• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of figures - List of...
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 EMergy evaluation of rice
 EMergy evaluation of concrete
 Footnotes to tables 2, 4,...






Title: Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River Dam proposals
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016668/00001
 Material Information
Title: Emergy analysis perspectives of Thailand and Mekong River Dam proposals
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T.
McClanahan, T. R.
Publisher: Center for Wetlands and Water Resources, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1992
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00016668
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAA9285

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
    List of figures - List of tables
        Page ii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Methods
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Results
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Discussion
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 38
    EMergy evaluation of rice
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    EMergy evaluation of concrete
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Footnotes to tables 2, 4, and 5
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
Full Text




Report to
THE COUSTEAU SOCIETY


ENERGY ANALYSIS
AND MEKONG


PERSPECTIVES OF THAILAND
RIVER DAM PROPOSALS


M. T. Brown and T. R. McClanahan



Research Studies Conducted Under Contract No. 89092601


June 1992



















Center for Wetlands and Water Resources
University of Florida
Phelps Lab, Museum Road
Gainesville, FL 32611-2061
Tel. (904) 392-2424 Fax (904) 392-3624










TABLE OF CONTENTS




INTRODUCTION ....... .................... ............................. 1
The Environment of Thailand ................. .......................... 3
The Mekong River System .................. ...................... 5

M ETH OD S ....................... ..................................... 6

RESU LTS ............................................................ 20
Country Overview ..................... ........................... 20
EMergy Analysis of the Mekong River Dam Proposals ................. ........... 25

DISCUSSION ...................................... .................... 32
Country Overview ...................................... ........... 32
M ekong Dam Proposal ............................................... 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................. ...................................... 36


APPENDIX A ...................................... .................... 39
APPENDIX B ..................... ..................................... 47
APPENDIX C ...................................... .................... 51



































i










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1. Average rainfall distribution and physiographic regions of Thailand ............... 4
Figure 2. Energy language symbols ........................................... 10
Figure 3. Simplified diagrams illustrating (a) the calculation of Net EMergy Yield Ratio for an
economic conversion when purchased energy is used to upgrade a lower grade
resource, (b) the calculation of EMergy Exchange Ratio for trade between two
nations, and (c) the calculation of a Transformity for the flow D that is a product of
the process that requires the input of three different sources of EMergy (A, B, and
C). ..................................................... 13
Figure 4. Diagram illustrating a regional economy that imports (F) and uses resident renewable
inputs (I) and nonrenewable storage (N). Several ratios used for comparisons
between systems are given below the diagram and explained in the text. The letters
on pathways refer to flows of EMergy per unit time, thus ratios of flows are dynamic
and changing over time ........................................... 14
Figure 5. Diagram of a regional economy showing the flows of energy from external sources
and within the economy. One sector of the economy is shown separated from the
main economy in the lower left. The sector receives flows of energy from imports
(FI), from the main economy (FM), from non-renewable storage (NS), and from the
environment (IS). The ratios given below the diagram are explained in the text ........ 16
Figure 6. Energy diagram of Thailand showing rural populations and their relationships to
forested and agricultural lands, and the importance of religion. L = land, B =
biomass, P = people, SED = sediments................................ 21
Figure 7. Summary diagram of EMergy flows in Thailand's economy. An aggregation of all
EMergy flows is given in the top diagram (a). The inflows and exports are further
aggregated into a three-flow diagram at the bottom (b). All EMergy flows are E22
sej/yr, all dollar flows are E9$/yr. .................................. 23
Figure 8. Energy diagram of relationships between urban and rural populations and the proposed
hydroelectric dams on the Mekong River. .............................. 26
Figure 9. Summary diagrams of the EMergy analysis of the proposed Low Pa Mong (top) and
Upper Chiang Khan dam sites. ........................................ 30
Figure A-1. Systems diagram of high energy rice (top) and low energy rice (bottom) cultivation in
Thailand .. .............................................. 41
Figure A-2. Summary diagrams of low and high energy rice cultivation in Thailand. ........ 46
Figure B-1. Systems diagram of the processes including reef building that results in the making of
cement ....................................... ............. 49


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Transformities for energies, resources, and commodities used in this study .......... 8
Table 2. EMergy evaluation of resource basis for Thailand, 1984 ..................... 22
Table 3. Overview indices of Thailand, ca. 1985 ................................ 24
Table 4. EMergy evaluation of Low Pa Mong Dam and irrigation ................. ... 27
Table 5. EMergy evaluation of Upper Chiang Khan Dam .......................... 28
Table A-1. EMergy evaluation of Thailand low energy rice (1 ha.) ....................... 42
Table A-2. EMergy evaluation of Thailand high energy rice (1 ha.) ................. .... ..44
Table B-1. EMergy evaluation of concrete ........................................ 50












EMERGY ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVES OF THAILAND AND MEKONG RIVER DAM PROPOSALS


M. T. Brown and T. R. McClanahan





INTRODUCTION




This study of Thailand's economy and proposals for Hydroelectric Dams on the Mekong River resulted
from continued collaboration with The Cousteau Society on its worldwide explorations, entitled "Rediscovery of
the World." It is one in a series of studies of the interface between humanity and nature in various regions of
the world, where questions of public policy are quantitatively explored and suggestions made for sustainable
patterns of development. A new measure of value, called EMERGY' (which stands for energy memory) is
used to quantitatively determine how to best manage resources, populations and regional economies. The
methodology is useful where development has generated controversy over economic development and
environmental protection. Past analysis of world regions has shown that both development and environmental
protection are possible and, in fact, necessary if a sustainable economy is to prevail (Odum et al. 1986, Brown
et al. 1988, and Doherty et al. 1991).
Each of these studies were undertaken and their results shared with citizens and policy makers as a
means of demonstrating the EMergy analysis methods. It continues to be our hope that global sustainability can
be achieved with a better understanding of the relationships of humanity and nature. We believe that EMergy
analysis has the potential to integrate environment and economy and thus lead to decision making that will foster
a more sustainable development pattern. The methods employed in this study and the theoretical construct upon
which they are based are not without controversy, for in any new and developing field of science, there is
discussion and debate. So we offer our study and the results it contains not as the last word, but as a



'EMergy (spelled with an "m") is a scientifically based measure of wealth. It expresses all types of
resources (energy, raw materials, finished goods, and human services) on a common basis: the energy it took to
generate them. EMergy is a measure of value that is independent of human preferences, and therefore does not
fluctuate with changing tastes. EMergy, as a measure of potential wealth, is inverse to dollar price. When a
resource is abundant, its prices are low, yet its contribution to an economy is great; money buys more and overall
standards of living are high. When a resource is scarce, on the other hand, its contribution to an economy is small.
Scarce resources require more energy to collect, concentrate, process, and transport per unit and, therefore, their
net contribution to the economy is much reduced, yet their price is high. So as not to confuse EMergy with
energy, the first two letters of the word EMergy are capitalized in this report.
For a more complete discussion of EMergy, see Odum 1988, Odum and Arding 1991.












demonstration of a new approach to evaluating the complex questions related to resource allocation,
environmental protection, and economic development that all regions of the world must answer if sustainable
patterns of development are to be found.
In each region that has been studied, an overall EMergy analysis of the economy was undertaken to
provide perspectives on resource use and to determine the region's place in the global hierarchy of countries.
Additionally, several subsystems (like hydroelectric development, or agricultural development) where
controversy prevailed and alternative development scenarios existed were analyzed. Finally, suggestions to help
direct public policy were made based on the EMergy analysis.
Throughout the developing world, uneven balances of trade are fostered at the expense of both the
ecological and economic well being of local populations and their economies. Previous studies of world regions
(see Odum et al. 1986; Brown et al. 1988; Odum and Arding 1990; and Doherty et al. 1991) have shown that
the export of raw resources from developing countries in exchange for finished goods and services drains the
economy of the exporting region while fostering continued economic growth of the developed world.
Frequently, the balance of monetary payments is positive for developing economies, yet their EMergy balance is
negative. Where these conditions prevail, public policy based solely on monetary concerns often encourages
continued sale of resources. Under these conditions, populations may suffer because more total value (measured
in EMergy terms) leaves the country than is imported. In the case of Thailand, a moderately developed nation,
the issue is both a negative EMergy balance of payments and questions of internal resource use and population
carrying capacity. Consequently, it is important to develop policies for the future which will accommodate
Thailand's people and the long-term viability of its economy.
In order to develop public policies which will ensure the long-term sustainability of the human
economy, an understanding of the role of nature in the economy must be incorporated. Traditional economics,
which guides most present-day policy decisions, often focuses on short-term profits based on market values, and
treats nature as an externality. Economics' greatest value is in determining market prices, yet a market
perspective and its short time horizon may not be successful in maintaining long-term ecological and economic
vitality. It now appears that to determine long-term and large-scale public policy that will foster sustainable
development patterns, an alternative ecologically based evaluation system may be more appropriate. Now
emerging worldwide is a new area of study called "ecological economics" that is striving to redefine economics
from a more sustainable perspective (see for example Martinez-Alier 1987 and the new journal Ecological
Economics).
EMergy analysis is a technique which determines the value of nature to the human economy (Odum
1988). This technique is based on the principles of energetic (Lotka 1925), systems theory (von Bertalanffy
1968) and systems ecology (Odum 1983). Its fundamental assumption is that the value of a resource is
proportional to the energy required to produce the resource. EMergy evaluation can make comparisons of












alternative uses of resources to develop policies which maximize the total EMergy flow in an economy. The
following evaluation provides an EMergy overview of Thailand and specific evaluation of several subsystems
including two alternative dam sites proposed for the Mekong River.
Thailand, like many developing countries, lies at the crossroads between the past's reliance on low
energy, technology and an uncertain future based on fossil fuels and high energy technology. Reduced
mortality, associated with improved health standards, and immigration have resulted in a steady and exponential
increase in the population from 8.26 million in 1910 to more than 50 million in 1984 (TNRP 1987). Population
expansion has resulted in a 2.4% annual rate of deforestation while revenue from timber exports have declined
from $46.8 million in 1973 to $2 million in 1984 (UNEP 1988). The effects of deforestation, consequent soil
depletion and uneven migration patterns are best exemplified in northern Thailand, where the majority of this
deforestation has occurred. In this region, approximately 60% of the children under five years of age suffer
from protein or calorie malnutrition (TNRP 1987). These statistics suggest the interplay between human well-
being and natural resources and the often inverse relationship between human health and the exploitation of
natural resources.




The Environment of Thailand


Thailand is a tropical country located north of the equator (6 to 20N) and highly affected by monsoon
seasons typical of the Indian Ocean region. Lacking much seasonal variation in temperature, Thailand's seasons
are marked by a period of abundant rainfall and a period of drought, which correspond with the shifting
intertropical convergence zone. The wet season begins in May and extends until October. The dry season lasts
from October through April. Rainfall throughout many parts of the country is relatively high (from 1000 to
4000 mm/yr) (See Figure 1) but seasonal. Consequently, the productivity of agricultural and natural ecosystems
is highly affected by availability of water.
Thailand contains a number of physiographic regions which differ in their geology and climate
(Moormann and Rojanasoonthon 1968, Figure 1). Briefly, the southern section of Thailand is a lowland area
affected by the marine environment, and has the highest and least seasonal rainfall. The original vegetation was
tropical rainforest but extensive deforestation in many areas has replaced the forest with agriculture and rubber
plantations. The central plain area has low rainfall but is an alluvial floodplain region that maintains its
productivity through constant alluvial inputs resulting from the seasonal flooding of the Chao Praya River and
its tributaries. The central region has long been utilized for paddy rice and fruit and vegetable cultivation which
supplies the Bangkok markets. The northern continental highlands region is mountainous, cooler and has less
predictable rainfall in the lower elevations; however, rainfall increases with elevation. The highlands areas are
vegetated by coniferous forests, dry forests and savannas where human encroachment has not occurred. Within

















BURMA


ANOAMAN SEA




GULF OF THAlAND
1 CENTRAL PLAIN

2 SOUTHEAST COAST

O 3 NORTHEAST PLATEAU
4 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS
5 NORTH AND WEST
CONTINENTAL HIGHLANDS
8 PENINSULAR THAILAND
Son 0gkhi

.a 0 50 100 200 300Hk
C7\ soo oo 3~m


MALAYSIA

Source Moomn, FA., andS. Ron ,soonrwhn. "Sods of Thednd "
SSR. No. 72. LTO.. 1968


Average rainfall distribution and physiographic regions of Thailand.


Figure 1.












this region, productive alluvial soils occur within river basins but cultivation has expanded onto steeper slopes
and decreased forest cover in many regions. The Khorat Plateau of northeastern Thailand is Thailand's driest
region, has unproductive saline soils which appear to become more saline following deforestation (UNEP 1987).




The Mekong River System


The Mekong River flows along the northeastern border of Thailand and ranks sixth in the world in
terms of mean annual discharge (approximately 475 E+9 m3/yr). Its headwaters are located in the Himalayas
and receive drainage from China, Burma, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand and Vietnam. The uppermost tributaries
reach an elevation of 5000 m but the Mekong is only approximately 355 m above sea level once it enters
Thailand. Sediment load is relatively low compared to other major Asian rivers carrying 6.2 million tons/yr.
The Lower Mekong Basin fisheries contributes approximately 500,000 tons/yr or 4.5% of the GNP of the
Lower Basin (Pantulu 1986).




Plan of Study


This study was conducted to demonstrate the EMergy analysis methodology. As a result of Captain
Jacques Cousteau's audience with His Majesty the King, we were invited to Thailand to share with the people
responsible for resource management, the EMergy analysis technique. As a practical demonstration of the
techniques, and after conferences with governmental officials, we decided to evaluate the EMergy costs and
benefits of two proposed Mekong River dams (Upper Chiang Khan and Low Pa Mong). The analysis was done
in a step-by-step procedure that begins with an EMergy analysis of the entire economy of Thailand, and then
evaluates the proposed dams using the indices and ratios from the analysis of the national economy. To conduct
the analysis of the dams, two important subsystems--rice and concrete--had to be analyzed. The results of these
analyses are included as appendices to the report.
The report is organized first to provide detailed methods for conducting an EMergy analysis, and then
to present the results of the national analysis and the evaluations of the two proposed dam sites. Finally, an
interpretation and discussion of the implications and meaning of the results are given.












METHODS


The general methodology for EMergy analysis is a "top-down" systems approach (Odum 1988). The
first step is to construct systems diagrams that are a means of organizing thinking and relationships between
components and pathways of exchange and resource flow. The second step is to construct EMergy analysis
tables directly from the diagrams. The third step involves calculating several EMergy indices that relate
EMergy flows of the economy with those of the environment to predict economic viability and carrying
capacity. Finally, using the results of the EMergy analysis tables and EMergy indices, public policy options
suggested by the costs and benefits of proposed developments are made.
Before presentation of detailed description of each step in the methodology, definitions are given for
several key words and concepts.


Energy
Sometimes referred to as the ability to do work. Energy is a property of all things which can be turned
into heat and is measured in heat units (BTU, calories, or joules).
EMergy
An expression of all the energy used in the work processes that generate a product or service in units
of one type of energy. Solar EMergy of a product is the EMergy of the product expressed in
equivalent solar energy required to generate it. Sometimes its convenient to think of EMergy as energy
memory.
EMjoule
The unit of measure of EMergy, "EMergy joule." It is expressed in the units of energy previously
used to generate the product; for instance, the solar EMergy of wood is expressed as joules of solar
energy that were required to produce the wood.
Maximum EMergy Principle
Systems that prevail are those that take maximum advantage of the EMergy that is available, by:
reinforcing productive processes, drawing more resources, and overcoming more limitations through
effective system organization. Patterns that maximize EMergy contribute to the most wealth.
Macroeconomic dollar
A measure of the money that circulates in an economy as the result of some process. In practice, to
obtain the macroeconomic dollar value of an EMergy flow or storage, the EMergy is multiplied by the
ratio of total EMergy to Gross National Product for the national economy.












Nonrenewable Energy
Energy and material storage like fossil fuels, mineral ores, and soils that are consumed at rates that far
exceed the rates at which they are produced by geologic processes.
Renewable Energy
Energy flows of the biosphere that are more or less constant and reoccurring that ultimately drive the
biological and chemical processes of the earth and contribute to geologic processes.
Resident Energy
Resident energies are the renewable energies that are characteristic of a region.
Transformity
The ratio obtained by dividing the total EMergy that was used in a process by the energy yielded by the
process. Transformities have the dimensions of EMergy/energy. A transformity for a product is
calculated by summing all the EMergy inflows to the process and dividing by the energy of the
product. Transformities are used to convert energies of different types to EMergy of the same type.
Table 1 lists transformities for many types of energy, resources, and goods calculated in previous
studies that are used in this study.


Given next is further elaboration on the methods used for EMergy analysis in general, and for this study of
Thailand, in particular.


Step 1: Overview System Diagrams
A system diagram in "overview" using the energy language symbols illustrated in Figure 2 is drawn
first to put in perspective the system of interest, combine information about the system from various sources,
and to organize data gathering efforts. The process of diagramming the system of interest in overview ensures
that all driving energies and interactions are included. Since the diagram includes both the economy and
environment of the system it is like an impact diagram, showing all relevant interactions.
Then a second simplified (or aggregated) diagram which retains the most important essence of the more
complex version is drawn. This final, aggregated diagram of the system of interest is used to construct a table
of data requirements for the EMergy analysis. Each pathway that crosses the system boundary is evaluated.


Step 2: EMergy Analysis Tables
EMergy analysis of a system of interest is usually conducted at two scales. First the larger system,
within which the system of interest is embedded, is analyzed and indices generated that are necessary for
evaluation and comparative purposes. Second, the system of interest is analyzed and comparisons made
between it and other comparable systems, and between it and the larger system.











Table 1. Transformities for energies, resources, and commodities used in this study.



TRANSFORMITY
Item sej/J


1. Solar energy 1
2. Wind, vapor 62
3. Wind, kinetic energy 623
4. Uranium-gener. heat 1790
5. Straw 4300
6. Geothermal heat 6100
7. Plantation pine wood 6700
8. Rain, geopotential 8888
9. Coconut oil 12000
10. Water storage 15400
11. Rain, chemical 15444
12. Geothermal convection 18000
13. Coconuts 19000
14. O.M. in river 19000
15. Tides 23564
16. River flow against gray. 23564
17. Waves absorbed at shore 25889
18. Dung 2700
19. Corn, primitive 27000
20. Earth cycle 29000
21. Total O.M. in waste water 30000
22. Wood 34900
23. Harvested rainforest wood 34900
24. Lignite 37400
25. Coal 39800
26. Hurricane 41000
27. Waste water 41000
28. Groundwater 41000
29. River water, chemical 41068
30. Natural gas 48000
31. Oil 53000
32. Ethanol 60000
33. Earth loss 63000
34. Topsoil in place 63000
35. Earth (clay) 63000
36. Petroleum product 66000
37. Grains 68000
38. Corn, intensive agr. 68000
39. Wheat 68000
40. Labor, primitive 81000
41. Sugar 85000
42. Ground water 110314
43. Electricity 159000
44. Paper, cardboard 215000
45. Agricultual water 255242
46. Asphalt 347000











Table 1. cont'd.


TRANSFORMITY
Item sej/J


47. Bananas 530000
48. Consumer water 665714
49. Copra 690000
50. Soap 720000
51. Butter 1300000
52. Nitrogen fertilizer 1690000
53. Mutton 1710000
54. Cattle 1720000
55. Food waste 1800000
56. Cotton 1900000
57. Livestock, poultry 2000000
58. Potassium fertilizer 2620000
59. Oysters 3000000
60. High quality logs 3110000
61. Wool 3800000
62. Veal 4000000
63. Crabs 5950000
64. Commercial fish 8000000
65. Bauxite 13200000
66. Pesticides 19700000
67. Phosphate rock 41400000
68. Iron ore 60100000
69. Machinery 75000000














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.




.) PROCEDURE UNIT converts and
concentrates solar energy, self-maintaining;
\ details may be shown inside.


SCONSUMER UNIT uses high quality energy,
self-maintaining; details may be shown Inside.


Figure 2. Energy language symbols.












The analysis is conducted using an EMergy Analysis Table organized with the following headings:


1 2 3 4 5 6
Note Item Raw Units Transformity Solar Macro-
EMergy economic $




Each row in the table is an inflow or outflow pathway in the aggregated diagram of the system of interest,
therefore pathways are evaluated as fluxes in units per year. An explanation of each column is given next.
Column 1 the line number and footnote number that contains sources and calculations for the item.
Column 2 the item name that corresponds to the name of the pathway in the aggregated diagram.
Column 3 the actual units of the flow, usually evaluated as flux per year. Most often the units are
energy (joules/year), but sometimes are given in grams/year.
Column 4 transformity of the item, usually derived from previous studies.
Column 5 Solar EMergy, is the product of the raw units in Column 3 with the transformity in Column 4.
Column 6 the result of dividing solar EMergy in Column 5 by the EMergy to
money ratio (calculated independently) for the economy of the nation within which the system
of interest is embedded.


Step 3: Calculation of EMergy Indices
Once the EMergy analysis tables are completed, several indices using data from the tables are
calculated to gain perspective and aid in public policy decision-making. The criteria used in judging alternatives
differ depending upon whether two systems are being compared or whether a single systems is being analyzed
for its contributions to the economy. When two alternative systems are compared, the one which contributes the
most EMergy to the public economy and minimizes environmental losses is considered best. When a single
system is analyzed, it is judged to be successful in relation to the economy in which it is embedded by
determining how closely its EMergy intensity matches that of the local economy, and whether it minimizes
environmental losses. To accomplish these, two ratios are calculated: EMergy Investment Ratio (IR), and the
Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR). Several other indices help in gaining perspective about processes and
economies, and are necessary precursors to the IR and ELR; they are: EMergy Money Ratio, EMergy Per
Capita, EMergy Density, EMergy Exchange Ratio, Net EMergy Yield Ratio, and Solar Transformity. These
are defined first.












EMergy Money Ratio. The ratio of total EMergy flow in the economy of a region or nation to the
GNP of the region or nation. The EMergy money ratio is a relative measure of purchasing power when the
ratios of two or more nations or regions are compared.
EMergy Per Capita. The ratio of total EMergy use in the economy of a region or nation to the total
population. EMergy per capital can be used as a measure of average standard of living of the population.
EMergy Density. The ratio of total EMergy use in the economy of a region or nation to the total area
of the region or nation. Renewable and nonrenewable EMergy density are also calculated separately by dividing
the total renewable EMergy by area and the total nonrenewable EMergy by are respectively.
EMergy Exchange Ratio. The ratio of EMergy exchanged in a trade or purchase (what is received to
what is given). The ratio is always expressed relative to one or the other trading partners and is a measure of
the relative trade advantage of one partner over the other. Figure 3a shows the relationship and calculation of
the EMergy exchange ratio.
Net EMergy Yield Ratio. The ratio of the EMergy yield from a process to the EMergy costs. The
ratio is a measure of how much a process will contribute to the economy. Primary energy sources have yield
ratios in the range of 3/1 to as high as 11/1, thus they contribute much to the wealth of the economy. Figure
3b shows the method of calculating the net EMergy yield ratio.
Solar Transformity. The ratio of the actual energy in a product or service to the solar EMergy that is
required to generate it. The transformity is a measure of the "value" of a service or product, with the
assumption that systems operating under the constraints of the maximum EMergy principle generate products
that stimulate productive process at least as much as they cost. Figure 3c shows the method of calculating a
transformity.


Determining the Intensity of Development and Economic Competitiveness: EMERGY INVESTMENT
RATIO
Given in Figure 4 is a diagram illustrating the use of nonrenewable and renewable EMergies in a
regional economy. The interaction of nonrenewable EMergies (both purchased from outside [F] and
transformed from within [N] ) with renewable EMergies (I) is the primary process by which humans interface
with their environment.
The Investment Ratio (IR) is the ratio of purchased inputs (F) to all EMergies derived from local
sources (the sum of I and N) as follows:


IR = F/(I+N)








Purchased Inflow (F)
13




Inflow From Renewable or Economic Outflow of
Non- Renewable Source Conversion Upgraded Energy (Y)



Net Emergy Yield Ratio = (Y-F)/F


(a)


Imports (A)





1 Nation / Nationm\


Exports (A)




Nation A: Emergy Exchange Ratio Imports
Exports
(b)



EBneagy
C

Emergys



Emergy Process
A

A+B+C (all in emeagy
Transformity of D = A some type)
D (energy)




Figure 3. Simplified diagrams illustrating (a) the calculation of Net EMergy Yield Ratio for an economic
conversion where purchased energy is used to upgrade a lower grade resource, (b) the
calculation of EMergy Exchange Ratio for trade between two nations, and (c) the calculation
of a Transformity for the flow D that is a product of the process that requires the input of
three different sources of EMergy (A, B, and C).











Purchased Inputs (F)


Renewable Inputs


Yield (Y)


Investment Ratio of Regional Economy: IR=F/I+N
Environmental Loading Ratio of Regional Economy: ELR = F+ N/I
Yield Ratio of Regional Economy: YR = Y/F



















Diagram illustrating a regional economy that imports (F) and uses resident renewable inputs (I)
and nonrenewable storage (N). Several ratios used for comparisons between systems are
given below the diagram and explained in the text. The letters on pathways refer to flows of
EMergy per unit time, thus ratios of flows are dynamic and changing over time.


Figure 4.












The name is derived from the fact that it is a ratio of "invested" EMergy to resident EMergy. A
dimensionless number, the bigger the Investment Ratio the greater the intensity of development. Regional or
country wide IRs are useful for comparison with the IR of individual developments or processes. Investment
Ratios for nations that have been studied vary from as high as 7/1 (the United States) to as low as .045/1
(Papua New Guinea).
Comparison between regional Investment Ratios and the ratio for proposed or existing developments
may be used as an indicator of the intensiveness of the development within the local economy. When the ratios
of two developments of like kind are compared, an indication of their economic competitiveness is derived. The
investment ratio can also be used to indicate if a process is economical in its utilization of purchased inputs in
comparison with other alternative investments within the same economy.


Determining Environmental Impact: ENVIRONMENTAL LOADING RATIO
Nearly all productive processes of humanity involve the interaction of nonrenewable EMergies with the
renewable EMergies of the environment, and in so doing the environment is "loaded" (meaning to strain, stress,
or pressure). Figure 4 shows environmental loading as the interaction of purchased EMergy and nonrenewable
storage of EMergy from within the system with the renewable EMergy pathway through environmental work.
An index of environmental loading, the Environmental Loading Ratio (ELR) is the ratio of nonrenewable
EMergy (N + F) to renewable EMergy (I)as follows:


ELR = (N+F)/I (2)


Low ELRs reflect relatively small environmental loading, while high ELRs suggest greater loading.
The ELR reflects the potential environmental strain or stress of a development when compared to the same ratio
for the region and can be used to calculate carrying capacity.


Evaluating Regional and Local IRs and ELRs
Given in Figure 5 is a simplified diagram of a regional economy and a sector of the economy. The
sector uses renewable EMergy (L) and purchased EMergy from both the local (F,) and world economy (F,).
The sector is actually a part of the regional economy but is shown separately to highlight the comparison
between it and the region in which it is embedded. The investment ratio in the regional economy is derived
using the ratio of purchased EMergy (F) to resident EMergy inputs (L, + Nm) as follows:


IR,= F/ (L + N-)





















I I /\ i l A \AIJu I .
Environmental Economic
/ Work Conversions F F


NS
Mt/ Economic
Sector Y
Is


Regional Economy









Investment Ratio for Economic Sector: IR = FI+FM
IS+NSG
FI + (FU KFu) + Ns
Environmental Loading Ratio for Economic Sector: ELR=
..-+ KFm
where K= percent of FM that.is from IM.

Yield Ratio for Economic Sector: YR = Y
FM + FI










Figure 5. Diagram of a regional economy showing the flows of energy from external sources and within
the economy. One sector of the economy is shown separated from the main economy in the
lower left. The sector receives flows of energy from imports (FI), from the main economy
(FM), from non-renewable storage (NS), and from the environment (IS). The ratios given
below the diagram are explained in the text.












The investment ratio of the sector (IR,) is calculated in a similar manner accounting for all sources of renewable
and purchased EMergy as follows:


IRs = (Fm +F)/(I. + N,) (4)


The Environmental Loading Ratio for the region and sector within the regional economy are calculated
somewhat differently. The regional ELR is calculated as the ratio of nonrenewable (F + Nm) to renewable
EMergy (Im) as before. However, calculation of the ELR for the economic sector has to take into account the
portion of Fm that comes from I,, since that area of environment is not adding to the "load" on the environment
of the sector but, in effect, is part of the environmental support for the sector. Thus the ELR for the sector is
calculated by subtracting the portion of Fm that is from Im. This is done by first calculating the total EMergy
budget of the main economy (Total EMergy = Fm+Fi+Nm+N,+Im+I,) and then dividing to determine the
percent of the total that is derived from Im (referred to as k in Figure 5). Then the ELR for the sector is
determined as follows:


ELR. = [F,+(Fm-kFm) + N, / (I+kFm) (5)
where:
k = percent of total EMergy budget that is from I (refer
to Fig. 5)


Determining Carrying Capacity for Economic Investments
Once the ELR for a region is known and the total annual nonrenewable EMergy use by a development
is determined, the area of land necessary to balance the development can be calculated using the average annual
flux of renewable EMergy per year per unit area of landscape (renewable EMergy density). Renewable
EMergy density is derived from the analysis of the regional or national economy. To determine the area of
support necessary for a proposed development, and thus the carrying capacity (i.e., the area of landscape
required for the development), the environmental loading ratio for the region is calculated (as above) and then a
simple equivalent proportion like the following is constructed:


ELR(gio.) = ELR(Ilopno (6)


where:
ELR(,^m) = known
ELR(Wop = [Fi+(Fm-kFm) + N,]/ (+kFm)












and the equation is solved as follows:


(I,+kFm) = [Fi+(Fm-kFm) + N,] / ELRP,i) (7)


Once the quantity (I +kFm) is known, the area of landscape required to balance the proposed development is
calculated as follows:


Support Area = (I,+kFm)/ renewable EMergy density (8)


Criteria for Alternative Public Policies
Public policy alternatives involving decisions regarding the development and use of resources are
guided by two criteria in this study: (1) the alternative should increase the total emergy inflow to the economy,
and (2) the alternative should be sustainable in the long run.
Development alternatives that result in higher EMergy inputs to an economy increase its vitality and
competitive position. A principle that is useful in understanding why this is so is the Maximum EMergy
Principle (which follows from the work of Lotka [1922], who named it the "maximum power principle"). In
essence, the Maximum EMergy Principle states that the system (or, in this case, development alternative) that
will prevail in competition with others is the one that develops the most useful work with inflowing emergy
sources. Useful work is related to using inflowing EMergy in reinforcement actions that ensure and, if
possible, increase the inflowing EMergy. The principle is somewhat circular. That is, processes that are
successful maximize useful work; and useful work is that work which increases inflowing emergy. It is
important that the term "useful" is used here. Energy dissipation without useful contribution to increasing
inflowing EMergy is not reinforcing, and thus cannot compete with systems that use inflowing EMergy in self-
reinforcing ways. Thus drilling oil wells and then burning off the oil may use oil faster (in the short run) than
refining and using it to run machines, but it will not compete in the long run with a system that uses oil to
develop and run machines that increase drilling capacity and ultimately the supply of oil.
Development alternatives that do not maximize EMergy cannot compete in the long run, and through
"tests of time" are eliminated. In the trial and error processes of open markets and individual human choices,
the patterns that generate more EMergy will tend to be copied and will prevail. Recommendations for future
plans and policies that are likely to be successful are those that go in the natural direction toward maximum
EMergy production.
The second guiding criteria is that development alternatives be sustainable in the long run. To be sure,
sustainability is an elusive concept. Ultimately sustainable developments are activities that use no nonrenewable
energy; once supplies have dwindled, developments that depend on them must also dwindle. However, the
criteria for maximum EMergy would suggest that energy be used effectively in the competitive struggle for










19

existence. Thus when energy is available, its use in actions that reinforce overall performance is a prerequisite
for sustainability. To do otherwise would suggest that the development would not be competitive, and in the
short run would not be sustainable. This alternative (no use of nonrenewable energy) provides the lower bound
for sustainability. The upper bound is determined by the maximum EMergy principle as well. Sustainable
developments are those that operate at maximum power, neither too slow (efficient) or too fast (inefficient).
The question of defining sustainability becomes one of defining maximum power. In this analysis, we use the
investment ratio and the environmental loading ratio as the criteria for sustainability. By matching the ratios of
a development with those of the economy in which it is imbedded, a proposed development is no more or no
less sustainable than the economy as a whole.












RESULTS


Country Overview


The aggregated country diagram in Figure 6 emphasizes the inputs of sun, rain, rivers, geologic uplift,
and imported goods and services. Production within the country includes the forests, agriculture and
aquaculture; industry and commerce utilize the natural resources while supporting and being managed by the
urban population. EMergy and the macroeconomic value of annual flows of energy in Thailand are presented in
Table 2. The chemical potential of rain is the single most important renewable resource. Agriculture, animal
husbandry (livestock) and fisheries are the most important forms of renewable production. Important indigenous
nonrenewable resources include natural gas, oil, lignite, limestone, and top soil which is used at a high rate.
Among the important imported energies are oil, phosphorus, nitrogen, food, wood, pesticides and mechanical
equipment and vehicles. Associated with these goods are a very high EMergy imported as foreign services, in
other words, the EMergy of imported products that results from human service involved in the production of
those resources. Among the most important exports are cash crops, fisheries and limestone. Exported services
associated with exported goods are also high but about 65 % of the imported EMergy in goods and services.
Summary diagrams of EMergy flows supporting Thailand's economy are given in Figure 7. The top
diagram (a) is an aggregate of all the EMergy inputs including: imported fuels and goods (F and G), imported
services (P2I), renewable resources (R), nonrenewable resources derived from within the country (No, N1, and
N). Exports from the economy are composed of three flows: direct export of non-renewable resources (N),
exports of economic products (E) and exports of services derived from the dollar income from exported goods
(PE). The GNP (X) is equal to $4.3 E10. The bottom diagram (b) further summarizes Thailand's economy by
summing EMergy flows from indigenous sources (R+N +N +N), imports (F + G +PI), and exports
(N2+E+PE). P,E is defined as EMergy-to-dollar ratio for Thailand (P,) multiplied by total exports (E). P21 is
defined as the world EMergy-to-dollar ratio (P2 = 3.8 E12 sej/$) multiplied by imports (F+G=I).
Overview indices of the EMergy analysis of Thailand are presented in Table 3. Some of the more
striking of the overview indices are as follows: Thailand's EMergy money ratio (3.46 E+12 Sej/$) is close to
the world average (3.8 E+12 Sej/$). About 67% of the EMergy basis for Thailand's economy is derived from
within the country (line 7), 33% is imported (line 12), while 61% of the total EMergy of the economy (line 10)
is exported. Fifty-two percent of EMergy use is locally renewable (line 14). Thailand has a net EMergy deficit
from trade (425 E20 Sej/yr). The portion of exports that are derived from storage of raw resources is
relatively small, only about 2% (N2\N2+B+PE). The ratio of imported EMergy to exported EMergy is 0.53/1
(line 9). Twenty-seven percent of the country's EMergy budget comes from imported service (line 13).


















































Figure 6. Energy diagram of Thailand showing rural populations and their relationships to forested and agricultural lands, and the importance of
religion. L = land, B = biomass, P = people, SED = sediments.









EMERGY Evaluation of Resource Basis for Thailand, 1984.


Note Macroeconomic
No. Item Raw Units Transformity Solar Emergy Value
Appendix C (sej/unit) (E20 sej) (E9 1984 US$)


RENEWABLE RESOURCES:

1 Sunlight 2.88E+21 J
2 Rain, chemical 4.77E+18 J
3 Rain, geopotential 2.16E+18 J
4 Wind, kinetic 2.38E+18 J
5 Waves 4.20E+17 J
6 Tide 4.42E+16 J
7 River geopotential 1.31E+17 J

INDIGENOUS RENEWABLE ENERGY:

8 Hydroelectricity 5.05E+16 J
9 Agriculture prod 9.96E+17 J
10 Livestock prod 6.28E+16 J
11 Fisheries 3.68E+16 J
12 Fuelwood prod 9.35E+15 J
13 Forest extraction 1.47E+16 J

NONRENEWABLE SOURCES FROM WITHIN SYSTEM:

14 Natural Gas 9.41E+16 J
15 Oil 8.42E+16 J
16 Lignite 5.42E+16 J
17 Gypsum 3.40E+11 g
18 Limestone 8.70E+12 g
19 Top Soil 7.24E+16 J

IMPORTS AND OUTSIDE SOURCES:


1
15444
8888
623
25889
23564
8888


1.59E+05
2.00E+05
2.00E+06
2.00E+06
3.49E+04
3.49E+04



4.80E+04
5.30E+04
3.74E+04
1.00E+09
1.00E+09
6.30E+04


28.84
737.27
191.89
14.83
108.73
10.42
11.67


1.20
30.72
8.00
0.62
4.53
0.43
0.49


80.25
1992.54
1255.80
736.74
3.26
5.13


3.34
83.02
52.33
30.70
0.14
0.21


45.14
44.64
20.28
3.40
87.00
45.60


20 Oil
21 Steel
22 Phosphorus
23 Nitrogen
24 Potash
25 Food
26 Plastics
27 Pesticides
28 Wood, Paper, Text
29 Mech. & Trans Eqp.
30 Services
31 Net Migration

EXPORTS:

32 Cash Crops
33 Fishery Products
34 Forest Products
35 Fluorite
36 Gypsum
37 Limestone
38 Barite
39 Service in exports
40 Tourist Service


5.00E+16 J
5.84E+11 J
8.29E+12 J
1.28E+14 J
8.63E+12 J
7.24E+15 J
1.84E+13 J
1.85E+14 J
1.04E+16 J
3.75E+11 J
1.06E+10 $
-9.33E+04p/y



2.48E+17 J
5.68E+15 J
1.28E+15 J
3.29E+02 g
8.70E+11 g
1.10E+12 g
3.47E+02 g
7.15E+09 $
1.00E+09 $


5.30E+04
1.97E+07
4.14E+07
1.69E+06
2.62E+06
8.50E+04
6.60E +04
1.97E+07
3.49E+04
1.40E+09
3.80E+12
3.15E+15



2.00E+05
2.00E+06
3.49E+04
1.00E+09
1.00E+09
1.00E+09
1.00E+09
3.46E+12
3.46E+ 12


26.51
0.12
3.43
2.17
0.23
6.15
0.01
36.53
3.60
5.25
402.80
-2.94



496.71
113.55
0.45
0.00
8.70
11.00
0.00
247.40
34.60


1.10
0.00
0.14
0.09
0.01
0.26
0.00
1.52
0.15
0.22
16.78
-0.12



20.70
4.73
0.02
0.00
0.36
0.46
0.00
10.30
1.44


Table 2.














































E22 solar emjoules/yr


Imports
FG. .P213


Indigenous 10.25 Th 91 Exports
sources Thailand 9.1 Exports
R.NO.N1N2 N28,P1 E3





(b)

Figure 7. Summary diagram of EMergy flows in Thailand's economy. An aggregation of all EMergy
flows is given in the top diagram (a). The inflows and exports are further aggregated into a
three-flow diagram at the bottom (b). All EMergy flows are E22 sej/yr, all dollar flows are
E9$/yr.












Table 3. Overview Indices of Thailand ca. 1985.


No. Description Expression Quantity


Renewable EMergy flow
Flow from indigenous nonrenewable reserves
Flow of imported EMergy
Total EMergy inflows
Total EMergy used, U
Total exported EMergy
Fraction of EMergy use derived from home sources
Imports minus exports
Ratio of imports to exports
Fraction of EMergy that is exported
Fraction used, locally renewable
Fraction of EMergy use purchased (imports)
Fraction imported service
Fraction of use that is free
Ratio of concentrated to rural
EMergy density
EMergy per capital
Renewable carrying capacity at present living standard
Developed carrying capacity at present living standard
EMergy money ratio
Electricity use as fraction of total emergy use
Fuel use per person
Environmental Loading Ratio


R
N
F+G+P21
R+N+F+G+P21
No+Ni+R+F+G+P21
N2+E+PE
(No+Ni+R)/U
(F+G+P21)-(N2+B+PE)
(F+G+P2I)/(N2+B+P1E)
(N2+B+P1E)/U
R/U
(F+G+P2I)/U
P2I/U
(R+No)/U
(F+G+P2,+N1)/(R+No)
U/(area)
U/(population)
(R/U) (population)
8R/(U/pop.)
P1=U/GNP
(electric)/U
fuel/population
(N0+N1+F+G+P2I)/R


759 E20 sej/yr
266 E20 sej/yr
485 E20 sej/yr
1510 E20 sej/yr
1490 E20 sej/yr
910 E20 sej/yr
67%
(-425) E20 sej/yr
.53
61%
51%
33%
27%
52%
85%
2.9 Ell sej/m2
2.98 E15 sej/person
25.4 E06 people
203 E06 people
3.46 E12 sej/$
8.2%
1.80 E14 sej/person
1.0/1


Letters refer to letters on pathways and storage given in Figure 7.












The ratio of concentrated EMergy to rural resources used (line 15) is a ratio that relates the percent of
EMergy use that flows through urbanized areas to the renewable EMergy that is derived primarily from the
rural landscape. In Thailand the ratio is about .85/1 or about 85% of the total EMergy of the economy is
derived from concentrated sources that flow through urban centers.
A measure of long-term, sustainable, carrying capacity for humans of Thailand's landscape is the
renewable EMergv carrying capacity at present living standard (line 18). It is derived by calculating percent of
total EMergy that is from rural sources (49%) and multiplying by the present population (50 million people). It
is a measure of the number of people that could be supported by renewable sources alone, if they maintained
today's living standard. The renewable carrying capacity of Thailand is 25.4 million people or about 50% of
today's population. Line 19 gives the carrying capacity assuming development of Thailand's economy to that
which is characteristic of developed nations like the United States, but using Thailand's present living standard.
Developed carrying capacity is calculated by multiplying renewable EMergy flow (R) by 8.0 (the ratio of
concentrated to renewable EMergy in developed economies) and dividing by the current EMergy use per capital
(2.98 E15 sej/person; line 17). The developed carrying capacity is 203 million people, but assumes that world
energy supplies are of sufficient size that this may be accomplished, and that the present living standard would
be maintained in the future.


EMergy Analysis of the Mekong River Dam Proposals
The Mekong River forms the northern boundary between Thailand and Laos until it flows eastward
through Cambodia. As part of the UN-sponsored initiative to develop the hydroelectric potential throughout the
Mekong Basin, proposals for dams along the main reaches in the upper basin have been made. Among the first
of these proposals involved two sites in northern Thailand known as the Upper Chiang Khan and Lower Pa
Mong dams. Numerous studies evaluating both sites have been conducted over the past decade as the
governments involved have tried to reconcile costs and benefits of the two locations. An EMergy analysis of
both dams was conducted to lend additional insight and to provide a practical demonstration of the EMergy
analysis technique. To complete the analysis of the proposed dams, it was necessary to evaluate the EMergy in
concrete and the EMergy value of rice. These analyses are given as appendices. Both "high" energy and "low"
energy rice were evaluated, and an average of the two systems used in the analysis of the costs and benefits of
the two dams.
An overview diagram of the proposed dam on the Mekong (Figure 8) shows that the main loss from the
proposed dam is the loss of area for agricultural production and the displacement of rural households. The
primary benefits are electricity generation for use in urban and rural households and manufacturing and water
for irrigation.
EMergy analyses of both dams (Tables 4 and 5) include the potential dam benefits (electricity, aquatic
productivity, and irrigation supporting farm production) and costs, including: operation and maintenance, the























































Figure 8. Energy diagram of relationships been urban and rural populations and he proposed hydroelectric dams on the Mekong River.
Figure 8. Energy diagram of relationships between urban and rural populations and the proposed hydroelectric dams on the Mekong River.












EMergy Evaluation of Low Pa Mong Dam and Irrigation.


Transformity Solar
Note* Item Raw Units (sej/unit) EMergy
(E18 sej/yr)


1. River Geopotential

EMERGY BENEFITS

2. Electricity
3. Aquatic Product
4. Irrigation (Ag.)


5.68E+16.5


3.62E+16 J
9.30E+14 J
1.15E+11 g


23564


1338.5


159000
440
9.70E+08


5755.8
0.4
112.1


5868.3


Total

EMERGY COSTS


Operation and Maintenance
Concrete
Steel
Machinery
Services
Ag. Prod. (Rice)
Ag. Prod. (Maize)
Resettlement
Irrigation (Services)
Social Disruption
Sediments


2.04E+07 $
1.35E+11 g
2.31E+08 g
6.66E+08 g
3.78E+07 $
1.23E+11 g
7.42E+14 J
4.00E+06 $
4.80E+06 $
2.56E+04 p/yr
5.91E+16 J


Total
58.7E20 12.3
BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT SEDIMENT: .E =
4.8E20 1


BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH SEDIMENT:


58.7E20 1.39
42.4E20 1


* References and calculations are found in footnotes in Appendix C.


3.46E+12
7.00E +07
1.80E+09
6.70E+09
3.46E+12
9.70E+08
4.75E+04
3.46E + 12
3.46E + 12
2.98E+ 15
6.30E+04


70.6
9.5
0.4
4.5
130.8
119.3
35.2
13.7
16.6
76.2
3759.6

4236.4


Table 4.












EMergy Evaluation of Upper Chiang Khan Dam.


Transformity Solar EMergy
Note Item Raw Units (sej/unit) (E18 sej/yr)


1. River Geopotential

EMERGY BENEFITS


Electricity
Aquatic Product
Irrigation (Ag.)


5.19E+16 J


3.20E+ 16 J
6.10E+14 J
3.68E+10 g


23564


159000
440
9.7E+08


1222.1


5088.0
0.3
35.7

5124.0


Total

EMERGY COSTS


Operation and Maintenance
Concrete
Steel
Machinery
Services
Ag. Prod. (Rice)
Ag. Prod. (Maize)
Resettlement
Irrigation (Services)
Social Disruption
Sediments


7.40E+06 $
1.10E+11 g
1.19E+08 g
4.16E+08 g
2.770E+07 $
2.30E+09 g
1.14E+15 J
2.63E+06 $
1.54E+06 $
1.68E+04 p/yr
5.65E + 16 J


Total


BENEFIT COST RATIO WITHOUT SEDIMENTS:


BENEFIT COST RATIO WITH SEDIMENTS:


* References and calculations are found in footnotes in Appendix C.


3.46E+12
7.00E+07
1.80E+09
6.70E+09
3.46E + 12
9.70E+08
4.75E+04
3.46E + 12
3.46E + 12
2.98E+15
6.30E+04


25.6
7.7
.3
2.8
95.8
2.2
54.2
9.1
5.3
50.1
3559.5

3812.6


51.24E20
2.53E20

51.24E20
38.12E20


20.3
1

1.34
1


Table 5.












direct costs of dam and irrigation system construction, and losses of agricultural productivity, as well as losses
associated with human population resettlement and social disruption. Also included is the loss of river
sediments (these are treated separately in the analysis of benefits and costs). The dam is assumed to have a 50-
year life span, thus construction costs were divided by 50 to present data on a yearly basis. The analysis
indicates that electricity production, by far, is the major EMergy benefit of dam construction. Irrigation and, to
a much lesser extent, aquatic productivity are relatively unimportant. The analysis assumes that irrigation has
the effect of doubling the annual yield of crops through dry season irrigation. Irrigation has a very high
benefit/cost ratio but its inclusion in the development project seems not to be important in determining the net
EMergy of the project, since the EMergy value of electricity produced is more than an order of magnitude
greater than the expected agricultural production. The most significant costs associated with the dam
construction are services (the dollar project costs) followed by lost agricultural production. The lost agricultural
production is significant but is nearly than made up for with increased production resulting from irrigation of
other lands. Social disruption is the third largest cost. Overall, both dams have positive EMergy benefit/cost
ratios. When sediments are not included, the Upper Chiang Khan option has a better ratio (20.3/1) than the
Low Pa Mong option (12.3/1). While electrical production is relatively similar between the two sites, costs at
the Upper Chiang Khan site are proportionately lower.
The EMergy analysis suggests that, in either case, the development of irrigation is necessary to offset
losses of agricultural production resulting from inundation. Development of irrigation schemes and
hydroelectric potential may cause increased population density near the dam sites which could reverse some out
migration trends and alleviate some of the potential problems associated with population resettlement. However,
increased population pressure and resulting soil erosion could easily reduce either of the dam's useful life span
which is one of the single most critical factors affecting success of either of the proposed dams.
Figure 9 summarizes the EMergy evaluations and policy options related to the proposed dams. The
Low Pa Mong option is illustrated in the top portion of the figure and the Upper Chiang Khan in the lower
portion. Two EMergy benefit cost ratio and the environmental loading ratio are given for each dam. The
EMergy benefit cost ratio without sediments is derived from the diagram by dividing P1 by F2, and is 12.3/1
and 20.3/1 for Low Pa Mong and Upper Chiang Khan dams, respectively. If sediments are included as a cost,
the EMergy benefit cost ratio is calculated by dividing N, + F2 by the yield (P,),. Under these conditions, the
EMergy benefit cost ratio is 1.41 and 1.31 for Low Pa Mong and Upper Chiang Khan dams, respectively. The
environmental loading ratio for each dam can be determined by dividing N1 + F2 by I (the inflow of
Environmental Resources). The Environmental Loading Ratio of the Upper Chiang Khan and Low Pa Mong
were 3.1/1 and 3.2/1, respectively. These ratios are relatively larger than the corresponding ratio for Thailand
(1.0/1, see Table 3), indicating that, on the average, they place a larger "load" on the environment. This is to
be expected since they are facilities that produce concentrated economic resources.
















SEDIMEN I B/C without sediments
=12.3/1
'1 658.7 6 PA
1 / \ IRRIGATION
B/C with sediments
3A^ =1.4/1

\ ORIGINAL
\. AGRICULTUREI 1.5 B/C original system
I USE TO BE I =3.2/1
DIVERTED J

Env. loading ratio
Flows = E20sej / =3.2/1




UPPER CHANG KHAN
FROM MAIN
ECONOMY
F1 0.19._ FF
SEDIMENT .~/. F2 25- B/C without sediments
=20.3/1
-36- DAM & 51.2
N P1
1 IRRIGATION
IRR N B/C with sediments
S \ [" -=1.3/1

/ r ORIGINAL 1
\.JGRICULTURd__ 0.56 p B/C original system
I USE TO BE I =2.9/1
I DIVERTED


Flows E20el Env. loading ratio
=3.1/1


37





Summary diagrams of the EMergy analysis of the proposed Low Pa.Mong (top) and Upper
Chiang Khan dam sites.


Figure 9.










31

The diagram can be used to evaluate the proposed projects against the original system that will be
diverted (lost) should either of the dams be built. In this case, the total production (P2) from the original
systems is considerably smaller than the production resulting from the dams. Comparison of the yield ratios
(also called benefit/cost ratio in this study) of the new system versus the original system reveals that, in both
cases, if sediments are included in the evaluation, the original system has a higher yield ratio than the new (Low
Pa Mong = 3.2/1 versus 1.4/1; and Upper Chiang Khan = 2.9/1 versus 1.3/1).












DISCUSSION


Country Overview


The EMergy analysis is indicative of the transitional state of Thailand's economy. Thailand's
EMergy/$ ratio is near the world average indicating its position at the boundary between developed and less
developed countries. Yet, its EMergy/person ratio of 2.98 E+15 sej/person is relatively low. India's ratio is
1.0 E+15 sej/person and the United States is 29 E+15 sej/person (Odum 1987). This may represent an
abundant population in relationship to resources. The country has an agricultural base but has the potential for
increased production of natural gas and hydroelectricity. Of great environmental concern is the rate of top soil
loss that is nearly equal to natural gas or oil production (Table 2). Since wood products are being imported in
large quantities it would seem appropriate to reconvert some land presently being utilized in agriculture and
livestock to forestry in order to satisfy future wood production needs. This would, in turn, reduce top soil
losses and pesticide use which appears to be in excess of that required. Increased production of hydroelectricity
may be able to reduce the present demand of fuelwood consumption. Steel and plastic consumption may be
needed in the development of infrastructure such as large buildings and roads and consumer goods (i.e.,
appliances and vehicles). These developments may, at present, be the restraint which will determine Thailand's
transition to a developed nation. Thailand presently has a net EMergy loss from its trade despite a small deficit
in its balance of payments (TTM 1987) due, in part, to the fact that much value is exported in agricultural and
fishery products. However, the imbalance is not the result of exports of raw materials (which make up only
about 2% of the total exports).
Analysis of the economies of other nations has led to a broad classification of national economies based
on their imports and exports: "consumer" nations and "provider" nations. If a nation imports more EMergy
than it exports, it is a "consumer" nation; on the other hand, it if exports more than it imports, it is considered
a "provider" nation. Further, provider nations can be classed based on the makeup of their exports. Nations
whose exports are composed largely of raw resources (i.e., greater than 50%) are considered resource
providers, while those whose exports are composed mostly of upgraded, intermediate, or finished products are
considered commodity providers. The fact that Thailand exports more than it imports (almost 2/1) and that
98% of its exports are finished or intermediate products suggests that it is a commodity provider. Its relatively
low EMergy per capital, 2.98 E15 sej/capita, (compared to consumer nations which are greater than 20 E15
sej/capita) tends to confirm the fact that the negative EMergy balance between imports and exports tends to
lower overall EMergy availability within the economy.












Mekong Dam Proposal


Sediments (and their accompanying organic matter and nutrients) brought from the upper reaches of the
Mekong are a major input to the economy of Thailand when they are allowed to deposit freely in floodplain and
estuarine systems. Stockpiled and buried in one location their effect in stimulating productivity is diminished,
since to be a source, an energy must be used. The Emergy analysis of the two proposed dam sites was
calculated in two different ways: with and without sediments as an environmental "cost". Sediment loss can be
considered a negative impact resulting from hydroelectric development since their deposition and burial in the
reservoir precludes their deposition in downstream locations. Thus, their input to downstream wetlands,
agricultural lands, and estuarine systems is curtailed, and presumably productivity of these systems lowered.
When they are included in the EMergy analysis, the results are quite different. The EMergy B/C ratio with and
without sediments for each of the dams was 1.4/1 and 12.3/1 (Low Pa Mong) and 1.3/1 and 20.3/1 (Upper
Chiang Kahn). The difference illustrates the value of sediments. In both cases, their value is equal to nearly
2/3's of the electricity produced (Tables 4 and 5).
It can be argued that the burial of sediments within the reservoir is an EMergy cost from two
perspectives. First, burial "locks" them up, removing them from the system (i.e., as a driving energy), and
second, the net effect of trapping sediments at one location is often increased erosion downstream, since
depositional and erosional forces are no longer in balance. Thus a measure of the loss of soils eroded from
downstream locations might be the volume trapped. Add to this the potential for increased erosion and
scouring of the river channel resulting from increased velocities and the net effect may be greater soil loss.
Erosion at the Pa Mong site was suggested to extend for a length of 200 km downstream (IMC..., 1987), at an
estimated cost of $200 million (although no quantitative evaluation of actual erosion rates or magnitude was
attempted). Floodplain vegetation, and near river agriculture will be seriously affected by the loss. In light of
the potential for increased erosion, the estimates of environmental costs using sediments trapped, may be an
underestimate of the actual costs to the economy.
If both dams are built as a cascade, the inclusion of sediments as an environmental cost would be
halved since sediments trapped in one location could not be doubled counted in the second location. Summing
EMergy costs and benefits for both dams (but including only the sediments of the Pa Mong site) gives an
overall EMergy benefit/cost ratio of 2.45/1.
Yield ratios for primary energy sources (i.e., oil or natural gas), calculated in previous studies have
been between 6/1 and 10/1. Thus, to compete, alternative primary sources of energy should have comparable
yields. However a yield ratio calculated as electricity cannot be compared directly with primary energies, since
electricity is a higher quality energy that includes the necessary second law losses associated with the conversion
from fuels. A net yield ratio, as electricity, of 2.45/1 for a hydroelectric facility can be expressed in equivalent










38

Tera International Company (TIC). 1987. Thai Trade Monitor 1987-1988. Tera International Co. (TIC),
Bangkok, Thailand.


Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). 1987. Thailand natural resource profile. Thailand
Development Research Institute, Bangkok, Thailand.


von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1968. General System Theory. New York: George Braziller Co.


United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). 1988. Sustainable Development of Natural Resources. New
York: United Nations Environmental Program.






































APPENDIX A


EMergy Evaluation of Rice










40


EMergy Analysis of Rice
Two types of rice were analyzed, one high and one low energy rice production. The difference being
that high energy rice utilized greater inputs of fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery. Generalized diagrams
of high and low intensity rice production are given in Figure A-1 and summarized in Tables A-1 and A-2. Rain
and manure were the largest inputs for low energy rice while rain, fuel and phosphorus fertilizers were
important for high energy rice. Low energy rice had a lower yield and investment than high energy rice. The
yield/investment ratio for low energy rice and for high energy rice were 1.9 and 1.5, respectively (Figure A-2).
Human labor is nearly the same for both methods. The dam EMergy analysis used the average of the high and
low energy transformities.


































































Figure A-1. Systems diagram of high energy rice (top) and low energy rice (bottom) cultivation in
Thailand.












EMergy Evaluation of Thailand LOW Energy Rice (1 ha).


Raw Units
Item (unitslyr)


Note


Transformity
(sej/unit)


Solar EMergy
(E12 sej/yr)


1 Sunlight 3.90E + 13 J 1 39.0
2 Water Use (chemical potential) 4.30E+10 J 15444 760.0
3 Seeds 2.03E+04 g 9.00E+08 182.7
4 Manure 8.35E+08 J 3.00E+05 250.0
5 Human Labor 1.30E+09 J 6.50E+05 845.0
6 Animal Work 3.60E+07 J 1.46E+05 5.3

7 Rice Yield (grams) 2.31E+06 g 9.00E+08 2082
Rice Yield (joules) 4.36E+10 J 4.77E+04 2082


Footnotes to Table A-1

1 SOLAR ENERGY:
Land Area
Insolation
Albedo

Energy(J)


= 1.00E+04 m2
= 1.33E+02 kcal/cm^2/y (Globe Data Files, 1989)
= 0.30 (% given as decimal)

= (area)*(avg insolation)*(l-albedo)
= (_ m2)*(_ Cal/cm^2/y)*(E + 04cm^2/mA2)*
(1-0.30)*(4186J/kcal)
= 3.90E+13


2 RAIN, CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY:
Land Area = 1.00E+04 mA2
Water Use = 1.0 m/yr.
Energy (J) = (area)(rainfall)(Gibbs no.)
= (__ m2)*(__m)*(1000kg/m^3)*(4.94E+03J/kg)
= 4.3E+10


3 SEEDS:
Consumption


4 MANURE:
Consumption

Energy (J)


5 HUMAN LABOR:
Labor


Energy (J)


= 2.03E+01 Kg
= 2.03E+04 g


(Samootsakom, 1976)


= 1.00E+02 Kg (Kremer, 1986) (half from forage)

= (_ Kg)/2*(1000 g/Kg)*(1.67E+04 J/g)
= 8.35E+08


= 5.65E+02 hrs.

= ( hrs)/(2000hrs/yr)*(4.6E +09J/person/yr)
= 1.30E+09


Table A-1.













6 ANIMAL WORK:
Labor

Energy (J)


7 RICE YIELD:
Yield (g)


Yield (J)


= 1.03E+02 hrs. (assume 1/2 of work is supported by forage)

= (_hrs)*(7.0E+05 J/hr)/2
= 3.6E+07


= 2.31E+03 Kg (Samootsakorn, 1976)
= 2.31E+06g

= (_ g)*(4.5Cal/g)*(4.186E+03 J/Cal)
= 4.36E+10











Table A-2. EMergy Evaluation of Thailand HIGH Energy Rice (1 Ha).


Raw Units Transformity Solar EMergy
Note Item (units/yr) (sej/unit) (E12 sej/yr)


1 Sunlight 3.90E+13 J 1 39.0
2 Water use (chemical potential) 2.77E+10 J 15444 760.0
3 Seeds 2.03E+04 g 1.04E+09 21.1
4 Fuel 5.06E+09 J 5.30E+04 268.0
5 Phosphorus 1.92E+07 J 5.62E+07 1080.0
6 Nitrogen 2.71E+07 J 1.69E+06 45.8
7 Potash 8.78E+06 J 2.62E+06 23.0
8 Pesticides 3.72E+06 J 1.97E+07 73.4
9 Machinery 2.01E+03 g 6.70E+09 13.5
10 Human Labor 1.10E+09 J 6.50E+05 715.0

11 Rice Yield (grams) 2.92E+06 g 1.04E+09 3038.4
Rice Yield (joules) 5.50E+10 J 5.51E+04 3038.4


Footnotes to Table A-2


1 SOLAR ENERGY:
Land Area
Insolation
Albedo

Energy(J)


= 1.00E+04 m^2
= 1.33E+02 kcal/cm^2/y (Globe Data Files, 1989)
= 0.30 (% given as decimal)

= (area)*(avg insolation)*(l-albedo)
= ( m^2)*(__Cal/cm^ 2/y)*(E+04cm^ 2/m^ 2)*
(1-0.30)*(4186J/kcal)
= 3.90E+13


2 RAIN, CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY:
Land Area = 1.00E+04 m^2
Water Use = 1.0 m/yr (Geertz, 1972)


Energy (J)


(area)(Evapotrans)(rainfall)(Gibbs no.)
( m ^ 2)*(_ m)*(1000kg/m^ 3)*(4.94E+03J/kg)
2.77E+10


3 SEEDS:
Consumption


4 OIL:
Consumption


Energy(J)


= 2.03E+01 Kg
= 2.03E+04 g


(Samootsakorn, 1976)


= 1.23E+02 liters (Samootsakorn, 1976)

= ( 1)*(9800 Cal/1)*(4187 J/Cal)
= 5.06E+09












5 PHOSPHORUS:
Consumption


Energy(J)


6 NITROGEN:
Consumption

Energy(J)


7 POTASH:
Consumption

Energy(J)


8 PESTICIDES:
Consumption

Energy(J)


9 MACHINERY:
Based on 7,000

Consumption

Energy (J)


10 HUMAN LABOR:
Labor

Energy (J)



11 RICE YIELD:
Yield


Yield (J)


= 2.50E+01 Kg P205 (Samootsakorn, 1976)
P is 146/66 of P205

= ( Kg)*(1E+3 g/Kg)*(146/66)*(348 J/g)
= 1.92E+07


= 1.25E+01 Kg as NH3 (Samootsakorn, 1976)

= ( Kg)*(1E+3 g/Kg)*(2.17E+3 J/g)
= 2.71E+07


= 1.25E+01 Kg as K (Samootsakorn, 1976)

= ( Kg)*(1E+3 g/Kg)*(702 J/g)
= 8.78E+06


= 3.94E-01 Kg (Samootsakorn, 1976)

= ( Kg)*(9.4E6J/kg)
= 3.72E+06


hours of useful life and weight of 1.7 MT

= 9.40E+00 hrs. (Samootsakorn, 1976)

= (__hrs)/7000*(1.5MT)*(1E6g/MT)
= 2.01E+03


= 4.90E+02 hrs. (Samootsakorn, 1976)

= ( hrs)/(2000hrs/yr)* (4.6E9J/person/yr)
= 1.10E+09



= 2.92E+03 Kg (Samootsakorn, 1976)
= 2.92E+06

S( g)*(4.5Cal/g)*4.186E3J/Cal)
= 5.50E+10













Labor 521
Work


760


Flows = E12 sej/yr


Flows = E12sej/yr


Figure A-2. Summary diagrams of low and high energy rice cultivation in Thailand (data from
Samootsakor 1976).


Low Energy
Rice






































APPENDIX B


EMergy Evaluation of Concrete










48


EMergy Analysis of Concrete
Concrete is formed from rock aggregate and cement (Figure B-l). Cement is formed primarily from calcium
carbonate deposits which are transported and manufactured through an energy intensive process. Electricity and
petroleum used in the firing and transportation are the main energy requirements and goods and services are
important as an EMergy contribution. Table B-1 summarizes the EMergy inputs and resulting EMergy for
aggregate and cement--the two main constituents of concrete. Since concrete is composed of 89 % aggregate and
11 % cement, the transformity is calculated as the weighted average. Concrete has a transformity of 7.0 E7
sej/g.









































































Figure B-1. Systems diagram of the processes including reef building that results in the making of cement.


r












Table B-1. EMERGY Evaluation of Concrete


Transformity Solar
Note Item Raw Units (sej/unit) Emergy


Concrete Aggregate (89 % by weight)

1 Mining & Transit 1.76E+02 J/g 53000 9.32E+06


Cement (11% by weight)

2 Reef Production 1.00E+00 g 6.69E+06 6.69E+06
3 Petroleum 4.65E+03 J/g 5.30E+04 2.46E+08
4 Electricity 1.25E+03 J/g 1.59E+05 1.98E+08

5 Goods and Services 7.70E-05 $/g 2.40E+ 12 1.85E+08

6 Total (cement only) 1.00E+00 g 6.33E+08 6.35E+08


Footnotes to Table B-1

1. Reference Fog & Nadkarni (1983)

2. Average Reef Production 1.0 KG/M2/YR Smith (1983) Sunlight 6.697E9 J/M2/YR

3. Reference Fog & Nadkami (1983)

4. Reference Fog & Nadkami (1983)

5. Uses the $ cost of cement in U.S. which is $50/646kg

6. Transformity for concrete is calculated as weighted average of aggregrate (89%) and cement (11%) and
is equal to 7.0 E+07sej/g.







































APPENDIX C


Footnotes to Tables 2, 4, and 5









Footnotes to Table 2

1 SOLAR ENERGY
Cont Shlf Area
Land Area
Insolation
Albedo

Energy (J)


= 2.27E+11 m2 (Globe Data Files 1989)
= 5.13E+11 m^2 (TDRI 1987)
= 1.33E+02 kcal/cm^2/y (Globe Data Files 1989)
= 0.30 (% given as decimal)

= (area incl shelf)*(avg insolation)*(l-albedo)
= (_m2)*(_Cal/cmA2/y)*(E +04cmA2/mA2)*(1-0.30)*(4186J/kcal)
= 2.88E+21


2. RAIN, CHEMICAL POTENTIAL ENERGY:
Land Area = 5.13E+11 m^2
Cont Shlf Area = 2.27E+11 m^2
Rain (land) = 1.56 m/yr (TDRI 1987)
Rain (shelf) = 1.50 m/yr (est. from TDRI 1987)
Evapotrans rate = 1.22 m/yr


Energy (land)



Energy (shelf) (J)


Total energy (J)


= (area)(Evapotrans)(rainfall)(Gibbs no.)
= (__m2)*(_m)(1000 kg/m^3)*(4.94E+03J/kg)
= 3.09+18

= (area of shelf)(Rainfall)(Gibbs no.)
= 1.68E+18

= 4.77E+18


3. RAIN, GEOPOTENTIAL ENERGY
Area = 5.14E+11 m2
Rainfall = 1.56 m
Avg Elev = 350 m
Runoff rate = 0.79 (1.0 ET)

Energy (J) = (area)(%runoff)(rainfall)(avg elevation)(gravity)
= (__m2)*(_m)*(1000 kg/mA3)*(_m)*(9.8m/s^2)
= 2.16E+18


4. WIND ENERGY:

Energy (J)

5. WAVE ENERGY:
Energy (J)

6. TIDAL ENERGY:
Cont Shlf Area
Avg Tide Range
Density
Tides/year

Energy (J)


= 2.38E+18 J/yr (Global Data Files 1988)


= 4.20E+17 J/yr (Global Data Files 1988


= 2.27E+11 mA2
= 0.33m
= 1.03E+03 kg/m^3 (Odum et al. 1983)
= 3.65E+02

= (shelf)(0.5)(tides/y)(mean tidal range)A2(density of seawater)(gravity)
= (__mA2) .5)0.5)*(_m)2*(_kg/m3)*(9.8m/s^2)
= 4.42E+16






Footnotes to Table 2 cont'd.


7. RIVER GEOPOTENTIAL (MEKONG)
Flow = 1.70E+04 m3/s
Elevation Change = 5.00E+01 m
Energy (J) = (flow)(elevation change)(gravity)(seconds/year)(water weight)(0.5 energy
available to Thailand)
= (_m^3/s)(_m)(9.8m/s^2)(1000 kg/m^3)(3. 1E7s/yr)(0.5)
= 1.31E+17

8. HYDROELECTRICITY:
Hydro. Prod. = 2.00E+03 MW/y (TDRI 1987)
Efficiency = 8.00E-01

Energy (J) = (_MW)*(eff)*(8760 hr/yr)*(100 kwh.MW)*(860 Cal/kwh)(4186 J/Cal)
= 5.05E+16

9. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION:
Ag. Prod. = 6.08E+07 MT (SRD 1986)

Energy (J) = (6.87 MT)*(1.06E+06 g/MT)*(3.5 Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 9.96E+17


10. LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION:
Livestock Production = 3.75E+06 MT (SRD 1986)


Energy (J)


= (3.75E6 MT)*(E+06 g/MT)*(4Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 6.28E+16


11. FISHERIES PRODUCTION:
Fish Catch = 2.20E+06 MT (TDRI 1987)

Energy (J) = (2.2E+06 MT)*(1E+06 g/MT)*(4 Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)(% protein)
= 3.68E+16

12. FUELWOOD PRODUCTION:
Fuelwood Production = 1.24E+06 m3/y (SRD 1986)


Energy (J)


= (1.24E6 m^3/yr)*(.5E6 g/m^3)*(3.6 Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 9.35E+15 (3.72E17J) Globe File


13. FOREST EXTRACTION:
Harvest = 1.95E+06 m^3 (SRD 1986)

Energy (J) = (1.95E+06 m^3)(0.5E+06 g/m^3)(3.6 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal)
= 1.47E+16

14. NATURAL GAS:
= 1.1E+6 J/1000ft3 EIA/DOE 1983
Consumption = 8.55E+10 Ft3 (TDRI 1987)


Energy (J)


15. OIL:
Consumption


Energy (J)


= (8.55E10 ft^3)*(l.lE6j/1000 ft3)
= 9.41E+16


= 1.29E+07 BBL (TDRI 1987)

= (1.29E7 BBL)*(42 gal/BBL)*(3.8 l/gal)*(9800 Cal/1)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 8.42E+16






Footnotes to Table 2 cont'd.

16. LIGNITE:
Consumption

Energy (J)


17. GYPSUM:
Consumption

Energy (g)


18. LIMESTONE:
Consumption

Energy (g)


19. TOPSOIL:
Soil loss

Energy (J)



20. OIL:
Imports

Energy (J)


21. STEEL:
Imports

Energy (J)


22. PHOSPHOROUS:
Imports
% P by atmc wt.
% PO4 in fert.

Energy (J)


23. NITROGEN:
Imports
% N by atmc wt
%NH3 in fert

Energy (J)


= 5.18E+06 MT (TDRI 1987)

= (5.18E6 MT)*(1E3 kg/MT)*(2500 Cal/kg)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 5.42E+16


= 3.40E+05 MT (TDRI 1987)

= (3.4E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
= 3.40E+11


= 8.70E+06 MT (TDRI 1987)

= (8.7E6 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
= 8.70E+12


= 6.86E+07 MT/y (TDRI 1987 and Pantulu 1986)

= 6.86E07 MT/yr)*(1E6 gm/MT)*(0.07 gm OM/gm sed)*(3.6 Cal/g)*(4186
J/Cal)
= 7.24E+16


= 1.22E+09 L (NSO 1986)

= (1.22E9 1)*(41E6 J/l)
= 5.00E+16


= 5.84E+05 MT (NSO 1986)

= (5.85E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
= 5.84E+11


= 7.22E+05 MT (NSO 1986)
= 3.30E-01
= 1.00E-01

= (7.22E5 MT)*(.33)*(.1)*(1E+6 g/MT)*(348 J/g)
= 8.29E+12


= 7.22E+05 MT (NSO 1986)
= 8.20E-01
= 1.00E-01

= (7.22E5 MT)*(.82)*(.1)*(1E+6 g/MT)*(2.17E+3 J/g)
= 1.28E+14







Footnotes to Table 2 cont'd.

24. POTASH:
Imports
% K by atme wt
% KCL in fert

Energy (J)


25. FOODS:
Imports


Energy (J)


26. PLASTICS:
Imports

Energy (J)


27. PESTICIDES:
Imports


Energy (J)


28. WOOD, PAPER, TEXTILES:
Imports =

Energy (J) = (


= 3.07E+05 (NSO 1986)
= 4.00E-01
= 1.00E-01

= (3.07E5 MT)*(.4)*(. 1)*(1E+6 g/MT)*(702 J/g)
= 8.63E+12


= 4.79E+05 MT (NSO 1986)

= (1E6 g/MT)*(15.1E3 J/g)
= 7.24E+15


= 1.96E+03 MT (NSO 1986)

= (1.9E3 kg/MT)*(1000 Kg/MT)*(9.4E6 J/kg)
= 1.84E+13


= 1.96E+04 MT (NSO 1986)


= (1E3 kg/MT)*(9.4E6 J/kg)
= 1.85E+14


5.93E+05 MT (NSO 1986)

6.93E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)*(15E3 J/g)
.04E+ 16


29. MACHINERY, TRANSPORTATION, EQUIPMENT:


Imports:
Mach. & Equip
Trans. Equip.
Total. Wt. (g)


30. SERVICES:
Dollar Value

31. NET MIGRATION:
Net Migration

32. CASH CROPS:
Exports: (Bot 1987)
Rice
Maize
Cassava
Sugar Cane
TOTAL
Energy (J)


= 3.75E+05 MT (Tera Int. 1987

= (3.75E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
= 3.75E+11


= 1.06E+10$US (NSO 1986)


= -9.33E+04


4.50E+06 MT Fruit = 1.86E+05 MT
3.10E+06 MT Molasses = 7.74E+05 MT
6.60E+06 MT Rubber = 5.91E+05 MT
1.20E+06 MT
1.70E+07
1.7E7 MT)*(1E+06 g/MT)*(3.5 Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)
2.48E+17






Footnotes to Table 2 cont'd.


33. FISHERY PRODUCTION:
Exports = 3.39E+05 MT (BOT 1987)

Energy (J) = (3.39E5 MT)(1E+06 g/MT)(4 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal)
= 5.68E+15

34. FOREST PRODUCTS:
Exports: (AADPC 1984)
Logs = 4.00E+03 m^3
Lumber = 1.40E+04 m^3
Misc. Wd. Prod. = 1.52E+05 m^3


Energy (J)


= (1.7E+05 m^3)0.5E+06 g/m^3)(3.6 Cal/g)(4186 J/Cal)
= 1.28E+15


35. FLUORITE:
Exports

Energy (g)


36. GYPSUM:
Exports


Energy (g)


37. LIMESTONE:
Exports
Energy (g)


38. BARITE:
Exports

Energy (g)


39. SERVICES IN EXPORTS:
Value (Baht)
Dollar Value =


40. TOURISM SERVICES:
Value (Baht)
Dollar Value


= 2.04E+05 MT (TDRI 1987)

= (2.04E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
= 2.04E+11


= 8.70E+05 MT (TDRI 1987)


S(8.7E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
8.7E+11


1.10E+06 MT (TDRI 1987)
(1.1E6 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
1.10E+12


2.13E+05 MT (TDRI 1987

(2.13E5 MT)*(1E6 g/MT)
=2.13E+11


1.93E+11B (TDRI 1987)
(1.93E11 Baht)/(27 Baht/$US)
S7.15E+09


= 2.73E+10 (SRD 1986
= (2.7E10 Baht)/(27 Baht/Dollar)
= 1.0E+09









Footnotes to Table 4

1. RIVER GEOPOTENTIAL
Avg. Discharge = 4600 m3/s (Pantulu, 1986)
Energy (J) = (4600 m3/s)*(31.5 E6 s/yr)*(1.0 E3 kg/m3)*(9.8m/s2)*(40 m)
= 5.68 E16 J/yr

2. ELECTRICITY (assumes installed capacity = 2250 MW)
Avg. power = 1.01 E4 GWh/yr (Table 4, IMC...,1987)
Energy (j) = (1.01E4 GWh)*(3.6 E12j/GWh)
= 3.62 E16J

3. AQUATIC PRODUCTIVITY
Reservoir area = 6.09 E2 km2
Productivity = 1gC/m2/day
Energy (j) = (lgc/m2/day)*(2.5 gOM/gC)*(1674j/gOM)*(365 day/yr)*(6.09 E2
Km2)*(1. E6 m2/Km2)
= 9.3 E14J/yr

4. IRRIGATION (assumes 2 crops per year and half yield attributable to irrigation)
Irrigated area = 4.0 E4 ha (IMC.... 1987)
Rice Yield = 5.75 E3 kg/ha
Tot. yield = (5.75 E3 kg/ha)*(.5)*(1.0 E3 g/kg)*(4.0 E4 ha)
= 1.15Ell g

5. OPERATION and MAINTENANCE (assumes O & M costs includes downstream erosion control at)


Yearly US $ costs
Erosion costs
Tot. $ costs


6. CONCRETE
Volume
Tot. weight


7. STEEL
Weight
Tot. Weight


8. MACHINERY
Weight
Tot. Weight


9. CONSTRUCTION
US dollar costs
Tot. $ costs


$10.4 E6 (IMC...,1987)
$ 10 E6/ yr (assume 1/2 estimated costs for first 10 years
$20.4 E6/yr


(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 2.7 E 6 m3 (estimate)
= (2.7 E6 m3)*(2.5 E6 g/m3)/(50 yrs)
= 1.35 E 11 g

(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 1.16 E4 ton (estimate)
= (1.16 E4 ton)*(1.0E6 g/ton)/(50 yrs)
= 2.31 E8 g

(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 3.33 E4 ton (estimate)
= (3.33 E4 ton)*(1.0E6 g/ton)/(50 yrs)
= 6.66 E8 g

SERVICES (assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= $1.89 E9 (Table 5, IMC...,1987)
= (1.89 E9)/(50 yrs)
= $3.78 E7/yr


10. LOST AG. PRODUCTION (rice) (assumes 70% of agricultural land in rice)
Agricultural area = 60900 ha. (based on reservoir area)
Yield = 2.88 E3 kg/ha.
Tot. Yield = (2.88 E3 kg/ha)*(1.0 E3 g/kg)*(60900 ha)*(0.70)
= 1.23 E 11 g







Footnotes to Table 4 continued


11. LOST AG. PRODUCTION (maize) (assumes 30% of agricultural land in maize)


Agricultural area
Yield
Energy/g
Energy (J)


12. RESETTLEMENT
Number of People
per capital $ costs
Tot. Costs


13. IRRIGATION (services)
US dollar costs
Area
Tot. $ costs


14. SOCIAL DISRUPTION

Number of people
Emergy per capital

Ppl yrs lost


15. SEDIMENTS
Volume
Energy (J)


= 60900 ha. (based on reservoir area)
= 2.43 E3 kg/ha.
= 16744 J/g
= (2.43 E3 kg/ha)*(1.0 E3 g/kg)*(60900 ha)*(0.30)*(16744 J/g)
= 7.42 E14 J

(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 4.26 E4 people (Table 4, IMC.... 1987)
= $4.7E3 (IMC...,1987)
= (4.26 E4 people)*($4.7 E3)/(50 yrs)
= $4.0 E6


= $6.0 E3/ ha. (IMC...,1987)
= 4.0 E4 ha (IMC...,1987)
= ($6.0 E3/ha)*(4.0 E4 ha)/(50 yrs)
= $4.8 E6

(assume social disruption is equal to the emergy value the population over a 30
year generation)
= 4.26 E4 people (Table 4, IMC.... 1987)
= 2.98 E15 sej/yr (Table 3, this report)

= (4.26 E4)*(30 years)/(50 years)
= 2.56 E4 people years


= 132 E6 m3/yr (SMEC, 1979)
= (132 E6 m3)*(2.0 E6 g/m3)*(1 % OM)*(5.4 Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 5.97 E16 J









Footnotes to Table 5

1. RIVER GEOPOTENTIAL
Avg. Discharge = 4200 m3/s (estimate based on Pantulu, 1986)
Energy (J) = (4200 m3/s)*(31.5 E6 s/yr)*(1.0 E3 kg/m3)*(9.8m/s2)*(40 m)
= 5.19 E16J/yr


2. ELECTRICITY
Avg. power
Energy (j)


(assumes installed capacity = 1500 MW)
= 8.9 E3 GWh/yr (Mekong Secretariat, 1989)
= (8.9 E3 GWh)*(3.6 E12 j/GWh)
= 3.2 E16J


3. AQUATIC PRODUCTIVITY
Reservoir area = 4.0 E2 km2 (Mekong Secretariat, 1989)
Productivity = lgC/m2/day
Energy (j) = (lgc/m2/day)*(2.5 gOM/gC)*(1674j/gOM)*(365 day/yr)*(4.0 E2 Km2)*(1.0
E6 m2/Km2)
= 6.1 E14J/yr


4. IRRIGATION
Irrigated area
Rice Yield
Tot. yield


(assumes 2 crops per year and half yield attributable to irrigation)
= 1.28 E4 ha (Mekong Secretariat, 1989)
= 5.75 E3 kg/ha
= (5.75 E3 kg/ha)*(.5)*(1.0 E3 g/kg)*(1.28 E4 ha)
= 3.68 E10 g


5. OPERATION and MAINTENANCE
Yearly US $ costs = $7.4 E6 (IMC...,1987)


Tot. $ costs


= $7.4E6/yr


6. CONCRETE
Volume
Tot. weight


7. STEEL
Weight
Tot. Weight


8. MACHINERY
Weight
Tot. Weight


9. CONSTRUCTION
US dollar costs
Tot. $ costs


(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 2.2 E 6 m3 (estimate)
= (2.2 E6 m)*(2.5 E6 g/m)/(50 yrs)
= 1.1E llg

(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 9.56 E3 ton (estimate)
= (9.56 E3 ton)*(1.0E6 g/ton)/(50 yrs)
= 1.91 E8 g

(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 2.08 E4 ton (estimate)
= (2.08 E4 ton)*(1.0E6 g/ton)/(50 yrs)
= 4.16 E8 g

SERVICES (assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= $1.385 E9 (Table 15, IMC...,1987)
= (1.385 E9)/(50 yrs)
= $2.77 E7/yr


10. LOST AG. PRODUCTION (rice) (assumes 30% of agricultural land in rice)
Agricultural area = 4.0E4 ha. (based on reservoir area)
Yield = 2.88 E3 kg/ha.
Tot. Yield = (2.88 E3 kg/ha)*(1.0 E3 g/kg)*(4.0E4 ha)*(0.30)
= 2.3 E 9 g







Footnotes to Table 5 continued


11. LOST AG. PRODUCTION (maize) (assumes 70% of agricultural land in maize)
Agricultural area = 4.0E4 ha (based on reservoir area)
Yield = 2.43 E3 kg/ha.
Energy/g = 16744 J/g
Energy (J) = (2.43 E3 kg/ha)*(1.0 E3 g/kg)*(4.0E4 ha)*(0.70)*(16744 J/g)
= 1.14E15J


12. RESETTLEMENT
Number of People
per capital $ costs
Tot. Costs


13. IRRIGATION (services)
US dollar costs
Area
Tot. $ costs


14. SOCIAL DISRUPTION

Number of people
Emergy per capital

Ppl yrs lost


15. SEDIMENTS
Volume
Energy (J)


(assumes a useful dam life = 50 years)
= 2.8 E4 people (IMC...,1987)
= $4.7 E3 (IMC.... 1987)
= (2.8 E4 people)*($4.7 E3)/(50 yrs)
= $2.63 E6


= $6.0 E3/ ha. (IMC...,1987)
= 1.28 E4 ha (IMC...,1987)
= ($6.0 E3/ha)*(1.28 E4 ha)/(50 yrs)
= $1.54 E6

(assume social disruption is equal to the emergy value the population over a 30-
year generation)
= 2.8 E4 people (IMC...,1987)
= 2.98 E15 sej/yr (Table 3, this report)

= (2.8 E4)*(30 years)/(50 years)
= 1.68 E4 people years


= 125 E6 m3/yr (SMEC, 1979)
= (125 E6 m3)*(2.0 E6 g/m3)*(1% OM)*(5.4 Cal/g)*(4186 J/Cal)
= 5.65 E16 J




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs