List of Figures and Tables
 Literature Cited
 Emergy Tables
 Appendix A: Emergy of the Salmon...
 Appendix B: Emergy Evaluation of...
 Appendix B: extra figure

Emergy Evaluation of the Umpqua River Watershed in Oregon
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00004024/00001
 Material Information
Title: Emergy Evaluation of the Umpqua River Watershed in Oregon
Physical Description: Report
Language: English
Creator: Odum, Howard T.
Publisher: Center for Wetlands
Publication Date: 2000
Subjects / Keywords: hydroelectric dams
energy analysis
Spatial Coverage: United States -- Oregon -- Douglas -- Umpqua River Watershed
Coordinates: 43.67 x -124.21
General Note: 58 Pages
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: AA00004024:00001


This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )

( PDF )

Table of Contents
    List of Figures and Tables
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Literature Cited
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Emergy Tables
        Page 13
        Page 14
        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
    Appendix A: Emergy of the Salmon Life Cycle
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Appendix B: Emergy Evaluation of Oregon - 1990
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Appendix B: extra figure
        Page 53
        Page 54
Full Text

Emergy Evaluation of the Umpqua River Watershed in Oregon

Howard T. Odum* - -* 4, .

*Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.


Procedures are suggested for evaluating alternatives for management of a
watershed containing anadromous fisheries and hydroelectric dams. In
order to maximize the production of real wealth in a watershed, energy
(spelled with an "m") and its economic equivalent, emdollars, was used to
put the work of environment, the work of the economy, and the exchanges
with surroundings on a common basis. The analyses give environmental
contributions their real economic significance by externalizing the

Alternative uses of a watershed may include harvest of migrating fish,
hydroelectric dams, agricultural irrigation, urban water use, and oceanic
harvest of coastal fishes, forest products, mining, tourist developments,
and others. For an example, evaluation was made of the Umpqua River
Watershed, Douglas County, Oregon. Maximum production of real wealth
(defined here as emergy) requires favorable symbiosis of economy and
environment on three scales: (1) scale of each system of environment and
human settlement within the watershed; (2) whole watershed system of
landscape, river, and regional economy; (3) role of watershed in and
exchanges with the state and larger systems surrounding. Evaluations were
made of alternative managements and totalled from the point of view of
each of the three scales. Because of the changing net energy that
accompanies changing prices of fuels, the evaluations of the present state
were compared with future scenarios of world energy prices.
Appendix A contains an evaluation of the emergy of the stages in the life
cycle of salmon in a watershed, calculating the inputs from watershed and
ocean. Appendix B Contains an energy evolution of Oregon made by Peter
Keller for 1990 (and-updated-to-1997 ?),.

Table of Con tents

Introduction (Issues and Alternative Management of Rivers)
Previous energy Evaluations of Watersheds
Study area, Umpqua River, Oregon
Previous work in the Study Area

Results and Discussion
Emergy Overview of Oregon
Emergy in the Umpqua River Watershed
Emergy Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios
Emergy of Alternate Scenarios
Effect of Global increase in Fuel Costs
Differences due to Scale of View
Literature Cited

Fig u res

Figure 1 Umpqua River Watershed (Douglas County) with inset of Oregon

Figure 2. Systems Overview of the Umpqua River Watershed with
estimates of annual emergy use.

Figure Al Salmon Life Cycle: (a) pictures;

Figure Al Salmon Life Cycle: (b) energy system diagram.

Figure A2 Evaluating empower in a closed loop

Figure B1 Emergy Inflow and the State System of Oregon
(to use if we update Keller's Oregon Analysis)

Table 1 Unit Emergy Values Used in the Evaluations
Table 2 Annual energy inputs to the Umpqua Watershed in Oregon
Table 3 Emergy evaluation of products from the Umpqua Watershed
Table 4 Summary of energy use by the Umpqua River Watershed
Table 5 Evaluation indices for the Umpqua Watershed in Oregon
Table 6 Emergy-emdollar evaluation of alternative scenarios
Table 7 Umpqua Watershed contributions to different Scales


Rising populations, increased demands for energy, anticipated shortages
of water and environmental impacts f.alevelopment.ar-a au sing
controversy and public discourse on the best management of watersheds.
Several recent studies of watersheds used energy, spelled with an "m" to
put production of biological, hydrological and geological processes on a
common basis with production of society within the human economy.
Then choices in watershed management were recommended that maximize
the production and efficient use of real wealth (in energy units) by the
whole system It can be argued that human society either rationally or
by trial and error eventually selects patterns that mazimize the combined
performance of watershed and economy. A public policy with evaluation
procedures is desirable means of anticipating what works in advance.


Emergy, spelled with an "m" is defined as all the available energy that was
used in the work of making a product expressed in units of one type of
energy. The unit of energy is the emjoule. If the type of emergy is solar
than the unit of solar energy is the solar emjoule. The concept was used
in 1967b (Odum, 1967, 1971) and renamed in 1983 (Odum, 1986;
Scienceman, 1987). Annual flows of environmental quantities, economic
commodities, or money are expressed in empower units. Empower is
defined as the solar emoules of emergy per time.

Transformity is defined as the energy of one type required to make a unit
of energy of another type. It is the quotient of energy divided by the
energy. The unit of transformity is emjoule per Joule. If the type of
emergy is solar, then the unit of solar transformity is solar emjoule per
Joule, abbreviated sej/J. The concept was defined in 1976 and renamed in
1983 (Odum,1976, 1986, 1988).

Emergy indices: gives insight:
The emdollar value (abbreviated em$) refers to the dollar flow generated
directly and indirectly in the gross economic product by an energy input.
It is calculated by dividing the energy input by the emergy/money ratio
for that year. The energy money ratio for Oregon in 1990 wass calculated
in Appendix B and extrapolated to the present as about 3.8 Trillion
solar emjoules per 1999 $.

The energy yield ratio is the emergy of an output divided by the emergy
of those inputs to the process that are fed back from the economy (see

Figure 5). This ratio indicates whether the process contributes more to the
economy than is purchased from it for the processing. Ratios for typical
agricultural products range from less than one to 6. (Values less than one
may be obtained when the yield is calculated separately with a
transformity from another source of data). Processes yielding close to one
are not viable as primary energy sources (capable of supporting other
sectors of the economy). The higher the yield ratio the higher the stimulus
to the economy able to purchase the product. In recent years emergy yield
ratio of fossil fuels ranged 3 to 12.

The energy investment ratios relate the emerge fed back from the
economy to the energy inputs from the free environment. The ratio
indicates if a process is economical in matching the economy's investments
with free environmental inputs in comparison to alternatives. To be
economical, the process should have a similar or lower ratio to its
competitors. If the ratio is low, the environment provides more to the
process, costs are less and its prices tend to be less so that the product
competes well in outside markets. The typical ratio for the United States is

The emerge exchange ratio is the ratio of energy received for energy
delivered in a trade or sales transaction. For example, a trade of wood for
oil can be expressed in energy units. The area receiving the larger
energy receives the larger real wealth and has its economy stimulated
more. Raw products usually contribute more to the purchaser than is in the
buying power of the money.

Previous Emergy Evaluations of Watersheds

(brief paragraph here citing, Boggess, Br t-Williams, Tilley, Romitelli,

Study Area. Umpqua River Watershed

Issues of public discussion on the management of watersheds, anadromous
fisheries, hydroelectric power, and watershed vegetation are illustrated in
this study by evaluation of a a watershed example, the umpqua River
Watershed in Southern Oregon (Figure 1)

Previous Studies in the Watershed
(a few paragraphs summarizing those studies that dealt with overview of
the watershed and its relation to Oregon. Papers on chemical, physical, and

S- 'Pra Douglas nd

I t__ J_ \
e t^ I

-. + /
00 IrI

Umpqua II 9
Riv- er ** Of region

economic details need not be mentioned here, but cited as used in
footnotes to tables etc)
During the 1970's energy crisis Gov\cnor Tom McCall arranged for the study
of energy of resources in relation to growth and carrying capacity
summarized by its director, Joel Schatz. This study did not distinguish
kinds of energy, nor evaluate the environmental contributions on a basis
comparable with the fuels and electric power studies.

Methods and Procedure

A systems overview is sought for the watershed and its surroundings.
Then energy evaluation tables are made of inputs, parts and processes.
Then energy indices are used to determine what is important, the effects
of alternative managements and future scenarios. Evaluations are made
to determine which choices maximize real wealth production and use in
the local area, in the whole watershed, and in the effect of the watershed
on the state economy. The following summarizes the procedure used.

(1) Systems Diagramming: Using many sources of information about the
watershed, energy systems diagrams were prepared to identify the main
parts, processes, and sources of the study area on several scales. Figure 1
represents main features and inputs to the Umpqua River Watershed of
Oregon. Figure 2 represents the next larger scale showing the Oregon
state system and the participating role of the small river watershed within.
A part of the watershed system, the life cycle of the salmon was
diagrammed as Appendix Figure Al.

(2) Emergy Evaluation Tables: Tables ~prepared in which each line item
is a source inflow, a production process, or exchange with the outside.
Annual data in grams, joules, or dollars ar6 multiplied by the appropriate
Emergy per unit to obtain the energy flow. These values of energy per
unit (g,J, or $) are derived from other evaluation studies. Those used in this
study are listed in Table 1. Table 2 contains the annual energy inflows
contributing to the economy of humanity and nature in Umpqua River
watershed. Table 3 contains the annual energy production flows by the
Umpqua River watershed, which is almost identical with Douglas County,
Oregon. Some of the line items in these tables are included partly or
entirely within other line items. Thus it would be double counting to
simply add all the evaluated items. Table 4 totals and summaizes the
important emergy flows for purposes of comparison and management

In these tables salmon are first estimated according to their pre-
colonization state. Appendix Table Al evaluates salmon life cycle as it
may have existed before economic development. The procedure for
evaluating the life cycle may be useful as a guideline for the needed
evaluation of energy and transformities of life cycles of other wildlife and
fishery species.

(3) Indices and Interpretation: For each scale of interpretation, a summary
was prepared comparing energy flows from environment and from the
economy. The envirc nmental-economic matching is interpreted with the
energy investment ratio = Purchased emergy/environmental free
energy. The net benefit of the environmental resources is evalauted with
the net energy ratio = Emergy yielded to economy/emergy required from
the economy. The net benefit of sales outside of the area was evaluated
with the energy exchange ratio. Contributions of hydroelectric power was
compared with salmon fishery. Impacts of alternative forest management
were compared. For comparison with other areas, solar empower density
and other indices are included in Table 5.

Results and Discussion

Emergy Overview of Oregon
Appendix B has an energy overview of Oregon.
(Few sentences comparing Oregon to other States and the U.S.)

Emergy in the Umpqua River Watershed
The rains and the geologic contribution of the land are the main
environmental sources of energy used in the Umpqua River watershed
(65.3 E20 sej/yr Tables 4). However before development salmon runs may
have contributed 11% more(7.4 E20 sej/yr Table 2) from the sea in the
returning runs of adult salmon. At present the environmental resources
attract human economic inputs of 73+ E20 sej/yr, almost a one to one
matching (Table 5), much less than the 7/1 for the United States as a
whole. The energy theories predict increased pressures for economic
inputs and investments towards the higher ratios available to state or
private investment initiatives.

The emergy per person is much higher than the average for the United
States. The emergyof the original salmon run is higher than the existing
hydroelectric development (Table 5), less than the electrical demand in the
water shed, and much less than the total geopotential for hydroelectric
development ( Table 5 ).

Emergy Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios

Emergy of Alternate St enarios
(using Table 6
Effect of Global inc rease in Fuel Costs
(using Table 6)
Differences due to Scale of View
(using Table 7)


This paper uses energy methods to evaluate watershed management
alternatives to maximize a regional economy, while maintaining their
ecosystems, the necessary electric power, and equity in products in sales
and service exchanges with the outside.----more to add

I literature Cited
Bracket Let ters are used in Table footnotes

Anderson, c.W., D.Q. Tanner and D.B. Lee Water quality data for the S.
Umpqua River 1990-1992 U.S.G.S. Open File report 156 pp

Ballaire, W.C. and S. Fiekowsky 1953 Economic Value of Salmon and
Steelhead trout in Oregon Rivers. School of Business, Univ of Oregon,
Eugene, Or, 61 pp.

Beschta, R.L., S.J. O'Leary, R.E.Edwards, K.D.Knoop 1981 Sediment and
organic matter transport in Oregon Coast Range Streams. Water Resources
Research Institute pp. 75.

Curtis, D.A. 1975 Sediment yield of streams of the Umpqua River Basin
Oregon. USGS Open file report AGI No 78-06673

Curtis, D.A. 1982 An evaluation of suspended sediment and turbidity in
Cow Creek, Ore. Water Resources Investigations,WRI 83-364 USGS 26 pp

[K] Grant, G.E. ad A.L. Wolff 1991 Long term patterns of sediment
transport after cutting forest in Western Casdades of Oregon.pp. 31-40 in
Proceedings symposium, Vienna Va. 1991 ed by N.E. Peters, IAHS Publ

Hinkle, S.R. 1999 Inorganic chemistry of water and bed sediment in
selected tributaries of the south Umpqua River, Oregon in 1998. wash.
Research. Investigations Report # 99-4196

[A] Jackson, P.L & A.J. Kimerling, ed. 1993 Atlas of the Pacific Northwest,
1993 8th ed. Oregan State University Press, 152 pp.

[H] Keisling, P. Oregon Blue Book 1999, Secretary of State, Salem, Ore.,
431 pp

[F] =Keller P., 1992 Emergy Evaluation of Oregon-1990 unpublished
student report (Appendix 1),

[B] Loy, W.G., S.Allen, C.P. Patton, and R.D. Plank ed. 1976 Atlas of Oregon,
Univ of Oregon Books, Eugene, Ore, 215 pp.

[D] Odum, H.T., F.C. Wang, J.F. Alezander, Jr, M. Gilliland, M. Miller, J.
Sendzimier 1987 Energy Analysis of Environmental Value, Center for
Wetlands, Univ. of Fl,91 pp.,1987

[G] = Odum, H.T. 1996 Environmental Accounting, iEmergy and Decision
Making, John Wiley, N.Y. 370 pp.

[I] Odum, H.T., M.T.Brown, and S. Brandt-Williams 2000 Introduction and
Global Budget, Folio #1 of Hanbook of Emergy Evaluation, Center for
Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, 17 pp.

[E] = Odum, H.T. 2000 Emergy Evaluation of Earth Processes, Iolio #2,
Handbook of Emergy, Center for Environmental Policy, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Fl., 28 pp.

Odum, H.T. 1967. Energetics of world food production. pp. 55-94 in
Problems of World Food Supply, President's Science Advisory Committee
Report, Vol. 3. White House, Washington, D.C.

Odum H.T. 1971. Environment Power and Society. John Wiley, N.Y., 331

Odum H.T. 1976. Energy quality and carrying capacity of the earth.
Tropical Ecology, 16(1):1-8.

Ransickle, J. and R.L Beschta
Water Resources research Institute ? 19(3):768-778.

Sollins, P., c.A. Glassman, and C.N. Dahia 1985 Composition and possible
oigin of detrital matter in streams Ecology 66:297-299

Scienceman, D. 1987. Energy and Emergy. pp. 257-276 in Environmental
Economics, ed. by G. Pillet and T. Murola. Roland Leimgruber, Geneva,
Switzerland, 308 pp.

Schatz, J. 1975 Transition. A Report to the Oregon Energy Council, Office of
energy research and plan ning, State of Oregon, 474 pp

J] Swanson F.J., R.L. Fredriksen, F.M. Corison 1982 Material transfer in a
western oregon forested wetland, pp233-266 in Analysis of Coniferous
forest ecosystems in Western United States, ed by R.L.Edwards. US IBP
Synthesis series #14. Publisher: Hutchinson Ross, Stroudsburg, PA

C] U.S.Department of Commerce, 1999. Statistical Abstract of the United
States, The National Data Book 119th edition, 1005 pp.,

Table 1
Unit Emergy Values used in Calculations

Note Item, Units Solar Emergy
per unit

1 Sunlight, J 1

2 Rain at 1000 m, g 2.5 E5

3 Rain geopotential at 1000 m, g 1.45 E5

4 Rain on thtland, 1000 m, g E5 /'i

5 UmgguA River discharge, g 5.9 E5

6 He var streams, g 1.46 E6- (, / 3

7 Geopotential energy, 1000 m, J 6.1 E4

8 Stream sediments, g 3 E9

Electric Power 2.85 E5

UNFINISHED --- I need to add all transformities, Emergy/mass, and
emergy /$ values used and their sources

*Letters refer to references marked in Literature Cited Section
1 Solar transformity of sunlight is 1 by definition

2 Emergy of rain at 1000 m =2.9 E4 sej/J from Table 4 in Folio #2

3 Emergy of rain geopotential at 1000 m = 14.5 E4 sej/g

4 For each cubic meter of rain per year on one square meter, energy from
rain is (4.1 E5 sej/g)(1 E6 g/yr) = 4.1 Ell sej/m3 water/yr .
emergy from the mountain into that w,,ter from a square meter is
(1 m2 area/m3 rain)(32 E20 sej/yr/ rE10 m2) -A 11 sej/m2/yr
Sum of rain and geologic input = 4.1 +~.. t = I.E11 sej/m3 rain on land
( E11 sej/m3 rain on land)/1 E6 g/m3)= 6J5ES sej/g rain on land

5 (350 m3/sec)(3.15 E7 sec/yr)(1 E3 kg/m3) = 1.10 E13 kg/yr discharge

2'j !

(65.3 E20 sej/yr)/(1.10 E16 g/yr) = 5.93 E5 sej/g

6 Emergy in head after streams is concentrated from 3.1 E10 g/yr rain
to 1.1 E10 g/yr of runoff: ($.-./1.1 )(5.2 ES sej/g water) = 1,46-E6 sej/g.

7 geopotential available, 1000 m; watershed emergy/discharge energy
(1.10 E13 kg/yr discharge)(1000 m)(9.8 m2/sec2) = 1.07 E17 J geopot/yr
Transformity: (65.3 E20 sej/yr)/(1.07 E17 J geopot/yr) = 6.1 E4 sej/J

8 reference [G] increased 1.68 according to earth energy in Folio #1

16 1.7 E5 sej/J from [G] increased by 1.68 based on revised earth emergy
from Folio #1 [E ]

Table 2
Annual Emergy Inputs to the Umpqua River Watershed in Oregon

Note Item, Units Data Solar Emergy Solar Emergy
Units/yr per unit per year
sej/unit E20 sej/yr

Free Environmental Inputs
1 Direct Sun, J

2 Wind,kinetic energy, J

3 Tide absorbed, J

4 Ocean waves, J

5 Chem. Pot. in Rain, J
a Cont. shelf
b Over mountain land
c Total

6 Geopotential in Runoff, J
a Upper area, 1000-500 m
b Lower area, 500-0 m
c Total

7 Geologic cycle, erosion, g
a Land, 1000 m
b Land, 500 m
c Total

8 Salmon return from ocean, ind

9 Marine fish landed

10 Total of lines #5c, c, 9-&--+

7.1 E19

2.17 E17

3.11 E15

4.6 E14

1.95 E15
6.6 E16

3.1 E16
5.4 E16

9.9 E11
4.0 E11

4.7 E4

5.9 E14

1.5 E3

4.9 E4

3.06 E4

6.1 E4
6.1 E4

1.04 E4
1.04 E4

2.5 E9
2.0 E9

9.1 E14?

1 E6

Inputs Purchased from Outside

11 Fuels and electric power
a Use inside, J

12 Capital Equipment ?

13 Odtisde Services inferred

4.75 E16

2.76 E8

14 Services(Tourist-Government $) 1.58 E9

15 Transfer tax (State & Fed)











4 E4

3.4 E12

3.4 E12

3.4 E12




16 Sales, timber, and agricult. ?

17 Total of lines 11,14,15,16 -- 82+

18 Population immigration, persons 2,640 5.7 E18 151

Net loss of Watershed stocks
19 Soil, g organic

20 Forest Timber, J none 0 0

21 Mineral products, g

22 Total non-renewed use: sum of lines 20-22 ?

23 Total Emergy Inflows: sum of lines 10, 17,18 & 22 312+

Footnotes for Table 2 Emergy Inputs, Umpqua River Watershed, Oregon

Abbreviations: sec, second; yr, year; m, meter; g, gram; kcal, kilocal',rie; J, Joule;
kwh, kilowatt-hours; ind = indih iduals

Sources of Oregon data cited:
[A] = Atlas of the Pacific Northlvest, ed by P.L. Jackson & A.J. Kimerling, 8th ed.
Oregan State University Press, 152 pp. 1993
[B] = Atlas of Oregon, ed by W.G.Loy, S.Allen, C.P. Patton, and R.D. Plank Univ of
Oregon Books, Eugene, Ore, 215 pp., 1976.
[C] = Statistical Abstract of the United States, The National Data Book 119th edition,
U.S.Department of Conunerce, 1005 pp., 1999
[D] =Energy Analysis o Environmental Value, Odum, H.T., F.C. Wang, J.F. Alezander, Jr,
M. Gilliland, M. Miller, J. Sendzimier, Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FI,91 pp.,1987
[E] = Odum, H.T. Emergy Evaluation of Earth Processes, Folio #2, Hanbook of Emergy,
Center for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, 2000
[F] =Keller P., 1992 Emergy Evaluation of Oregon-1990 unpublished student report
(Appendix B),
[G] = Odlum, H.T. 1996 Fnvironmental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making, John
Wiley, N.Y. 370 pp.
[H] Keisling, P. Oregon Blue Book 1999, Secretary of State, Salem, Ore.,
431 pp

Charactertistics of study area used in calculations:
Area of Umpqua River Watershed System (Douglas County): Land, 1.31 E10 m2 5057
squere miles (Blue book says Douglas County is 5071 sq miles)
Marine shelf assigned to the area (14 x 28 km), 0.039 E10 m2; Total area, 1.34 E10 m2=
1.34 E4 km2 = 5234 sq miles.
Douglas County, Oregon: population 26 people/sq mile[B];
(26/sqmi)(0.39 sqmi/ km2)(1.31 E4 km2) = 1.32 E5 people
per capital income: ? $20,000;
Gross economic product estimate: (1.32 E5 people?)(2 E4 $/person/yr) = 2.6 E9 $/yr
Income density:(26 people/sq mile)($20,000/person/yr) = 5.2 E5 $/sqmile/yr

Gravity, 9.8 m/sec2.

1 Direct sun: mean of winter 3.5 and summer 18 = 10.75 kiloLangleys/month ({A
(10.75 E3 gcal/cm2/mo)(1E4 cm2/m2)(4.186 J/gcal)(12 mo/yr) = 5.40 E9 J/m2/yr
(5.4 E9 J/m2/yr)(1.31 E10 m2) = 7.1 E19 J/yr

2 Wind kinetic Energy Absorbed D = r*C*V3; drag coefficient C =1,0E-3 (Regier 1969);
air density r = 1.3 kg/m3; velocity, V = 10 miles/hr[B] = 4.44 m/sec; geostrophic wind=
10/6)* 4.44 m/sec = 7.4 mpsec
(1.3 kg/m3)(1.0E-3)(405 m3/sec3)(3.14 E7 sec/yr)(1.31 E10 m2) = 2.17 E17 J/yr

3 Tidal energy; assuming 90% absorbed on continental shelves (Campbell 1997)
2.5 m range, center of gravity 0.5, shelf area used 0.039 E10 m2)
(0.9)()(0.5)(2.5m)(2.5 m)(0.039 E10 m2)(1.025 E3 kg/m3)(9.8 m/sec2)(706 tides/yr)
=3.11 E15 J/y

4 Wave c-nergy absorbed: calculated as energy of waves mulliplied by length of
coastline and shoreward velocity = (gz)0-5 (g=square root of gravity; z = water depth)
Assumed pending data: 3 m measured in 3 m water-depth (z); share of coastline
facing wave fronts 100 km.
(1 E5 m)(1/8)(1.025 E kg/m3)(9.8 m/sec2) (3)(3)(3.154 E7 sec/yr)[(9.8 m/sec2)(3.0
m)]0.5 = 3.56 E13* 8.46 [.16*[29.4]0.5= 4.6 E14 J/yr

5 Rain, 1.0 m/y; includes shelf
Chemical potential of rainwater
Sa Shelf: (0.039 E10 m2)(1.0 m/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(5 J/g) = 1.95 E15 J/y
5b Land: (1.31 E10 m2)(1.0 m/yr)(1 E6 g/m3)(5 J.g) = 6.6 E16 J/yr

6 Geopotential energy of rain runoff, Total discharge, 350 m3/sec
calculation in two parts
6a Upper watershed
(200 m3/sec)(1 E3 kg/m3)(1000-500 m)(9.8 m/sec2)(3.14 E7 sec/yr) = 3.1 E16 J/yr
6b Lower watershed
(350 m3/sec)(1 E3 kg/m3)(500 m)(9.8 m/sec2)(3.14 E7 sec/yr) = 5.4 E16 J/yr

7 Geologic cycle, estimated from erosion, a function of altitude [E]
Half at 1000 m ele action; 0.15 E3 g/m2/yr, emergy/mass: 2.5 E9 sej/g
(0.66 E10 m2)(0.15 E3 g/m2/yr) = 9.9 Ell g/yr

Half at 500m elevation, by interpolation; 0.06 E3 g/m2/yr, emergy/mass: 2 E9 sej/g
.(0.66 E10 m2)(0.06 E3 g/m2/yr) = 4.0 E11 g/yr

8 Present salmon returning from the sea (personal communication from Steve
Jacobs, Oregon Dept. of Wildlife), 47,000/yr (original salmon 408,000 /yr)
Transformity of the food of adult salmon from Appendix Table Al

9 Fisher) landings [HI 260 E6 pounds/yr worth $70 E6.
(260 E6 lb/yr)(454 g/lb)(0.20 dry)(6 kcal/g)(4186 J/Kcal) = 5.9 E14 J/yr
Assumed transformity 1 E6 sej/J

10 Total of main indepent energy sources (lines 5r,8c,8.& 10

11 Energy (Fuels and electricity)
1la energy use in Oregon: 341.6 E6 btu/capita [C]
(341.6 E6 btu/ind)(1.32 ES people)(1054 J/btu) = 4.75 E16 J/yr

12 Capital Equipment ?

13 Services from outside:
Income density:(26 people/sq mile)($20,000/person/yr) = 5.2 E5 $/sqniile 'yr
Dollar exchange across watershed boundary obtained
from graph of external $ inflow per area vs income density (Brown, 1980; see Env
Acct, page 76): (5 E4 $/sq mi/yr)(5057 sq mile) = 2.52 E8 $/yr

Emergy/$ ratio for Oregon in 1990 changed in proportion to change in US values:
(4.8 E12 sej/$ Oregon 1990)(1.1 E12 USA 1997)/(1.55 E12 USA 1990) = 3.4 E12 sej/$)

14 Outside services purchased with money from vistor expenditures 1996 [H]: hunters
$655 million; anglers $623 million; induced from state personnel $305 million.

15 State and Federal Government expenditures minus state and federal tax
( -$/yr)

16 Sales of timber ___; agricultural products; _-

17 Total of outside inflows from the economy: lines 11,14,15, & 16

18 Population In-migration
assumed 2%/yr: (1.32 E5 pteJple)(.02) = 2640 people per year
Emergy per person, transformity for school-college educated: 50 E6 sej/J from [G p.
232] and age assumed 30 yrs
(30 yr ed&experience)(50 E6 sej/J)(10.47 E6 J metabolism/day)(365 d) = 5.7 E18

19 Net soil erosion evaluated as erosion excess over that of mature forest land
( m2 of cleared land)(g/m2/yr erosion)( fraction organic)(5 kcal/g
organic)(4186 J/kcal) =

20 No net loss of timber stocks: See footnote 2 in Table 3
Growth rate estimate (note 2a) exceeds harvest rate (note 2b)

21 ( _g/yr mined)

22 Sum of decrease in stored environmental stocks (Timber, soil, minerals)

23 Sum of Emergy Inflows including free environmental, inputs from the economy,
net change in educated people, net use-up of environmental capital stores.

( N\

Table 3
Evaluation of Products and Exports from the Umqua River Watershed

Note Item, Units Data Solar Emergy Solar Emergy
Units/yr per unit per year
sej/unit E20 sej/yr

Environmental Production and Export

1 Plant photosyn.,transpir,m3

2 Wood, J
a Growth
b Harvest

3 Fresh

?1.3 E18
2.9 E16

Water, m3/yr
Runoff,ocean discharge
Local use from streams

4 Hydroelectric power, J
a Production
b Local Use
c Net (- = import)

5 Sediments
a Runoff,mature forest
b Runoff,disturbed areas
c Export to sea
d Local redeposition

6 Organic

Matter, J
Soil production
Discharge to sea
Local use,redeposit

7 Agricultural products
a Sales, 1974$

8 Services, 1998$

9 Fisheries
9a Salmon Returning
9b Marine Fish Landings, 1972$


1 E3
1 E4


2.9 E15
5.3 E15



2.7 Ell
5.4 Ell
5.4 Eli

1.7 E5
1.7 E5



15 E6

2 E9

1 E6

6 E12

1.2 E12

7 E12


13 0







Some items are included in other items.

Footnotes for Table 3 Production in Umpqua River Watershed
1 Primary Plant Production based on energy of transpired rain and
the geologic basis for the landscape--Table 3, items 5 & 7
(0.9 green area)(32.6 + 32.0 E20 sej/yr) = 58.1 E 20 sej/yr
2 Wood
2a organic growth[B] (170 m3/ha/yr?)(0.50 forest)(1.3 E10 m2)(0.7
E6 g/m3)(4 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)/(l E4 m2/ha) = 1.3 E18 J/yr

2b harvest: [A]: 800 million board-ft/yr
1 board-ft =(0.3m)(0.3m)(0.0254 m) = 0.002286 m3
(800 E6 bd-ft/yr)(2.286 E-3 m3/bd-ft)(0.85 E6 g/m3)(4.5 kcal/g)
(4186 J/kcal)= 2.9 E16 g/yr

3 Water flows
3a Transpiration = rain local use runoff; Rain (1.0 m/yr)(1.3 E10 m2);
runoff and local use in notes 3b & 3c
1.3 1.10 -0.04 = 0.16 E10 m3/yr

Emergy/mass of unconcentrated rain for 1000 m elevation Folio #2 Table 4
25.1 E4 sej/g; for 500 m: 19.8 E4sej/g

3b Stream runoff = Umpqua discharge = 350 m3/sec:
(350 m3/sec)(3.15 E7 sec/yr) = 1.10 E10 m3/yr
(1.10 E10 m3/yr runoff)/(1.3 E10 m3 rain) = 0.846 fraction runoff

Emergy of Umpqua watershed: 33.6 E20 rain plus 32.0 E20 land cycle =
64.6 E20 sej/yr
(64.6 E20 sej/yr Umpqua)/(1.10 E10 m3/yr runoff) = 5.8 Ell sej/m3 H20

3c Water withdrawals for agriculture 600 acre ft/day, for public use,
300acre-ft/day, and for industry-miing, 100 acre ft/day [B]
(900 acre-ft/day)(1233 m3/acre-ft)(365 d/yr) = 4.05 E8 m3/yr

4 Hydroelectric power
4a Eight hydroelectric plants on North Umpqua River
soda springs, Slide Creek, Fish Creek, Tokatee, Clearwater No 1, Clearwater
No. 2, Lomolo no 1, Lomolo No 2; 100 Thsd megawatt-hrs each 1976 [B]
(8)(1 E8 kwatt-hrs/yr)(3. 6 EJ/Kw-hr) = 2.9 E15 J/yr electrical
4b Electrical use [B]:
Oregon: (47.6 E9 kw-hr/yr)/(3.3 E6 people) = 14,422 kw-hr/yr/person
Umpqua Watershed:
(1.02 E5 people/area)(1.44 E4 kw-hr/pers.)(3.6 E6 J/kw=hr) =5.3 E15 J/yr

5 Sediments: inorganic particulate: 500 kg/ha/yrtJ]
Sa (500 kg/ha/yr)(0.26 )(1000 g/kg)/1E4 m2/ha) = 13 g/m2/yr;
(13 g/m2/yr)(0.40 mature forest)(3.1 E10 m2)= 1.6 Ell g/yr

5b Runoff disturbed forest, agriculture, 26 times more erosion [K]
(1.6 Ell g/yr mature forest)(26) = 4.1 E12 g/yr

5c (1.1 E10 m3/yr)(200 ? g/m3??) = 2.2 E12 g/yr??

5d Runoff sediments minus discharge sediments
(1.6 +41.0 Ell g/yr) (22 ? Ell g/yr) = 20.6 Ell g/yr

6 Organic matter:
6a soil production: (1 g/m2/day)(365 d/yr)(1.3 E10 m2) (5 kcal/g)(4186
J/kcal)(0.7 forest) = 7.0 E16 J/yr

6b Runoff organic, forest area: organic leaching: 14% of 500 kg/ha/yr []
(500 kg/ha/yr)(0.14)(1000 g/kg)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/Kcal)/(1 E3 m2/ha)
= 1.46 E5 J/m2/yr
Undisturbed area:
(1.46 E5 J/m2/yr)(0.4 forest)(1.3 E10 m2) = 7.6 E14 J/yr
Disturbed areas 26 faster [K]:
(1.46 E5 J/m2/yr)(26)(0.6)(1.3 E10 J/m2/yr) = 2.9 E 16 J/yr
(1.1 E10 m3/yr runoff)(?300 g/m3? org)(5 kcal/g)(4186) = 6.9 E16 J/yr
Organic runoffsum: (0.76 + 29)= 29.8 E15 J/m2/yr

6c (1.1 E10 m3/yr)(50 g/m3?)(5 kcal/g)(4186) = 1.1 E16 J/yr

6c Runoff organic minus discharge sediments:(3.0-1.1 E 16) = 1.9 E16

7 Agricultural products, cattle
Sales $15 E6 1974$ [B]

8 Income: (102,000 people)($20,000/pers./yr) = 2 E9 1998$

9 Fisheries
9a Calculated from number of fish line 8, Table 2and emergy/fish from
Appendix A.
9b Marine fish landings [B]: winchester Bay 1 E6 1972$

Table 4
Summary of the Annual Emergy Use by the Umpqua River Watershed#

Note Input Solar Emergy 1997 Em$*
per year (Oregon)
E20 sej/yr Million $

Renewable Environmental Input
1 Rains generating streams 32.7 988

2 Land, mountains, geological process 32.0 941

3 Oceanic contributions 8.0 235

4 Subtotal 78.9 2,164

Non-renewed Uses of Watershed Stores
5 Net loss of soil, timber, minerals

Economic Inputs
6 Outside fuels, electrical power, equipment 19 558

7 Outside Services ? 54+ 1588+

8 Subtotal 73+ 2147+

9 Immigration of educated people 151 4441

10 Total Emergy Use by the Umpqua Watershed 304 8752
(lines 4,5,8, & 9)

#Summary of line itms in Tables 2 and 3.

*Annual contribution of solar energy divided by 3.4 E12 sej/$
962Emergy/$ ratio for Oregon in 1990 (Appendix B)changed in proportion to the
change in US values from 1990 to 1997:
(4.8 E12 sej/$ Oregon 1990)(1.1 E12 USA 1997)/(1.55 E12 USA 1990) = 3.4 E12 sej/$)

Footnotes for Table 4 Summary of Emergy Use by the Umpqua Watershed
1 Area rain times emergy per unit rain
emergy per gram from Folio #2 Table 4 1000 m elevation
(1.0 m/yr rain)(1.31 E10 m2)(1 E6 g/m3)(25 E4 sej/g) = 32.7 E20 sej/yr

2 Geologic cycle, estimated from erosion, a function of altitude
Half at 1000 m elevation;
0.15 E3 g/m2/yr, emergy/mass: 2.5 E9 sej/g
(0.66 E10 m2)(0.15 E3 g/m2/yr)(2.5sej/g) = 24.7 E20 sej/yr
Half at 500m elevation, by interpolation;
0.06 E3 g/m2/yr, emergy/mass: 2 E9 sej/g ;
(0.66 E10 m2)(0.06 E3 g/m2/yr)(2 E9 sej/g) =7.9 E20 sej/yr
Sum: (24.7 +7.9 = 32.6 E20 sej/yr energy support of land
Per area: (32.6 E20 sej/yr)/(1.31 E10 m2)=2.48 Ell sej/m2

3 Contribution of Returning Salmon from Table 2 (0.42 E20 sej/yr) plus
tide and wave inflows in Table 2 (1.52 + 0.14 =1.66 E20 sej/yr) plus
marine fish landed 5.9 E20 sej/yr (Table 2) = 8.0 E20 sej/yr

4 Sum of lines 1-3

5 Non-renewed Resource use within the watershed
Sum of net soil erosion, net loss of timber stock, and mined minerals from
lines 15-17 in Table 2

6 Lines 11-12 in Table 2. Includes electrical power use that exceeds the
hydroelectric power generated within the watershed

7 Tourist money, sales, transfers-tax, Table 2 Line 17

8 Total emergy input purchased from the economy outside of the
watershed based on money coming in to thewatershed: sum: lines 6 & 7

9 Emergy added to the area in the form of already educated people
immigrating permanently. Line 18 Table 2

10 Total of lines 4,5,8, and 9

Table 5
Evaluation Indices for the Systems of Umpqua Watershed

Note Category Index

1 Emergy sources: External recurring
Ratio of outside to inside sources

2 Emergy per person

3 Emergy Use/money circulating

4 Areal Fmpower density

5 Ratio of Emdollar use to dollar circulation

6 Ratio of present salmon runs to original

7 Salmon proportion of emergy use
Present salmon
Original salmon

8 Ratio of Salmon energy to geopotential energy
Present salmon
Original salmon

9 Ratio of Salmon energy to existing
Hydroelectric emergy: Present salmon
Original salmon

10 Ratio of Salmon energy to electric power use
Present salmon
Original salmon

11 Emergy ratio of products sold to those purchased

12 Ratio of products sold to watershed total

13 Ratio of withdrawals to total river flow


149 E15 sej/yr

5.8 E12 sej/$

11.6 E11 sej/m2/yr








Foootnotes for Table 5
1 Total recurring 78.9+ indigenous (Table 2 line 10) plus 73 E20 sej/yr
external (Table 4, line 8) = 152 E20 sej/yr (not including information in
immigration of people)

2 (152 E20 sej/yr)/(102,000 people)= 149 E15 sej/person/yr

3 (152 E20 sej/yr)/(2.6 E9 $/yr) = 5.8 E12 sej/$

4 (152 E20 sej/yr)/(1.3 E10 m2/area) = 11.6 Ell sej/m2/yr

5 8.7 E9 Emdollars from Table 4, line 10; area income, 2 E9 $/yr
footnote 8 Table 3

6 Present salmon returning, 0.42 E20 sej/yr from Line 9, Table 2;
Estimate of original by Steve Jacobs of Oregon Wildlife Dept. is 408,000 fish
per year. (4.08 E5 ind/yr)( 9.1 E14 sej/ind Table Al) = 3.7 E20 sej/yr

7 Emergy of returning salmon, 0.42 E20 sej/yr from Table 2 divided by
total 152 E20 sej/yr from Table 4, lines 4 and 8 vomitingg immigration).
Original salmon: 3.7 E20/152 E20 =

8 Emergy of returning salmon, 0.42 E20 sej/yr from line 9 in Table 2
divided by emergy of the geopotential = sum of rain and geologic input
=64.5 E20 sej/yr (Note 3b in Table 3); Orignal salmon: 3.7 E20 sej/yr/64.5
E20 sej/yr

9 Emergy of returning salmon, 0.42 E20 sej/yr from line 9 in Table 2
divided by hydroelectric emergy 4.9 E20 sej/yr from line 4 Table 3;
Original salmon: 3.7 E20 sej/yr/ 4.9 E20 sej/yr

10 Emergy of returning salmon, 0.42 E20 sej/yr from Table 2 divided by
hydroelectric energy 9.0 E20 sej/yr from line 4 Table 3; Original salmon:
3.7 E20 sej/yr/9.0 E20 sej/yr

11 & 12 (need better figures for sales)

13 energy of local withdrawals 2.2 E20 sej/yr (Line 3c in table 3)
Runoff, 59.4 E20 sej/yr 2.2/59.4 = 3.7%

Table 6 Emergy-emdollar evaluation of Altcrnative Scenarios

Note Item Environ.* Mlatched#

Contributions of streams
1 Maximum salmon, no hydroelectric power

2 Same as #1 without salmon harvest at sea

3 Maximum hydroelectric power

Contributions of the land
3 Protected forests, no harvest, 90% of land

4 Commercial timber, 90% of land

5 Agriculture, 90% of land

6 Water diversion

Watershed Contributions
7 Full development, present fuel prices

8 Full development, high fuel prices

* Annual emdollar value of direct environmental contribution
# Direct contribution multiplied by the ratio of energy matching by the
outside economy. (Investment ratio = 7 for lines 1-6; 1 for line )

Table 7
Umpqua Watershed Contributions to Different Scales

Note Item Watershed* State# Global*

1 Salmon sales

2 Salmon tourism.

3 Timber sales

4 Local Forest use

5 Water Diversion

6 Hydroelectric Maximum

7 Present watershed

8 Matched economy

9 Low Fuel economy

* Emergy use within the area
# Emergy contribution to Oregon
** All energy contributions

Appendix A
Emergy of the Salmon Life Cycle

This appendix evaluates the energy and transformities for stages in the
life cycle of salmon, using the Umpqua River watershed in Oregon as the
example. Salmon release fertilized eggs as they spawn upstream.
Embryological development utilizing the yolk produces a larval stage. these
become fingerling fish that begin to feed on freshwater insects and other
invertebrates as they drift downstream. Young fish called smolts
eventually reach the estuaries and move out to sea. After one or more
years at sea the full sized salmon, laden with eggs and sperm return to the
streams swimming up to the spawning grounds again. After spawning the
fish die, their carcasses contributing to the biological fertility of the

The cycle is shown in Figure Ala. An energy systems diagram in Figure
Alb includes the sources of energy that contribute to the cycle. These
items are arranged from left to right according to the transformity of the
stage with emergy increasing from eggs to adults.

In Table Al the emergy increments for each segment of the cycle (Figure
Alb) are added to that passing along with the previous stage in the circle
to obtain the emergy of the next stage. Other columns calculate the
transformities of the stages.

The main inflow to the life cycle on land is the emergy of the stream
waters maintaining the spawining redds, and that of the food chain as the
fry emerge to becomni pmolts passing downstream to the sea. Then in the
sea, energy of the food chains leads to adult salmon returning upstream to

The precipitation over land is calculated with a transformity that includes
the global contribution of solar energy. Therefore sun is already included
in estimates of energy in the stream water on land. The global estimate of
emergy of the oceanic ecosystem was used to evaluate the contributions to
the salmon during their life in the sea. This global estimate includes the
solar energy, the tide, and the geological contributions to maintain the
oceanic basins and processes. While in the sea the salmon share an upper
carnivores position in the food chain energy hierarchy. Their energy
input is estimated from their food consumption and an estimate of the
transformity of that food.

Evaluation with Closed Loop Principle

According to energy concepts, energy flowing in a closed loop is the sum
of the energy inflows to that loop. The principle is illustrated with Figure
A2 with two inflows. Each energy inflow passes around the loop until it
disappears at the interaction with its own inflow. Thus no energy inflow is
double counted. Within the loop the energy flow (empower) is the sum of
the inflows, in this example, 150 solar emjoules per time.

The closed loop principle may be a simpler way to view the energy
support of biological life cycles. To apply the principle to the Salmon life
cycle (Figure Ala), sum the independent input increments given in the
footnotes Table Al as drawn in Figure Alb. These include stream-stream
bed inflows (redd, 1.4 E13 sej and food chain 1.7 E12 sej) and inflows
from the sea (3.58 E14 sej and 5.3 E14 sej) for a total of 9.0 E14



4 SiSmolts
Sea Fish
^*^ ij'--p p

Returning Fish

1.4 E10

1 E7

7.6 E6 1.5 E7

3.0 E7 8.0 E8

-- Emergy Contributions

1 Salmon Life Cycle


' I 1-----^ 5
( ^

9 Emergy of
Closed Loop



Table At
Emergy Flow Distribution within the Life Cycle of a Salmon Population

Note Stage Individuals Emergy Emergy Solar Emergy of
produced Increment* per ind Transformity Population
#/yr sej/ind. sej/ind sej/J sej

1 Fry 4.0 E7 1.4 E13 1.52 E13 1.4 E10 6.1 E20
2 Smolts 4.0 E6 1.7 E12 1.7 E13 1.0 E7 6.8 E19
3 Sea Fish 2.0 E6 3.6 E14 3.8 E14 7.6 E6 7.6 E20
4 Returning adults 4.1 E5 5.3 E14 9.1 E14 1.46 E7 3.7 E20
5 Spawning adults 2.0 E5 -- 1.8 E15 3.0 E7 3.6 E20
6 Eggs at release 2.0 E8 --- (1.8 E12) 8.2 E8 3.6 E20

Abbreviations: ind = individual organism
* Emergy inflow to that stage of the cycle: divided

by the number of fish.

1 Emerging Fry; 2 months egg developing in gravels:= 20% of eggs: (0.2)(2 E8) = 4 E7 eggs remaining
Emergy of head water streams from rain and geologic energy divided by water runoff:
Runoff = Umpqua discharge = 350 m3/sec; (350 m3/sec)(3.15 E7 sec/yr) = 1.10 E10 m3/yr
(1.10 E10 m3/yr)/(1.3 E10 m3 rain) = 84.6 % runoff

Emergy of Umpqua watershed from Table 4, line 4
(78.9 E20 sej/yr Umpqua)/(1.10 E10 m3/yr runoff) = 7.7 ElI sej/m3 H20

Emergy added per Redd from share of stream water times its transformity.
(1 m width)(0.1 m depth)(0.1 m/sec)(60 days)(8.64 E4 sec/day)(5.4 El11 sej/m3) = 2.8 E16 m3
(2.8 E16 m3)/(2000 eggs/redd) = 1.4 E13 sej/egg emerging

(1.4 E13 sej/fry)/(1000 j/ind) = 1.4 E10 sej/J

2 Smolts = 10% of eggs: (0.1)(4 E7) = 4 E6 individuals; 40 g each
Energy in individual: (40 g)(0.2 dry)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 1.67 E5 J each

Emergy of the added growth: 10% conversion of food energy with transformity: 1 E6 sej/J
Energy input used: (1.67 E5 J/ind)(10)(1 E6 sej/J) = 1.7 E12 sej/ind
(1.7 E12 sej/ind)/(1.67 E5 J) = 1.0 E7 sej/J

3 Fish at sea = 1% of eggs: (0.01)(2 E8) = 2 E6 fish
Energy per fish: (12,000 g/fish)(0.20 dry)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 5.0 E7 J/fish

Emergy of global ocean area: 15.83 E24 sej/yr from Folio #2, Table 1 divided by area of ocean:
(15.83 E24 sej/yr)/( 3.61 E14 m2) = 4.38 E10 sej/m2/yr

Fish food in one square meter of ocean is 1% of the net primary, production.
(4 kcal/m2/day)(365 days)(4186 J/kcal)(0.01 efficiency) = 61116 J/m2/yr
Transformity: Emergy flow/area divided by the food energy flow.
(4.38 E10 sej/m2/yr)/(61116 j/m2/yr) = 7.16 E5 sej/J

Emergy per fish based on 10% efficiency and transformity of food:
(10)(5.0 E7 J/fish)(7.16 E5 sej/J) = 3.58 E14 sej/fish
(3.8 E14 sej/fish)/(5.0 E7 J/fish) = 7.6 E6 sej/J for sea fish

4 (For comparison Original Columbia basin: 17 million salmon/250,000 sqmi = (17 E6 fish)/(2.5 E5
sqmi)/(2.59 km2/sqmi) 26.2 fish/km2)
For Umpqua watershed: (408,000 returning fish/yr)/(1.3 E4 Km2 Umpqua) = 31.4 Fish/km2
(4.1 E5 ind/yr)(15,000 g/ind)(0.20 dry)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2.57 E 13 j/yr or (6.4 E7 J/ fish)

Emergy of sea fish to generate returning fish: (3.7 E14 sej/ind)(2 E6 fish)/8.1 E5 fish = 9.1 E14 sej/fish
an increment of (9.1-3.8 = 5.3 E14 sej/fish); (9.1 E14 sej/fish)/(6.23 E7 J/fish) = 1.46 E7 sej/J

5 Spawning adults = 0.1% of eggs: (15,000 g)(0.20 dry)(5 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 6.3 E7 J stored
Emergy of spawning adults equal to energy of returning adults divided by the number spaw ning:
(4.1 E5 returning)(9.1 E14 sej/ind)/(2 E5 spawning) = 1.86 E15 sej/ind, increment (18-9 = 9 E14
(1.86 E15 sej/ind)/(6.23 E7 j/ind) = 3.0 E7 sej/J

6 Eggs from spawning adults: Half females; eggs half of body weight:
(2000 eggs/adult/yr)(1 E5 female spawning fish) = 2 E8 eggs
Egg volume: (0.1)(15,000 g/fish)(1 ml/g)/(2 eggs) = 10.75 ml/egg
Egg energy: (0.75ml/egg)(0.10 g dry/ml)(7 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal) = 2197 J/egg

Emergy: (1.8 E15 sej/spawning adult)(2 adults)/(2000 eggs) = 1.8 E12 sej/egg before release.
(1.8 E12 sej/egg)/(2.2 E3 J/egg) = 8.2 E8 sej/J (a value of the isolated information of an egg)

Emergy flows into each egg from the spawning adults. Dispersal of eggs to environment disperses the
adults energy, reducing the transformity to lower values. In the closed life cycle loop new energy from
outside reconcentrates energy again

Appendix B


Peter Keller
April 24, 1992

An energy evaluation was conducted on the state of Oregon. Figure 1 shows
a map of the state, and Figure 2 is an aggregated general systems energy
diagram. The state is located on the Pacific northwestern coast of the U.S.
and ranks 10th in area among the 50 states. Oregon's northern border with
Washington is defined by the Columbia River, the third largest river in the
U.S. To the south, Oregon borders California and Nevada. To the east,
Oregon's border with Idaho is partially defined by the Snake River. The
state's western border, 476 km, is the rugged coastline of the Pacific Ocean.
Oregon is divided into distinct climatic regions by the Cascade Mountains,
running north-south through the middle of the state. The Coast Range, with
rainfall up to 208 cm per year, is well known for its highly productive
Douglas fir and hemlock forests. Between these two mountain ranges lies
the Willamette Valley, where one finds the four largest cities in the state
and 2/3 of the state's population of 2,847,000.

Oregon's economy is based on natural resources, with the lumber industry
and wood products industry leading the state, followed by agriculture. In
recent years the economy has begun to diversify and now includes the high
tech computer industry of the suburban Portland "silicon forest" as the
fastest growing manufacturing sector. Being one of the most
environmentally progressive states in the U.S., Oregon is trying to develop
and diversify its economy without degrading the resource base on which it

The emergy flows of indigenous renewable and nonrenewable sources as
well as purchased imported energy source of Oregon were calculated and
are presented in Table 2. Also, refer to Figures 3 and 4 for summary
diagrams of energy flows for Oregon. Boundary exchanges with other states
were calculated using a correlation of economic activity density with
boundary exchange prepared by mark Brown (1980) and subtracting the
international emergy exchange figures. International trade is important to
Oregon, and emergy evaluation of trade reveals inequity in favor of
overseas markets, specifically Japan. Although Oregon produces nearly half
of its electric power use by hydroelectric, it is still heavily dependent on
imported fossil fuels. Fuel imports were evaluated using the world

emeCrg7/$ ratio 3.8 E12 sej/$. The emergy currency exchange ratio for
imported fuels benefits Oregon's wealth by approximately 10:1. The major
goods and service imports to Oregon come from Japan, and include vehicles
and parts, electrical equipment and machinery. These were evaluated using
Japan's energy/$ ratio of 1.0 E12 sej/$. Here Oregon and hence the U.S. has
an emergy currency disadvantage of 4.8:1. Oregon's major exports are
relatively untransformed natural resources such as forest products, often
whole logs, and agricultural products. Again the major trading partner for
Oregon exports is Japan, which benefits by an emergy currency exchange
ratio of 2:1.

When comparing the indices calculated in Table 3 to those for the U.S. as a
whole the following conclusions can be drawn. The fraction of energy use
that is locally renewable is three times as high, reflecting the rich renewable
resource base. Emergy use per unit area (Empower density) of Oregon, 7.09
El11 sej/m2, is slightly lower than the U.S., which shows the rural nature of
the state. Emergy per person is nearly twice that for the U.S. The state's
emergy/$ ratio is 2.6 times higher than that of the U.S.

S r ....{ r e.... ; ., ..- . ,

_FdT. P'n oJur
i .'ing' l di [ -*' P ,ark F orest
'"' ""- !'1' *- '- I rf- LEOEND (

12.I .r sir -o .

SPortland Over 100

n i v 00050 000-
As.L~aM'L a U a?
C.,a.. ._..- . ,. C county Sea.

M I. ....,'
.* io f444.INI JACEGan E *O a Intere
.. . m P a l F l .

.LN^1pCt-A -1 .2 *,,,,6

Figure 1. Map of Oregon. Location: 420 to 46o15'N, 116033' to 124o32'W. Boundaries:
Washington line, 443 mi (713 kin); Idaho line, 332 mi (534 km); Nevada line, 153 mi
(246 km); California line, 220 mi (354 km); Pacific Ocean coastline, 296 mi (477 km).
-4o( C al e'. 'lt .

a J ` ;; A~ AM
a -
~rru INC

7 V ::4
Fiue1 a f rgn oaio:40t 61 N 103o1402 onais

Figure 2. Aggregated general systems energy diagram of Oregon.

Table 1. EMERGY Evaluation of Resource Basis for Oregon, Circa 1990.

Trans- Solar Macroeconomic
formity Emergy Value
Note Item Raw Units (sej/unit) (E20 sej) E9 1992 US$)

I Sunlight
2 Rain, Chemical
3 Rain, Geopotential
4 Wind, Kinetic
5 Waves
6 Tide
7 River Inflows
8 Earth Cycle

1.21 E21 J
8.39 E17 J
6.33 E17 J
1.72 E19 J
3.75 E14 J
1.52 E17 J
5.58 E17
5.02 E17 J

9 Hydroelectricity 1.77 E17 J
10 Agriculture Prod. 1.44 E17 J
11 Livestock Prod. 1.77 E16 J
12 Fisheries 1.05 E15 J
13 Fuelwood Prod. 1.13 E17 J
14 Forest Extraction 1.25 E17 J

15 Nuclear Elec.
16 Fuel Elec.
17 Minerals
18 Topsoil
19 Old Growth Forest

1.48 E16 J
6.07 E16 J
3.00 E13 g
1.06 E16 g

4.41 E16 J

20 Petroleum Prod. 3.41 E17 J
21 Natural Gas 9.38 E16 J
22 Vehicles & Parts 2.99 E9 $
23 Elec. Equip. 6.21 E8 $
24 Chemicals 5.09 E8 $
25 Machinery 4.10 E8 $
26 Tourism 2.30 E9 $
27 Services 7.59 E9 $

1.54 E4
8.89 E3
6.23 E2
2.59 E4
2.36 E4
5.00 E4
2.90 E4

1.59 E5
2.00 E5
2.00 E6
2.00 E6
1.87 E4
3.49 E4

4.80 E4
5.30 E4
9.20 E8
6.30 E4

3.49 E4

6.60 E4
4.80 E4
1.00 E12
1.00 E12
3.80 E12
3.80 E12
3.80 E12
3.80 E12











Table 1 (continued)

Trans- Solar Macroeconomic
formity Fmergy Value
Note Item Raw Units (sej/unit) (E20 sej) E9 1992 US$)

28 Cash Crops 4.32 E16 J 2.00 E5 86.44 3.60
29 Forest Prod. 4.78 E16 J 3.49 E4 16.69 0.70
30 Technology & Mach. 3.22 E8 $ 1.60 E12 5.15 0.21
31 Services 5.90 E9 $ 1.60 E12 94.40 3.93

Footnotes to Table 1

Cont Shlf Area = 1.43 E10 m2 at 200 m dpth
Land Area = 2.51 Ell m2 (Worldmark, 1986)
Insolation = 1.35 E2 kcal/cm2/yr (Odum, 1987)
Albedo = 0.19 (% given as decimal) (Odum, 1987)
Energy (J) = (area incl shelf)(avg insolation)(1 albedo)
=(_ m2)( Cal/cm2/yr)(E4 cm2/m2)(1 0.19)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.21 E21

Land Area = 2.51 Ell m2 (Worldmark, 1986)
Cont ShlfArea = 1.43 E10 m2 at 200 M d. (Times Atlas of Oceans, 1983)
Rain (land) = 0.64 m/yr avg. (Worldmark, 1986)
Rain shelf) = 0.64 m/yr
Energy (land)(J) = (area)(evapotrans) (rainfall) (Gibbs no.)
=( m2)( m)(1000 kg/m3)(4.94 E3 J/kg)
= 7.94 E17
Energy (shlf)(J) = (area of shelf)(rainfall)(Gibbs no.)
= 4.52 E16
Total energy (J) = 8.39 E17

Footnotes for Table 1 (continued)

Area = 2.51 Ell m2
Rainfall = 0.64 m, as above
Avg elev = 1005.84 m (Odum, 1987)
Runoff rate = 0.40, (1.0 ET)
Energy (J) = (area)(% runoff)(rainfall) (avg elevation) (gravity)
=(_ m2)( m)(1000 kg/m3)(_ m)(9.8 m/s2)
= 6.33 E17

Vertical diffusion coefficient = 5.2 m3/m2/s winter, .02 m2/s summer
Vertical gradient = 3.4 E3 m/s/m winter, 0.18 m/s/m summer
Height = 1000 m, density = 1.23 kg/m3 (Medford, OR data in Odum, 1987)
(.5)(1000)(1.23)(5.2)(3.154 E7)(3.4 E-3)(2)(2.51 Ell) = 1.72 E20
(.5)(1000)(1.23)).02)(3.154 E7)(.18 E-3)(2)(2.51 Ell)= 3.51 E16
Energy (J) = 1.72 E19 J/yr

5 WAVE ENERGY: Maui oil platform ave. wave energy used (Odum, 1992a)
(476 km)(25 E3 w/m)(1 J/s/w)(3.154 E7 s/yr)(0.5 absorbed)
Energy (J) = 3.75 E14 J/yr

Cont Shlf Area = 1.43 E10 m2 (Times Atlas of Oceans, 1983)
Avg Tide Range = 1.70 m (Odum, 1987)
Density = 1.03 E3 kg/m3 (Odum et al., 1983)
Tides/yr = 7.30 E2 (estm. of 2 tides/day in 365 days)
Energy (J) = shelf)(0.5) (tides/yr)(mean tidal range)2 (density of
seawater) (gravity)
=( m2)(0.5)(____/yr)(__ m)2( kg/m3)(9.8 m/s2 = 1.52 E17

Flow = 7.08 E3 m3/s Columbia River
Energy = (Flow) (Chemical Potential Energy)(0.5 Oregon/Wash. divide)
(7.08 E3 m3/s)(0.5)(1 E6 g/m3)(5 J/g)(3.154 E7 s/yr) = Energy (J)
= 5.58 E17

Heat flux interpolated from U.S. data and % of land active vs. inactive
(2.0 E6 J/m2/yr)(2.51 Ell m2) = Enegy (J) = 5.02 E17

Footnotes for Table 1 (continued)


Kilowatt hrs/yr = 4.92 E10 Kwh/yr (Oregon Blue Book, 1986)
Energy (J) = (_ _Kwh/yr)(___3.6 E6 J/Kwh) = 1.77 E17

9.85 E6 MT (OR DOA, 1990)
Total: Field crops, seed crops, fruits and nuts, vegetables
Energy (J) = (3.74 E7 MT)(1 E6 g/MT)(3.5 Kcal/g)(4186 J/Cal) = 1.44 E17

L'stock Prod = 1.06 E6 MT (OR DOA, 1990) Includes Poultry
Energy (J) = (1.06 E6 MT)(1 E6 g/MT)(4 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal) = 1.77 E16

Total catch: 6.3 E4 MT (OR DOA, 1990)
Total: Fish, shellfish
Energy (J) = (1.28 E6 MT)(1 E6 g/MT)(4 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal) = 1.05 E15

13 FUELWOOD PRODUCTION: (Includes Spent Pulping Liquor)
Fuelwood Prof= 1.07 E14 BTU/yr (OR DOA, 1989)
Energy (J) 1.07 E14 BTU)(1054.35 J/BTU) = 1.13 E17

Harvest = 1.95 E7 m3 = 8265 MbMBF (Econ. Prof. Or., OEDD, 1991)
(0.7 sustained yield)
Energy (J) = 1.95 E7 m3)(0.5 E6 g/m3)(3.6 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal) = 1.03 E17


Consumption = 4.1 E9 Kwh/yr (Worldmark, 1986)
Energy (J) = (4.1 E9 Kwh/yr)(3.6 E6 J/Kwh) = 1.48 E16

Consumption = 5.76 E13 BTU/yr (Worldmark, 1986)
Energy (J) = (5.76 E9 BTU/yr)(1054.35 J/BTU) = 6.07 E16

Footnotes for Table 1 (continued)

17 MINERALS: (Sand, Gravel, Crushed Stone, Nickel, Gold)
Production = 3.0 E7 MT/yr (OR Dept. Geology, 1992)
(30 E6 MT)(1 E6 g/MT) = Energy (g) = 3.0 E13

Soil loss = 1.57 E13 g/yr Calculated as area percentage of total U.S. soil loss
(Odum, 1992)
Energy (J) = (6.76 E13 g/yr)(0.03 organic)(5.4 Kcal/g)(4186 J/Kcal) = (J)
1.06 E16

19 OLD GROWTH FOREST EXTRACTION Includes non-sustained yield
managed lands. Public lands managed for sustained yield, assume 50% of
private timberland under non-sustained yield management.
(0.5)(0.4 harvest on private land) = 20% of total harvest + 10% of total
harvest virgin timber (estimate) = 30% of total harvest = (J) 4.41 E16


Imports = 3.23 E14 BTU/yr
Energy (J) = (323 E12 BTU)(1054.35 J/BTU) = 3.41 E17 (OR DOE, 1989)

Imports = 8.9 E13 BTU/yr (OR DOE, 1989)
Energy (J) = (8.9 E13 BTU)(1054.35 J/BTU) = 9.38 E16

Imports = 2.99 E9 $ (OEDD, 1991)
Emergy (sej) = 2.99 E9 $)(1.0 E12 sej/$ Japan Ratio)

Imports = 6.21 E8 $
Emergy (sej) = (6.21 E8 $)(1.0 E12 sej/$ Japan Ratio)

Imports = 5.09 E8 $
EMERGY (sej) = (5.09 E8 $)(3,8 E12 sej/$ World Ratio)

Imports = 4.1 E8 $
Emergy (sej) = (4.1 E8 $)(3.8 E12 sej/$ World Ratio) ?

Footnotes for Table 1 (continued)

Dollar Value = 2.3 E9 $ US @ 1989 (OEDD, 1991)
Emergy (sej) = (2.98 E9 $ US)(1.6 E12 sej/$ U.S. Ratio)

Dollar Value 5.96 E9 $ US (OEDD, 1991) + 1.63 E9 $ fuel
Emergy (sej) = (5.96 E9 $ US)(1 E12 sej/$) = 7.59 E9


28 CASH CROPS: (Agriculture)
Exports: 30% of Total Production Exported (OR DOA, 1990)
(0.03)(9.85 E6 2.95 E6 MT
(Energy (J) = 2.95 E6 MT)(1 E6 g/MT)(3.5 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal) = 4.32 E16

Exports = 5.71 E6 m3 (OEDD, 1989)
Energy (J) = (6.64 m3)(0.5 E6 g/m3)(4 Cal/g)(4187 J/Cal) = 4.78 E16

Exports: = 3.22 E8 $ (OEDD, 1990)
Emergy (sej) = (3.22 E8 $)(1.6 E12 sej/$)

Table 2. Summary of Flows in Oregon, circa 1990.

Variable Item

R Renewable Sources (Rain, Tide,
Earth Cycle, River Inflows)

N Nonrenewable Sources Flow Within Oregon

No Dispersed Rural Source

N1 Concentrated Use

N2 Exported Without Use

F Imported Fuels and Minerals

G Imported Goods

I Dollars Paid for Imports

P21 Emergy Value of Goods and Service Imports

E Dollars Received for Exports

P1E Emergy Value of Goods and Service Exports

B Exported Products Transformed Within Oregon

X Gross State Product

P2 World Emergy/$ Ratio, Used in Imports
Japan Emergy/$ Ratio, Used in Goods Imported

P1 U.S. Emergy/$ Ratio

olar Emergy
(E20 sej/yr)









7.59 E9


4.08 E10



4.50 E10

3.80 E12
1.00 E12

1.60 E12

Table 3. Indices Using Emergy for Overview of Oregon, circa 1990

Item Name of Index Expression Quantity

1 Renewable emergy flow R 5.90 E22

2 Flow from indigenous
nonrenewable reserves N 6.79 E22

3 Flow of imported emergy F+G+P21 6.30 E22

4 Total energy inflows R+N+F+G+P21 1.90 E23

5 Total energy used, U NO+N1+R+F+G+P21 1.88 E23

6 Total exported energy N2+B+P1E 6.75 E22

7 Fraction energy use derived
from home sources (NO+N1+R)/U 0.67

8 Imports minus exports (F+G+P21)-(N2+B+P1E) -4.51 E21

9 Export to Imports (N2+B+PIE)/(F+G+P21) 1.07

10 Fraction used,
locally renewable R/U 0.31

11 Fraction of use purchased (F+G+P21)/U 0.33

12 Fraction imported service P21/U 0.15

13 Fraction of use that is free (R+NO)/U 0.35

14 Ratio of concentrated to rural (F+G+P21+N1)/(R+NO) 1.87

15 Use per unit area U/(area) 7.09 Ell

16 Use per person U/(population) 6.61 E16

17 Renewable carrying capacity
at present living standard (R/U) (population) 8.92 E5

Table 3 (continued)

Item Name of Index

18 Developed carrying capacity
at same living standard

19 Emcrgy/$ ratio

20 Ratio of electricity to use

21 Fuel use per person


B(R/U) (population)

P1 = U/GSP




7.14 E6

4.18 E12

3.00 E-1

1.38 E15

E20 sej/year EIO $/year

Figure 3. Summary diagram of emergy flows for Oregon.

(F, G, P21)

(R, N0, N1)



(N2, B, P1 E)

E21 sej/year

Figure 4. Summary diagram of indigenous resources, imports and exports
for Oregon.


1. Brown, M.T. 1992. Global Transformity Table

2. Brown, M.T. 1989. Emergy Evaluation of Mexico.

3. Economic Profile of Oregon. Oregon Economic Development
Department (OEDD). 1991.

4. Oregon Blue Book. 1986.

5. Oregon Department of Agriculture (DOA). 1990. Statistics.

6. Oregon Department of Energy (DOE). 1989. Statistics.

7. Oregon Department of Geology. 1992. Production Statistics.

8. Odum, H.T. 1992. Emergy and Public Policy Part I. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.

9. Odum, H.T. 1992. Emergy and Public Policy Part 2. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.

10. Odum, H.T. and Jan E. Arding. 1991. Emergy Analysis of Shrimp
Mariculture in Ecuador. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

11. Odum, H.T., et.al. 1987. Energy Analysis of Environmental Value.
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

12. Odum, H.T., et.al. 1986. Florida Systems and Environment. NSF
Workshop, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

13. worldmark Encyclopedia of the U.S. Worldmark Press, Ltd. 1986.



E20 sej/yr
E9 $/yr

b" ,5aI


Local Area Wastes

(Pathways of Degraded Energy Dispersal Omitted)

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