Emergy

Emergy is the available energy (exergy) of one kind that is used up in transformations directly and indirectly to make a product or service.^[1] Emergy accounts for, and in effect, measures quality differences between forms of energy. Emergy is an expression of all the energy used in the work processes that generate a product or service in units of one type of energy. The unit of emergy is the emjoule, a unit referring to the available energy of one kind 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 different ability to support work in natural and human dominated systems. The recognition of these differences in quality is a key concept of the emergy methodology.

Contents 1 History 2 Definitions and examples 3 Emergy nomenclature 4 The emergy accounting method 4.1 1. Energy Systems Diagram 4.2 2. Preparation of an Emergy Evaluation Table 4.3 3. Calculating Unit Emergy Values 4.4 4. Performance Indicators 5 Uses of emergy methodology 6 Controversies 7 Notes 8 See also 8.1 References for Table 4 9 Further reading on the Web

History

The theoretical and conceptual basis for the emergy methodology is grounded in thermodynamics, general system theory^[2] and systems ecology.^[3] Evolution of the theory over the first thirty years was documented by H.T Odum in Environmental Accounting^[1] and in the volume edited by C.A.S. Hall titled Maximum Power.^[4] Beginning in the 1950s Odum recognized principles of energy quality as an outgrowth of his investigations and simulation modeling of ecosystems of humans and nature (e.g. Silver Springs, Florida;^[5] Eniwetok atoll in the south Pacific;^[6] Galveston Bay, Texas^[7] and Puerto Rican rainforests,^[8] amongst others) where energies of many different forms at many different scales were observed. His investigations about energy flows in ecosystems and the differences in the work potential of sunlight, fresh water currents, wind and ocean currents and even fossil fuels made it clear 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 quality. This led to the concept of "energy of one kind" as a common denominator with the name "energy cost".^[9] The first formal recognition of energy quality was in Odum's book Environment Power and Society^[10]

Beginning in the last century man began to develop an entirely new basis for power with the use of coal, oil, and other stored-energy sources to supplement solar energy. Concentrated inputs of power whose accumulation had been the work of billions of acres of solar energy, became available for manipulation by man.^[10]

The 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.^[11]

It appears that the first quantitative evaluation of energy quality was in 1975 in the acceptance speech for the Prize Institute la Vie in Paris, which contained a table of “Energy Quality Factors”, or the kilocalories of sunlight energy required to make a kilocalorie of a higher quality energy.^[12] This is the first mention of the energy hierarchy principle which stated 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).^[13]

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.^[14] 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". "Embodied energy" was abandoned altogether 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 this 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.

Between 1986 and today, the emergy methodology has continued to develop as the community of scientists has expanded and as new applied research into combined systems of humans and nature has presented new conceptual and theoretical questions. The maturing of the emergy methodology has resulted in more rigorous definitions of terms and nomenclature and refinement of the methods of calculating transformities. There is now an International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research and a biennial International Conference held on the campus of the University of Florida.

The following table is a chronology of the evolution of the emergy methodology and nomenclature providing a brief insight into the development of the concept.

Table 1: Development chronology of emergy, transformity, and conversion ratios.

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 kilocalories of organic matter.	g dry wt O.M.; kcal, conversion from OM to kcal = 5kcal/g dry wt.	[9][10]
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)	[15][16]
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).	[3][17]
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)	[18]
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	[1]
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	[19]

Definitions and examples

Given next are definitions of most important terms used in the emergy methodology.

Emergy is the available energy of one form that is used up 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) are computed based on the emergy required to generate one unit of output from a process. There are several types of UEVs, as follows:

Transformity — the 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 — the emergy per unit mass output. Specific emergy is usually expressed as solar emergy per gram (seJ/g). Material resources may best be evaluated with data on emergy per unit mass. 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 was required to concentrate them, both spatially and chemically.

Emergy per unit money — the emergy supporting the generation of one unit of economic product (expressed as currency). It is used to convert money payments into emergy units. Since money is paid to people for their services and not to the environment, the contribution to a process represented by monetary payments is the emergy that people purchase with the money. 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 amount of emergy supporting one unit of labor directly supplied to a process. Laborers apply their work to a process and in so doing they indirectly invest in it the whole 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/$) is also used. Indirect labor required to make and supply the inputs to a process is generally measured as dollar cost of services, so that its emergy intensity is calculated as seJ/$.

Empower — a flow of emergy (i.e., emergy per unit time). Emergy flows are usually expressed in units of solar empower (solar emjoules per time, seJ/s, seJ/yr).

Emergy nomenclature

To avoid confusion with other forms of analysis and to rigorously define concepts, an emergy nomenclature has been developed that defines terms, units, and ratios used in emergy evaluations. The following table shows terms, abbreviations, definitions and units related to emergy, summarized from the literature.

Table 2. Terms, abbreviations, main indicators and units of the emergy

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−1
Gross Emergy Product	Total emergy annually used to drive a national or regional economy	GEP	seJ*yr−1
Product-related Intensive Properties
Transformity	Emergy investment per unit process output of available energy	Τr	seJ*J−1
Specific Emergy	Emergy investment per unit process output of dry mass	SpEm	seJ*g−1
Emergy Intensity of currency	Emergy investment per unit of GDP generated in a country, region or process	EIC	seJ*curency−1
Space-related Intensive Properties
Emergy Density	Emergy stored in a volume unit of a given material	EmD	seJ*volume−3
Time-related Intensive Properties
Empower	Emergy flow (released, used) per unit time	EmP	seJ*time−1
Empower Intensity	Areal Empower (emergy released per unit time and area)	EmPI	seJ*time−1*area−1
Empower Density	Emergy released by a unit volume unit (e.g. a power plant or engine)	EmPd	seJ*time−1*volume−3
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)	==

The emergy accounting method

(For a more complete discussion of Emergy Accounting methods see Environmental Accounting: Emegy and environmental decision making, by H.T. Odum)

Emergy accounting uses the thermodynamic basis of all forms of energy, resources and human services, and converts them into equivalents of one form of energy, usually solar emergy. To evaluate a system, first a system diagram is drawn to organize the evaluation and account for all inputs and outflows. A table of the actual flows of resources, labor and energy is constructed from the diagram and all flows are evaluated. The final step of an emergy evaluation involves interpreting the quantitative results. In some cases, the evaluation is done to determine the fit of a development proposal within its environment. In others, it may be a question of comparing different alternatives, or the evaluation may be seeking the best use of resources to maximize economic vitality (Table 4, below lists some of the many published emergy evaluations of systems and processes).

Emergy evaluations are both synthetic and analytic. Synthesis is the act of combining elements into coherent wholes for understanding of the wholeness of systems, while analysis is the dissection or breaking apart of systems to build understanding from the pieces upward. In the emergy method of evaluation, sometimes called emergy synthesis, first the whole system is considered through diagramming, then the flows of energy, resources and information that drive the system are analyzed. By evaluating complex systems using emergy methods, the major inputs from the human economy and those coming “free” from the environment are integrated to analyze questions of public policy and environmental management.

1. Energy Systems Diagram

Systems diagrams are used to show the inputs that are evaluated and summed to obtain the emergy of a resulting flow or storage. The purpose of the system diagram is to conduct a critical inventory of processes, storages and flows that are important “drivers” of the system (all flows that inflow across the system boundary) and are therefore necessary to evaluate. A simple diagram of a city and its regional support area is shown in Figure 1 (many example diagrams can be found at the EmergySystems.org web site).

2. Preparation of an Emergy Evaluation Table

A table (see example below) of the actual flows of resources, 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. Tables are usually constructed in the same format, as given by the column headings and format below:

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

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 the numbered footnotes that show citations for data and calculations.

3. Calculating Unit Emergy Values

After the table is prepared that evaluates all the inputs, a unit emergy value of the product or process is calculated. The output (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. The unit values that result for each evaluation are useful for other emergy evaluations. Thus, emergy evaluations generate new emergy unit values.

4. Performance Indicators

The systems diagram in 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 are used to evaluate the global performance of a process as follows:

Emergy Yield Ratio (EYR). Total emergy released (used up) per unit of emergy invested. The ratio is a measure of how much an investment enables a process to exploit local resources in order to further contribute to the economy.

Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR). The ratio of nonrenewable and imported emergy use to renewable emergy use. It is an indicator of the pressure of a transformation process 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 the Emergy Yield Ratio to the Environmental Loading Ratio. It measures the contribution of a resource or process to the economy per unit of environmental loading.

Aerial Empower Intensity. The ratio of total emergy use in the economy of a region or nation to the total area of the region or nation. Renewable and nonrenewable emergy density are also calculated separately by dividing the total renewable emergy by area and the total nonrenewable emergy by area, respectively.

Several other ratios are sometimes calculated depending on the type and scale of he systems being evaluated.

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. Its units are 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 one or the other trading partners and is a measure of the relative trade advantage of one partner over the other.

Emergy per capita. The ratio of total emergy use in the economy of a region or nation to the total population. Emergy per capita can be used as a measure of potential, average standard of living of the population.

Uses of emergy methodology

The recognition of the relevance of energy to the growth and dynamics of all complex systems has resulted in increased emphasis on methods of environmental evaluation 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 and Emergy Evalautions

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) 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, 2008; Vassallo et al., 2009)

Emergy and cities Spatial organization and urban development (Odum et al., 1995b; Huang, 1998; Huang and Chen, 2005; 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; Lu et al., 2009 ) Artificial Ecosystems: wetlands, pond (Odum, 1985) Waste treatment (Kent et al. 2000; Grönlund, et al. 2004)

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 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) 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 several academic communities including ecology, thermodynamics and economy.^{[20][21][22][23][24][25]} Emergy theory has been criticized under the assumption that it fosters an energy theory of value to replace other theories of value. This criticism may miss the fact that the goal of emergy evaluations is to provide an "ecocentric" value of systems, processes, and products as opposed to the anthropocentric values of economics. Thus it does not purport to replace economic values but to provide additional information, from a very different point of view, which public policy might benefit from.

While energy quality has been recognized, somewhat, in the energy literature where different forms of fossil energy are expressed in coal or oil equivalents,^[26] and some researchers have even expressed electricity in oil equivalents^[27] by using 1st law efficiencies, many researchers have been reluctant to accept quality corrections of other forms of energy and resources. 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).^[28] Others have rejected the concept as being impractical since from their perspective it is impossible to quantify the amount of sunlight that is required to produce a quantity of oil. This latter issue results from a concern about the uncertainty involved in such quantification. In combining systems of humanity and nature and evaluating environmental input to economies, mainstream economists criticize the emergy methodology for disregarding market driven values as determined by willingness to pay.

Notes

See also

• Energetics
• Maximum power principle

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 Modeling 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 Modeling 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 The 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

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 99-973101-87-6.

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. 2008. Emergy synthesis of tourism-based urban ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 88, Issue 4, September 2008, Pages 831-844

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

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

Further reading on the Web

1. Web site on emergy at the University of Florida where publications, systems symbols and diagrams, templates, powerpoint lectures, etc can be downloaded: http://www.emergysystems.org

2. Paper by H.T. Odum describing emergy (1998) http://www.emergysystems.org/emergy.php

3. Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy

4. Hall, C. A. S., ed., 1995. Maximum Power. The Ideas and Applications of H.T. Odum. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 454 pp.

5. Odum H.T. and E.C. Odum , 2001. A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies. University Press of Colorado.