&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Accounting
Using Emergy:
Evaluation of the State of
West Virginia
B1176
Units:
E+20 sej/yr
E+9 $/yr
-------
EPA/600/R-05/006
AED-03-104
March 2005
Environmental Accounting Using
Emergy: Evaluation of the State
of West Virginia
Daniel E. Campbell
Sherry L. Brandt-Williams
USEPA, Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI 02882
Maria E. A. Meisch
Dept. Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, RI
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
NOTICE
The research described in this report has been funded wholly (or in part) by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report is contribution number AED-03-104 of the Atlantic Ecology Division,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
This document has been subjected to the USEPA's peer review process and has been approved for
publication. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or a
recommendation for use.
ABSTRACT
Historically, questions related to environmental policy have been difficult to solve, because
solutions depend on accurately balancing the needs of both human and natural systems. In addition,
there has been no good way to express the socioeconomic and environmental effects of policies in
common terms. The USEPA has recognized that a knowledge gap exists in our ability to assess the
effects of environmental policies using a comprehensive, integrated approach. Assessment methods that
can bridge this gap are needed to address complex issues of environmental policy. Based on past studies,
environmental accounting using emergy was identified as a method that had been used by some scientists
to bridge the gap. This USEPA Project Report provides a guide to Emergy Analysis methods with
particular emphasis on those methods used to characterize a state within the larger context of its region
and the nation. An emergy evaluation of the State of West Virginia was performed as a case study to
illustrate the method. The results of the West Virginia case study provided indices that were used to
elucidate several questions that environmental managers asked about this state, when considering policy
needs for the state as a whole. Assessment methods for quantifying imports and exports to and from
states within the United States were further developed in this study. The Emergy Analysis of West
Virginia documented the environmental and economic resource base for the state in common terms (i.e.
solar emjoules) and the indicators derived from the emergy evaluation were used to examine questions of
self-sufficiency, sustainability, the balance of exchange, and quality of life in the state as a whole. The
results of this study may be useful to planners and managers who must perform analyses or recommend
policy for the State of West Virginia. Also, scientists who need large scale indicators for the State as a
context for studies focused on smaller scale systems (watersheds, counties, or industries) may find the
results of this study useful. In addition, the general methods described here can be used to analyze other
states within the United States and they may also serve as a starting point for emergy studies of large
watersheds and regions.
Keywords: emergy methods, environmental accounting, West Virginia, renewable resources,
nonrenewable resources, sustainability, quality of life, import-export balance
11
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people have contributed to the work presented here. We are most grateful to the Canaan
Valley Institute (CVI)-USEPA work group that met many times to discuss this research and especially
to Tom DeMoss, Randy Pomponio, Paul Kinder, and Pat Bradley, for input on the management
questions. Barbara Brown and Wayne Munns participated in work groups and provided oversight of the
project carried out at the Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) of the National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Office of Research and Development, USEPA. Canaan Valley
Institute scientists, George Constanz, Ron Preston, Ryan Gaujot and Jennifer Newland and managers
Paul Kinder, Bekki Leigh, and Kiena Smith provided information and support for this work. The first
version of the Emergy Analysis of West Virginia was carried out by Maria Meisch under the guidance
of Dan Campbell, while she was serving as an Ecological Careers Organization intern. Calculations
using GIS methods were made by Doug McGovern, Computer Science Corporation (CSC). The
manuscript was reviewed by Gerald Pesch of AED, Mark Brown of the University of Florida, David
Tilley of the University of Maryland, and Carl Hershner of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Patricia DeCastro of CSC was responsible for document layout and design.
111
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
PREFACE
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This USEPA Project Report has two purposes.
The first purpose is to provide, as a peer-reviewed
EPA report, a guide to Emergy Analysis methods
with particular emphasis on those methods used to
characterize a state within the larger context of its
region and the nation. The second purpose is to
present the results of a case study, an emergy
evaluation of the State of West Virginia, and to
examine the efficacy of this study's results in
answering several questions that environmental
managers asked about this state, when considering
policy needs at the level of the state as a whole.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT
Historically, questions related to environmental
policy have been difficult to solve, because solutions
depend on accurately balancing the needs of both
human and natural systems and there has been no
good way to express the socioeconomic and
environmental effects of policies in common terms.
The USEPA has recognized that this knowledge gap
exists in our ability to assess the effects of
environmental policies using a comprehensive,
integrated approach. Assessment methods that can
bridge this gap are needed to address complex issues
of environmental policy. Based on past studies,
environmental accounting using emergy was
identified as a method that had been used by
scientists to bridge the gap. In September of 2001 a
joint project between the Canaan Valley Institute
(CVI), a private nonprofit corporation headquartered
in Thomas, WV and the USEPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) was begun to assess the
environmental, social, and economic system in West
Virginia and to evaluate the integrated effects of
environmental policies on multiple scales. In
connection with this project, an emergy analysis of
West Virginia was performed to give an overview of
the state and to supply key indices needed for the
analysis of watershed restoration in smaller scale
systems of the state. The emergy analysis shown
here is a product of this collaboration.
Economists often struggle to understand the
concept of emergy and why we go to so much trouble
to document economic and ecological flows and
storages in these terms. The practical answer is that
the accounts for environmental systems cannot be
kept in dollars alone, because environmental systems
are based on the work of both humanity, which is
paid for by a counter flow of dollars, and the work of
ecosystems, for which no money is paid. An accurate
picture of environmental systems requires that we
account for the flows and storages of energy, matter,
and information that are responsible for supporting
economic and social activities and that may not be
accompanied by flows of money. Energy can be used
as a common denominator for quantifying all these
flows. Converting flows of energy to emergy puts the
work done by the economy and the environment on
the same scale, so that economic and environmental
flows are directly comparable. While it is true that
dollar values are directly comparable it is also true
that economic markets only value a subset of the
products and processes that are important in
environmental systems. The key synthesis produced
by Emergy Analysis is an accounting of social,
economic and environmental flows in common terms
on an objective basis. Thus for the first time what is
removed from West Virginia is seen in true
relationship to what is received in return. It is true
that everyone in West Virginia realizes that coal is
the basis for the West Virginia economy, but this is
the first time the numbers have been calculated to
show the relationship of the real wealth in coal to
other economic and environmental flows. The
importance of recognizing the true nature of value in
exchanges is easily illustrated by the inequitable
barter between Europeans and Native Americans
where ecological resources, e.g., animal skins, and
land of great value were exchanged for trinkets.
Emergy accounting can potentially give
environmental managers tools similar to those
regularly used by financial analysts to make business
decisions. Further development of the analysis
methods and tools presented in this report will make
it possible for managers to first examine complete
IV
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
and commensurate economic and environmental
accounting data before making policy decisions
about environmental systems.
The State of West Virginia and its relationships
with its region and the nation are characterized in a
case study presented in this report. Insights from this
study may be useful in establishing a context for
determining policies for the state as a whole.
However, finer scale analyses must be performed to
address specific environmental management
problems, such as determining the costs and benefits
of watershed restoration. In addition, the analysis
methods described here can be used as a guide to
creating emergy accounts for any state in the United
States.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
This technical report gives an overview of the
emergy accounting and analysis methodology, which
can be used to evaluate environmental systems on
any scale of organization (Odum 1996). However, it
is impossible to condense the methods and insights of
a comprehensive methodology in a single, relatively
short document. For this reason, the Methods
(Section 2) focuses on methods, calculations and data
sources needed to evaluate a state within the United
States of America. Even with this restriction, the task
is daunting because there are 50 states and each one
will present the researcher with new problems to
solve. In this report we have made the task somewhat
easier through the development of a method for
determining the imports to and exports from any state
using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's
Commodity Flow Survey. Application of the emergy
analysis method is demonstrated through reporting a
case study of the State of West Virginia (Section 3),
which is presented in lieu of a Results section.
Section 3 is written so that it can stand alone as a
final report on the emergy analysis of West Virginia.
Those readers who are primarily interested in the
results of this study can go directly to Section 3.
The emergy analysis and environmental
accounts for the State of West Virginia given in the
case study include the following eight elements that
we used to characterize the state: (1) a narrative
history of the state, (2) a detailed energy systems
diagram of the state as an environmental system with
supporting tables, (3) the Emergy Income Statement
showing annual emergy and dollar flows of
renewable and nonrenewable resources, production,
consumption, imports and exports, (4) the Emergy
Balance Sheet showing some of the stored assets in
the state, (5) an aggregate diagram giving a
macroscopic overview of the energy resource base
for the state's economy and a summary table from
which indices are calculated, (6) emergy indices of
system structure and function, (7) the emergy
signature for the state, and (8) the findings of the
analysis applied to answer several questions
formulated by environmental managers.
Following the Emergy Analysis of West
Virginia, there is a Discussion (Section 4), which
examines (1) refinements to the emergy accounting
methods used for states, (2) quality assurances, the
reliability of the data, and areas of uncertainty in the
analysis, and (3) the use of emergy accounting data
for environmental decision-making. A path for future
research and development of the method is proposed
and future research plans are mentioned. References
are given in Section 5 and Section 6 lists the data
sources used along with their Worldwide Web
addresses. Extensive data and documentation to
support the method and the case study are given in
the appendices found in Section 7. These appendices
are as follows: the Energy Systems Language
(Appendix A), information on the transformities used
in this report (Appendix B), notes documenting the
energy and emergy calculations (Appendix C),
import-export calculation methods (Appendix D),
and emergy analysis tables for West Virginia in 2000
(Appendix E).
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice ii
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Preface iv
Purpose of the Report iv
Significance of the Report iv
Structure of the Report v
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
Section 1
Introduction 1-1
Section 2
Methods 2-1
2.1 Understanding the System 2-1
2.2 Overview of Emergy Analysis Methods 2-1
2.2.1 Diagramming and Models 2-1
2.2.1.1 The Energy Systems Language 2-2
2.2.1.2 Simulation Models 2-3
2.2.2 The Emergy Tables 2-4
2.2.3 Data Sources and Model Evaluation 2-4
2.2.4 Transformities 2-5
2.2.5 Flow Summary and the Calculation of Indices 2-6
2.3 Creating the Emergy Income Statement 2-6
2.3.1 Evaluating Renewable Resources 2-6
2.3.2 Evaluating Nonrenewable Resources 2-7
2.3.3. Evaluating Exports and Imports 2-7
2.3.3.1 Determining the Emergy in Materials 2-8
2.3.3.2 Determining the Emergy in Services 2-9
2.4 Creating the Emergy Balance Sheet 2-10
2.5 Constructing the Emergy-Economic Overview 2-10
2.5.1 Summary of Emergy and Dollar Flows 2-11
2.5.2 Determining the Renewable Emergy Base fora System 2-11
2.5.2.1 Renewable emergy received 2-12
2.5.2.2. Renewable emergy absorbed 2-12
2.6 Emergy Indices 2-12
2.6.1 The Emergy to Money Ratio 2-12
2.6.2 The Emergy Exchange Ratio 2-13
2.6.3 The Investment Ratio 2-13
2.6.4 The Environmental Loading Ratio 2-13
2.6.5 Indices of Self-sufficiency and Dependence 2-13
vi
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
2.6.6 Indices of Sustainable Use 2-13
2.6.7 Indices of Quality of Life 2-14
2.7 Energy and Emergy Signatures 2-14
Section 3
Case Study: An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 The Efficacy of Emergy Accounting in Answering Management Questions 3-2
3.3 Narrative History of West Virginia 3-2
3.3.1 Salt 3-4
3.3.2 Coal 3-4
3.3.3 Timber 3-4
3.3.4 Oil 3-5
3.3.5 Natural Gas 3-5
3.3.6 Limestone 3-5
3.3.7 Sand 3-5
3.3.8 Iron 3-5
3.3.9 Textiles 3-6
3.3.10 Chemicals 3-6
3.3.11 Electric Power 3-6
3.4 An Energy Systems Model of West Virginia 3-6
3.5 The Emergy Income Statement for West Virginia 3-7
3.6 The Emergy Balance Sheet for West Virginia 3-8
3.7 Overview Models and Flow Summary 3-12
3.8 Emergy Indices 3-14
3.9 The Emergy Signature for the State 3-15
3.10 Analysis of West Virginia and Comparison with Other States 3-15
3.10.1 Characteristics of West Virginia Based on Emergy Analysis 3-17
3.10.2 Comparison with Other States 3-18
3.11 Summary of Findings as Related to Management Questions 3-19
3.12 Recommendations to Managers 3-22
3.13 West Virginia and the Future 3-22
Section 4
Discussion 4-1
4.1 Standard Methods versus Intellectual Creativity 4-1
4.2 Methods Developed and Refined in This Study 4-2
4.3 Quality Assurance: Reliability of the Data and Uncertainty 4-2
4.4 Future Research and Reports 4-5
Section 5
References 5-1
Section 6
Data Sources 6-1
Vll
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 7
Appendix A Primary Symbols of the Energy Systems Language A-l
Appendix B Sources, Adjustment, and Calculation of Transformities B-l
Bl. Information Sources for the Emergy per Unit Values B-2
B2. Transformities for SCTG Commodity Classes B-3
B3. Calculation of New or Revised Transformities B-4
Appendix C "Calculation of Energy and Economic Values" C-l
Cl. Notes for Table 4 "Renewable" C-2
C2. Notes for Table 5 "Nonrenewable" C-12
C3. Notes for Table 6 "Imports" C-15
C4. Notes for Table 7 "Exports" C-21
C5. Notes for Table 8 "Stored Assets" C-24
C6. Notes for Table 9 "Summary Flows" C-25
C7. Notes for Table 10 "Calculation of Emergy Indices" C-27
Appendix D Calculating Imports and Exports of Materials and Services D-l
Dl. Creating Import and Export Spreadsheets for Materials D-2
D2. Method for Calculating Services Imported and Exported D-9
Appendix E West Virginia Emergy Accounts for 2000 E-l
FIGURES
Figure 1. A detailed energy systems model of the State of West Virginia 2-14
Figure 2. Aggregated diagram of West Virginia's economy with its emergy 3-12
resource base.
Figure 3. Summary of West Virginia's environmental and economic flows 3-14
Figure 4. The emergy signature of the State of West Virginia with flows 3-15
in order of increasing transformities up to steel.
Figure Al. Primary symbols of the Energy Systems Language A-2
Vlll
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Tabular Format for an Emergy Evaluation 2-4
Table 2. Definition of pathway flows for the systems model of 2-15
WestVirginia's environment and economy shown in Figure 1
Table 3. Definitions of the components for the systems model of 2-17
West Virginia's environment and economy shown in Figure 1
Table 4. Annual Renewable Resources and Production in 1997 3-9
Table 5. Annual Production and Use of Nonrenewable Resources in 1997 3-9
Table 6. Annual Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 1997 3-10
Table 7. Annual Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 1997 3-10
Table 8. Assets of West Virginia in 1997 3-11
Table 9. Summary of Flows for West Virginia in 1997 3-13
Table 10. West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 1997 3-16
Table 11. Comparison of Emergy Indices for Several States in the U.S 3-20
Table Bl.l. The sources for and equivalence oftransformities used in this report B-2
Table B2.1. Estimation of Transformities for the SCTG Commodity Classes B-3
Table B3.1. The factors needed to convert one planetary baseline to another B-7
Table B3.2 Estimation of the emergy to dollar ratio in the United States for B-7
1997 and 2000.
Table Cl.l Data used to determine the geopotential energy of rainfall C-4
Table C3.1 Emergy imported to West Virginia in material commodity flows C-16
Table C3.2 Export and Import of Services Between West Virginia and the Nation C-17
Table C3.3 Alternative Method for Determining Exports C-18
Table C3.4 Determination of Imported and Exported Services C-18
Table C3.5 West Virginia employment by sector and the dollars generated C-19
per employee, 1997.
IX
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table C3.6 US employment and productivity by Industry sector, 1997 C-19
Table C3.7 West Virginia detailed export sector employment and the dollars C-20
generated per employee.
Table C3.8 U.S. employment in detailed export sectors and the dollars generated C-20
per employee, 1997.
Table C4.1 Emergy in the materials exported from West Virginia C-22
Table C6.1 Services in Imported Minerals C-25
Table C6.2 Services in Exported Fuels and Electricity C-26
Table D1.1 Approximate conversion between SCTG, SIC and NAICS industry D-3
classification codes.
Table D1.2 Calculation of West Virginia Exports from the state to state D-4
commodity shipments.
Table D1.3 Example of estimating missing import data D-8
Table D2.1 NAICS industry sectors and their assumed sectortypes forWV D-ll
Table D2.2 Calculation of basic sector jobs and the estimated dollar values for D-12
exported and imported services.
Table El. Renewable Resources and Production in the West Virginia E-2
Economy in 2000.
Table E2. Production and Use from Nonrenewable Sources within West E-2
Virginia in 2000
Table E3. Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 2000 E-3
Table E4. Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 2000 E-3
Table E5. Value of West Virginia Storages in 2000 E-4
Table E6. Summary of Flows for West Virginia in 2000 E-5
Table E7. West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 2000 E-6
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
Accurate accounting of the inflows, outflows and
storages of energy, materials, and information is
necessary to understand and manage environmental
systems at all levels of hierarchical organization. The
accounting tools, i.e., the emergy income statement,
emergy balance sheet, and emergy indices described
in this document can be used to analyze and
understand systems defined for any chosen set of
boundaries. Boundaries of concern to us define an
environmental system containing both ecological and
socioeconomic components. The research or
management questions asked at each level of
organization will be somewhat different but the most
important questions that are concerned with the
overall condition of the system, will be illuminated
by information and indices related to the inflows,
outflows and storages of energy, matter, and
information. In this report we present the methods of
environmental accounting using emergy and apply
them to analyze the State of West Virginia. Therefore,
the particular sources of data and methods presented
here will relate to the calculation of the important
flows and storages for states within the United States.
At present, records for the environment are kept
in terms of physical units such as pounds of chemical
pollutants discharged, miles of degraded streams, or
the number of endangered species present in a given
area, while the accounts of human activities are for
the most part kept in dollars. Neither accounting
mechanism is able to address the credits and debits of
the other, thus there is often a gap in the scientific
assessment information given to managers faced with
solving complex environmental problems that often
have social, economic and ecological consequences.
To keep accurate accounts for both the environment
and the economy, it is obvious that we need a system
capable of expressing the credits and debits (costs
and benefits) that accrue to each in common terms.
For more than 100 years, physical and social
scientists have struggled with this problem, /'. e., how
to incorporate resource limitations and contributions
into the formulations of economics (Martinez-Alier,
1987). Land, labor, energy and other physical
quantities have been tried without much success.
Often these efforts centered on energy as a
potentially unifying common denominator for
accounting purposes because it is both required for
all production processes and incorporated in all
products of production. These early efforts failed
largely because none of the proposed energy-based
accounting methods considered differences in the
ability to do work among energies of different kinds
(Odum 1996).
In the 1980s, H.T Odum and his colleagues
solved this problem through the development of the
concepts of emergy and transformity (Odum 1988).
Emergy is the available energy of one kind
previously used up directly and indirectly to make a
product or service. The unit of emergy is the emjoule,
which connotes the past use of energy that is
embodied in the present product or service.
Transformity is the emergy used to make a unit of
available energy of the product or service. Most
often, emergy accounts for the environment and the
economy are kept using the solar joule as a base. In
this case solar transformities are expressed as solar
emjoules (sej) per joule (J). Empower is the flow of
emergy (sej) per unit time. Emergy is related to the
system of economic value through the emergy to
money ratio. The emdollar (Em$) value of a flow or
storage is its emergy divided by the emergy to money
ratio for an economy in that year (Odum 1996).
Odum's innovation established a medium for
environmental accounting that for the first time made
it possible to express economic commodities,
services, and environmental work of all kinds on a
common basis as emergy. In this report we use the
methods of emergy accounting to demonstrate how
keeping the books for environmental systems can
help us identify problems and seek solutions at the
macroscopic level of a state's economy. We adapted
two standard accounting tools, the income statement
and the balance sheet, to characterize the state's
annual activities and long-term assets, respectively.
We believe that creating emergy accounts for
environmental systems is a method to bridge the gap
between economic and ecological analyses of the
effects of environmental policies.
1-1
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 2
Methods
Emergy evaluations of the macroscopic features
of an environmental system such as a state, region, or
country are carried out in the same manner for each
system regardless of its size or level in the hierarchy
of organization, e.g., county, state, nation, 1st, 2nd,.. 6th
order watersheds, etc. Emergy analyses like other
assessment methods are guided by the research or
management questions of concern. In general, the
hierarchical organization of ecological and economic
systems requires that emergy accounts be created for
more than one level of organization to obtain
accurate answers to questions about a system at any
particular level of organization. Multiple levels of
organization are examined because large-scale
patterns within a system are often determined by
energy inflows from the next larger system, whereas,
internal system dynamics may be affected by policy
changes in the management of important subsystems.
The examination of multiple levels of organization is
also recommended because environmental policies
may and often do have different consequences at
different levels of system organization (Odum and
Arding 1991). The general rule is that analyses at
three levels of organization (the system of concern,
its subsystems, and the next larger system) are the
minimum required for a thorough understanding of a
particular system. The West Virginia emergy analysis
presented in this report varied from this standard
because it used past analyses of the nation and did
not include an examination of important subsystems
within the state, e.g., the coal industry; therefore, it is
only the first step in a complete emergy analysis of
the state.
2.1 Understanding the System
Effective models and analyses depend on the
degree to which the investigators understand the
system that they have chosen to analyze. For this
reason, a thorough study of the system to be analyzed
and its relationship to the next larger system, which
determines long-term trends, is a prerequisite for
successful analysis. Before performing emergy
analyses of states or other systems, we recommend
that investigators review existing studies containing
current and historic information on the state with a
view toward characterizing it as an environmental
system. Environmental systems include the economic
and social infrastructure and activities of humanity
as well as the storages, flows and processes of
ecosystems. In the method presented here and
illustrated in the Results section, the knowledge
gained through this review is captured in the
narrative history of the state. The narrative history
is a vehicle for understanding how renewable and
nonrenewable resources have shaped the current
economy in the state. Setting down the history of the
state helps trace causal pathways from the past to the
present and establishes the historical context of
changing relationships between the state and the
nation. The knowledge gained through this review
serves as a basis for creating a detailed energy
systems diagram of the state as discussed below.
2.2 Overview of Emergy Analysis Methods
There are five main steps required to complete
an emergy evaluation. First, a detailed systems
diagram is completed. The second step is to translate
this knowledge into an aggregated diagram of the
system addressing specific questions. Third,
descriptions of the pathways in the aggregated
diagram are transferred to emergy analysis tables
where the calculations needed to quantitatively
evaluate these pathways are compiled. The fourth
step in the method is to gather the raw data needed
to complete the emergy analysis tables along with the
conversion factors (energy contents, transformities,
etc.) needed to change the raw data into emergy
units. Finally, after the raw data has been converted
into emergy units, indices are calculated from subsets
of the data. These five steps are discussed in more
detail in the following sections.
2.2.1 Diagramming and Models
First, a detailed energy system diagram is
constructed representing all interactions between
2-1
-------
Methods
human and natural components of the system that
have been identified as relevant (Fig. 1, p. 2-14). The
Energy Systems Language symbols and their intrinsic
mathematics (see Appendix A, Fig Al and Odum
1994) are used to develop models of ecological and
socioeconomic interactions and components
representative of the functions and structures within
the system. In an energy systems diagram, structure
encompasses the system components and their
arrangement, and function includes pathways of
energy flow and their interaction in processes.
Components can be both physical entities and
properties such as information or aesthetics that are
usually considered as intangible, but require small
energies for their storage and operation and thus can
be documented. The pathways and interactions can
be both physical flows such as electricity or raw
materials as well as control mechanisms, e.g., logic
programs controlling animal migrations or
management decisions.
It is important to include all known connections
between system components in the draft diagram to
insure completeness of the evaluation. A diagram like
this is a useful tool for defining data needs. Once the
exercise of defining all known interactions that affect
the system components is completed, there is usually
enough information to construct working hypotheses
about the mathematical expressions that govern these
processes. This in turn points to the appropriate
factors that need to be measured when field work is
required.
Variables in the detailed model are then
aggregated, according to similarity of function, into
variables considered important in controlling system
behavior that is relevant to specific research or
management questions. Preliminary evaluations of
the emergy in system storages and flows helps in
determining the dominant components and processes
of the system that should be included in the aggregate
diagram. Aggregating does not mean removing any
component from the system. It refers to combining
components and using either averaged data or data
from the dominant entity to evaluate the component
or process. For example, data on a biological
component can be weighted for population
percentages. The goal of aggregation is to obtain the
simplest possible system that still allows the original
research or management question to be answered.
Committing concepts of the energy connections
and storages within an ecosystem to paper invites
review of the completeness and accuracy of the
conceptual thinking. It is not necessary to include all
known details in every diagram. In the emergy
accounting procedure presented in this document, the
pathways of primary interest are those crossing the
boundaries, both as inputs and as outputs. At this
scale, the focus is on the external flows supporting
the environmental system. The only internal
interactions of interest are the extractions of natural
resource storages for economic use, e.g., coal or
minerals. Other internal paths are drawn, but much of
the detail concerning the workings of each
component can be omitted.
2.2.1.1 The Energy Systems Language
The tools and methods for constructing an energy
systems diagram are discussed extensively in
Ecological and General Systems (Odum, 1994). The
Energy Systems Language is a visual mathematics
because each symbol is mathematically defined. A
network of these symbols translates directly into a set
of simultaneous 1st order differential equations.
Energy Systems diagrams represent both kinetics and
energetics in a single diagram and they demonstrate
and obey the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics in
their structure. The commonly used symbols and
conventions of the language are briefly described
below to assist the reader in understanding the energy
systems diagrams used in this document (Figure Al).
System boundary. A rectangular box represents
the system boundaries selected. This is an arbitrary
decision and boundaries are often chosen to address
an issue or question being evaluated. The boundary
determines the spatial and temporal scale of the
analysis.
Forcing functions. Any input that crosses the
boundary is an energy source for the system,
including pure energy flows, materials, information
such as the genes of living organisms and human
services, as well as inputs that are destructive.
External inputs are represented with a circular
symbol and are arranged around the outside border
from left to right in order of increasing transformity
with sunlight on the left and information and human
services on the right.
2-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Pathway lines. Flows are represented by a line
and include energy, materials, and information.
Money is shown with dashed lines and always flows
in the opposite direction to the material or energy
flow with which it is coupled. Lines without
arrowheads flow in proportion to the difference
between two forces and represent a reversible flow
due to the concentration gradients.
Outflows. Any outflow that still has available
energy, e.g., materials more concentrated than the
environment or usable information, is shown as a
pathway exiting from any of the three upper system
borders, but not from the lower border. Degraded or
dispersed energy, with insufficient ability to do work
in the system, is shown with gray lines leaving at the
bottom of the diagram through a single arrow going
to the heat sink.
Adding pathways. Pathways add their flows
when they join and when they enter the same storage.
Every flow in or out of a storage must be of the same
type and is measured in the same units.
State variables. Storages of material, energy and
information are shown as tanks (Fig. Al) within each
system compartment. Changes in the system can be
recorded as fluctuating accumulations within each
tank. In system diagrams using group symbols, e.g.,
producers and consumers, the actual simulation
details, such as tanks and complex interactions may
not be presented. However, a state variable is always
implied for every storage within the diagram whether
it is shown or not.
Intersection/interaction. Two or more flows that
are different, but required for a process, are drawn
entering an interaction symbol. The flows to an
intersection are connected from left to right in
order of their transformity, the lowest quality one
connecting to the notched left margin and the
higher quality flows connecting to the top of the
interaction symbol. Photosynthesis is an example
of a multiplicative interaction in which light, plant
biomass, and nutrients are the inputs required to
produce organic matter. However, any mathematical
relationship can be used to define an interaction and
an appropriate symbol or notation made on the
interaction symbol. A flow of one entity cannot go
from its tank to a tank with a different entity without
passing through some interaction, e.g., sunlight
cannot flow into a tank of phytoplankton carbon
without first interacting with nutrients, phyto-
plankton biomass and other inputs, to produce
a flow of carbon in gross primary production. If
hierarchical symbols are being used, e.g., the
producer or consumer or a rectangular box for a
subsystem (Figure Al), disparate flows can enter the
symbol without showing the interactions. However,
the interactions are implied and are shown explicitly
when the hierarchical symbol is completely specified
(Odum and Odum 2000).
Counter- clockwise feedbacks. High-quality
outputs from consumers, such as information,
controls, and scarce materials, are fed back from
right to left in the diagram. Feedback from right to
left also represents recycle or a loss of concentration,
because of divergence, with the service usually being
spread out to a larger area. Feedback control or
recycle paths go from right to left over the top of all
other components and pathways.
Sensor. If the quantity of a component in some
way affects a flow without using up the component,
a small box (sensor) is placed at the top of the
storage tank and information on the stored quantity
is drawn from this point for use by another symbol,
e.g. an interaction or logic program. For example, the
amount of money a region has might influence the
number of invitations the community receives to
participate in an event, but money itself was not sent
to get these invitations.
Material balances. Since all inflowing materials
accumulate in system storages or flow out, each
inflowing material such as water or money needs to
have a budget determined.
2.2.1.2 Simulation Models
Microcomputer simulation is a standard tool of
emergy analysis that is not used in this report, but
should be mentioned in the interest of completeness.
Simulation models are often helpful in considering
alternatives, investigating dynamic properties, and
making predictions. They act as a controlled
experiment and allow the investigator to adjust one
2-3
-------
Methods
Table 1. Tabular Format for an Emergy Evaluation
Col. 1
Note
Column 2 Col. 3
Item Data
J,g,$
Column 4
Solar Emergy/Unit
sej/J, sej/g, sej/$
Column 5
Solar Emergy
sej, sej/y
Column 6
Em$
Em$/y
variable at a time and note the resulting changes to
the system. In creating a simulation model, an
evaluated diagram showing the initial conditions for
all state variables and pathway flows is made.
Storages and flows are determined from literature or
field measurements of biomass, production rates, etc.
The simulation model is translated into a set of
simultaneous first order differential equations
containing the mathematical functions governing
rates and interactions that result in changes in the
state variables under a given set of forcing functions.
These differential equations are written as difference
equations in a programming language and solved on
the computer to predict the changes in each state
variable as a function of time or space. More detail
on the use of models and simulation in energy
systems analysis can be found in Odum and
Odum (2000).
2.2.2 Emergy Tables
The common format used to set up emergy tables
is illustrated above. Each emergy evaluation table has
six columns as shown in Table 1:
The columns are defined as follows: Column 1:
Note. The line number for the item evaluated is
listed. Each line number corresponds to a footnote in
a table where raw data sources are cited and
calculations shown. The footnotes referenced on
tables in this paper maybe found in the appendices.
Column 2: Item. The name of the item is listed.
Column 3: Data. For each line item the raw data is
given in joules, grams, dollars or some other
appropriate unit. The source, derivation and
characteristics of this data should be shown in the
footnotes. Column 4: Solar Emergy per Unit. For
many items the solar emergy per unit (transformity
where the unit is energy) has already been calculated
in previous studies. If it has not, the solar emjoules
per unit can be calculated using one of the methods
listed in Odum (1996). Transformities and other
emergy per unit ratios used in this report are
documented in Appendix B. Column 5: Emergy.
The solar emergy is given here. It is the product of
columns three and four. It can be an emergy flow
(sej y"1) or emergy storage (sej). Column 6:
Emdollars. This number is obtained by dividing the
emergy in column 5 by the emergy/dollar ratio for the
economy in the selected year. The emergy analysis
tables provide a template for the calculation of the
emergy values for energy sources and flows. In the
emergy tables, raw data on the mass of flows and
storage reserves are converted to energy and then to
emergy units and emdollars to aid in comparisons
and public policy inferences. Emergy tables are used
to create the accounts for the emergy income
statement and emergy balance sheet.
2.2.3 Data Sources and Model Evaluation
In general, government sources are the first
choice for environmental and economic data
acquisition. For the emergy analysis of a state,
U.S. government sources are preferred. A list of
sources for the information used in this study is
provided in the Data Sources section of this report.
Government sources are most likely to provide
detailed descriptions of assumptions and methods,
and they often provide a quantitative estimate of
error. Recorded data specific to the system both in
time and space are preferred. However, data are
rarely collected in a manner that can be directly
inserted into an emergy evaluation table. For
example, international trade exchanges are
meticulously recorded by several federal agencies,
but domestic trade is evaluated only through surveys
conducted five years apart. Furthermore, a great deal
2-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
of economic information is recorded in terms of
currency exchange, but because unit prices vary
substantially, it is difficult to estimate the actual
resource or environmental use involved. In these
cases, broader based assumptions and accepted
models, many of them models employed by
economists, are used to convert the recorded data
into estimates for a particular area or system.
The information needed for the emergy income
statement is most often reported as annual flows of
dollars and/or mass. Often mass can be easily
converted to energy because the energy content of
many objects has been widely tabulated (1).
(Numbers in italics follow data sources mentioned in
the text and refer to entries in Section 6, Data
Sources). The energy contents of many materials
evaluated in this study are given in Appendix C. The
specific emergy or the emergy per unit mass has also
been calculated for many items and can be used to
convert mass flows to emergy when it is convenient
(see Appendix B). Dollar flows can be converted to
the average emergy in the human services associated
with the good or service purchased by multiplying
the dollar amount by the appropriate emergy to dollar
ratio (Odum 1996). However, the dollar value of
something does not give an accurate estimate of its
emergy except when the work of humans accounts
for all but a small part of the emergy required to
make the item.
2.2.4 Transformities
The energy content of many items has been
tabulated; however, the information available on the
solar transformities of those items is often more
limited. Thus, the availability of data on solar
transformities often determines the ease with which
emergy accounting studies can be performed. Many
solar transformities have been calculated (see
Appendix C in Odum, 1996 and Appendix B below),
but most studies require the calculation of new
transformities or the updating of old transformities,
when the average or general value for the
transformity of an item is not appropriate to answer
the management or research question. Although
several methods for calculating transformities exist
(Odum 1996), transformity calculations are
commonly based on an analysis of the production
process for a particular item. Global production
processes are used to determine the transformity of
planetary products like the wind, rain and waves
(Odum 1996, Odum 2000). The relevant production
processes of environmental and economic sub-
systems are analyzed to determine the transformities
for particular economic or ecological products and
services. For example, the inputs to agricultural
production processes for different crops in Florida
were evaluated to obtain transformities for soybeans,
grain corn, potatoes, etc. (Brandt-Williams 2001). All
energy inputs required for the production of an item
are documented and converted to solar joules (by
multiplying each energy input by the appropriate
transformity). Emergy inputs to the process are
summed and divided by the available energy in the
product to obtain the transformity of that item
in sej/J.
A distribution of values can be obtained for the
transformity of any item by the analysis of many
production processes. The thermodynamic limits on
the efficiency of all production processes lead to the
hypothesis that there will be a minimum attainable
transformity, which results when the production
process is operating at maximum power. This
minimum transformity may be a constant for a given
product or service that indicates its location in the
hierarchy of all natural processes. In practice, when a
general value for a transformity is to be determined, a
well-adapted (fast and efficient) production process
is evaluated on the scale and in the setting under
which the product is commonly formed. For
example, rain and wind are products of the global
atmospheric heat engine and thus their transformities
are determined through an analysis of the global
hydrologic cycle. In any emergy analysis, it is
important to consider whether the energy and
material inputs to a production process can be
considered to be of average transformity for that
item. If so the general value for the transformity for
these items can be used. For example, electricity can
be generated by many processes (using wood, water,
coal, gas, tide, solar voltaics, etc) each with a
different transformity (Odum 1996). An average
value of 1.7 E5 sej/J was determined by Odum
(1996), which is consistent with the transformity of
electricity generated from coal-fired power plants
such as those found in West Virginia. The use of a
2-5
-------
Methods
general transformity for an item is appropriate when
(1) the item is representative of the mix of production
processes that determine the mean, (2) the general
value reflects the specific input, and (3) the
transformity of the particular item is unknown. It
would not be reasonable to use the general
transformity for an item when the system or process
under evaluation is known to be dependent on an
inflow of higher or lower transformity energy.
Transformities are always measured relative to a
planetary solar emergy baseline and care should be
taken to ensure that the transformities used in any
particular analysis are all expressed relative to the
same baseline. However, all the past baselines can
be easily related through multiplication by an
appropriate factor and the results of an emergy
analysis do not change by shifting the baseline
(Odum et. al, 2000). The baseline used in this study
is from Campbell (1998, 2000a) who calculated a
revised solar transformity for tidal energy that
resulted in a correction to the planetary baseline in
Odum (1996) giving a new value of 9.26 E+24 solar
emjoules joules per year. The transformities used in
this report have either been calculated using the 9.26
baseline or multiplied by the appropriate factor to
express them relative to this baseline. These factors
are provided in Appendix B, Table B1.1, where
transformities are also given relative to the 15.83
E+24 sej/y baseline promulgated in Odum et al.
(2000).
2.2.5 Flow Summary and the Calculation of
Indices
The final step in creation and analysis of emergy
accounts for a system is to combine the information
from the income statement into summary variables
that are used in the calculation of emergy indices.
These summary variables are shown on the aggregate
diagram (Fig. 2, p. 3-12) discussed above and
provide a macroscopic overview of emergy and
dollar flows for the system. Other analysis methods
and tools are used in Emergy Analysis (Odum 1996,
Odum 1994) but these are not discussed here. Using
the emergy analysis tables and the aggregated
figures, emergy indices are calculated to compare
systems, predict trends, and to suggest alternatives
that deliver more emergy, reduce stress on the
environment, are more efficient or more equitable.
2.3 Creating the Emergy Income Statement
The income statement can include the following
tabular accounts: (1) the renewable resources
received and used within the system and the
production based primarily on the use of those
resources, (2) production and consumption of
nonrenewable resources within the system,
(3) imports into the system, and (4) exports from
the system.
2.3.1 Evaluating Renewable Resources
Renewable resources are replenished on a regular
basis as a result of the use of planetary emergy
inflows in solar radiation, the deep heat of the earth
and gravitational attraction of the sun and moon.
These primary planetary emergy inflows and the
continuously generated co-products of their
interactions in the geobiosphere comprise the
renewable resources of the earth. In general, all
renewable resources known to be important inputs to
a system are evaluated and the emergy contributed
to the system by each is determined. While all
renewable energies known to be important are
calculated and included in the table, not all of them
are included in the emergy base for a system. If all
the co-products of a single interconnected planetary
system are counted, some of the emergy inflow will
be counted twice; therefore, only the largest of any
set of co-products is counted in the emergy base for
a given area of the earth.
Rain carries two kinds of energy, the chemical
potential energy that rainwater has by virtue of its
purity relative to seawater and the geopotential
energy of the rain at the elevation at which it falls.
Renewable energy also enters a state or other system
through cross border flows of energy and materials in
rivers. Renewable energy inflows to the system can
be determined at two points, (1) the point of entry
and (2) the point of use. The first of these two flow
measurements gives the emergy received by the
system and the second gives the emergy absorbed or
used in the system. For example, the incident solar
radiation is received by the system and the incident
solar radiation minus the surface albedo is absorbed.
The geopotential energy of rain on land at the
elevation it falls is the geopotential energy received
by the system, whereas, the geopotential energy of
2-6
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
the runoff relative to the elevation at which it leaves
the state is used on the landscape to create landforms.
The chemical potential energy of the rain that falls on
the land is received, but the water transpired is
actually used by the vegetation to create structures on
the landscape. In some cases almost all the emergy
received by the system is absorbed, e.g., almost all
tidal energy received is dissipated in estuaries and on
the continental shelf.
An economy develops over many years in
response to the environmental energies available to
support human activities in the system; therefore, a
long-term average of environmental variables, i.e., 10
to 50 years depending on the available data, is used
to calculate the average energy supplied to the system
from renewable sources. Long-term averages for
environmental data smooth temporal variations in the
inputs of renewable energy, which might otherwise
lead to high variability in the emergy indices based
on year to year variability of renewable inflows.
Environmental data should be collected with
comparable technologies. Sometimes, with long
environmental data sets, the technology used to
obtain the data will have changed during the period
of record. In this case, we try to use only the data
recorded using the most recent instruments, which
are comparable. Representative averages in space
and time are also important to characterize inputs
accurately. Where there are substantial differences
in environmental inputs in different regions of a
state, the differences should be prorated by area to
insure that the most accurate estimate of the energy
input to the state is obtained for any particular
variable. For example, mountainous areas have a
different climate than coastal areas. More specific
methods for determining the emergy of renewable
resources are provided in Appendix C.
2.3.2 Evaluating Nonrenewable Resources
Nonrenewable resources are raw materials that
have been built over a long time by environmental
processes, but that are being used by human activities
at a rate much faster than they can be renewed. Coal
mining or groundwater withdrawals in excess of the
recharge rate are examples of nonrenewable
resources. An emergy evaluation does not determine
the contribution of a nonrenewable resource by the
price paid for the raw material - a ton of coal for
instance - because this is not the value of the coal
itself. It is the price someone is willing to pay for the
labor and machinery required to mine the coal. When
evaluating coal as an emergy input, it is important to
evaluate or take into account the energy required to
make the coal. The solar emergy required to make a
joule of coal is its solar transformity in sej/J. A
material flow is multiplied by its specific emergy
(sej/g) or converted to energy and then multiplied by
its transformity to obtain an emergy flow. All
storages in the system that are being used faster than
they are being replaced contribute to the non-
renewable emergy supporting the system. This
includes storages that can be used renewably,
e.g., soil, ground water, timber.
2.3.3 Evaluating Exports and Imports
Emergy is imported and exported in three forms:
(1) emergy in services separate from any material
flows (consulting, data analysis, financial services,
etc.), (2) emergy in materials entering and leaving the
state, and (3) emergy in the human service associated
with the material inflows and outflows (collecting,
refining, manufacturing, distributing, shipping, and
handling). The data sources and methods used to
evaluate imports and exports will vary depending on
the system. The following methods are specific for
the evaluation of imports and exports to and from a
state in the United States.
Most of the data on the shipment of commodities
between states is collected in terms of both the dollar
value and tonnage shipped. Both kinds of data are
needed to make estimates of emergy movements
because goods have energy and emergy value
associated with their creation and concentration in
nature that is separate from the contributions of
human service that are measured in the economic
value of the good. Generally, the value, or the money
paid for a material at the point of use reflects the
service associated with that commodity. This dollar
value can be multiplied by the national emergy to
dollar ratio for the year of analysis to estimate the
emergy of the human services accompanying the
flow of imported goods. The fluxes of energy or mass
in each material flow can be multiplied by the
appropriate emergy per unit (excluding services) and
the results summed to determine the total emergy in
the import and export of the material in goods.
2-7
-------
Methods
Determining the emergy in goods and services
imported to and exported from a state is a difficult
problem because data on the exchange of goods and
services is collected at different points, by different
government agencies, using different methods of
aggregation and estimation. Furthermore, while
imports and exports are tracked at the national level
using shipping labels that have explicit information,
the domestic distribution of goods is determined by
the statistical analysis of survey data and other
economic modeling methods. Domestic energy
shipments are the only commodities tracked on the
basis of a nearly complete accounting of actual state-
to-state movements of the commodity. Petroleum is
an exception to this level of detailed accounting
because its movements are only tracked among
regions.
The detailed export profile estimates and the
overall information on state-to-state movements
of goods in the Commodity Flow Survey (CFS)
(2) were used to determine both the exports from
and the imports to a state by product category. In
addition, other sources were consulted to get a more
complete accounting of goods crossing the state
boundary and to check the CFS numbers wherever
possible. All of these data are available on
government websites (see Data Sources).
2.3.3.1 Determining the Emergy in Materials
Theoretically, determining the emergy in material
inflows should be straightforward; however, the data
reported are not complete. Although a total dollar and
tonnage value are given for inbound and outbound
shipments in the CFS for each state, some individual
commodity classes are missing an estimate for dollar
value, tonnage or both. This situation occurs most
commonly because shipments are too variable to
make the average a useful parameter or because a
value, if given, would reveal information about an
individual firm. A price per ton can be estimated
from the data wherever the dollar value and tonnage
are provided. Often both dollar value and tonnage for
commodities are available for the total shipments out
of a state. If the tonnage data was missing for a
commodity in the shipments to a particular state, the
dollar per ton value from the total shipments was
used to estimate the unknown tonnage. Where flows
are present but both tonnages and dollar values are
unreported a tonnage-weighted export profile of
commodities based on their respective fraction of
total shipments was used to estimate the missing
tonnage and to bring the total for all commodities
exported to the total reported in the CFS (see
Appendix D).
The Energy Information Administration (EIA)
data on energy movements of coal and natural gas are
estimated using multiple sources; and therefore, these
data are considered to be more accurate and complete
than the CFS data, which are estimated from the
results of a survey. The EIA data are used to check
and replace, if needed, the coal entries in the CFS.
In addition, a category for natural gas data is added.
Natural gas movements through existing pipelines
can be determined as well as natural gas exports or
imports from or to the state.
All materials that are prepared for shipment from
a state are reported as exported in the CFS. However,
some of these materials end up within the state of
origin. The materials actually exported from a state
are determined by subtracting the tonnage of
shipments that begin and end in the state of origin
from the total tonnage of shipments in each
commodity class.
While the amount of goods imported into a state
are not directly tracked in the CFS, the destination
state for exports is reported, and consequently, the
goods imported to a state can be determined by
adding up the tonnage within each commodity class
exported from the other 49 states to the state under
analysis (West Virginia). If a state has a customs
entry point, the U.S. Customs data on imports is
added to the totals for each commodity class. The
interstate shipment of goods tracked by the CFS
includes all the goods shipped from a state regardless
of origin, therefore international imports need only
be included for states with ports of entry.
The 1997 Commodity Flow Survey reported
commodities using a two-digit Standard
Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG) code.
This code is different from the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS), both of which are
2-8
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
used in U.S. economic data reports. Both import and
export data are included in the CFS, but conversion is
not necessary unless the state has a foreign customs
entry point (West Virginia does not). Imports listed
by NAICS categories were converted to SCTG
categories using an approximate conversion scheme
that we developed for the different industry
classification codes (see Appendix D, Table Dl.l).
The emergy in materials exported from or
imported to a state is then determined by multiplying
the mass or energy flow in each commodity class by
the appropriate emergy per mass or transformity,
respectively, based on an average of these ratios
for the major material items moving in the class
(Appendix B, Table B2.1). Outflows or inflows are
then summed across all commodities to get the total
emergy exported or imported.
Three key data sources for export/import
calculations are the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey
(2) the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration (3) and import data from the US
Customs Office and the Office of International Trade
(4). In addition, data for natural gas and coal
shipments came from Department of Energy (DOE)
documents (5, 6). A step-by-step method for
completing tables to calculate exports and imports
is given in Appendix D.
2.3.3.2 Determining the Emergy in Services
Services can be tracked along with goods and the
services associated with goods using total receipts
for the different industry sectors along with sector
employment. These numbers are recorded for both
the United States as a whole and for each individual
state using the same methods, but there is no
distinction between goods and services that remain
within the state and services that are transferred to
other states. A variation of the economic base-
nonbase method was used to estimate the emergy
imported and exported in services. The information
on the base-nonbase method used in this report can
be found at the web address (7) given in Data
Sources.
Economic base theory is usually employed to
analyze the growth potential and stability of an
economy in terms of its export industries (7). In this
method, economic sectors are designated as basic
(exporting sectors that are largely dependent on areas
external to the state or region for marketing their
goods and services) or non-basic (sectors whose
products and services are mainly used within the
state or local region of analysis). Once the industry
data has been gathered and the assumptions about
sector behavior have been recorded, an estimation
of exported and imported services can be made.
The underlying assumption behind the base-
nonbase method of estimation is that the aggregate
demand of the people in a nation will be satisfied by
the total production of goods and services in all
sectors of the national economy. Thus the ratio of
workers in any sector to total employment for the
nation indicates the level of economic production
necessary to satisfy the average needs of the people.
The number of workers in any given economic sector
in a state as a fraction of the total workers in that
state compared to a similar ratio for the nation is an
indicator of the excess or deficit production capacity
that may exist within that sector in the state's
economy. This ratio is the location quotient (LQ) and
it can be used to determine whether a given industry
sector produces exports. If LQ is greater than one, at
least some of the sector is basic (exporting). If it is
equal to one, the sector production is assumed to just
meet local demand and there is no excess to export.
If the LQ is less than one, the local economic sector
cannot satisfy the average demand and thus it is
assumed that no net export will occur. Sectors
with location quotients less than one are potential
importers of goods and services in that sector. The
formula to calculate the LQ for employment, S, in
industry sector, i, within the economy of a state with
total employment, St, referenced to employment in
the same industry sector of the national economy, N;,
and total national employment, Nt, is given below.
LQ =
N.
(1)
2-9
-------
Methods
The following equation was used to determine
the number of basic jobs, B, in the export portion of
an industry:
B =
'N,
(2)
The number of basic sector workers, B, times
the productivity per worker in the state industry gives
an estimate of the dollar value of exported services.
Multiplication of this number by the emergy to dollar
ratio for the nation gives an estimate of the average
emergy exported from a sector. If both goods and
services are exported from the sector, the dollar value
of the goods exported must be subtracted from total
sector exports to estimate services. Alternatively for
sectors that export both goods and services, the
above method can be applied to more detailed data
from sub-sectors that are almost entirely services
and the export determined based on these sector
divisions.
An estimate of the potential import of services
to a region can be obtained in a similar manner.
Under the assumptions given above, the deficit in
employment in an industry sector should indicate the
amount of service that would need to be imported for
the residents of a region to enjoy the same level of
service from these sectors experienced by an average
person in the nation. To estimate imported services
from the calculated potential, states above the
average per capita income in the nation are assumed
to be able to fill all their need for services, whereas
states below this level were assumed to be able to fill
only part of their needs. For example, West Virginia
is a state shown to be impoverished by many social
and economic indicators, e.g., in 1997 West Virginia
ranked 49th among the 50 states in per capita income
(8). Following the assumption given above, we
assumed that West Virginians could purchase
services in proportion to the ratio of West Virginia's
1997 per capita income to the 1997 national average
per capita income. This number is only an estimate
and the actual value of services entering the state is
unknown. Assumptions governing the export and
import of services from different industry sectors
might be expected to vary somewhat based on the
particular economic circumstances of individual
states. In using this method, it is important to
ascertain the facts about a given state's economy
and to make supportable assumptions about service
import-export relationships based on those facts.
Steps in the method to calculate services are given
in Appendix D.
2.4 Creating the Emergy Balance Sheet
The emergy balance sheet is a table containing
the evaluation of the emergy stored in the assets of
the system. The determination of some stored assets
on the balance sheet of a state or region requires
knowledge of the emergy input over the average
turnover time of the storage. For example, to
determine the emergy required for a forest of trees
that are on average 40 years-old, the average annual
energy used to support an area of forest (chemical
potential energy of the water evapotranspired)
would be multiplied by its transformity and then that
number multiplied by 40 to determine the emergy
required to develop the standing crop of trees
comprising the forest. In evaluating an economic
production process, start-up or capital costs are
prorated over the average lifetime of the facility
carrying out a production process. If the energy or
mass of storage present in the system is known, this
quantity can be multiplied by its transformity or
specific emergy to obtain the emergy of the stored
asset. For example, the estimated recoverable coal
reserves in grams could be multiplied by the heat
content in J/g to get energy and then by the
transformity of coal (sej/J) to find the emergy of the
stored asset. Complete methods of developing the
emergy balance sheet including the documentation of
environmental liabilities are under development
(Campbell 2004).
2.5 Constructing the Emergy-Economic
Overview
Information from the completed emergy income
statement tables is combined to create a Table of
summary flows, which provides the quantities needed
for the calculation of emergy indices. These summary
flows are also placed on the aggregated overview
diagram of the system (Fig 2). The item name often
is sufficient to identify a quantity, but where it is not,
additional explanation is given in the Table notes
along with how the quantity was derived. The
2-10
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
evaluated energy systems diagram of the macro-
scopic economic and ecological features of the
system (See Fig. 2) shows important classes of flows,
the details of emergy and money movements across
system boundaries, and a limited number of flows
within the state. The inflows of renewable and
purchased emergy and the outflows of emergy in
products and services are summarized in an even
simpler "3-arm diagram" (Fig. 3) that shows only
the inputs to and outputs from the system.
2.5.1 Summary Emergy and Dollar Flows
The summary table includes information on all
the important emergy and dollar flows for the system
designated with a letter for each category of flow
(see Table 9). Numerical subscripts after a letter
symbol denote a particular flow of a given type. The
renewable energy inflow to the system is designated
with the letter "R". The letter "N" indicates
nonrenewable energy sources and any renewable
sources that are being used faster than they are
replaced, e.g., soil, timber, groundwater. Flows
shown using the letter "F" are fuels and minerals
imported and/or used within the state. The gross
economic product of the state (GSP) is designated
with the letter "X". The letter "G" designates
imported goods excluding fuels and minerals. The
dollars paid for all imports are shown with the letter
I, and subdivisions of this sum are given by the
subscripted letter. The dollars brought into the state
as Federal transfer payments are listed with other
dollar inflows (Table 6 and Figure 2). The letters
"PI" designate the emergy flows in human service
that are embodied in the dollars paid for imported
goods and services. Exported products (goods +
electricity) are represented with the letter "B". The
dollars paid for exports are shown with the letter "E"
and the emergy that accompanies the human service
embodied in these exports is shown as "PE".
Money entering the state does not bring emergy
into the state per se. However, when spent, money
generates emergy flows. The emergy flows generated
when tourist dollars are spent in the state are
included as emergy exports in Tables 7 and 9.
Campbell (1998) argued that tourists receive value
from their recreational experience and that these
experiences are virtual emergy flows that require
unique emergy storages and flows to exist within
the system for their creation. In this analysis the
emergy purchased by the dollars tourists spend
within the state is taken as a first order estimate of
the emergy value of their recreational experience.
These experiences are classified as exports, because
they would not be possible without the unique
recreational opportunities provided by the emergy
stores and flows that are present in West Virginia.
One hypothesis is that Federal transfer payments
may flow as a counter current to the overall emergy
received by the nation from a state, where the emergy
received by the nation exceeds that expected from the
monetary exchange , i.e., the monetary exchange
balances but the emergy exchange does not. This
relationship has not been proven, and federal outlays
add emergy flows to the state when these monies are
spent within the state, /'. e., at the state's emergy to
dollar ratio. In this latter view federal outlays would
be imports and federal taxes exports because they
represent a foregone opportunity to generate emergy
flows within the state. Even though the former view
of federal outlays may also be true we have chosen
to view federal outlays as imports and federal taxes
as exports in this paper.
2.5.2 Determining the Renewable Emergy Base
for a System
The objective in determining the renewable
emergy base for a given area of the earth is to
evaluate the degree to which the earth's renewable
emergy sources have been concentrated in a given
area. All significant inflows are identified and
evaluated, but the items included in the renewable
emergy base for the system are determined in a
manner that avoids double counting inflows, i.e.,
the base includes only the largest of the emergy
sources entering the area that are co-products of the
same generating process. For example, rain and wind
are co-products of the work done by the planetary
heat engine (the latitudinal gradient of temperature
over the world oceans); therefore, only the largest
would be counted toward the renewable emergy base
for any given area. If a system includes land and sea
areas, the renewable emergy base can be determined
for each area and the two inputs summed to obtain
the renewable emergy base for the entire area.
2-11
-------
Methods
Planetary processes are considered to be one
interconnected system for the purpose of determining
the transformities of global products, thus the entire
emergy input to the earth is necessary for the
formation of all global co-products, regardless of the
baseline. As a result the rules to minimize double
counting in determining the natural emergy base for
a given area of the earth will be the same for all
baselines. The simple rule to avoid double counting
when using the 15.83 or the 9.26 baseline to
determine the renewable emergy base for a system is
to only count the largest inflowing emergy of all the
co-products of the planetary system (including tide)
as the emergy base for any given area of the earth.
Under this rule different areas in the same system
may count different single emergies as the direct
base, e.g., tide for a state's area of coastal ocean and
the chemical potential energy of rain for the land area
of the coastal state can be added together to get the
renewable emergy received by the entire area of the
state. The same spatial resolution for determining the
emergy inflows must be used to insure that bases are
comparable. Where emergy inflows are concentrated
in space, higher resolution of the inputs will result in
a greater emergy base for the system. For example, at
a resolution of 100 m, the zone of breaking waves
would be resolved for a coastal system and the wave
emergy absorbed might be added to the emergy base
for the system after adjustment of the area of the
other inputs, and if it is the largest input received
over the area of the 100 m wide coastal strip. This
dependence on spatial resolution requires that the
emergy analyst consider differences in the emergy
signature across the landscape where they exist, thus
areas of different biogeographic characteristics are
considered separately and the largest emergy inflows
to each are combined to represent the total system
(Campbell 2000a).
2.5.2.1 Renewable emergy received
For any area, use the largest of the energy sources
supplied by the planetary processes (rain, wind,
waves, earth cycle, tides, etc.) at the point that they
enter the system and sum over the entire area of the
system to determine the renewable emergy received.
For rivers that cross into a state or flow along its
borders, the emergy received at the point the river
enters the state is included in the emergy base. If the
river flows along the border between two states, 1A of
the emergy received is given to each state.
2.5.2.2 Renewable emergy absorbed
Both the emergy in chemical potential energy
(evapotranspiration) and the geopotential energy
(runoff) of water doing work in the system are
counted, because the water used in these two
processes is distinct. These two forms of energy
carried by water interact across the elevation gradient
from mountains to the sea to maximize empower on
the landscape (Romitelli 1997). All tidal energy
received is assumed to be used within the estuarine
and continental shelf area and all wave energy is
assumed to be used when waves break on the shore.
The chemical potential and the geopotential energy
of rivers used in the state is found by determining the
chemical and geopotential energy at the point where
the river leaves the state and subtracting this from the
respective potentials at the point of entry. For
example, a river enters the state 500 m above sea
level and leaves at an elevation of 250 m, the
difference in geopotential energy of the annual water
flows at these two points is the geopotential energy
used within the state.
2.6 Emergy Indices
Emergy indices are often meaningful to
characterize the condition of a region and determine
the relationship between the region and the larger
system. The emergy indices are calculated by
performing various mathematical operations with the
quantities given in the Flow Summary Table. The
emergy indices used in this study are identified
and explained below.
2.6.1 The Emergy/Money Ratio
The ratio of emergy to money is a useful index
because it connects aggregate economic activity to
the emergy flows that support it. An emergy to
money ratio is obtained by dividing the total emergy
use of a state or country by its gross economic
product. The result is the average amount of emergy
that is purchased by spending a dollar in a certain
place (sej/$). In other words the emergy/dollar ratio
tells us the purchasing power of a dollar in terms of
the real wealth (emergy) that it can buy. Money is
used to purchase products such as food, fuels,
2-12
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
clothing, housing, electricity, information, etc.
according to their market price. Each of these
products also has an emergy value. In addition, many
products of nature contribute to these economic
products but are not traded in the market and thus
have no market value. Dividing the emergy of a
product or service by the emergy to dollar ratio for
its system gives the emdollar value of the item. The
emdollar value of a product or service represents the
portion of the total purchasing power in the system
that is due to a particular product or service from the
economy or from nature. The emergy to dollar ratio
has another useful property. Because dollars are only
paid to people for their services, the emergy to dollar
ratio for a system can be used as an estimate of the
average value of human services in that system.
Thus, multiplying a dollar value of a product or
service by the emergy to dollar ratio gives, on
average, the emergy equivalent of human service
embodied in that item.
2.6.2 The Emergy Exchange Ratio
The emergy exchange ratio (EER) is the ratio
of emergy received to the emergy given in any
economic transaction, i.e., a trade or sale. The
trading partner that receives more emergy will
receive greater real wealth, and therefore, greater
economic stimulation due to the trade. Indices of
equity in exchange between states and nations are
determined by comparing the emergy in imports and
exports. The difference between imports and exports
indicates whether the state or region is a support area
for other regions and/or the larger system. The ratio
of exports to imports indicates the degree to which a
system contributes emergy to or receives it from a
trading partner or its larger system. When applied
to individual products, the EER gives the emergy
advantage to the buyer by determining the emergy
of the exported product relative to the emergy that
could be purchased with the buying power of the
money received in exchange.
2.6.3 The Investment Ratio
The investment ratio is the ratio of the solar
emergy purchased from outside the system to the
solar emergy supplied by the renewable and non-
renewable energy sources from within the system. It
shows the matching of economic investment to the
indigenous resources of a state or region. Lower
values of this ratio indicate that the indigenous
environmental resources are supplying relatively
more emergy per unit of economic activity, and
therefore, environmental resources may be available
and capable of stimulating investment and additional
economic use. The ratio of purchased to free emergy
is a variation of the investment ratio, which compares
purchased emergy with the free contributions of
renewable emergy. Empower density or the emergy
flow per unit area is a related measure that indicates
the spatial concentration of economic activity or the
intensity of development in a state or nation.
2.6.4 The Environmental Loading Ratio
The environmental loading ratio (Odum 1996,
Brown and Ulgiati 2001) is the ratio of the emergy
used from nonrenewable sources (including
renewable sources being used in a nonrenewable
manner) and the emergy imported in goods and
services to the renewable emergy used. It indicates
the expected intensity of impacts to the renewable
emergy base of the system and the probability that
the system will have incurred significant
environmental liabilities on the balance sheet.
2.6.5 Indices of Self-Sufficiency And Dependence
The emergy used from home sources as a fraction
of total emergy use is a measure of the relative self-
sufficiency of a state or region. Conversely, the
fraction of total emergy use purchased from outside
shows the dependence of a state or region on the
larger economy of which it is a part. The fraction
of use that enters as imported services indicates the
relative dependence of the state on the service
economy of the nation.
2.6.6 Indices of Sustainable Use
The fraction of use that is free and the fraction
of use that is renewable are indicators of what is
sustainable in the long run. If the difference between
these two indicators is large, it shows that the long-
term capacity of the renewable emergy sources to
support life is being degraded. Truly sustainable use
is based on renewable resources alone used in a
renewable manner. A quick estimate of the renewable
carrying capacity of a state at the current standard of
2-13
-------
Methods
living is obtained by multiplying the fraction of use
that is renewable by the present population of the
state. Sometimes the developed carrying capacity at
the current standard of living is also estimated by
multiplying the above number by 8, an average ratio
of purchased to renewable emergy in developed
countries from past studies (Odum 1996).
2.6.7 Indices of Quality of Life
The annual emergy flow per person is
hypothesized to be an index of the overall standard of
living that includes environmental and economic
contributions to the quality of life. This assumes that
the people living in the system actually benefit from
the energy used there. Quality of life is also indicated
by the emergy in electricity use as a fraction of total
use. This ratio is a measure of the relative importance
of the higher transformity activities of people, and
therefore, it should be correlated with the
contributions of technology to higher standards of
living.
2.7 Energy and Emergy Signatures
Energy and emergy signatures of a system show
the magnitude of environmental and economic
inflows and outflows of a system on a synoptic plot
that is useful in characterizing and classifying
systems. The energy signature is a bar graph of
energy flows with the magnitude and direction of the
flow (in or out of the system) in joules per year
shown on the ordinate and the type of energy flow
identified on the abscissa. A bar graph of the same
flows converted to empower (sej/y) is the emergy
signature of the system. Conversion of energy flows
to empower shows the relative contributions of the
various energy inputs in terms of equivalent ability to
do work. If functionally distinct areas have different
emergy signatures (Campbell 2000b) and similar
areas exhibit similarities in their emergy signature,
the emergy signature may be useful in classifying
different environmental systems based on differences
in their inputs (Odum et al., 1977).
Evapotrans piratio
Erosion
Rivers X
Figure 1. A detailed energy systems model of the State of West Virginia (see Tables 2&3 and Appendix A). The large capital
letters show connections between sectors where a line would be cumbersome.
2-14
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table 2. Definition of pathway flows for the systems model of West Virginia's
environment and economy shown in Figure 1.
Pathway Definition of Flow
k0 Solar Radiation absorbed by farmland
ki Wind energy absorbed by farmland
k2 Rain fall on farmland
k3 Solar radiation absorbed by forestland
k4 Wind energy absorbed by forestland
k5 Rain fall on forestland
k6 Solar radiation absorbed by surface water
ky Wind energy absorbed by surface water
kg Rain fall on surface water
kg Waste discharge into rivers and streams
kio Environmental effects of recreational water activities
kn Government improvements to rivers
ki2 River inflow from outside the state
ko River water flowing out of the state
ki4 Ground water base flow to rivers
kis Fresh water recharge by forests
kie Environmental effects of recreation on the forest
kiy Government management actions to improve forests
kig Evapotransporation from forests
ki9 Forest products used by industry
k2o Forest products exported directly
k2i Government inputs to agriculture
k22 Pesticide, fertilizer, and other inputs used in agriculture
k23 Soil losses due to erosion
k24 Agricultural products used by industry
k25 Waste produced by agriculture
k26 Agricultural products exported directly
k27 Waste produced in manufacturing
k28 Waste produced by people and households
k29 Products exported from the state
kso Manufactured products sold in the state
ksi Water used by industry
ks2 Labor used by industry
kss Mined products used by industry
ks4 Imported fuels used by industry
kss Goods and services used by industry
kse Electric power used by industry
ksy Water used in power plants
kss Mined products used in power plants.
ksg Electrical power used by government
k4o Electricity used by people and households
k4i Coal mined
2-15
-------
Methods
Table 2. Definition of pathway flows for the systems model of West Virginia's
environment and economy shown in Figure 1. (continued)
Pathway
k42
k43
k44
k45
k46
k47
k4g
k49
k5o
ksi
k52
k53
k54
k55
kse
k57
k5g
k59
k6o
kei
k62
k63
k64
k6s
kee
ke?
k6g
k69
k?o
k?i
k72
k73
k?4
k75
k?e
k77
k?g
k?9
kgo
kgi
k82
Definition of Flow
Sand and salt mined
Limestone mined
Gas and oil mined
Earth cycle energy driving earth uplift
Electrical power used by the state government
Labor used by government
State and local government projects to benefit people
Goods and services from outside used by government
Imported goods and services purchased by people
Fuel used by people and households
Fresh water used by people and households
Labor used in the commerce and service industry
Local goods and services used by people of West Virginia
Electricity used in the commerce and service industry
Fuel used in the commerce and service industry
Commerce and service industries exports
Local goods and services used to support recreation
West Virginia forest supporting recreation
Fresh waters supporting recreation
Recreated tourists leaving the state
Tourists and seasonal residents entering the state
Net migration of people
Money spent on imported fuel
Labor used in the electric power industry
Money spent on imported goods and services
Money circulating in the state GSP
Federal subsidies to the state
Federal taxes paid by the state
Money acquired from exports and tourism
Transportation needed to move fuels into the state
Fuel needed to run and maintain transportation systems
Labor needed to run transportation system
Goods and Services used by transportation systems
Government contributions to transportation
Transportation systems used to export goods and services
Labor used in agriculture
Imported fuel used by the mining sector
Labor used in mining industries
Electric power exported
Coal exported
Wastes produced by the mining sector
2-16
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table 3. Definitions of the components for the systems model of West Virginia's
environment and economy shown in Figure 1.
Component
Definition
Aquatic Ecosystems
All bodies of water that support an ecosystem in West
Virginia, specifically the rivers and lakes
Surface Water
All rivers and lakes in West Virginia
Ground Water
The quantity of water held in aquifers in the state
Forests
All forest land both managed and unmanaged, including
all hard and soft wood areas
Soil
The storage of topsoil in forests and farms
Agriculture
All crop, pasture and orchard land
Mountains
Mountain areas of the state
Coal
The storage of coal within the mountains
Sand and Salt
The storage of sand and salt within the state
Limestone
The storage of limestone in West Virginia
Gas and Oil
The storage of gas and oil
Mining, M
All mining industries including coal, sand, salt,
limestone, gas, and oil
Production and Manufacturing
All manufactures of durable and non-durable goods
including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, fabricated
and primary metals, and glass, stone and clay products.
Also includes fish production, farming, forest, and
mining industries
Transportation, T
All elements of transportation, including movement by
truck, train, and river
Power Plants
All fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydroelectric plants
generating electricity in West Virginia
Government, G
State and local government
Service and Commerce
Wholesale and retail trade, hotels, restaurants, banking,
real estate, insurance and construction companies, repair
shops; the transportation industry, communication and
utilities; health, legal, social, personal, and repair
services; waste treatment, hospitals, schools and other
government services
People and Households, P
The population of West Virginia and their assets
(households)
Recreation and Tourism, R
All cultural and recreational activities in the state,
including festivals, kayaking, rafting, hiking, camping,
and historical sites
Waste, W
Waste products created by people, industry, and
agriculture
GSP
Gross State Product
2-17
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 3
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation
of West Virginia
An emergy analysis of the State of West Virginia
is given in this section of the report to demonstrate
the emergy accounting methodology. The application
of emergy analysis methods in this case study shows
how each of the techniques given in the methods
section is performed. The calculations and
assumptions used in each part of the analysis are
documented and the sources of the information are
given in the Appendices. This section is written as
a stand alone report that can be used by scientists
and managers who are interested in the results
and conclusions of the case study, "An Emergy
Evaluation of West Virginia".
3.1 Introduction
The economic productivity and well-being of
West Virginians are dependent on the health and
vitality of their environment as well as the wealth
of their stored mineral resources. However, the
environmental contributions to West Virginia's
economy cannot adequately be evaluated by market
values alone. There is an inverse relationship
between the contribution a resource makes to the
economy and its price (Odum 1996). For example,
when timber is abundant, prices are lowest but the
contribution of timber to that society is greatest
because it is used for many purposes. On the other
hand, after extreme logging, timber becomes scarce
and the cost increases; timber contributions to the
economy are lower because it is no longer commonly
used (Odum, 1996). Economic studies evaluate
wealth by what people are willing to pay for a
commodity, but because money is not paid to the
environment for its work, market values do not
effectively assess environmental contributions to
value (Odum, 1996). Emergy accounts include
comparable estimates of the environmental, social
and economic costs and benefits of alternative
actions. Therefore, the creation and analysis of such
accounts is needed to ensure that managers have all
the information that they need to make decisions in
the best interest of society.
At present, West Virginia is faced with the
conflicting needs of its people and the nation. There
is a national energy policy initiative for the United
States to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of
energy (National Energy Policy Development, 2001).
At the same time, there is a growing recognition of
the need to establish a sustainable relationship
between society, resource use, and the environment
(National Research Council, 1999). If the same
standard of living is to be maintained in the United
States as global petroleum production declines, fuel
autonomy implies an expansion of national energy
production and economic growth for West Virginia
and other states with a rich abundance of energy
resources. However, there are often large
environmental impacts associated with the extraction
and use of coal. West Virginia is currently caught
between external and internal pressures to increase
economic prosperity through further developing
energy and other natural resources while also
confronting the daunting task of preventing industry
from further damaging the health of human beings
and the environment.
Major environmental problems in West Virginia
(identified by CVI through interaction with
stakeholders) include sediment accumulation in
streams, forest fragmentation, invasion of exotic
species, acid rain, acid mine drainage and the habitat
loss that accompanies such environmental change
(CVI 2002). Also, flooding was identified as a major
environmental threat to human life and property.
Human economic activities such as mining,
timbering, farming, and changing patterns of urban
and industrial growth are the primary forces causing
environmental change in the state. Despite this
economic activity, many places in West Virginia and
throughout the Mid-Atlantic Highlands experience
3-1
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
economic problems from low per capita income to
high unemployment and low labor force participation
rates (CVI 2002). In this report, we examine the
larger system that controls the environmental and
socioeconomic characteristics of local systems within
West Virginia. The emergy analysis methods used in
this state-wide report can be applied to provide a
context for environmental and socioeconomic
problems at the local scale and to evaluate alternative
solutions for watershed restoration as proposed in
CVI (2002).
3.2 The Efficacy of Emergy Accounting in
Answering Management Questions
People need accurate and complete financial
information to answer questions about their fiscal
condition, so that they can make better decisions. The
kinds of questions that can be answered by keeping
accurate financial accounts are many and depend on
the particular system for which the accounts are
being kept. For example, people ask and answer
practical questions about their individual finances
every day. Some of these questions relate to the
financial condition of assets or income, i.e., "How
much money do I have in the bank?" or "Are my
monthly expenditures within my budget?" Other
questions relate to the equity of exchange, e.g., "Is
that used car really worth the money?" or "How
much will the schools improve if my property taxes
go up?" Still other questions are social in nature and
relate to how we are doing compared to others, e.g.,
"Do we have a higher standard of living than the
neighbors?" When the questions relate to financial
condition, dollars are sufficient to provide the
answer. However, where resources in the public
domain are being used, degraded, or developed,
questions about environmental systems cannot be
answered by considering economic value alone. Yet
the health of society depends on accurate answers
to questions about the condition and use of
environmental resources as surely as individual
financial health depends on assessing personal
savings and income.
Standard accounting tools, such as the income
statement and balance sheet, are used to document
the financial health of a firm. It is no less important
that we develop similar tools to assess the condition
of environmental systems. Emergy accounting
provides the means to keep the accounts for the
economy, society, and the environment on a single
income statement and balance sheet. The questions
that we can answer after performing an emergy
analysis of a system are similar to those that we can
answer as a result of doing a financial analysis of a
business or of our individual accounts. The following
key questions to be answered from information on
West Virginia's environmental accounts were derived
from discussions with environmental managers from
the Canaan Valley Institute and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency: (1) "What is the
current level of economic investment in relation to
West Virginia's resource base, and is this level of
investment sustainable?" (2) "What is the net
exchange of real wealth between West Virginia and
the nation?" (3) "What are the major causes for any
observed imbalances?" (4) "What actions can be
taken to address an imbalance, if it exists?"
(5) "How does West Virginia's standard of living
compare to other states and the nation?" (6) "Who
benefits most from the productive use of the state's
resources?" (7) "How self-sufficient is the state
based on its renewable and nonrenewable
resources?" (8) "How can we manage the
environment and economy of West Virginia to
maximize the well-being of humanity and nature in
the state and in the nation?" The emergy accounts for
West Virginia presented below provided information
and indicators that helped answer these questions.
3.3 Narrative History of West Virginia
The facts and many insights on the history of
West Virginia given in the narrative history were
taken from Rice (1985) and Rice and Brown (1993).
This narrative history is our condensation of these
histories from the perspective of West Virginia as an
environmental system.
For four hundred million years, the area that is
now the Appalachian Highlands was an arm of the
Atlantic Ocean and it was this water body that left
behind many of the natural resources found in the
Appalachian States. The biogeochemical system
acting in this body of water created the vast mineral
deposits of salt, oil, and natural gas in western West
Virginia and limestone from the fossils of marine
animals in the east. To the east of this ancient water
body were highlands from which material eroded and
3-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
washed down the watershed, weakening the
geosyncline and causing the rock strata to be
repeatedly folded and uplifted forming the ridge and
valley region of the state. Prior to the final upheaval,
much of West Virginia was covered by wetland
vegetation. This vegetation decomposed to form peat
that was then buried and subjected to heat and
pressure deep in the earth. This peat was eventually
transformed into the coal beds that now lie beneath
two thirds of the state. Streams and erosion continued
to sculpt the landscape as the periods of uplift and
subsidence followed one after another in succession.
The mountainous landscape that resulted did
much to affect the settlement of the state. The rough
terrain and lack of a unifying river system dis-
couraged many early settlers from coming to West
Virginia because it was both difficult to enter the area
and difficult for early settlers to maintain communi-
cation with friends and relatives without good
transportation systems (Rice 1985). Only a few dared
to face the dangers of Indian attacks and disputes
over land, the loneliness of mountain isolation, and
the struggles that came with conquering a wilderness
alone (Rice 1985). Most families were willing to
move only as part of a larger migration.
The first wave of settlers came to present day
West Virginia in 1730. At this time, in an effort to
protect the Virginia colonies from Indian hostilities,
Virginia made land laws that offered speculators one
thousand acres of land for each family they settled
west of the Blue Ridge. The law stipulated that the
families had to come from outside Virginia and be
settled within three years. Most of the families who
settled were from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or
distressed areas of Europe. This mechanism of land
settlement proved to be successful because the lands
of the Shenandoah and Upper Potomac Valleys were
fertile and easily supported both crops and grazing.
The speculators provided financing on easy terms
and charged only three pounds per acre, compared to
the five to ten pounds per acre charged for less
desirable land in Pennsylvania and Maryland. The
speculators also took care of legal matters, an
important consideration for immigrants, who often
had a minimal mastery of the English language and
laws of Virginia (Rice, 1985). The wisdom of the
Virginia legislature in requiring the settlement of
families on the frontier was a key factor in the
success of the land companies and the settlements
they established (Rice and Brown 1993). However,
land laws that were so successful in attracting the first
settlers to West Virginia were to cause trouble in later
years.
The Virginia Land Law of 1779 made preemption
rights and claims based on military treasury warrants
transferable. This enabled speculators to acquire
millions of acres formerly granted to the land
companies and individuals for military service. By
1805, 250 persons or groups had acquired 10,000
acres or more. Many were merchants of Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Richmond, and other eastern cities. Traffic
in land left much of West Virginia in the hands of
absentee owners who often had more interest in
exploiting the resources than in the region itself. West
Virginians suffered from the land system whether
their land was in dispute or not, because speculators
failed to spend resources on development and waited
for the state government to provide roads, canals, and
improvements. Often the land was classified as "wild"
and was taxed at very low rates providing little money
for internal improvements, schools, and services. West
Virginia also failed to require land surveys in
accordance with the spherical earth. This led to layers
of claims, many by non-residents, that were over-
lapping and vague causing land titles to be insecure.
The chaotic land system deprived West Virginia of
thousands of much needed immigrants and retarded
economic growth. Some men and women settled in
the state and fought for its improvement, but many
others preferred the rich farmland and secure titles
of lands further west (Rice and Brown 1993).
Early West Virginians saw the economic potential
of coal, timber, iron, and other natural resources as
evidenced by their use in local industries, but the
absence of investment capital, lack of developed
markets within the state, and problems in transporta-
tion by both land and water, prevented the large scale
exploitation of the state's natural resources. Historic-
ally, the ability to extract, use, and transport the vast
quantities of energy in nonrenewable resources within
the state has been the limiting factor for economic and
social development in West Virginia.
Transportation infrastructure is important for
economic development, especially in a mountainous
state. In West Virginia, the first transportation industry
3-3
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
was the manufacture of flat boats, which were used
to carry agricultural goods and salt along the rivers.
The need to move coal from the heart of West
Virginia drove the small mining companies to
organize the Coal River Navigation Company in the
1840s and to begin the construction of locks and
dams along the rivers so that larger boats could pass
to the Ohio River. The construction of railroads had
an even larger affect on economic development than
river improvements (Rice 1985). Railroads could be
built near the resources, rather than having to
transport the resources to the river, and their spread
was limited only by the speed at which the rails could
be laid (Rice 1985). The introduction of the railroad
greatly increased the development of all resource-
extraction industries in the state.
3.3.1 Salt
For centuries the Indians had visited the salt
springs on the Kanawha River and Little Kanawha
River where they used the basic technique of boiling
brine to make salt. In 1797, the first commercial salt
works opened in the Kanawha Valley. By 1851 there
were 52 salt furnaces lining the banks of the
Kanawha over a 10 mile stretch that produced 2500-
3000 bushels (63625 kg) of salt per day. The industry
peaked in 1846 with the production of 3,224,786
bushels (76,955,120 kg). The salt works drew
hundreds of workers to make the barrels and hoop
polls, work the salt, and run the flatboats needed for
transportation. Thus, the salt industry produced the
first diversified economic life in West Virginia. Salt
making was also the first industry to radically change
the social structure of the state by creating a class of
exploitable industrial workers (Rice 1985).
3.3.2 Coal
The deposits of coal that lie beneath the surface
of the land are the legacy of productive swamplands
that existed at an earlier time. Exploitable seams of
bituminous coal lie beneath two thirds of the state of
West Virginia. For a long time West Virginia coal
was used only in the salt furnaces. It was not sent
outside of the state because the Kanawha River was
too low for navigation by large boats during the
summer and fall months. For this reason, coal was
only used locally within the state in the ironworks,
foundries, paper mills, glass factories, distilleries,
and cotton and woolen mills. However, in 1847,
cannel coal was found at Cannelton, WV. Cannel
coal is a rare, clean-burning variety of coal that
produced the first small coal boom in West Virginia.
Only the very wealthy could afford cannel coal and
the majority was shipped to Boston.
With the expansion of the railroads in the 1880s,
coal production greatly increased. In 1888, Fayette
County became the first county in West Virginia to
mine more than one million short tons of coal
annually and by 1912 McDowell County was
producing 13.7 million tons. About 10 to 15 per cent
of the coal mined was converted to coke, although no
coke has been produced since 1979. With the
exception of a brief decrease during economic
readjustments following World War I, coal
production steadily increased until the Great
Depression, rising from 69,783,088 short tons in
1914 to 139,297,146 short tons in 1929. World War II
stimulated a strong resurgence and the peak
production year was 1947, when 173,653,816 short
tons were produced.
Surface mining also rapidly increased after World
War II. In 1950 it composed only 8.8% of the coal
mining, but by 1980 it accounted for 20.7%. This
increase was partly due to the development of heavy
equipment and new technology. This practice has
been controversial because it leaves scarred hillsides,
destroys wildlife habitat, increases soil erosion,
degrades water quality, and increases the risk of
flooding. Surface mining and the mechanization of
the underground mines drastically reduced the labor
force while maintaining high outputs of coal.
3.3.3 Timber
During the Industrial Revolution many Americans
saw the removal of forests as progress. In clearing
land and constructing farm buildings, the first West
Virginia pioneers destroyed trees without regard for
their value as timber. The first saw mill was built in
1776 and logging soon became an important
business. The rivers of West Virginia were not easily
navigable by large barges and initially this slowed the
movement of natural resources; however timber was
quickly removed from the state after the adaptation
of the lock and dam systems, the building of railroads
and the introduction of the band saw. Lumber
3-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
companies, mainly from New York, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Minnesota, bought most of the best
timberlands in West Virginia. They usually paid 2-5
dollars per acre when at the time a single yellow
poplar tree could yield 2000 board feet that sold for
eighty to one hundred dollars per thousand board feet
(Clarkson 1964). A band saw could cut seventeen
acres of forest in a single day.
Timber production increased to 1483 million
board feet in 1909. From 1870 to 1920, more than
30 billion board feet were cut (Clarkson 1964).
According to Clarkson (1964), this is enough lumber
to build a boardwalk 13 feet wide and 2 inches thick
extending to the moon. This total does not include
wood carried by streams and rivers to be cut in
Kentucky or Ohio, or the millions of feet burned and
wasted by the pioneers and brush fires following
logging. By 1920, most of the virgin forest was
removed, except for a few isolated areas of small
acreage. Without forests to harvest, the jobs in the
timber industry were no longer available and the
population of the logging towns began to diminish.
In spite of past and present efforts at reforestation
and conservation, timbering and various other
extractive industries have left a legacy of depleted
resources, scarred terrain and fleeting prosperity.
3.3.4 Oil
The first important oil well in West Virginia was
brought into production in 1859, shortly before the
onset of the Civil War. By 1863, the year West
Virginia officially became a state; there were 225
wells, each pumping on average 116 barrels of oil per
day. In 1882, Dr. Israel White, a professor of geology
at West Virginia University, proposed a theory that
oil deposits tended to collect under great arches of
rock known as anticlines. This was found to be true
and led to a dramatic upsurge in oil discovery and
production. The industry peaked in 1900, when
16,195,675 barrels were produced. West Virginia oil
production has been in decline in the 20th century.
3.3.5 Natural Gas
Natural gas fields frequently coincide with oil
regions. The anticlines commonly have natural gas in
the upper strata, oil in the intermediate strata and
water or brine in the lower region. West Virginia was
relatively slow at putting natural gas to commercial
or industrial use; prior to the Civil War, salt making
was the only industry using it. Before 1882, most
natural gas was discovered accidentally by oil and
salt drillers. They considered it a nuisance and made
no effort to conserve it. Unused gas flows sometimes
discharged into the air for months, with thunderous
sounds that could be heard for miles (Rice and
Brown 1993). But by 1906, West Virginia ranked
first among the states in natural gas production. As
with coal and oil, the initial large numbers of small
natural gas operations gave way to a few giants,
e.g., first the Standard Oil Company and later the
Columbia Gas System, who controlled production
and distribution.
3.3.6 Limestone
Limestone is found throughout the state, but the
most valuable limestone lies along the length of the
Allegheny Mountains, on the Cacapon and upper
South Branch Rivers and in the Shenandoah Valley.
Like many West Virginia industries, it reached its
peak production in the past (1977) and output is
now declining. In 1977 the output of sandstone
and limestone was 10,499,000 short tons.
3.3.7 Sand
Sand is another important material deposited
within the state. Some of the sand in West Virginia is
99.8 per cent pure silica. This coupled with the
natural gas and limestone assured West Virginia an
important place in the glass industry, and Wellsburg
had a glass factory as early as 1813.
3.3.8 Iron
When the iron industry first developed, small
furnaces throughout West Virginia produced bar iron,
but by 1830, a facility on the Cheat River made
Morgantown a center of importance for production of
plows, nails, stoves, grates, and other iron products.
Before the Civil War, the major iron-making centers
were in Wheeling, Weirton and on the Cheat River
near Morgantown. The introduction of the open
hearth and Bessemer processes after the Civil War
led to the development of a steel industry that had
major effects on the economy of the state. By 1920,
a number of smaller foundries around the state had
3-5
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
been absorbed by several much larger operations
centered at Wheeling and Weirton. Two world wars
further stimulated the growth of the industry and in
1932 a large plant was built in Alloy, WV. It made
more than 50 alloys used in the production of high-
grade steel and ferrochrome alloy. After World War
II, Kaiser Aluminum built a plant in Ravenswood on
the banks of the Ohio River, presently owned by
Century Aluminum, which added diversity to the
primary metals industry in the state.
3.3.9 Textiles
Textile manufacture, like iron, dates back to
colonial times in West Virginia. Before World War I,
Wheeling was known for its excellent calicos,
Martinsburg and Berkeley Springs were known for
hosiery, Charleston for blankets, and Huntington for
upholstery and work clothes. Synthetic yarns and
fibers began to be manufactured after World War I.
Plants at Nitro and Parkersburg made rayon from the
chemical processing of raw cotton and wood pulp.
A DuPont plant at Belle also produced nylon from
coal, nitrogen, and water, which soon replaced silk
for many purposes because of its durability.
3.3.10 Chemicals
The West Virginia industry with the most rapid
and continuous growth in the twentieth century is
the manufacture of chemicals and their by-products.
The extensive brines in the Kanawha Valley and the
beds of rock salt in the Northern Panhandle, along
the upper Ohio River and from Ritchie to
Monongahela County were instrumental in the
development of the chemical companies in West
Virginia. The loss of German manufactured
chemicals and explosives during World War I led to
the federal government's construction of a high-
explosives plant at Nitro and a mustard gas plant at
Belle. Also, World War II brought both Union
Carbide and DuPont to the Kanawha Valley to
manufacture chemicals (Rice 1985).
The valley produces bromine, magnesium,
sodium, barium, ammonia, and intermediate chemical
compounds that are used to manufacture rubber,
plastics, rayon, nylon, and antifreeze. The industry
also expanded into the Ohio Valley from Huntington
to the northern Panhandle, a region which supplies
coal, brine, and rock salt for the production of
chlorine and carbon. The demand for chemicals
during World War II caused an increase in
production.
3.3.11 Electric Power
After World War I, electric power became an
important energy source. Coal-fired plants were built
in Beech Bottom, Graham Station, Riversville, Cabin
Creek, Albright, Willow Island, Logan, and Denova.
By 1980, most of the electric power in the state was
generated by the American Electric Power System,
the Allegany Power Company, and Virginian Electric
and Power Company (Rice and Brown 1993).
3.4 An Energy Systems Model of West
Virginia
An energy systems model of West Virginia that
shows the major economic and environmental
forcing functions, components and connections is
presented in Figure 1. It offers a conceptual guide to
thinking about the region and provides the basis for
developing emergy accounts for the state. The
environmental energy sources, along with the fuels,
goods, and services that help make West Virginia's
economy productive are shown as circles outside the
system boundary. Purchased imports and exports
generate monetary flows that cross the state borders
in exchange for products and services. Tourists bring
money into the state to spend on recreation and the
federal government generates both monetary inflow
(as outlays) and outflows (as taxes). The flows of
energy, material, and information into, through, and
out of the state are identified by the various
pathways, each labeled with a subscripted k. The k's
are listed and defined in Table 2, but in this paper
they only identify the various pathways. In a
simulation model, each k has a numerical value that
determines the rate of flow of energy or materials
along the pathway. The system components, e.g.,
economic sectors, shown within the diagram are
defined in Table 3. The external forcing functions for
the state are listed below in developing the emergy
income statement for West Virginia. External forcing
functions are arranged in order of increasing trans-
formity from left to right around the edge of the box
indicating the system's boundaries. In the left hand
corner, solar radiation enters the system followed by
3-6
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
other natural energies, in the form of wind, rain, the
earth cycle of uplift and subsidence and rivers. Next,
the energy of fossil fuel enters, followed by material
goods and services, people, government and higher
social structures, such as markets.
The model components in Figure 1 include
aggregated aquatic ecosystems, forests, and
agriculture, which together represent the natural
production systems in the state. Storages of
nonrenewable environmental resources are of great
significance in West Virginia. They include coal,
natural gas, oil, sand, salt, limestone, and clay.
Renewable resources such as soil, water, timber and
agricultural production are also important. Waste is
a by-product of human activity and most significantly
affects the aquatic ecosystems of the state as acid
mine drainage, animal waste, and human sewage.
The mining of nonrenewable resources supports
much of the manufacturing in the state, as well as
the generation of electric power. The service and
commerce sector supports recreation and tourism,
which generates a significant part of the gross state
product, GSP. People and households supply the
labor that runs the state. The state population appears
to have been in a pattern of damped fluctuation over
the past 50 years, which has resulted in an overall
decline from its peak of 2.005 million that was
attained in 1950. The transportation sector is critical
for the movement of goods and services into and out
of West Virginia and in the past the transportation
sector has limited the rate of economic development
in the state (Rice 1985).
3.5 The Emergy Income Statement for West
Virginia
The emergy income statement summarizes the
major annual flows of emergy for the state. It consists
of four accounts, renewable resources (Table 4),
nonrenewable resources (Table 5), imports (Table 6),
and exports (Table 7). Each account or table in the
emergy income statement has six columns as defined
in Table 1. The numbers in column one (Note) refer
to the listing of calculations and assumptions in
Appendix C that document the values given in
column three (Data).
The annual renewable resources and production
for West Virginia in 1997 are shown in Table 4. There
is a corresponding table of renewable natural
resources and products for 2000 in Appendix E,
Table El. The chemical potential energy of rain on
land is the largest renewable emergy source received
by the state. The earth-cycle emergy of uplift and
erosion and the emergy delivered in the chemical
potential energy of rivers entering the state are each
about 3/4 of that supplied by the rain. The largest
source of renewable production in West Virginia is
timber growth, followed by livestock and timber
harvest. Overall, renewable production is only
5% of the emergy produced from mining coal.
Production and use of nonrenewable sources in
West Virginia was evaluated for 1997 in Table 5 with
a corresponding evaluation for 2000 in Appendix E,
Table E2. Coal accounts for the largest production
of emergy in West Virginia followed by electricity,
98% of which is generated from coal-fired plants.
Coal supplies 48% of the emergy in the energy used
within the state, followed by electricity (23%),
petroleum (18%), and natural gas (10%).
West Virginia imports and exports in 1997 are
shown in Tables 6 and 7. There are tables with the
2000 numbers in Appendix E, Tables E3 and E4. The
largest emergy imported to West Virginia in 1997
was in the material goods entering the state. The
second largest emergy inflow was in the services
associated with those goods, followed by the emergy
in petroleum (excluding the natural gas received at
the state border). Federal government outlays do not
bring emergy into the state per se, but generate
emergy flows in the state economy when spent. Total
outlays must be decreased by the amount of taxes
paid to get the net effect of government expenditures.
The emergy flows generated in the state's
economy as a result of the dollars spent by tourists
are considered to be exports because they represent
assets of the state that "flow out" or are used in
proportion to the experience received. The dollars
that tourist bring into the state are not accompanied
by emergy per se, they generate flows of emergy in
proportion to the state's emergy to dollar ratio when
they are used to purchase products and services
within the state economy. We assume that the natural,
historical, and aesthetic assets of the state deliver an
experience to tourists that can be measured roughly
by the emergy purchased through the dollars spent in
3-7
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
tourism. A detailed analysis of the emergy required
for tourists to receive particular experience would
give a more accurate estimate of the value exported;
however, this labor intensive work must wait until a
later time. If all 1997 tourist dollars are spent at the
West Virginia emergy to $ ratio, they comprise 15%
of the emergy embodied in value-added exports
(see Fig. 3).
Coal accounts for the largest amount of emergy
produced in and exported from the state. West
Virginia also imports some coal for electric power
generation, alumina for aluminum production and
iron ore for steel production. Coal and electricity are
the largest exports and together they account for 63%
of the emergy in the state's exports.
There is a large emergy flow in the transportation
of natural gas through the state as indicated by the
natural gas received (Table 6) and delivered (Table 7)
at state borders. These large flows indicate the forces
that bind the nation as a whole into a system. Much
of the gas simply flows through the state with some
of it stored or removed from underground storage
that is available as a consequence of past natural gas
production. West Virginia produces more natural gas
than it uses and we assumed that the excess was
exported.
liabilities and the use of emergy-monetary balance
sheets to determine the true solvency of human
endeavors and institutions. Current research at the
USEPA, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, is
focused on developing the methods to document
environmental liabilities and the completion of
several example balance sheets.
A partial or incomplete balance sheet that
includes only assets, such as the one shown in Table
8, still contains useful information that documents
the stored wealth available in a system. In West
Virginia the natural capital stored in accessible coal
reserves is two orders of magnitude greater than the
second largest emergy storage, the social capital
stored in the education of West Virginia's people.
Considerable wealth is stored in the standing stock
of trees and in the remaining natural gas reserves.
Combining data from the emergy income statement
and balance sheet we can project that West Virginia
coal reserves will last 306 years, if the 1997
production rate continues into the future.
3.6 The Emergy Balance Sheet for
West Virginia
The emergy balance sheet, when fully developed,
provides the information needed to determine
whether a human activity, institution, or system is
sustainable (Campbell 2004). The balance sheet
summarizes the stored assets and liabilities of the
state. It has the same six columns described for the
income statement. Some of the storages of natural,
economic, and social capital found within the state in
1997 are given in Table 8. The stored assets for 2000
are shown in Appendix E, Table E5. Many more
storages of natural, social, and economic capital and
debt need to be evaluated to complete the balance
sheet, e.g., the emergy stored in the assets of
biodiversity, culture, and economic infrastructure and
the debt incurred by loss of biodiversity and natural
lands. Campbell (2004) presented a theoretical basis
for the definition and measurement of environmental
3-8
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table 4. Annual Renewable Resources and Production in 1997.
Note* Item
Renewable Resources within West Virginia
1 Sun, incident
1 Sun, absorbed
2 Wind Kinetic Energy
3 Earth Cycle
4 Rain, chemical potential energy received
5 Evapotranspiration, chemical potential absorbed
6 Rain, geo-potential on land
7 Rain, geo-potential of runoff
8 Rivers, chemical potential energy received
8 Rivers, chemical potential energy absorbed
9 Rivers, geo-potential energy received
9 Rivers, geo-potential energy absorbed
Renewable Production within West Virginia
10 Agricultural Products
1 1 Livestock
Beef
All other livestock
12 Fish Production
1 3 Hydroelectricity
14 Net Timber Growth
15 Timber harvest
16 Ground water
Data
J, g, $,ind/yr
3.07E+20
2.64E+20
1.07E+17
1.39E+17
3.32E+17
1.56E+17
3.66E+17
6.02E+16
9.06E+16
2.90E+14
4.99E+16
2.06E+16
1.76E+16
3.70E+15
3.17E+14
7.22E+1 1
4.09E+15
2.10E+17
2.29E+16
9.49E+14
Units
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Emergy/
Unit
sej/unit
1
1
1470
33700
18100
28100
10300
27200
50100
50100
27200
27200
63000
680000
792000
1961800
120300
20900
68700
159000
Emergy
E+20 sej
3
3
15.8
47
60
44
38
16
45
0.15
14
5.6
11
28
25
3
0.014
5
44
16
2
1997
Emdollars
E+6 Em$
256
220
1315
3904
5008
3653
3142
1496
3783
12
1131
467
924
1475
2097
279
1
410
3658
1311
126
*The notes for Table 4 can be found in Appendix C at Cl.
Table 5. Annual Production and Use of Nonrenewable Resources in 1997.
Note*
Item
Data
J, g, $, ind/yr
Units
Emergy/
Unit Emergy
sej/unit E+20 sej
1997
Emdollars
E+6 Em$
Fuels and renewables used in a nonrenewable manner
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Coal Production
Coal Used in the State
Natural Gas Production
Natural Gas Used in the State
Petroleum Production
Petroleum Used in the State
Electricity Production
Electricity Used in the State
Clay
Sand and Gravel
Limestone
Sandstone
Soil Erosion from agricultural areas
4.64E+18
9.9E+17
1.9E+17
1.7E+17
9.2E+15
2.3E+17
3.3E+17
9.4E+16
1.51E-K)5
1.7E+06
1.2E+07
856
4.0E+15
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
T
T
T
T
J
39200
39200
47100
47100
53000
64700
170400
170400
1.9E+15
1.3E+15
9.8E+14
9.8E+14
72600
1819
388
89
80
5
149
562
160
o
5
22
118
0.01
o
5
151573
32340
7457
6673
406
12401
46860
13348
239
1842
9800
1
242
: The notes for Table 5 can be found in Appendix C at C.2.
3-9
-------
Case Study -An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
Table 6. Annual Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 1997.
Note* Item
30 Coal
3 1 Petroleum
32 Natural Gas (Received at state border)
33 Iron Ore
34 Aluminum ore, Bauxite
35 Services Embodied in the Goods
36 Material in the Goods excluding fuels
37 Services
38 Federal Government Outlays
* The notes for Table 6 can be found in Appendix
Data
J, g, $, ind/yr
2.32E+17
2.17E+17
1.97E+18
4.41 E+13
4.4E+13
2.50E+10
Various
6.2 E+09
1.04E+10
C at C.3.
Table 7. Annual Exports from the West Virginia Economy in
Note* Item
39 Coal
40 Natural Gas (Production exported)
41 Natural Gas (Delivered at state border)
42 Electricity
43 Steel
44 Services Embodied in Goods
45 Material in Goods
46 Services
47 Migration (net)
Preschool
School
College Grad
Post-College
48 Tourism
38 Federal Taxes
Data
J, g, $, ind/yr
3.82E+18
6.65E+15
2.08E+18
2.35E+17
2.00E+12
2.72E+10
Various
5.80E+08
9851
131
7052
2327
341
4.0E+09
6.85E+9
Units
J
J
J
J
J
$
J org
$
$
1997.
Units
J
J
J
J
g
Jorg
$
People
People
People
People
People
5
4>
Emergy/Unit
sej/unit
39200
64700
47100
6.08E+07
1 .47E+07
1.2E+12
Various
1.2E+12
5.78E+12
Emergy/Unit
sej/unit
39200
47100
47100
170400
3.38E+09
1.2E+12
Various
1.2E+12
Various
3.3E+16
9.2E+16
2.7E+17
1.3E+18
5.78E+12
5.78E+12
Emergy
E+20 sej
91
141
928
27
6
299
948
74
601
Emergy
E+20 sej
1497
3
980
400
68
326
776
7
17
0
7
6
4
231
396
1997Emdollars
E+6 Em$
7579
11700
77322
2234
539
25000
79000
6200
50093
1997Emdollars
E+6 Em$
124787
261
81640
33370
5633
27200
63798
580
1417
4
541
524
369
19266
32994
* The notes for Table 7 can be found in Appendix C at C.4.
3-10
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table 81. Assets of West Virginia in 1997.
Note*
49
50
51
52
53
Item
Forest Biomass
Coal
Petroleum
Natural Gas
People
- Preschool
- School
- College Grad
- Post-College
- Elderly (65+)
- Public Status
- Legacy
Data
J, g, $, ind/yr
1.04E+19
1.42E+21
1.19E+17
3.13E+18
1,816,000
21,952
1,181,525
383,808
51,036
159,518
18,160
792
Units
J
J
J
J
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Emergy /Unit
sej/unit
28,200
39,200
53,000
47,100
Various
3.3E+16
9.2E+16
2.7E+17
1.3E+18
1.7E+17
3.9E+18
7.7E+18
Emergy
E+20 sej
2,933
556,640
63
1,474
3,837
7
1,087
1,036
667
271
708
61
1997 Emdollars
E+6 Em$
244,400
46,386,666
5,256
122,853
315,570
604
90,584
86,357
53,929
22,598
59,020
5,082
* The notes for Table 8 can be found in Appendix C at C.5.
1 Additional assets and liabilities evaluated in Campbell (2005) are buildings 481 E+20 sej and bonds outstanding 43
E+20 sej, both obtained by converting dollar value to emergy using 1.08 E+12 sej/$.
3-11
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
3.7 Overview Models and Flow Summary
Figure 2 shows an aggregated model of the
environment and economy of West Virginia in 1997.
It provides an overview of the emergy and dollar
flows across state boundaries and gives the various
natural and economic sources of the flows. The
pathways on the diagram show the interaction of
renewable and nonrenewable resources within the
system and the exchanges of emergy and dollars that
drive the state's economy. Table 9 identifies the
flows of emergy and dollars shown on Figure 2. The
table that summarizes the flows of emergy and
dollars for 2000 is found in Appendix E, Table E6.
The pathway symbols and values in Table 9 are used
in Table 10 to calculate indices. The number
indicated in column one directs the reader to a
description of the calculations used to obtain the
summary flows (see Appendix C, Table C6).
U.S.& World
Economies
Units:
E+20 sej/yr
E+9 $/yr
West Virginia in 1997
Figure 2: Aggregated diagram of West Virginia's economy and emergy resource base used for the calculation of indices.
Symbols are identified in Table 9. Emergy flows times E+20 sej/y; dollar flows times E+9 S/y.
3-12
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table 9. Summary of Annual Flows for West Virginia in 1997.
Note
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Letter in
Fig. 2 Item
RR
RA
N
No
Nj
N2
F
Fi
F2
G
I
Ii
I2
I3
I4
PI
PIi
PI2
PI3
PI4
B
E
Ei
E2
E3
E4
E5
PE
PEi
PE2
PE3
PE4
PE5
X
Renewable emergy received
Renewable emergy absorbed
Nonrenewable source flows
Dispersed Rural Source
Mineral Production (fuels, etc.)
Fuels Exported without Use
Imported Minerals (fuels, etc.)
Minerals Used (F+Nj-N;,)
In State Minerals Used (NrN2)
Imported Goods (materials)
Dollars Paid for All Imports
Dollars Paid for Service in Fuels
Dollars Paid for Service in Goods
Dollars Paid for Services
Federal Transfer Payments
Imported Services, Total
Imported Services in Fuels
Imported Services in Goods
Imported Services
Emergy Purchased by Federal $
Exported Products (goods + elec.)
Dollars Paid for All Exports
Dollars Paid for Fuel Exported
Dollars Paid for Exported Goods
Dollars Paid for Exported Services
Dollars Spent by Tourist
Federal Taxes Paid
Exported Services, Total
Exported Services in Fuels
Exported Services in Goods
Exported Services
Emergy Purchased by Tourists
Emergy Purchases Forgone
Gross State Product
Emergy
E+20 sej
105
66
2059
3
2056
1500
265
821
556
948
375
21
280
74
601
1176
373
47
319
7
231
396
1997 1997
Dollars Emdollars
E+9 $ E+9 Em$
8.75
5.50
171.58
0.25
171.33
125.00
22.08
68.42
46.33
79.00
31.13
1.72
23.24
6.17
10.40
31.25
1.72
23.33
6.20
50.08
98.00
31.08
3.92
26.60
0.58
4.00
6.85
31.08
3.92
26.58
0.58
19.27
33.00
38.3
3-13
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
E+20 sej/year
Goods
and
Services
1323
Environment
108
West Virginia
Imports
Exported without Use
^
1500
Value Added Exports
1549
Figure 3. Summary of West Virginia's annual environmental and economic emergy flows for 1997.
The state system was further simplified using a
"three-armed diagram" (Figure 3) modified to show
the flows of indigenous nonrenewable fuels. This
diagram gives an overview of the renewable and
nonrenewable emergy base for the state, purchased
imports and exports with a single, simple visual
image. Several key facts that can be easily
determined from the diagram: (1) West Virginia
supplies 68% (556/821) of the nonrenewable fuels
used within the state. (2) In 1997, almost twice as
much emergy was exported as was imported (3049/
1588). (3) The ratio of purchased to environmental
emergy was almost 20:1 (2144/108). (4) Seventy-
three percent (1500/2056) of the nonrenewable
emergy produced within the state was exported
without use.
3.8 Emergy Indices
Table 10 presents several emergy indices that
help us gain a better understanding of the state of
West Virginia. Similar indices for 2000 are shown
in Appendix E, Table E7. The values of some
important indices and their meaning follow: (1)
Twenty-eight percent of the emergy used in the state
in 1997 was derived from home sources, which
indicates a moderate potential for self-sufficiency.
(2) The emergy use per person was 1.22 E+17 sej/
ind. This value shows that West Virginians could
have a high overall standard of living (see Table 11).
Later we will see why this is not the case. (3) The
import/export emergy ratio shows almost twice as
much emergy leaving the state in exports as is
received in imports, which indicates an imbalance in
the exchange of real wealth with the nation. (4) The
emergy used per unit area was 3.55 E+12 sej m~2,
indicating that the state is developed relative to the
other states in Table 11. This is somewhat surprising
for a state that is 79% forested. However, this result
may be explained in part by the growth trend of the
nation over the time difference (1997 vs. 1979-1992)
between the analyses. (5) The emergy to dollar ratio
was 5.78 E+12 sej/$, which indicates that the
purchasing power of a dollar in West Virginia in
1997 was 4.8 times that of an average place in the
United States. (6) The investment ratio was 2.39,
which indicates a relatively low intensity of matching
(Odum 1996) between purchased economic emergy
from outside the state and the emergy of renewable
and nonrenewable environmental resources within
the state. This index suggests that West Virginia is
still an attractive place for further economic
investment. (7) The environmental loading ratio was
20:1, which indicates an intense matching of
purchased inputs with renewable energy from the
environment potentially resulting in high stress on
ecosystems or a heavy "load" on the waste pro-
cessing capacity of the environment (see Table 11).
3-14
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
3.9 The Emergy Signature for the State
The emergy signature for West Virginia in 1997
(Figure 4) charts the significant emergy flows within
the state as well as the major imports and exports.
The large quantities of coal produced in West
Virginia, and the high percentage of coal exported
without use indicate the strength of the connection
between West Virginia's economy and the larger
regional economies of the East coast and Mid-West.
The large emergy flows of both imported and
exported goods and services and exported electricity
also show West Virginia's role in the larger system of
the nation. Large flows of emergy are generated
when federal outlays and tourist dollars are spent in
West Virginia. After the large emergy flows
associated with coal production and export and the
emergy flows of natural gas passing through the state
are removed the largest emergy flows remaining are
in the materials of the goods imported and exported.
The emergy of Federal government outlays is also
large, but once taxes are removed the net inflow is
much smaller. The emergy of coal used to produce
electricity dominates energy consumption in the state
and the emergy in electricity exported is the largest
single value-added export from the state. Other
prominent features of the signature are large emergy
inflows and outflows in the services associated with
goods.
3.10 Analysis of West Virginia and
Comparison with Other States
The construction of emergy indices from the
accounting data on storages and flows lead to
insights on the development and use of the state's
natural resources. The comparison of these results
with emergy analyses of other states and of the
nation will help put the West Virginia numbers in
perspective. Past analyses were done at various times
and the analysis method has varied somewhat as it
developed; nevertheless, the first order results of
these studies should be comparable.
2000
1800 -
1600 -
•;; 1400 -
'ST
in
° 120° -
+
yi
s 1000 -
[E
Si 80° "
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
Table 10 West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 1997.
Item
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Name of Index
Renewable emergy received
Renewable emergy used
In State non-renewable
Imported emergy
Total emergy inflows
Total emergy used
Total exported emergy
Emergy used from home sources
Imports-Exports
Ratio of export to imports
Fraction use, locally renewable
Fraction of use purchased import
Fraction used, imported service
Fraction of use that is free
Ratio of purchased to free
Environmental Loading Ratio
Investment Ratio
Use per unit area
Use per person
Renewable Carrying Capacity
at present standard of Living
Developed Carrying Capacity
at same living standard
WV State Econ. Product
Ratio of WV emergy use to GSP
Ratio of U.S. emergy use to GNP
Ratio of Electricity/Emergy Use
Ratio Elec. Prod./Emergy Use
Emergy of Fuel Use per Person
Population
Area
Expression
RR
RA
NO + N!
F + G + PI
RR + F + G + PI
u = RA+NO+FJ+G+PI
B+ PE +N2
(N0+F2+ RA)/U
(F+G+PI)-(B+PE+N2)
(B+PE+N2)/(F+G+PI)
RA/U
(F + G + PI)/U
PI/U
(RA+N0)/U
(F ! +G+PI)/(RR+N0)
(FI +NO+G+PI)/(RR)
(F+G+PI)/(RR+N0+F2)
U/Area
U/Population
(RR /U)*
(Population)
8(R/U)(Population)
GSP
U/GSP
U/GNP
El/U
Elp/U
Fuel use/Population
Quantity
1.05E+22
6.6E+21
2.059E+23
1.588E+23
1.696E+23
2.213E+23
3.049E+23
0.282
-1.46E+23
1.92
0.030
0.72
0.17
0.031
19.9
20.4
2.39
3.55E+12
1.22E+17
88,625
709,003
3.83E+10
5.78E+12
1.20E+12
0.072
0.254
3.41E+16
1.816E+6
6.236E+10
Units
sej y"1
sej y"1
sej y-1
sej y"1
sej y'1
sej y-1
sej y"1
sej y1
sej m"2
sej/ind
people
people
$/yr
sej/$
sej/$
sej/ind
people
m2
3-16
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
3.10.1 Characteristics of West Virginia Based on
Emergy Analysis
West Virginia is a mountainous state with an
average elevation of 457 m, which is higher than all
the other states east of the Mississippi River. In light
of this fact, it is understandable that 33% of the
renewable emergy used in the state is supplied by the
geopotential energy of runoff and by rivers entering
the state. Almost all the remaining 67% of the
renewable emergy used in the state is contributed by
the chemical potential energy of rain transpired by
vegetation on the land. The Ohio River, which forms
the western border of the state, and the New River,
which enters the state across its southeast border,
deliver emergy inflows in fresh water that are as
large as the chemical potential energy of water
transpired, but little of this chemical potential
energy appears to be used in the state.
West Virginia is more richly endowed with fuel
and mineral resources (principally coal), as measured
by emergy density of underground resources, than
any other state that we have studied (see Table 11)
with the possible exception of Alaska. The emergy
density of underground fuel and mineral resources
in West Virginia is 9E+14 sej m"2. This is fifty times
greater than the emergy density estimates for Maine
and Texas, and seventeen times that of the United
States as a whole. For Alaska, the estimates of coal
reserves (Brown et al. 1993) have greater uncertainty
and the emergy density ranges from 0.07 to 4.84 of
that found in West Virginia.
Coal dominates the emergy flows, economic
activities, and ostensibly environmental impacts in
West Virginia. The emergy of coal produced in West
Virginia in 1997 was equal to 82% of the total
emergy used in the state. Most of the coal used in
West Virginia generates electricity for export;
however, it is also an important input to the
chemical and primary metals industries.
The production and use of coal and other pro-
ducts in West Virginia provides a tremendous emergy
subsidy (1.46E+23 sej/y) to the larger economies of
the United States and the world. Approximately, 82%
of West Virginia coal production is exported without
use. In addition, most of the coal consumed in the
state is used to generate electrical power, of which
71% is exported. The coal exported without use
accounts for 100% of the difference between the
emergy exported from and the emergy imported to
the state.
The United States contributes $10.4 billion
dollars in total federal transfer payments to
individuals and state and local governments in West
Virginia. In addition, tourists spend $4 billion dollars
to enjoy recreational activities in the state.
Multiplying these values by the emergy to dollar
ratio for West Virginia in 1997 demonstrates that the
combined expenditures of the federal government
could have generated an emergy flow of 6.01E+22
sej/y, if the money was spent in the state. This is 40%
of the emergy in coal and natural gas that is exported
without use. However, $6.85 billion are paid in
federal taxes, so the net subsidy was 2.05E+22 sej/y
or 14% of coal and gas exports. The net federal
payments to West Virginia, when spent in the state,
generate 1.63E+22 sej/y more emergy flow than if
the money was spent in an average place in the
United States. Thus, a dollar of government money
spent in West Virginia generates a flow of real wealth
that is 4.8 times greater than that generated if that
dollar was spent at an average location in the United
States.
Observation of road construction projects in the
state plus conversations with residents indicate that
the rate of economic and social development in parts
of West Virginia is proceeding at an increasingly
rapid pace. In the past, agriculture, commerce and
industry were primarily organized by the use of
resources available within valleys because
transportation to mills and markets was relatively
easy. Import and export of goods and services relied
upon road and rail systems that were restricted to the
relatively easy passages afforded by following the
courses of rivers and streams, with only a few roads,
often of poorer quality, connecting valley to valley.
The current expansion of intra and interstate
transportation corridors is causing a reorganization
of the way that society uses the landscape and its
resources. The valley-to-valley transportation system
has improved slowly over time; however, a radical
reorganization of the area and the emergy resources
that existing towns and cities can draw upon to
support economic and social structure is expected to
accelerate with the completion of the transportation
3-17
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
corridors currently under construction. The rapid
growth that is expected to accompany this process is
already under way in the valley of the South Branch
of the Potomac in the towns of Moorefield and
Petersberg.
3.10.2 Comparison with Other States
One way to determine West Virginia's status
relative to other states and the nation is to compare
emergy indicators and indices. Indices that are
related to system characteristics such as self-
sufficiency, sustainability, and equity in the
exchange of real wealth (emergy) are of particular
interest to society because they are related to the
well-being of environmental systems. Table 11
contains comparisons of indices calculated for West
Virginia in 1997 and for North Carolina, Alaska,
Arkansas, Texas, Maine, Florida, and the United
States determined for various earlier years. To
characterize West Virginia's position relative to other
states and the nation, several indices merit further
attention. However, the indices and results from the
6 earlier state studies are not exactly comparable
with the West Virginia study, because the earlier state
analyses given in Table 11 were preformed using data
that spans a period of 18 years and the methods used
have varied somewhat over this time. We will have a
stronger basis for comparative analysis when a
present study of 7 additional states for the base year
2000 is completed.
The import/export balance of emergy flows
shows the relationships of dependence and
exploitation between trading partners. In a system
where all trade is equitable, the emergy exchanged
will be approximately equal. West Virginia, Texas,
Alaska and Arkansas export more emergy in products
and services than they import, while North Carolina,
Maine, Florida, and the nation import more than they
export. The ratio of exports to imports for West
Virginia is similar to Texas and Arkansas but much
less than Alaska. The excess emergy (imports -
exports) leaving West Virginia is about 75% of
the excess for Texas and Alaska and 220% of the
Arkansas excess. The emergy gain to the nation from
its trade with West Virginia is large as evidenced by
the emergy exchange ratio (EER) for coal. West
Virginia exported 1497 E+20 sej of coal in 1997,
for which it received $3.92 billion dollars. The
emergy exchange ratio for West Virginia coal in this
year was:
(1497 E+20 sej/y)/ [($3.92 E+9) (1.2 E+12 sej/$)]
= (1497 E+20 sej/y)/ (47 E+20 sej/y) = 32:1
Thus, the buyer of West Virginia coal receives
32 times the benefit in real wealth compared to the
emergy buying power of the money paid for the coal,
if that money is spent at an average location in the
United States. If the money is spent in West Virginia,
the advantage to the buyer would be 6.6:1. In either
case, West Virginia coal provides a large flux of real
wealth to support growth in the national and regional
economies. For comparison, Saudi Arabian oil at $40
per barrel when exchanged for US dollars yields 8:1.
The emergy use per unit area is indicative of the
average intensity of development in a state. The
annual emergy use per square meter in West Virginia
is higher than in any of the other states examined in
Table 11. Seventy-nine percent of the state's land
area is covered by forests, much of which is on
mountainous terrain, so the emergy density number
is surprisingly high. In part, this result may be due to
economic growth in the nation as a whole, during
the 18 year period over which these analyses were
performed. Also, the more complete method used to
account for imported emergy may have contributed
to the high empower density. However, the intense
industrial utilization of coal to generate electrical
power for consumption outside the state and to
support chemical manufacturing, steel production,
and other export industries results in high empower
densities in certain areas. This tendency to spatially
concentrate the industrial use of coal power is further
magnified by the relatively small area of flat land in
West Virginia Thus industry is found to be heavily
concentrated in narrow valleys, e.g., as in the
Kanawha Valley and along the Ohio River, and the
overall result is an average empower density
equivalent to that expected in a developed state.
The renewable emergy base for a state sets limits
on the level of economic activity that is sustainable
without subsidies from outside. West Virginia can
support 4.9% of the present population at the 1997
standard of living using its renewable resources
3-18
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
alone. If the 1997 standard of living is adjusted by
removing exported electricity from total emergy use,
5.8% of the population could be supported. This
percentage is lower than the national average of
9.8%. Florida and Maine can support 17.3% and
33%, respectively. West Virginia's large coal reserves
will allow larger populations to be supported at the
1997 standard of living until the reserves run out,
which will be around 300 hundred years in the
future at the current rate of use.
The investment ratio is an indicator of the
competitiveness of a state in attracting additional
investments. Lower ratios are more attractive for
future development. The investment ratio in West
Virginia in 1997 was 2.39:1 compared to an average
ratio of 7.0:1 for the United States as a whole (Odum
1996). In contrast, the environmental loading ratio
was 20:1, which is the highest of all the states in
Table 11. This ratio indicates that economic activities
are probably putting a large stress or load on the
environment of West Virginia. However, the higher
value may be due, in part, to differences in the
methods used to determine the renewable emergy
base of the states.
The fraction of use from home sources was 0.28
in 1997. Only Florida and North Carolina were more
dependent on the national economy. This fact was
also evident from the fraction of total use that was
purchased outside the state (0.72).
The emergy use per person is considered to be an
indicator of the overall quality of life experienced by
the people of a nation or state. The emergy use per
person in West Virginia was very high, only Alaska's
use per person was higher. As previously mentioned
this index usually indicates the standard of living of
an average person; however, if for some reason the
benefits of emergy use in the state are not transferred
to the people, the total emergy use per person would
not be an accurate indicator of the standard of living
experienced by the people. The emergy use per
person was still high (1.0 E+17 sej/ind) after the
emergy of exported electricity was removed. If the
emergy use per person index was broken down into
the emergy of raw materials and services supporting
industry and the emergy in materials and services
supporting households, a better correspondence with
West Virginia indices of social welfare might be
found.
The emergy to dollar ratio for West Virginia was
4.8 times that of the United States in 1997. This
indicates that in 1997, a dollar spent in West Virginia
purchased about five times the real wealth in
products and services compared to a dollar spent in
an average location in the United States. Areas with
a high emergy to dollar ratio can attract tourists and
new businesses. The emergy to dollar ratio of West
Virginia is similar to that of Maine in 1980, a state
where tourism is a large part of the economy. The
emergy to dollar ratio also indicates how much West
Virginia losses or gains on average when it trades
with various partners (see emergy exchange ratio
and the coal example above).
The ratio of the emergy in the electricity used to
total emergy use is an indicator of the high quality
energy in people's lives. This indicator of the
standard of living was lower than all the other states
examined except Alaska (0.006). In 1997, this ratio
was 4 tenths of the value obtained for the United
States based on an analysis of conditions in 1983
(Odum et al. 1987). In West Virginia, a large amount
of emergy is being used per person, but the standard
of living is not perceived as high by residents and
in fact has been shown to be low based on the
socioeconomic data (CVI 2002).
3.11 Summary of Findings as Related to
Management Questions
The findings of the West Virginia emergy
evaluation provide understanding and data to address
the management questions presented above. Here the
question is repeated and then relevant information
from the analysis is presented.
(1) "What is the current level of economic invest-
ment in relation to West Virginia's resource base,
and is this level of investment sustainable?" West
Virginia's low investment ratio (2.39:1) and high
environmental loading ratio (20:1) show that it is
in a precarious position as a state with abundant
non-renewable resources to support further economic
development while currently suffering from the
degradation of its renewable resources due to past
3-19
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
and present economic activities. Even though
environmental resources support intense economic
development in parts of the state, West Virginia's
stored wealth is so great that development pressures
can be expected to continue and increase in the
future. Flat land is limited in West Virginia, which
may in part account for the intensity of economic
development in localized areas. Without major
programs to restore and protect the environment, it
is unlikely that further industrial development will
result in an improvement in the overall quality of life
experienced by most West Virginians. Only 5% of
the current population can be sustained at the 1997
standard of living on the state's renewable resources
alone.
(2) "What is the net exchange of real wealth
(emergy) between West Virginia and the nation?"
Emergy accounting shows that West Virginia has
great real wealth in natural resources and supplies
a large emergy subsidy to the nation in trade. West
Virginia exports nearly twice (1.92:1) as much
emergy as it receives in return, resulting in an
imbalance of 1.46E+23 sej/y, which is 2/3 of the
annual emergy used in the state. In contrast, the
monetary exchange between West Virginia and its
trading partners is nearly balanced. The ratio of the
monetary value of exports to imports is 0.998:1
(Table 9).
(3) "What are the major causes for any observed
imbalances?" The emergy of coal exported without
use (1.497E+23 sej/y) accounts for all of the
difference between imports and exports in the state.
Thus, the emergy inflow to and outflow from the
state would be close to balanced, if coal exports were
excluded form the calculation. Therefore, the costs
and benefits of coal mining to West Virginia and to
the nation might be considered as a distinct issue.
The economic benefits derived from coal along the
eastern seaboard and in West Virginia are balanced
by the considerable environmental cost of extraction
and processing that is born primarily by West
Virginia. The environmental damage done in the state
as a result of coal mining was not evaluated in this
study, but it will be addressed in future research.
Table 11. Comparison of Emergy Indices for Several States in the U.S. All flows X 1021 sej/y unless otherwise indicated.
Index
Renewable Use received/absorbed
In State Non-renewable use
Imported Emergy
Total Emergy Inflows
Total Emergy used
Emergy used from home sources, no units
Exported emergy including fuels
Imports-Exports
Ratio of export to imports, no units.
Fraction used, locally renewable, no units
Fract. of use purchased outside, no units
Fraction of use that is free, no units
Ratio of purchased to free, no units
Area m
Population, individuals
Use per unit area, sej m" y"
Use per person, sej ind." y"
Renewable Carrying Capacity, individuals
Developed Carrying Capacity, individulas
Ratio of emergy use to GSP, sej/S
Ratio of Electricity: Emergy Use, no units
Fuel Use per Person, sej/individual
Environmental Loading Ratio, no units
Renewable Empower Density sej m^y"1
W. Virginia1
1997
10.5/6.6
55.6
158.8
169.6
221.3
0.28
304.9
-146
1.92
0.030
0.72
0.031
19.9
6.24E+10
1.8E+06
3.55E+12
1.22E+17
8.86E+04
7.09E+05
5.78E+12
0.072
3.41E+16
20.4
1.7/1.1E+11
N. Carolina2
1992
19
0.2
150
220
190
0.21
66
49
0.67
0.10
0.79
0.21
3.74
1.36E+11
6.9 E+06
1.39E+12
2.70 E+16
6.8 E+05
5.44 E+6
1.19E+12
0.29
1.6E16
9.14
1.40E+11
Alaska3
1985
404
220
13
417
444
0.97
240
-200
13
0.92
0.03
0.92
0.10
1.49E+12
5.E+05
3.00E+11
9.10E+17
4.5E+05
3.56 E+06
2.30E+13
0.006
5.10E+16
0.10
2.71 E+ll
Arkansas4
1992
19.8
58.2
56.7
76.5
135
0.58
123
-66.4
2.17
0.15
0.42
7
0.73
1.35E+11
2.E+06
9.98E+11
5.64E+16
3. 46 E+05
2.77 E+06
3.45E+12
9
7
5.80
1.47 E+ll
Texas5
1983
39
249
307
595
628
0.84
501
-194
1.6
0.06
0.37
0.12
7.3
7.00E+11
1.57E+07
9.00E+11
4.00E+16
9.80E+05
7.80E+06
2.60E+12
0.18
2.90E+16
10.31
5.57E+10
Maine "
1980
15.1
3.4
27.8
46.3
46.3
0.4
16.3
11.5
0.59
0.33
0.6
0.33
2
9.40E+10
1.13E+06
4.90E+1 1
4.10E+16
3.70E+05
2.90E+06
5.00E+12
0.22
2.20E+16
2.45
1.61 E+ll
Florida7
1979
66.2
2.1
284
352
380
0.18
95.7
188
0.34
0.17
0.75
0.18
4.2
3.10E+11
8.80E+06
1.20E+12
4.30E+16
1.53E+06
1.23E+07
4.30E+12
0.23
2.30E+16
4.74
2. 14 E+ll
US5
1983
773
5346
1936
8055
7887
0.75
870
811
0.58
0.1
0.25
0.22
3.5
9.40E+12
2.34E+08
8.40E+11
3.40E+16
2.30E+07
1.83E+08
2.40E+12
0.17
1.50E+16
9.20
8.22 E+10
'This study, 2Tilley (1999), 3Brown et al. (1993), 4Odum et al. (1998a), 5Odum et al. (1987), 6Campbell (1998), 7Odum et al. (1986a,
1998b),5Odumetal. (1987)
3-20
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
(4) "What actions might be taken to address an
imbalance, if it exists?" Federal outlays to a state
are an obvious way to address trade inequities. West
Virginia receives $3.56 billion in net transfer
payments (outlays - taxes) from the federal
government. This money makes up about 14% of the
existing emergy deficit when converted to emergy
using the West Virginia emergy to dollar ratio. The
question of the equity of exchange between West
Virginia and the nation could be further resolved
using emergy methods to systematically consider all
the benefits and costs accruing to both the state and
the nation as a result of their relationship. This work
must be left to a later time.
(5) "How does West Virginia's standard of living
compare to other states and the nation?" Quality of
life as measured by the emergy use per capita appears
to be high, but many social indicators are depressed
(CVI 2002). This paradoxical condition can occur
if the benefits of high emergy use fail to reach the
majority of people because of unusual or anomalous
conditions. Three such conditions exist in West
Virginia, which may explain the paradox: (a) the
limited availability of flat land causes much of the
emergy used in the state to be concentrated in a few
heavily developed industrial areas and power
generating centers; (b) 71 percent of the electricity
generated in West Virginia is exported and thus
electricity does not contribute to the quality of life
experienced by West Virginians to the same extent as
in other developed states; (c) 58 percent of the people
live in rural areas far from the industrial centers. The
ratio of the emergy in electricity consumed to total
emergy use shows the standard of living in West
Virginia to be 1/3 of the average for the U.S., NC,
ME, TX, and FL. Social and economic quality of life
measures (CVI 2002), e.g., the state was 49th in per
capita income in 1997, reinforce the picture given by
electricity use.
(6) "Who benefits most from the productive use of
the state's resources?" The 1997 CFS shows that over
53% of the value and 63% of the tonnage (largely
determined by coal) of West Virginia's exports goes
to destinations on the Eastern seaboard from New
York to North Carolina and to Ohio and several other
Mid-Western states (2). In addition, the majority of
the electricity generated in West Virginia is exported
to Virginia and other states. Thus, much of the real
wealth produced in West Virginia supports the higher
standards of living found in surrounding regions.
Also, the benefits of past economic activities within
the state, e.g., timbering and mining, have not
contributed proportionately to the standard of living
of the people of West Virginia, when compared to
many other states and the nation (see 5 above).
Absentee ownership of much of West Virginia's vast
coal and timber resources appears to have been a
factor in the historical impoverishment of the state
(Clarkson 1964, Rice 1985). The bottom-line of this
analysis is that, at present as in the past, more real
wealth is taken from the environment and people of
West Virginia than is returned to them.
(7) "How self-sufficient is the state based on its
renewable and nonrenewable resources?" The
emergy indices of self-sufficiency (emergy from
home sources) and dependence (fraction of use
purchased, fraction purchased service) presented
above are accurate but only show one aspect of West
Virginia's relationship with the nation and
surrounding regions. The large emergy flows, which
West Virginia supplies to the surrounding economies,
are not used to calculate the fraction of use from
home sources or the fraction of use in imported
services (Table 10). Removing the large emergy
exports in coal and electricity from the exchange
balance makes West Virginia look like a typical
emergy importing state such as Maine or North
Carolina, which have similar support from home
sources (Table 11). Without the coal and electricity
exports, imported emergy exceeds export by 15%.
Paradoxically, West Virginia provides energy
independence and a high standard of living to its
neighbors by sending coal and electricity to the
surrounding regions while the state's economy is
very dependent on the national economy and many
West Virginians live in poverty. The State's potential
for self-sufficiency in a lower energy future (Odum
and Odum 2001) may be more accurately shown by
the fact that at least 62% of 1997 fossil fuel energy
use in the state was supplied from home sources and
that 82% of the coal mined was exported. With coal
reserves that will last 300 years at the current rate of
use, in the future West Virginia is potentially one of
the nation's more self-sufficient states.
3-21
-------
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia
The eighth question "How can we manage the
environment and economy to maximize the well-
being of humanity and nature?" relates directly to
the decision-making criteria for environmental
managers. Financial managers have a clear criterion
for overseeing the operations of a business, which is
to maximize profits and shareholder value. Energy
Systems Theory provides a parallel maximal
principle, which managers should consider in making
decisions on environmental policy. In this method,
policy outcomes are compared based on the total
environmental, economic, and social emergy flows
realized under each alternative. The maximum power
(empower) principle (Lotka 1922, Odum 1996)
indicates that those systems which maximize
empower in their networks will be the ones that
prevail in evolutionary competition with alternatives.
Emergy accounting and energy systems model
simulations allow managers to quantify the empower
relations among environmental systems with
alternative designs. Maximizing empower for the
entire system gives a clear unified criterion for
decision making and provides an answer to the eighth
management question given above. The use of this
criterion in environmental decision-making may help
society avoid the expense of costly trials and errors,
which are often required under present decision-
making methods such as adaptive management.
3.12 Recommendations to Managers
Constructing emergy accounts for the State of
West Virginia gave us quantitative and comparable
information to judge the condition of the economy
and environment in the state and to answer manage-
ment questions. Emergy indices helped us understand
the current condition of the state and how we might
set policies to improve conditions there. Based on
past emergy analyses and the insights gained from
this study, we propose that the methods and
principles of emergy accounting presented in this
report and in Odum (1996) be used to keep consistent
and accurate books for environmental systems. A
possible course for the further development of
methods and tools in environmental accounting
using emergy might parallel the present methods
and models used in bookkeeping and accounting
(Campbell 2004). If emergy accounting methods
continue to develop and become generally accepted,
independent emergy audits of environmental systems
may become a regular part of a system of checks and
balances governing humanity's relationship with the
environment.
3.13 West Virginia and the Future
No system on earth exists alone. According to
the maximum empower principle (Lotka 1922, Odum
1996), they all have developed interactions with the
net result that empower (emergy per unit time) moves
toward a maximum for any given set of external
forcing energies. The maximum power principle
implies that human as well as natural systems
become coupled to this end. The mountain areas
of West Virginia are coupled to the coastal plains
of Virginia, Maryland, and Louisiana through water
and sediment movements just as the flow of West
Virginia exports and imports couples the state
economy with the Eastern and Mid-West regions
and with the nation. Energies of many kinds are
exchanged within these systems and all components,
and the system as a whole, should be better off in the
long run as a result of this process. However, when
the external emergy sources to that system are
changing, it often takes some time for emergy flows
to be maximized throughout the system. For this
reason, emergy analysis can help discern where the
patterns of interaction may be improved (by
elucidating conditions that increase emergy flow)
toward the end of attaining greater benefits for the
system as a whole. Achieving an equitable balance
of emergy exchanges among the system components
may point the way toward higher empower for the
whole.
In the future, as world oil production reaches its
peak and declines (Campbell and Laherrere 1998),
the United States will become more dependent on
the remaining deposits of fossil fuels, such as West
Virginia coal. West Virginia can prepare for the
challenge of meeting larger demand for its energy
and environmental resources, by using emergy
accounting methods to evaluate the environmental
and socioeconomic costs and benefits associated
with current economic production systems, energy
technologies, and development plans to determine
what alternative system designs lead to social and
economic prosperity and are also sustainable, i.e.,
compatible with maintaining a healthy environment.
The emergy accounts and indices presented above
are a beginning.
3-22
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 4
Discussion
The publication of "Environmental Accounting:
Emergy and Environmental Decision Making" by
H.T. Odum in 1996 made the methods of Emergy
Analysis easily available to the broader scientific
community for the first time. These methods make
it possible to keep "the books" for an environmental
system, including accounts for the economic,
ecological, and social components of these systems,
in common units of solar embodied joules (sejs).
Despite the promise that some scientists see in
emergy methods, the scientific community as a whole
has been slow to recognize this potential.Tests of the
method and comparison of results to other methods
have been infrequent; and therefore, the potential
benefits of adding emergy accounting to the tools
commonly used by environmental managers have
been foregone. One purpose of this technical report
is to make emergy methods and data sources easily
accessible to ecologists, economists, and managers
within and outside the EPA in a peer reviewed
government document, so that they might be more
widely tested and applied in finding solutions for
practical problems encountered in managing the
complex systems of humanity and nature. A second
purpose was to present the results of an emergy
analysis of West Virginia and to test the efficacy
of these methods by addressing questions that
environmental managers had about economic and
environmental conditions and policies for the state
as a whole.
The methods of emergy accounting are relatively
new and still developing, but we believe that they
possess great potential as a tool to aid environmental
decision-making. Several advances in the method
have been presented in this study: (1) We made the
analogy between emergy accounting and financial
accounting and bookkeeping explicit by proposing
the use of emergy income statements and balance
sheets as the standard tools of environmental
accounting (Campbell 2005, Campbell et al. 2004).
(2) We found formerly unused data sources and
revised the method for evaluating imports and
exports to and from states in the United States,
making it possible to construct accurate accounts for
these important fluxes. (3) We refined and clarified
existing methods of emergy analysis by distinguish-
ing clearly between the renewable emergy received
and the renewable emergy absorbed in the calculation
of indices. (4) We calculated several new transformi-
ties (Appendix B) and estimated rough transformities
for commodity classes in the Standard Classification
of Transported Goods (SCTG).
4.1 Standard Method Versus Intellectual
Creativity
The methods of emergy analysis have evolved
overthe past 30 years (Odum 1971, 1983, 1996) and
the vitality and creativity of new insights and ideas
have played an important role by creating a general
and flexibile method. Unfortunately, this has caused
the method to vary overtime. For example, previous
emergy analyses for the states of Florida (Odum, et
al., 1986, Odum et al. 1998b), Texas (Odum, et al.,
1987), Alaska (Brown et al., 1993), North Carolina
(Tilley, 1999), Arkansas (Odum etal. 1998a), and
Maine (Campbell, 1998) have each added new
insights and ideas to the method for analyzing states,
but differences in the method make the results of
these analyses, done over many years, only good for
first order comparisons. It is not our intent to limit
the future development of emergy analysis methods;
however, standards for the emergy analysis of states
and other systems are needed to make results
comparable and to ensure that anyone can use the
proposed tools to reproduce results. We hope that the
material presented here makes the method for
constructing the emergy accounts for states
transparent and reproducible to all those who choose
to use and improve it. To this end we included
extensive notes in the appendices that document the
calculations of the entries on the emergy tables.
Appendix D is devoted to a detailed description of
the method that we used to determine emergy imports
and exports. We also include an appendix that
4-1
-------
Discussion
documents the sources for all the transformities used
and the calculations for the new transformities that
were determined in this study.
4.2 Methods Developed and Refined in This
Study
The renewable emergy base for a system is an
important characteristic that has been determined
using various rules over the years. The objective in
calculating this quantity is to determine the degree to
which the renewable energy sources of the earth have
been concentrated in a particular area without double
counting any of the inputs. The renewable emergy
delivered to the system boundaries is received by the
system. The part of the renewable emergy received
that is absorbed is most important because it is the
emergy actually used within the system to make
products and services. The mutually supporting role
of the various kinds of energy transformed in the
system has been clearly demonstrated by the
complementary interactions of the geopotential
energy of runoff and the chemical potential energy
of evapotranspiration working together to structure
landscapes (Romitelli 1997, Odum et al. 1998a,
Brandt-Williams 1999). In this study, the renewable
emergy received (RR) and the renewable emergy
absorbed (RA) were clearly distinguished in
definitions and in the calculation of indices. We
think that it is important to distinguish these two
quantities because the transformity of the system
and its products are a consequence of the energy
used in that system, whereas, the energy received by
the system indicates the potential of the system for
development, e.g., the amount of emergy received
may determine the attractiveness of an area for
investment and future development. For example,
potentially, all the river water entering a state can be
used to support economic activities within the state.
In some cases almost all the emergy received is used
in the system, nevertheless, we believe that these
two quantities should be distinguished in future
calculations of emergy indices that use the renewable
emergy base for the system.
The method for calculating the imports and
exports to and from a state in the United States was
revised to use data from the U.S. Census Bureau's
Commodity Flow Survey for 1997 (this survey was
updated in 2002 but this data was not available at the
time of the study). This revised method resulted in a
major improvement in accuracy over the first method
that we used to determine the imports and exports
to and from the state's economy. More complete
accounting data caused the ratio of exports to imports
for West Virginia to decrease from 8:1 (this ratio was
found in a preliminary determination using North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data on
trade with Canada and extrapolation techniques) to
2:1. The difference was due to a more accurate
determination of the emergy coming into the state in
the materials of imported goods, which was formerly
one of the most uncertain numbers in the analysis.
4.3 Quality Assurance: Reliability of the Data
and Uncertainty
One question that should be asked of any
scientific analysis is, "How do we know that the
results reported are correct and accurate?" This
question is particularly relevant for extensive and/or
complex analyses that draw upon many sources of
data. In common usage, the word "uncertain" means
that something is unknown or doubtful; however, in
scientific language "uncertainty" pertains to the
probability structure of the data. For, example, a
relevant variable such as rainfall can be expressed as
the mean of a normal distribution plus or minus its
standard deviation. Reporting the probability
structure of the data always provides more
information and may in some cases (e.g. risk
analysis) allow better decisions to be made. It
requires a considerable amount of extra work;
however, to obtain probability distributions for all
data in an extensive analysis, and the time and effort
required to obtain this information may not be worth
it, if the variation is small or for some other reason
not important. In emergy analysis there is often a
great diversity in the amount and kind of information
available on the various numbers used in the
analysis. For this reason, emergy accounting
provides 1st order answers to questions on the scale
of the analysis. If more exact answers are needed,
the scale of the analysis can be reduced by using a
smaller window in space and time to set the system
boundaries. As a rule of thumb, emergy analysts aim
to achieve estimates that are within 10% of the actual
value of the variable used in the analysis. Some
4-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
numbers will be determined with a higher degree
of accuracy, but others may be accurate only to an
order of magnitude. Because many systems are
characterized by dominant energy flows that exceed
the less important flows by an order of magnitude
or more, a first order estimate of quantities is usually
sufficient to produce a robust analysis. Many emergy
analyses have been performed over the past 20 years
and numerous errors have been found and corrected
in these analyses, but the results of an emergy
analysis are rarely changed by subsequent
corrections.
Over the past three years, many versions of the
West Virginia emergy analysis have been produced;
in this process errors have been found and corrected
and the methodology has been improved. The history
of changes in values and indices in this report is used
to illustrate the sensitivity of emergy analysis to error
correction and improvements in methodology. In
addition, the relevant characteristics of the different
types of data are reported and an explanation of the
techniques used to check and ensure the accuracy and
quality of the numbers used in the analysis is given.
Two sources of uncertainty are considered (1)
uncertainty in the numerical values of the quantities
used in the analysis and (2) uncertainty in the
methods and models used to make determinations.
Uncertainty in the numerical values of the data arises
from imprecision of the measuring device, scanty or
unrepresentative data, and systematic flaws in the
measuring process (Finkel 1990). Model uncertainty
arises from difficulties in determining which
quantities are relevant to the analysis, from the
technical methods used to determine those quantities,
and from the choice of surrogates when the needed
information is not directly available.
Both environmental and economic data are key
inputs to emergy analyses. The broad data quality
objective for these data is that values be determined
to within 10-15% of the actual value with a high
degree of confidence. Environmental data is gener-
ally determined to within 10% and meets our data
quality objectives. For example, pyroheliometers
measure incident solar radiation with 2-5% accuracy,
anemometers measure wind speed within about 5%
and rain gauges record precipitation within about
10%, but newer electronic instruments claim ±3%
accuracy.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA)
provided key data on energy production,
consumption and movements. The EIA obtains data
from survey forms, some of which are statistical
samples, as well as from many additional information
sources (42). They report both sampling and non-
sampling errors in their surveys, and have extensive
procedures in place to guarantee data quality. In
some cases, almost all participants in a process are
counted. In 1997, for example, EIA documented 1850
coal producers who reported production, which
included all U.S. coal mining companies with
production of 10,000 short tons per year or more. In
most cases, EIA data meets or exceeds our data
quality objectives.
Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) data was
critical in the development of a revised method for
calculating the import and export of emergy to and
from a state. The CFS is a survey conducted every
five years by the U.S. Census Bureau. Both sampling
and non-sampling errors are considered, and the
reliability of the data is reported as the coefficient
of variation with its standard error. The CFS data
meets or exceeds our data quality objectives for total
commodity movements. For example, the dollar
value of inbound shipments to West Virginia was
determined within 6.2% and the tonnage value within
7%, whereas, the dollar value of shipments leaving
the state was determined within 2.6% and tonnage
leaving within 11.8%. In general, the estimated
movements of individual commodities have higher
uncertainties. In summary, we have a high degree
of confidence that the total material, energy, and
monetary flows upon which the energy and emergy
calculations of imports and exports depend have been
determined within 10 - 15% of their actual values.
Whenever the opportunity has arisen, we have
used duplicate data and different calculation methods
to check the accuracy of estimates. For example, the
EIA information on coal imports and exports was
used to check the CFS estimates of these quantities.
Petroleum imports from the CFS were checked
against the petroleum imports that were required to
meet the difference between instate production and
4-3
-------
Discussion
consumption obtained form the EIA data. Potential
temporal anomalies in the economic data were
assessed through collecting and comparing
socioeconomic data for two years.
Long term averages (10-50 years) are used for
environmental variables. In this case, the variation
is not reported because most socioeconomic systems
depend on the long term average environmental
conditions for support and development. Trends or
variations in the long term data would be considered
as a part of a dynamic energy systems model analysis
of the state (not performed in this study).
The effects of our improvements in the
methodology for estimating imports and exports
have already been mentioned above. The change
realized may be somewhat greater than what would
be expected for a mere refinement in methodology
because our first method had not been proven and it
used NAFTA data that proved to be a poor surrogate
for the more accurate CFS data set. In general,
everything that is known to be of importance in
the system under analysis is included. The emergy
associated with each item is an indicator of its
relative importance and determines whether an
item is included in the analysis.
The effect of correcting an error in the
determination of the energy associated with and
an input is illustrated by the recalculation of the
geopotential energy of runoff absorbed by the
system. In Campbell et al. (2004), this number was
incorrectly calculated, because the energy used was
determined relative to sea level rather than the
minimum elevation of rivers leaving the state. When
this number was corrected, the energy absorbed
changed from 6.59 E+16 J/y to 6.02 E+16 J/y, a
difference of 8.6%. This resulted in a change of 2
E+20 sej/y or 2.9% in the emergy absorbed by the
system and a change of 0.0008 or 2.9% in the
fraction of use that is locally renewable, which is
an important index calculated using the renewable
emergy absorbed. Other calculations that have
been refined have resulted in a similar or smaller
percentage change in the energy, emergy, and
emdollar values. The large change in the ratio of
imports to exports was based on a 30% decrease in
the difference between emergy imported and emergy
exported. The major conclusion that West Virginia
is a net exporter of emergy was unchanged by
methodological improvements and the correction
of errors in calculations.
The transformities and specific emergies by
which the energy or mass flows are multiplied,
respectively, to obtain emergy are critical numbers
in the analysis. Campbell (2003) analyzed five global
water budgets, and determined that the transformities
of global hydrological flows, such as rain, evapo-
transpiration, and river flow, were determined
within an average standard deviation of 5.9± 2.5%
of the mean value. These global transformities meet
our data quality criteria for emergy analysis. Multiple
determinations of transformities are not often
available, and an accurate estimate of the differences
that arise from different sources of data and different
estimation techniques is not available for most items.
In a few cases, multiple determinations of transform-
ities using different methods have been carried out.
Odum (1996) determined the transformity of coal
from its relative efficiency in producing electricity
and from its geological production process. The
former method gave an estimate of 4.3E+4 sej/J and
the latter 3.4 E+4 sej/J. The two values are within
12 % of the mean value, which may be a rough
estimate of the model uncertainty in determining
transformities. Appendix B documents the
transformities used in this study and gives sources
for the original determinations. In addition, the
calculations for the new transformities determined
in this study are given in this appendix.
We estimated the transformity for each SGTG
commodity class to determine the emergy in the
tonnage of each commodity imported. These
transformities are approximated by averaging known
transformities of items within the class (without
services); however, all items in a class are not
included in the determination of the transformity.
In some cases, when a transformity is not known for
any item in the class, the parent material is used as
a surrogate for the item's transformity. The use of
parent materials results in a minimum estimate of the
emergy imported and exported in these commodity
classes. More work is needed to calculate additional
transformities and to obtain better estimates for
known transformities using multiple data sets and
different calculation methods to determine the
distribution of values.
4-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
4.4 Future Research and Reports
The methods described in this report represent
a significant step forward in our ability to perform
accurate and comparable emergy analyses of states
within the United States. Comparable state analyses
provide the raw material for the analysis of regions,
which is of particular concern to the USEPA and
other government agencies that are responsible for
the management of environmental, social, and
economic conditions in regional areas, e.g. EPA
Region 3, the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, The
Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are emergy
analyses for seven additional states in various stages
of completion as this report is being written. The five
states of the Mid-Atlantic region (WV, VA, PA, MD,
and DE) are among the eight states analyzed and an
emergy analysis of this region is planned in the
future. In addition, the emergy accounts for the eight
states (MN, IL, NJ, WV, VA, PA, MD, and DE) must
be completed to allow a robust comparative analysis
of emergy indices. Our current research is focused
on the development of methods to evaluate
environmental liabilities, which are needed to
complete the emergy balance sheet. Once this work
is complete, we will have an accounting method
to determine directly whether any human endeavor
is sustainable
4-5
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 5
References
Adams MB, Kochenderfer JN, Wood F,
Angradi TR, Edwards P. 1993. Forty Years of
Hydrometeorological Data from the Fernow
Experimental Forest, West Virginia. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, General
Technical Report NE-184. 24 p.
Arnold JG, Williams JR. 1985. Evapotranspiration
in a Basin Scale Hydrologic Model, pp. 405-413. In:
Advances in Evapotranspiration, Proceedings of the
National Conference on Advances in Transpiration,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, MI.
Brandt-Williams S, 1999. Evaluation of Watershed
Control of Two Central Florida Lakes: Newnans
Lake and Lake Weir. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Florida, 257pp.
Brandt-Williams SL. 2001 (revised 2002). Handbook
of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #4. Emergy of Florida
Agriculture. Center for Environmental Policy,
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 40 p.
Brown MT, Buranakarn V 2000. Emergy Evaluation
of Material Cycles and Recycle Options, pg 141-154,
In Brown MT, (ed) Emergy Synthesis, Proceedings
of the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research
Conference, The Center for Environmental Policy,
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Brown MT and Ulgiati S. 2001. Emergy measures of
carrying capacity to evaluate economic investments,
Population and Environment 22, 471-501.
Brown MT, Woithe RD, Odum HT, Montague CL,
Odum EC. 1993. Emergy Analysis Perspectives on
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound,
Alaska. Report to the Cousteau Society, Center for
Wetlands and Water Resources, CWWR 93-1,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Buranakarn V 1998. Evaluation of Recycling and
Reuse of Building Materials Using the Emergy
Analysis Method. PhD. Dissertation, University of
Florida, UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor MI,
257 p.
Campbell CJ, Laherrere JH. 1998. The End of Cheap
Oil. Scientific American (March): 78-83.
Campbell DE. 1998. Emergy Analysis of Human
Carrying Capacity and Regional Sustainability: An
Example Using the State of Maine. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 51:531-569.
Campbell DE. 2000a. A revised solar transformity
for tidal energy received by the earth and dissipated
globally: Implications for Emergy Analysis,
pp. 255-264. In M.T Brown (ed) Emergy Synthesis:
Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology.
Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Emergy Analysis
Research Conference, Center for Environmental
Policy, Department of environmental Engineering
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Campbell DE. 2000b. Using energy systems theory
to define, measure, and interpret ecological integrity
and ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 6(3):
181-204.
Campbell DE. 2003. A Note on the Uncertainty in
Estimates of Transformities Based on Global Water
Budgets, pp. 349-353. In Brown MT, Odum HT,
Tilley DR, Ulgiati S. (eds.) Emergy Synthesis 2.
Proceedings of the Second Biennial Emergy Analysis
Conference. Center for Environmental Policy,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Campbell DE. 2005. Financial Accounting Methods
to Further Develop and Communicate Environmental
Accounting Using Emergy, pp. ?-?. In Brown MT et
al. (eds). Emergy Synthesis 3. Proceedings of the
Third Biennial Emergy Analysis Conference, Center
for Environmental Policy, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
5-1
-------
References
Campbell D, Meisch M, DeMoss T, Pomponio J,
Bradley P. 2004a. Keeping the books for the
environment: An emergy analysis of West Virginia.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
94: 217-230.
Campbell DE, Brandt-Williams SL, Cai TT. 2005.
Current Technical Problems in Emergy Analysis.
pp. ?-?. In Brown, MT et al. (eds). Emergy Synthesis
3. Proceedings of the Third Biennial Emergy Analysis
Conference, Center for Environmental Policy,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) 2002. Mid-Atlantic
Highlands Action Plan, Transforming the Legacy,
Canaan Valley Institute, Thomas, WV.
ClarksonR.B. 1964. Tumult on the Mountains:
Lumbering in West Virginia 1770 - 1920. McLain
Printing Company, Parsons, WV.
Degens ET. 1965. Geochemistry of Sediments, A
Brief Survey. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
342 p.
DiGiovanni DM. 1990. Forest Statistics for West
Virginia - 1975 and 1989. United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin NE-114. 28 p.
Finkel AM. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk
Management. Center for Risk Management,
Resources for the Future. Washington, DC. 69 pp.
Garratt, J.R. 1977. Review of drag coefficients over
oceans and continents. Monthly Weather Review,
105:915-929.
Krug WR, Gebert WA, Craczyk, Stevens DJ,
Rochelle BP, Church MR. 1990. Map of mean annual
runoff from the northeastern, southeastern, and mid
Atlantic United States, water years 1951-1980,
United States Geological Survey, WRI 88-4094. lip.
Lotka AJ. 1922. Contribution on the energetics
of evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 8, 147-151.
Martinez-Alier J. 1987. Ecological Economics,
Basil Blackwell, NY 286 p.
Miller BI. 1964, A Study of the Filling of Hurricane
Donna Over Land (1960). Mon. Wealth. Rev. U.S.
Dept. of Ag. 92 (9), p. 389-406.
National Energy Policy Development Group,
National Energy Policy, US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC, 2001, pg 1-1.
National Research Council, Our Common Journey, a
transition toward sustainability, National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 1999, pg. 14.
OdumHT. 1988. Self-organization, transformity,
and information. Science 242, 1132-1139.
OdumHT. 1994, Ecological and General Systems.
University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. 644 pp.
(reprint of Systems Ecology, John Wiley, 1983)
Odum HT 1996, Environmental Accounting: Emergy
and Environmental Decision Making; John Wiley
and Sons, NY.
Odum HT. 1999. "Evaluating Landscape Use of
Wind Kinetic Energy". Unpublished manuscript.
Odum HT. 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation.
Folio #2. Emergy of Global Processes. Center for
Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.30 p.
Odum HT, Arding JE. (1991) EMERGY Analysis of
Shrimp Mariculture in Ecuador. Report to Coastal
Resource Center, University of Rhode Island, Center
for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 87 p.
Odum HT, Odum EC. 2000. Modeling for All Scales.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 458 p.
Odum HT, Odum EC. 2001. A Prosperous Way
Down. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
326 p.
Odum HT, Brown MT, Christiansen RA. 1986b.
Energy Systems Overview of the Amazon Basin.
Report to the Cousteau Society, Center for Wetlands,
CFW Publication #86-1, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL. 190 p.
5-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Odum HT, Odum EC, Blissett M. 1987, The Texas
System, Emergy Analysis and Public Policy. A
Special Project Report, LB Johnson School of Public
Affairs. University of Texas at Austin, and The
Office of Natural Resources, Texas Department of
Agriculture, Austin.
Odum HT, Romitelli S, Tigne R. 1998a. Evaluation
Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in
Arkansas. Center for Environmental Policy,
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University
of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1998.
Odum HT, Odum EC, Brown MT 1998b.
Environment and Society in Florida. St. Lucie Press,
Boca Raton, FL. 449 pp.
Odum HT, Brown MT, Brandt-Williams SL. 2000a.
Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #1.
Introduction and Global Budget. Center for
Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.16 p.
Odum HT, Kern W, Sell M, Boynton W, Lehman, M.
1977. Energy analysis and the coupling of man and
estuaries. Environmental Management 1(4): 297-315.
Odum HT, Odum EC, Brown MT, Scott GB, Lahart
D, Bersok C, Sendzimir J. 1986a. Florida Systems
and Environment.; A. supplement to the test Energy
Systems and Environment. University of Florida,
Center for Wetlands.
Odum HT, Wojcik W, Pritchard L, Ton S, Delfino JJ,
Wojcik M, Leszczynski S, Patel JD, Doherty SJ,
Stasik J. 2000b. Heavy Metals in the Environment,
Using Wetlands for Their Removal. CRC Press LLC,
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 325 p.
Patric JH, Evans JO, Helvey JD. 1984. Summary
of Sediment Yield Data From Forested Land in the
United States, Journal of Forestry 82: 101-104.
ReiterER. 1969. Atmospheric Transport processes,
Parti. Energy Transfers and Transformations. U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical
Information, Oak Ridge, TN. 253 p.
Rice OK. 1985. West Virginia: A History, University
Press, of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Rice OK and Brown SW. 1993, West Virginia: A
History, 2nd Ed, University Press of Kentucky,
Lexington.
Romitelli MS. 1997. Energy Analysis of Watersheds.
PhD. Dissertation, University of Florida, UMI
Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI. 292 p.
Rosier HJ, Lange H. 1972. Geochemical Tables.
Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 468 p.
Scatena FN, Doherty SJ, Odum HT, Kharecha P.
2002. An Emergy Evaluation of Puerto Rico and the
Luquillo Experimental Forest. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute
of Tropical Forestry, General Technical Report IITF-
GTR-9, Rio Piedras, PR. 79 p.
State of West Virginia 1935. West Virginia Blue Book,
State Legislative Manual, Charleston, WV
State of West Virginia, 1999. West Virginia Blue
Book, Charleston, WV.
Tilley DR. 1999. Emergy Basis of Forest Systems,
PhD. Dissertation, University of Florida, UMI
Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor MI, 296 p.
Ulgiati S, Odum HT, Bastianoni S. 1994. Emergy
use, environmental loading and sustainability: An
emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling 73:
215-268.
Warren Greg. Pers. Comm. Weirton Steel,
Wheeling, WV.
5-3
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Section 6
Data Sources
(1) USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory "Food
Composition and Nutrition."
http: //ww.nal .usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search .pi
(2) U.S. Census, Commodity Flow Survey for 1997.
http: //www. census .gov/econ/www/cdstate .html
(3) http://www.eia.doe.gov
(4) http ://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set. asp
(5) http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/
data_publications/natural_gas_annual/historical/
1997/nga_1997.html
(6) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/
058497.pdf
(7) http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~tchapin/urp5261/
topics/econbase .htm
(8) http://www.nylovesbiz.com/nysdc/
Personalincome/stpcpi9702.pdf
(9) http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/WV.HTM
(10) http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/
register. cgi?task=login&next_url=/cgi-bin/sse/ion-
p&page=globe_main.ion&app=sse
(11) University of Utah. "Average Wind Speed
(mph)."Meteorological Department. 1993.
http://www.met.utah.edu/jhorel/html/wx/climate/
windavg.html (7 June 1997).
(12) International Heat Flow Commission, "Global
Heat Flow Database", University of North Dakota.
http://heatflow.und.nodak.edu/index2.html (17 May
2002).
(13) West Virginia Blue Book, 1999. Charleston,WV.
(14) Direct measurements of forest evapo-
transpiration in West Virginia are found atjittp://
www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/WBW/D1998.HTM
(15) West Virginia Blue Book, 1999. Charleston, WV
andKrug, etal. (1990).
(16) Water quality data for the rivers from the USGS
water resources website. New River Glen Lyn, VA
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/va/nwis/qwdata? qw_
count_nu= 1 ¶meter_cd=00095 &begin_date=
&end_date=&format=html_table&site_no=
03176500&agency_cd=USGS
For the Ohio River at Sewickley, PA:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/qwdata?_count_
nu= 1 ¶meter_cd=00095 &begin_date=
&end_date=&format=html_table&site_no=
03086000&agency_cd=USGS
Point Pleasant WV: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/
nwis/qwdata?site_no=03201500&agency_cd=
USGS&begin_date=&end_date=&format=
YYYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&qw_
sample_wide=0&submitted_form=brief_list
(17) The New River at Glen Lyn VA:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/va/nwis/annual/
calendar_year?site_no=031765 00&agency_cd=
USGS&format=html
The Ohio River at Sewickley, PA> http://
waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/annual/calendar_year?
site_no=03086000&agency_cd=USGS&format=
html The Ohio River at Point Pleasant, WV: http://
waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/nwis/annual/calendar_year/
?site_no=03201500
(18) U.S. Department of Agriculture "1997 Census of
Agriculture,Vol. 1,Part 48,Chapterl"http://www.nass.
usda.gov/census/census97/volumel/wv-48/toc97.htm
(29 April 1999).
West Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service, "2001
West Virginia Agricultural Statistics." http://www.
nass.usda.gov/wv/pagel.pdf (7 Sept 2001).
6-1
-------
Data Sources
A general source for all states in 1997 is http://www.
nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume 1/vol Ipubs.
htm and also http://www.usda.gov/nass/sso-rpts.htm
(19) US Dept of Agriculture 1998 Census of
Aquaculture - Table 9 http://www.nass.usda.gov/
census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm
(20) Electricity Net Generation http://www.eia.doe.
gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wv2p 1 .html
(21) Forestry Service "West Virginia 1989 Forest
Inventory." (13 July 2000). http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/
fia/states/wv/wvhilite.html A general source for U.S.
timber statistics found at the following web address:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fplrp595.pdf
Also useful are Alabama Forestry Commission,
"Southern Wood Conversion Factors and Rules of
Thumb" http://members.aol.com/JOSTNIX/
convert.htm (19 Aug. 1997) and Cooperative
Extension Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources "Species Characteristics and Volumes."
University of Nebraska http://www.ianr.unl.edu/
pubs/forestry/g881 .htm (14 April 2000).
(22) U.S. Geological Survey, "National Water-Use
data files." http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/spread95/
wvco95.txt (9 July 2001).
(23) West Virginia Department of Energy, "West
Virginia Coal Statistics" http://www.eia.doe.gov/
cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wvlpl.html (30 Oct.
2001).
(24) U.S. Census Bureau Conversion Tables
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/sec9.html
(25) Energy Information Administration, "Natural
Gas Production and Consumption for 1999."
http: //www. eia. doe .gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/
data_publications/natural_gas_annual/current/pdf/
table_090.pdf (19 Nov. 2001).
(26) Utah's Department of Natural Resources -
Energy Office http://www.nr.utah.gov/energy/pub/
stab99/chap8.pdf
(27) U.S. Energy Information Association Energy
Consumption Estimates by Source, 1960-1999
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/state.data/pdf/wv.pdf
and Energy Information Administration, "West
Virginia State Energy Production and Consumption
for 1999." http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/
_statequads.html (29 June 2001).
(28) Electricity Net Generation http://www.eia.
doe .gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wv2p 1 .html
(29) US Geological Survey and the West Virginia
Geological and Economic Survey, "2000 Mineral
Industry Study of West Virginia." http://minerals.
usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/985401 .pdf
(13 Dec. 2001).
(30) 1997 West Virginia Erosion Estimates.
http://www.wv.nrcs.usda.gov/nri/erosionwater.htm
(31) 1997 Economic Census: Summary Statistics for
West Virginia, http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/wv/
WVOOO. HTM and Summary Statistics for the U.S.
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/us/USOOO.HTM
and by industry http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/
industry/BBS 31.HTM
(32) West Virginia Department of Transportation
http: //www. wvcorridorh .com/economic/tourism .html
(11 Feb. 2002).
(33) Federal Funds - Summary Distribution by State
(1996) http://www.census.gOv/prod/3/98pubs/
98statab/sasecl0.pdf
(34) West Virginia Coal Reserves
http://www.state.wv.us/mhst/reserves98.pdf
(35) Petroleum Profile of West Virginia, United
States Energy Information Association
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/state/wv.asp
(36) Average price of Bauxite http://minerals.usgs.
gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/bauxite/090398.pdf
Average price of Coal
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/cia/html/
t80p01pl.html
Petroleum Price
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/oilprices/
oilprices_wv.html
Iron Ore Price
http://www.indiainfoline.com/sect/iror/dbO 1 .html
Aluminum Price
http://www.amm.com/ref/alum.HTM
6-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
(37) For states with an international port of entry data
on imports can be found at http://www.ustr.gov/
outreach/states/westva.pdf Office of the United States
Trade Representative. Also see
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp
for West Virginia Exports
(38) USDA Farm and farm related employment
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/armandRelatedEmploy-
ment/ViewData.asp?GeoAreaPick=STAWV_
west+virginia
(39) Electricity from uranium
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/
cause2003/engineofindustry/teamnuclear.ppt
(40) Uranium Industry Annual report 2002, DOE/
EIA-0478(2002) http://www.eia.doe.gov/
fuelnuclear.html
(41) U.S. uranium mining http://www.eia.doe.gov/
cneaf/nuclear/uia/table03 .html
(42) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oss/forms.html#eia-7a
6-3
-------
Appendix A
Primary Symbols of the Energy Systems Language
-------
Appendix A
Energy circuit A pathway whose flow is proportional to the storage or source
upstream.
Source A forcing function or outside source of energy delivering forces
according to a program controlled from outside.
Tank A compartment or state variable within the system storing a quantity
as the balance of inflows and outflows.
Heat sink Dispersion of potential energy into heat accompanies all real
transformation processes and storages This energy is no longer usable by
the system.
Interaction Interactive intersection of two pathways coupled to produce an
outflow in proportion to a function of both; a work gate.
Consumer An autocatalytic unit that transforms energy, stores it and feeds
it back to improve inflow.
Producer Unit that collects and transforms low quality energy under the control
of high quality flows.
Box Miscellaneous symbol to use for whatever unit or function is needed.
\~-~-£~^7
} f ^ Switching Action A symbol that indicates one or more switching actions controlled
/-—•r—X by a logic program.
Figure Al. Primary symbols of the Energy Systems Language (modified from Odum 1994).
A-2
-------
Appendix B
Sources, Adjustment, and Calculation of Transformities
-------
Appendix B
Bl. Information sources for the emergy per unit values used in this report. The note number links the
emergy per unit values listed in this table to the values used in Tables 4-8. The emergy per unit values in Table
Bl.l are given to three significant figures and shown for the 9.44, 9.26 and 15.83 E+24 sej/y baselines. Values
are transformities with units of sej/J except where other units are noted. For example where emergy per unit
mass is given a (g) for mass is noted next to the item and the units are sej/g. The emergy per unit of education
level is sej per individual and the emergy to dollar ratio (sej/$) is used for services. Table B3.1 gives the factors
used to convert one baseline to another. The 9.44 baseline (Odum 1996) was revised to the 9.26 baseline
(Campbell & Odum, Appendix B in Campbell 1998, Campbell 2000a). The 9.44 values are reported, because
many transformities in the older literature are given relative to this baseline. See http://www.epa.gov/aed/
research/desuppS.html for additional information.
Table Bl.l The values and sources for transformities and specific emergies used in this report.
Note Item
1
2
3
4
Incident solar radiation
Wind-
Earth Cycle
Rain, chemical potential
Source of transformity or
specific emergy calculation
(by definition)
Odum (1996), p. 309
Odum (1996), p. 309
Odum (1996),
Emergy/unit Emergy/unit
9.44 9.26
1
1496
34377
18200
1
1470
33700
18100
Emergy/unit
15.83
1
2.51E+03
5.76E+04
3.12E+04
5 Evapotranspiration,
6 Rain, geo-potential, land
7 Rain, geo-potential runoff
8 Rivers, chemical
9 Rivers, geo-potential
10 Agricultural Products
A weighted average of:
10 Hay (0.86)
10 Grains, fruits, tobacco
11 Livestock (poultry)
Beef cattle
12 Fish Production -
13 Hydroelectricity -
14 Net Timber Growth -
15 Timber Harvest service
16 Ground water
17 Coal
19 Natural Gas
21 Petroleum - Crude oil,
23 Electricity -
25 Clay Odum (1996) (g)
26 Sand and Gravel (g)
27 Limestone (g)
28 Sandstone (g)
29 Erosion, topsoil
Campbell (2003)
Odum (1996),
Campbell (2003)
Odum (1996), p. 309
Odum (1996) (errata)
Odum (1996),
Campbell (2003)
Odum (1996), p. 43
Brandt-Williams (2001)
See B3 #7.
See B3 #7.
See B3 #7.
Odum etal. (1998)
See B3 #7.
Odum etal. (1998a)
Odum (1996), p. 186&305
Tilley(1999),p.l50
Tilley(1999)
Odum etal. (1998a)
Odum (1996), p. 310
Odum (1996), p. 311
Odum (1996), p. 311
Odum (1996),p.305& 311
Odum (1996)
(B3 # 5)
Odum (1996)
Odum (1996)
Odum (1996)
18200
10488
27764
48459
27764
28100 4.80E+04
10300 1.76E+04
27200 4.66E+04
50100 8.13E+04
27200
63000
4.66E+04
7.36E+05
2.0E+06
1.23E+05
2.10E+04
7.00E+04
1.62E+05
4.00E+04
4.80E+04
5.40E+04
173681
2E+09
1.33E+9
1.0 E9
1.0 E9
74000
40100
207600
792000
680000
1960000
120300
20600
68700
159000
39200
47100
53000
170400
1.96E+9
1.31 E9
9.81 E8
9.81 E8
72600
6.86E+4
3.55E+5
1.23E+06
1.14E+06
3.35E+06
2.06E+05
3.52E+04
1.17E+05
2.72E+05
6.71E+04
8.05E+04
9.06E+04
2.91E+05
3.35E+09
2.24E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.24E+05
B-2
-------
:^nfir0nmjental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
31
33
34
35
36
44
49
53
NA
NA
Item
Petroleum fuels
Iron Ore
Aluminum ore, bauxite,
Services in goods ($)
Materials in Goods
Steel (g)
Standing Biomass
People (per individual)
Preschool (ind.)
School (ind.)
College Grad (ind.)
Post-College (ind.)
Elderly (65+) (ind.)
Public Status (ind.)
Legacy (ind.)
Net Timber Prod.
Aluminum (g)
Source of transformity or
specific emergy calculation
Odum (1996), p. 186
Odum(1996)
Odum (1996)
1997 ($)
(Table B2.1)
Brown & Buranakarn (2000)
( B3 #3)
Odum (1988, 1996)
(B3#4)
Tilley(1999)p.l50
Brown & Buranakarn (2000)
Emergy/unit
9.44
6.60E+04
6.20E+07
1.50E+07
3.45E+09
3.40E+16
9.40E+16
2.80E+17
1.31E+18
3.93E+18
7.85E+18
1.10E+04
1.25E+10
Emergy/unit
9.26
64700
60815800
14700000
1.2E+12
3380000000
28200
3.E+16
9.E+16
3.E+17
l.E+18
1.69E+17
4.E+18
8.E+18
10800
12300000000
Emergy/unit
15.83
1.11E+05
1.04E+08
2.52E+07
5.79E+09
4.82E+04
5.70E+16
1.58E+17
4.70E+17
2.20E+18
2.89E+17
6.59E+18
1.32E+19
1.84E+04
2.10E+10
B2. Estimation of Transformities for the SCTG Commodity Classes. Transformities and specific emergies
for each SCTG commodity classes were determined by averaging items within the class for which
transformities were known. For classes where no transformities were available the transformity of the raw
materials was used as a first order estimate. Transformities for the SCTG commodity class codes are given
below as estimated from the transformities of the items listed. See Appendix D Table Dl. 1 for a definition of
the items represented in the SCTG Class Code numbers. Emergy per unit is relative to the 9.26 baseline.
Table B2.1 Transformities and Specific Emergies for the SCTG Commodity Classes.
Class
Code Items in Class Average
Transformity
sej/J
Sp. Emergy
sej/g
1 - Avg. poultry and cattle, Odum etal.( 1987) Brandt-Williams (2001) 439,300
2 Avg. wheat, grain corn, rice, oats, sorghum, Odum et al. (1987) 181,800
Brandt-Williams (2001)
3 Avg. soybeans, cotton, pecans, cabbages, oranges, etc. Odum et al. (1987) 233,400
Brandt-Williams (2001)
4 Forage Ulgiati et al. (1994) Cornstalks & wool Odum (1996), 1.22 E6
eggs Brandt-Williams (2001)
5 Meat (veal, mutton), shrimp, Odum (1996) 3.27 E6
6 Use flour (wheat + energy to process) 181,800
Sugar, palm oil and cacao from Odum et al. (1986b), milk Brandt-Williams
7 (2001) 1.12E6
Use ethanol and avg. 10% alcohol by volume for beer and wine, Odum
8 (1996) 58,900
9 Use tobacco, Scatena et al. (2002) 650,000
10 Use limestone Odum (1996) 9.81 E8
11 Use sand, this study 1.31 E9
12 Use granite rocks Odum (1996) 4.91 E8
B-3
-------
Appendix B
Table B2.1 Transformities and Specific Emergies for the SCTG Commodity Classes continued.
Class Transformity Sp. Emergy
Code Items in Class Average sej/J sej/g
13 Use clay, Odum (1996) 1.96 E9
14 Use ore rocks, iron, alumina, copper, nickel, zinc Odum (1996) 2.71 E9
15 Use coal Odum (1996) 39,200
17 Use crude oil, petroleum fuels Odum (1996) 64,700
18 Use petroleum fuels Odum (1996) 64,700
19 Use fuel oil Odum (1996) 64,700
Use hydrated lime, caustic soda, diatomite, and sulfuric acid Odum et al.
20 (2000b) 2.75 E9
21 Pharmaceutical and biological products (use chemicals as feedstock) 2.75 E9
22 Fertilizer from Brandt-Williams (2001) and Odum (1996) 2.99 E9
Insecticide (Brown and Arding 1991, paint and glue from Buranakarn
23 (1998). 9.90 E9
24 (Plastic, tires, etc,) Odum etal. (1987) 2.71 E9
25 Use avg. softwood and hardwood logs Odum (1996) 19,600
26 Use wood chips, lumber, particle board, plywood, Buranakarn (1998) 1.49 E9
27 (Use avg. wood pulp, paper, paper board), Tilley (1999) 139,800
28 (Bags, packing, toilet paper, envelopes, wallpaper) Tilley (1999) 167,400
29 Paper from Tilley (1999) Ink assumed similar to other chemical preparations 4.95 E9
30 Use avg. of textiles and leather Odum et al. (1987) 7.18 E6
31 Use avg. ceramics, glass flat and float, brick, concrete, Buranakarn (1998) 3.09 E9
32 Avg. iron , steel, copper, aluminum Buranakarn (1998), Al 1/2 weight in avg 5.91 E9
33 Assume articles of metal have similar transformities to the unformed metal 5.91 E9
34 Machinery non electrical, Odum etal. (1987) 7.76 E9
35 Assume the transformity for machinery applies Odum et. al. (1987) 7.76 E9
36 Assume the transformity for machinery applies Odum et. al. (1987) 7.76 E9
37 Assume the transformity for machinery applies Odum et. al. (1987) 7.76 E9
38 Assume the transformity for machinery applies Odum et. al. (1987) 7.76 E9
39 (Household furniture, lamps, mattresses) use hardwood, Buranakarn (1998) 2.89 E9
40 Miscellaneous manufactured goods 1.61 E9
41 Tire waste, wood waste, slag. Buranakarn (1998) 2.16 E9
43 Corn and steel for groceries and hardware 6.32 E9
B-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
B3. Calculation of New or Revised Transformities. In all cases transformity is determined by dividing the
emergy (sej or sej/y) required for product or service by the energy (J or J/y) in the product or service. In this
section, number simply refers to the new transformity calculations.
No.
1 Calculation of Transformity for Forest Growth in West Virginia
Evaportranspiration 3.67E+21 sej/y
Net Timber Growth (include s mortality) 2.1OE+17 J/y
17496 sej/J
2 Calculation of Transformity for Forest Net Primary Production in West Virginia
Evaportranspiration 3.67E+21 sej/y
Net Primary Production of Timber 3.09E+17 J/y
11858 sej/J
3 Calculation of Transformity for Forest Storage in West Virginia
Evaportranspiration 3.67E+21 sej/y
Average age of a tree 80
Forest Storage 1.04E+19 J
Emergy to produce the forest 2.94E+23 sej
Transformity of biomass in 80 yr-old trees 28200 sej/J
4 Calculation of the Transformity of the Elderly in West Virginia
This estimate was based on the education level that elderly individuals in 1990 attained in 1930. The
1990 census showed that 8.75% of the population was 65-74 years old and that 6.24% of the population
was 75 years and older.
In 1930, 86% of 14-15 year olds were in school. 20% of 18-20 year olds were also in school.
If the average age at graduation was 18 and the same pattern holds, around 20% of the high school age
students graduated. In 1940, 4% of 21-41 year olds were enrolled in school. Assuming that these
students graduated and that they indicate the average status of those born from 1915 to 1920 about
4% of the 1990 elderly aged 70 to 75 were college graduates.
The educational status of West Virginia in 1990 was estimated as follows: (1) 80% of 65 and older
attended school but left between age 15 and age 18. (2) 20% were high school graduates and had some
college and 4% were college graduates with some graduate work.
Education Status of Elderly individual
Total # 65 years or older in 1990
school (80%)
college (16%)
post-college (4%)
Emergy of all elderly individuals sej
Transformity of the elderly in West Virginia.
Individuals
159518
127615
25523
6381
2.69E+22
Transformity sej/ind.
9.2E+16
2.7E+17
1.3E+18
1.7 E+17 sej/ind.
B-5
-------
Appendix B
No.
Transformity for Sand from Sandstone
Sandstone Composition from Rosier and Lange
(1972) and Degens (1965). Assume complete
weathering to quartz.
Arkose sandstone (California
Glauconite sandstone (Switzerland)
Sandstone
Assume loss of 25% of mass on weathering
Transformity of sand stone
Transformity of sand from weathered sandstone
based on mass concentration (1.0E9/0.75)
Transformity of sand on the 9.26 baseline (X 0.981)
% SiO2
61.6
78.34
79.63
73.19
0.75
l.OOE+09
1.33E+09
1.31E+09
Transformity for Electricity from Nuclear Power
Odum (1996) p. 50, Uranium ore 1.88E9 sej/g = 1.84E+09 sej/g on the 9.26 baseline
Odum (1996) p. 154, From evaluation of Lapp (1991) use the figure, on p. 154.
Item
sej/y
Source
Emergy from the economy
Emergy from the environment
Emergy from uranium ore
Total Emergy
On 9.26 baseline
Joules of electricity generated
9.128E+23
4.90E+22
1.43E+23
1.11E+24
1.08E+24
2.09E+19
Lapp (1991)
Lapp (1991)
Calculated below
Sum previous 3
X 0.981
Lapp (1991)
Transformity of nuclear electricity
5.19E+04
sej/J
Parameters
kWhperkgUfuel
Kwh per year generated
tons U fuel used
tons ore used
Specific emergy Uranium ore
50000
5.80E+12
1.16E+05
7.63E+07
1.88E+09
Data source (39)
Lapp (1991)
calculated
calculated
Odum (1996)
Average uranium produced in the U.S.
million Ibs U3O8
1000 MTU
million Ibs U3O8
1000 MTU
Mine n= 10
3.49
1.35
Concentrate n=10
4.26
1.64
Data Source (40)
Data Source (40)
B-6
-------
No.
6
fraction U in U3O8 from data above
Stochiometry
Oxygen, MW 16
Uranium, MW 23 8
For $30 per pound U
percent U3O8
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
0.850703226 calculated
0.847980998 calculated
128
714
All sources (mining + leaching)
0.17928 Data source (41)
7 Revised Transformities for Agricultural Products. Transformities for the agricultural products given
in Brandt-Williams (2001) were recalculated with and without services using the 28100 sej/J as the
transformity for evapotranspiration. The transformities without services included were used to determine
the emergy of agricultural commodity flows. See http://www.epa.gov/aed/research/desupp3.html.
Table B3.1 The factors needed to convert one planetary baseline to another. All baselines are XE24 sej/y.
To convert baseline, X
To baseline, Y
Multiply by
9.44
9.44
9.26
9.26
15.83
15.83
9.26
15.83
9.44
15.83
9.26
9.44
0.981
1.677
1.019
1.710
0.585
0.596
Table B3.2 Estimation of the emergy to dollar ratio in the United States for 1997 and 2000
Data and methods in Odum (1996) pp. 312-315 were used to extrapolate the emergy/$ ratio.
Fossil fuel use
Year
1997
2000
1997
2000
J/y
8.483E+19
8.848E+19
Fossil fuel use
E+24 sej/y
4.50
4.69
Transformity
53000
53000
Nuclear
E+24 sej/y
1.11
1.33
Nuclear J/y
7.048E+18
8.451E+18
Renewable x
E+24 sej/y
2.10
2.10
Transformity
157000
157000
Other
E+24 sej/y
1.87
1.87
Comment
The transformity for electricity from coal
was used to
contribution
Total
Emergy Use
E+24 sej/y
9.57
9.99
estimate the emergy
from nuclear electricity.
GNP $
7.95E+12
9.31E+12
Emergy/$*
sej/$
1.20E+12
1.07E+12
* These emergy to money ratios are slightly different from the value used in Campbell et al. 2004a,
because the earlier numbers were not corrected to the 9.26 baseline.
B-7
-------
Appendix C
Calculation of Energy and Economic Values Used to
Determine the 1997 Energy and Emergy Accounts
for West Virginia
-------
Appendix C
Cl Notes for Table 4 - Annual Renewable Resources and Production in 1997.
The numbers in parentheses and italics refer to data sources given above. Note that E+3= 103.
Note
0 Area 6.2362 E+10 m2
Total land area of the state.
1 Solar Energy Received 3.074E+20 J/y
Absorbed 2.644E+20 J/y
Solar energy received (J) = (avg. insolation)(area)(365 day/y)(4186 J/kcal)
Solar energy absorbed = (received) (1-albedo)
The average insolation and albedo were obtained from the NASA website (10) referenced in data
sources. Eleven one-degree lat. by one-degree long, sectors covering the state were averaged.
kW hm-2 y-1 J m-2 y'1 Joules y'1
Solar energy received over the state 1369.414 4.93E+09 3.07436E+20
Solar energy absorbed by the state 1177.696 4.24E+09 2.64395E+20
2 Kinetic Energy of Wind Used at the Surface 1.074E+18 J/y
Wind energy = (density)(drag coeff.)(geostrophic wind velocity)3(area)(sec/year)
Calculated in Odum (1999) "Evaluating Landscape Use of Wind Kinetic Energy".
The wind velocity used was a long-term average of four West Virginia stations up to
1993 (11). The common drag coefficient is about 1 .OE-3 for ordinary winds of 10 m/s or less
(Miller 1964) and 3.OE-3 over low mountains Garratt (1977). Winds over land are about 0.6 of
the wind velocity that the pressure system would generate in the absence of friction (Reiter 1969).
air density 1.3kgm"3
wind velocity 6.98 mph
wind velocity (metric) 3.12ms"1
Geostrophic wind 5.2 m s"1
dragcoeff. 3.00E-03
area 6.2362 E+10m2
sec/year 3.14E+07
3 Earth Cycle Energy 1.39E+17 J/y
Earth cycle energy (steady-state uplift balanced by erosion) =
(land area)(heat flow/area)
The heat flow per area is an average of nine wells throughout the state.
of West Virginia (12).
Area 6.2362 E+10 m2
Heat flow/area 70.56 mW m"2
2.23E+06Jm-2y1
C-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
4 Rain Chemical Potential 3.30E+17 J/y
Chemical potential energy in rain =
(area)(rainfall)(density water)(Gibbs Free Energy water relative to seawater)
Average annual rainfall based on a one hundred year average from the
National Climatic Data Center (13).
Area 6.2362 E+10 m2
Rainfall 1.1 m/y
Gibbs Energy 4.74 J/g
Density 1.00E+06grn3
5 Chemical Potential Energy of Evapotranspiration 1.56E+17 J/y
Chemical potential energy in evapotranspiration =
(Area in land use)(Evapotranspiration)(density)(Gibbs Free Energy per gram)
Forest Transpiration estimated as 0.85 (Odum et al. (1998) of pan evaporation data measured from
1965 to 1990 at the US Forest Service Station at Fernow, WV (Adams et al. 1993). Direct
measurements of evapotranspiration at Fernow in 1998 were used to check the long-term pan
evaporation data. (14). Evapotranspiration rates for crops and pasture from Arnold and Williams
(1985).
Forest Area 49265769639 m2
Forest Transpiration 5.59E-01 m/y
1.00E+06gnf3
4.74 J/g
1.30E+17J/y
Pasture area 2139634331 m2
Evapotranspiration 0.7285 m/y
7.39E+15 J/y
Crop area 2597767780 m2
Evapotranspiration 0.694 m/y
8.55E+15 J/y
Non crop area 2814248429 m2
Evapotranspiration 0.7285 m/y
9.72E+15 J/y
Total area 56817420179m2
Urban & barren area (by
difference) 5544313542m2
6 Geopotential Energy of Rain on Land 3.66E+17 J/y
Geo-potential energy of rain on land elevated above sea level= (area) (mean elevation) (rainfall)
(density)(gravity). An area weighted average of rainfall and elevation by county was used to
determine the geopotential energy of rain on land for a 30 year average rainfall in inches using
GIS methods.
C-3
-------
Appendix C
Table Cl.l. Data used to determine the geopotential energy of rainfall.
County
Hancock
Brooke
Ohio
Marshall
Preston
Morgan
Mononga.
Wetzel
Mineral
Berkeley
Marion
Tyler
Hampshire
Jefferson
Pleasants
Harrison
Taylor
Doddridge
Wood
Ritchie
Grant
Barbour
Tucker
Hardy
Win
Lewis
Randolph
Upshur
Gilmer
Jackson
Calhoun
Mason
Pendleton
Roane
Area m2
228191120
240176944
281945344
807178112
1686139648
595436736
947073856
934991488
853182720
833351552
806174464
674734592
1669929728
548594112
348228768
1078628224
454673568
829267712
975464832
1174552960
1243197696
887184064
1090434304
1513710208
608199552
1008180032
2691785216
918238400
878942080
1220555904
725900992
1152245888
1807532672
1252050048
Avg. elevation m
322.427524
314.537809
335.586703
348.82437
630.98804
276.183843
404.950628
360.850872
397.950762
199.736011
376.575944
293.881773
377.768439
160.223237
273.18179
366.759651
415.159562
335.091023
243.702585
297.039562
641.02717
521.134496
857.48782
537.310292
268.670655
377.391402
911.070648
560.858453
318.033214
252.196695
307.80376
227.116475
794.104907
296.208663
30 y avg. rainfall in.
37.38536
39
39
41.29286
50.8542
37.02715
43.57846
45.24491
35.54701
37.40184
44.14345
43.70897
35.88709
37.32662
42.34601
44.31864
45.41841
45.02627
40.0934
43.1418
38.34443
48.06692
52.06758
36.46919
42.90828
46.69351
53.8217
50.26036
44.5842
42.61932
43.69557
41.11225
38.86252
43.66887
geopot. energy
6.85386E+14
7.34128E+14
9.19469E+14
2.89704E+15
1.34817E+16
1.51725E+15
4.16448E+15
3.80371E+15
3.0073E+15
1.55124E+15
3.33926E+15
2.15963E+15
5.64111E+15
8.17519E+14
1.00376E+15
4.3686E+15
2.13624E+15
3.11764E+15
2.37491E+15
3.75049E+15
7.61415E+15
5.53749E+15
1.2131E+16
7.39089E+15
1.74707E+15
4.42679E+15
3.28891E+16
6.44966E+15
3.10539E+15
3.26894E+15
2.43272E+15
2.68082E+15
1.38995E+16
4.03547E+15
C-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table Cl.l. Data used to determine the geopotential energy of rainfall continued.
County
Braxton
Pocahontas
Webster
Putnam
Clay
Kanawha
Cabell
Nicholas
Wayne
Lincoln
Greenbrier
Fayette
Boone
Logan
Raleigh
Mingo
Summers
Wyoming
Monroe
Mercer
McDowell
Total
Area m2
1337042688
2437553408
1439527296
906781952
889922560
2357247232
745557888
1693563264
1326469120
1136250368
2651428096
1730641664
1302429440
1179267712
1576129536
1097541376
951547136
1299047680
1225340928
1088748160
1384392576
6.2723E+10
Avg. elevation m
376.932653
989.455485
753.490796
251.909579
372.487511
325.598119
639.549
639.549502
272.992341
290.620653
808.361377
612.812798
428.168433
435.418879
704.715715
403.322368
672.4003
596.885295
708.407376
768.072665
599.940657
30y avg rainfall in.
47.07839
49.93845
52.94361
41.98552
46.3062
44.10259
42.71017
49.14842
43.54009
44.14746
45.13994
45.63472
46.35194
46.64979
43.79303
45.97489
38.51943
45.0688
38.52779
37.73166
42.65404
geopot. energy
5.91199E+15
3.00115E+16
1.43092E+16
2.38974E+15
3.82477E+15
8.43439E+15
5.07445E+15
1.32644E+16
3.92862E+15
3.63253E+15
2.41073E+16
1.20596E+16
6.4408E+15
5.96859E+15
1.21203E+16
5.07104E+15
6.14102E+15
8.70752E+15
8.3333E+15
7.8621E+15
8.82735E+15
3.655E+17
C-5
-------
Appendix C
Note
7 Geopotential of runoff
6.02 E+16 J/y
Geopotential energy of runoff (physical energy of streams) =
(area)(mean elevation - (base elevation when > sea level)(runoff)(density)(gravity)
The annual runoff is a 30 year average. The elevation was also an average based on known elevations
in the selected area (15).
Watershed
(Great Cacapon, WV)
(Potomac, Harper's Ferry)
(Bemis, WV)
(Cheat R., Morgantown)
(Little, WV)
(Ohio R., Parkersburg)
(Buckeye, WV)
Area
Elevation
Base elev.
Runoff/yr
Density
Gravity
Energy
Area
Elevation
Base elev.
Runoff/yr
Density
Gravity
Energy
Area
Elevation
Base elev.
Runoff/yr
Density
Gravity
Energy
Area
Elevation
1.75E+09m2
609.6 m
73.2m
0.3 175 my1
1000 kg m'3
9.81ms-2
2.93E+15 Jy1
2.98E+08 m2
1987m
250.5m
1.069 my1
1000 kg m-3
9.81ms'2
5.420E+15 Jy1
1.09E+07m2
1215m
171.3m
0.48006 my1
1000 kg m'3
9.81ms'2
5.358E+13 Jy1
1.40E+09m2
2303m
C-6
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
(Ohio R, Point Pleasants)
(Clay, WV)
(Ohio R, Point Pleasants)
(Julian, WV)
(Ohio R., Huntington)
Base elev.
Runoff/yr
Density
Gravity
Energy
Area
Elevation
Base elev.
Runoff/yr
Density
Gravity
Energy
Area
Elevation
Base elev.
Runoff/yr
Density
Gravity
Energy
156.7m
0.5715 my'1
1000 kg m'3
9.81ms'2
L683E+16Jyl
2.57E+09 m2
1821m
156.7m
0.68072 my'1
1000 kg m'3
9.81ms'2
2.855E+16Jy'1
8.24E+08 m2
1667m
149.1m
0.52578 my'1
1000 kg m'3
9.81ms'2
6.45E+15 Jy'1
C-7
-------
Appendix C
Note
8 River Chemical Potential Absorbed 2.90E+14 J/y
Received 9.06E+16 J/y
River chemical potential energy received = (volume flow)(density)(Gibbs free energy relative to
seawater)
River chemical potential energy absorbed = (volume flow)(density) (Gibbs free energy solutes at
river entry - Gibbs free energy solutes at river egress)
The Ohio and New Rivers begin and end outside state boundaries delivering part of the chemical
potential energy that they carry to the state.
Total Dissolved solids concentration from the USGS data (16).
Gibbs Free energy, G = RT/w ln(C2/Cl) = [(8.3143 J/mol/deg)(288 K)/(18 g/mol)] * In [(1E6 -
S)ppm)/965000], where R is the gas universal constant, T; the temperature in °K, and w: the
molecular weight of the substance, S is the solute concentration in the river and seawater is assumed
to contain 35 7oo solutes.
Ohio River* Vol. flow
(Water Data - USGS)
Density
Solutes in (at Sewickley, PA)
G. in
Solutes, out (Point Pleasant )
G. out
absorbed
received
2.948 E+10 m3/yr
1000000 g/m3
211.96ppm
4.711 J/g
295.55
4.700 J/g
3.279E+14J/y
1.389E+17J/y
New River Vol. flow
(Water Data - USGS)
Density
Solutes in (Glen Lyn, VA)
G. in
Solutes out (Point Pleasant )
G. out
absorbed
received
4.466 E+09 m3/yr
1000000 g/m3
84 ppm
4.728 J/g
295.5
4.700 J/g
1.257E+14J/y
2.112E+16J/y
*If the river flows along the border the state, the energy was distributed equally between the states on
opposite sides of the river.
C-8
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
9 River Geopotential
Absorbed
Received
2.06E+16 J/y
4.99E+16 J/y
Geopotential energy received (relative to sea level) = (flow vol.)(density)(height at entry) (gravity).
Geopotential energy absorbed = (flow vol.)(density)(height entry - height egress)(gravity)
Ohio and New Rivers are the only rivers that begin and end outside of the state
Data on water flow and height of the gauge are from USGS Water Resources Data (17).
Ohio River* Vol. Flow 2948 E+10 m7y
(Water data-USGS)
Density 1000 kg/m3
Height In 207.26 m
(Height at Sewickley, PA)
Height Out 155.45m
(Height at Point Pleasant)
Gravity 9.81m/s2
Absorbed 1.499E+16J/y
Received 5.994E+16J/y
New River Vol. Flow
(Water Data-USGS)
Density
Height In
(at Glen Lyn, VA)
Height Out
(at Point Pleasant)
Gravity
Absorbed
Received
4.466 E+9 m7y
1000 kg/m3
454.23 m
155.45m
9.81m/s2
1.309E+16 J/y
1.99E+16 J/Y
* If the river borders the state half the calculated energy was used
C-9
-------
Appendix C
Note
10 Agricultural Products 1.759E+16 J/y
(amount sold)(energy/unit) Production data is from the West Virginia Agricultural Statistics
Service Tables 42,43, and 37 in (18). Most energy per unit values used were found in the
USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory (1).
Hay
Oats
Mass
Energy/unit
Mass
Energy/unit
Wheat
Mass
Energy/unit
Corn
Mass
Energy/unit
Tobacco Mass
Energy/unit
Soybeans
Mass
Energy/unit
Apples Mass
Energy/unit (1)
Peaches Mass
Energy/unit (1)
Wool
Mass
Energy/unit
8.0382E+11 g/y
18901 J/g
1.519E+16 J/y
132,249 bushels/y
14514.96 g/bushels
1,919,588,945 g/y
16280 J/g
3.125E+13 J/y
421,453 bushels/y
27215.54 g/bushel
11,470,070,980 g/y
14230 J/g
1.632E+14 J/y
3,651,139 bushels/y
25401.17 g/bushels
92,743,202,433 g/y
19736 J/g
1.830E+15 J/y
2737090 Ibs/y
1,241,522,948 g/y
14651 J/g
1.819E+13 J/y
482,228 bushels/y
27215.54 g/bushels
13,124,095,423 g/y
17,410 J/g
2.285E+14 J/y
52,394,370,290 g/y
2160 J/g
1.142E+14 J/y
4,615,592,663 g/y
1650 J/g
7.616E+12 J/y
80,796,141 g/y
20934 J/g
1.691E+12 J/y
C-10
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
11 Livestock
(annual production mass)(energy/mass)
The number sold is taken from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (18).
4.00E+15 J/y
Turkeys
Cows
Hog/Pig
#sold
wt
Energy /unit (1)
#sold
wt
Energy /unit (1)
#sold
wt
Energy /unit (1)
Sheep/lamb # sold
wt
Energy /unit (1)
Horses # sold
wt
Energy /unit (1)
4468456
7257.5 g/animal
6690 J/g
2.170E+14J/y
863647
3.5E+05 g/animal
12180 J/g
3.7E+15 J/y
24884
9.00E+04 g/animal
15730 J/g
3.52E+13 J/y
40709
68038.9 g/animal
7406 J/g
2.051E+13 J/y
16787
476271.99 g/animal
5560 J/g
4.445E+13 J/y
All classes, meat and skin
Choice carcass
Fresh carcass
Raw leg, shoulder, arm
7.22E+11 J/y
12 Fish Production
(mass)(energy/mass)
Based on the 1998 trout sales of stocked fish reported by the US Department of Agriculture, 1998
Census of Aquaculture (19).
Mass 369,000 Ibs/y
453.59g/lb
Energy/mass 4311.58 J/g
13 Hydroelectricity 4.09E+15 J/y
Energy Information Administration, Electricity Net Generation by Fuel in West Virginia, 1997 (20).
C-ll
-------
Appendix C
Note
14
15
16
Net Timber Growth 2.10E+17 J/y
Based on forest growth from 1975 to 1989, which are the last two inventories done for
West Virginia by the U.S. Forest Service (21) (DiGiovanni 1990).
Forest Growth 491,132,000 ft3
1.39E+13 cm3
1 g cm"3
green wt
Forest growth
1.39E+13gy-
Timber Harvest
Based on the forest statistics for West Virginia (21) DiGiovanni (1990).
Forest Harvest 462,542,000 board ft
84,098,545 ft3
2.38E+12 cm3
0.5 g cm"3
2.29E+16 J/y
dry wt
Forest mass
1.19E+12gy"
9.49E+14 J/y
Groundwater Chemical Potential Energy
(vol.)(density)(Gibbs free energy)
Based on the volume of ground water withdrawn in 1995 (22).
G = RT/w ln(C2/Cl) = [(8.3143 J/mol/deg)(288 K)/(18 g/mol)] * In [(1E6 - S)ppm)/965000]
Volume used 2.02E+08 m3 y"1
(US Geological Survey on water use for state)
Density 1000000 g m"3
S 342 ppm
Gibbs free energy 4.69 J/g
C2 Notes for Table 5 - Annual Production and Use of Nonrenewable Resources in 1997.
17 Coal Production 4.64E+18 J/y
Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy (23). Unit conversions may be found at
(24).
Short tons/y 1.74E+08
g/shortton 9.07E+05
J/g 2.94E+04
18 Coal Used in the State 9.92E+17 J/y
Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy (23).
Short tons/y
g/short ton
J/g
3.72E+07
9.07E+05
2.94E+04
C-12
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
19 Natural Gas Production 1.89E+17 J/y
Taken from the Energy Information Administration Natural Gas Summary Statistics for Natural Gas -
West Virginia, (25). The annual flows of natural gas are not exactly balanced because gas is supplied
to and removed from underground storage. The flows balance over a longer averaging period.
Amount 1.72E+08 1000 ft3
J/1000ft3 1.1E+09
20 Natural Gas Used in the State 1.75E+17 J/y
Taken from the Energy Information Administration Natural Gas
Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - West Virginia (25).
Amount 1.59E+08 1000ft3
J/1000ft3 1.1E+09
21 Petroleum Production 9.2E+15 J/y
From Utah's Department of Natural Resources
- Energy Office (26)
22 Petroleum Used in the State 2.3E+17 J/y
(Energy Information Administration) From the State
Energy Data Report of West Virginia 1960-1999. (27)
23 Electricity Production (without hydroelectricity) 3.26E+17 J/y
Energy Information Administration (28).
Amount 9.042E+10 kWh
24 Electricity Used in the State 9.45E+16 J/y
Energy Information Administration. From the State
Energy Data Report of West Virginia 1960-1999. (27)
Amount 2.62E+10 kWh
Mineral Production
Taken from the 1997 and 1998 Mineral Industry Studies
of West Virginia by the US Geological Survey and the
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey (29).
25 Clay 151000 tons 2.96E+20 sej/y
Emergy/Mass 1961864407 sej/g (From Odum 1996)
26 Sand and gravel 1670000 tons 3.34E+21 sej/y
Emergy/Mass 1.31E+09 sej/g (Calculated in this study)
C-13
-------
Appendix C
Note
27 Limestone
Emergy/Mass
12000000 tons
980932203 sej/g
1.18E+22 sej/y
(From Odum 1996)
28
Sandstone
Emergy/Mass
856 tons
980932203 sej/g
8.40E+17 sej/y
(From Odum 1996)
29 Soil Erosion
Total
Agricultural lands
5.03E+15 J/y
3.99E+15 J/y
(farmed area)(erosion rate)(organic fraction)(energy). The farmed area was taken from the 1997 census
of Agriculture (18). The organic fraction was taken from Odum (1996). Erosion rates for cropland and
pasture from the USDA (30) and for forest from Patric et al. (1984).
Cultivated Crop Area
Erosion rate
Erosion
Org. fraction
Energy
Non-Cultivated Farmed area
Erosion rate
Erosion
Org. fraction
Energy
Pastureland Area
Erosion rate
Erosion
Org. fraction
Energy
Forested Land Area
Erosion rate
Erosion
Organic
fraction
641899.62 acres
4.3 ton/acre/y
27601685 ton/y
0.03
907185 g/ton
22604.4 J/g
1.69803E+15 J/y
695391.26 acres
0.8 ton/acre/y
5 5 6313 ton/y
0.03
907184.74 g/ton
22604.4 J/g
3.42239E+14 J/y
528696.4 acres
6 ton/acre/y
3172178 ton/y
0.03
907184.74 g/ton
22604.4 J/g
1.9515E+15 J/y
12173404.9 acres
0.139 ton/acre/y
1692103 ton/y
0.03
907184.74 g/ton
22604.4 J/g
1.04097E+15 J/y
Energy
The erosion rate for the forested land was measured at Shavers Fork, WV.
C-14
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
C3. Notes for Table 6 - Imports to the West Virginia economy in 1997.
Note
30 Coal 2.32E+17J/y
Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy (23).
Short tons/y 8.70E+06
g/shortton 9.07E+05
J/g 2.94E+04
31 Petroleum 2.2E+17J/y
Value is the difference between the production and consumption within the state. Also estimated from the
data in the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (2).
32 Natural Gas (Received at state border) 2.0E+18 J/y
Taken from the Energy Information Administration data on Natural Gas (5).
Most natural gas received passes through the state and thus it is not considered as an import. This value
would not usually be shown in an emergy analysis, but it is given here to a give an idea of the emergy
flows linking the nation.
Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - West Virginia,
Amount 1.79E+09 1000 ft3
J/lOOOft3 1.1E+09
33 Iron Ore 4.41E+13 J/y
Data from Weirton Steel. Iron ore to satisfy 1997 production.
3.OOE+06 tons/y
2.72E+12 g/y
16.2 J/g
34 Bauxite imported (corrected number) 4.4E+13 J/y
Assume the ratio of bauxite ore to primary aluminum production is 4:1, alumina to production is
2:l(Century Aluminum, Ravenswood WV).
Aluminum production 1.7E+05 MT/y
bauxite 6.7E+05 MT/y
6.7E+11 g/y
6.5E+01 J/g
35 Emergy of Services in Goods Imported 2.99E+22 sej/y
Data on shipments from the 1997 Commodity flow Survey, US. Census Bureau (2).
Units
Total in bound shipments 3.33E+10 $/y
Shipments of West Virginia origin 8.34E+09 $/y
Dollar value of imported goods 2.50E+10 $/y
Emergy to dollar ratio for the US in!997 1.20E+12 sej/$
Emergy in the services embodied in imported goods 2.99E+22 sej/y
36 Emergy of Materials in Imported Goods (without fuels) 9.48E+22 sej/y
Data on material shipments into West Virginia by commodity class from the 1997 Commodity Flow
Survey (2), Additional State Data, Table 12. See Appendix B for the calculation of average transformities
for the SCTG commodity classes. Appendix D gives details of the method of calculation used here.
C-15
-------
Appendix C
Table C3.1 Emergy imported to West Virginia in material commodity flows.
SCTG
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
0
Commodity Class
Live animals and live fish
Cereal grains
Other agricultural product
Animal feed and products of animal origin
Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations
Milled grain products and preparations
Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils
Alcoholic beverages
Tobacco products.
Monumental or building stone
Natural sands
Gravel and crushed stone
Nonmetallic minerals
Metallic ores and concentrates
Coal
Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel
Fuel oils
Coal and petroleum products
Basic chemicals
Pharmaceutical products
Fertilizers
Chemical products and preparations
Plastics and rubber
Logs and other wood in the rough
Wood products
Pulp, newsprint, paper, and paperboard
Paper or paperboard articles
Printed products
Textiles, leather, and articles
Nonmetallic mineral products
Base metal in primary or semi-finished form
Articles of base metal
Machinery
Electronic and other electrical equipment
Motorized and other vehicles
Transportation equipment
Precision instruments and apparatus
Furniture, mattresses, lamps, lighting
Miscellaneous manufactured products
Waste and scrap
Mixed freight
Commodity unknown
Total
Total without fuels
J or g y~
9.42E+13
1.10E+15
2.09E+15
4.58E+15
1.91E+15
2.93E+15
1.80E+16
3.62E+14
6.05E+14
3.23E+09
3.69E+11
6.46E+12
7.30E+11
3.04E+10
2.25E+17
1.07E+17
7.04E+16
5.22E+16
2.06E+12
3.55E+10
1.94E+11
1.89E+11
4.61E+11
3.24E+15
5.67E+11
6.01E+15
3.18E+15
6.58E+10
1.74E+15
2.46E+12
1.30E+12
4.42E+11
1.15E+11
1.57E+11
6.82E+11
3.83E+10
4.61E+09
4.81E+10
2.66E+11
6.24E+11
5.85E+11
8.01E+10
Emergy
per unit
4.39E+05
1.82E+05
2.33E+05
1.22E+06
3.27E+06
1.82E+05
1.12E+06
5.89E+04
6.50E+05
9.81E+08
1.96E+09
4.91E+08
1.96E+09
2.71E+09
3.92E+04
6.47E+04
6.47E+04
6.47E+04
2.75E+09
2.75E+09
2.99E+09
9.90E+09
2.71E+09
1.96E+04
1.49E+09
1.40E+05
1.67E+05
4.95E+09
7.18E+06
3.09E+09
5.91E+09
5.91E+09
7.76E+09
7.76E+09
7.76E+09
7.76E+09
7.76E+09
2.89E+09
1.61E+09
2.16E+09
6.32E+09
?
Units
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/J
sej/g
sej/J
sej/J
sej/g
sej/J
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/y
sej/y
Emergy
sej y"1
4.14E+19
1.99E+20
4.88E+20
5.58E+21
6.24E+21
5.33E+20
2.01E+22
2.13E+19
3.93E+20
3.17E+18
7.23E+20
3.17E+21
1.43E+21
8.23E+19
8.84E+21
6.93E+21
4.56E+21
3.38E+21
5.65E+21
9.77E+19
5.80E+20
1.87E+21
1.25E+21
6.35E+19
8.44E+20
8.40E+20
5.33E+20
3.26E+20
1.25E+22
7.60E+21
7.70E+21
2.61E+21
8.89E+20
1.22E+21
5.29E+21
2.97E+20
3.58E+19
1.39E+20
4.29E+20
1.35E+21
3.70E+21
7
1.19E+23
9.48E+22
C-16
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
37 Services
The emergy in imported and exported services was determined using a variation of the base-nonbase method
from economic analysis. Data on employment and revenues by NAICS sector for West Virginia and for the
United States as whole (31) were used to estimate services exported and imported from the state using a
modification of the location quotient and assumption methods. The formulae in the text are evaluated using data
from the tables below.
Table C3.2 Export and Import of Services Between West Virginia and the Nation
Economic Sectors
Parameters Agricult.
US sector (NO
State Sector (SO
(Si-Ni)
$/employee US
$/emp. WV
Location Quotient
(SO •*• (NO
(SO •*• (NO
Basic jobs (B)
Exp(+) or imp(-) S*
Services in Sector
Assumption
$ value of goods
Services exported*
0.0249
0.0337
0.0089
70034
19321
1.36
0.007
0.006
6075.20
1.17E+08
none
Base
all goods
0
Mining
0.0041
0.0349
0.0308
341821
264699
8.50
0.047
0.006
21113.14
5.59E+09
part
Base
5.03E-K)9
5.61E-K)8
Utilities
0.0057
0.0113
0.0057
585899
420160
2.00
0.011
0.006
3882.36
1.63E+09
part
Base
1.38E-K)9
2.48E-K)8
Construct.
0.0457
0.0457
0.0000
151563
99198
1.00
0.006
0.006
-4.04
-6.12E+05
imports
nonbase
Manufact.
0.1362
0.1062
-0.0300
227502
251237
0.78
0.004
0.006
-20546.35
-4.67E+09
none
Base
all goods
0
Wholesale Retail trade
0.0467
0.0347
-0.0120
700357
432277
0.74
0.004
0.006
-8239.19
-5.77E+09
Local (no)
nonbase
0.1128
0.1314
0.0186
175889
156048
1.16
0.006
0.006
12742.19
1.99E+09
Local (no)
nonbase
Transport.
0.0236
0.0212
-0.0024
108959
136256
0.90
0.005
0.006
-1620.47
-1.77E+08
Local (no)
nonbase
Informat.
0.0247
0.0173
-0.0074
203255
149509
0.70
0.004
0.006
-5088.21
-1.03E+09
imports
nonbase
*Export is determined by multiplying basic jobs by the $/employee in the West Virginia sector. Potential import
is determined by multiplying the basic job deficit by the $ per employee in the U.S. sector. Basic sectors can
export.
*The export sectors summed here are only part service at this level of sector aggregation. Subtracting the dollar
value of the goods exported in the sector from total estimated exports gives an estimate of the services exported.
An alternative method (Table C3.3) considers higher resolution sector data where the export sectors evaluated
are almost all service.
Economic Sectors continued:
Parameters
US sector (NO
State Sector (SO
(Si-Ni)
$/employee US
$/employee WV
Location Quot.
(SO •*• (NO
(SO •*• (NO
Basic jobs (B)
Exp(+) imp(-) $*
Services in Sector
Assumptions
Finance&
Insurance
0.0471
0.0308
-0.0162
376639
205448
0.66
0.004
0.006
-11113.89
-4.19E+09
Imports
nonbase
RealEstate
& Rental
0.0137
0.0085
-0.0053
141515
114420
0.62
0.003
0.006
-3599.22
-5.09E+08
Local (no)
nonbase
Profession.
Scientific
0.0432
0.0240
-0.0192
111029
75120
0.56
0.003
0.006
-13175.53
-1.46E+09
Imports
nonbase
Managem.
0.0211
0.0069
-0.0142
35328
30082
0.33
0.002
0.006
-9750.06
-3.44E+08
Imports
non base
Administ.
Support
0.0593
0.0313
-0.0280
40278
37138
0.53
0.003
0.006
-19172.28
-7.72E+08
Imports
nonbase
Education
Services
0.0026
0.0012
-0.0014
63659
45921
0.47
0.003
0.006
-931.94
-5.93E+07
Imports
nonbase
HealthCare
Social Ser.
0.1094
0.1397
0.0303
65262
60844
1.28
0.007
0.006
20767.66
1.26E-K)9
Local (no)
nonbase
Arts&
Entertain.
0.0128
0.0096
-0.0032
65956
49389
0.75
0.004
0.006
-2205.81
-1.45E+08
Imports
nonbase
Accomo.
&Food
0.0762
0.0752
-0.0010
37074
31694
0.99
0.005
0.006
-718.72
-2.66E+07
Imports
Base
C-17
-------
Appendix C
Sectors continued:
Parameters Other Ser.
Auxillar. Governm.
US sector (NO
State Sector (SO
(Si -NO
$/employee US
$/employee WV
0.0263
0.0264
0.0002
81659
64655
0.0064
0.0071
0.0007
14231
1279
0.1576
0.2028
0.0452
141198
51394
Location Quot.
(SO * (NO
(SO * (NO
Basic jobs (B)
Exp(+) imp(-) !
1.01
0.006
0.006
112.39
7.27E+06
Services in Sector Local (no)
Assumptions nonbase
1.11
0.006
0.006
492.67
6.30E+05
Local (no)
nonbase
1.29
0.007
0.006
30980.10
1.59E+09
Local (no)
Base
Table C3.3 Alternative Method for Determining Exported Service:
Detailed Analysis of the Mining and Utilities sectors
Parameters
US sector (NO
State Sector (S,)
(Si -NO
$/employee US
$/employee WV
Location Quot.
(SO * (NO
(SO * (NO
Basic jobs (B)
Exp(+) imp(-) $*
Service exported ($)
Drilling oil
& gas wells
0.0004
0.0007
0.0003
138072
77043
1.7317
0.0096
0.0055
214
1.65E+07
5.80E+08
Support
activities for
oil & gas
0.0009
0.0014
0.0006
5451
77270
1.6791
0.0093
0.0055
398
3.08E+07
Support
activities
for coal
0.0000
0.0021
0.0021
22610483
135639
52.6411
0.2910
0.0055
1425
1.93E+08
Electric
services
0.0020
0.0032
0.0012
465837
398779
1.6347
0.0090
0.0055
850
3.39E+08
Table C3.4 Determination of Imported and Exported Services
Potential for Importing ($) 8.01E+09 Multiply deficit employment times U.S. worker productivity in sectors
assumed to be capable of importing services in Table C3. 2 and sum
over the sectors.
6.17E+09 We assume that states with average per capita income can import the
service deficit and that states below US avg. per capita income can
import a fraction of the deficit equal to average per capita income of the
state /average U.S. per capita income. In 1997 this fraction was
$19628/$25412 or 0.77 for West Virginia. Multiply potential imports by
0.77 to estimate imported services.
7.0E+20 Multiply the basic employment in the detailed service sectors above by
West Virginia worker productivity and sum. Multiply this dollar amount
by the emergy to dollar ratio of the U.S. in 1997 to estimate the emergy
exported
7.4E+21 Multiply the imported services times the emergy to dollar ratio of the
U.S. in 1997.
Fraction of potential ($)
imported
Emergy in exported
services sej/y
Emergy in imported
services sej/y
C-18
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table C3.5 West Virginia employment by sector and the dollars generated per employee, 1997.
Sectors NAICS
Agriculture
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & rental
Professional Scientific
Management
Administrative support
Education services
Health care & social
services
Arts& entertainment
Accommodation &
food
Other services
Auxiliaries
Government
Number of
Employees
23135
23927
7767
31312
72813
23805
90087
14526
11862
21144
5812
16462
4720
21445
843
95738
6571
51529
18113
4873
139000
Sales, Revenues,
Shipments 1000 $
447000
6333463
3263383
3106093
18293309
10290356
14057933
1979257
1773480
4344000
665011
1236618
141988
796429
38711
5825082
324534
1633164
1171099
6235
7143800
Dollars per
Employee
19321
264699
420160
99198
251237
432277
156048
136256
149509
205448
114420
75119
30082
37138
45920
60844
49389
31694
64655
1279
51394
Percent of total
Employees
0.0337
0.0349
0.0113
0.0456
0.1062
0.0347
0.1314
0.0211
0.0173
0.0308
0.0084
0.0240
0.0068
0.0312
0.0012
0.1396
0.0095
0.0751
0.0264
0.0071
0.2027
Table C3.6 US employment and productivity by Industry sector, 1997
Sectors NAICS
Agriculture
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & rental
Professional Scientific
Management
Administrative support
Education services
Health care & social
services
Employees
3085992
509006
702703
5664840
16888016
5796557
13991103
2920777
3066167
5835214
1702420
5361210
2617527
7347366
321073
13561579
Sales, receipts or
Shipments $ 1000s
216125000
173988778
411713327
858581046
3842061405
4059657778
2460886012
318245044
623213854
2197771283
240917556
595250649
92473059
295936350
20439028
885054001
Dollars per
Employee
70034
341821
585899
151563
227502
700357
175889
108959
203255
376639
141515
111029
35328
40278
63658
65262
Fraction of total
Employees
0.0248
0.0041
0.0056
0.0456
0.1361
0.0467
0.1128
0.0235
0.0247
0.0470
0.0137
0.0432
0.0211
0.0592
0.0025
0.1093
C-19
-------
Appendix C
Table C3.6 US employment and productivity by Industry sector, 1997 continued.
Sectors NAICS
Arts& entertainment
Accommodation & food
Other services
Auxiliaries
Government
Sales, receipts or
Employees shipments $ 1000s
1587660
9451226
3256178
792370
19540000
104715028
350399194
265897685
11275968
2759000000
Dollars per
Employee
65955
37074
81659
14231
141197
Fraction of total
Employees
0.01280
0.0762
0.0262
0.0063
0.1575
Table C3.7 West Virginia detailed export sector employment and the dollars generated per employee.
Sectors NAICS
Mining Services
Drilling oil&gas wells
Support activities for oil & gas
Support activities for coal
Electric services (electric
power distribution)
Number of
Employees
2944
506
985
1453
2190
Sales, Revenues,
Shipments $ 1000s
312178
38984
76111
197083
873325
Dollars per
Employee
106039
77043
77270
135638
398778
Percent of total
WV Employees
0.0042
0.0007
0.0014
0.0021
0.0031
Table C3.8 U.S. employment in detailed export sectors and the dollars generated per employee, 1997.
Sectors NAICS
Mining Services
Drilling oil&gas wells
Support activities for oil & gas
Support activities for coal
Electric services (electric
power distribution)
Employees
168806
52858
106118
4993
242347
Sales, receipts or
Shipments $ 1000s
19898686
7298223
11501280
578449
112894143
Dollars per
Employee
117879
138072
5451
22610483
465836
Fraction of total
US Employees
0.0013
0.0004
0.0008
0.00004
0.0019
C-20
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Note
38 Federal Government
Personal Income Tax
Social Security Tax
Business Taxes
Total Tax (effective export)
Total Outlay to government
and individuals
Net Gov. Funds spent in WV
(1.04E+10)-(6.85E9)
2631000000 $/y Data Source: (33)
2150000000 $/y State of West Virginia (1999)
2067026316 $/y State of West Virginia (1999)
6.85E+09 $/y
1.04E+10 $/y
From the U.S. Statistical Abstract
for 1998 (33)
3.56E+09 $/y
C4. Notes for Table 7 - Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 1997.
39 Coal
Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy
(23).
3.82E+18 J/y
Short tons/yr
g/short ton
J/g
1.43E+08
9.07E+05
2.94E+04
40 Natural Gas (Production Exports) 6.65E+15 J/y
Calculated from the Energy Information Administration
Natural Gas Summary Statistics for Natural Gas-West Virginia (25),
Export is production - consumption.
Amount
J/1000 ft3
6.05E+06
1.1E+09
1000 ft3
41 Natural Gas (Delivered at state border) 2.08E+18 J/y
Taken from the Energy Information Administration Natural Gas
(5). See Note 32 on the natural gas received at the state border.
Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - West Virginia (25).
Amount
J/1000 ft3
1.89E+09 1000ft3
1.1E+09
42 Electricity 2.35E+17 J/y
Energy Information Administration, (28).
From the State Energy Data Report of West Virginia 1960-1999 (27).
(Net generation)-(Consumption) = 6.53E+10 kW h
43 Steel
2.00E+12 g/y
From Greg Warren at Weirton Steel in Wheeling, West
Virginia
2.20E+06 ton/y
C-21
-------
Appendix C
Note
44 Services embodied in exported goods.
Data on shipments from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (2).
Data on electricity from EIA (27). Electricity is not included in the CFS data.
Units
Total shipments to all destinations
Shipments to West Virginia destinations
Dollar value of exported goods (2)
Emergy to dollar ration for the US in 1997
Emergy exported in the services embodied in
goods including fuels
3.56E+10
8.34E+9
2.72E+10
1.20E+12
3.27E+22
$/y
$/y
$/y
sej/$
sej/y
3.27E+09
3.92E+21
3.66E+22
3.92E+09
4.70E+21
sej/y
sej/y
sej/y
Dollars paid for electricity @ .05 $/KWh (27)
Emergy in services in Electricity exported
Total Emergy in services embodied in goods
Dollars paid for coal
Emergy in services in coal exported
45 Material in exported goods
Data on material shipments from West Virginia to all states by commodity is from The U.S.
Census Bureau's 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (2), Additional State Data, Table 12. In
some cases shipment weight from the commodity flow survey was converted to energy. See
Appendix B for the calculation of average emergy per unit for the commodity classes.
Table C4.1 Emergy in the materials exported from West Virginia
SCTG
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commodity Class
Live animals and live fish
Cereal grains
Other agricultural product
Animal feed and products of animal origin
Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations
Milled grain products and preparations
Other prepared foodstuffs & fats & oils
Alcoholic beverages
Tobacco products
Monumental or building stone
Natural sands
Gravel and crushed stone
Nonmetallic minerals
Metallic ores and concentrates
Coal
Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel
Fuel oils
Coal and petroleum products
Basic chemicals.
Pharmaceutical products.
Fertilizers
Jorg
0
0
0
4.034E+14
1.720E+15
2.857E+13
0
0
1.595E+14
0
4.046E+11
1.660E+11
0
0
3.82E+18
0
4.021E+14
1.26E+17
3.860E+12
0
0
Emergy
per unit
4.393E+05
1.818E+05
2.334E+05
1.217E+06
3.270E+06
1.818E+05
1.120E+06
5.886E+04
6.500E+05
9.810E+08
1.962E+09
4.905E+08
1.962E+09
2.711E+09
3.924E+04
6.475E+04
6.475E+04
6.475E+04
2.750E+09
2.750E+09
2.993E+09
Units
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/J
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
Emergy
sej y"1
0
0
0
4.471E+20
5.624E+21
5.195E+18
0
0
1.037E+20
0
3.969E+20
8.143E+19
0
0
1.500E+23
0
2.604E+19
8.170E+21
1.061E+22
0
0
C-22
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy; West Virginia
SCTG
Code Commodity Class
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
0
Chemical products and preparations
Plastics and rubbe
Logs and other wood in the rough.
Wood products
Pulp, newsprint, paper, and paperboard.
Paper or paperboard articles.
Printed products.
Textiles, leather, and articles.
Nonmetallic mineral products.
Base metal in primary/semi-finished form
Articles of base metal
Machinery
Electronic and other electrical equipment
Motorized and other vehicles
Transportation equipment
Precision instruments and apparatus
Furniture, mattresses, lamps, lighting
Miscellaneous manufactured products
Waste and scrap
Mixed freight
Commodity unknown
Natural Gas (joules)
Total
Total without fuels (15,17,18, natural gas)
Exported fuels
Jorg
5.951E+11
8.428E+11
2.9667E+16
2
.562E+12
Emergy
per unit
9.902E+09
2.709E+09
1.962E+04
1.490E+09
1.398E+05
5
1
4
3
1
8
4
2
.752E+14
0
0
.224E+12
.802E+12
.502E+11
.261E+11
.375E+10
.107E+11
0
0
.994E+10
9126E+10
0
1.007E+11
0
1.674E+05
4.951E+09
7.177E+06
3.094E+09
5
5
7
7
7
7
.906E+09
.906E+09
.755E+09
.755E+09
.755E+09
.755E+09
7.755E+09
2
1
2
6
.890E+09
.613E+09
.161E+09
.316E+09
9
4.80E+04
Units
sej/g
sej/g
sej/J
sej/g
sej/J
sej/J
sej/g
sej/J
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
sej/g
?
sej/J
5.
2.
5.
3.
9.
3.
2.
2.
9.
6.
Emergy
sej y1
893E+21
283E+21
821E+20
816E+21
0
631E+19
0
0
787E+21
836E+22
068E+21
779E+20
495E+20
3.185E+21
0
0
8.652E+19
1.472E+20
0
2.064E+20
3.19E+20
2.279E+23
1
7.76E+22
.503E+23
46 Services See calculations at Note 37 above.
Dollar value of services exported 5.796E+08 $/y
Emergy in exported services 6.96E+20 sej/y
47
48
People
1997 Net Migration
-9863 Individuals
Using the age percentages from the 1990 Census data
Number of individuals
1990 1997
Preschool 21680 1.33% -131
School 1166871 71.50% -7052
College Grad 385026 23.59% -2327
Post-College 56382 3.45% -341
Total 1629959 99.87%
The emergy per unit is expressed as sej/ind so the numbers are not put in energy terms.
Tourism, Estimate provided by the West Virginia
Department of Transportation (32).
4.00E+09 $
C-23
-------
Appendix C
C5. Notes for Table 8 - Value of West Virginia Storages in 1997.
49 Forest Storage 1.04E+19 J
Based on the forest statistics for West Virginia in the last inventory done by the U.S.
Forest Service in 1989 Digiovanni (1990).
Forest Standing mass 7.60E+08 tons
6.89E+14g
15069.6 J/g
50 Available Coal Reserves 1.42E+21 J
Based on the estimated recoverable coal reserves in 1998 by the West Virginia Bureau of
Commerce (34).
mass 53326657317 tons
g/shortton 9.07E+05
J/g 2.94E+04 J/ton
51 Available Petroleum Reserves 1.19E+17 J
Taken from (35) the Energy Information Administration Department of Energy.
Amount 2.10E+07 Barrels
5.4E+06 Btu/barrel
l.lE+14Btu/yr
52 Available Natural Gas Reserves 3.13E+18 J
Taken from (5) the Energy Information Administration Department of Energy (1997).
Amount 2.85E+09 1000 ft3
J/1000ft3 1.1E+09
53 People
Using the percentages from the 1990 Census data
1997 Population 1816000 people
Number of individuals
1990 Fraction 1990 1997
Preschool 21680 0.0121 21952
School 1166871 0.6506 1181525
College Grad 379048 0.2113 383808
Post-College 50403 0.0281 51036
Elderly (65+) 157540 0.0878 159518
Public Status* 17935 0.0100 18160
Legacy* 792 792
*Public Status is estimated as one per cent of total population.
All individuals listed in the index to West Virginia: A History by O.K. Rice are counted
as part of West Virginia's legacy.
A few of those legacy individuals are:
Henry Davis - West Virginian senator and democratic candidate for the Vice
Presidency of the United States in 1904 (lost to Roosevelt and Fairbanks)
Belle Boyd - confederate spy born in Martinsburg, WV
C-24
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
John Brown - known for his actions at Harper's Ferry
Pearl S. Buck - author who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1938, born in Hillsboro
Alexander Campbell, religious leader and educator. Bethany College and the Disciples
of Christ.
Cornstalk - Shawnee Indian chief
John Davis - constitutional lawyer who argued 140 cases in the Supreme Court, most at
the time also the unsuccessful democratic candidate for the US Presidency in 1924
(lost to Coolidge), born in Clarksburg.
Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson - confederate general, and exemplary leader.
John Kenna - West Virginian representative and senator, born in St. Albans.
Walter Reuther - president of the United Automobile Workers, born in Wheeling.
Francis Pierpont-governor of the "Restored Government of Virginia" during the
Civil War born in Morgantown
Mary Harris "Mother" Jones - leader of strikers in the coal camps who fought for fair
labor laws
C6. Notes for Table 9 - Summary Flows for West Virginia in 1997
54 Renewable emergy sources received (Table 4) are the chemical potential energy in rain,
and the chemical potential energy in rivers. Renewable emergy sources absorbed by
(used in) the system are the chemical potential energy of rain evapo-transpired, the
geopotential of runoff doing work on the land, and the chemical potential and
geopotential energy of the rivers used as the river flows through the state.
55 Nonrenewable sources (Table 5) include fuels and minerals coal, natural gas, petroleum,
clay, sand and gravel, limestone and soil erosion where it exceeds soil building, i.e., in
agricultural areas.
56 Dispersed Rural Source (Table 5) is the soil erosion in agricultural areas. This category
includes any renewable resource that is being used more rapidly then it is being replaced.
57 Mineral Production (Table 5) is the emergy in the mined tonnage of coal, natural gas,
petroleum, clay, limestone, sandstone, sand and gravel.
58 Fuels exported without use are the quantities of coal and natural gas exported without
first being used in a production process in the state, (coal production + import - use =
1522 E+20 sej/y) compared to the commodity flow survey number for coal (1497 E+20
sej/y). Use commodity flow survey number and add 3 E+20 sej/y natural gas exports.
59 Imported minerals and fuels are coal, petroleum, iron ore and bauxite (Table 6).
60 Minerals used (includes fuels): Add mineral production and mineral imports and subtract
fuels exported without use.
61 In state minerals used: Subtract minerals exported without use from mineral production.
62 The material imported in goods was determined from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey
by summing the tonnage by commodity class from states with significant exports to West
Virginia, (see note 36).
63 Dollars paid for imports is the sum of the dollar value of imported goods including fuels
and minerals and all other goods and services.
64 The services in imported minerals including fuels are determined below.
Table C6.1 Services in Imported Minerals
Iron Ore (T)
Bauxite (T)
Coal (sT)
Petroleum (Btu)
Petroleum (Barrels)
Petroleum (Gal)
Amount
3.0E+06
6.7E+05
8.704E+06
2.09E+14
3.89E+07
1.63E+09
$/amount
28.9
27
26.64
0.799
$
1.73E+08
1.8E+07
2.32E+08
1.31E+09
Total 1.73E+09
The prices of these items can be found in the data sources given at (36)
C-25
-------
Appendix C
65 Dollars paid for goods without fuels and minerals is the total dollar value of goods imported
from the CFS ($2.5E+10) minus the dollar value in fuels and minerals calculated above.
66 Dollars paid for imported services as determined using the base-nonbase method (Table C3.3).
67 Federal transfer payments are the total outlay of funds by the Federal government (note 38).
68 Imported Services Total is the sum of the emergy in services associated with imported goods,
fuels, and minerals, and pure services.
69 Imported Services in fuels and minerals is the emergy equivalent of the human service
represented by the money paid for fuels and minerals. Dollars are converted to emergy using the
1997 emergy/$ ratio for the US.
70 Imported Services in Goods is the emergy equivalent of the money paid for goods minus that
paid for fuels and minerals, (use 1.2E+12 sej/$).
71 Imported Service is the emergy equivalent of the money paid for services (note 37).
72 Emergy purchased by Federal dollars spent in the state. Use West Virginia emergy/$ ratio.
73 Exported Products is the emergy in the goods exported including electricity (Table 7).
74 Dollars Received for Exports is the sum of the payments for all exported goods and services
75 Dollars Received for Exported Goods other than fuels, is the dollar value of the exported goods
($2.72E+10) less fuels.
76 Dollars Received for fuels and electricity are determined in Table C6.2.
Table C6.2 Services in Exported Fuels and Electricity
Coal (Short T)
Natural Gas (tcf)
Electricity (kWh)
Amount
1.43E+08
6.09E+06
6.53E+10
1997 prices
$/amount
26.64
3.00
Total fuels
0.05 $/kWh
3.8E+09
1.8E+07
3.92E+09
3.27E+09
77 Dollars Paid for Services as determined by the base-non-base method given in (Note 37).
78 Dollars spent by tourists in West Virginia from West Virginia Dept. Transportation (32).
79 Federal Taxes Paid is the sum of personal income, social security, and business taxes (Note 38).
80 Total Exported Services is the sum of the emergy equivalents in human service in fuels, goods
and services exported.
81 Exported Services in Fuels is the emergy equivalent of the human service in the dollars paid for
fuels exported. Service is determined using the US emergy/$ ratio.
82 Exported Services in Goods is the emergy equivalent of the services embodied in all value
added exported goods (goods and electricity minus fuels exported without use).
83 Exported service is the emergy equivalent of the dollar value of exported services (Note 37).
84 Emergy Purchased by Tourists is the emergy purchased when tourists $ are spent in West
Virginia, i.e., at West Virginia's emergy to dollar ratio.
85 Emergy Purchases Forgone is the emergy equivalent of taxes paid to the Federal government.
This number was determined using the West Virginia Emergy/$ ratio.
86 Gross State Product of the State of West Virginia in 1997.
87 Renewable Emergy received (note 54).
88 Renewable Emergy Absorbed (note 54).
89 In-State Nonrenewable Use is the sum of dispersed rural sources (N0) and in-state mineral
production (Ni).
C-26
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
C7. Notes for Table 10 - Calculation of Emergy Indices.
90 Imported Emergy is the sum of imported minerals (F), goods (G), and services (PI).
91 Total Emergy Inflow is the sum of renewable emergy received (RR), and the emergy imported
in the previous note.
92 The total emergy used in the state (U) is the sum of the renewable emergy absorbed (RA), the
emergy used form dispersed rural sources (N0), fuels and minerals used (F]), and the goods (G)
and services (PI) imported.
93 Total exported emergy is the sum of the emergy in the materials of exported goods (B), the
emergy of services associated with goods and with pure service (PE) and the emergy of fuels
and minerals exported without use (N2).
94 The emergy used from home sources is the sum of emergy from dispersed rural sources, in-
state minerals and fuels used (F2), and renewable emergy absorbed divided by total use (U).
95 Import minus export is the difference between imported emergy (note 90) and exported emergy
(note 93).
96 Ratio of exports to imports is the quotient of the expression in note 93 divided by the
expression in note 91.
97 Fraction of use that is locally renewable is the ratio of renewable emergy absorbed to total use.
98 Fraction of use that is purchased is the ratio of imported emergy (note 90) to total use (note 92).
99 Fraction of use in imported service is PI divided by U.
100 Fraction of use that is free is the sum of the renewable emergy absorbed and emergy from
dispersed rural sources divided by total use.
101 Ratio of purchased to free is the quotient of the sum of imported fuels and minerals (Fi),
imported goods (G) and imported services (PI) divided by the sum of the renewable emergy
received (RR) and the emergy from dispersed rural sources (N0).
102 Environmental loading ratio is the quotient of the sum of the emergy from dispersed rural
sources (No), imported fuels and minerals (Fi), imported goods (G) and imported services (PI)
divided by the renewable emergy received (RR).
103 Investment Ratio. There are several possible investment ratios (Odum 1996). This one
compares imported emergy (note 90) to the emergy supplied form within the state. The emergy
from within the state is the sum of the renewable emergy received (RR), the emergy from
dispersed rural sources (N0), and the emergy from in-state fuels and minerals (F2).
104 Emergy use per unit area (Empower density) is the total emergy use (U) divided by the area.
105 Use per person is the total emergy U divided by the population.
106 Renewable carrying capacity at the present standard of living is found by dividing the
renewable emergy received by total use and then multiplying this fraction times the present
population.
107 Developed carrying capacity at the present standard of living is approximately eight times the
renewable carrying capacity.
108 West Virginia State Economic product (note 86).
109 Ratio of West Virginia emergy use to GSP. Divide U by X.
110 Ratio of U.S. Emergy use to GNP. See Appendix B3.2.
Ill Ratio of emergy in electricity use to total use (El/U). See Table 5 for electricity use.
112 Ratio of electricity production to total use (Elp/U).). See Table 5 for electricity production.
113 Fuel use per person is the sum of coal, natural gas, and petroleum used in the state (Table 5,
620E+20 sej/y) divided by population.
114 Population of the State in 1997
115 Area of the State
C-27
-------
Appendix D
Calculating Imports and Exports of Materials and Services
-------
Appendix D
Dl. Creating Export/Import Spreadsheets for
Materials
The method used to determine the emergy
exported from and imported to West Virginia was
further developed in this study to take advantage of
the extensive data on this subject provided by the
U.S. Census Bureau's Commodity Flow Survey (2),
which is performed every five years. This innovation
resulted in a marked improvement in the accuracy
with which imports and to a lesser extent exports of a
state's economy can be determined. Even though the
CFS provides all the information needed to document
exports and imports it is not tabulated in the form that
we need and some of the information is hidden rather
deeply in the data base. To make our method
transparent and reproducible, we have described in
detail the characteristics of the database, data sources
and methods that we used to determine the emergy
imported and exported from West Virginia. These
methods should be applicable to the determination of
imports and exports for any other state. To facilitate
following the method described below the appropriate
tables from the CFS should be accessed when needed.
If the data tables or presentation of information
change in the future these instructions will have to be
altered.
Export Calculations
Determining material and energy flows for
exports is straightforward with few extrapolations or
assumptions needed, because the data are relatively
complete as provided in the CFS. Data on dollar
value and tonnage of export shipments between states
by commodity class comes from the Commodity
Flow Survey (CFS), Table 12 (Additional State Data).
This data is also summarized in Tables 5, 7, and 8 in
the CFS. The CFS uses several data codes when a
numeric measurement is not given and these codes
were handled in a consistent manner. For example,
most states have an S or a D in one or more data
fields for some commodity shipments. These letters
indicate variable data (S) or a single source of
information (D) that would risk disclosure. In the
export calculation method, no estimate of exports was
made for commodity classes with and S or D in both
the $ value and tonnage columns for instate
shipments. When this occurs there is often an S or a
D in the "all destinations" category, as well. In this
case there are too many unknowns to make an
estimate. Materials moving in these classes were
assumed to remain within the state or to constitute a
negligible fraction of exports. Commodities with a
dollar value but no information on tonnage were
retained in the data because the tonnage could be
reasonably estimated using the price per ton obtained
from the dollar value and tonnage of the commodity
going to all destinations.
Before transferring data from Table 12 to an
interim spreadsheet, all dashes (indicating no data)
were replaced with zeroes. If there was evidence that
some flows were not actually zero, remained
uncounted, or were different from the estimates
provided, additional information was used when the
emergy exported in each commodity class was
determined. For example, coal exports also were
determined using Energy Information Administration
(EIA) Data. The Commodity Flow Survey provides
a summary table (Table 7) of shipments to all states
from the state of origin. Note that the top row in this
table gives the total dollar value and tonnage of
shipments from the state followed by a set of rows
for dollar value and tonnage shipments to each state
to which the state of origin is shipping. This includes
a row for the state of origin itself, which will be
referred to as instate shipments from now on.
An export table (see Table D 1.2) with 11
columns was made to use in determining the tonnage
exported in various commodity classes. The
commodity classes for SCTG, SIC, and NAICS
industry classification codes and the approximate
conversions used in this paper are shown in Table
DLL The column headings for the export table are
as follows (1) SCTG code, (2) Description of the
class, (3) All Destinations Value($ mil), (4) All
Destinations Tons(OOO), (5) $/Ton, (6) Instate
Shipments ($ mil), (7) Instate Shipments Tons(OOO),
(8) Known (directly measured) exports Tons(OOO),
(9) Instate Tons (000) estimated using $/T, (10)
Estimated exports tons (000), (11) Final Exports
(estimated exports are adjusted to sum to the total
missing tonnage). Table D 1.2 omits column 2, the
verbal description of the SCTG code name, because
of space considerations. The steps in estimating
exports from a state, e.g., West Virginia, using the
data in the spreadsheet columns described above are
as follows:
D-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table Dl.l. Approximate conversion between SCTG , SIC and NAICS industry classification codes
developed for this study. These conversions are only approximate and better information might be
developed of used if available.
Class Combined Code SCTG code
agricultural products, grain
livestock, seafood, animal products
logs, rough wood
metallic ores
coal
non-metallic minerals, gravel, stone, sand
prepared food products, alcohol, tobacco
textiles, leather, apparel
lumber wood product
furniture, fixtures
paper products
printed products
chemicals
refined petroleum products
plastics and rubber
building materials, non-metallic
primary metal products, semi-finished
fabricated metal products. Cans etc.
machinery (not electrical)
electrical equipment , precision instruments
transportation equipment
miscellaneous manufactured goods
scrap and waste
unknown, mixed or special classes
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
w
Y
2,3
1,4
25
14
15
11,12,13
5,6,7,8,9
30
26
39
27,28
29
20,21,22,23
17,18,19
24
10,31
32
33
34
35.38
36,37
40
41
43
SIC code
1
2,9
8
10
12
14
20,21
22,23,31
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36,38
37
39
49(?)
92,98,99
NAICS Code
111
112
113
2122
2121
2123
311,312
313
321
337
322
323
325
324
326
327,331
331
332
333
334,335
336
339
562 (?)
99999
First, copy the Commodity Class code and description
from the Commodity Flow Survey Table 12
(Additional Data) for the state, for which exports are
to be calculated Columns (1 and 2). Remember in
following the instructions below that column numbers
refer to the 11 column headings recommended above.
The 10 columns shown in Table D 1.2, which is
missing column 2, have been numbered to match the
verbal description.
1. Copy the $ value and tons moving from the state to
all destinations for all commodities, Columns (3)
and (4).
2. Calculate the $ per ton. Column (5)
3. Copy data ($ and Tonnage) for shipments of all
commodities with final destination in the state of
origin, e.g., from WV to WV, Columns (6) and (7).
4 Calculate known exports by subtracting instate
shipments (column 7) from the shipments moving
to all destinations (column 4) for all commodities
for which tonnage has been measured, directly,
Column (8).
5. Sum the tonnage of directly measured export
shipments (Column 8) and subtract from the total
tonnage moving to all destinations. The total
tonnage is given at the top of the All Destinations
column in Table D 1.2 and in CFS Table 12.
6. Calculate the tonnage of instate shipments for any
commodity for which a $ value of instate
shipments is given in column 6 by dividing by the
$ per ton (column 5). Record in Column 9 the
estimated instate shipments.
D-3
-------
Appendix D
7. Estimate the tonnage exported in these commodity
classes by subtracting the instate tonnage
estimates (column 9) from tonnage moving to all
destinations (column 4). Record these estimates in
Column 10.
8. Sum the estimated export shipments (column 9)
and divide into the difference between directly
measured exports and total exports. If this ratio
equals 1 combine directly measured and estimated
exports in their respective commodity classes into
a single column (11) and you are done. If greater
or less than 1 multiply each estimated commodity
by this ratio to adjust the flows so that directly
measured and estimated exports will sum to the
known tonnage of total exports shipped to all
destinations. Record these numbers in Column
(11), Final Adjusted Exports, and fill in column
with the directly measured values from
Column (8).
Table D1.2. Calculation of West Virginia Exports from the state to state commodity shipments found
in the Commodity Flow Survey as Additional Data in Table 12.
All All
SCTG DestinationsV Destinations
Code alue($ mil) Tons(OOO)
Col. 1
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Col. 3
35570
-
-
S
129
609
29
223
365
440
S
32
53
S
S
4943
393
227
532
3918
1996
S
1512
2582
370
900
69
123
483
S
Col. 4
233760
-
-
S
467
259
14
S
351
19
S
793
5667
S
S
187835
S
964
3335
5152
S
S
946
1316
5627
3869
108
87
S
S
$/ton
Col. 5
0
0
356
276
2351
2071
843
1040
23158
94
40
9
29
689
26
272
235
160
760
32716
216
1598
1962
66
233
639
1414
2499
9097
Instate
Value
(mil$)
Col. 6
8336
-
-
S
87
50
20
S
365
177
S
4
51
S
S
1107
S
224
78
425
S
S
518
485
132
216
S
58
S
S
Instate
Tons(OOO)
Col. 7
66249
-
-
S
438
21
11
S
351
7
S
347
5484
S
S
44488
S
954
163
897
S
S
290
387
S
1045
S
S
S
S
Measured
Exports
Tons(OOO)
Col. 8
167511
0
0
S
29
238
3
S
0
12
S
446
183
S
S
143347
S
10
3172
4255
S
S
656
929
S
2824
S
S
S
S
Estimate Estimate
Instate State
Tons(OOO) Exports
Col. 9 Col. 10
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
2007 3620
S
41 46
S
S
Final
Adjusted
Exports
Col. 11
167511
0
0
0
29
238
3
0
0
12
0
446
183
0
0
143347
0
10
3172
4255
0
0
656
929
3406
2824
0
43
0
0
D-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table D1.2. Calculation of West Virginia Exports from the state to state commodity shipments found
in the Commodity Flow Survey as Additional Data in Table 12 continued
All
SCTG Destinations
Code Value($mil)
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
~
937
4158
860
2109
1326
2900
320
234
159
692
S
794
99
All Instate
Destinations Value Instate
Tons(OOO) $/ton (mil $) Tons (000)
5007
6306
851
187
120
519
S
2
45
134
S
425
38
187
659
1011
11278
11050
5588
10622
117000
3533
5164
148
1868
2605
263
449
525
483
242
212
S
S
57
140
S
605
S
3658
S
465
48
S
S
S
-
12
S
S
314
S
Measured
Exports
Tons(OOO)
1349
S
386
139
S
S
S
S
33
S
S
111
S
Estimate
Instate
Tons(OOO)
681
22
38
S
S
27
S
S
Estimate Final
State Adjusted
Exports Exports
1349
5625 5294
386
139
98 92
481 453
0
0
33
107 101
0
111
0
Class Totals 158122
Difference (Total - Class Total from Column 7 in this Table. 9389
Fraction (Difference/Class Total-Column 7/Column 9 this table) 0.941
9977 167511
Transferring Export Data to the Emergy
Evaluation Spreadsheet
Columns 1, 2 and 11 beginning with SCTG code
1, can now be transferred to the emergy export
evaluation section. Do not include commodities with
zero flow. These are only shown in Table D 1.2 as
placeholders to present a complete listing of all
commodity categories.
Import Calculations
Table 12 from the CFS web site, "Additional
State Data", used in the export calculation, has
information on the exports by commodity class going
from all the other states to the state of destination
(West Virginia). Data from the other 49 states that
might be exporting to the study state were combined
to determine imports. Inbound shipments by state of
origin to the state of destination are summarized in
Table 8 of the CFS, but commodity classes are not
shown. For states without a U.S. Customs port, state
to state commodity shipments will capture almost
everything entering the state. When one or more U.S.
customs ports are located in a state the foreign
imports entering the state need to be determined
separately, regardless of whether they are
immediately exported to another state. We assume
that these imports bring some value to the state by
simply passing through.
The inbound tonnage shipped in each
commodity category was used to calculate the
emergy imported in goods. The five steps used to
estimate imported emergy to a state are as follows:
(1) a quick tally of the total tonnage coming into the
study state from other states was obtained by
consulting Table 8 in the CFS report. The states that
had a number entered in the percent of total inbound
shipments column were identified. The total
percentage of imports directly measured was
determined by summing the percentages. We would
like the total percent of tonnage from the states used
to estimate imports to be at least 95% of the tonnage
of total inbound shipments (2). Once the subset of
states exporting to the study state was identified,
D-5
-------
Appendix D
missing values for the tonnage for specific
commodities coming from each state were estimated.
(3) If a dollar value of the inbound commodity
shipments was known and tonnage was not listed, the
tonnage was estimated based on the cost per ton as
described above and shown in Table D 1.2. A large
fraction of total inbound shipments from some states
had missing values for both dollar value and tonnage
(an S or D entered into the field). In this case, the
missing data would have resulted in large errors in
the estimate of total imports and thus the
development of a method to handle this situation was
warranted. The tonnage fields for inbound shipments
from a state of origin to West Virginia containing and
S or a D were handled by assuming that a state's
exports to any other state would on average follow its
overall export profile, i.e., the fraction of total
shipments accounted for by each commodity.
Missing tonnage data was distributed among
commodity classes by adjusting the overall export
profile. The missing tonnage is equal to total
shipments to West Virginia minus commodities with
numeric entries for tonnage. This tonnage was
distributed among the commodity classes of inbound
shipments by adjusting the state's overall export
profile so that the unknown inbound shipments made
up 100% of the missing inbound tonnage. (4) The
inbound tonnage in each commodity class for a state
was transferred as a single column to a second
worksheet with data from all of the identified import
states. (5) Then each commodity class was summed
across the rows for all states to create the column of
data with imported tonnages in each commodity class
for the emergy table.
1. The following steps describe the estimation
of the unknown tonnage (S and D) as
illustrated for Alabama's shipments to West
Virginia shown in Table D 1.3. For all of the
states importing to the study state, copy the
total tonnage in each commodity class
exported to all destinations and the tonnage
exported to the state you are evaluating
(columns 2 and 3 in Table D 1.3), onto a
spreadsheet.
2. Calculate the price per ton for all inbound
shipments by commodity class from any
state exporting to the study state according
to the instructions given above for exports.
3. Replace all dashes with a zero. Although
Table D 1.3 only presents one state, the same
procedure will be used for all states sending
a significant quantity of imports to the study
state.
4. Next, missing tonnage values are estimated
for any commodity class that reported a
dollar value of exports to the state but no
tonnage. In some cases calculating the price
per ton for the state of origin is not possible,
but there is still a dollar value for exports.
Prices per ton can be quite variable, but an
estimate can be made by finding an adjacent
state with similar export conditions for the
product and substituting this price in the
spread-sheet making a note on its origin. Fill
in all tonnage movements possible using this
method. Combine the tonnages estimated on
the basis of average price with the tonnages
that were directly measured. Sum this
column and subtract from the total tonnage
exported to get the tonnage that will be
distributed using the export profile (see the
number in italics at the top of column 4 in
Table D 1.3). For example, the total export
from Alabama to West Virginia is 318
thousand metric tons but the sum of all
commodities determined directly and
estimated based on dollar value only adds
up to 27 thousand tons, the difference is
then 291 thousand tons.
5. Create a fourth column for the state's export
profile, which will be used to distribute the
missing tonnage across the remaining
commodities that had either an S or D in
both the dollar value and tonnage fields.
The export profile is the fraction of the total
tonnage accounted for by each commodity as
determined from the shipments to all
destinations. Calculate the profile by
dividing the tonnage for each commodity
exported by the total tonnage exported for
that state. Only those commodities that have
an S or D in both dollar value and tonnage
fields are recorded in column 4. Sum the
fractions to determine the fraction of total
tons accounted for by the commodities with
missing data.
D-6
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
The next step is to adjust these fractions to
represent the expected fractions of the
missing tonnage imported to the state in each
commodity class with missing data. Create a
fifth column, the adjusted fraction of missing
tonnage imported in each class, where each
fraction of the tons in the export profile
(individual values in column 4) will be
divided by the fraction of the total tons that
is missing (the sum of all fractions in column
four). The sum of all values in column 5
should equal one, or 100%.
In the last column (column 6), copy over the
reported and estimated data for tonnage for
any commodity where it is available from
column 3. For all of the missing
commodities (those with and S or D in both
the $ value and tonnage fields), multiply the
total missing tonnage (at the top of Column
4) by the corresponding percentage (in
Column 5) for each commodity class known
to have a flow but for which tonnage is
unknown, and transfer this number to the
appropriate field in column 6. For example,
if data is missing for textiles, multiply 291
thousand tons by the fraction of textiles or
0.0172, to get 5 thousand tons textiles
imported. Sum this column to make sure it
adds up to the total tonnage.
Transfer this tonnage data for each
commodity to an import table creating a
column for each state.
9. Sum across the states (rows) for each
commodity to find the total tonnage
imported in each commodity class and
transfer this to the import section of the
emergy evaluation.
Custom's Imports
If the state has a Customs' port, locate the
appropriate data on the USITC data web site (37).
The Customs' site requires a password, but
registration is free. To get the correct data report, a
series of dialogue boxes must be completed. The
choices that should be made are as follows:
• Dialogue 1 - U.S. General Imports; NAICS
code; current US Trade
• Dialogue 2 - Customs value; 1997; All import
commodities; All countries; All country sub-
codes; create new district list
• Enter the name, select the districts, then
highlight the name when you return to original
page;
• In 1,000,000; annual; NAICS 3 digit;
aggregate all countries together; aggregate
import programs; display districts separately
• Dialogue 3 - Arrange in this order: District;
NAICS 3
• Dialogue 4 - District; General customs value;
Show all; Sort 1997; 5000 records; other display
options are optional
D-7
-------
Appendix D
Table D1.3: Example of estimating missing import data. Alabama to West Virginia
Description
All commodities
Live animals and live fish
Cereal grains
Other agricultural products
Animal feed and products of animal origin
Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations
Milled grain and bakery products
Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils
Alcoholic beverages
Tobacco products
Monumental or building stone
Natural sands
Gravel and crushed stone
Nonmetallic minerals
Metallic ores and concentrates
Coal
Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel
Fuel oils
Coal and petroleum products,
Basic chemicals
Pharmaceutical products
Fertilizers
Chemical products and preparations
Plastics and rubber
Logs and other wood in the rough
Wood products
Pulp, newsprint, paper, and paperboard
Paper or paperboard articles
Printed products
Textiles, leather, and articles of textiles or leather
Nonmetallic mineral products
Base metal in primary or semi finished forms and
in finished basic shapes
Articles of base metal
Machinery
Electronic and other electrical equipment and
components and office equipment
Motorized and other vehicles (including parts)
Transportation equipment
Precision instruments and apparatus
Furniture, mattresses and mattress supports,
lamps, lighting fittings, and...
Miscellaneous manufactured products
Waste and scrap
Mixed freight
Commodity unknown
Total Tons
from
Alabama
(thousands)
256234
125
S
1682
7194
1836
386
4408
482
51
S
S
36211
2905
S
30993
12659
3605
4671
7460
33
2382
1271
1585
40817
12443
8949
977
324
2120
16613
11212
4208
753
688
957
251
10
501
2965
2130
2000
S
Tons to WV
(thousands)
318
-
-
-
S
S
S
S
-
S
-
-
-
S
-
-
-
-
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
-
S
S
S
17
S
1
S
S
S
-
S
9
-
-
-
Fraction of
total tons for
missing data
291
0.028
0.007
0.002
0.017
0.000
0.011
0.018
0.029
0.000
0.009
0.005
0.006
0.159
0.049
0.035
0.001
0.008
0.065
0.016
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.002
Fraction of
missing
tonnage to
WV
0.059
0.015
0.003
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.038
0.061
0.000
0.020
0.010
0.013
0.334
0.102
0.073
0.000
0.003
0.017
0.136
0.034
0.000
0.006
0.008
0.002
0.000
0.004
Total Tons to
WV
(thousands)
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
4.4
0.9
10.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
17.8
0.1
5.7
3.0
3.8
97.3
29.7
21.3
0.0
0.8
5.1
39.6
17.0
10.0
1.0
1.6
2.3
0.6
0.0
1.2
9.0
0.0
0.0
subtotals to check
27
0.476
1.000
318
D-8
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
D2. The Method for Calculating Services
Imported and Exported
In this study, we adapted the base-nonbase
method from economics to estimate the emergy of
pure services imported and exported from West
Virginia or any other state. This method was first
used in an emergy analysis by Odum et al. (1998)
and we used that work as a starting point. The theory
and formulae for estimating services are given in the
methods section above. There follows a detailed
description of how we estimated exported and
imported services. This material is given so that our
method will be transparent and reproducible and
therefore easier to refine and improve.
To determine exported and imported services,
go to the NAICS economic sector data U.S. data (31)
and then choose the state from the menu in the upper
left-hand corner. You will also need agricultural and
government data not given in (31). Government
expenditures by state are available in the U.S.
Statistical Abstract for 1997 (also online).
Agricultural data can be obtained from Economic
Research Service, USDA Data- Farm and Farm-
Related Employment (38). These instructions create
one large table comparing all of this data, but if
smaller pieces are preferred, use a method that makes
sense as long as the basic guidelines are preserved.
A) Using the list of non-farm industries given by
NAICS two digit industry codes and recorded
on the U.S. Census Bureau web site, there are
18 industry sectors (Table D 2.1), to which
agriculture and government should be added.
This table will be used to classify each sector
as base or non-base. As mentioned in the
services section of the main paper, base sectors
are those that will have enough production to
export, while non-base sectors are more likely
to serve the local (state) economy. Agriculture,
manufacturing, mining, and state and federal
government are sectors that are often con-
sidered to be basic sectors. In the case of
West Virginia, the utilities industry was
added because it exports a large fraction of
the electricity produced. Non-basic industries
provide mostly local services such as support
services and the retail industries like grocery
stores, dry cleaners, drug stores etc. The data
for each state should be examined and each of
the 20 industry sectors designated as basic or
non-basic industries using a set of initial
assumptions. Since this method is only used to
determine services imported and exported, each
industry category must be further considered
from this point of view. For example, in West
Virginia exports from the manufacturing and
agriculture sectors are almost entirely goods
(this can be verified by examining the more
detailed listing of higher digit industry sectors
in the U.S. Census Bureau listing by NAICS
code, see web site given above), the service
component of which is determined below. In
addition the mining and utilities sectors also are
largely goods exporting sectors, however, each
of these sectors has a service component. To
accurately estimate the exports from these two
sectors the detailed level of NAICS industry
categories was used. This information is
available at the same web address (31). For
example, within the mining sector there is a
category for mining support activities. For
West Virginia this category includes classes
for drilling oil and gas wells, support activities
for oil and gas operations and support activities
for coal mining. All three of these are sources
of potentially exportable services. The detailed
code data should be used when it is needed for
the particular economic situation in a given
state. However, the two digit data can be used
where the entire sector provides services for
export or that might be imported. Table 1 gives
a list of the 20 two digit industry categories and
the assumptions that were made about them for
West Virginia.
B) In the second table, the 20 sectors become the
column headings and the data and calculations
using this data are the rows. Table D 2.2
presents an abbreviated version of the total
table (See Appendix C for the complete West
Virginia table). The following steps are the
same for calculating values for all columns, or
sectors, and match the note numbers in Table D
2.2; however, you might want to complete rows
15 and 16 first. An explanation of the rows in
Table D 2.2 follows:
1) U.S Paid employees. This number is from
either the U.S. census table or one of the
other two sites listed above for agriculture
and government.
D-9
-------
Appendix D
2) U.S. Sales, Receipts or Shipments ($1000).
This number is from either the U.S. census
table or one of the other two sites listed for
agriculture and government.
3) U.S. Dollars per employee. Divide row 2 by
row 1 and multiply by 1000.
4) U.S. Fraction of Total Employment. Divide
row 1 by the value for line 15 (see note 15).
5) State Paid employees. This number is from
either the WV census or from one of the
other two sites listed above for agriculture
and government.
6) State Sales, Receipts or Shipments
($1000).This number is from either the WV
census or from one of the other two sites
listed above for agriculture and government
7) State Dollars per employee. Divide row 6 by
row 5 and multiply by 1000.
8) State Fraction of Total Employment. Divide
row 5 by line 16 (see note 16).
9) Location Quotient. Divide row 8 by row 4.
If this number is >1 the state is able to
export a portion of this sector's productivity.
10) Sector ratio of regional to national
employment. Divide row 5 by row 1.
ll)Ratio of regional to national employment.
Divide row 16 by row 15. This is a constant
across all sectors and is an indication of the
overall available workforce, regional to
national.
12)Basic sector jobs. The number of basic jobs
in a sector is found by subtracting the
fraction of national employment in the
region from the fraction of regional sector
employment in the national sector, and then
multiplying by national employment in the
sector. Subtract row 11 from row 10 and
multiply the difference by row 1. A positive
number indicates an exporting sector and a
negative number indicates a potential
importing sector. However, the original
assumptions about sector behavior will
determine whether the potential for export or
import is realized.
13)Exported goods and services are determined
by multiplying the regional sector
productivity per worker by the number of
workers in the basic part of the sector. In
other words, multiply row 12 by row 7
unless the initial assumptions about this
sector make it a non-basic or non-exporting
sector. Potential imports are determined by
multiplying the national sector productivity
per worker by the deficit number of workers
for the sectors importing services. Multiply
a negative value in Row 12 by the value in
row 3.
14)Exports are corrected by subtracting the
services in exported goods from the potential
exports of a sector. For West Virginia this
was done for two sectors - mining (see 14')
and utilities.Other basic sectors were shown
to either not export or to export only goods.
The dollar value of goods exported from the
sector must be subtracted form the total
exports obtained in 13 to get an estimate of
the services exported. We also estimated
services exported by an alternative method.
To use this method, step down one level
of information into the structure of the
exporting sector. Detailed information for
these sectors is available (click on the arrow
next to the sector in the main tables). Using
this data, complete the same procedure used
above for the pure service components of the
sector to determine services exported
directly. These estimates are totaled and
constitute the estimate for exported services
when summed over all basic sectors that
export. To estimate the actual imports, we
assumed that a fraction of the potential
import (a negative amount on line 13) equal
to the ratio of West Virginia's per capita
income to national per capita income is
actually imported into the state as explained
above. Sum the positive values for exported
services and the negative values for imported
services, respectively. These totals are
transferred to the import/export tables in the
emergy evaluation for total services
15)For 1997 studies of U.S. states, the number
provided here can be used for the national
totals. It is the total employment for all
sectors including agriculture and
government.
16)West Virginia total employment in 1997 is
the sum of employment in all sectors
mentioned above.
D-10
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table D2.1. NAICS industry sectors and their assumed sector types for WV.
Industry
Agriculture
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance &Insurance
Real estate & rental
Professional, scientific services
Management of companies
Administrative support & waste
management
Educational services
Health care and social assistance
Arts, entertainment & recreation
Accommodation and food service
Other services (not public)
Auxiliaries
Government
Sector Type
Basic-export
Basic-export
Basic-export
Nonbasic
Basic
Nonbasic
Nonbasic
Nonbasic
Nonbasic
Nonbasic
Non-basic
Non-basic
Non-basic
Non-basic
Non-basic
Non-basic
Non-basic
Basic
Nonbasic
Non-basic
Basic
Notes
all goods
Support activities (only)
Electric services (only)
Local markets
All goods
Local markets
Local markets (no export)
Local markets
Potentially imported
Potentially imported
Local markets
Potentially imported
Potentially imported
Potentially imported
Potentially imported
Local markets (no export)
Potentially imported
not imported or exported
Local markets
Local markets
not exported
D-ll
-------
Appendix D
Table D2.2. Calculation of basic sector jobs and the estimated dollar values for exported
and imported services.
Assumed
Note
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14'
15
16
sector behavior from Table 1
Item
U.S Paid employees
U.S. Sales, Receipts or Shipments ($1000)
U.S. Dollars per employee
U.S. Fraction of Total Employment
State Paid employees
State Sales, Receipts or Shipments ($1000)
State Dollars per employee
State Fraction of Total Employment
Location Quotient
Sector ratio of regional to national employment
National ratio of regional to national employment
Basic sector jobs
Potential state services export/import
State services export (+) or import (-)
base
Mining
509006
173988778
341820.68
0.004094585
23927
6333463
264699.42
0.034013838
8.31
0.05
0.01
2.10E+04
5.57E+09
1.02E+08
non-base
Constr
5664840
858581046
151563.16
0.04556954
31312
3106093
99198.17
0.04451211
0.98
0.01
0.01
-7.44E+02
-7.38E+07
-3.69E+07
Estimation of services actually exported using data for the entire mining sector.
More detailed sector data that separates out service components may also be used
Total non-service mining receipts, WV
Total non-service mining employment, WV
Total non-service mining employment, US
Fraction total employment, WV
Total U.S. employment, all sectors plus agriculture
and government
Total WV employment, all sectors plus agriculture
and government
6,021,285,000
20983
340200
0.0298
124311992
703449
D-12
-------
Appendix E
West Virginia Emergy Accounts for 2000
-------
Appendix £
Table El. Renewable Resources and Production in the West Virginia Economy in 2000.
Data Emergy/
J, g, $, Unit Emergy
Note Item ind/yr Units sej/unit E20 sej
Renewable Resources within West Virginia
1 Sun, incident 3.074 E+20
1 Sun, absorbed 2.644 E+20
2 Wind 1.074E+17
3 Earth Cycle 1.388E+17
4 Rain, chemical potential energy received 3.323 E+17
5 Evapotranspiration, chemical potential absorbed 1.561 E+17
6 Rain, geo-potential on land 3.655 E+17
7 Rain, geo-potential of runoff 6.024 E+16
8 Rivers, chemical potential energy received 9.056 E+16
8 Rivers, chemical potential energy absorbed 2.896 E+14
9 Rivers, geo-potential energy received 4.987 E+16
9 Rivers, geo-potential energy absorbed 2.058 E+16
Renewable Production within West Virginia
10 Agricultural Products 5.340 E+16
1 1 Livestock
Beef 6.932 E+14
All other livestock 3.970 E+14
12 Fish Production 7.099 E+ll
13 Hydroelectricity 1.092 E+16
14 Net Timber Growth 2.096 E+17
15 Timber harvest 2.286 E+16
16 Ground water 9.493 E+14
Table E2. Production and Use from Nonrenewable Sources within
Data
J, g, $,
Note Item ind/yr Units
Fuels and renewables used in a nonrenewable manner
17 Coal Production 4.22 E+18 J
18 Coal Used in the State 1.03 E+18 J
19 Natural Gas Production 2.91 E+17 J
20 Natural Gas Used in the State 1.60 E+17 J
21 Petroleum Production 9.50 E+15 J
22 Petroleum Used in the State 2.26 E+17 J
23 Electricity Production 3.40 E+17 J
24 Electricity Used in the State 9.78 E+16 J
25 Clay 3.40 E+05 T
26 Sand and Gravel 1.9E+06 T
27 Limestone 1.2E+07 T
28 Sandstone l.OE+06 T
29 Soil Erosion of agricultural areas 4.0 E+15 J
J 1 3
J 1 3
J 1470 15.8
J 33700 47
J 18100 60
J 28100 44
J 10300 38
J 27200 16
J 50100 45
J 50100 0.15
J 27200 14
J 27200 5.6
J 50000 27
J 680000 4.7
J 792000 3.1
J 1961800 0.14
J 120300 13
J 20600 43
J 68700 16
J 159000 1.5
West Virginia in 2000.
Emergy/
Unit Emergy
sej/unit E20 sej
39200 1654
39200 404
47100 137
47100 75
53000 5
64700 146
170400 579
170400 167
1.9 E+15 6.5
1.3 E+15 24.7
9.8 E+14 118
9.8 E+14 10
72600 3
2000
Emdollars
E6Em$
287
247
1475
4372
5621
4099
3518
1531
4240
14
1268
523
2495
441
294
1
1228
4035
1468
141
2000
Emdollars
E6Em$
154,601
37,735
12,809
4,043
471
13,666
54,146
15,607
604
2,308
10,991
916
271
E-2
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table E3. Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 2000.
Note
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Table
Note
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
38
Item
Coal
Petroleum
Natural Gas (Received at state boarder)
Iron Ore
Alumina/Bauxite
Services Embodied in the Goods
Material in the Goods
Services
Federal Government Outlays
Data
J, g, $,
ind/yr
2.30 E+17
2.16 E+17
1.58 E+18
4.41 E+13
4.4E+13
2.50 E+10
Various
6.2 E+09
1.07 E+10
Units
J
J
J
J
J
$
Jorg
Emergy/
Unit
sej/unit
39200
64700
47100
6.08 E+07
1.47E+07
1.07 E+12
Various
1.07 E+12
5.79 E+12
Emergy
E20 sej
90
140
744
27
6
268
948
663
620
2000
Emdollars
E6Em$
8,426
13,060
69,550
2,506
604
25,000
77,705
62,000
57,900
E4. Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 2000.
Item
Coal
Natural Gas (Production Exports)
Natural Gas (Delivered at state
border)
Electricity
Steel
Services Embodied in the Goods
Material in the Goods
Services
Migration (total)
Preschool
School
College Grad
Post-College
Tourism
Federal Taxes Paid
Data
J, g, $,
ind/yr
3. 19 E+18
1.20 E+17
1.75 E+18
2.42 E+17
2.00 E+12
2.72 E+10
Various
5.80E+08
2660
876
1188
479
117
4.0 E+09
6.1 E+09
Units
J
J
J
J
g
$
Jorg
$
People
People
People
People
People
$
$
Emergy/
Unit
sej/unit
39200
47100
47100
170400
3.38 E+09
1.07 E+12
Various
1.07 E+12
Various
3.3E+16
9.2E+16
2.7 E+17
1.3 E+18
5.79 E+12
5.79 E+12
Emergy
E20 sej
1250
57
824
412
68
291
776
6
4.2
0.3
1.1
1.29
1.5
232
353
2000
Emdollars
E6Em$
116,867
5,282
77,032
38,539
6,317
27,200
72,523
580
344
24
90
106
125
21,682
32,990
E-3
-------
Appendix E
Table E5. Value of West Virginia Storages in 2000.
Note
Item
Data
J, g, $, ind/yr
Units
Emergy/Unit
sej/unit
Emergy
E20 sej
2000 Emdollars
E6Em$
49 Forest 1.04 E+19 J 28200 2933 274,093
50 Coal 1.42E+21 J 39200 556640 52,022,429
51 Petroleum 1.19E+17 J 53000 63 5,894
52 Natural Gas 3.13E+18 J 47100 1474 137,779
53 People 2000 population 1,808,344 Ind. 3908 365,394
Preschool 21,635 Ind. 3.3 E+16 7 667
School 1,164,463 Ind. 9.2 E+16 1071 100,122
College Grad 384,232 Ind. 2.7E+17 1037 96,955
Post-College 56,266 Ind. 1.3E+18 731 68,360
Elderly (70+) 163,101 Ind. 1.7E+17 277 25,913
Public Status 18,568 Ind. 3.9E+18 724 67,678
Legacy 792 Ind. 7.7E+18 61 5,699
E-4
-------
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia
Table E6. Summary of Flows for West Virginia in 2000.
Note
54
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Letter in
Fig. 2
RR
RA
N
No
N!
N2
F
Fi
F2
G
I
Ii
I2
Is
I6
PI
PIi
PI2
PI3
PI4
B
E
Ei
E2
E3
E4
E5
PE
PEi
PE2
PE3
PE4
PE5
X
Item
Renewable emergy received
Renewable emergy absorbed
Nonrenewable source flows
Dispersed Rural Source
Mineral Production (fuels, etc.)
Fuels Exported without Use
Imported Minerals (fuels, etc.)
Minerals Used (F+Ni-N2)
In State Minerals Used (NrN2)
Imported Goods (materials)
Dollars Paid for all Imports
Dollars Paid for Service in Fuels
Dollars Paid for Service in Goods
Dollars paid for Services
Federal Transfer Payments
Imported Services Total
Imported Services in Fuels
Imported Services in Goods
Imported Services
Emergy purchased by Federal $
Exported Products (goods + elec.)
Dollars Paid for Exports
Dollars Paid Fuel Exported
Dollars Paid for Goods
Dollars Paid for Exported Services
Dollars Spent by Tourist
Federal Taxes Paid
Total Exported Services
Exported Services in Fuels
Exported Services in Goods
Exported Services
Emergy Purchased by Tourists
Emergy Purchases Forgone
Gross State Product
Emergy
E20 sej
105
66
1958
3
1955
1312
263
906
643
948
375
21
280
74
620
1188
379
48
324
7
237
353
1997 2000
Dollars Emdollars
$/yr Em$/y
9.82
6.17
182.99
0.28
182.71
122.62
24.58
84.67
60.09
88.60
31.13
1.72
23.24
6.17
10.7
35.05
1.96
26.17
6.92
57.94
111.03
31.08
3.92
26.6
0.58
4.0
6.1
35.42
4.49
30.28
0.65
22.15
32.99
39.7
E-5
-------
Appendix E
Table E7. West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 2000.
Item
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Name of Index
Renewable Emergy Received
Renewable Emergy Used
In State Non-renewable
Imported Emergy
Total Emergy Inflows
Total emergy used
Total exported emergy
Emergy used from home sources
Imports-Exports
Ratio of export to imports
Fraction use, locally renewable
Fraction of use purchased import
Fraction used, imported service
Fraction of use that is free
Ratio of purchased to free
Environmental Loading Ratio
Investment Ratio
Use per unit area
Use per person
Renewable Carrying Capacity at
present standard of Living
Developed Carrying Capacity at same
living standard
WV State Econ. Product
Ratio of WV emergy use to GSP
Ratio of U.S. emergy use to GNP in
2000
Ratio of Electricity/Emergy Use
Ratio Elec. Prod. /Emergy Use
Emergy of Fuel Use per Person
Population
Area
Expression
RR
RA
NO + N!
F + G + PI
RR + F + G + PI
u = RA+NO+FJ+G+PI
B+ PE +N2
(N0+F2+ RA)/U
(F+G+PI)-(B+PE+N2)
(B+PE+N2)/(F+G+PI)
RA/U
(F + G + PI)/U
PI/U
(RA+NO)/U
(Fj+G+PIXCRR+NO)
(F!+NO+G+PI)/(RR)
(F+G+PI)/(RR+N0+F2)
U/Area
U/Population
(RR/U)*
(Population)
8(R/U)(Population)
GSP
U/GSP
U/GNP
El/U
Elp/U
Fuel use/Population
Quantity
1.05E+22
6.6E+21
1.958E+23
1.586E+23
1.691E+23
2.298E+23
2.879E+23
0.31
-1.29E+23
1.81
0.030
0.68
0.15
0.029
20.6
21.3
2.11
3.7E+12
1.27E+17
82,702
661,619
3.97E+10
5.79E+12
1.07E+12
0.073
0.25
3.4E+16
1.811E+6
6.236E+10
Units
sej y-1
sej y"1
sej y-1
sej y-1
sej y"1
sej y-1
sej y-1
sej y"1
sej m"2
sej/ind
people
people
$/yr
sej/$
sej/$
sej/ind
people
m2
E-6
------- |