• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Summary
 Introduction
 Overview of Environment and Economy...
 Energy Analysis of the Mississippi...
 Energy Distribution in the Mississippi...
 Alternatives in the Mississippi...
 Overview Simulation Model
 Perspectives on the Future
 References
 Appendix A: Runoff Rates in the...
 Appendix B: Erosion within the...
 Appendix C: Energy Use in Basin,...
 Appendix D: Fertilizer Use
 Appendix E: Agricultural Outpu...
 Appendix F: Animal Products
 Appendix G: Import and Export of...
 Appendix H: Government Finance
 Appendix I: Oil, Gas and Coal...
 Appendix J: Grain Use of the...
 Appendix K: Oil and Natural Gas...
 Appendix L: Coal Reserves
 Appendix M: Organic Content of...
 Appendix N: Biomass in Forests














Energy Systems Overview of the Mississippi River Basin
CITATION THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00004020/00001
 Material Information
Title: Energy Systems Overview of the Mississippi River Basin
Physical Description: Report
Language: English
Creator: Odum, Howard T.
Diamond, Craig
Brown, Mark T.
Publisher: Center for Wetlands
Publication Date: 1987
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: emergy
rivers
stream order
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Mississippi River Basin
 Notes
General Note: 107 Pages
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: AA00004020:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    Preface
        Page iii
    Summary
        Page iv
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Overview of Environment and Economy of the Mississippi Basin
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Energy Analysis of the Mississippi River Basin
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
    Energy Distribution in the Mississippi River
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Alternatives in the Mississippi Basin
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Overview Simulation Model
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
    Perspectives on the Future
        Page 82
        Page 83
    References
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
    Appendix A: Runoff Rates in the Mississippi River Basin
        Page 87
    Appendix B: Erosion within the Mississippi River Basin
        Page 88
    Appendix C: Energy Use in Basin, 1981
        Page 89
        Page 90
    Appendix D: Fertilizer Use
        Page 91
    Appendix E: Agricultural Output
        Page 92
    Appendix F: Animal Products
        Page 93
        Page 94
    Appendix G: Import and Export of Services in the Basin
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Appendix H: Government Finance
        Page 99
        Page 100
    Appendix I: Oil, Gas and Coal Production
        Page 101
    Appendix J: Grain Use of the Basin
        Page 102
    Appendix K: Oil and Natural Gas Reserves
        Page 103
    Appendix L: Coal Reserves
        Page 104
        Page 105
    Appendix M: Organic Content of Soils
        Page 106
    Appendix N: Biomass in Forests
        Page 107
Full Text




Energy Systems Overview
of the

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN



Howard T. Odum, Craig Diamond and Mark T. Brown


CFW Publication #87-1


CENTER FOR WETLANDS
University of Florida Phelps Lab
Gainesville, Florida, 32611
(904) 392-2424
















Report to


THE COUSTEAU SOCIETY






ENERGY SYSTEMS OVERVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN





Howard T. Odum, Craig Diamond and Mark T. Brown
Environmental Engineering Sciences








CFW Publication #87-1

Research Studies Conducted under Contract No. 125719060















CENTER FOR WETLANDS
University of Florida
Gainesville, Fl., 32611


1 * -











CONTENTS


PREFACE--Richard Murphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY OF THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN--
H.T. Odum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. ENERGY ANALYSIS OF THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN SYSTEM--C. Diamond and
H.T. Odum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER--C. Diamond . . . . .


V. ALTERNATIVES IN THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN--

VI. OVERVIEW SIMULATION MODEL--C. Diamond

VII. PERSPECTIVES FOR THE FUTURE . . . .


REFERENCES

APPENDIX A.

APPENDIX B.

APPENDIX C.

APPENDIX D.

APPENDIX E.

APPENDIX F.

APPENDIX G.

APPENDIX H.

APPENDIX I.

APPENDIX J.

APPENDIX K.

APPENDIX L.

APPENDIX M.

APPENDIX N.


RUNOFF RATES IN THE MISSISIPPI

EROSION WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI

ENERGY USE IN BASIN, 1981 . .

FERTILIZER USE . . . . . . .

AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT . . . . .

ANIMAL PRODUCTS . . . . . . .

IMPORT AND EXPORT SERVICES OF

GOVERNMENT FINANCE . . . . .

OIL, GAS AND COAL PRODUCTION

GRAIN USE OF THE BASIN . . .

OIL AND NATURAL GAS RESERVES

COAL RESERVES . . . . . . . .

ORGANIC CONTENT OF SOILS . .

BIOMASS IN FORESTS . . . . .


-H.T.Odum and C.


Diamond


Page

iii

iv

1


12


15

43

49


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

RIVER BASIN . . . . . . . 87

RIVER BASIN . . . . . . . 88

. . . . . . . . . . . . 89

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

THE BASIN . . . . . . . . . 95

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
















The Cousteau Society


PREFACE
Among the most important problems humanity faces today are
the sound management of natural resources and the integration of
human and natural processes. There is a need to understand both
human and natural domains, each in the context of the other,
and it is important to develop management strategies which
acknowledge and promote the vital interconnections between the
two.

Traditionally, a reductionist approach to the study of
natural resources has been taken. By comparison, very little
attention has been given to studying the biosphere at the
ecosystem level of organization. It is at the ecosystem level,
however, where many of nature's benefits are derived and where
the impacts of humanity are being felt.
t
Neither economics nor ecology alone adequately address
the problems society presently faces: a unifying concept or
common denominator is needed which embodies both the natural and
human domains. Energy flows through and is stored by both
systems. Evaluating energy flow, energy quality and embodied
energy enables one to quantify and compare various resource uses
and to determine which development strategies maximize the
energetic of both human and natural systems. The appropriate
use will be the one which maximizes the flow and storage of
energy for both humanity and nature.

Regarding the Mississippi River, we believe no river in the
world has been more used in so many varied activities. For
Americans, this mighty river has been a vital artery for the
transfer of food, natural resources, and industrial products to
and from the American heartland. Great demands have been imposed
on the Mississippi. Some say the river has been controlled and
that, as a consequence, great benefit has been derived. Others
maintain that attempts to control the Mississippi are futile and
that the cost, both in dollars and in the health of the river's
many ecosystems, will be paid by many generations yet to come.

In view of these differences of perspective and opinion, we
have invited Dr. H. T. Odum and his team to employ their energy
analysis techniques to evaluate river resources and their uses.
We hope this approach, and the contents of this document, will
contribute to better river management for the future.

The objective of The Cousteau Society is to educate and to
communicate on a global scale, to document what Americans have
learned from their great Mississippi "experiment", and to
determine how this information can help our fellow voyagers on
this water planet to manage more wisely our vital water
resources.













SUMMARY

An energy systems overview was developed for the Mississippi Basin of the
United States. New methods of analysis were used to evaluate environmental
bases of the economy and consider alternatives, trends, and policies. Solar
EMERGY, a natural measure of value, was used to determine contributions of
environmental work and human work to the economy on the same basis, namely
the equivalent solar energy required. Contributions of each item to the
economy were estimated using the percentage its solar EMERGY was of the total
solar EMERGY of the system. This proportion of the economy was expressed in
dollars and was called MACROECONOMIC VALUE to distinguish it from usual
economic value, which is what people are willing to pay in a market. This
report includes the following sections:

I. The Introduction gives definitions, policy questions, methods, and
symbols for energy systems diagrams.

2. Energy symbol diagrams compare pioneer and modern systems for
interfacing the resources, the river and the economy.

3. A complex network diagram and a simpler aggregated model were drawn
and the main sources evaluated in units of solar EMERGY and macroeconomic
value. The main bases for the economy are flows of oil and gas, rain and the
rivers, and outside goods and services. A large value is in the sediments
eroded from farmlands and washed to the sea unused.

4. The physical and network characteristics of the hierarchy of stream
branching was analyzed, determining energy transformed according to the order
of stream. The solar EMERGY transformed per unit of water energy
(transformity) measures the value of concentrating water into larger streams.
Transformities increase by a factor of 60 times from small streams to the main
river at New Orleans. As a measure of complexity, information contents of the
network were found and related to the system of energy flow which maintains
the system.

5. Tables of EMERGY flow were developed to consider public policy
alternatives for the Basin. Very large values in wetland service, in sediment
deposition, and in water control were diverted into the sea by diking and
channelizing. Although large savings were obtained for transportation,
especially for fuel transport, they were less than previous river values
unnecessarily diverted. General economic development produced higher
macrovalues, but they were much lower than those possible with a better use of
the river. Macrovalues .obtained for waters, fisheries, agriculture, and
wetlands were much larger than the market values. High values justify
measures for restoring wetlands and their contributions.

6. A microcomputer simulation model was developed using the data for the
aggregated overview of the Basin economy. Declining fuel reserves caused a
maximum in the economy, followed by gradual decline. The time of maximum
assets was sensitive to the prices of foreign fuels, increasingly important
with the decline of sources within the Basin.

7. With an understanding of the economy and the values of alternatives,
come suggestions for the future. A challenge lies in making the transition









V





from a fuel-based economy to one that reorganizes the Mississippi River, its
wetlands, and its economy in order to generate more services in the form of
land rotation, forest production, fishery production, agricultural renewal,
flood absorption, and water reconditioning, as well as transportation, trade,
and human settlements.














I. INTRODUCTION


Increasingly, with new technologies, new concepts, and new attitudes,
humanity is learning to take an overview of the larger systems of environment
and humanity. Through television documentaries everyone is learning to think
on the large scale of weather fronts, economic trends, and patterns of human
development of nature. Because the water cycles of the earth are so important
in the organization of the landscape, river basins form a natural unit for
understanding, predicting, and planning for the future. The Mississippi River
Basin System is one of the greatest, important not only to the states and the
nation, but, through trade, to the world (Figure 1).

Along with the production of films that vividly represent systems at
close view and with an overview, some new scientific techniques help the mind
comprehend and facilitate quantitative measurements of the forces and factors
at work in growth and change. This study uses energy systems models to
improve our overview of the Mississippi River Basin System. Such
understanding can assist humans in their new role as stewards of their own
future. As with a zoom lens, we have to look at the small processes of the
great watershed system up close and the large mechanisms at a distance.
First, we model the geologic, meteorologic, biotic, and economic factors of
the Basin as a whole and evaluate the importance of the pathways with energy
analysis.

From the overview we look to see how world economic trends operating
through the national economy are controlling important inputs to the Basin.
Then we look more closely to see how river network energy works under natural
and economic management. Energy analysis results are used to consider the
role of component processes, problems, and alternatives. An overview
simulation model is used to consider alternative trends for the future.
Finally, perspectives are given for the future.

Because many of the earth's processes of work converge on the Mississippi
River Basin and subsequently are converged by waters to the wetlands and
delta, much of the economic value of the Mississippi River Basin is based on
Nature's work. Often the work of the economy inadvertently eliminates some of
this value. Long-range economic vitality requires management of the basin so
that the work of nature and that of the economic system are symbiotic,
facilitating the maximum combined work of the whole area. In the past,
calculations of economic values of a single function such as navigation, flood
control, or short-term yields of farm products have led to the work of humans
being directed in opposition to that of nature. A larger systems view
suggests alternatives in which the concentrated work of humans and their
technology works as a controlling agent matching the work of water,
vegetation, variations in sea level, etc.

Many questions are raised concerning development and the economic
carrying capacity of the Mississippi River Basin? How is development
accommodated with destruction of resources? How is a balance maintained
between humanity and sustainable land uses? How will international economic
trends and decreasing availability of world resources affect the Mississippi?
What is the meaning of the depressed economy of agriculture and manufacturing
of the early 1980's, in view of the longer range trends? What will be the


















































Figure 1. Map of the Mississippi River Basin showing principal features important to
overview models.











sources of fuels? What is the future of soils and wetlands? How will river
energies be used? What patterns of spatial development will occur? What
infrastructure develops the best economy of nature and of humanity? What
trends follow a decline in gas and oil resources of the region? What limits
the use of waters of the river? What economic policies in world trade and
within the U.S. economy will foster a sustained economy that uses
environmental resource systems as a contributing partner rather than a
temporary consumable to be eliminated? To obtain some answers, energy
analysis tables, indices of economic contribution, and a simulation model were
developed.


Perspectives

The Mississippi River Basin comprises 3.22 E6 square km (equivalent to
41% of the area of the 48 contiguous states and touching 31 of them), making
it the world's second largest drainage area. Its combined length, including
the Missouri River tributary, is 6020 km, the third longest river system. It
receives .80 m of rainfall per year and focuses an estimated 18,100 m3/sec
(sixth highest world volume) through its delta.

The Basin (Figure 1) is bounded by the Rocky Mountains on the west and
the Appalachian Mountains on the east. It extends just over the Canadian
border into southern Alberta and Saskatchewan and is separated from the
watershed containing the Great Lakes by a narrow sandy ridge. On the south it
is delimited by the Texas plains which drain directly into the Gulf of Mexico.
The average elevation of the Basin is 777 m and the average slope is about 4
ft/mi (.76 m/km). The overall low relief of the Basin has contributed greatly
to its use for agriculture, while the low gradient of the river and its extent
have been significant for transportation use.

Since the Basin covers such an extensive area, one finds a variety of
attributes in terms of precipitation, soil types, natural vegetation
communities, geological substrata, etc. It is subject to a variety of weather
conditions including high probabilities of tornadoes in the center of the
Basin as well as hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. One important consequence
of the combination of low relief and high rainfall, particularly in the south,
is the occurrence of major annual flooding. Significant flooding, and damage,
occur in the Ohio River tributary system primarily as a result of seasonal
spring storms and melting winter snowpacks. The alluvial floodplain of the
Mississippi extends as far north as southern Missouri. Development of the
river's edge and fertile floodplains has necessitated extensive flood control
measures which have had complicated effects on riverine ecosystems, the
river's hydrology, and the growth of urban areas throughout the lower basin.

The Delta (actually the culmination of eight separate deltas in a period
of less than 10,000 years) occupies only 2.04 E10 square meters, about .63% of
the entire Basin, but represents the convergence of many of the Basin's
energies. Each year over 2.43 Eli kg of sediments, primarily clays, are
discharged through the delta into the Gulf of Mexico. An amount nearly equal
to that in sand and silt is dredged by the Corps of Engineers in maintaining
the harbors and navigation channels of the Basin transportation system.
Preserving the current pattern of distributaries and channel cross sections is
proving to be an expensive task for the Corps as the river attempts to find












the shortest path to the Gulf and adjusts itself according to variance in its
flow and load throughout the year. Presumably, the great concentrations of
gas and oil under the Delta are attributable to the pressure and heat
generated by the volume of sediment depostied by the river over the centuries
on top of old layers of vegetation and marine detritus. Currently the
Louisiana coast, which is dominated by the Mississippi-Atchafalaya
distributary complex, is the single most productive fishing ground in North
America in terms of poundage with the Mississippi River adding a small but
significant percentage of catch.

The Basin is relatively rich in important resources, particularly fossil
fuels. Most of the U.S.'s major coal deposits lie within the Basin borders
and, as previously noted, important reserves of oil and natural gas are to be
found in the vicinity of the Delta. Extensive, but low quality, reserves of
uranium exist throughout the western plateaus of the Appalachians. Production
of iron ore, lead, zinc, bauxite, and sulfur occurs within the Basin. Large
reserves of groundwater (e.g. the Ogallala aquifer) are also mined for
agricultural purposes.

Many major U.S. cities (St. Louis, New orleans, Baton Rouge, Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, Minneapolis and others) depend on the river system for substantial
portions of their commodity transportation needs. In the past 15 years the
Mississippi River system has come to account for more than 50% of all ton-
miles of freight traffic among the coastal and inland waterways. The bulk of
the nation's grain exports are transported via the Mississippi and leave
through New Orleans. The river is additionally used as a source of municipal
water and as a sink for industrial wastes.

In the western portion of the Basin much river water is diverted from
already shallow tributaries to irrigate farmlands. Approximately 70% of the
Basin's area is in cropland or range, a use which is responsible in part for
increased erosion and consequently high sediment loads of the river. Runoff
from farms includes relatively high concentrations of nutrients, herbicides,
and pesticides which have been shown to accumulate in the Delta area. Heavy
metals and other industrial byproducts have been shown to occur at the river
outfall also, concentrating in body tissue of fish and birds.


Methods

Overviews and understanding of the Mississippi Basin were sought with
energy systems methods that used models to analyze and synthesize knowledge
about the systems of humanity and nature on three scales of size: (a) the
larger national and international economies to which the river basin
contributes, (b) the river basin itself, and (c) component land use systems,
the wetlands, estuaries, and agroecosystems. Model diagrams were used to
organize and express structure and processes. An aggregated version of these
models was computer-simulated to learn the temporal consequences of resources,
relationships, and policies built into the models. After aggregated diagrams
were developed, EMERGY analysis was used to measure the economic importance of
various inputs, processes, and accumulations. From the EMERGY tables, various
ratios and indices were calculated to provide perspectives on trends and
preferred policies.















Energy Diagrams of Models

Energy systems diagrams were drawn using symbols and language
conventions provided in a number of texts (Odum, 1971, 1983). Explanations of
the main symbols are given in Figure 2. After a boundary of the system is
indicated with a rectangular frame, outside influences are shown with source
symbols (circles) arranged from left to right in order of increasing
transformity (see definitions in Table 1). Within the frame, main components
such as producers, consumers, storage, and interactions are shown again,
arranging symbols from left to right according to energy intensity. Pathways
are then connected between symbols. The way the pathways are joined to the
symbols indicates mathematical relationships such as adding, multiplying,
integrating, etc. The energy diagram provides a visual overview of the
system. The diagrams are structured to represent hierarchy from numerous
smaller items on the left converging to fewer larger-territoried items on the
right. Flows of money are included as dashed lines and are related to other
flows by prices. After a diagram is produced, a simpler version may be
developed by aggregating (combining) some units that were shown separately in
the first inventory.


Computer Simulation

Mathematical relationships are readily inferred from the energy diagram
since each pathway has a characteristic term that goes with each kind of
symbol-pathway pattern. Thus a set of differential equations may be written
by inspection, one equation for each unit in the diagram that has storage
properties. From the equations, microcomputer simulation programs may be
written in a computer language such as BASIC. To calibrate the coefficients
of the model's equations, values of storage and flows are written on the
energy diagram pathways where it is easy to compare and check numbers. For
example, flow of money in and out of a system could be set equal, thus
calibrating at steady state to simplify calculations of coefficients. After
substituting values for each storage term in an equation, it is solved for the
coefficient value. Coefficients are then entered in the computer program.
Graphs may be generated by the computer showing the nature of growth,
leveling, oscillation, etc. over time that derive from the set of assumed
relationships and values.


EMERGY Analysis

After the initial energy diagram was simplified by aggregation to show
the main inputs and flows, solar EMERGY and macroeconomic values were
calculated for the main flows and storage of interest and expressed in an
EMERGY analysis table. Emergy analysis is a form of energy analysis for
determining values of resources and other inputs on a similar basis. Solar
EMERGY, a natural measure of value, was used to determine contributions of
environmental work and human work to the economy on the same basis, namely the
equivalent solar energy required. Contributions of each item to the economy
was estimated using the percentage its solar EMERGY was of the total solar
























Q_ OUTSIDE ENERGY SOURCE - delivers energy flow
from outside the system.




HEAT SINK - drains out degraded energy after
its use in work.



ENERGY STORAGE TANK - stores and delivers
energy flow.




ENERGY INTERACTION - requires two or more
kinds of energy to produce high quality energy flow.




ENERGY-MONEY TRANSACTION - money flows
in exchange for energy.



GENERAL PURPOSE BOX - for any sub-unit
needed, is labeled to indicate use.




"-*- PRODUCER UNIT- converts and concentrates
solar energy, self moinvaining, details may be
shown inside.



CONSUMER UNIT -uses high quality energy, self
maintaining; details may be shown inside.


Figure 2. Explanation of symbols of the diagrammatic energy language.














Table 1. Definitions.


EMERGY
(Embodied energy)




Theoretical
trans formity


Practical
transformity

Solar
transformit y

Net EMERGY yield ratio


EMERGY investment ratio
(Econoic-environment
ratio)

Exchange ratio


Macroeconomic value


Net benefit


Energy of one type required to generate a flow
or storage of matter, another type of energy,
or information. Embodied energy is an older name
which has been used with more than one meaning. The
units of EMERGY are emjoules or emcalories.

Energy of one type required to generate a
unit of energy of another type in a system
adapted for optimum efficiency and maximum power.

Ratio of EMERGY to energy observed in a surviving
real system.

Solar EMERGY per unit of energy of a particular
type. Its units are solar emjoules per joule.

Ratio of EMERGY yielded per EMERGY of the same type
of energy fed back from the economy

Ratio of EMERGY purchased from the economy to the
input of EMERGY of the same type from the
environmental resources.

Ratio of EMERGY in the currency received to the
EMERGY of the same type in a product sold.

Part of gross economic product contributed by an
EMERGY input and expressed in $.

Difference in EMERGY or macroeconomic value in
changing one alternative to another













EMERGY of the system. This proportion of the economy was expressed in dollars
and was called MACROECONOMIC VALUE to distinguish it from usual economic
value, which is what people are willing to pay in a market. See definitions
in Table 1.

Raw data are given in Table 1. Transformities from other studies are
given in the next column. Solar transformity of an item is the solar EMERGY
required for one unit of energy of the type in that item. For example, about
40,000 Joules of solar energy are estimated as the necessary amount to
generate a joule of coal (Odum and Odum, 1983). Therefore, the solar
transformity of coal is 40,000 solar emjoules per joule.

The raw data values in the first column are multiplied by the
transformities in the second column to obtain the solar EMERGY in the third
column. Using the diagram to avoid double counting, sums and ratios can be
calculated. By expressing inputs or production in units of solar EMERGY,
flows of entirely different types may be expressed in units that can
be added to determine the total contribution that has gone into a product.
The solar EMERGY is a common denominator that is believed to evaluate
the amount of one commodity that is substitutable for another.

Finally, the solar EMERGY was divided by the solar EMERGY/$ ratio for a
particular year to obtain the macroeconomic value in $ for that year. The
ratio of solar EMERGY per $ was obtained from national analyses which
evaluated the total solar EMERGY of the main resources and services supporting
an economy in a particular year and divided by the gross economic product for
that year.


EMERGY Criteria for Economic Evaluation

Useful indices that use EMERGY for inference are included in Table 1.
The EMERGY measures the contribution to an economy by nature or by humans. By
proportion, a dollar equivalent (macroeconomic value) may be estimated. The
percentage that the EMERGY of a process is of the total economy's budget of
EMERGY is the percentage that that process is of the gross national product.

Fuels may be evaluated with a net EMERGY yield ratio which is the ratio
of EMERGY yield to the EMERGY inputs supplied by the monied economy. Ignoring
the use of subsidies, fuel sources with the highest net energy yield ratios
will be the most competitive, economically. Sources with lower ratios require
relatively high levels of inputs from the monied economy.

The EMERGY investment ratio is the ratio of the inputs from the economy
to the free inputs from the environmental resources. The ratio is useful for
determining the relative contribution of free inputs. For a process to be
competitive it must have as much free input as its competitors. The ratio
also measures environmental loading. A high ratio means that the environment
is loaded with economic inputs.

By analyzing the main EMERGY inputs of a whole country and dividing by
the gross national product an EMERGY to dollar ratio is found for that
country. This can be used to estimate the EMERGYehat goes with paid services.
The EMERGY per person is a useful measure of total contributions to the














person's existence. Rural people receive more EMERGY basis for their
existence directly without money payment than city people. In this case money
does not measure their relative standard of living.


The benefits from buying and selling may be inferred from the relative
magnitudes of The EMERGY in the trade. The balance of EMERGY is very
different from the balance of money payments. Money evaluates only human
services, since money is only paid to people. The EMERGY evaluation includes
all inputs including those of human service, of fuels, and environment.


Policy Criteria

The EMERGY was used to choose between alternative plans and policies.
Alternatives with higher EMERGY inputs increase an economy's vitality and
competitive position. It may be expected that in the trial-and-error process
of open markets and human individual choices, the pattern that generates more
EMERGY will tend to prevail and be copied. Recommendations for the future
likely to be successful go in the direction of the natural tendencies as
predicted by selecting that which maximizes EMERGY.


Choice Between Alternatives Using Net EMERGY Benefit

To distinguish between an old systems and a proposed new system, the
change in EMERGY contribution is estimated. See Figure 3. After a complex
diagram is drawn to identify the main sources, components, and processes, a
simpler diagram is drawn of the new system, the old system, and the
connections with the larger system. Then an EMERGY analysis table is
evaluated with a line for each input. Flows that use previous stored reserves
are included.

Then the change in EMERGY contribution due to the changed system is
calculated. The change in EMERGY contribution between one system and another
is:

Change in contribution = P2 - Pi (1)

where P2 is the EMERGY contribution of the new system, PI is the EMERGY
contribution of the older system.

The contribution of the new system or proposed new system (P2) may be
compared with an alternative investment of the same economic inputs (P3). The
alternative is estimated as the sum of the economic input (F2) plus the
regional matching of environmental resources that may be expected (13 =
F2/IR). The investment ratio IR was defined in the methods section as the
ratio of the EMERGY flow from the economy to that supplied free from the
environmental resources.

P3 = F2/IR + F2 (2)


















































Old : P1, = I+FI

New: P2 = 2+ F2

Alternate: P3 = F2+F2/FI




Figure 3. Generic diagram for identifying EMERG-P flows to be
evaluated in considering alternatives in choices and management of
an economic sector involving environmental resources.















Comparison is made by subtracting the alternate EMERCY contribution (P3)
from the EMERGY contribution of the new systems (P2).

Contribution difference = P2 - P3 (3)

Another comparison can be made between the new system and the contribution
with the most potential. The potential EMERGY contribution (P4) is estimated
by multiplying the available environmental resource contribution (I) by the
investment ratio (IR);

P4 - IR * I (4)

Comparison with Potential = P2 - P4 (5)

If comparisons are made in EMERGY units, solar emjoules per year, the
dollar magnitude (Macroeconomic Value) of the change is obtained by dividing
by the solar EMERGY/$ ratio. For 1986 the U.S. ratio was 2.0 E12 solar
emjoules/$.

An alternate procedure is to express the flows in macroeconomic $ before
making the Net Benefit Calculations.

Successful new projects would be expected to be an increase in EMERGY
contribution over the past and over alternatives available in the region. If
the evaluation of the new system is less than the potential, it means that
environmental potentialities are being wasted and ultimately a better system
could emergy, subject to delays due to inertia, political events, and other
factors. A hypothesis, largely untested as yet, is that trial and error
eventually develops the maximum EMERGY system. Our EMERGY analyses may help
find the maximum EMERGY pattern sooner.

In Section V the maximum EMERGY criterion for selection of alternatives
is applied.


Methods for Characterizing Energy and Complexity of River Networks

Two procedures were used to show properties of the river network.
First, the hierarchy of converging streams was measured by the gravitational
potential energy used in successive segments. Segments were classified
according to stream order and the energy used at one order to generate the
next was calculated. Thus, solar transformities were determined for different
orders of streams from headwaters to mouth. These express in solar EMERGY
units the concentration that takes place in solar energy from global processes
causing rains and runoffs in the Mississippi Basin. The higher the
transformity of the stream, the greater the contribution of the river to the
cities and floodplains that use the river.

Second, the information content in units of macroscopic entropy in the
branching was calculated using Shannon formulae. These were statistically
correlated with age, rainfall, and runoff by Diamond (1984). As a measure of
water system complexity, the Information (Entropy) measure may indicate
locations for maximum interaction of humanity and nature.














II. OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY OF THE MISSISSIPPI BASIN

Howard T. Odum


Using energy network diagrams to gain systems overview, two
contrasting energy systems diagrams are given in Figures 4 and 5. Figure 4
represents the Mississippi River Basin prior to European colonization,
operating on renewable resources. Figure 5 represents the pattern of urban
human society and its pattern of landscape now at the end of the 20th
century with a system dominated by the EMERGY of slowly renewable mineral
resources at this very special time when total resource use may be at its
peak. In the figures the main categories of subsystem are arranged from left
to right according to the successive transformations in the convergence of
energies. Main categories of causal influences (energy sources), subsystems,
and processes are included in the diagrams. The two systems do not appear
consistent because in selecting major systems some fall out or appear as major
or minor components.

A Producing Regime. In the earlier diagram (Figure 4) prior to European
colonization, the convergence of rains and snows to form the river network was
the dominant source of EMERGY, controlling the spatial organization of
organisms, people, geological processes, and chemical cycles on the surface of
the landscape. The cycle of sediments from the uplands washing to the sea
drives the sedimentary cycle, with the isostatic uplift of the mountains
around the basin replacing the masses lost by erosion. Contributed from
below are heat energies driving earth convection which also contribute to the
sedimentary cycle of earth.

Main ecosystems are shown, much aggregated: the water-rich forests of
the Appalachian Mountains grading through drier climate regimes into prairies
and short-grass plains to the divide of the Rocky Mountains. In the lower
river, vast areas of swamps and marshes absorbed the annual surges of floods
from meltwaters of northern snows. The precolonial times represented in
Figure 3 were mainly times of production, storage, and maintenance of geologic
and biologic products.

Here human settlements of American Indians were part of the main
categories of ecosystems on the watersheds and wetlands of the River.
Although at the top of the hierarchy of wildlife, exerting many control
influences on landscape through patterns of land use and fire, the humans were
not controlling the main flows of EMERGY of the river, the sedimentary cycle,
or the rich storage later to dominate the new processes.

Storage-Using Regime. Present in the first diagram but the basis for
reorganizing the Basin's system as represented in the second diagram, were
massive storage of earth products, storage accumulated by the prior
geological and environmental work. There were deep beds of soil-forming
materials deposited by earlier ice ages, wind-blown loess, clays and the soils
formed by ice scrapings transported south from Canada, massive mountain
structures, sculptured river basin forms, rich soils and heavy forests on
uplands and in floodplains, large reservoirs of water in the Great Lakes,
river lakes, and ground waters. The rich minerals underground stored by
cumulative biogeochemical processes were the coal, oil, natural gas, salt






































































Figure 4. Energy systems overview of the Kississippi Basin in 1500. River
line has been darkened.

Figure 5. Energy systems overview of the Mississippi Basin in 1984.
TOX = toxic substances; river lines have been darkened.














beds, sulfur, and limestones--then a part of slow sedimentary cycle, little
used by processes on the surface.

Although still containing the renewable environmental drives of Figure 4,
the overview of the Mississippi Basin in our current time (Figure 5) now
has the prior storage under rapid consumption by the economy. Use of fuels,
minerals, and soils supports the enormous and dominant urban settlements of
humanity, the massive consumer, with enough energies to control many aspects
of the great river, the atmosphere, water chemistry, land uses, and some
geological processes.

In interpreting the early history of American Culture in the
Mississippi Basin, the dominance of New Orleans economically and culturally
seems to make sense because of the multiple EMERGIES converging at this point.
These are augmented by additional resources imported by river-facilitated
foreign imports.

Interpretation of later history finds new centers of EMERGY
convergence in additional cities oriented to the distribution of the rich
soils, minerals, and fuels for new industries using the river network in new
ways for massive water consumption, transportation, and waste processing.
Electric lights seen in night views of the region from satellite reveal the
high EMERGY centers of human activity and the hierarchical organization of the
region with many towns, fewer cities, and only a few urban centers.

Among the possibilities that must be considered in anticipating the
future is the return of the system of Figure 5 to that of Figure 4 as the
slowly renewable resources now supporting the consumer society will soon be
too small to sustain all the urban concentrations.

In Section III that follows the remaining major resource storage and
renewable resources are evaluated in EMERGY units so as to infer what is
important at the present and in the future.













III. ENERGY ANALYSIS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN

Craig Diamond and H.T. Odum


Energy analysis was used to make an overview of the Mississippi River
Basin. Main features and processes were related with energy network diagrams
and were evaluated in units of EMERGY in which energies of varying types are
transformed into the equivalent energy of a single type (Odum and Odum, 1983).
Flows and storage of available energy were calculated in Calories
kilocaloriess), as physical heat, potential energy, or chemical potential.
Using transformities established by Odum and Odum (1983) all energies were
converted to solar equivalents (solar emcalories).

Energy analysis seeks to evaluate the relative magnitudes of the flows
and storage of energy which both support and are generated within systems.
Placing all values in EMERGY units in equivalent calories of one type, e.g.,
solar emcalories, permits comparisons among such flows and storage. Energy
analysis also reflects the relative importance of and contribution of these
flows and storage to the stability of the system and its ability to support
further growth and compete with other systems.


Methods

For most physical parameters, an outline of the Mississippi River Basin
(defined by the U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978) was superimposed over maps
presented in Odum (1983). The boundary of the Basin at the coast was taken to
be the 19,000 ppm surface salinity line, which includes all of the estuaries
and reefs. The upper boundary was taken to be 1000 m for the evaluation of
the vertical diffusion of wind energy. A I m depth, for evaluation of soils,
was used as a lower boundary. Areas between isopleths were measured using a
planimeter and summed for regions differing in solar intensity, precipitation,
runoff, wind speed, elevation, soil type, and surface heat flow.

Information on erosion rates, land use (agricultural, urban, and forest),
and groundwater supplies was obtained from the Water Resources Council. Data
for wave height, tides, and salinity were taken from a study on the Delta
region by Costanza (1983). Estimates of mineral reserves were done on an
areal basis using the percent of each reserve region within the Basin.
Varying quality of reserves within a given region was ignored except for the
evaluation of coal which included substantial volumes of lignite.

Data regarding the use of fuels and fertilizers and the production and
consumption of electricity, minerals, and agricultural products were taken
from the U.S. Statistical Abstract (1983). Where states were not wholly
contained within the Basin, approximate boundaries were drawn to county lines
for which population data were available. Fuel and electrcitiy use, along
with estimates for the returns of taxes, could then be done using per capital
values for each state.

Where information was available only at the federal level, i.e., imports
and exports of goods and services within the world market, the Basin's share
was determined in the following manner: with respect to consumption and














imports, the assumption was made that the Basin, because of the extent of its
population and size, is representative of the U.S. as a whole, and its
percentage of the U.S. population was used as a factor; with respect to
exports of grains, the assumption was made that the Basin's share was
proportional to its percentage of U.S. production totals for each dominant
grain. Exports of manufactured goods were based on the Basin's proportion of
employees in the industrial sector.


Procedural Details

A complex diagram containing all major subsystems of the Basin was
prepared to determine the interactions governing production and consumption
and the contribution of renewable and non-renewable resources. An aggregated
diagram, featuring all inflows and outflows in EMERGY of one type was also
prepared. General categories, such as all imports, indigenous non-renewables,
etc., were then used to calculate indices which can be used for comparisons
with other parts of the globe.

Standard formulae of physics and chemistry were used to determine the
actual Calorie value of work done on the system and the potential energy of
system storage. Flows out of the system were evaluated similarly. The
formulae used are presented as footnotes.

Transformities for the flows and storage evaluated were taken from Odum
and Odum, 1983; Odum, 1986. The transformities measure energy quality.
Actual Calorie values were multiplied by the transformities to give EMERGY
values in Solar Equivalent Calories.

Sources and flows were aggregated into categories: renewable sources,
minerals and fuels, imported goods and services, exports, etc. Overview
indices were calculated using the values obtained by aggregating. Some of the
indices evaluated were total energy used, percent of all energy that is
renewable, ratio of imports to exports, exports minus imports, fuel use per
capital, fraction of use that is not paid for, and an estimate of the region's
carrying capacity at the current standard of living.


Results

A complex overview diagram of the Mississippi River Basin is presented as
Figure 6. Sources of energy and subsystems are oriented from left to right in
order of increasing energy quality and concentration. The river system is at
the heart of the diagram, increasing in quality as it raeches the port cities
and then losing some of its energy quality as it moves past the estuaries and
out to sea. River energy with its sediment load interacts with deep earth
cycle energy to build the basin landform which is also eroded by weathering
and the river.

Land use categories are connected to the river system, beginning with
undeveloped highlands and plains and increasing in energy quality with
developed agricultural and floodplain properties. Flood plains were found to
be the highest quality of land in that they receive the sediments and
nutrient-rich waters from lands above them.













transpiration


Figure 6. Complex energy diagram of the modern system of the Mississippi Basin.
R, river management agencies; W, water vapor.
















To the right of the river system are the government agencies, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (CoE), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), that manipulate the river's activity. Urban centers and
floodplain agriculture are protected from flooding; regional and international
commerce is augmented by the dredging of nearshore, main stem, and tributary
channels; hydropower is made available for industry. Reserves of fossil fuels
are shown feeding into urban processes and the extraction of gas and oil is
shown to impact the estuaries. Groundwater, another important storage, is
being tapped to provide energy for agriculture.

Based on Table 2, the chemical potential of rainfall over the Basin is
the largest inflow of renewable energy. The direct use of fossil fuels is
nearly seven times the value of all renewable sources. Goods and services,
representing the general transfer of items evaluated primarily by their dollar
value rather than actual energy content, are the largest flows both into and
out of the system. The extensive use of the Basin as an agricultural tool is
evident from the relatively high embodied energy of grain and animal products.
Similarly, the Basin is used as a resource base in terms of the amount of fuel
exported to the remainder of the U.S. and the world market.

Coal remains a huge storage of energy for the Basin. Combined storage
of alternate fuels (oil, gas and forest wood) constitute only about two
percent of the EMERGY of coal. Actual Calories of uranium are shown to be of
even greater value than coal, but the estimates of tonnage are less reliable
than those of coal and the concentrations at this time are considered too low
to be economically competitive.

From sedimentary rock weathering and from past deposits of glaciers, deep
beds of soil resources are the most valuable long-range resource. The EMERGY
in soil is that of the clay materials and that of the soil profile that
ecosystems build with those materials. The clay-rich earth materials that
erode from croplands are mainly redeposited in floodplains where they may
continue to contribute to productivity, but those unnecessarily lost out to
sea represent loss of economic potentials. The topsoil profiles take several
hundred years to develop and erosion of these represents a loss of nature's
previous work for that period of time. However, when the earth materials of
the profile (clays) are lost out to sea, materials are lost that required
several thousand years to develop. In Table 2 both were evaluated, but only
the more valuable earth loss (item #7) was included in regional totals so as
to avoid double counting erosion.

Figure 7 is an aggregated diagram of the Basin that includes all major
storage and sources of energy. The values are in solar emcalories and were
taken from Tables 2 and 3. The derivations of these values are shown in the
footnotes to the tables.


Indices and Discussion

An energy analysis of the Mississippi River Basin is similar to an
analysis of the entire U.S. economy. Indices and ratios for the Basin and the
U.S. as a whole are assembled in Tables 4 and 5. The results in Table 2 and


















































Figure 7. Aggregated diagram of the Mississippi Basin with solar EMERGY values written
on principal pathways. See Tables 2 and 3.










Table 2. EMERGY flows of the Mississippi River Basin.

Solar
Foot- Energy Transformity EM'IEPRY
note Item Cal or g/yr SE Cal/Cal (E 18 SE
or Cal/g Emcal/yr


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Import
18
19
20
21
22
23
ExporI
24
25
26
27
28
29


Si


Direct sunlight
Kinetic energy of wind
Tides
Geopotential of runoff
Chem. potential of rain
Waves
Net loss of earth
Net loss of t:psoil
Coal consumed
Oil consumed
Gas consumed
Electricity (non-fuel) cons
Earth cycle
Major crops produced
Animal products
Fish harvested
Minerals produced
ts
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Oil
Goods
Services
ts
Coal
Gas
Grain
Goods
Animal products


18
15
12
15
15
12
14 g
14
15
15
15
14
15
16
14
11
13 g


1
623
23,564
23,564
15,444
25,889
2.89 E 5 SE Cal/g
6.30 E 4
3.98 E 4
5.30 E 4
4.80 E 4
15.90 E 4
2.90 E 4
6.80 E 4
4.24 E 5
1.51 E 7
2.03 E 5 SE Cal/g


4.51
8.59
1.01
1.01
2.62
5.75
1.75
1.45
1.87
2.30
1.83
2.99
1.16
3.00
1.08
6.37
1.82


4.09
2.17
2.27
6.91





1.83
1.18
5.30


Cal/g
Cal/g
Cal/g


3.98
4.80
6.80


services


1.00
4.78
4.57
5.30


4.51
5.35
0.02
23.80
40.46
0.15
50.58
9.15
74.23
121.69
87.60
47.54
33.77
80.08
42.36

9. ,ri
3.70


4.09
10.35
1.0-)
36.63
7.18
183.59


72.83
56.64
36.04
3.20
22.34
132.97











Footnotes to Table 2.

1. Direct sunlight:

Average insolation value was measured to be 383.731y/day

using maps developed by Visher (1954 quoted in Odum et al., 1983).

Area of basin is 3.22 E 12 m2 (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978).

(Avg. insolation)(area)

(383.73 ly/day)(10 Cal/m2"l1 (3.22 E12 m 2)(365 day/yr)

= 4.51 E18 Cal/yr

2. Wind:

Average eddy diffusion coefficient was determined to be 14.74 m 2/s

using data from Swaney (1978).

Average vertical wind gradient was determined to be 4.42 E-3/s

using data from Swaney (1978).

(height)(density)(diff. coefficient)(wind gradient) 2(area)

(1 E 3 m)(1.23 kg/m3)(14.74 m2/s)(4.42 E-3/s)2(3.22 E 12 m2)

(3.154 2 7.s/yr)(2.389 E-4 Cal/joule) = 8.59 E 15 Cal

3. Tides:

Mean tidal range is 0.24 (Costanza et al., 1983).

Area of estuarine habit is 2.02 E 6 ha (Coscanza et al., 1983).

(0.5)(area)(tides/yr)(height)2(density)(gravity)

(0.5)(2.02 E14 cm2)(730/yr)(23.9 cm)2(1.025 g/cm3)(980 cm/sec2)

= 4.23 E22 erg/yr

= 1.01 E12 Cal/yr








Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

4. Geopotential of rain:

Average elevation was measured to be 2549 ft (776.93 m) -.iing maps

developed by Hunt (1967 as quoted by Odum et al., 1983).

A:-erage runoff value was calculated to be 6.83 in/yr

based on data from the U.S. Water Resources Council (1978) - see

Appendix A

(area)(avg. elevation)(runoff)(density)(gravity)

(3.22 E 12 m2)(776.93 m)(0.173 m)(I E 3 kg/m3)(9.8 m/sec2)

= 4.25 E 18 J/yr

= 1.01 E15 Cal/yr

5. Chemical potential of rain (Gibbs free energy):

Average rainfall over the Basin is 31.46 in/yr (0.799 m/yr)

based on maps developed by NOAA (1977 as quoted by Odum

et al., 1983). Since average runoff is 6.83 in/yr (0.173 m/yr),

rainfall evapotranspired is taken to be 0.626 m/yr.

Average temperature over the Basin is 55*F(130C) and 70*F (21'C)

in the Delta region (NOAA, 1977 as quoted by Odum at al., 1983).

Average s-alinity, in the estuarine and nearshore regions of the Delta

is 19.4 ppt (19,440 ppm)(Costanza, 1983).

G = Gihbs free energy per gram= (T.T loge C2/C1)/(m.w.)

(1.99 E-3 Cal/0K*mole)(28%*K)ln(999,990/965,000)/(18 g/mole)

= 1.13 E-3 Cal/g

Over the basin: (area)(rainfall)(G)
(3.22 E12 m2)(0.626 m/yr)(1 E 6 g/m3)(l.13 E-3Cal/g) ' 2.27 E15 Cal/yr

Gibbs free energy at the delta:

(1.99 E-3 Cal/�K-mole)(294�K)ln(999,990/980,600)/(18 g/mole)

= 6.36 E-4 Cal/g












Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

(3.22 E 12 m2)(O.173 m/yr)(1 E 6 g/m3)(6.36 E-4 Cal/g)
= 3.55 E 14 Cal/yr
Total = 2.62 Z 15 Cal/yr

6. Waves:

Shoreline was measured to be 257 km.

Wave velocity derived from the square root of the

product of gravity and shoaling depth (3.12 E8 m/yr)

Mean wave height is taken from data by Thomson (1977

as quoted by Odum and Odum et al., 1983).

(length)(1/8)(density)(gravity)(height)2(velocity)

(2.57 E 7 cm)(1/8)(1.025 g/cm3)(980 cm/sec2)(4.9 E 1 cm)2

(3.12 E 10 cm/yr)

= 2.42 E 23 erg/yr

= 5.75 E12 Cal/yr

7. Net loss of earth calculated as the difference between rate of earth

formation from rocks and loss of earth offshore. Average rate of

earth formation, 31.2 g/m 2/yr (Odum and Odum, 1983) was used for

Mississippi Basin. Outfall rate of suspended solids, 2.43 E14 g/yr

(Costanza, 1983) based on 10 yr data from U.S. Geological Survey

plus dredging loss:

Dredging loss used the mean of two estimates: (1) 7.96 E12 g/yr from

Ocean Dumping (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). (2) calculation where

30', of offshore dumping was in New Orleans area: density of mixed

sands and silts was 2.81 g/cm3; 8.78 E7 yd3 dumped offshore annually

(Armstrong and Ryner, 1978):

(0.3)(8.78 E7 yd3)(2.81 g/cm3)(.765 m3/yd3)(1 E6 cm3/m3) = 5.66 E13 g/yr

Mean dredging loss: (5.66 E13 + 7.96 E12)/2 = 3.22 El13 g/yr









Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

Total outflow:

(0.322 E14 g/yr dredging loss + 2.43 E14 g/yr suspended outflow =

- 2.75 E14 g/yr

Net earth loss:

(2.75 E14 g/yr outflow) - (31.2 g/m2/yr)(3.22 E12 m2) = 1.75 E14 g/yr

8. Energy in net loss of topsoil:

Erosion rates and areas of land type are reported in Appendix B.

Mkture range and forest areas assumed to have no net loss, hence

production equals erosion for these areas. Loss of topsoil from

crop areas, 8.97 E14 g/yr (Appendix B). Typical soils are 3% organic

matter, and 5.4 Cal/g is empirically derived (Odum and Odum, 1983).

(8.97 E14 g/yr)(0.03)(5.4 Cal/g) = 1.45 E14 Cal/yr










Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

9, 10, 11, 12. Fuels consumed:

Refer to Appendix C.

Consumption data are from the Energy Information Administration (1983)

Data for states entirely within the Basin are reported in Section I.

Figures for states not entirely within the Basin (Section II) were

derived as follows: Using maps from Rand McNally & Co. (1978),

basin boundaries were outlined conforming to county boundaries.

1970 Census values for all counties within the Basin were summed

and then divided by the state census total, giving a percentage of

population within the Basin for each state. This percentage was

applied uniformly to consumFtLon values for each fuel type. Where

percentage values were less than 1, the total of residents was

multiplied by that state's average per capital energy use value.

Fuel E 12 BTU(0.252Cal/BTU) E 12 Cal

Coal 7415 1.r9

Oil 9128 2300

Gas 7244 1825

Electricity 1187 299

Note: Electricity is the sum of nuclear generated, hydropower

and transfers.

13. Earth Cycle:

Surface heat flow was calculated to be 4.8 E-2 W/m2

using contour maps in Sorenson (1979).

(heat flow) (area)

(4.8 E-2 W/m2 )(1 joulesec.W)(2.389 E-4 Cal/joule)(3.154 E7 sec/yr)

(3.22 E12 m2) = 1.16 E 15 Cal/yr










Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

14. Major Crops:

Production values are from Appendix E.

Calorie values are from Composition of Foods, U.S.

AericltEural Handbook No. 8 (Watt and Merril, 19'3).

Energy = (mass)(energy/unit mass)

Corn: (1.62 E 14 g)(3.55 Cal/g) = 5.75 E 14 Cal

Wheat: (4.67 E 13 g)(3.30 Cal/g) = 1.54 E 14 Cal

Soybeans: (4.46 E 13)(4.03 Cal/g) = 1.80 E 14 Cal

Sorghum: (1.57 E 13 g)(3.32 Cal/g) = 5.21 E 13 Cal

Total = 9.61 E 14 Cal

Transformity for industrial corn is 6.8 E4 SE Cal/Cal

(9.61 E 14 Cal)(6.8 E 4 SE Cal/Cal) = 65.35 E 18 SE Cal

Hay: Transformity for hay should be between that of native ara=ses and

industrial crops. Based on local price of $30 per 1200 lbs, the transformity

is 1.07 E 4 SE Cal/Cal. The mean of the two other transformities is

3.62 E 4. (2.63 E 14 Cal)(1.07 E 4 SE Cal/Cal) = 2.81 E 18 SE Cal

Pasture Grass: Range acreage is 2.674 E 8 acres (U.S. Water

Resources Council, 1978). Average net primary production of
2
temperate grasslands is 600 g/m 2-yr (Whittaker, 1975).

(2.674 E 8 acres)(4047 m2/acre)(600 g/m 2yr) = 6.49 E 14 g/yr

(6.49 E 14 g/yr)(4.25 Cal/g) = 2.76 E 15 Cal/yr

Transformity for grass biomass is 4.32 E 3 SE Cal/Cal (Odum, 1983).

(2.76 E 15 Cal/yr)(4.32 E 3 SE Cal/Cal) = 11.92 SE Cal/yr

Total Cal = 3.00 E 16 Total SE Cal = 80.08 E 18










Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)


15. Energy in animal products = (mass)(energy/mass)

Production values are from Appendix F.

Calorie values are from Watt and Merril, 1975.

Cattle: (1.07 E 13 g)(4.28 Cal/g) = 4.58 E 13 Cal

Hogs: (8.31 E 12 g)(4.36 Cal/g) = 3.62 E 13 Cal

Sheep: (3.03 E 11 g)(3.31 Cal/g) = 1.00 E 12 Cal

Broilers: (2.16 E 12 g)(2.39 Cal/g) = 5.16 E 12 Cal

Turkey: (6.23 E 11 g)(2.39 Cal/g) = 1.49 E 12 Cal

Eggs: (1.13 E 12g)(1.63 Cal/g) = 1.84 E 12 Cal

Total = 9.15 E 13 Cal

Tr.anformity for animal products was based on caloric conversion rates of

1 Cal cattle per 7 Cal grain (64.4%) and 1 Cal hog per 5 Cal of

grain (34.4%). Value is 6.23.

(6.23)(6.8 E 4 SE Cal/Cal) = 4.24 E 5 SE Cal/Cal

(9.15 E 13 Cal)(4.24 E 5 SE Cal/Cal) = 38.80 E 18 SE Cal

Milk: Transformity for milk products is 2.2 E 5 SE Cal/Cal (Odum, 1983)

(2.49 E 13 g)(0.65 Cal/g) = 1.62 E 13 Cal

(1.62 E 13 Cal)(2.2 E 5 SE Cal/Cal) = 3.56 E 18 SE Cal

Total Cal = 1.08 E 14 Cal Total SE Cal = 42.36 E 18

16. Fish harvested = (mass)(energy/mass)

Harvest for Louisiana area is 1290 E 6 lb (1975-81 avg)

Harvest for .Mississippi River and tributaries is 73 E 6 lb

(U.S. Statistical Abstract, li3;

Total is 13o3 E 6 lb (6.18 E 8 kg)

(6.18 E 11 g)(1.03 Cal/g) = 6.37 E 11 Cal

Note: Commercial fish only - sport fishing not included.










FooLnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

17. Mineral production= (mass)(solar EMERGY/g)

Production values are from the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1983.

Transformity for elements is 2.03 E 5 SE Cal/g (Odum, 1983)

Mineral Mass E 9 g

Bauxite 499.0

Copper 5.4

Salt 13,600.0

Sulfur 3,592.8

Land 150.0

Zinc 160.0

Uranium 181.4

Total 18,188.6 E 9 g

(1.82 E 13 g)(2.03 E 5 SE Cal/g) = 3.70 E 18 SE Cal











Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

13, 19, 20. Fertilizers consumed:

Values are from Appendix D.

21. Oil imports:

Based on difference between production (Appendix I) and consumption

(Appendix C).

(6,374 E 12 BTU) - (9,117 E 12 BTU) = - 2,743 E 12 BTU

(2,743 E 12 BTU)(0.252 Cal/BTU) = 6.91 E 14

Note: This figure represents net imports. Much foreign oil is

delivered to lower river port cities for processing and is exported

out of the Basin.

22. Imported goods:

Data is from the U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1953. Values are for 1960.

Mill products have transformities that include labor. Other imports are

approximated under Services (Foornote 23) in terms of dollar/energy

ratio.

Item World Transformity Solar


Ia



B


Quantity
E 12 g


Energy
(Cal/g)


SE Cal/Cal


-on Ore 28.3 8.05 E-3 6.01 E 7

iuxite 13.9 1.56 E-2 1.32 E 7

:eel Products 16.3 2.16 E-2 1.97 E 7

Aluminum 0.6 (3.89 E 6 SE Cal/g)

Tcal

Assuming standard of living of the Basin is representative

U.S. average and Basin is 27.8% of U.S. .-pulation:

(25.82 E 18 SE Cal)(0.278) = 7.18 E 18 SE Cal.


Emergy
18 SE Cal)

13.69

2.86

6.93

2.34

25.82

of the


(E









Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)
23. Imported service

a) Fuel: Basin imported 2754 E 12 BTU of oil (4.75 E 8 bbl).

Average price per barrel in 1980 on the world market was $34.00

(19C0i) so final cost was $16.15 E 9.

($16.15 E 9)(9.08 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 14.66 E 18 SE Cal

b) Agricultural products: Based on known exports of $23.90 E9

minus relative exports of $12.91 E9 (Appendix G) and $10.99 E9

imported from the rest of the U.S.

($10.99 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$ for USA = 6.82 E18 SE Cal

Based on U.S. imports of $15.77 E 9 for foods, Basin share would be

$4.38 E 9.

($4.38 E 9)(9.C8 E 8 SE Cal/$ for the world) = 3.98 E 18 SE Cal

c) Manufactured goods: Based on U.S. imports (excluding fuel and

cattle) of $161.72 E 9, Basin share would be.$44.96 E 9.

(44.96 E 9)(9.08 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 40.82 E 18 SE Cal

d) Relative services: From Appendix G imported services from the

rest of the U.S. were $26.86 E 9.

($26.89 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 16.68 E 18 SE Cal

c) From Appendix G the sum of federal benefits is $162.05 E 9.

($162.05 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 100.63 E 18 SE Cal.

Total is 183.59 E 18 SE Cal.









F:-:n.tes for Table 2 (cont.)

24, 25. Coal and Gas Exports:

Based on the difference between production (Appendix I) and

consumption (AEpendix C).

Coal: (14,654 E 12 BTU) - (7,405 E 12 BTU) = 7,249 E 12 BTU

(7,249 E 12 BTU)(0.252 Cal/BTU) = 1.83 E 15 Cal

Gas: (11,911 E 12 BTU) - (7,234 E 12 BTU) = 4,677 E 12 BTU

(4,677 E 12 BTU)(0.252 Cal/BTU) = 1.18 E 15 Cal

26. Grain exports

Values are from Appendix J.

Corn: (68.76 E 9 kg)(3.55 E 3 Cal/kg) = 2.44 E 14 Cal

Wheat: (37.06 E 9 kg)(3.30 E 3 Cal/kg) = 1.22 E 14 Cal

Soybeans: (34.07 E 9 kg)(4.03 E 3 Cal/kg) = 1.37 E 14 Cal

Sorgham: (8.11 E 9 kg)(3.32 E 3 Cal/kg) = 0.27 E 14 Cal

Total = 5.30 E 14 Cal

27. Exported Goods

a) Petroleum products to world market (UN International Trade

Statistics, 1980): (1.43 E 7 Ton)(10.7 E 6 Cal/Ton) = 1.53 E 14 Cal

Basin was responsible for 36.1% of U.S. production.

Assuming similar refining capacity, the contribution to the

U.S. world export should be 36.1% of the total.

(1.53 E 14 Cal)(0.361) = 5.52 E 13 Cal

(5.52 E 13 Cal)(5.30 E 4 SE Cal/Cal) = 2.93 E 18 SE Cal

b) Iron and Steel Products (UN International Trade Statistics, 1980):

(4.5 E 6 Tons)(2.16 E 4 Cal/Ton) = 9.72 E 10 Cal

Assume Basin contributes according to its percentage of the U.S.

population (9.72 E 10)(0.278) = 2.70 E 10 Cal.

(2.70 E 10 Cal)(1.01 E 7 SE Cal/Cal) = 2.73 E 17 SE Cal







Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

28. Animal products

Basin exports of meat and dairy based on the difference between

Basin production and 27.8% of U.S. total production, assumed to be

Basin consumption level.

(Production - Cons'Imption)(Cal/g)

Cattle: (1.07 E 13 g - 5.06 E 12 g)(4.28 Cal/g) = 2.42 E 13 Cal

Hogs: (8.31 E 12 g - 2.95 E 12 g)(4.36 Cal/g) = 2.34 E 13 Cal

Sheep: (3.03 E 11 g - 9.76 E 10 g)(3.31 Cal/g) = 6.80 E 11 Cal

Broilers: (2.16.E 12 g - 1.96 E 12 g)(2.39 Cal/g) = 4.80 E 11 Cal

Turkeys: (6.23 E 11 g - 3.87 E 11 g)(2.39 Cal/g) = 5.64 E 11 Cal

Eggs: (1.13 E 12 g - 9.61 E 11 g)(1.63 Cal/g) = 2.76 E 11 Cal

Total = 4.96 E 13 Cal

(4.96 E 13 Cal)(4.24 E 5 SE Cal/Cal) = 21.03 E 19 SE Cal

Milk: (2.49 E 13 g - 1.57 E 13 g)(0.65 Cal/g) = 5.96 E 12 Cal

(5.96 E 12 Cal)(2.20 E 5 SE Cal/Cal) = 1.31 E 18 SE Cal

Total = 22.34 E 18 SE Cal







Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

29. Exported Services:

a) From Appendix G, estimated export of services as a function of

relative difference in economic sectors across the U.S. is $33.07 E 9.

($33.07 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 20.54 E 18SE Cal

b) Value of exported Coal:

Basin produced 69% of U.S. Coal (560 E 6 Tons out of 815 E 6 total.

U.S. exports were 71.8 E 6 Tons (U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1983).

(71.8 E 6 Ton)(0.69) = 49.58 E 6 Ton

Export price is $52.87/Ton.

(49.58 E 6)($52.87) = $2.62 E 9

Exports into the remainder of the U.S. equaled 227.2 E 6 Tons

Domesric price is $26.00/Ton.

(227.2 E 6)($26.00) = $5.91 E 9

Total = $8.53 E 9

($8.53 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 5.30 E 18 SE Cal

c) Value of exported grain:

From Appendix J total value is $23.90 E 9.

($23.90 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 14.84E 18 SE Cal

d) Contribution to overall U.S. exports (1C1S data)

Total exports is $216.67 E 9.

After value of grains, coal, ores, and animal products, the

remainder is $176.31 E 9. Assumption is that the Basin produces
an average mix of export commodities.

Based on Basin percentage of manufacturing employment (0.2794)

($176.31 E 9)(0.2794) = 49.26 E 9

($49.26 E 9) (6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 30.59E 18 SE Cal








Footnotes for Table 2 (cont.)

e) Value of exported meat:

Based on export volume (Footnote 27) as a percentage

of total U.S. output times gross product value.

Cattle: 7.896 E 9

Hogs: 4.470 E 9

Sheep: 0.224 E 9

Broilers: 0.123 E 9

Turkeys: 0.215 E 9

Eggs: 0.160 E 9

Milk: 2.637 E 9

Total $15,74 E 9

($15.74 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 9.77 E 18 SE Cal

f) Value of natural gas exports:

Based on the difference between production and consumption;

fraction exported multiplied by the total market value

11553 E 9 ft - 7026 E 9 ft = 4527 E 9 ft3

(4527 E 9 ft3)/(20379 E 9 ft3) = 0.222

(0.222)($32.7 E 9) = 7.26 E 9

($7.26 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 4.51 E 18 SE Cal

g) Value of taxes

From Appendix H, Federal taxes were $156.88 E 9

($156.88 E 9)(6.21 E 8 SE Cal/$) = 97.42 E 18 SE Cal


Total = 182.97 E 18 SE Cal










Table 3. Storages within the Mississippi River Basin.


Solar
toet- Item Energy Transformity EMERGY
note (Cal) (SE Cal/Cal) (E 21 SE
(Cal)
1 Oil 1.36 E 16 5.30 E 4 0.72

2 Gas 2.62 E 16 4.80 E 4 1.25

3 Coal 3.22 E 18 3.98 E 4 128.16

4 Topsoil 3.40 E 17 6.30 E 4 21.42

5 Biomass (forests) 4.98 E 16 3.23 E 4 1.61

6 Groundwater 2.30 E 16 4.11 E 4 0.94




Fo:oc:ntes for Table 3.

1. Oil:

Quantity of oil and gas liquids from Appendix K.

The equivalence for oil is 5.80 E 6 BTU/bb .

The equivalence for liquids is 4.1 E 6 BTU/bbl .

The equivalence for dry gas is 1,031 BTU/ft3

(7.37 E 9 bbl)(5.80 E 6 BTU/bbl)(0.252 Cal/BTU) = 1.0? E 16 Cal

Liquids:

(2.68 E 9 bbl)(4.10 E 6 BTU/bbl)(0.252 Cal/BTU) = 2.77 E 15 Cal

Total liquid hydrocarbons = 1.36 E 16 Cal

2. Gas:

Quantity of dry gas is from Appendix K.

Dry Gas:

(1.01 E 14 ft 3)(1,031 BTU/ft3)(0.252 Cal/BIU) = 2.62 E 16 Cal.

3. Coal:


See Appendix L













Footnotes for Table 3 (cont.)

4. Soil;

Quantity of organic matter is from Appendix M.

(6.30 E 16 g organic)(5.4 Cal/g organic) = 3.40 E 17 Cal

5. Biomass:

From Appendix N Forest Biomass is 1.11 E 13 kg.

(1.17 E 13 kg)(1 E 3 g/kg)(4.5 Cal/g) = 4.98 E 16 Cal.

6. Chemical Potential of Grojndwater (Gibbs free energy): G (RTlog eC2/C)/(m.w.)

surface storage figures are averages. Groundwater storage are

"available", not estimated,maximums. Both are based on data in

Nacorn's Water Resources, 1978.

Sub-basin Surface Ground Totals
(E 9 gal) (E 12 gal) (E 12 gal)

Ohio 5,161 383 388

Tenne-see 3,600 530 534

Upper Miss. 4,231 2,243 2,247

Lower Miss. 2,034 1,272 1,274

Missouri 27,161 445 472

Arkansas 9,853 499 509

Total 52,040 5,372 5,424

mean value of dissolved load in water is 150 ppm (Odum, 1983).
999,850
Gibbs free energy - (1.99 E-3 Cal/mole*�K)(29'K)/ln(965,-00)(18 g/mole)

= 1.12 E-3 Cal/g

(Volume)(density)(G)

(5,424 E 12 gal)(3.785 E-3 gal/mn )( E 6 g/m3)(1.12 E-3 Cal/g)

= 2.30 E 16 Cal










Table 4. Summary of annual E[ERP.'' flows for the Basin.


R Renewable sources: rain + tide = 40.48 E18 sec

N Dispersed non-renewables: earth + organic = 59.73 E18 sec
o
N Concentrated non-renewables: oil + coal + gas + nuclear + minerals

= 275.83 E18 sec

N2 Export non-renewables: gas + coal = 129.47 E18 sec

N All non-renewable sources: 465.03 E18 sec

F Imported minerals and fuels: oil + fertilizers + transfers = 58.75 E18 sec

G Imported goods: 7.18 E18 sec

P21 Imported services: 183.59 E18 sec

I Dollars paid for imports: , 24 .14 E9

E Dollars received for exports: $259.89 E9

P1E Exported services: 182.97 E18 aec

B Exported products grain + goods + meat = 61.58 E18 sec

X Gross Domestic Product: $800.76 E9


sec = solar emcalories












Table 5. Basin overview indices (E18SE Cal).

(1) Renewable EMERGY flow

R = 40.48

(2) Indigenous non-renewable flow

N = 465.03

(3) Flow of imported EMERGY

F + G + P2I = 249.52

(4) Tocal EMERGY inflows

R + F + G + P21 + N = 755.03

(5) Total EMERGY used, U

R + N + N + F + G + P21 = 625.56

(6) Total exported EMERGY

B + PIE + N2 = 347.02

(7) Fraction of energy used derived from home sources

(NO + NI + R)/U = 376.04/625.56 = 0.601

(8) Exports minus imports

(B + P E + N )-(F + G + P21) = 374.02 - 249.52 = 124.50

(9) Ratio of exports to imports

(B + P1E + N 2)/(F + G + P2I) = 374.02/249.52 = 1.499

(10) Fraction used that is renewable

R/U = 40.48/625.56 = 0.065

(11) Fraction of use that is purchased

(F + G + P21)/U = 249.52/625.56 = 0.399

(12) Fraction used that is imported service


P21/U = 183.59/625.56 = 0.293

(13) Fraction of use that is free

(R + No)/U = 100.21/625.56= 0.160









Table 5 (cont.)

(14) Use per unit area

625.56 E 18/3.22 E 12 m2 = 1.94 E 8 SE Cal/m2

625.56 E 18/1.24 E 6 mi2 = 5.04 E 14 SE Cal/mi2

(15) Use per capital in 1975

625.56 E 18/60.21 E 6 = 1.04 E 13 SE Cal/capita

(16) Renewable carrying capacity at current living standards

(R/U)(population) =(0.065)(60.21 E 6) = 3.91 E 6 people

(17) Ratio of indigenous sources to imports

(R + NO + N )/(F + G + P21) = 376.04/249.52 = 1.507

(18) Fuel use per person

(283.52 E 18)/(60.21 E 6) = 4.71 E 12 SE Cal/person

(19) Fuel use (plus nuclear and transfers) per person

(315.40 E 18)/(60.21 E 6) = 5.24 E 12 SE Cal/person

(20) Fraction of use that is electricity

120.01/625.56 = 0 .192











Figure 7 indicate a system dominated by fossil fuel use and also by input of
human services from a larger, external economy.

Table 4 is a summary of annual flows for the Basin, grouped into general
categories such as all renewable sources, all imports, all high quality
sources, etc. Non-renewables, concentrated for use in urban and industrial
processes, are the largest flow. Table 5 presents these genralized flows in
the form of indices for comparison with other regions and nations. Index (13)
suggests that fifteen percent of the energy supporting the activities of the
Basin would not appear in general accounting procedures. Index (16) suggests
that the Basin could support less than four million people, at approximately
the current standard of living, using only renewable energies.

Earth materials and soil organic were evaluated separately. Earth and
clays represent materials accumulated by the slow process of predominantly
abiotic weathering while topsoil is a storage created by the interaction of
weathered rock and biological activity at a rate approximately 10 times
faster. Over a longer time frame, topsoil may be considered a renewable
resource. The EMERGY of eroded earth within the Basin should be a sizeable
fraction of the chemical potential of rain (solar input); human activities
have accelerated this loss.

Through extensive use of soils and fuels, the Basin appears to be
exporting energy since the EMERGY in the net loss of clay and topsoils is
greater than that in the inflows of rainfall and tides. The use of
concentrated energies in the form of fossil fuels, fertilizers, hydropower,
and nuclear power is approximately an order of magnitude larger than the
rnewable energy flows of the Basin. These concentrated energies were double
the value of imported services which equalled the value of exported services
(183 E18 SEC!yr).

The Basin's reputation as the world's breadbasket is evident from the
EMERGY value of grains, which is about 12% of all the EMERGY used for all
purposes. Production of cattle, hogs, and sheep requires about 52% of all
grain produced. About 95% of the remaining grain is exported to the world
market or to the remainder of the U.S. About 55% of the Basin's animal
products are exported. In addition to its role as a grain producer, the Basin
exports large volumes of coal and gas. The energy value of these fuels is
approximately that of the oil consumed by the Basin on a yearly basis.

Compared with the entire U.S., the Basin is more fuel-intensive: power
use per unit area is 1.9 E8 SEC/m2 versus about 1.7 E8 SEC/m2; fuel use per
person was 1.0 E13 SEC versus 6.9 E12 SEC; about 40% of all energy was
purchased compared to a U.S. average of 23%; and only 6% of the total that
was renewable versus 12% for the U.S. Percentage of electricity use was about
the same for the Basin and the U.S. Energy consumption differences are also
evident from the ratio of exports to imports, which is about 1.5 for the Basin
versus 0.45 for the U.S.

Based on present rates of indigenous consumption and the estimate of
storage, there is approximately a six-year reserve remaining for oil a
fourteen-year reserve for gas, and a 1725-year reserve of coal. These figures
do not include exports, which halve these time periods for the Basin alone.
If coal were the only fuel supplying the Basin's fossil fuel needs, there is















approximately a 450-year reserve. At an annual growth rate of 2%, the reserve
would last about 325 years. If the Basin must supply energy to the rest of
the U.S. at the current rate of total consumption for coal and gas, then the
reserves are estimated to be only 310 years. An increasing reliance on coal
and hydropower may be anticipated as the other fossil fuels become depleted.

At 1978 rates of withdrawal there are 1760 years worth of groundwater
remaining. However, in the Missouri and Arkansas regions where available
storage is low and depletion rates are high, there is an estimated 323 years
of water remaining. An increase in consumption of 2% per year would deplete
Basin-wide reserves in less than 400 years.

Soil reserves, based on loss of topsoil evaluated as organic material to
a depth of one meter, are estimated at over 850 years. The EMERGY in the net
loss of earth materials (river-discharged clays) is about five times as great
as topsoils since it requires longer periods of time and, consequently, more
solar energy to weather rock.

Since most of the Basin's activities require the interaction of fossil
fuels, an overall decrease in output would follow fuel depletion. Pressure
for maintenance of the river for navigation and commerce may actually
increase, since trains and other transportation modes are more fuel intensive
(Bayley et al., 1977).

Human energies have been oriented to match those of the watershed. Major
hydroelectric systems have been located where the geopotential is greatest.
Much of the TVA system occurs on a fourth-order river, which is close in
geopotential to that of a fifth-order segment within a seventh-order system.
Several dams exist on the Ohio, the Missouri (Fort Peck and Garrison Dams),
and the Kansas (Tuttle Creek Dam) Rivers where they are order five.

Conversion of potential energy of water to kinetic energy and then into
friction and heat depends on the stream order as defined with Figure 8. Use
of water potential energy in friction and bottom work is greatest at order
four and decreases nearly uniformly towards the extreme orders. This provides
some justification for the size of many upstream cities such as Des Moines,
Pittsburgh, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Minneapolis, which are on either
fourth-order streams or the point of confluence for a fifth-order stream. The
size of New Orleans, relative to the others, can be explained by its proximity
to large energy reserves, its international port status whereby it receives
many energies from a larger economic system, and the inputs of tidal and
biotic energies from the Gulf. No major cities exist on tributaries of order
three or less.

Flux of geopotential energy converges, i.e., increases, to order five and
then decreases downstream. Cities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Little
Rock are then points of departure for energies accumulated in the watersheds
above them. The greater geopotential per unit length may also provide a basis
for more competitive industry in these cities, in contrast to their environs,
since less power needs to be purchased from other sources.

Energies which converge within watersheds are transformed and fed back to
the supply points. Maximum power in watersheds may be obtained from the







42




central reaches which can then interact with energies located at the watershed
extremes. Geopotential, transformed into electricity where available power is
greatest, can be used for mining fuel reserves and pumping groundwater in
regions of low stream order. The same energy is used for operating lock and
dam structures that serve to move goods to locations beyond the lower reaches.

Total EMERGY is greatest at the Delta and lower floodplain where the
watershed, the coast (tides, waves, fish, etc.), and external trade converge.
Seafoods, sugar cane, natural gas and oil, citrus, cotton, export grains, and
imports represent some of the varied energies found near the Delta. A variety
of energy sources are required to maintain cultural diversity which is
evident from the cosmopolitan makeup of cities such as New Orleans and Baton
Rouge versus regions like the Corn Belt (Iowa and Illinois). Locations where
a mix of human knowledge and culture can interact with several energy sources,
transform the greatest quantities of energy which may then be redistributed
to the upstream sources where energy is less concentrated.











IV. ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Craig Diamond


As rainwaters of the Mississippi Basin drain to the sea, the potential
energy of these elevated waters carves the land into a hierarchical network,
convergine waters from smaller streams into larger ones. This network is a
resource upon which the economy depends, and locations of human settlements,
industries, hydroelectric uses and waste disposal are related to the
availability of the water energy to make these functions economic. This
chapter shows the distribution of energy availability to which human
activities can be coupled for maximum benefit. These results are from a
Masters thesis by Diamond (1984).

The converging of many little streams into a few large ones is
represented in Figure 8, which follows the customary way of naming segments
into first order, second order, third order, etc. (Horton, 1945). The numbers
of segments of different order in the Mississippi Basin are given in Tables 6
and 7. As shown In Figure 9, it takes many small first order segments to
support and converge energy to larger segments with more water and head energy
downstream. Figure 10 shows the approximate slope of the river with small
headwaters steeper than large segments downstream.

Figure 11 shows the total energy in elevated water (geopotential) for
each class of streams. The total energy decreases downstream as the potential
is converted into water motion and then into friction and heat, but the ener;'
that is passed to the next larger stream size is more concentrated and can
support more human activities. Going downstream the power expended per order
increases to a maximum in the 6th order streams. Within the entire watershed,
this maximum occurs in 4th order rivers (Table 8).

Transformity was defined in Table 1 as the energy of one type required to
generate a unit of another. It is a measure of resource value. The river
network is driven by the energies of the world cycles of water and earth
process which may be expressed as solar EMERG'.'. By dividing the solar EMERGY
of the rains by the energy available in each segment, transformities for each
segment result. These are given for each stream order in Table 8.
Transformity increases 60 fold from headwaters to mouth. In this sense one
gallon of the powerful, large-volume downstream waters is 60 times more
valuable than an upstream gallon.






























































Figure 8. Hypothetical watershed with Strahler's modified Horton
numbering scheme for stream order (Strahler, 1952, 1957).






























In (4) -9.25-1.39 O
r2= .9941
Note ; in (-, at Cr = 7 is -.22 (not shown)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Stream Order







Figure 9. Logarithm of the number of stream segments per streams order
as a function of stream order for the entire Mississippi River Basin.






















Elev. 2217e,0012a L


o00 1200 1600 2400 300 3800 4200 4Ao

Accumulated Stream Length (km)

Figure 10. Approximate profile of the Mississippi River Basin. Numbers
describe distance from source and elevation for each stream order.


I E17



6.37 EIS


I EtS I-


Figure 11.
River Basin.


4.02 EiS


3.3 61ST 3.46 El


I 2 3 4
Stream Order


Total geopotential flux per order within the Mississippi


0

120


0

a
6 mO


1.33 E1I


6.73 E14


3.3 E 1


5 6











Table 6. Summary of stream distributions of the Mississippi River Basin.

Stream Order
Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ohio 550 138 32 7 2 1 0
Tennessee 183 39 9 1 0 0 0
Upper Miss. 776 191 42 11 2 1 0
Lower Miss. 320 83 19. 2 0 0 0
Missouri 1060 271 60 12 3 1 0
Arkansas 638 180 50 7 2 0 0
U. MissrMissouri 1836 462 102 23 5 2 (1)
Ohio-Tennessee 733 177 41 8 2 1 0

Total 3528 898 212 40 9 3 (1)


Note: Total reflects only the sum of the six individual regions.





Table 7. Mean area of drainage (mi2), mean discharge (MGD), and mean
length of stream segment per order (km).

Mean drainage area Mean discharge Mean length
Order per segment per segment per segment

1 185 142 20.5
2 611 493 33.3
3 4,A501 2,552 104.5
4 25,117 8,569 422.2
5 71,763 19,937 730.6
6 239,787 63,799 1,418.0
7 717,200 124,000 2,373.0













Table 8. Geopotential power and transformity in the Mississippi River.
See Figure 11.

Order* of Power/segment Total power used Solar transformity
stream E12 joules/day E15 joules/day solar emjoules/joule


Rain -- -- 8,888
1 .31 1.00 11,542
2 1.88 1.96 13,809
3 24.5 5.66
4 239.0 10.60 34,887
5 400.0 5.98 138,095
6 966.0 4.89 689,450
7 437.0 2.07


* See Figure 8.














V. ALTERNATIVES IN THE MISSISSEPPI BASIN

Howard T. Odum and Craig Diamond


When economic development reorganized land and water use in the
Mississippi Basin, private and public projects were directed to divert the
seasonal rhythm of river floods, adapt land for agriculture and cities, and
channelize for navigation and oil drilling. Thus, changes for one purpose
diverted resources from preexisting services of the river which maintained
rich wetlands, fisheries, water quality and controlled annual floods. Whereas
economic values of new developments were known, the indirect contributions of
the river to the economy were not known.

In this chapter EMERGY analysis is used to compare alternatives. A
larger EMERGY flow contributors more to the economy. EMERGY values are
expressed in Macroeconomic $. What makes evaluations of benefit difficult is
the way a change in one use causes changes in other connected pathways.
Systems diagrams help identify the connections so that all the flows which
change are evaluated. A general diagram of the benefit comparison procedure
was given as Figure 3.


Net EMERGY Benefit Evaluation

Figure 3 illustrates the EMERGY comparisons used by equations (2), (4),
and (6). A choice has a greater benefit and should prevail if it contributes
more EMERGY P than the alternative. See explanation in Methods.

In Figure 3 the original system (in dashed lines) contributed PI,
which was the sum of independent environmental input II plus economic input
Fl. The developed river system contributes EMERGY flow P2, which is the sum
of independent inputs 12 and F2. Developed uses may draw more or less from
the main economy indicated by flow F. The net benefit of a development is the
contribution of the new system,P2 minus contribution of the old system,
displaced PI.

The same Figure 3 also illustrates the comparison between contributions
of a developed use (P2) and the standard alternate investment (P3). It can
also be used to compare a developed use (P2) with the maximum possible
contribution (P4), which includes environmental inputs and the standard ratio
of matching economic inputs for the region.

We are accustomed to expect new developments to exceed the older ones
because during times of cheap energy and economic growth more EMERGY is
available to increase F over the previous systems, causing the new ones to
have greater total EMERGY. However, some new developments, while increasing
F, decreased I. Other developments diverted more from alternative investments
(P3) than was increased by the development (P2). In times of declining
availability and increasing costs of resources, alternatives which can use
less economic inputs (F) and increase environmental use (I) may compete
better.













Adequate evaluation of a sector may require integrating flows over a time
so as to cover the initial periods of construction of the capital assets
involved and the lifetime of service of the capital items. For example,
evaluation of a highway would need to average flows starting with construction
continuing through the life of the highway and its final disposition.
Disposition might be replacement with a new item or returning the land or
waters to an older system.


Previous Mississippi Basin Evaluations

Young, Odum, Day, and Butler (1974) made a preliminary analysis of the
Atchafalaya Basin of the Mississippi, anticipating its greater volumes of
water in coming years, considering the alternatives of raising levees and
channelizing further or opening up more floodplain with essential housing and
roads built up above flood levels. Evaluation methods were not fully
developed, but enough was found to recommend the latter plan as eventually
more economic.

Bayley et al. (1977) and Zucchetto et al. (1980) used energy analysis to
compare Mississippi barge transport with rail transport and found less coal
equivalents required per ton-mile using the barges. Their analysis included
energies used for locks and dams and included embodied coal equivalents in
goods and services. Their method used coal-to-dollar ratios for various
commodities, but did not include the embodied energy in the work of nature, in
raw materials, iron and items used in concrete.

Net EMERGY evaluations of coal mining, gas, fisheries and oil well
examples in the Mississippi Basin were also made as cited below.


Table of EMERGY Evaluations of Mississippi River Use

As part of the evaluation of alternates concerned with use of the
Mississippi River, a number of inputs, processes, storage, etc., were
evaluated in EMERGY units and then expressed in macroeconomic dollars. These
calculations are given in Table 9. Each line has a footnote with details on
the source of data, assumptions, and calculation formulae. The table has
column 1 indicating footnote; column 2 with item name; column 3 with raw data
in grams, joules, or $; column 4 is the solar transformity in solar emjoules
per joule, solar emjoules per gram, or solar emjoules per $. Column 5, which
is the product of items in columns 3 and 4, is the solar EMERGY in solar
emjoules per year; and finally column 6 is macroeconomic $ equivalent to the
EMERGY in the previous column.


System Diagrams of Alternatives

In order to include every consideration, two diagrams of the whole system
can be drawn and the differences evaluated. A diagram like Figure 5, except
with more detail, could be used for the two evaluations. In practice, this
procedure has so much complexity that it is hard to do and explain.

To focus on a particular question or problem without dealing with so much
all at once, a simpler diagram can be drawn that has the pathways that are














Table 9 . Macroeconomic values in the Mississippi Basin. Some items are included
within others.

Macroeconomic
Foot- Data Transformity Solar Emergy Macroeconomic
note Item j,g,or$/yr sej/unit E22 sej/yr valuE9/yr

OP.IGINAL RIVER, Figure 12a
1 River, chemical Energy 2.8 E18j 41068 11.5 52.2
2 River, Geopotential 4.26 E18j 2350. 10.0 45.6
3 Floodplain water use 1.91 El8j 41068 7.87 35.8
4 Early transport use 2.41 E14j 41068 0.001 0.00-5

CURRENT RIVER, Figure 12b
5 Floodplain water use 0.74 E18 41068 3.03 13.8
6 Econ. inputs, floodplain 2.45 E9$ 2.2 E12 0.54 2.45
7 Sediment carried 1.35 E15g 1.71 E9 230. 1045.
8 Sediment lost to sea 127. 575.
9 Economic water use 1.79 El7g 4.1 E4 0.73 3.3
10 Rain in Agriculture 2.08 El7j 1.54 E4 0.32 1.46
11 Econ. inputs to Agricul. 3.47 15.8

SHIPPING, Figure 12b
12 Locks, channels costs 0.36 E9$ 2.2 E12 0.08 0.36
13 Shipping $ (coal equiv.) 6.2 El6j 4.0 E4 0.25 1.13
14 Fuel use (coal equiv.) 1.58 E17 4.0 E4 0.63 2.87
15 River energy used 4.03 E16j 4.1 E4 0.0426 0.43
Total shipping inputs 4.79

ALTERNATIVE RA[LFDAD 'TPIANCSPORT, Figure 12c
16 Costs (services) 7.15 E9$ 2.2 E12 1.57 7.14
17 Fuels used 5.74 El7j 5.3 E4 3.04 13.8
18 Land use diverted 6.34 E14j 1.54 E4 0.0049 0.022
Total railroad inputs 19.962

O':F.ARIS3ONOF OIL AND ,-AS AND MARSH IN LOUISIANA
19 Oil yield 3.34 E18j 5.3 E4 17.7 80.5
20 Gas yield 7.81 E18j 4.8 E4 37.5 170.5
21 Oil and gas sales 23.7 E9$ 2.2 E12 5.2 23.7
22 Coastal land loss 8.22 El2g 1.71 E9 1.4 6.4
23 Fisheries 1.24 E15J 8.0 E6 0.99 4.5
24 Coal transport savings 4.0 E4 16.4 74.7

* 1983 U.S. dollars obtained by dividing Solar EME. fG-' by 2.2 E12 sej/$ or 5.26 E8
solar emcalories per $.

Footnotes for Table 9

1 EMERGY of chemical potential energy refers to the same energy evaluated as
geopotential energy in item #2.

River volume 2
(6.83 in/yr runoff)(3.22 E12 m )(2.54 cm/in)(.01 m/cm) = 5.59 Ell m /yr
Gibbs free energy 3
(5.59 Ell m3/yr)(l E6 g/m ) (5 j/g) = 2.8 E18 j/yr










Footnotes for Table 9 (cont.)

2 Geopotential Energy which goes into Kinetic Energy during flow: refers to
the same evaluated as chemical energy in item Ul: 776.9 m average
elevation; gravity, 9.8 m/sec2
(5.59 Ell m3/yr)(776.9 m)(1 E3 kg/m3)(9.8 m/sec2) = 4.26 E18 j/y
3 Geopotential energy in water used by original floodplains
(9.71 E10 m2) and deltaic plain (2.9 EO1/ m2
(areas from Costanza et al., 1983): annual volume of water used estimated as 2 m
transpiration: (2m3/m2/yr)(12.61 EO1 m2) = 2.52 Ell m3/yr; fraction of ,
geopotential energy taken as the fraction of water used: (2.52 Ellm3/5.59 Ell m3
= .45; transformiLy used is for geopotential-kinetic energy used in delivery
of waters. ?hysical energy from footnote 2:

(4.26 E18 j/y)(.45) = 1.91 E18 j/yr

4 Estimate of 0.01% of the river flow used by boats. Water is used while it
is affected by the displacement. (0.001' used)($45.3 E9/yr) = 0.0'.5 E8$

5 Calculation of water use by floodplain as in footnote 3 with smaller areas
(4.9 EO1 m2)(2 m3 trans./m /yr) = 0.98 Ell m3/yr water fraction:.98/5.59 = .175

(4.26 E18 j/y)(.175) = 7.4 E17 j/y

6 Economic inputs to unlevied floodplains for forest wood, crayfish
production, other products, assumed j500'/ha/yr

(4.9 E6 ha)($500/ha/yr) = $2.45 E9

7 Sediments carried; See Appendi., B; 13.45 E14 g/yr

8 Sediments lost to sea; Fraction of water not passing through floodplain,
0.55 from footnote 3.

9 Economic water use estimated from population (U.S. Statistical Abstract) and
Expressed as Gibbs free energy

(60.2 E6 ind)(440 gal/ind/day)(365 days)(37-j0 g/gal)(5 j/gal) = 1.7 E17 j/yr

10 Floodplain agriculture on 90'. of 7.71 E10 m2 former floodplain and deltaic
plain; Gibbs free energy in annual transpiration, 3.0 E10 j/ha/yr

(7.71 E6 ha)(.9)(3 E10 j/ha/yr) = 2.08 E17 j/yr

11 Inputs per hectare from energy analysis of corn (Odum, 1984). Sum of solar
energy inputs from economy per hectare including: direct fuel, indirect fuel
in machinery, services, pesticide, phosphate, nitrogen, potassium and seed
(Odum, 1985), 500 E13 sej/ha/yr

(7.71 E6 ha)(.9)(5.0 E15 sej/ha/yr) = 3.47 E22

12 1972 costs of locks and channels including maintenance and amortized
replacement costs quoted from Sharpe after Bayley et al. (1977); converted
to 19`3 $ by multiple, ing by 2.9:


($134.9 E6/yr)(2.9) = $0.36 E9 (services)











Footnotes for Table 9 (cont.)

13 Shipping costs of barge companies, operation, and maintenance including
accidents, 268 btu coal equivalents/ton-mile (Bayley et al. (1977)

(229 E9 ton-mile/yr)(268 btu coal/ton-mile)(1013 j/btu) = 6.2 E16 j/y coal

14 fuel used in barge travel; 680 btu coal equiv./ton-mile (Bayley et al., 1977)

(229 E9 ton-miles/y)(680 btu/ton-mile)(1013 j/btu) = 1.58 E17 coal j/yr

15 Water volume displaced by annual shipping;

(10)(5.84 E8 tons/yr)(2000 lb/ton)(454 g/lb)/(lE6 g/m3) = 5.30 E8 m3/yr

Fraction of River used by shipping assumed to be ten times displacement.

(5.30 E8 m /yr)/(5.6 Ell m3/yr) = 9.46 E-3 (1%)

This fraction take of items in Line 2:
Fraction of River geopotential energy: (9.46 E-3)(4.26 E18 J/yr) = 4.03 E16 J/yr
Fraction of River E:4EP'7i': (9.46 E-3)(10 E22 sej/yr) = 4.26 E20 sej/yr
Fraction of Macroeconomic Value: (9.4 E-3)(45.6 E9 $/yr) = 4.31 E8 $/yr

16 Railroad shipping costs (services and labor); Ton mile rate from U.S. Statistics.
Abstract:
(229 E9 ton-miles/yr)($.0312/ton-mile) = $7.15 E9 ($1983)

17 Fuel use per ton-mile, U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1983 including
diesel, electric, and coal-fueled trains

(3942 E6 Gal/y diesel)(34776 Cal/gal)(4186 j/Cal) = 5.74 E17 j/y

(5.74 E17 j/y)(5.3 E4 sej/j) = 3.04 E22 sej/y

(3.04 E22 sej/y)/(2.2 E12 sej/$) = 13.8 E9 $/y

18 Environmental use taken as the EMERGY of lands
13202 miles in 5th-, 6th-, and 7th-order streams as rail equivalent.
Width assumed 30 m; area used: 2
(13202 miles)(1548 m/mile)(50 m) = 1.02 E9 m
Emergy in productivity taken as that of transpiration, .626 m/yr

(1.02 E9 m2)(.626 m/yr)(1E6 g/m3)(5 j/g)(1.54 E4 sej/j Gibbs energy)

= 4.92 E19 sej/yr; (4.19 E19 sej/yr)/(2.2 12 sej/$) = $.022 E9

19 Oil production in Louisiana; mean 1976-1980 (U.S. Statistical Abstract)
(533 E6 bbl/yr)(6.28 E9 j/bbl) = 3.34 E18 j/y

20 Gas production in Louisiana; mean 1976-1i480 (7181 E9 cubic ft/yr)(1.033 E6 j
/cubic ft) = 7.81 E8I j/yr

21 Services estimated from prices
(3.34 E18 j/y oil)($3.72/I E9 j) $12.4 E9 (lS80)
(7.81 E18 j/yr gas)($1.45/1 E9 j) = $11.3 E9 (1980)
Total: $ 23.7 E9











Footnotes for Table 9 (cont.)


21 Loss of marsh lands due to canals blocking normal sedimentation and organic
production processes maintaining marsh lands; wetland loss 1.02 E8 m2/yr;
(Scaife, Turner and Costanza (1983).
Area of deltaic plain wetland 1.275 ElO m ; 1 cm/yr accretion diverted;
14.2% dry matter; 27.3% of dry is Carbon (Costanza, et al., 1983); organic
estimated as twice carbon, 54.6% organic and 45.4% mineral of dry weight.
Land rate loss mineral sediment:
(1.275 ElO m2)(.454)(.142)(1E4 g/m2/yr) = 8.22 E12 g/yr

22 Urban services on floodplain; New Orleans, 1983: 2.831 E6 people;
$8017/income per capital (U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1985).
Urban EMERGY use using U.S. per capital rate
(29 E15 sej/person)(2.8361 E6 people in New Orleans) = 8.22 E22 sej/yr

23 Sustained fishery production involving life cycles of oysters, shrimp, and
finfishes includes life off shore and nursery stages in wetland areas.
Estimates of productivity, transformaties and areal bases for fisheries were
given by Bahr, Day, and Stone (1982). Water areas:
77 E9 m2 continental shelf
31 E9 m2 inshore estuarine-wetland area
16.8 E9 m2 of the inshore area is water-covered
receive sun, wind, ocean currents, and especially the distributaries of the
river. The fishery harvest inshore is 2.67 E4 metric tonnes dry weight.
EMERGY inputs generating this production are estimated as one of the products
of the EERCY flux, primarily of the river.
River, Gibbs energy, footnote 1 ----------------- 11.5 E22 sej/yr
part in 108 E9 m out of
Direct Sun (108 E9 m2)(5.91 E9 j/m2/yr) = 0.063 E22 sej/yr
Waves, Table 2, footnote 6 ---------------------- 0.068 E22 sej/yr
Tide, Table 2, footnote 3 ---------------------- 0.0083 E22 sej/yr
EMERGY of river used in the study area calculated as proportion that the
studlv area was of total river area:
(3.1 ElO m2/36.0 EIO m2) =0.086;
(.086)(11.5 E22 sej/yr) = 9.89 E21 sej/yr
Solar transformity of gross production:of 2.11 El8 j/yr:
(9.89 E21 sej/yr)/(2.11 E18 j/y) = 4687 sej/j

24 Energy savings using river transport of fuels; total fuels used in
Mississippi Basin from Table 2: 118.68 E22 sej/yr; equivalent coal = 1.01 E9
ton : 1000 miles or 1.01 E12 ton-miles;
Savings by water ($20.94 - 4.0 E9)/(299 E9 ton-miles) = 0.074 $/ton-mile
Savings: (1.01 E12 ton-mile)(.074 $/ton-mile) = $74.7 E9

















(a)
Basin
Boats
Environ.
River systems rn rt .I



PIONEER
RIVER
TRANSPORTBe6i



Commodities Land
transported

(b) ( t

Economic









\ oTRAINc I
















Figure 12. Main pathways involved in river transport. (a) Small boats

channels, and locks; (c) railroad alternative to river transport.
channels, and locks; (c) railroad alternative to river transport.






































Figure 13. Overview of oil and gas production and environmental
interactions.


Figure 14. Overview of coal production and environmental interactions.




































Figure 15. Overview of dams and reservoirs and the change in
environmental processes involving the rivers.


Figure 16. Overview of development of floodplains for agriculture
and urban use by excluding river waters.







































Figure 17. Overview of fisheries exploitation and associated
environmental changes.


Figure 18. Overview of development of intensive upland agriculture
and its environmental consequences.














Table 10 . Comparisons of short range macroeconomic values of river managementn*
omitting sediment resource.

Footnotes PI, Before P2, After DP
Table 10 Development Development Change
E9 $ E9 $ E9 $


RIVER AND FLOODPLAIN SYSTEM-S
Environmental Inputs, I
Water to the floodplain
Coastal land increments
River used in transport
Leveed floodplain agricul.


3, 5
21
4, 15
15


Total I


35.8
6.4
0.0045
0

Il: 42.205


13.8
0
0.43
1.46

12: 15.69


Change in environmental macrovalue (12 - Ii)


Economic Inputs, F
Locks, Levees
Shipping costs
Fuels in shipping
Agriculture on floodplain
Urban floodplain inputs
Water treatment


8
9
10
1, 6
22
9


Total F

Change in Economic Inputs (F2 - FI):


Total contributions: Old System: PI: 46.1
New System:

Alternative Development (F2 + F2/IR):

Contribution of Potential Development (IR * II):

BENEFIT COPARISONS:
Change between new and old:
Comparison with alternative development:
Comparison with Potential development:


0 0.36
0 1.13
0 2.87
3.86 15.8
0 37.4
0 2.93

Fl: 3.86 F2: 60.49


+ 56.63


P2: 76.18

P3: 69.13

P4: 295.7


P2 - Pl =
P2 - P3 =
P2 - P4 =


+ 30.1
+ 7.1
-226.6


- 26.51


* See Figure 3 for diagram of relationships of environmental inputs 'I,
economic inputs F, and contributions to the system P.












Table 11. Comparisons of long range macroeconomic values of river management,*

Footnotes Pl, Before P2, After Change
Table 10 Development Development E9 $
E9 $ E9 $


RIVER AND FLOODPLAIN SYSTEMS
Environmental Inputs, I
Water to the floodplain
Sediment to floodplain
Coastal land increments
River used in transport
Leveed floodplain agricul.


3, 5
7, 8
21
4, 15
15


Total I


35.8
1045.
6.4
0.0045
0

II: 1087.205


Change in Environmental Macrovalue (12 - II) =


Economic Inputs, F
Locks, Levees
Shipping costs
Fuels in shipping
Agriculture on floodplain
Urban floodplain inputs
Water treatment


8
9
10
1, 6
22
9


Total F


0
0
0
3.86
0
0

Fl: 3.86


13.8
470.
0
0.43
1.46

12: 485.69

- 601.52


0.36
1.13
2.87
15.8
37.4
2.93

F2: 60.49


Chanrie in Economic Inputs (F2 - Fl):

Total contributions: Old System:
'Jew System:


PI: 1091.065


Alternative development (F2 + F2/IR):

Contribution of Potential Development (IR * II):

BENEFIT COMPARISONS:
Change between new and old:
Comparison with alternative investment
Comparison with potential development


P2: 546.18

P3: 69.13

P4: 7609.


P2 - PI =
P2 - P3 =
P2 - P4 =


+56.63


* See Figure 3 for diagram of relationships of environmental inputs I,
economic inputs F, and contributions to the system P.


- 544.9
+ 477.1
- '062.8















changing and their connections with inputs. The whole system diagram is still
done first to make sure everything has been considered. Then a net EMERGY
benefit table can be evaluated, including the items in the smaller diagram.

Figure 12 through Figure 18 are diagrams for evaluating some economic use
of the Mississippi River. Each includes the economic inputs to development as
well as those environmental or economic sectors which are changed by the new
use of the river. The contributions to the joint economy of humanity and
nature are shown emerging from the diagram to the right. Where the old system
is diagrammed, the output is labelled PI as in Figure 12a. Where the new
system is diagrammed, the contribution is P2. See Figure 11.

The systems overview diagrams were used to determine which pathways
needed to be evaluated in Table 9. Then the diagrams were used to determine
how to add or subtract EMERGY values to compare alternatives or evaluate
impacts.


Comparison of Present River with Undeveloped Pattern

Figure 11 compares the primitive, pioneer river with the present river
system which is channelized, narrowed with levees, and controlled in upper
reaches with locks and dams. Table 11 is the same as Table 10 except that it
includes erosion and redeposition of sediments, valuable in the long run.

Much of the large EMERGY of the river originally went with nearly half of
the water into the floodplains generating $35.8 billion macrovalue. Some
economic inputs were attracted as wood, furs, and seasonal agriculture was
harvested between floods.

In the present river most of the floodplain has been converted to
agriculture and urban development and the river channelized and deepened.
$14.8 billion of environmental work is still done in the remaining
floodplains, $6.8 billion of river capacity is used by the shipping industry,
but the rest of the water that used to do work on the floodplains shoots into
the sea. On the drained lands, intensive agriculture inputs have $15.8
macrovalue. Table 11 includes $37.4 billion macrovalue input as economic
support of New Orleans, a city on the floodplain.

The new annual macrovalue of the developed system (P2) with $82.55
billion is greater than the old pattern of $46.1 billion, even when corrected
for alternative environmental uses. Economic development usually increases
the total value because additional outside inputs are attracted with
investments.

The new contribution (P2) is $13.4 E9 more than alternative investments
(P3). See Table 10.

However, the loss of $20 billion in environmental work in the process is
also a loss of potential for attracting additional matching economic inputs.
The potential of the river is seven times the original annual environmental
value which is $296 billion.















Floodplain Services

Figure 16 diagrams some of the floodplain's processes developing
products, cleansing waters, accepting sediments and wastes, and enriching
agriculture between floods. Activities that can be economic and attract
outside fuels and monies include forestry, water, fur, aquaculture,
recreation, and fishery nurseries recycling. Floodplain contributions
evaluated are in Table 9.


Floods

The annual flood is a potential resource that was effectively used by the
original floodplain and deltaic system. By diking, channelizing, and making
economic developments that were not adapted to the flood cycle, a benefit was
often turned into a stress, a drain on part of the system, a pathological
state. Floods caused by a development and the costs of dealing with them are
a drain and count negatively, although the new values obtained from the diked
lands are an alternative benefit. See agriculture and urban items in Table 9.
Flood protection is part of the costs of the new system. The flood resource
that is now shunted to the sea instead of being absorbed into beneficial
production on the floodplains is a waste in the present system that can be
changed by returning more areas to floodplain use.


Comparing Transportation Alternatives

Next consider transportation more narrowly (Figure 12; Table 9 ). The
pioneer transport (Figure 12a) derived nearly everything from the river and
its floodplain including wood for the boats, whereas the modern system (Figure
12b) uses large inputs from the economic system directly and indirectly based
on fuels. The current system diverted the river from some of its natural
roles in the floodplain.

If no water management is required, EMERGY required from the economy for
water shipping uses only $4 billion (1.13 + 2.87), whereas for the same ton-
miles $20.9 billion (13.8 + 7.14) are required by railroad (Table 9). The
example shows why water transportation seems cheaper, since the river supplies
physical energy evaluated at $.43 billion, whereas the EMERGY supplied by the
land is only $.022 billion (Railroad, Table 9).

If transportation evaluations include river use, locks and levees,
shipping costs, and fuels, the total is $4.79 billion per year, which is much
less than the loss of floodplain value (35.8 - 13.8 - $22 billion). In other
words, the diversion of the floodplains is not justified for transportation
reasons only.

The water transportation may be compared with alternative train
transportation (Figure 12c) using EMERGY evaluations in Table 9. The railroad
alternative diverted land for use with small annual EMERGY, compared to the
water transportation diversion of high EMERGY waters. Rail transport uses
less EMER'1Y contribution from the environment and more from the economy.













Oil and Gas


Rapid development of oil and natural gas resources dominated economic
development within the Mississippi Basin in this century, particularly in
Louisiana and Oklahoma. Notice, for example, the high EMERGY contribution per
year from Louisiana alone (Table 10, $151 billion/yr macrovalue). The
priority given to oil and gas operations is understandable considering the
maximum EMERGY principle which predicts the take-over by systems that can
contribute more EMERGY flow. However, large environmental macrovalues were
inadvertently lost by a failure to value their contributions.

In addition to impacts of briny bleedwater, drilling muds, and oil
spills, oil and gas operations in the deltaic plain cut the marshes with
networks of barge channels and fill lines. See Figure 13. These shielded the
marshes from receiving their sediment and nutrients that helped produce
organic sediment from marsh plants. With some deltaic compaction and
subsidence, the diversion of the river sediments is causing the marsh lands to
be replaced with water at a very rapid rate (Scaife, Turner, and Costanza,
1983). In Table 9 footnote 21, this loss of land accretion is partially
evaluated as $6.4 billion macroeconomic value. Although small compared to the
oil and gas contribution, it is large enough to justify better conservation
measures to prevent this problem in future operations and to justify a large
restoration effort to return the free flow of the delta waters.

Because the net EMERGY yield ratio of U.S. oil and gas is now much lower
than those in OPEC nations, oil will come increasingly from foreign sources.
See net EMERGY calculation of a Gulf oil operation (Odum et al., 1976) and
Cleveland and Costanza (1983). Water transportation becomes increasingly
important in keeping the net EMERGY yield of fuels reaching final users
competitively low compared to other nations. See below.


Coal Mining and Transport

Use of coal is related to the river's role in making transport cheaper.
Coal mining is diagrammed in Figure 14. Net EMERGY yield ratio in Wyoming
strip mines is 40.1, but after rail transport for 1000 miles, the net EMERGY
ratio drops to 6/1 (Ballentine, 1976), more typical of most available energy
sources. These were made with the assumption that vegetational recovery after
some land reclamation effort required 50 to 100 years. If much longer times
are required to develop landscape productivity, much lower net energy ratios
result. Ballentine found that where coal is to be transformed to electricity,
this should be done before transport. The rest of the coal to be used for
various heat sources should be sent as coal. However, with river transport,
higher net EMERGY ratios are available throughout the basin, thus maintaining a
higher economic activity in other sectors.

In Table 9 footnote 24, we are given the savings if all the fuel use of
the Basin was from transported coal. There are 14% savings in fuel, which has
almost this much effect on the whole economy of the Basin.













Dams and Lakes

In the upper waters of the Basin there are many dammed reservoirs which
serve as water supply reservoirs and means of keeping the river navigable with
locks. See relationships in Figure 15. Maintaining uniform lake levels
eliminates floodplain ecosystems and thereby the means of cleansing waters and
depositing sediments over broad area to stimulate biological production of the
land. By their longer time constant, the lakes accumulate nutrients and toxic
substances. Although larger boats are facilitated, the use by smaller boats
is hindered. Ice break-up is delayed. The free downstream drift of boats,
waters and sediment is prevented. Table 9 includes costs of dams and locks.

Concrete has large EMERGY supplied with cement (3.43 El0 sej/gram) and
steel (1.78 E9 sej/gram) in addition to that evaluated as construction fuels
and services.


Water Used in the Economy, Water Treatment

In footnote 9 the economic water use for the whole basin was estimated as
about 6% of the whole river discharge with macrovalue of $3.3 billion. Many
of the waters are returned to the river with lower capacity, and increased
toxicities. Because of the return of part of that water to the river without
floodplain action, water treatment costs are increased. Some of this is an
unnecessary input that could have gone into other uses if more environmental
services were retained. See footnote 25.


Fisheries

Coastal fisheries are diagrammed in Figure 17 which includes interaction
of wetlands and the continental shelf. Bahr, Day and Stone (1982)
quantitatively relate main populations to the primary production of
Mississippi River coastal waters and wetlands. In Table 9 footnote 23 the
river EMERGY input per area of nursery was calculated so as to relate the
river EMERGY to fish production. The annual macroeconomic value of the river pro-
rated over the area studied was $4.5 billion. Additional fisheries involved the
freshwater wetlands and migrations up and down stream. Part of the decline of
fisheries is related to the loss of area of marshes for interaction of larvae
and food chains.

When the river EMERGY of the nursery was related to stages in the food
chain using the plant production transformities supplied by these authors, the
following solar transformities were obtained:


Item Concentration factor* Solar transformity

gross production 1 4,687 sej/J
dispersed algae 2 9,374 sej/J
dispersed organic matter 4 18,748 sej/J
zooplankton, microzoa 30 140,610 sej/J
dispersed herbivores 300 1,406,100 sej/j
upper consumers 1700 7,967,900 sej/J

* gross production units required per unit.













Upland Agriculture and Erosion

Intensive agriculture characterizes the Mississippi Basin producing corn,
wheat, soybeans, cattle beef and dairy products, fowl, and hogs, as itemized
in the Appendix. Figure 18 is a simplified representation of the relationship
between the wild ecosystems developing soil that is rotated into crop
production, particularly in the drier western part of the Mississippi-Missouri
Basin where river waters and ground waters are used for irrigation. However,
the rising costs of electricity for pumping, and the lowering of water tables
due to years of pumping, are making this less competitive.

Details of soil erosion and runoff are given in Appendices A and B.
Because of the intensity of farming and the elimination of part of the
floodplains, part of the mineral clays go directly into the sea. An estimate
of the loss of clay materials of soils in Table 9 is larger even than the
fuels. Based on the fraction of water through the floodplains, nearly half of
that eroded from the uplands is deposited at sea.


General Recommendation

The evaluation of various flows in Table 9 on a macroeconomic dollar
basis shows a set of environmental contributions that have been lost from the
economy and potential developments that could be made by reincorporating
these. The evaluation of floodplain alternatives in Table 10 is an example.
Nearly 3.5 times the economic development is possible by refitting the pattern
of humanity to use the river flooding resource instead of shunting it to sea.
A general policy of opening up more floodplains to the river again is needed,
diking people in rather than diking the river out. With a period of more coal
use just ahead, the river transportation system needs to be retained for its
net EMERGY benefit, but not at the expense of the floodplain changes needed.













VI. OVERVIEW SIMULATION MODEL

Craig Diamond


One approach to understanding the processes and dynamics of a system is
the use of a simulation study. A model which contains the dominant elements
of a system and the pertinent pathways by which these elements interact may
provide useful estimates of system behavior over a time frame of interest.
Such a model can be translated to a set of differential equations which can
then be solved using either a digital or analog computer.

Figure 19 represents an overview minimodel, using LHT. Odum's energy
language, of the Mississippi River Basin (a list of energy language symbols
and their meanings is included as Figure 2). Figure 20 shows the values of
flows and storage in Calories and dollars. The system contains five
storage: soil (S), water (G), fossil fuels (F), urban assets (A), and
financial capital (D). The storage of assets is in EMERGY (1 E18 solar
equivalent Calories), dollars are in $ E9, and the remaining storage and
flows are in 1 E15 Calories.

Systems inputs include sunlight, which is flow limited and is competed
for between natural and agricultural systems; rainfall (R); imported fuels (a
function of relative prices); and imported goods and services (a function of
available funds). System exports are fossil fuels, goods and services, and
agricultural surplus.

Production of soil is shown as a byproduct of sun and rain interaction.
The assumption is that soil nutrients are produced at relatively constant
rates via abiotic processes. Changes in land use effect the level of sunlight
available for natural systems, thereby altering the quantity of soil produced.
Soil is depleted by agricultural practice above the natural rate of turnover.

Water storage is another byproduct of solar-driven processes and reflects
the volume of ground and surface waters after evapotranspiration in
undeveloped regions. Outflows include Mississippi River discharge,
consumption by agriculture, and urban net use. Geopotential of water over
land (for hydroelectric) is added in a variant of the basic model. At a macro
level water storage reflects all systems dependent on maintaining average
volumes over time, i.e., wetlands and non-perched bodies of water.

Fossil fuels are taken to be nonrenewable resources which, in the basic
model, feed only the urban interaction. Fuels used by agriculture are
calculated by a function of the relative price - world market price over
domestic production price, available fuel reserves and assets. Since the
Basin's assets will be proportional to those of the entire U.S., it may be
assumed that export of domestic fuels will be similarly related. Imports are
controlled by available dollar resources and the inverse price function. As
world prices increase, system imports decrease (although purchases continue if
funds exist) and exports increase accounting for substitution of basin fuels
for foreign fuels in the domestic market.

Urban assets are generated by an autocatalytic relation using renewable
and nonrenewable resources. Byproducts of this interaction are marketable


















































Figure 19. Overview simulation model if the Mississippi River Basin using energy languag,-
symbols. Accompanying differential eqLations are listed in Table 12.



















2.62


Figure 20. Overview simulation model of the Mississippi River Basin given in Figure 19 CY
and Table 13. Numbers are initial calibration values. Fuels, water, soil, sun and
agricultural output are in units of E15 kilocalories per year. Assets and related flows
are in units of El8 solar equivalent kilocalories per year; dollar flows are in units of
billion dollars per year.










69




Table 12. Differential equations for Model A 1 (accompanies Figure 11).


k1 ** k 3*L*G*S*A
1+C I*R+C 2*G*S*A k2 *S C - 1 *R.C 2 *C*S*A


k *L*G*S*A
G = k *R - s
4 1+C *R+C2 *C*S*A


k 6*AO*~A*F*G

l+C 3*A*F*G k7 *


k *AO*A*F G
A = -*
1+C3*A*F*G


2 k0*LkG*S*A
a 1+C *R+C 2C*SkA


1 4*D
+ - - 1 *F*RP*A
P3 7


. 1 *AO4A*F*G*P4
D
1+C *A*F*G
3


1 5 *D
F RP*P2


+ I+ AFG+ 1 3 FR*~1 1 4 *D RP


1 2 AO'rA�F"G
. +C 3 A*~F*G- 3 P'












Table 13. BASIC program for simulation of the standard model of the
Mississippi River Basin.


REM SIMULATION PROGRAM FOR MODEL A.1
DIM T(300),AI(300),Fl(300),G1(300),GP1(300)
CLS
PRINT "MODEL A.1"
LINE (160,0)-(640,200),,B
LINE (161,1)-(638,199),,B
FOR 1=1 TO 4
FOR J=-1 TO 1
LINE (155,40*I+J)-(160,40*I+J)
LINE (160+96*I+2*J,200)-(160+96*I+2*J,203)
NEXT J
NEXT I
REM INITIAL CONDITIONS
S=340 : RE1 SOIL ORGANICS
i =23: REM TrTAL GRYUjNDWATER
F=3260 : REM TOTAL FUELS
A=9940 : REM TOTAL ASSETS
D=200 : REM DOLLARS
L=4130 : REM SUNLIGHT
R=2.62 : REM RAIN (CHEM. POT.)
REM PRICES AND COEFFICIENTS (1 E9 $S/ El


210 Pl=5.246 : RE
220 ?2=22.09 : RE
230 23=.961 : REM
243 P4=.5547 : R
250 P5=67.64 : RE
260 Ci=1.145 : RL
270 C2=2.389E-08
23J C3=6.778E-09
300 REM INITIAL
310 Jl=.396 : REM
315 J2=.657 : REM
320 J3=.145 : REM
325 J4=.654 : REM
330 J5=.053 : REM
335 J6=.021 : REM
340 J7=.64 : REM
345 J8=507 : REM
350 J9=331 : REM
355 J0=48.2 : REM
360 Il=88.8 : REM
365 12=6.2 : REM
370 13=3.01 : REM
375 14=87.19 : RB:
380 15=16.15 : RE_
384 17=33.48 : RE
390 AO=.702 : REM


,S1(300),AOI(300)


10
15
20
30
35
36
40
42
45
50
65
70
100
110
123
130
140
150
160
170
200


A DOMESTIC FUEL
M IMPORTED FUEL, TRANSFERS, NUCLEAR.
IMPORTED GOODS AND SERVICES
M EXPORTED GOODS AND SERVICES
M AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
M NATURAL SYSTEMS LIMITING FACTOR
: REM AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS LIMITING FACP-R
:REM URBAN SYSiTEMS LIMITIKiG FACTOR
FLOWS
SOIL PRODUCTION
SOIL RESPIRATION
AGRIC. CONSUMPTION OF SOIL PLUS EROSION
INFLUX OF WATER CHE2I. POTENTIAL
AGRIC. CONSUMPTION OF WATER
URBAN CONSUMPTION OF WATER
OUTFLOW OF WATER CHEM. POTENTIAL
URBAN PRODUCTION
URBAN DECAY
FEEDBACK TO AGRI-CULTURAL SYSTEMS
URBAN EXPORT
FUEL CONSUMPTION
FUEL EXPORTS
COST OF IMPORT GOODS AND SERVICES
COST OF IMPORT FUELS
MINING
AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT


8 SEC)


I












Table 13 (cont.)


400 REM CALCULATION OF PATHWAY CDEFFICNENTS
405 DN=1+Cl*R+C2*S*G*A : REM DENCMINArOR P3R NON-URBAN PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
410 SP=L*R/DN : REM SOIL PRODUCTION
420 AP=L*S*G*A/DN : REM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
425 DU=1+C3*A*G*F : REM DENOMINATOR FOR URBAN PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
430 UP=AO*A*F*G/DU : REM URBAN PRODUCTION
435 RP=1+.25*P2/P1 : REM RELATIVE FUEL PRICE
440 K1=J1/SP
445 K2=J2/380 : REM HISTORICAL LEVEL
450 K3=J3/AP
455 K4=J4/R
460 K5=J5/AP
465 K6=J6/UP
470 K7=J7/G
475 K8=JS/UP
480 K9=J9/(A*A)
485 KO=J'/AP
490 Li=I1/UP
495 L2=I2/UP
500 L3=I3/(F*RP*A)
505 L4=I4/D
510 L5=I5*RPD
515 L0=AO/AP
520 L7=I7/(F*AkRP)
1000 REM SIM'JLArI'ON LOOP
1010 DT=2
1020 Y=300
1030 FOR I=1 TO Y STEP DT
1100 DN=I+Cl*R+C2*S*G*A
1110 SP=L*R/DN
1120 AP=L*A*G*S/DN
1130 AO=LO*AP
1140 DU=1+C3*A*F*G
1150 UP=AO*A*F*G/DU
1160 RP=1+.25*P2/Pl
1200 DS=K1*3P-K2"S-K3*AP
1210 DG=K4*R-K5*AP-K6*UP-K7*G
1220 DA=KB*UP-K9*A*A-K0*AP+L4*D/P3-L7*RP*F*A
1230 DD=Ll*UP*P4+P5*AO/DU+PI*L3*RP*F*A-L4*D-L5*D/RP
1240 DF=-L2*UP-L3*RP*F*A+L5*D/(RP*P2)
1300 S=S+DS*DT
1310 G=G+DG*DT
1320 A=A+DA*DT
1330 D=D+DD*DT
1340 F=F+DF*DT
1500 GOSUB 2000
1600 NEXT I
1700 END












Table 13 (cont.)

2000 REM PLOTTING SUBROUTINE FOR ZENITH SYSTEM
2005 T(INT(I))=INT(I)
2010 X=160+I*480/Y
2020 PSET (X,200-A/100) : REM ASSETS ARE RED
2025 A1(INT(I))=(200-A/100)/2
2030 PSET (X,200-F/17.5) : REM FUEL IS YELLOW
2035 F1(INT(I))=(200-?/17.5)/2
2040 PSET (X,200-G*4) : REM GROUNDWATER IS BLUE
2042 GI (INT(I)) = (200-G*4)/2
2045 GP=L*UJP*P4+AO*P5/DU+L3*RP*F*Pl*A
2050 PSET (X,200-GP*2) : RE2 GDP IS PURPLE
2055 GP1(INT(I))=(200-GP*2)/2
2060 PSET (X,200-S/2) : REM SOIL IS GREEN
2065 S1(INT(I))=(200-S/2)/2
2070 PSET (X,200-AO*100) : REM AG. OUTPUT IS WHICE
2075 A01(INT(I))=(200-AO*100)/2
2100 RETURN











Table 14i . Initial Storage Values for Simulation.


Storage Name

S Soil


G Water

A Assets



F Fuel


$ Dollars


Value and Basis


3.40 E17 Cal
See Footnote 4 to Table 3.

2.30 E16 Cal
See Footnote 6 to Table 3.

9.94 E18 SEC
(20)(GDP)(6.21 E8 SEC/$) where GDP = $800 E9.
Factor of 20 was used in previous studies
as an estimator of urban value.

3.26 E21 Cal
Sum of Oil, Gas and Coal storage.
See Footnotes 1-3 to Table 3.

$200 E9
(.25)(GDP) where .25 reflects an average
turnover rate of 4 times per year.










Table 15. Initial Flow Values for Simulation.


Flow Name


Value and Basis


L Sunlight



R Rain


1J Production
of Soil


J2 Natural
Soil Losses

J3 Agricultural
Soil Losses


J4 Influx of
Chem. Pot. of
Water

J5 Agricultural
Water Use


J6 Urban
Water Use


J7 River
Out flow


J8 Urban
Production


J9 Urban
Depreciation


JO Feedback to
Agriculture


4.13 E15 Cal/yr
(.914)(4.53 E15 Cal/yr)
Average insolation over all non-urban
See Footnote 1 to Table 2.


land.


2.62 E15 Cal/yr
See Footnote 2 to Table 2.

6.57 E14 Cal/yr
(2.04 E3 Cal/m2)(3.22 E12 m2)
Avg. rate taken from Odum and Odum, 1983.

6.57 E14 Cal/yr
Steady state value assumed for
non-agricultural lands (60.2% of total).

1.45 E14 Cal/yr
Net loss of topsoil.
See Footnote 8 to Table 2.


6.54 E14 Cal/yr
Sum of Basin outflow and surface
consumption for agricultural and


water
urban use.


5.30 E13 Cal/yr
(9.35 E12 Gal/yr)(4.28 Cal/Gal) Instream use
plus 3.07 E12 Gal/yr groundwater overdraft.
Values from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978.

2.10 E13 Cal/yr
(4.05 E12 Gal/yr)(4.28 Cal/Gal) Instream use
plus 1.15 E12 Gal/yr reservoir evaporation.
Values from U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978.

6.40 E14 Cal/yr
(5.71 E17 g/yr)(1.12 E-3 Cal/g)
Calorie value based on 150 ppm dissolved
solids. Discharge data from Costanza, 1983.

5.07 E20 SEC/yr
Based on net growth of 1.8% after
depreciation, imports, and feedbacks.

3.31 E20 SEC/yr
(.033/yr))(9.94 E21 SEC)
Based on a turnover period of 30 years.

4.82 E19 SEC/yr
Sum of embodied energy in fuel, fertilizer,
and labor.













Table 15 (cont.)


11 Export of
Manufactured
Goods

12 Fuel
Consumption


13 Fuel
Exports


14 Cost of
Imported Goods
and Services

15 Cost of
Imported Fuels

16 Depreciation
Due to
Pollution

17 Peedback to
Mining Industry


88.8 E19 SEC/yr



6.02 E15 Cal/yr
Sum of oil, gas and coal used.
See Footnotes 9-11 to Table 2.

3.01 E15 Cal/yr
Sum of coal and gas exported.
See Footnotes 24 and 25 to Table 2.

$87.19 E9/yr
Sum of all imported services except for fuel.
See Footnote 23 to Table 2.

$16.15 E9/yr
See Footnote 23 to Table 2.

1.32 E20 SEC/yr
Used in Model B only.


3.35 E19 SEC/yr
($53.9 E9/yr)(6.21 E8 SEC/$)
Value is the portion of the GOP
mining sector. See Appendix G.


generated by


AO Agricultural
Output


7.02 E14 Cal/yr
Sun of grain and animal exports and grain
and animal products consumed.
See Footnotes 14,15, and 29 to Table 2.










Simulation Constants and Prices.


Constant Name


Value and Basis


Cl Soil Production
Limiting Factor

C2 Agricultural
Limiting Factor

C3 Urban
Limiting Factor


PI Price of
Exported Fuel
(Domestic)

P2 Price of
Imported Fuel

P3 Price of
Imported Goods
and Services


1.145
Based on average albedo of 25%.

2.389 E-8
Based on average albedo of 35%.

6.778 E-9
Based on consumption of 1.16 E14 Cal/yr of
agricultural output versus 5.86 E14 Cal/yr
exports.

$5.246 E9/1 E15 Cal


$22.09 E9/1 E15 Cal


$0.961 E9/1 E18 SEC


Table 16.































o80 2030 2080 2130 280so 2230 2280
TIME (YEARS)


Figure 21a. Simulation
in Figure 10.


MAX,


of the model in Figure 19 with values as calibrated


2080 2130 2180
TIME (YEARS)


2280


Figure 21b. Simulation of the model in Figure 19 with
increase in cost of fuel.


2% per year































1700175010i8Ol50 l9QOi950200O205O2iO02150220O
TIME (YEARS)


Figure 21c.
with initial
and fuel and
MAX i-


Simulation of the model in Figure 19 over a 500-year period
values of assets and dollars set at 1% of current values
soil set 10% higher than current values.


1730


TIME (YEARS)
Figure 21d. Simulation of the model in Figure
with a 2% increase in fuel costs.


19 over an '"0--year period










MAX


1980 2030


2080 2130 2180 2230
TIME (YEARS)


Figure 21e. Simulation of the model in Figure 19 with 25% increase
in estimate of present fuel reserves, with 2% increase per year in
cost of imported fuel, addition of a pathway of increased depreciation
of assets as a function of fuel use representing pollution, and a 2%
per year increase in the costs of outside goods and services.


MAX.


1980 2030 2080 2130 2180 2230 2280
TIME (YEARS)
Figure 21f. Simulation of the model in Figure 19 with -," increase in
fuel cost and an additional pathway providing more hydropower as an
alternative of fuel use.


2280













exports which, in conjunction with surplus produce, generate the capital
required for external fuels, goods, and services. Since goods and services
are considered to be high-quality energies, they are added directly to urban
assets. The value of goods, services and assets was determined by the EMERGY
of their approximate dollar value rather than an estimate of the actual
calories. Odum (1983) has shown that high-quality items which use substantial
fuels, labor and information in their production are represented reasonably
well, in terms of EMERGY, by their dollar value and the dollar-energy
translation.


Simulation Program and Results

Table 12 reports the differential equations used in the basic model. The
computer program for the simulation, written in BASIC, is presented as Table
13. The calibration of initial values of flows and state variables is
described in Tables 14-16. Pathway coefficients are calculated within the
program to insure accuracy. Soil, fuel, water, urban assets, agricultural
output, and gross domestic product (the sum of fuel, manufactured goods, and
agricultural sales) are plotted for 300 years, beginning with 1980, in each
simulation.

Figure 21a is the result of the basic model with no changes to system
inputs or to internal pathways. Agriculture and GDP reach their maximum
values by 2010, decline to current values by 2030 and continue to decline
thereafter. Urban assets peak around 2025. Water supplies continue to shrink
until 2040, while soil storage do not begin to recover until the end of the
23rd century. Basin civilization succeeds in tapping about 60% of its fuel
reserves during this period.

Figure 21b describes the impact of a constant increase of 2% per year in
the real price of imported goods, services, and fuels. Agriculture peaks
before 2010, while assets increase' until 2025. GDP reaches a temporary
maximum, following growth in assets, before a dramatic increase occurs as a
result of accelerated fuel sales. Soil and water reserves attain slightly
higher final levels since assets and agriculture are drawn down substantially
once fuel supplies shrink. Most of the fuel has been exported, along with
greater internal consumption, to account for diminishing foreign supplies.

A historical simulation is shown in Figure 21c. Initial values for state
variables were estimated for the year 1700: Fuel, soil and water are near
maximum values, while assets were set at 2% of the current level to account
for population and small settlements. The accuracy of the basic model is
borne out by the' magnitude and location of the developed peaks which occur
around 2020. 1700 as a starting year was an arbitrary date, and a figure 50
years either way could have been chosen. A longer-term model, 800 years, is
depicted in Figure 21d. Water reserves stabilize near 2400, while soil stocks
do not begin to recover until 2300.

Figure 21e describes the effects of increased soil erosion and water
consumption as a function of higher fuel supplies, to account for optimistic
estimates, and an increase in foreign fuel prices. Agriculture and GDP peak
by 1995, while assets continue to grow until 2020. Water supplies recover by







81



the end of the simulation, while soil stocks just begin to increase. Only
about 5% of fuel reserves remain.

Figure 21f shows a variation of the model in which the urban production
function uses the sum of water and fuel energies rather than their product.
Consumption of fuel causes increased depreciation of capital through
pollution. The overall behavior is similar to that shown in Figure 20 but
assets, agriculture, and GDP conclude at much higher levels since they can
depend on a separate, renewable energy source.













VII. PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUTURE


The future trends for the Mississippi River Basin should be considered on
several scales: the response of the Basin's economy to the world trends; the
effect of loss of resources within the Basin, and the successional changes in
the cities, rural land uses, and water management as a new maturity develops
at a lower energy level.

The worldwide decline of net energy of fuels and other nonrenewable
resources is predicted to gradually decrease the availability of raw imports
to fuel the industrial economies. At the same time net energy of oil and gas
in Louisiana, Oklahoma, and elsewhere in the Mississippi Basin also will
decline, raising cost. The proportion of the EMERGY due to the River will
increase again. These predictions are based on simulations shown in Figure 21
also.

The massive structural diversion of the river's pattern of floods,
floodplains, distributaries, sediment deposition and marine estuaries has
moved the system away from the self-maintaining steady state patterns natural
to the river. As changes have accumulated, the pattern of navigation locks,
channels, levees, and floodplain agriculture will become increasingly costly
to maintain. As the rich energy resources for each movement and engineering
decline, a point is reached at which the river goes back to its natural
pattern. People once again will fit their settlements to the water's
hierarchical network. The massive channelization and levees of a single
navigation route will be replaced with multiple distributaries like the
Atchafalaya. The ships will become smaller, and major ports and shipping will
reorganize around the energy availabilities of the natural river.

Some of the lands now eliminated from annual flooding once again will
receive waters, enriching deposits of sediment, and become floodplain forests
or wetland agriculture. A greater percentage of the waters will receive the
filtering action of these floodplains so that water qualities improve. The
practice of building up and diking around human settlements, agricultural
plots, roads, etc., will replace the more expensive practices of holding the
river in one narrow channel. With wider areas to absorb the normal floods,
the height and hazard will be less, and heights of dikes necessary for local
protection will be less in most places.

Upland agriculture, now among the world's most intensive in inputs of
machinery, chemicals, services, etc., becomes less intensive as greater areas
of land are used at lower yield per unit area, with more use of labor, and
smaller and less expensive machinery. The increased costs of inputs
ultimately due to the declining net energy of world resources make intensive
agriculture too expensive. World markets will shift to more local self
sufficiencies. Increasing costs of fertilizers and pesticides increase
practices of rotation and use of flood deposited sediments.

Fresh waters will be better distributed to the Louisiana salt marshes.
As the abandoned network of oil barge channels is recaptured by estuarine
circulation, restored marsh productivity can counteract subsidence.








83



Three factors may work to increase the stocks of fishes, crabs, and
shrimps: (1) restored wetland production, (2) decreased fishing pressure due
to rising fuel prices, and (3) restored migratory fish runs as upstram
habitats improve.

Whereas the total trade of agricultural products, oil, petrochemicals,
and manufactured goods may decrease, the percentage of the trade that is
river-processed may increase, since river energies will not be diminished.
However, river energy will be spread over a wider channel again. The
industrial structure for processing oil may be used less and less as imported
oils become too expensive, and the exporting countries develop their own
installations for refining and manufacture.












PREFERENCES


Armstrong, J. and P. Ryner. 1978. Coastal Waters: A Management Analysis.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.

Bahr, L.M., J.W. Day, and J.H. Stone. 1982. Energy cost-accounting of
Louisiana fishery production. Estuaries 5:209-215.

Ballentine, T. 1976. A net energy analysis of surface mined coal from the
Northern Great Plains. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Environmental Engineering
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. 149 pp.

Baumann, R.D., J.W. Day, and C.A. Miller. 1984. Mississippi deltaic
wetland survival sedimentation versus coastal submergence. Science
224:1093-1095.

Bayley, S., J. Zucchetto, L. Shapiro, D. Mau, and J. Nessel. 1977.
Energetics and systems modeling: a framework study for energy ,
evaluation of alternative transportation modes. Institute for Water
Resources, Ft. Belvoir, Va.

Cleveland, C.J. and R. Costanza. 1984. Net energy analysis of
geoTressure-d gas resources in the U.S. Gulf coast region. Energy
9:35-51.

Costanza, R., C. Neill, S. Leibowitz, J. Fruci, L. Bahr, and J. Day. 1983.
Ecological models of the Mississippi deltaic plain region. Center
for Wetlands Resources, Baton Rc'ue, La.

Diamond, C. 1984. Energy basis for the regional organization of the
Mississippi River Basin. M.S. Thesis. Environmental Engineering
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. 136 pp.

Energy Information Handbook, U.S. _ongress. 1977.

Horton, R.E. 1945. Erosional development of streams and their drainage
basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin V.56(3):275-370.

Hunt, C.B. 1967. Physiography of the United States. W.H. Freeman and
Co., San Francisco.

Larson, W.E., F.J. Pierce and R.H. Dowdy. 1983. The threat of soil erosion
to long term crop production. Science, 219:458-465.

Letzkus, D. 1980. Report to Congress on administration of ocean dumping
activities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, Va.

National Waterways Study. 1981.

JNOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 1977. Climatic
Atlas of the United States.

Odum, H.T. 1971. Environment, Power, and Society. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.












Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

Odum, H.T. 1984. Energy analysis of the environmental role in agriculture.
In Energy and Agriculture, ed. by G. Stanhill, Springer-Verlag, N.Y.

Odum, H.T. 1986. Energy in ecosystems. pp. 337-369 in Ecosystem Theory and
Application, ed. by N. Polunin. J. Wiley, N.Y.

Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum. 1976, 1982. Energy Basis for Man and Nature. McGraw
Hill, N.Y.

Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum (eds). 1983. Energy analysis overview of nations.
(Working Paper WP-83-82). International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.

Odum, H.T., M.J. Lavine, F.C. Wang, M.A. Miller, J.F. Alexander, and T.
Butler. 1983. A manual for using energy analysis for plant siting.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2443, Washington, D.C.

Odum, H.T., C. Kylstra, J. Alexander, N. Sipe, P. Lem, et al. 1976. Net
energy analysis of alternatives for the United States. pp. 258-302 in
Middle and Long-term Energy Policies and Alternatives. Hearings of
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, 94th Congress. Serial Number 94-63.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Odum, H.T. and D. Scienceman. 1937. Manuscript.

Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, Energy, and Society. John
Wiley & Sons, N.Y.

Rand McNally and Co. 1978.

Richards, M., ed. 1981. Cousteau Almanac. Doubleday & Co., Garden City,
N.Y.

Scaife, W.W., R.E. Turner, and R. Costanza. 193. Coastal Louisiana
recent land loss and canal impacts. Environmental Management 7:433-
442.

Strahler, A.N. 1952. Hypsometric analysis of erosional topography.
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, V.63(l):1117-1142.

Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology.
American Geophysicists Union Transcripts, V.38(6):91-Q-20.

Swaney, D.P. 1978. Energy analysis of climatic inputs to agriculture.
M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University
of Florida, Gainesville. 198 pp.

U.N. International Trade Statistics. 1980.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 1981. Analysis of environmental aspects of
waterways navigation. Ft. Belvoir, Va.












U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1949. Trees. The Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1983. U.S. Statistical
Abstract. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fact Book. 1978. Grossett & Dunlap, N.Y. 1048 pp.

U.S. Statistical Abstract. See above.

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1978. The Nation's Water Resources, 1975-
2000. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Visher, S. 1954. Climatic Atlas of the United States. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Water Atlas of the United States. 1973. Water Information Center, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 190 pp.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. MacMillan, N.Y.

Young, D., H.T. Odum, J. Day, and T. Butler. 1974. Evaluation of regional
models for alternatives in management of the Atchafalaya Basin.
Report to U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife. 31 pp.

Zucchetto, J., S. Bayley, L. Shapiro, D. Mau, and J. Nessel. 1980. The
direct and indirect energy costs of coal transport by alternative bulk
commodity modes. Resource Recovery and Conservation 5:161-177.











APPENDIX A. RUNOFF PATES IN THE :IISS3SSIPPI RL'.TF. BASIt;.

Sub-basin Runoff % Total Contribution
in/yr Area (in/yr)

Ohio 19 12.95 2.46

Tennessee 21 3.40 0.71

Upper Miss. 4 14.41 0.58

Lower Miss. 8 8.23 0.66

Missouri 3 41.31 1.24

Arkansas 6 19.64 1.18


Total


6.83

(0.173 m)


Source is U.S. Water Resources Council (1978).











APPENDIX: B. EROSION WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVE? BASIN.

Sub-basin Cropland g/m2iyr E 14 g/yr Range and Ton/area-yr E 6 ton/yr
(E 11 m2) Forest
(E 3 acres)

Ohio 1.45 1,250 1.81 57,138 0.4 22.86

Tennessee 0.22 1,250 0.27 17,936 0.3 5.38

Upper Miss. 2.74 1,000 2.74 36,117 0.6 21.67

Lower Miss. 0.98 1,000 0.98 37,027 0.3 11.11

Missouri 4.44 500 2.22 191,711 1.5 287.57

Arkansas 1.89 5i"L 0.95 100,104 1.0 100.10

Totals 8.97 E 14 g/yr 4.49 E 8 Ton/yr
(4.48 E 14 g/yr)
Total soil loss is 13.45 E 14 g/yr


Area of

Rate of

Rate of


cropland, range and forest is from U.S. Water Resources Council (1978)

erosion for crops is from Larson (1983) in Odum (1983).

erosion for range and forest is from U.S.W.R.C. (1978).













APPENDIX C. ENERGY USE

State


I Arkansas

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Missouri

Nebraska

Oklahoma

S. Dakota

Tennessee

II Alabama

Colorado

Georgia

Illinois

Indiana

Louisiana

Maryland


(11%)

(94%)

( 1%)

(35%)

(78%)

(95%)

(<1%)


IN BASIN, 1981. E 12 BTU.

Coal Gas

102 272

254 260

213 440

675 204

538 291

100 142

155 690

38 23

562 229

68 31

266 204

5 3

280 381

888 397

25 1,739

0 0


Petrol

316

377

347

450

558

199

456

107

504

52

303

7

474

558

1,385

1


NuIc Icar

99

24

0

0

0

65

0

0

51

28

8

1

113

0

0

0


Hydro

13

10

0

27

7

12

12

55

61

7

14

0

1

4

0

0


Elect.

1

49

-35

-51

-21

-13

-55

-30

228

-24

-1

0

7

-12

179

0


Total

803

974

965

1,305

1,373

505

1,258

193

1,635

162

794

16

1,256

1,835

3,328

1












APPENDIX C (cont.)

State Coal Gas Petrol Nuclear Hydro Elect. Total

Minnesota (93%) 238 254 458 103 10 48 1,111

Mississippi (74%) 61 185 275 0 0 70 591

Montana (90%) 58 49 135 0 106 -46 302

New Mexico (7%) 14 14 16 0 0 -11 34

New York (1%) 1 3 8 1 2 0 15

N. Carolina (3%) 20 5 20 2 1 1 49

N. Dakota (32%) 58 11 46 0 19 -51 83

Ohio (64%) 1,004 571 860 31 0 93 2,559

Penn. (32%) 470 257 428 50 2 -20 1,187

Texas (6%) 54 242 206 0 1 -5 498

Virginia (6%) 16 9 41 12 0 11 89

W. Virginia (94%) 828 143 195 0 10 26 1,202

Wisconsin (40%) 133 133 180 42 9 11 516

Wyoming (87%) 291 62 158 0 8 -183 336

Totals 7,415 7,244 9,128 630 391 166 24,974
o











APPENDIX D. FERTILIZER USE.

Values are 1970-1978 averages, E 3 tons

State Nitrogen

Iowa 776

Indiana 391

Illinois 743

Kansas 535

Missouri 332

Nebraska 596

Ohio 291

Minnesota a) 284

Wisconsin a)

Texas a) 142


Phosphorus

416

275

477

178

182

149

253

181


54


Total 4,090 2,165 2,267

Source: National Waterways Study, 1981

.te;: These states were factored by the percentage of their area in the

Basin: Minnesota (65%), Wisconsin (70%) and Texas (20%).


Potassium

422

376

575



215



294

199

186










APPENDIX E. AGRICULTUP.AL OUTPUT.

State Corn Wheat Soybeans
(E 9 kg)


Arkansas
Colorado b)
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Minnesota a)
Mississippi a)
Missouri
Montana b)
Nebraska
N. Dakota a)
0 i10
Oklahoma


2.50
33.30
16.36
41.21
3.74
3.27


10.79


4.77


18.87
0.39
10.31


1.04
2.43
2.01
1.46


10.30
0.48


1.99
0.17
2.49
3.71
2.73
3.81
1.84
5.30


2.79


9.47
4.25
8.65
1.00
1.27
2.06
2.70
1.17
4.34


1.73


3.45


Pe-nnslvania a) 4.17 0.34
S. Dakota 4.35 1.92
Tennessee 1.16 0.57
Texas a) 0.64 4.09
Wisconsin a) 6.18
Totals 162.01 46.68
Source: U.S. Statistical Abstract, 19-3.
�Joce: All values reported are at 14% moisture
All values represent three year average:


1.61
0.08


44.57


content.
1979-1981.


Original values reported in E 6 bushels. Conversion based on

1.25 ft3/bushel and 44.8 lb/ft3 for corn, 48 lb/ft3 for wheat

and soy. (56 lb/bushel and 60 lb/bushel)

a) These values have been factored by the percent area of the

state within the Basin: Minnesota (65%), N. Dak.octa (55%),

Texas (20%), Mississippi (50%), Wisconsin (70%), Pennsylvania (35%).





Broilers

1,216


Turkey

131


APPEL'IIX F. ANIMAL PRODUCTS

Cattle

Arkansas 335

Colorado a) 243

Illinois 442

Indiana 303

Iowa 1,170

Kansas 1,014

Kentucky 442

Louisiana 213

Minnesota a) 399

Mississippi a) 148

Missouri 883

Montana 433

Nebraska 1,047

N. Dakota a) 180

Ohio 299

Oklahoma 900


(E 6 kg).

Hogs

118

26

1,086

757

2,649

313

201

26

545

34

655

41

642

24

354

58


Sheep



26

10

7

24

14

1

1

10



7

34

12

8

19

5


Milk

344

192

1,165

1,020

1,907

619

994

433

2,945

187

1,288



621

232

1,955

501


261

47








28

92


Eggs

178

12

74

129

100

30

26

33

71

42

59

9

37

3

95

21











APPENDIX F (continued)

Cattle logs Sheep Milk Broilers Turkey Eggs


Pennsylvania a) 112 56 2 1,328 72 17 57

S. Dakota 656 306 46 785 31

Tennessee 376 188 1 1,000 116 46

Texas a) 432 31 28 324 83 13 21

Wisconsin a) 490 193 5 7,038 16 36 40

Wyoming a) 153 3 43 1

West Virginia 45 18 11

Totals 10,670 8,306 303 24,878 2,164 623 1,126

Source: U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1983 (1980 figures).

Note: Production values determined by the percentage of stock each state is of the U.S. total

times the U.S. production total.

a) These states factored by their area in the Basin [50, 65, 50, 55, 35, 20, 70, 70, respectively].




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs