emergy & complex systems day 4, lecture 9…. emergy evaluation of environmental alternatives...

Emergy & Complex Systems

Day 4, Lecture 9….

Emergy Evaluation of Environmental

Alternatives

Emergy Evaluation of Environmental

Alternatives

Restoration, Uses of environment, management, alternative investments



The use of Emergy to evaluate environmental alternatives



Two Views of Value......the worth, importance, or usefulness of something...to rate something according to its perceived worth, importance, or usefulness

1. Value is in the eyes of the beholder2. Value is derived from what goes into something

Receiver value Donor value



Units of EMERGY...

Solar emergy joules…

or Solar emjoules…

or “sej”

Because joules are so small…(it takes 4186 of them to equal 1 kilogram calorie) the units we deal with are typically 1012 (E12) and higher



By using a standard conversion factor, we can express emergy in dollar equivalents…

In the same way as we could express dollars in energy equivalents..ie gallons of gas

EmDollars…the money equivalent of emergy.

for instance $1 today = 0.66 gallons or $1 = 8.7 E7 joules



InputEmergy

A

InputEmergy

B

InputEmergy

C

Total Emergy Input= 10.8 E 24 sej/yr

Production Consumption$

$

People

Gross Domestic Product10.4 E12 $

Total Emergy = 10.8 E24 sej/ yr = 1.0 E12 sej/ $ GDP 10.4 E12 $/yr

InputEmergy

A

InputEmergy

B

InputEmergy

C

Total Emergy Input= 10.8 E 24 sej/yr

Production Consumption$

$

People

Gross Domestic Product10.4 E12 $

Total Emergy = 10.8 E24 sej/ yr = 1.0 E12 sej/ $ GDP 10.4 E12 $/yr



Emdollars of the US Economy

Total Emergy UseGross Domestic Product

= 1.0 E12 sej/dollar

So...

Every dollar spent in US economy has “embodied” in it, 1 E 12 sej of emergy



3.6 E18 sej/yr 1.0 E12 sej/$ = 3.6 E6 em$

Express emergy as Emdollars for ease of recognition...

An emergy input of 3.6 E18 sej/yr…becomes...

3.6 E6 Em$



Alternate

Potential

EnvSource Original Use

to bediverted

New Use

R

R2

R1

F1

F2

Importsfrom MainEconomy

F2

R3

R1*ELR

R1

P1

P2

P3

P4

Comparison of Development Alternatives

Comparison of Development Alternatives



Emergy Evaluation of Water Supply



The global water cycle... showing its economic use and the resulting circulation of money.

The global water cycle... showing its economic use and the resulting circulation of money.



A case study of water supply alternatives

proposed for Windhoek, Namibia.

Emergy evaluation of the alternatives suggests that the use of aquifer water is preferable to using water from the Kavango River because of the likely downstream environmental impacts to the Okavango Delta wetlands and wildlife.



Map of the study area showing the water supply alternatives

Map of the study area showing the water supply alternatives



Table 9. Emergy evaluation of water supplied from the Tsumeb aquifer and pipeline

(flow = 20.0 E6 m3/ year)

Note Item Data Units Emergy/unit Solar Emergy EmDollars*

(unit/y r) (sej/ unit) (E18 sej/y r) (E3 $Em/y r)

RENEWABLE (FREE) RESOURCES

1 Groundwater 9.40E+13 J 1.70E+05 16.4 962.1

PURCHASED AND OPERATIONAL INPUTS

2 Collector pipes (steel) 7.30E+05 kg 1.80E+12 1.3 76.4

3 Delivery pipeline (GRP) 1.10E+13 J 6.60E+04 0.7 42.7

4 Concrete 1.10E+06 kg 1.00E+12 1.1 62.4

5 Electricity 2.10E+14 J 1.60E+05 33.6 1976.5

6 Pumps and machinery 6.10E+04 kg 6.70E+12 0.4 24

7 Labor, services & capital 4.30E+06 $ 1.70E+13 73.1 4300

8 Operating costs 7.90E+05 $ 1.70E+13 13.4 790

9 Maintenance costs 3.00E+05 $ 1.70E+13 5.1 300

Purchased subtotal 126.7 7452.9

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Loss of regional wildlife 6.00E+12 J 4.00E+06 24 1411.8

Loss of tourism 3.90E+05 $ 1.20E+12 0.47 27.5

Impacts subtotal 24.47 1439.3

Total inputs and impacts 152.5 8968.6

* Solar emergy divided by 1.7 E13 sej/19 96 US$ (emergy per dollar ratio for Namibia in 1996).

Table 9. Emergy evaluation of water supplied from the Tsumeb aquifer and pipeline

(flow = 20.0 E6 m3/ year)



RENEWABLE (FREE) RESOURCES

1 Groundwater 9.40E+13 J 1.70E+05 16.4 962.1


2 Collector pipes (steel) 7.30E+05 kg 1.80E+12 1.3 76.4

3 Delivery pipeline (GRP) 1.10E+13 J 6.60E+04 0.7 42.7

4 Concrete 1.10E+06 kg 1.00E+12 1.1 62.4

5 Electricity 2.10E+14 J 1.60E+05 33.6 1976.5

6 Pumps and machinery 6.10E+04 kg 6.70E+12 0.4 24

7 Labor, services & capital 4.30E+06 $ 1.70E+13 73.1 4300

8 Operating costs 7.90E+05 $ 1.70E+13 13.4 790

9 Maintenance costs 3.00E+05 $ 1.70E+13 5.1 300

Purchased subtotal 126.7 7452.9


Loss of regional wildlife 6.00E+12 J 4.00E+06 24 1411.8

Loss of tourism 3.90E+05 $ 1.20E+12 0.47 27.5




Alternative 1Alternative 1



Table 8. Emergy evaluation of desalinating coastal water and pipeline (flow = 17.3 E6 m3/ year)

Note Item Data Units Emergy/unit Solar Emergy EmDollars*(unit/y r) (sej/ unit) (E18 sej/y r) (E3 $Em/y r)

RENEWABLE (FREE) RESOURCES1 Sea or brackish water 2.51E+14 J 7.40E+03 1.9 109.4

PURCHASED AND OPERATIONAL INPUTS2 GRP Pipeline 4.25E+13 J 6.60E+04 2.8 164.93 Concrete 1.71E+06 kg 1.00E+12 1.7 100.84 Electricity 1.02E+15 J 1.60E+05 163.7 9629.25 Labor, services & capital 1.26E+07 $ 1.70E+13 214.1 12591.46 Operating costs 4.31E+06 $ 1.70E+13 73.3 4311.97 Maintenance costs 8.81E+05 $ 1.70E+13 15 881.4

Purchased subtotal 470.6 27679.6ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Rain required to dilute the brine 2.40E+14 J 7435 1.78 105Loss of net primary prod. 2.40E+14 J 9.00E+03 2.16 127.1




Table 8. Emergy evaluation of desalinating coastal water and pipeline (flow = 17.3 E6 m3/ year)

Note Item Data Units Emergy/unit Solar Emergy EmDollars*(unit/y r) (sej/ unit) (E18 sej/y r) (E3 $Em/y r)

RENEWABLE (FREE) RESOURCES1 Sea or brackish water 2.51E+14 J 7.40E+03 1.9 109.4

PURCHASED AND OPERATIONAL INPUTS2 GRP Pipeline 4.25E+13 J 6.60E+04 2.8 164.93 Concrete 1.71E+06 kg 1.00E+12 1.7 100.84 Electricity 1.02E+15 J 1.60E+05 163.7 9629.25 Labor, services & capital 1.26E+07 $ 1.70E+13 214.1 12591.46 Operating costs 4.31E+06 $ 1.70E+13 73.3 4311.97 Maintenance costs 8.81E+05 $ 1.70E+13 15 881.4

Purchased subtotal 470.6 27679.6ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Rain required to dilute the brine 2.40E+14 J 7435 1.78 105Loss of net primary prod. 2.40E+14 J 9.00E+03 2.16 127.1







Table 7: Emergy evaluation of water from the Kavango and pipeline (flow = 17.3 E6 m3/ year)



RENEWABLE RESOURCE INPUTS

1 Kavango River water 8.19E+13 J 4.80E+04 4 233.6


2 GRP pipe 3.16E+13 J 6.60E+04 2.1 122.5

3 Concrete 1.40E+06 kg 1.00E+12 1.4 82.4

4 Fuels 7.49E+12 J 6.60E+04 0.5 29.1

5 Electricity 2.29E+14 J 1.60E+05 36.6 2151.9

6 Machinery & equipment 7.32E+04 kg 6.70E+12 0.5 28.9

7 Labor, services & capital 3.97E+06 $ 1.70E+13 67.4 3966.2

8 Operating costs 9.81E+05 $ 1.70E+13 16.7 981.4

9 Maintenance costs 9.63E+05 $ 1.70E+13 16.4 962.8

Input subtotal 145.6 8558.8


10 Net primary production 2.1 - 21.0 E14 J 9.00E+03 1.9 - 18.8 1106 - 11064

11 Regional wildlife 2.3 - 23.0 E12 J 4.00E+06 9.2 - 92 5412 - 54118

12 Ecotourism 1.7 - 17 E5 $ 1.20E+12 0.2 - 2.0 117 - 1165

Impacts subtotal 11.3 - 113 6635 - 66347

Total inputs and impacts 161 - 263 15427 -75139


Table 7: Emergy evaluation of water from the Kavango and pipeline (flow = 17.3 E6 m3/ year)



RENEWABLE RESOURCE INPUTS

1 Kavango River water 8.19E+13 J 4.80E+04 4 233.6


2 GRP pipe 3.16E+13 J 6.60E+04 2.1 122.5

3 Concrete 1.40E+06 kg 1.00E+12 1.4 82.4

4 Fuels 7.49E+12 J 6.60E+04 0.5 29.1

5 Electricity 2.29E+14 J 1.60E+05 36.6 2151.9

6 Machinery & equipment 7.32E+04 kg 6.70E+12 0.5 28.9

7 Labor, services & capital 3.97E+06 $ 1.70E+13 67.4 3966.2

8 Operating costs 9.81E+05 $ 1.70E+13 16.7 981.4

9 Maintenance costs 9.63E+05 $ 1.70E+13 16.4 962.8

Input subtotal 145.6 8558.8


10 Net primary production 2.1 - 21.0 E14 J 9.00E+03 1.9 - 18.8 1106 - 11064

11 Regional wildlife 2.3 - 23.0 E12 J 4.00E+06 9.2 - 92 5412 - 54118

12 Ecotourism 1.7 - 17 E5 $ 1.20E+12 0.2 - 2.0 117 - 1165

Impacts subtotal 11.3 - 113 6635 - 66347

Total inputs and impacts 161 - 263 15427 -75139





Table 10. Comparison of emergy indices among the 3 water supply systems

Emergy index(a) Best when index: Kavango Desalination Tsumeb aquifer

Transformity of water (sej/J) ↓ 1.78 E6 5.76 E6 1.53 E6% Renewable ↑ 2.81 0.4 12.71Emerg y Investmen tRatio (EIR) ↓ 26.09 131.15 7.81Emerg y Yiel dRati o (EYR) ↑ 1.04 1.01 1.14Environmenta l Loadin gRati (o ELR) ↓ 35.64 252.92 7.87Emerg y Sustainabilit y Index (ESI) ↑ 0.03 0.004 0.14Emerg y Benefi t t o Purchaser (EB )P ↑ 1.45 1.56 1.58EmDollar per m3 ↓ 0.49 1.61 0.43(a) Indices ar e define di nAppendi xA.

Table 10. Comparison of emergy indices among the 3 water supply systems

Emergy index(a) Best when index: Kavango Desalination Tsumeb aquifer

Transformity of water (sej/J) ↓ 1.78 E6 5.76 E6 1.53 E6% Renewable ↑ 2.81 0.4 12.71Emerg y Investmen tRatio (EIR) ↓ 26.09 131.15 7.81Emerg y Yiel dRati o (EYR) ↑ 1.04 1.01 1.14Environmenta l Loadin gRati (o ELR) ↓ 35.64 252.92 7.87Emerg y Sustainabilit y Index (ESI) ↑ 0.03 0.004 0.14Emerg y Benefi t t o Purchaser (EB )P ↑ 1.45 1.56 1.58EmDollar per m3 ↓ 0.49 1.61 0.43(a) Indices ar e define di nAppendi xA.

Emergy indices help in decision making by providing information “outside of traditional economic analysis

Emergy indices help in decision making by providing information “outside of traditional economic analysis



Emergy Evaluation of

Tourism



Using data from tourism development in Mexico and

Papua New Guinea….

the concept of carrying capacity is related to intensity of development,

environmental support area, and the “fit” of economic development in local

environments and economies.



Assets

Tourists

$

Wind

Tide

Waves

Rain

Food&

Liquor

PotableWater Fuels Electricity

Goods&

Materials

Labor

Tourists

Image

Beach

Grounds &Landscaping

$

Sunlight

Tourist Resort Facility

Assets

Tourists

$

Wind

Tide

Waves

Rain

Food&

Liquor

PotableWater Fuels Electricity

Goods&

Materials

Labor

Tourists

Image

Beach

Grounds &Landscaping

$

Sunlight

Tourist Resort Facility



Table 2. Emergy evaluation of tourist resort on New Britain Island, Papua New Guinea

Note Item Units Units/Yr. Transformity Solar Emergy(sej/unit) (E15 sej/yr)

RENEWABLE RESOURCES1 Sunlight J 1.74E+14 1.00E+00 0.22 Wind J 1.18E+11 1.50E+03 0.23 Wave Energy J 1.53E+11 3.06E+04 4.74 Tidal Energy J 2.21E+11 1.68E+04 3.75 Rain J 2.41E+11 1.82E+04 4.4

NONRENEWABLE STORAGES6 Potable water J 2.93E+09 6.66E+05 2.0

Sum of free inputs (sun,wind, and rain omitted) 10.3

PURCHASED INPUTS Construction inputs

7 Wood J 1.64E+09 3.49E+04 0.18 Concrete g 1.70E+06 9.26E+07 0.29 Steel g 5.10E+04 1.80E+09 0.1

10 Furnishings J 3.16E+09 4.00E+06 12.711 Non-renewable services (PNG) $ 2.40E+04 6.50E+12 156.0

Operational inputs12 Fuel J 2.28E+12 6.60E+04 150.513 Electricity J 0.00E+00 2.00E+05 0.014 Food J 8.76E+10 2.50E+05 21.915 Liquor J 1.10E+10 7.00E+05 7.716 Non-renewable services (PNG) $ 1.40E+05 6.50E+12 910.0

Sum of purchased inputs 1,259.0

18 Tourists (number) 6.20E+02 3.74E+16 23,188.0



Table 3. Emergy evaluation of four star tourist hotel in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Note Item Units Units/Yr. Transformity Solar Emergy(sej/unit) (E15 sej/yr)

RENEWABLE RESOURCES1 Sunlight J 9.14E+13 1.00E+00 0.12 Wind J 1.10E+11 1.50E+03 0.23 Wave Energy J 1.60E+10 3.06E+04 0.54 Tidal Energy J 4.18E+09 1.68E+04 0.15 Rain J 9.31E+10 1.82E+04 1.7

NONRENEWABLE STORAGES6 Potable water J 2.44E+11 6.66E+05 162.4

Sum of free inputs (sun,wind,waves omitted) 164.2

PURCHASED INPUTS Construction inputs

7 Concrete g 1.15E+08 9.26E+07 10.68 Steel g 2.70E+07 1.80E+09 48.69 Furnishings J 5.72E+10 4.00E+06 228.8

10 Non-renewable services $ 1.41E+06 2.60E+12 3666.0 Operational inputs

11 Fuel J 3.90E+12 6.60E+04 257.412 Electricity J 6.20E+13 2.00E+05 12400.013 Food J 6.29E+11 2.00E+06 1258.014 Liquor J 7.93E+10 7.00E+05 55.515 Non-renewable services $ 1.74E+06 2.60E+12 4511.0

Sum of purchased inputs 22436.0

16 Tourists (number) 5.37E+03 8.50E+15 45636.5



Table 4. Comparative emergy indices for tourist resorts in Papua New Guineaand Mexico

Notes Index PNG MexicoCountry Resort Country Resort

1 Total Emergy Use (E18 sej/yr) 1.22E+23 1.31E+18 6.96E+23 2.26E+19 Locally Renewable (E20 sej/yr) 1.05E+23 8.40E+15 1.39E+231.80E+15 Locally Nonrenewable (E20 sej/yr)1.09E+222.00E+15 3.66E+231.62E+17 Imported (E20 sej/yr) 5.40E+211.30E+18 1.08E+232.24E+19

2 Percent Renewable 86.6% 0.6% 20.0% 0.01%

3 Empower density (E11 sej/m2*yr-1) 2.6 322.0 3.1 11857.0

4 Emergy per capita (E15 sej/person*yr-1) 37.7 91.4 8.5 219.15 Environmental loading ratio 0.16 155.0 3.4 12534.4

6 Renewable emergy/area (E11 sej/m2*yr) 2.3 0.7

7 Support Area required (m2) -- 3.57E+07 -- 9.36E+07

Table 4. Comparative emergy indices for tourist resorts in Papua New Guineaand Mexico

Notes Index PNG MexicoCountry Resort Country Resort

1 Total Emergy Use (E18 sej/yr) 1.22E+23 1.31E+18 6.96E+23 2.26E+19 Locally Renewable (E20 sej/yr) 1.05E+23 8.40E+15 1.39E+231.80E+15 Locally Nonrenewable (E20 sej/yr)1.09E+222.00E+15 3.66E+231.62E+17 Imported (E20 sej/yr) 5.40E+211.30E+18 1.08E+232.24E+19

2 Percent Renewable 86.6% 0.6% 20.0% 0.01%

3 Empower density (E11 sej/m2*yr-1) 2.6 322.0 3.1 11857.0

4 Emergy per capita (E15 sej/person*yr-1) 37.7 91.4 8.5 219.15 Environmental loading ratio 0.16 155.0 3.4 12534.4

6 Renewable emergy/area (E11 sej/m2*yr) 2.3 0.7

7 Support Area required (m2) -- 3.57E+07 -- 9.36E+07



2.8 E5 $/ yr

MexicanResort U.S.A

Purchased goods & services (4.18 E18 sej/ yr)

Goods & services soldto tourists (8.2 E18 sej)

Mexico emergy trade dis-advantage in tourism = - = -2 to 1

PNGResort

U.S.A.


Goods & services soldto tourists (9.8 E17 sej/yr)

PNG emergy trade dis-advantage in tourism = - = -1.5 to 19.86.7

8.24.2

2.8 E5 $/ yr

1.74 E6 $/ yr

1.74 E6 $/ yr

2.8 E5 $/ yr

MexicanResort U.S.A


Goods & services soldto tourists (8.2 E18 sej)

Mexico emergy trade dis-advantage in tourism = - = -2 to 1

PNGResort

U.S.A.


Goods & services soldto tourists (9.8 E17 sej/yr)

PNG emergy trade dis-advantage in tourism = - = -1.5 to 19.86.7

8.24.2

2.8 E5 $/ yr

1.74 E6 $/ yr

1.74 E6 $/ yr

Emergy valuation of international trade resulting from money income from tourism...



Emergy Evaluation of Paper Waste Treatment

Alternatives



Paper Waste Treatment Alternatives

II. Emergy Evaluation of Fenholloway River

Restoration



Miles0 1 2 3

N

Gulf ofMexico

Salt Marsh

Forested Wetlands

Fenholloway R.

Perry

PulpMill

Under-WaterGrass Flats

Pines &ScatteredSwamps

Fenholloway Estuary

Study Area showing Fenholloway River and affected areas



Alternative waste disposal from paper mill in Taylor County Fl



Miles0 1 2 3

N

Gulf ofMexico

Salt Marsh

Forested Wetlands

Fenholloway R.

Perry

PulpMill

Under-WaterGrass Flats

Pines &ScatteredSwamps

Fenholloway Estuary

Alternative 1 : pipeline to Gulf

Alternative 2: Pipe to headwaters

Alternative 3: Wetland slough to Gulf



Alternative 1: Pipeline to Gulf



Alternative 2: Pipe to headwaters



Alternative 3: Wetland slough to Gulf



SUMMARY…. Million em$ per year

Alternative Empower Costs Benefit-CostBenefit*Em$/yr $/year Em$ - $

Fenholloway River, existing - 15.1 -? <-15.1

Pipe to estuary - 13.4 -3.0 -16.4

Recycle uphill into pine lands +17.0 -4.8 +12.2

Constructed wetland strand +13.5 -1.7 +11.8

*Emergy increases minus emergy losses



Emergy Evaluation of Power Plant

Cooling Alternatives



Map showing the Crystal River Power Plant, estuarine areas and intake and discharge canals.



Category Emergy Cost(E17 sej/yr)

1. Entrainment of zooplankton 6.22. Entrainment of juvenile fish 1.13. Nekton impingement 0.34. Reduce ecological metabolism 1.3

Subtotal -8.9

5. New canal ecosystem metabolism 1.7

Total -7.2

Crystal River Power Plant

Ecological Costs for Estuarine Cooling

Summary of emergy evaluation of costs



Emergy Costs:Estuarine Cooling - 7.2 E17 sej/yrCooling Towers - 576.1 E17 sej/yr

Ratio:576.1/7.2 = 80/1

Dollar Costs:Bay Cooling $690,000 / yrCooling Tower $17.0 E6 / yr

Ratio:17.0 E 6 / 6.9 E5 = 25/1

Summary

Crystal River Power Plant

Comparison of cooling towers and bay cooling



Emergy Evaluation of Development

Alternatives in the Sea of Cortez, Mex.



Study Area…Sea of Cortez



Changes in the Colorado River Discharge to the Sea of Cortez



Number of Shrimp trawlers increased rapidly because of Government subsidies...



The Sea of Cortez



Summary of Shrimp Evaluation



Summary diagram of Trade



III. Emergy Evaluation of Oklawaha River

Restoration

…or why it won’t happen in our lifetime.



Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Rodman Reservoir

Rodman Dam...



History of the Cross Florida Barge Canal

1935 - Construction began and was suspended later that year. 1942 - Construction resumed 1962 - Economic Restudy by ACOE, fight to halt the project began 1970 - EDF and other plaintiffs filed suit 1971 - Construction halted by district court, Nixon signed an

executive order suspending work. 1972 - Governor and cabinet rescinded support 1979 - Efforts to seek federal deauthorization began 1986 - Congress passes a deauthorization bill contingent on Florida

passing implementing legislation 1990 - State and federal governments deauthorize the canal.



Emergy Evaluation of Oklawaha River Restoration

Note Item Units Value Transformity Solar Emergy(sej/unit) (E18 sej/yr)

Present ConditionFixed costs (assume 50 year life) $ 1.48E+06 1.00E+12 1.48 -Dam O &M $ 3.49E+05 1.00E+12 0.35 -Grounds O & M $ 6.85E+05 1.00E+12 0.69 -River flow (chem. Potential) J 5.92E+15 4.85E+04 287.12 +Aquatic Production J 3.14E+15 1.45E+03 4.55 +Recreational use days 3.07E+05 2.74E+14 84.12 +Economic gain $ 1.31E+07 1.00E+12 13.10 +Manatee mortality J 4.59E+09 1.00E+06 0.00 +

Total 386.38Restored Oklawaha River (complete removal)

Deconstruction (assume 50 year life) $ 3.74E+04 1.00E+12 0.04 -Revegetation (assume 50 year life) $ 9.80E+03 1.00E+12 0.01 -Grounds O & M $ 5.51E+05 1.00E+12 0.55 -River flow (chem. Potential) J 6.22E+15 4.85E+04 301.67 +Wetland Production J 7.03E+15 1.45E+03 10.19 +Recreational Use days 3.07E+04 2.74E+14 8.41 +Economic gain $ 1.31E+06 1.00E+12 1.31 +

320.99



Emdollar values…

Present condition = 386.4 E6 em$

Restored river = 321.0 E6 em$

net effect = - 65.4 E6 em$



IV. Emergy Evaluation of Everglades Restoration

The worlds largest “restoration” project...



Miami



Everglades Restoration




To understand many of the problems of the Everglades one needs to look north to the Kissimmee River




As a result of the river’s channelization, too much water arrives too early in Lake Okeechobee

Excess must be “wasted” to tide...




Loss of peat is significant




Facts......




Key points...




Historic... Present day...




Systems Diagram showing the main flows of water...



Emergy Evaluation of System (c. 1900)

Note Item Raw Units Transformity Solar Emergy EmDollars(unit/yr) (sej/unit) (E18 sej/yr) (E6 em$/yr)

Renewable Resource Inflows

1 Sunlight 6.6 E+19 J 1 66.5 65.82 Rain, chemical 7.3 E+16 J 18199 1326.6 1313.53 Wind, kinetic energy 3.7 E+15 J 1496 5.6 5.64 Tide 2.1 E+15 J 16842 36.1 35.85 Surface and Groundwater Inputs 1.1 E+16 J 2.6 E+04 284.7 281.9Renewable Resource Outflows

6 Surface and Groundwater Outputs 4.2 E+15 J 2.6 E+04 109.4 108.3Environmental Services

7 Transpiration 4.0 E+16 J 2.6 E+04 1051.11040.78 Estuarine Mixing 2.5 E+16 J 2.6 E+04 666.6 659.9


Day 4, Lecture 9….Emergy Evaluation of System (c. 1995).

Note Item Raw Units Transformity Solar Emergy EmDollars(unit/yr) (sej/unit) (E18 sej/yr) (E6 1999 US$/yr)

Renewable Resource Inflows

1 Sunlight 6.65E+19 J 1 66.46 65.802 Rain, chemical 7.29E+16 J 18199 1326.61 1313.473 Wind, kinetic energy 3.75E+15 J 1496 5.61 5.554 Tidal Energy 2.15E+15 J 1.68E+04 36.13 35.775 Surf & Gdwater Inflows 9.04E+15 J 3.33E+04 301.04 298.06Renewable Resource Outflows6 Surf $ Gdwater Outflows 8.40E+15 J 3.33E+04 279.65 276.88Agricultural Inputs7 Nitrogen 1.31E+10 g 2.41E+10 314.58 311.478 Phosphate 7.73E+09 g 2.20E+10 170.03 168.349 Potash 2.07E+10 g 1.10E+09 22.74 22.5110 Pesticides 2.21E+09 g 1.50E+10 33.15 32.8211 Fuel 2.19E+15 J 6.60E+04 144.75 143.3212 Labor 5.37E+12 J 2.46E+07 132.22 130.9113 Irrigation Water4.25E+15 J 4.80E+04 204.01 201.9914 Services 2.92E+08 $ 1.82E+12 531.24 525.98Urban15 Residential 6.55E+03 ha 8.20E+16 537.53 532.2116 Commercial 1.16E+03 ha 2.49E+17 288.56 285.70SFWMD17 Labor 1.33E+11 J 4.00E+07 5.34 5.2818 Fuels 2.09E+14 J 6.60E+04 13.81 13.6819 Goods and Services 9.41E+06 $ 1.13E+12 10.64 10.5320 Assets (pumps, canals, etc.) 2.76E+06 $ 9.20E+12 25.39 25.14Park21 Labor 2.19E+11 J 4.00E+07 8.76 8.6722 Visitors 2.62E+12 J 2.46E+07 64.36 63.7223 Fuels 2.15E+14 J 6.60E+04 14.16 14.0224 Goods & Services 1.22E+07 $ 1.13E+12 13.79 13.6525 Concessions/Entrance Fees 9.10E+06 $ 1.13E+12 10.28 10.18Environmental Services26 Transpiration 4.32E+16 J 2.62E+04 1131.84 1120.6327 Estuarine Mixing 2.05E+16 J 2.62E+04 535.83 530.53


Day 4, Lecture 9….. Emergy Evaluation of Restoration in the System

Note Item Raw Units Transformity Solar Emergy EmDollars(unit/yr) (sej/unit) (E18 sej/yr) (E6em$/yr)

Renewable Resource Inputs

1 Sunlight 6.65E+19 J 1 66.46 65.802 Rain, chemical 7.29E+16 J 18199 1326.61 1313.473 Wind, kinetic energy 3.75E+15 J 1496 5.61 5.554 Tidal Energy 2.15E+15 J 1.68E+04 36.13 35.775 Surf & Gdwater Inflows 1.09E+16 J 3.33E+04 361.90 358.32Renewable Resource Outputs6 Surf &d Gdwater Outflows 4.17E+15 J 3.33E+04 139.00 137.63Agricultural Inputs

7 Nitrogen 1.26E+10 g 2.41E+10 303.25 300.258 Phosphate 7.39E+09 g 2.20E+10 162.48 160.889 Potash 1.99E+10 g 1.10E+09 21.88 21.6710 Pesticides 2.12E+09 g 1.50E+10 31.86 31.5511 Fuel 2.10E+15 J 6.60E+04 138.39 137.0212 Labor 5.17E+12 J 2.46E+07 127.23 125.9713 Irrigation Water 4.03E+15 J 4.80E+04 193.28 191.3614 Services 2.80E+08 $ 1.82E+12 510.10 505.05Urban15 Residential 6.55E+03 ha 8.20E+16 537.53 532.2116 Commercial 1.16E+03 ha 2.49E+17 288.56 285.70SFWMD17 Labor 1.33E+11 J 4.00E+07 5.34 5.2818 Fuels 1.57E+14 J 6.60E+04 10.38 10.2819 Goods and Services 9.41E+06 $ 1.13E+12 10.64 10.5320 Assets (pumps, canals, etc.) 2.40E+06 $ 9.20E+12 22.08 21.86Park21 Labor 2.19E+11 J 4.00E+07 8.76 8.6722 Visitors 2.62E+12 J 2.46E+07 64.36 63.7223 Fuels 2.15E+14 J 6.60E+04 14.16 14.0224 Goods & Services 1.22E+07 $ 1.13E+12 13.79 13.6525 Concessions/Entrance Fees 9.10E+06 $ 1.13E+12 10.28 10.18Restoration26 Fuels 1.21E+14 J 6.60E+04 7.99 7.9127 Labor 3.66E+10 J 4.00E+07 1.47 1.4528 Construction 2.30E+07 $ 1.01E+12 23.23 23.0029 Ops, Maint, Repair, etc. 3.30E+07 $ 1.01E+12 33.33 33.00Environmental Services30 Transpiration 4.32E+16 J 2.62E+04 1131.84 1120.6331 Estuarine Mixing 2.27E+16 J 2.62E+04 595.37 589.47



Table 20. Summary of Emergy Contributions for the System (c. 1995)

Note Item Solar Emergy EmDollars (E18 sej/yr) (E6 em$/yr

Renewable Resources

1 Transpiration 1131.8 1120.62 Discharge (FL Bay) 535.8 530.5Nonrenewable Resources3 Fuels 172.7 171.04 Labor 146.3 144.95 Assets (pumps, canals, etc.) 25.4 25.16 Urban 826.1 817.97 Total Goods & Services 1106.2 1095.38 Agricultural Goods & Services 1071.7 1061.19 SFWMD Goods & Services 10.6 10.510 Park Goods & Services 23.8 23.6

Total Renewables 1667.7 1651.2Total Nonrenewables 2276.7

2254.2Total Emergy Contributed 3944.4 3905.4



Summary of Emergy Contributions of the System when Restored

Note Item Solar Emergy EmDollars (E18 sej/yr) (E6 em$/yr)

Renewable Resources

1 Transpiration 1131.84 1120.632 Discharge (FL Bay) 595.37 589.48Nonrenewable Resources3 Fuels 170.92 169.234 Labor 142.80 141.395 Total Assets (pumps, canals, etc.) 45.31 44.866 SFWMD Assets (pumps, canals, etc.) 22.08 21.867 Restoration Assets (pumps, ASR, etc.) 23.2323.008 Urban 826.09 817.919 Total Goods & Services 1087.33 1076.5610 Agricultural Goods & Services 1029.57 1019.3811 SFWMD Goods & Services 10.64 10.5312 Park Goods & Services 13.79 13.6513 Restoration Goods & Services 33.3333.00

Total Renewables 1727.21 1710.11Total Nonrenewables 2272.45

2294.81Total Emergy Contributed 3173.57 3205.31



Summary of Everglades Restoration

Note Location EmvalueBillions Em$/yr

1 Annual total Em$ Everglades System 3.14

2 Waters saved from sea discharge 1.02

3 Projected cost in dollars 7.6

4 Em$/$ cost ratio over 36 years: (1.06 E9 Em$)(36 yr)/($7.6 E9) = 5.0/1



ZZ

ZZ

Z

ZZ

Z

The End…

emergy & complex systems day 4, lecture 9…. emergy evaluation of environmental alternatives...

Documents