., 2010)
- Conservation and economic value (Lu et al.2007)
References for each of the citations in this table are given in a separate list at the end of this article
Controversies
The concept of emergy has been controversial within academe including ecology, thermodynamics and economy. Emergy theory has been criticized for allegedly offering an energy theory of value to replace other theories of value. The stated goal of emergy evaluations is to provide an "ecocentric" valuation of systems, processes. Thus it does not purport to replace economic values but to provide additional information, from a different point of view.
The idea that a calorie of sunlight is not equivalent to a calorie of fossil fuel or electricity strikes many as absurd, based on the 1st Law definition of energy units as measures of heat (i.e. Joule's mechanical equivalent of heat). Others have rejected the concept as impractical since from their perspective it is impossible to objectively quantify the amount of sunlight that is required to produce a quantity of oil. In combining systems of humanity and nature and evaluating environmental input to economies, mainstream economists criticize the emergy methodology for disregarding market values.
See also
- Anthropogenic metabolism
- Ecological economics
- Ecological energetics
- Energy accounting
- Environmental accounting
- Exergy
- Industrial metabolism
- Material flow analysis
- Maximum power principle
- Social metabolism
- Systems ecology
- Urban metabolism
Notes
- ^ Odum, Howard T. (1996). Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. Wiley. p. 370. ISBN 978-0-471-11442-0.
- von Bertalanffy. L. 1968. General System Theory. George Braziller Publ. New York 295 p.
- ^ Odum, H. T. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley, NY. 644 p.
- Odum, H.T., 1995. Self organization and maximum power. Chapter 28, pp. 311-364 in Maximum Power, Ed. by C .A. S. Hall, University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
- Odum, H. T. 1957. Trophic structure and productivity of Silver Springs, Florida. Ecol. Monogr. 27:55-112.
- Odum, H. T. and E. P. Odum. 1955. Trophic structure and productivity of a windward coral reef at Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands. Ecol. Monogr. 25:291-320.
- Odum, H. T. and C. M. Hoskin. 1958. Comparative studies of the metabolism of Texas Bays. Pubi. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. Tex. 5:16-46.
- Odum, H. T. and R. F. Pigeon, eds. 1970. A Tropical Rain Forest. Division of Technical Information, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1600 pp.
- ^ Odum, H. T. 1967. Energetics of food production. In: The World Food Problem, Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Panel on World Food Supply, Vol. 3. The Whitehouse. pp. 55-94.
- ^ Odum, H. T. et al. 1976. Net Energy Analysis of Alternatives for the United States. In U.S. Energy Policy: Trends and Goals, Part V – Middle and Long-term Energy Policies and Alternatives. 94th Congress 2nd Session Committee Print. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives, 66-723, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash, DC. pp. 254–304.
- ^ Odum, H. T. and E. C. Odum. 1976. Energy Basis for Man and Nature. McGraw-Hill, NY. 297 pp
- Odum, H. T. 1973. Energy, ecology and economics. Royal Swedish Academy of Science. AMBIO 2(6):220-227.
- Odum, H. T. 1976. 'Energy quality and carrying capacity of the earth. Response at Prize Ceremony, Institute de la Vie, Paris. Tropical Ecology 16(l):1–8.
- Odum, H. T. 1977. Energy analysis, energy quality and environment. In Energy Analysis: A New Public Policy Tool, M. W. Gilliland, ed. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Selected Symposium No. 9, Wash. DC. Westview Press. pp. 55–87.
- Odum, E. C., and Odum, H. T., 1980. Energy systems and environmental education. Pp. 213–231 in: Environmental Education- Principles, Methods and Applications, Ed. by T. S. Bakshi and Z. Naveh. Plenum Press, New York.
- Scienceman, D. M., 1987. "Energy and Emergy," in G. Pillet and T. Murota (eds), Environmental Economics: The Analysis of a Major Interface, R. Leimgruber, Geneva, pp. 257–276. (CFW-86-26)
- Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY. 336 pp.
- Odum, H. T., M. J. Lavine, F. C. Wang, M. A. Miller, J. F. Alexander Jr. and T. Butler. 1983. A Manual for Using Energy Analysis for Plant Siting with an Appendix on Energy Analysis of Environmental Values. Final report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2443 FINB-6155. Energy Analysis Workshop, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. 221 pp.
- Odum, H. T. and E. C. Odum, eds. 1983. Energy Analysis Overview of Nations. Working Paper WP-83-82. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. 469 pp.
- Odum, H. T., M. T. Brown and S. B. Williams. 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio #1 – Introduction and Global Budget. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering Sciences, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, 16 pp. Available on line at: "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-09-09. Retrieved 2010-06-04.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link). - Many example diagrams can be found at EmergySystems.org Archived 2010-03-09 at the Wayback Machine).
- Chen, Y.; Feng, L.; Wang, J.; Höök, M (2017). "Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation". Energy. 128 (6): 540–549. Bibcode:2017Ene...128..540C. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.058.
- Ayres, R.U., 1998. Ecology vs. Economics: Confusing Production and Consumption. Center of the Management of Environmental Resources, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.
- Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Stern, D.I., 2000. Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy. Ecol. Econ. 32, 301–317.
- Hau JL, Bakshi BR. 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling 178:215–225.
- Mansson, B.A., McGlade, J.M., 1993. Ecology, thermodynamics and H.T. Odum's conjectures. Oecologia 93, 582–596.
- Silvert W. 1982. The theory of power and efficiency in ecology. Ecological Modelling 15:159–164.
- Spreng, D.T., 1988. Net-Energy Analysis and the Energy Requirements of Energy Systems. Praeger Publishers, New York, 289 pp.
- Sciubba, E., 2010. On the Second-Law inconsistency of Emergy Analysis. Energy 35, 3696-3706.
- References for Table 4
- Agostinho, F., L.A. Ambrósio, E. Ortega. 2010. Assessment of a large watershed in Brazil using Emergy Evaluation and Geographical Information System. Ecological Modelling, Volume 221, Issue 8, 24 April 2010, Pages 1209-1220
- Almeida, C.M.V.B., A.J.M. Rodrigues, S.H. Bonilla, B.F. Giannetti. 2010. Emergy as a tool for Ecodesign: evaluating materials selection for beverage packages in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 18, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 32-43
- Almeida, C.M.V.B., D. Borges Jr., S.H. Bonilla, B.F. Giannetti 2010. Identifying improvements in water management of bus-washing stations in Brazil Resources, Conservation and Recycling, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 February 2010
- Almeida, C.M.V.B., F.A. Barrella, B.F. Giannetti. 2007. Emergetic ternary diagrams: five examples for application in environmental accounting for decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 15, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 63-74
- Ascione, M., L. Campanella, F. Cherubini, and S. Ulgiati. 2009. Environmental driving forces of urban growth and development: An emergy-based assessment of the city of Rome, Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 93, Issues 3-4, 15 December 2009, Pages 238-249
- Barbir, F., 1992. Analysis and Modeling of Environmental and Economic Impacts of the Solar Hydrogen Energy System. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Miami, Florida, 176 pp.
- Bargigli, S., M. Raugei, S. Ulgiati. 2004. Comparison of thermodynamic and environmental indexes of natural gas, syngas and hydrogen production processes. Energy, Volume 29, Issues 12-15, October–December 2004, Pages 2145-2159
- Bastianoni, S., D. Campbell, L.Susani, E. Tiezzi. 2005. The solar transformity of oil and petroleum natural gas. Ecological Modelling, Volume 186, Issue 2, 15 August 2005, Pages 212-220
- Bastianoni, S., D.E. Campbell, R. Ridolfi, F.M. Pulselli. 2009. The solar transformity of petroleum fuels. Ecological Modelling, Volume 220, Issue 1, 10 January 2009, Pages 40-50
- Brandt-Williams, S. 1999. Evaluation of watershed control of two Central Florida lakes : Newnans Lake and Lake Weir. PhD Dissertation, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. 287p.
- Brown M.T. and Vivas M.B., 2004. A Landscape Development Intensity Index. Env. Monitoring and Assessment, in press.
- Brown M.T., and Buranakarn V., 2003. Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material cycles and recycle options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 38: 1-22.
- Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, and S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting National Sustainability: the convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modelling 220: 3424-3438
- Brown, M.T. 2005. Landscape restoration following phosphate mining: 30 years of co-evolution of science, industry and regulation. Ecological Engineering 24: 309-329
- Brown, M.T. and Bardi, E., 2001. Emergy of Ecosystems. Folio No. 3 of Handbook of Emergy Evaluation The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville 93 p. (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_3.pdf).
- Brown, M.T. and T. McClanahan 1996. Emergy Analysis Perspectives for Thailand and Mekong River Dam Proposals. Ecological Modelling 91:pp105-130
- Brown, M.T., 2003. Resource Imperialism. Emergy Perspectives on Sustainability, International Trade and Balancing the Welfare of Nations. In: Book of Proceedings of the International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies. Reconsidering the Importance of Energy”. Porto Venere, Italy, 24–28 September 2002. S. Ulgiati, M.T. Brown, M. Giampietro, R.A. Herendeen, and K. Mayumi, Editors. SGE Publisher Padova, Italy, pp. 135-149.
- Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy Evaluation of the Biosphere and Natural Capital. Ambio, 28(6): 486-493.
- Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 2002. The Role of Environmental Services in Electricity Production Processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10: 321-334.
- Brown, M.T., and Ulgiati, S., 2004. Emergy, Transformity, and Ecosystem Health. In: Handbook of Ecosystem Health. Sven E. Jorgensen Editor. CRC Press, New York.
- Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen Emergy and Network Analysis. 2008. Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2008, Pages 1229-1239
- Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting national sustainability: The convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modelling, Volume 220, Issue 23, 10 December 2009, Pages 3424-3438
- Brown, M.T., Woithe, R.D., Montague, C.L., Odum, H.T., and Odum, E.C., 1993. Emergy Analysis Perspectives of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Final Report to the Cousteau Society. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 114 pp.
- Cai, T. T., T. W Olsen, D. E Campbell. 2004. Maximum (em)power: a foundational principle linking man and nature. Ecological Modelling, Volume 178, Issues 1-2, 15 October 2004, Pages 115-119
- Carraretto, C., A. Macor, A. Mirandola, A. Stoppato, S. Tonon. 2004. Biodiesel as alternative fuel: Experimental analysis and energetic evaluations. Energy, Volume 29, Issues 12-15, October–December 2004, Pages 2195-2211
- Cavalett, O., E. Ortega . 2009. Emergy, nutrients balance, and economic assessment of soybean production and industrialization in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 8, May 2009, Pages 762-771
- Chen, Y., Feng, L., Wang, J., Höök, M., 2017. Emergy-based energy return on investment method for evaluating energy exploitation. Energy, Volume 128, 1 June 2017, Pages 540-549
- Cialani, C., Russi, D., and Ulgiati, S., 2004. Investigating a 20-year national economic dynamics by means of emergy-based indicators. In: Brown, M.T., Campbell, D., Comar, V., Huang, S.L., Rydberg, T., Tilley, D.R., and Ulgiati, S., (Editors), 2004. Emergy Synthesis. Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology – 3. Book of Proceedings of the Third International Emergy Research Conference, Gainesville, FL, 29–31 January 2004. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
- Cohen, M.J. M.T. Brown, K.D. Shepherd. 2006. Estimating the environmental costs of soil erosion at multiple scales in Kenya using emergy synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 114, Issues 2-4, June 2006, Pages 249-269
- Cuadra, M., J. Björklund. 2007. Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of agricultural crops in Nicaragua. Ecological Indicators, Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 133-149
- Cuadra, M., T. Rydberg. 2006. Emergy evaluation on the production, processing and export of coffee in Nicaragua. Ecological Modelling, Volume 196, Issues 3-4, 25 July 2006, Pages 421-433
- de Barros, I., J.M. Blazy, G. Stachetti Rodrigues, R. Tournebize, J.P. Cinna. 2009. Emergy evaluation and economic performance of banana cropping systems in Guadeloupe (French West Indies). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 129, Issue 4, February 2009, Pages 437-449
- Doherty, S.J., Odum, H.T., and Nilsson, P.O., 1995. Systems Analysis of the Solar Emergy Basis for Forest Alternatives in Sweden. Final Report to the Swedish State Power Board, College of Forestry, Garpenberg, Sweden, 112 pp.
- Dong, X., S. Ulgiati, M. Yan, X. Zhang, W.Gao. 2008. Energy and eMergy evaluation of bioethanol production from wheat in Henan Province, China. Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 10, October 2008, Pages 3882-3892
- Federici, M., S. Ulgiati, D. Verdesca, R. Basosi. 2003. Efficiency and sustainability indicators for passenger and commodities transportation systems: The case of Siena, Italy. Ecological Indicators, Volume 3, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 155-169
- Federici, M., S. Ulgiati, R. Basosi. 2008. A thermodynamic, environmental and material flow analysis of the Italian highway and railway transport systems. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 760-775
- Federici, M., S. Ulgiati, R. Basosi. 2009. Air versus terrestrial transport modalities: An energy and environmental comparison. Energy, Volume 34, Issue 10, October 2009, Pages 1493-1503
- Felix, E. D.R. Tilley. 2009. Integrated energy, environmental and financial analysis of ethanol production from cellulosic switchgrass. Energy, Volume 34, Issue 4, April 2009, Pages 410-436
- Franzese, P.P., T. Rydberg, G.F. Russo, S. Ulgiati. 2009. Sustainable biomass production: A comparison between Gross Energy Requirement and Emergy Synthesis methods Ecological Indicators, Volume 9, Issue 5, September 2009, Pages 959-970
- Giannantoni C., 2002. The Maximum Em-Power Principle as the Basis for Thermodynamics of Quality. SGE Publisher, Padova, Italy, pp. 185. ISBN 88-86281-76-5.
- Giannantoni, C., 2003. The Problem of the Initial Conditions and Their Physical Meaning in Linear Differential Equations of Fractional Order. Applied Mathematics and Computation 141, 87–102.
- Giannetti, B.F., C.M.V.B. Almeida, S.H. Bonilla. 2010. Comparing emergy accounting with well-known sustainability metrics: The case of Southern Cone Common Market, Mercosur. Energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 3518-3526
- Giannetti, B.F., F.A. Barrella, C.M.V.B. Almeida. 2006. A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 201-210
- Grönlund, E., A. Klang, S. Falk, J. Hanæus. 2004. Sustainability of wastewater treatment with microalgae in cold climate, evaluated with emergy and socio-ecological principles. Ecological Engineering, Volume 22, Issue 3, 1 May 2004, Pages 155-174
- Huang, S-L., C-W. Chen. 2005. Theory of urban energetics and mechanisms of urban development. Ecological Modelling, Volume 189, Issues 1-2, 25 November 2005, Pages 49-71
- Huang, S-L., C-L. Lee, C-W. Chen. 2006. Socioeconomic metabolism in Taiwan: Emergy synthesis versus material flow analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 48, Issue 2, 15 August 2006, Pages 166-196
- Huang, S.L., 1998. Spatial Hierarchy of Urban Energetic Systems. In: Book of Proceedings of the International Workshop “Advances in Energy Studies. Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy”. Porto Venere, Italy, 26–30 May 1998. S. Ulgiati, M.T. Brown, M. Giampietro, R.A. Herendeen, and K. Mayumi (Eds), MUSIS Publisher, Roma, Italy, pp. 499-514.
- Ingwersen, W.W. 2010. Uncertainty characterization for emergy values. Ecological Modelling, Volume 221, Issue 3, 10 February 2010, Pages 445-452
- Jiang, M.M., J.B. Zhou, B. Chen, G.Q. Chen. 2008. Emergy-based ecological account for the Chinese economy in 2004. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, Volume 13, Issue 10, December 2008, Pages 2337-2356
- Jorgensen, S. E., H. T. Odum, M. T. Brown. 2004. Emergy and exergy stored in genetic information. Ecological Modelling, Volume 178, Issues 1-2, 15 October 2004, Pages 11-16
- Kangas, P.C., 2002. Emergy of Landforms. Folio No. 5 of Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. The Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville 93 p. (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_5.pdf)
- Keitt, T.H., 1991. Hierarchical Organization of energy and information in a tropical rain forest ecosystem. M.S. Thesis, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 72 pp.
- Kent, R., H.T. Odum and F.N. Scatena. 2000. Eutrophic overgrowth in the self organization of tropical wetlands illustrated with a study of swine wastes in rainforest plots. Ecol. Engr. 16(2000):255-269.
- Laganis, J., M. Debeljak. 2006. Sensitivity analysis of the emergy flows at the solar salt production process in Slovenia. Ecological Modelling, Volume 194, Issues 1-3, 25 March 2006, Pages 287-295
- Lefroy, E., T. Rydberg. 2003. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in southwestern Australia. Ecological Modelling, Volume 161, Issue 3, 15 March 2003, Pages 193-209
- Lei, K., Z. Wang. 2008a. Emergy synthesis of tourism-based urban ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 88, Issue 4, September 2008, Pages 831-844
- Lei K., Z. Wang. 2008b. Emergy Synthesis and Simulation of Macao. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 4, pages 613-625
- Lei K., Z. Wang. 2008c. Municipal Wastes and Their Solar Transformities: Emergy Synthesis for Macao. Waste management, Volume 28, Issue 12, pages 2522-2531
- Lei K., Z. Wang, S.Tong. 2008. Holistic Emergy Analysis of Macao. Ecological Engineering, Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 30-43
- Lei K., S. Zhou, D. Hu, Z. Wang. 2010. Ecological energy accounting for the gambling sector: A case study in Macao. Ecological complexity, Volume 7, pages 149-155
- Lei K., S. Zhou, D. Hu, Z. Guo, A. Cao. 2011. Emergy analysis for tourism systems: Principles and a case study for Macao. Ecological complexity, Volume 8, 192-200
- Lei K., S. Zhou. 2012. Per capita Resource Consumption and Resource Carrying Capacity: a Comparison of the Sustainability of 17 Mainstream Countries. Energy Policy, Volume 42, pages 603-612
- Liu G.Y. et al., 2017. https://www.emergy-nead.com and http://nead.um01.cn/home Archived 2018-12-15 at the Wayback Machine.
- Lomas, P.L., S. Álvarez, M. Rodríguez, C. Montes. 2008. Environmental accounting as a management tool in the Mediterranean context: The Spanish economy during the last 20 years. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 88, Issue 2, July 2008, Pages 326-347
- Lu, H-F., W-L.Kang, D.E. Campbell, H. Ren, Y-W. Tan, R-X. Feng, J-T. Luo, F-P. Chen. 2009. Emergy and economic evaluations of four fruit production systems on reclaimed wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Ecological Engineering, Volume 35, Issue 12, December 2009, Pages 1743-1757
- Lu, H. D.E. Campbell, Z. Li, H. Ren. 2006.Emergy synthesis of an agro-forest restoration system in lower subtropical China. Ecological Engineering, Volume 27, Issue 3, 2 October 2006, Pages 175-192
- Lu, H., D. Campbell, J. Chen, P. Qin, H. Ren . 2007. Conservation and economic viability of nature reserves: An emergy evaluation of the Yancheng Biosphere Reserve. Biological Conservation, Volume 139, Issues 3-4, October 2007, Pages 415-438
- Lu, H., D. E. Campbell. 2009. Ecological and economic dynamics of the Shunde agricultural system under China's small city development strategy. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 90, Issue 8, June 2009, Pages 2589-2600
- Martin, J.F., S.A.W. Diemont, E. Powell, M. Stanton, S. Levy-Tacher. 2006. Emergy evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with different scales and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 115, Issues 1-4, July 2006, Pages 128-140
- Odum H.T. and E.C. Odum, 2001. A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. University Press of Colorado.
- 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: 331-343.
- 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: 1132-1139.
- Odum H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting. Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.
- Odum, E.C., and Odum, H.T., 1980. Energy systems and environmental education. Pp. 213-231 in: Environmental :Education- Principles, Methods and Applications, Ed. by T.S. Bakshi and Z. Naveh. Plenum Press, New York.
- Odum, E.C., and Odum, H.T., 1984. System of ethanol production from sugarcane in Brazil. Ciencia e Cultura, 37(11): 1849-1855.
- Odum, E.C., Odum, H.T., and Peterson, N.S., 1995a. Using simulation to introduce systems approach in education. Chapter 31, pp. 346-352, in Maximum Power, ed. by C.A.S. Hall, University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
- Odum, H. T., Brown, M. T., Whitefield, L. S., Woithe, R., and Doherty, S., 1995b. Zonal Organization of Cities and Environment: A Study of Energy System Basis for Urban Society. A Report to the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
- Odum, H.T, M.T. Brown, and S. Ulgiati. 1999. Ecosystems as Energetic Systems. pp.281-302 in S.E. Jorgensen and F. Muller (eds) Handbook of Ecosystem Theories. CRC Press, New York
- Odum, H.T. 1971a. Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley, NY. 336 pp.
- Odum, H.T. 1971b. An energy circuit language for ecological and social systems: its physical basis. Pp. 139-211, in Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, Vol. 2, Ed. by B. Patten. Academic Press, New York.
- Odum, H.T. 1972b. Chemical cycles with energy circuit models. Pp. 223-257, in Changing Chemistry of the Ocean, ed. by D. Dryssen and D. Jagner. Nobel Symposium 20. Wiley, New York.
- Odum, H.T. 1973. Energy, ecology and economics. Royal Swedish Academy of Science. AMBIO 2(6):220-227.
- Odum, H.T. 1976a. 'Energy quality and carrying capacity of the earth. Response at Prize Ceremony, Institute de la Vie, Paris. Tropical Ecology 16(l):1-8.
- Odum, H.T. 1987a. Living with complexity. Pp. 19-85 in The Crafoord Prize in the Biosciences, 1987, Lectures. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. 87 pp
- Odum, H.T. 1987b. Models for national, international, and global systems policy. Chapter 13, pp. 203-251, in Economic-Ecological Modeling, ed. by L.C. Braat and W.F.J. Van Lierop. Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, 329 pp.
- Odum, H.T. et al. 1976. Net energy Analysis of Alternatives for the United States. In U.S. Energy Policy: Trends and Goals. Part V - Middle and Long-term Energy Policies and Alternatives. 94th Congress 2nd Session Committee Print. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives, 66-723, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash, DC. pp. 254-304.
- Odum, H.T., 1975. Combining energy laws and corollaries of the maximum power principle with visual system mathematics. Pp. 239-263, in Ecosystems: Analysis and Prediction, ed. by Simon Levin. Proceedings of the conference on ecosystems at Alta, Utah. SIAM Institute for Mathematics and Society, Philadelphia.
- Odum, H.T., 1980a. Biomass and Florida's future. Pp. 58-67 in: A Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Development and Applications of the Committee on Science and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Congress. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
- Odum, H.T., 1980b. Principle of environmental energy matching for estimating potential economic value: a rebuttal. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 5(3): 239-243.
- Odum, H.T., 1982. Pulsing, power and hierarchy. Pp. 33-59, in Energetics and Systems, ed. by W.J. Mitsch, R.K. Ragade, R. W. Bosserman, and J.A. Dillon Jr., Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
- Odum, H.T., 1984a. Energy analysis of the environmental role in agriculture. Pp. 24-51, in Energy and Agriculture, ed. by G. Stanhill. Springer Verlag, Berlin. 192 pp.
- Odum, H.T., 1985. Water conservation and wetland values. Pp. 98-111, in Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters, ed. by P.J. Godfrey, E.R. Kaynor, S. Pelezrski, and J. Benforado. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 473 pp.
- Odum, H.T., 1986. Enmergy in ecosystems. In Environmental Monographs and Symposia, N. Polunin, ed. John Wiley, NY. pp. 337-369.
- Odum, H.T., 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 644 pp. Revised edition of Systems Ecology, 1983, Wiley.
- Odum, H.T., 1995. Self organization and maximum power. Chapter 28, pp. 311-364 in Maximum Power, Ed. by C.A.S. Hall, University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
- Odum, H.T., 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio #2 – Emergy of Global processes. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_2.pdf)
- Odum, H.T., and Arding, J.E., 1991. Emergy analysis of shrimp mariculture in Ecuador. Report to Coastal Studies Institute, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 87.
- Odum, H.T., Gayle, T., Brown, M.T., and Waldman, J., 1978b. Energy analysis of the University of Florida. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville. Unpublished manuscript.
- Odum, H.T., Kemp, W., Sell, M., Boynton W., and Lehman, M., 1978a. Energy Analysis and the coupling of man and estuaries. Environmental Management, 1: 297-315.
- Odum, H.T., Lavine, M.J., Wang, F.C., Miller, M.A., Alexander, J.F., and Butler, T., 1983. Manual for using energy analysis for plant siting. Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Report No. NUREG/CR-2443. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va. Pp. 242.
- Odum, H.T., M.T. Brown and S.B. Williams. 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation: A Compendium of Data for Emergy Computation Issued in a Series of Folios. Folio #1 - Introduction and Global Budget. Center for Environmental Policy, Environmental . (http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_1.pdf)
- Odum, W.P., Odum, E.P., and Odum, H.T., 1995c. Nature's Pulsing Paradigm. Estuaries 18(4): 547-555.
- Peng, T., H.F. Lu, W.L. Wu, D.E. Campbell, G.S. Zhao, J.H. Zou, J. Chen. 2008. Should a small combined heat and power plant (CHP) open to its regional power and heat networks? Integrated economic, energy, and emergy evaluation of optimization plans for Jiufa CHP. Energy, Volume 33, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages 437-445
- Pizzigallo, A.C.I., C. Granai, S. Borsa. 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy evaluation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 86, Issue 2, January 2008, Pages 396-406
- Prado-Jatar, M.A., and Brown, M.T., 1997. Interface ecosystems with an oil spill in a Venezuelan tropical savannah. Ecological Engineering, 8: 49-78.
- Pulselli, R.M., E. Simoncini, R. Ridolfi, S. Bastianoni. 2008. Specific emergy of cement and concrete: An energy-based appraisal of building materials and their transport. Ecological Indicators, Volume 8, Issue 5, September 2008, Pages 647-656
- Reiss, C.R. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Evaluation of Florida Palustrine Wetlands: Application of USEPA Levels 1, 2, and 3 Assessment Methods. Ecohealth 4:206-218.
- Rótolo, G.C., T. Rydberg, G. Lieblein, C. Francis. 2007. Emergy evaluation of grazing cattle in Argentina's Pampas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 119, Issues 3-4, March 2007, Pages 383-395
- Rydberg, T., A.C. Haden. 2006. Emergy evaluations of Denmark and Danish agriculture: Assessing the influence of changing resource availability on the organization of agriculture and society. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 117, Issues 2-3, November 2006, Pages 145-158
- Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., and Bastianoni, S., 1993. Emergy Analysis of Italian Agricultural System. The Role of Energy Quality and Environmental Inputs.In: Trends in Ecological Physical Chemistry. L. Bonati, U. Cosentino, M. Lasagni, G. Moro, D. Pitea and A. Schiraldi, Editors. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 187-215.
- Ulgiati, S. and M.T. Brown. 2001. Emergy Evaluations and Environmental Loading of Alternative Electricity Production Systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 10:335-348
- S. Giberna, P. Barbieri, E. Reisenhofer, P. Plossi. 2004. Emergy analysis of the phase of operation of the incineration of municipal waste in Trieste
- Vassallo, P., C. Paoli, D.R. Tilley, M. Fabiano. 2009. Energy and resource basis of an Italian coastal resort region integrated using emergy synthesis Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 91, Issue 1, October 2009, Pages 277-289
- Zhang, X., W.Jiang, S. Deng, K. Peng. 2009. Emergy evaluation of the sustainability of Chinese steel production during 1998–2004. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 11, July 2009, Pages 1030-1038
- Zhang, Y., Z. Yang, X.Yu. 2009. Evaluation of urban metabolism based on emergy synthesis: A case study for Beijing (China). Ecological Modelling, Volume 220, Issues 13-14, 17 July 2009, Pages 1690-1696
External links
- Emergy Systems - University of Florida where publications, systems symbols and diagrams, templates, powerpoint lectures, etc. can be downloaded
- Paper by H.T. Odum describing emergy (1998)
- Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy
- Hall Maximum Power - The Ideas and Applications of H.T. Odum. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 454 pp, C. A. S., ed., 1995
- Odum H.T. and E.C. Odum, 2001 - A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. University Press of Colorado]
- Marvuglia, Benetto, Rios, Rugani, 2013 - SCALE: Software for CALculating Emergy Based on Life Cycle Inventories