Environmental Accounting 

Using Emergy:

Evaluation of the State of 

West Virginia

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency
Environmental Accounting Using

Emergy: Evaluation of the State

of West Virginia

Daniel E. Campbell

 Sherry L. Brandt-Williams

USEPA, Office of Research and Development

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI 02882

Maria E. A. Meisch

Dept. Environmental Engineering Sciences

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, NC

EPA/600/R-05/006

AED-03-104

March 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Research and Development

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory

Atlantic Ecology Division

Narragansett, RI
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

ii

NOTICE

The research described in this report has been funded wholly (or in part) by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. This report is contribution number AED-03-104 of the Atlantic Ecology Division,

National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.

This document has been subjected to the USEPA's peer review process and has been approved for

publication. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or a

recommendation for use.

ABSTRACT

Historically, questions related to environmental policy have been difficult to solve, because

solutions depend on accurately balancing the needs of both human and natural systems. In addition,

there has been no good way to express the socioeconomic and environmental effects of policies in

common terms. The USEPA has recognized that a knowledge gap exists in our ability to assess the

effects of environmental policies using a comprehensive, integrated approach. Assessment methods that

can bridge this gap are needed to address complex issues of environmental policy. Based on past studies,

environmental accounting using emergy was identified as a method that had been used by some scientists

to bridge the gap. This USEPA Project Report provides a guide to Emergy Analysis methods with

particular emphasis on those methods used to characterize a state within the larger context of its region

and the nation. An emergy evaluation of the State of West Virginia was performed as a case study to

illustrate the method. The results of the West Virginia case study provided indices that were used to

elucidate several questions that environmental managers asked about this state, when considering policy

needs for the state as a whole. Assessment methods for quantifying imports and exports to and from

states within the United States were further developed in this study. The Emergy Analysis of West

Virginia documented the environmental and economic resource base for the state in common terms (i.e.

solar emjoules) and the indicators derived from the emergy evaluation were used to examine questions of

self-sufficiency, sustainability, the balance of exchange, and quality of life in the state as a whole. The

results of this study may be useful to planners and managers who must perform analyses or recommend

policy for the State of West Virginia. Also, scientists who need large scale indicators for the State as a

context for studies focused on smaller scale systems (watersheds, counties, or industries) may find the

results of this study useful. In addition, the general methods described here can be used to analyze other

states within the United States and they may also serve as a starting point for emergy studies of large

watersheds and regions.

Keywords: emergy methods, environmental accounting, West Virginia, renewable resources,

nonrenewable resources, sustainability, quality of life, import-export balance
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have contributed to the work presented here. We are most grateful to the Canaan

Valley Institute (CVI)-USEPA work group that met many times to discuss this research and especially

to Tom DeMoss, Randy Pomponio, Paul Kinder, and Pat Bradley, for input on the management

questions. Barbara Brown and Wayne Munns participated in work groups and provided oversight of the

project carried out at the Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) of the National Health and Environmental

Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Office of Research and Development, USEPA. Canaan Valley

Institute scientists, George Constanz, Ron Preston, Ryan Gaujot and Jennifer Newland and managers

Paul Kinder, Bekki Leigh, and Kiena Smith provided information and support for this work. The first

version of the Emergy Analysis of West Virginia was carried out by Maria Meisch under the guidance

of Dan Campbell, while she was serving as an Ecological Careers Organization intern. Calculations

using GIS methods were made by Doug McGovern, Computer Science Corporation (CSC). The

manuscript was reviewed by Gerald Pesch of AED, Mark Brown of the University of Florida, David

Tilley of the University of Maryland, and Carl Hershner of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Patricia DeCastro of CSC was responsible for document layout and design.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

iv

PREFACE

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This USEPA Project Report has two purposes.

The first purpose is to provide, as a peer-reviewed

EPA report, a guide to Emergy Analysis methods

with particular emphasis on those methods used to

characterize a state within the larger context of its

region and the nation. The second purpose is to

present the results of a case study, an emergy

evaluation of the State of West Virginia, and to

examine the efficacy of this study’s results in

answering several questions that environmental

managers asked about this state, when considering

policy needs at the level of the state as a whole.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT

Historically, questions related to environmental

policy have been difficult to solve, because solutions

depend on accurately balancing the needs of both

human and natural systems and there has been no

good way to express the socioeconomic and

environmental effects of policies in common terms.

The USEPA has recognized that this knowledge gap

exists in our ability to assess the effects of

environmental policies using a comprehensive,

integrated approach. Assessment methods that can

bridge this gap are needed to address complex issues

of environmental policy. Based on past studies,

environmental accounting using emergy was

identified as a method that had been used by

scientists to bridge the gap. In September of 2001 a

joint project between the Canaan Valley Institute

(CVI), a private nonprofit corporation headquartered

in Thomas, WV and the USEPA’s Office of Research

and Development (ORD) was begun to assess the

environmental, social, and economic system in West

Virginia and to evaluate the integrated effects of

environmental policies on multiple scales. In

connection with this project, an emergy analysis of

West Virginia was performed to give an overview of

the state and to supply key indices needed for the

analysis of watershed restoration in smaller scale

systems of the state. The emergy analysis shown

here is a product of this collaboration.

Economists often struggle to understand the

concept of emergy and why we go to so much trouble

to document economic and ecological flows and

storages in these terms. The practical answer is that

the accounts for environmental systems cannot be

kept in dollars alone, because environmental systems

are based on the work of both humanity, which is

paid for by a counter flow of dollars, and the work of

ecosystems, for which no money is paid. An accurate

picture of environmental systems requires that we

account for the flows and storages of energy, matter,

and information that are responsible for supporting

economic and social activities and that may not be

accompanied by flows of money. Energy can be used

as a common denominator for quantifying all these

flows. Converting flows of energy to emergy puts the

work done by the economy and the environment on

the same scale, so that economic and environmental

flows are directly comparable. While it is true that

dollar values are directly comparable it is also true

that economic markets only value a subset of the

products and processes that are important in

environmental systems. The key synthesis produced

by Emergy Analysis is an accounting of social,

economic and environmental flows in common terms

on an objective basis. Thus for the first time what is

removed from West Virginia is seen in true

relationship to what is received in return. It is true

that everyone in West Virginia realizes that coal is

the basis for the West Virginia economy, but this is

the first time the numbers have been calculated to

show the relationship of the real wealth in coal to

other economic and environmental flows. The

importance of recognizing the true nature of value in

exchanges is easily illustrated by the inequitable

barter between Europeans and Native Americans

where ecological resources, e.g., animal skins, and

land of great value were exchanged for trinkets.

Emergy accounting can potentially give

environmental managers tools similar to those

regularly used by financial analysts to make business

decisions. Further development of the analysis

methods and tools presented in this report will make

it possible for managers to first examine complete
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

v

and commensurate economic and environmental

accounting data before making policy decisions

about environmental systems.

The State of West Virginia and its relationships

with its region and the nation are characterized in a

case study presented in this report. Insights from this

study may be useful in establishing a context for

determining policies for the state as a whole.

However, finer scale analyses must be performed to

address specific environmental management

problems, such as determining the costs and benefits

of watershed restoration. In addition, the analysis

methods described here can be used as a guide to

creating emergy accounts for any state in the United

States.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

This technical report gives an overview of the

emergy accounting and analysis methodology, which

can be used to evaluate environmental systems on

any scale of organization (Odum 1996). However, it

is impossible to condense the methods and insights of

a comprehensive methodology in a single, relatively

short document. For this reason, the Methods

(Section 2) focuses on methods, calculations and data

sources needed to evaluate a state within the United

States of America. Even with this restriction, the task

is daunting because there are 50 states and each one

will present the researcher with new problems to

solve. In this report we have made the task somewhat

easier through the development of a method for

determining the imports to and exports from any state

using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Commodity Flow Survey. Application of the emergy

analysis method is demonstrated through reporting a

case study of the State of West Virginia (Section 3),

which is presented in lieu of a Results section.

Section 3 is written so that it can stand alone as a

final report on the emergy analysis of West Virginia.

Those readers who are primarily interested in the

results of this study can go directly to Section 3.

The emergy analysis and environmental

accounts for the State of West Virginia given in the

case study include the following eight elements that

we used to characterize the state: (1) a narrative

history of the state, (2) a detailed energy systems

diagram of the state as an environmental system with

supporting tables, (3) the Emergy Income Statement

showing annual emergy and dollar flows of

renewable and nonrenewable resources, production,

consumption, imports and exports, (4) the Emergy

Balance Sheet showing some of the stored assets in

the state, (5) an aggregate diagram giving a

macroscopic overview of the energy resource base

for the state’s economy and a summary table from

which indices are calculated, (6) emergy indices of

system structure and function, (7) the emergy

signature for the state, and (8) the findings of the

analysis applied to answer several questions

formulated by environmental managers.

Following the Emergy Analysis of West

Virginia, there is a Discussion (Section 4), which

examines (1) refinements to the emergy accounting

methods used for states, (2) quality assurances, the

reliability of the data, and areas of uncertainty in the

analysis, and (3) the use of emergy accounting data

for environmental decision-making. A path for future

research and development of the method is proposed

and future research plans are mentioned. References

are given in Section 5 and Section 6 lists the data

sources used along with their Worldwide Web

addresses. Extensive data and documentation to

support the method and the case study are given in

the appendices found in Section 7. These appendices

are as follows: the Energy Systems Language

(Appendix A), information on the transformities used

in this report (Appendix B), notes documenting the

energy and emergy calculations (Appendix C),

import-export calculation methods (Appendix D),

and emergy analysis tables for West Virginia in 2000

(Appendix E).
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notice ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ iii

Preface ................................................................................................................................................... iv

Purpose of the Report .................................................................................................................... iv

Significance of the Report ............................................................................................................. iv

Structure of the Report .....................................................................................................................v

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures...................................................................................................................................... viii

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix

Section 1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

Section 2

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1

 2.1 Understanding the System ............................................................................................... 2-1

 2.2 Overview of Emergy Analysis Methods .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Diagramming and Models ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1.1 The Energy Systems Language .................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1.2 Simulation Models ....................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 The Emergy Tables ................................................................................................ 2-4

2.2.3 Data Sources and Model Evaluation ..................................................................... 2-4

2.2.4 Transformities ........................................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.5 Flow Summary and the Calculation of Indices ..................................................... 2-6

2.3 Creating the Emergy Income Statement .......................................................................... 2-6

2.3.1 Evaluating Renewable Resources.......................................................................... 2-6

2.3.2 Evaluating Nonrenewable Resources .................................................................... 2-7

2.3.3. Evaluating Exports and Imports ........................................................................... 2-7

2.3.3.1 Determining the Emergy in Materials.......................................................... 2-8

2.3.3.2 Determining the Emergy in Services ........................................................... 2-9

2.4 Creating the Emergy Balance Sheet .............................................................................. 2-10

2.5 Constructing the Emergy-Economic Overview............................................................. 2-10

2.5.1 Summary of Emergy and Dollar Flows ............................................................... 2-11

2.5.2 Determining the Renewable Emergy Base for a System..................................... 2-11

2.5.2.1 Renewable emergy received....................................................................... 2-12

2.5.2.2. Renewable emergy absorbed ..................................................................... 2-12

2.6 Emergy Indices .............................................................................................................. 2-12

2.6.1 The Emergy to Money Ratio ............................................................................... 2-12

2.6.2 The Emergy Exchange Ratio ............................................................................... 2-13

2.6.3 The Investment Ratio ........................................................................................... 2-13

2.6.4 The Environmental Loading Ratio ...................................................................... 2-13

2.6.5 Indices of Self-sufficiency and Dependence ....................................................... 2-13
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

vii

2.6.6 Indices of Sustainable Use ................................................................................... 2-13

2.6.7 Indices of Quality of Life .................................................................................... 2-14

2.7 Energy and Emergy Signatures ..................................................................................... 2-14

Section 3

Case Study: An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia ......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 The Efficacy of Emergy Accounting in Answering Management Questions ................. 3-2

3.3 Narrative History of West Virginia ................................................................................. 3-2

3.3.1 Salt ......................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2 Coal ........................................................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.3 Timber .................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.4 Oil .......................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.5 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................ 3-5

3.3.6 Limestone ............................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.7 Sand........................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.3.8 Iron ......................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.9 Textiles................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.10 Chemicals............................................................................................................. 3-6

3.3.11 Electric Power ...................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4 An Energy Systems Model of West Virginia ................................................................... 3-6

3.5 The Emergy Income Statement for West Virginia ........................................................... 3-7

3.6 The Emergy Balance Sheet for West Virginia ................................................................. 3-8

3.7 Overview Models and Flow Summary .......................................................................... 3-12

3.8 Emergy Indices .............................................................................................................. 3-14

3.9 The Emergy Signature for the State .............................................................................. 3-15

3.10 Analysis of West Virginia and Comparison with Other States .................................... 3-15

3.10.1 Characteristics of West Virginia Based on Emergy Analysis............................ 3-17

3.10.2 Comparison with Other States ........................................................................... 3-18

3.11 Summary of Findings as Related to Management Questions ...................................... 3-19

3.12 Recommendations to Managers ................................................................................... 3-22

3.13 West Virginia and the Future ........................................................................................ 3-22

Section 4

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Standard Methods versus Intellectual Creativity ............................................................ 4-1

4.2 Methods Developed and Refined in This Study ............................................................. 4-2

4.3 Quality Assurance: Reliability of the Data and Uncertainty........................................... 4-2

4.4 Future Research and Reports........................................................................................... 4-5

Section 5

References ........................................................................................................................................... 5-1

Section 6

Data Sources ...... ................................................................................................................................. 6-1
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

viii

Section 7

Appendix A Primary Symbols of the Energy Systems Language ...................................................... A-1

Appendix B Sources, Adjustment, and Calculation of Transformities ............................................... B-1

B1. Information Sources for the Emergy per Unit Values............................................................ B-2

B2. Transformities for SCTG Commodity Classes ..................................................................... B-3

B3. Calculation of New or Revised Transformities...................................................................... B-4

Appendix C “Calculation of Energy and Economic Values” .............................................................. C-1

C1. Notes for Table 4 “Renewable”..............................................................................................C-2

C2. Notes for Table 5 “Nonrenewable” ...................................................................................... C-12

C3. Notes for Table 6 “Imports” ................................................................................................. C-15

C4. Notes for Table 7 “Exports” ................................................................................................. C-21

C5. Notes for Table 8 “Stored Assets” ........................................................................................C-24

C6. Notes for Table 9 “Summary Flows” ................................................................................... C-25

C7. Notes for Table 10 “Calculation of Emergy Indices” .......................................................... C-27

Appendix D Calculating Imports and Exports of Materials and Services ......................................... D-1

D1. Creating Import and Export Spreadsheets for Materials ...................................................... D-2

D2. Method for Calculating Services Imported and Exported .................................................... D-9

Appendix E West Virginia Emergy Accounts for 2000 ....................................................................... E-1

FIGURES

Figure 1. A detailed energy systems model of the State of West Virginia ........................................ 2-14

Figure 2. Aggregated diagram of West Virginia’s economy with its emergy ................................... 3-12

 resource base.

Figure 3. Summary of West Virginia’s environmental and economic flows .................................... 3-14

Figure 4. The emergy signature of the State of West Virginia with flows ........................................ 3-15

 in order of increasing transformities up to steel.

Figure A1. Primary symbols of the Energy Systems Language.......................................................... A-2
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Tabular Format for an Emergy Evaluation ...................................................................... 2-4

Table 2. Definition of pathway flows for the systems model of ................................................. 2-15

WestVirginia’s environment and economy shown in Figure 1

Table 3. Definitions of the components for the systems model of .............................................. 2-17

West Virginia’s environment and economy shown in Figure 1

Table 4. Annual Renewable Resources and Production in 1997 .................................................. 3-9

Table 5. Annual Production and Use of Nonrenewable Resources in 1997 ................................. 3-9

Table 6. Annual Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 1997................................................ 3-10

Table 7. Annual Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 1997 ........................................... 3-10

Table 8. Assets of West Virginia in 1997 .....................................................................................3-11

Table 9. Summary of Flows for West Virginia in 1997 ............................................................... 3-13

Table 10. West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 1997................................................. 3-16

Table 11. Comparison of Emergy Indices for Several States in the U.S ....................................... 3-20

Table B1.1. The sources for and equivalence of transformities used in this report .......................... B-2

Table B2.1. Estimation of Transformities for the SCTG Commodity Classes.................................. B-3

Table B3.1. The factors needed to convert one planetary baseline to another .................................. B-7

Table B3.2 Estimation of the emergy to dollar ratio in the United States for ................................. B-7

 1997 and 2000.

Table C1.1 Data used to determine the geopotential energy of rainfall .......................................... C-4

Table C3.1 Emergy imported to West Virginia in material commodity flows............................... C-16

Table C3.2 Export and Import of Services Between West Virginia and the Nation ...................... C-17

Table C3.3 Alternative Method for Determining Exports ............................................................. C-18

Table C3.4 Determination of Imported and Exported Services..................................................... C-18

Table C3.5 West Virginia employment by sector and the dollars generated ................................. C-19

 per employee, 1997.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

x

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table C3.6 US employment and productivity by Industry sector, 1997 ........................................ C-19

Table C3.7 West Virginia detailed export sector employment and the dollars.............................. C-20

 generated per employee.

Table C3.8 U.S. employment in detailed export sectors and the dollars generated ...................... C-20

 per employee, 1997.

Table C4.1 Emergy in the materials exported from West Virginia ................................................ C-22

Table C6.1 Services in Imported Minerals..................................................................................... C-25

Table C6.2 Services in Exported Fuels and Electricity ................................................................. C-26

Table D1.1 Approximate conversion between SCTG, SIC and NAICS industry ............................D-3

 classification codes.

Table D1.2 Calculation of West Virginia Exports from the state to state ........................................D-4

 commodity shipments.

Table D1.3 Example of estimating missing import data .................................................................. D-8

Table D2.1 NAICS industry sectors and their assumed sector types for WV ............................... D-11

Table D2.2 Calculation of basic sector jobs and the estimated dollar values for ..........................D-12

 exported and imported services.

Table E1. Renewable Resources and Production in the West Virginia .......................................... E-2

Economy in 2000.

Table E2. Production and Use from Nonrenewable Sources within West ..................................... E-2

Virginia in 2000

Table E3. Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 2000 ............................................................. E-3

Table E4. Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 2000......................................................... E-3

Table E5. Value of West Virginia Storages in 2000 ........................................................................ E-4

Table E6. Summary of Flows for West Virginia in 2000 ................................................................ E-5

Table E7. West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 2000 ................................................. E-6
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

1-1

Section 1

INTRODUCTION

Accurate accounting of the inflows, outflows and

storages of energy, materials, and information is

necessary to understand and manage environmental

systems at all levels of hierarchical organization. The

accounting tools, i.e., the emergy income statement,

emergy balance sheet, and emergy indices described

in this document can be used to analyze and

understand systems defined for any chosen set of

boundaries. Boundaries of concern to us define an

environmental system containing both ecological and

socioeconomic components. The research or

management questions asked at each level of

organization will be somewhat different but the most

important questions that are concerned with the

overall condition of the system, will be illuminated

by information and indices related to the inflows,

outflows and storages of energy, matter, and

information. In this report we present the methods of

environmental accounting using emergy and apply

them to analyze the State of West Virginia. Therefore,

the particular sources of data and methods presented

here will relate to the calculation of the important

flows and storages for states within the United States.

At present, records for the environment are kept

in terms of physical units such as pounds of chemical

pollutants discharged, miles of degraded streams, or

the number of endangered species present in a given

area, while the accounts of human activities are for

the most part kept in dollars. Neither accounting

mechanism is able to address the credits and debits of

the other, thus there is often a gap in the scientific

assessment information given to managers faced with

solving complex environmental problems that often

have social, economic and ecological consequences.

To keep accurate accounts for both the environment

and the economy, it is obvious that we need a system

capable of expressing the credits and debits (costs

and benefits) that accrue to each in common terms.

For more than 100 years, physical and social

scientists have struggled with this problem, i.e., how

to incorporate resource limitations and contributions

into the formulations of economics (Martinez-Alier,

1987). Land, labor, energy and other physical

quantities have been tried without much success.

Often these efforts centered on energy as a

potentially unifying common denominator for

accounting purposes because it is both required for

all production processes and incorporated in all

products of production. These early efforts failed

largely because none of the proposed energy-based

accounting methods considered differences in the

ability to do work among energies of different kinds

(Odum 1996).

In the 1980s, H.T. Odum and his colleagues

solved this problem through the development of the

concepts of emergy and transformity (Odum 1988).

Emergy is the available energy of one kind

previously used up directly and indirectly to make a

product or service. The unit of emergy is the emjoule,

which connotes the past use of energy that is

embodied in the present product or service.

Transformity is the emergy used to make a unit of

available energy of the product or service. Most

often, emergy accounts for the environment and the

economy are kept using the solar joule as a base. In

this case solar transformities are expressed as solar

emjoules (sej) per joule (J). Empower is the flow of

emergy (sej) per unit time. Emergy is related to the

system of economic value through the emergy to

money ratio. The emdollar (Em$) value of a flow or

storage is its emergy divided by the emergy to money

ratio for an economy in that year (Odum 1996).

Odum’s innovation established a medium for

environmental accounting that for the first time made

it possible to express economic commodities,

services, and environmental work of all kinds on a

common basis as emergy. In this report we use the

methods of emergy accounting to demonstrate how

keeping the books for environmental systems can

help us identify problems and seek solutions at the

macroscopic level of a state’s economy. We adapted

two standard accounting tools, the income statement

and the balance sheet, to characterize the state’s

annual activities and long-term assets, respectively.

We believe that creating emergy accounts for

environmental systems is a method to bridge the gap

between economic and ecological analyses of the

effects of environmental policies.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-1

Section 2

Methods

Emergy evaluations of the macroscopic features

of an environmental system such as a state, region, or

country are carried out in the same manner for each

system regardless of its size or level in the hierarchy

of organization, e.g., county, state, nation, 1st, 2nd,..6th

order watersheds, etc. Emergy analyses like other

assessment methods are guided by the research or

management questions of concern. In general, the

hierarchical organization of ecological and economic

systems requires that emergy accounts be created for

more than one level of organization to obtain

accurate answers to questions about a system at any

particular level of organization. Multiple levels of

organization are examined because large-scale

patterns within a system are often determined by

energy inflows from the next larger system, whereas,

internal system dynamics may be affected by policy

changes in the management of important subsystems.

The examination of multiple levels of organization is

also recommended because environmental policies

may and often do have different consequences at

different levels of system organization (Odum and

Arding 1991). The general rule is that analyses at

three levels of organization (the system of concern,

its subsystems, and the next larger system) are the

minimum required for a thorough understanding of a

particular system. The West Virginia emergy analysis

presented in this report varied from this standard

because it used past analyses of the nation and did

not include an examination of important subsystems

within the state, e.g., the coal industry; therefore, it is

only the first step in a complete emergy analysis of

the state.

2.1 Understanding the System

Effective models and analyses depend on the

degree to which the investigators understand the

system that they have chosen to analyze. For this

reason, a thorough study of the system to be analyzed

and its relationship to the next larger system, which

determines long-term trends, is a prerequisite for

successful analysis. Before performing emergy

analyses of states or other systems, we recommend

that investigators review existing studies containing

current and historic information on the state with a

view toward characterizing it as an environmental

system. Environmental systems include the economic

and social infrastructure and activities of humanity

as well as the storages, flows and processes of

ecosystems. In the method presented here and

illustrated in the Results section, the knowledge

gained through this review is captured in the

narrative history of the state. The narrative history

is a vehicle for understanding how renewable and

nonrenewable resources have shaped the current

economy in the state. Setting down the history of the

state helps trace causal pathways from the past to the

present and establishes the historical context of

changing relationships between the state and the

nation. The knowledge gained through this review

serves as a basis for creating a detailed energy

systems diagram of the state as discussed below.

2.2 Overview of Emergy Analysis Methods

There are five main steps required to complete

an emergy evaluation. First, a detailed systems

diagram is completed. The second step is to translate

this knowledge into an aggregated diagram of the

system addressing specific questions. Third,

descriptions of the pathways in the aggregated

diagram are transferred to emergy analysis tables

where the calculations needed to quantitatively

evaluate these pathways are compiled. The fourth

step in the method is to gather the raw data needed

to complete the emergy analysis tables along with the

conversion factors (energy contents, transformities,

etc.) needed to change the raw data into emergy

units. Finally, after the raw data has been converted

into emergy units, indices are calculated from subsets

of the data. These five steps are discussed in more

detail in the following sections.

2.2.1 Diagramming and Models

First, a detailed energy system diagram is

constructed representing all interactions between
Methods

2-2

human and natural components of the system that

have been identified as relevant (Fig. 1, p. 2-14). The

Energy Systems Language symbols and their intrinsic

mathematics (see Appendix A, Fig A1 and Odum

1994) are used to develop models of ecological and

socioeconomic interactions and components

representative of the functions and structures within

the system. In an energy systems diagram, structure

encompasses the system components and their

arrangement, and function includes pathways of

energy flow and their interaction in processes.

Components can be both physical entities and

properties such as information or aesthetics that are

usually considered as intangible, but require small

energies for their storage and operation and thus can

be documented. The pathways and interactions can

be both physical flows such as electricity or raw

materials as well as control mechanisms, e.g., logic

programs controlling animal migrations or

management decisions.

It is important to include all known connections

between system components in the draft diagram to

insure completeness of the evaluation. A diagram like

this is a useful tool for defining data needs. Once the

exercise of defining all known interactions that affect

the system components is completed, there is usually

enough information to construct working hypotheses

about the mathematical expressions that govern these

processes. This in turn points to the appropriate

factors that need to be measured when field work is

required.

Variables in the detailed model are then

aggregated, according to similarity of function, into

variables considered important in controlling system

behavior that is relevant to specific research or

management questions. Preliminary evaluations of

the emergy in system storages and flows helps in

determining the dominant components and processes

of the system that should be included in the aggregate

diagram. Aggregating does not mean removing any

component from the system. It refers to combining

components and using either averaged data or data

from the dominant entity to evaluate the component

or process. For example, data on a biological

component can be weighted for population

percentages. The goal of aggregation is to obtain the

simplest possible system that still allows the original

research or management question to be answered.

Committing concepts of the energy connections

and storages within an ecosystem to paper invites

review of the completeness and accuracy of the

conceptual thinking. It is not necessary to include all

known details in every diagram. In the emergy

accounting procedure presented in this document, the

pathways of primary interest are those crossing the

boundaries, both as inputs and as outputs. At this

scale, the focus is on the external flows supporting

the environmental system. The only internal

interactions of interest are the extractions of natural

resource storages for economic use, e.g., coal or

minerals. Other internal paths are drawn, but much of

the detail concerning the workings of each

component can be omitted.

2.2.1.1 The Energy Systems Language

The tools and methods for constructing an energy

systems diagram are discussed extensively in

Ecological and General Systems (Odum, 1994). The

Energy Systems Language is a visual mathematics

because each symbol is mathematically defined. A

network of these symbols translates directly into a set

of simultaneous 1st order differential equations.

Energy Systems diagrams represent both kinetics and

energetics in a single diagram and they demonstrate

and obey the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics in

their structure. The commonly used symbols and

conventions of the language are briefly described

below to assist the reader in understanding the energy

systems diagrams used in this document (Figure A1).

 System boundary. A rectangular box represents

the system boundaries selected. This is an arbitrary

decision and boundaries are often chosen to address

an issue or question being evaluated. The boundary

determines the spatial and temporal scale of the

analysis.

Forcing functions. Any input that crosses the

boundary is an energy source for the system,

including pure energy flows, materials, information

such as the genes of living organisms and human

services, as well as inputs that are destructive.

External inputs are represented with a circular

symbol and are arranged around the outside border

from left to right in order of increasing transformity

with sunlight on the left and information and human

services on the right.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-3

Pathway lines. Flows are represented by a line

and include energy, materials, and information.

Money is shown with dashed lines and always flows

in the opposite direction to the material or energy

flow with which it is coupled. Lines without

arrowheads flow in proportion to the difference

between two forces and represent a reversible flow

due to the concentration gradients.

Outflows. Any outflow that still has available

energy, e.g., materials more concentrated than the

environment or usable information, is shown as a

pathway exiting from any of the three upper system

borders, but not from the lower border. Degraded or

dispersed energy, with insufficient ability to do work

in the system, is shown with gray lines leaving at the

bottom of the diagram through a single arrow going

to the heat sink.

Adding pathways. Pathways add their flows

when they join and when they enter the same storage.

Every flow in or out of a storage must be of the same

type and is measured in the same units.

State variables. Storages of material, energy and

information are shown as tanks (Fig. A1) within each

system compartment. Changes in the system can be

recorded as fluctuating accumulations within each

tank. In system diagrams using group symbols, e.g.,

producers and consumers, the actual simulation

details, such as tanks and complex interactions may

not be presented. However, a state variable is always

implied for every storage within the diagram whether

it is shown or not.

Intersection/interaction. Two or more flows that

are different, but required for a process, are drawn

entering an interaction symbol. The flows to an

intersection are connected from left to right in

order of their transformity, the lowest quality one

connecting to the notched left margin and the

higher quality flows connecting to the top of the

interaction symbol. Photosynthesis is an example

of a multiplicative interaction in which light, plant

biomass, and nutrients are the inputs required to

produce organic matter. However, any mathematical

relationship can be used to define an interaction and

an appropriate symbol or notation made on the

interaction symbol. A flow of one entity cannot go

from its tank to a tank with a different entity without

passing through some interaction, e.g., sunlight

cannot flow into a tank of phytoplankton carbon

without first interacting with nutrients, phytoplankton biomass and other inputs, to produce

a flow of carbon in gross primary production. If

hierarchical symbols are being used, e.g., the

producer or consumer or a rectangular box for a

subsystem (Figure A1), disparate flows can enter the

symbol without showing the interactions. However,

the interactions are implied and are shown explicitly

when the hierarchical symbol is completely specified

(Odum and Odum 2000).

Counter- clockwise feedbacks. High-quality

outputs from consumers, such as information,

controls, and scarce materials, are fed back from

right to left in the diagram. Feedback from right to

left also represents recycle or a loss of concentration,

because of divergence, with the service usually being

spread out to a larger area. Feedback control or

recycle paths go from right to left over the top of all

other components and pathways.

Sensor. If the quantity of a component in some

way affects a flow without using up the component,

a small box (sensor) is placed at the top of the

storage tank and information on the stored quantity

is drawn from this point for use by another symbol,

e.g. an interaction or logic program. For example, the

amount of money a region has might influence the

number of invitations the community receives to

participate in an event, but money itself was not sent

to get these invitations.

Material balances. Since all inflowing materials

accumulate in system storages or flow out, each

inflowing material such as water or money needs to

have a budget determined.

2.2.1.2 Simulation Models

Microcomputer simulation is a standard tool of

emergy analysis that is not used in this report, but

should be mentioned in the interest of completeness.

Simulation models are often helpful in considering

alternatives, investigating dynamic properties, and

making predictions. They act as a controlled

experiment and allow the investigator to adjust one
Methods

2-4

variable at a time and note the resulting changes to

the system. In creating a simulation model, an

evaluated diagram showing the initial conditions for

all state variables and pathway flows is made.

Storages and flows are determined from literature or

field measurements of biomass, production rates, etc.

The simulation model is translated into a set of

simultaneous first order differential equations

containing the mathematical functions governing

rates and interactions that result in changes in the

state variables under a given set of forcing functions.

These differential equations are written as difference

equations in a programming language and solved on

the computer to predict the changes in each state

variable as a function of time or space. More detail

on the use of models and simulation in energy

systems analysis can be found in Odum and

Odum (2000).

2.2.2 Emergy Tables

The common format used to set up emergy tables

is illustrated above. Each emergy evaluation table has

six columns as shown in Table 1:

The columns are defined as follows: Column 1:

Note. The line number for the item evaluated is

listed. Each line number corresponds to a footnote in

a table where raw data sources are cited and

calculations shown. The footnotes referenced on

tables in this paper maybe found in the appendices.

Column 2: Item. The name of the item is listed.

Column 3: Data. For each line item the raw data is

given in joules, grams, dollars or some other

appropriate unit. The source, derivation and

characteristics of this data should be shown in the

footnotes. Column 4: Solar Emergy per Unit. For

many items the solar emergy per unit (transformity

where the unit is energy) has already been calculated

in previous studies. If it has not, the solar emjoules

per unit can be calculated using one of the methods

listed in Odum (1996). Transformities and other

emergy per unit ratios used in this report are

documented in Appendix B. Column 5: Emergy.

The solar emergy is given here. It is the product of

columns three and four. It can be an emergy flow

(sej y-1) or emergy storage (sej). Column 6:

Emdollars. This number is obtained by dividing the

emergy in column 5 by the emergy/dollar ratio for the

economy in the selected year. The emergy analysis

tables provide a template for the calculation of the

emergy values for energy sources and flows. In the

emergy tables, raw data on the mass of flows and

storage reserves are converted to energy and then to

emergy units and emdollars to aid in comparisons

and public policy inferences. Emergy tables are used

to create the accounts for the emergy income

statement and emergy balance sheet.

2.2.3 Data Sources and Model Evaluation

In general, government sources are the first

choice for environmental and economic data

acquisition. For the emergy analysis of a state,

U.S. government sources are preferred. A list of

sources for the information used in this study is

provided in the Data Sources section of this report.

Government sources are most likely to provide

detailed descriptions of assumptions and methods,

and they often provide a quantitative estimate of

error. Recorded data specific to the system both in

time and space are preferred. However, data are

rarely collected in a manner that can be directly

inserted into an emergy evaluation table. For

example, international trade exchanges are

meticulously recorded by several federal agencies,

but domestic trade is evaluated only through surveys

conducted five years apart. Furthermore, a great deal

Table 1. Tabular Format for an Emergy Evaluation

Col. 1 Column 2 Col. 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6

Note Item Data Solar Emergy/Unit Solar Emergy Em$

J, g, $ sej/J, sej/g, sej/$ sej, sej/y Em$/y
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-5

of economic information is recorded in terms of

currency exchange, but because unit prices vary

substantially, it is difficult to estimate the actual

resource or environmental use involved. In these

cases, broader based assumptions and accepted

models, many of them models employed by

economists, are used to convert the recorded data

into estimates for a particular area or system.

The information needed for the emergy income

statement is most often reported as annual flows of

dollars and/or mass. Often mass can be easily

converted to energy because the energy content of

many objects has been widely tabulated (1).

(Numbers in italics follow data sources mentioned in

the text and refer to entries in Section 6, Data

Sources). The energy contents of many materials

evaluated in this study are given in Appendix C. The

specific emergy or the emergy per unit mass has also

been calculated for many items and can be used to

convert mass flows to emergy when it is convenient

(see Appendix B). Dollar flows can be converted to

the average emergy in the human services associated

with the good or service purchased by multiplying

the dollar amount by the appropriate emergy to dollar

ratio (Odum 1996). However, the dollar value of

something does not give an accurate estimate of its

emergy except when the work of humans accounts

for all but a small part of the emergy required to

make the item.

2.2.4 Transformities

The energy content of many items has been

tabulated; however, the information available on the

solar transformities of those items is often more

limited. Thus, the availability of data on solar

transformities often determines the ease with which

emergy accounting studies can be performed. Many

solar transformities have been calculated (see

Appendix C in Odum, 1996 and Appendix B below),

but most studies require the calculation of new

transformities or the updating of old transformities,

when the average or general value for the

transformity of an item is not appropriate to answer

the management or research question. Although

several methods for calculating transformities exist

(Odum 1996), transformity calculations are

commonly based on an analysis of the production

process for a particular item. Global production

processes are used to determine the transformity of

planetary products like the wind, rain and waves

(Odum 1996, Odum 2000). The relevant production

processes of environmental and economic subsystems are analyzed to determine the transformities

for particular economic or ecological products and

services. For example, the inputs to agricultural

production processes for different crops in Florida

were evaluated to obtain transformities for soybeans,

grain corn, potatoes, etc. (Brandt-Williams 2001). All

energy inputs required for the production of an item

are documented and converted to solar joules (by

multiplying each energy input by the appropriate

transformity). Emergy inputs to the process are

summed and divided by the available energy in the

product to obtain the transformity of that item

in sej/J.

A distribution of values can be obtained for the

transformity of any item by the analysis of many

production processes. The thermodynamic limits on

the efficiency of all production processes lead to the

hypothesis that there will be a minimum attainable

transformity, which results when the production

process is operating at maximum power. This

minimum transformity may be a constant for a given

product or service that indicates its location in the

hierarchy of all natural processes. In practice, when a

general value for a transformity is to be determined, a

well-adapted (fast and efficient) production process

is evaluated on the scale and in the setting under

which the product is commonly formed. For

example, rain and wind are products of the global

atmospheric heat engine and thus their transformities

are determined through an analysis of the global

hydrologic cycle. In any emergy analysis, it is

important to consider whether the energy and

material inputs to a production process can be

considered to be of average transformity for that

item. If so the general value for the transformity for

these items can be used. For example, electricity can

be generated by many processes (using wood, water,

coal, gas, tide, solar voltaics, etc) each with a

different transformity (Odum 1996). An average

value of 1.7 E5 sej/J was determined by Odum

(1996), which is consistent with the transformity of

electricity generated from coal-fired power plants

such as those found in West Virginia. The use of a
Methods

2-6

general transformity for an item is appropriate when

(1) the item is representative of the mix of production

processes that determine the mean, (2) the general

value reflects the specific input, and (3) the

transformity of the particular item is unknown. It

would not be reasonable to use the general

transformity for an item when the system or process

under evaluation is known to be dependent on an

inflow of higher or lower transformity energy.

Transformities are always measured relative to a

planetary solar emergy baseline and care should be

taken to ensure that the transformities used in any

particular analysis are all expressed relative to the

same baseline. However, all the past baselines can

be easily related through multiplication by an

appropriate factor and the results of an emergy

analysis do not change by shifting the baseline

(Odum et. al, 2000). The baseline used in this study

is from Campbell (1998, 2000a) who calculated a

revised solar transformity for tidal energy that

resulted in a correction to the planetary baseline in

Odum (1996) giving a new value of 9.26 E+24 solar

emjoules joules per year. The transformities used in

this report have either been calculated using the 9.26

baseline or multiplied by the appropriate factor to

express them relative to this baseline. These factors

are provided in Appendix B, Table B1.1, where

transformities are also given relative to the 15.83

E+24 sej/y baseline promulgated in Odum et al.

(2000).

2.2.5 Flow Summary and the Calculation of

 Indices

The final step in creation and analysis of emergy

accounts for a system is to combine the information

from the income statement into summary variables

that are used in the calculation of emergy indices.

These summary variables are shown on the aggregate

diagram (Fig. 2, p. 3-12) discussed above and

provide a macroscopic overview of emergy and

dollar flows for the system. Other analysis methods

and tools are used in Emergy Analysis (Odum 1996,

Odum 1994) but these are not discussed here. Using

the emergy analysis tables and the aggregated

figures, emergy indices are calculated to compare

systems, predict trends, and to suggest alternatives

that deliver more emergy, reduce stress on the

environment, are more efficient or more equitable.

2.3 Creating the Emergy Income Statement

The income statement can include the following

tabular accounts: (1) the renewable resources

received and used within the system and the

production based primarily on the use of those

resources, (2) production and consumption of

nonrenewable resources within the system,

(3) imports into the system, and (4) exports from

the system.

2.3.1 Evaluating Renewable Resources

Renewable resources are replenished on a regular

basis as a result of the use of planetary emergy

inflows in solar radiation, the deep heat of the earth

and gravitational attraction of the sun and moon.

These primary planetary emergy inflows and the

continuously generated co-products of their

interactions in the geobiosphere comprise the

renewable resources of the earth. In general, all

renewable resources known to be important inputs to

a system are evaluated and the emergy contributed

to the system by each is determined. While all

renewable energies known to be important are

calculated and included in the table, not all of them

are included in the emergy base for a system. If all

the co-products of a single interconnected planetary

system are counted, some of the emergy inflow will

be counted twice; therefore, only the largest of any

set of co-products is counted in the emergy base for

a given area of the earth.

Rain carries two kinds of energy, the chemical

potential energy that rainwater has by virtue of its

purity relative to seawater and the geopotential

energy of the rain at the elevation at which it falls.

Renewable energy also enters a state or other system

through cross border flows of energy and materials in

rivers. Renewable energy inflows to the system can

be determined at two points, (1) the point of entry

and (2) the point of use. The first of these two flow

measurements gives the emergy received by the

system and the second gives the emergy absorbed or

used in the system. For example, the incident solar

radiation is received by the system and the incident

solar radiation minus the surface albedo is absorbed.

The geopotential energy of rain on land at the

elevation it falls is the geopotential energy received

by the system, whereas, the geopotential energy of
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-7

the runoff relative to the elevation at which it leaves

the state is used on the landscape to create landforms.

The chemical potential energy of the rain that falls on

the land is received, but the water transpired is

actually used by the vegetation to create structures on

the landscape. In some cases almost all the emergy

received by the system is absorbed, e.g., almost all

tidal energy received is dissipated in estuaries and on

the continental shelf.

An economy develops over many years in

response to the environmental energies available to

support human activities in the system; therefore, a

long-term average of environmental variables, i.e., 10

to 50 years depending on the available data, is used

to calculate the average energy supplied to the system

from renewable sources. Long-term averages for

environmental data smooth temporal variations in the

inputs of renewable energy, which might otherwise

lead to high variability in the emergy indices based

on year to year variability of renewable inflows.

Environmental data should be collected with

comparable technologies. Sometimes, with long

environmental data sets, the technology used to

obtain the data will have changed during the period

of record. In this case, we try to use only the data

recorded using the most recent instruments, which

are comparable. Representative averages in space

and time are also important to characterize inputs

accurately. Where there are substantial differences

in environmental inputs in different regions of a

state, the differences should be prorated by area to

insure that the most accurate estimate of the energy

input to the state is obtained for any particular

variable. For example, mountainous areas have a

different climate than coastal areas. More specific

methods for determining the emergy of renewable

resources are provided in Appendix C.

2.3.2 Evaluating Nonrenewable Resources

Nonrenewable resources are raw materials that

have been built over a long time by environmental

processes, but that are being used by human activities

at a rate much faster than they can be renewed. Coal

mining or groundwater withdrawals in excess of the

recharge rate are examples of nonrenewable

resources. An emergy evaluation does not determine

the contribution of a nonrenewable resource by the

price paid for the raw material – a ton of coal for

instance – because this is not the value of the coal

itself. It is the price someone is willing to pay for the

labor and machinery required to mine the coal. When

evaluating coal as an emergy input, it is important to

evaluate or take into account the energy required to

make the coal. The solar emergy required to make a

joule of coal is its solar transformity in sej/J. A

material flow is multiplied by its specific emergy

(sej/g) or converted to energy and then multiplied by

its transformity to obtain an emergy flow. All

storages in the system that are being used faster than

they are being replaced contribute to the nonrenewable emergy supporting the system. This

includes storages that can be used renewably,

e.g., soil, ground water, timber.

2.3.3 Evaluating Exports and Imports

Emergy is imported and exported in three forms:

(1) emergy in services separate from any material

flows (consulting, data analysis, financial services,

etc.), (2) emergy in materials entering and leaving the

state, and (3) emergy in the human service associated

with the material inflows and outflows (collecting,

refining, manufacturing, distributing, shipping, and

handling). The data sources and methods used to

evaluate imports and exports will vary depending on

the system. The following methods are specific for

the evaluation of imports and exports to and from a

state in the United States.

Most of the data on the shipment of commodities

between states is collected in terms of both the dollar

value and tonnage shipped. Both kinds of data are

needed to make estimates of emergy movements

because goods have energy and emergy value

associated with their creation and concentration in

nature that is separate from the contributions of

human service that are measured in the economic

value of the good. Generally, the value, or the money

paid for a material at the point of use reflects the

service associated with that commodity. This dollar

value can be multiplied by the national emergy to

dollar ratio for the year of analysis to estimate the

emergy of the human services accompanying the

flow of imported goods. The fluxes of energy or mass

in each material flow can be multiplied by the

appropriate emergy per unit (excluding services) and

the results summed to determine the total emergy in

the import and export of the material in goods.
Methods

2-8

Determining the emergy in goods and services

imported to and exported from a state is a difficult

problem because data on the exchange of goods and

services is collected at different points, by different

government agencies, using different methods of

aggregation and estimation. Furthermore, while

imports and exports are tracked at the national level

using shipping labels that have explicit information,

the domestic distribution of goods is determined by

the statistical analysis of survey data and other

economic modeling methods. Domestic energy

shipments are the only commodities tracked on the

basis of a nearly complete accounting of actual stateto-state movements of the commodity. Petroleum is

an exception to this level of detailed accounting

because its movements are only tracked among

regions.

The detailed export profile estimates and the

overall information on state-to-state movements

of goods in the Commodity Flow Survey (CFS)

(2) were used to determine both the exports from

and the imports to a state by product category. In

addition, other sources were consulted to get a more

complete accounting of goods crossing the state

boundary and to check the CFS numbers wherever

possible. All of these data are available on

government websites (see Data Sources).

2.3.3.1 Determining the Emergy in Materials

Theoretically, determining the emergy in material

inflows should be straightforward; however, the data

reported are not complete. Although a total dollar and

tonnage value are given for inbound and outbound

shipments in the CFS for each state, some individual

commodity classes are missing an estimate for dollar

value, tonnage or both. This situation occurs most

commonly because shipments are too variable to

make the average a useful parameter or because a

value, if given, would reveal information about an

individual firm. A price per ton can be estimated

from the data wherever the dollar value and tonnage

are provided. Often both dollar value and tonnage for

commodities are available for the total shipments out

of a state. If the tonnage data was missing for a

commodity in the shipments to a particular state, the

dollar per ton value from the total shipments was

used to estimate the unknown tonnage. Where flows

are present but both tonnages and dollar values are

unreported a tonnage-weighted export profile of

commodities based on their respective fraction of

total shipments was used to estimate the missing

tonnage and to bring the total for all commodities

exported to the total reported in the CFS (see

Appendix D).

The Energy Information Administration (EIA)

data on energy movements of coal and natural gas are

estimated using multiple sources; and therefore, these

data are considered to be more accurate and complete

than the CFS data, which are estimated from the

results of a survey. The EIA data are used to check

and replace, if needed, the coal entries in the CFS.

In addition, a category for natural gas data is added.

Natural gas movements through existing pipelines

can be determined as well as natural gas exports or

imports from or to the state.

All materials that are prepared for shipment from

a state are reported as exported in the CFS. However,

some of these materials end up within the state of

origin. The materials actually exported from a state

are determined by subtracting the tonnage of

shipments that begin and end in the state of origin

from the total tonnage of shipments in each

commodity class.

While the amount of goods imported into a state

are not directly tracked in the CFS, the destination

state for exports is reported, and consequently, the

goods imported to a state can be determined by

adding up the tonnage within each commodity class

exported from the other 49 states to the state under

analysis (West Virginia). If a state has a customs

entry point, the U.S. Customs data on imports is

added to the totals for each commodity class. The

interstate shipment of goods tracked by the CFS

includes all the goods shipped from a state regardless

of origin, therefore international imports need only

be included for states with ports of entry.

The 1997 Commodity Flow Survey reported

commodities using a two-digit Standard

Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG) code.

This code is different from the Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) and the North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS), both of which are
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-9

used in U.S. economic data reports. Both import and

export data are included in the CFS, but conversion is

not necessary unless the state has a foreign customs

entry point (West Virginia does not). Imports listed

by NAICS categories were converted to SCTG

categories using an approximate conversion scheme

that we developed for the different industry

classification codes (see Appendix D, Table D1.1).

The emergy in materials exported from or

imported to a state is then determined by multiplying

the mass or energy flow in each commodity class by

the appropriate emergy per mass or transformity,

respectively, based on an average of these ratios

for the major material items moving in the class

(Appendix B, Table B2.1). Outflows or inflows are

then summed across all commodities to get the total

emergy exported or imported.

Three key data sources for export/import

calculations are the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey

(2) the Department of Energy’s Energy Information

Administration (3) and import data from the US

Customs Office and the Office of International Trade

(4). In addition, data for natural gas and coal

shipments came from Department of Energy (DOE)

documents (5, 6). A step-by-step method for

completing tables to calculate exports and imports

is given in Appendix D.

2.3.3.2 Determining the Emergy in Services

Services can be tracked along with goods and the

services associated with goods using total receipts

for the different industry sectors along with sector

employment. These numbers are recorded for both

the United States as a whole and for each individual

state using the same methods, but there is no

distinction between goods and services that remain

within the state and services that are transferred to

other states. A variation of the economic basenonbase method was used to estimate the emergy

imported and exported in services. The information

on the base-nonbase method used in this report can

be found at the web address (7) given in Data

Sources.

 Economic base theory is usually employed to

analyze the growth potential and stability of an

economy in terms of its export industries (7). In this

method, economic sectors are designated as basic

(exporting sectors that are largely dependent on areas

external to the state or region for marketing their

goods and services) or non-basic (sectors whose

products and services are mainly used within the

state or local region of analysis). Once the industry

data has been gathered and the assumptions about

sector behavior have been recorded, an estimation

of exported and imported services can be made.

The underlying assumption behind the basenonbase method of estimation is that the aggregate

demand of the people in a nation will be satisfied by

the total production of goods and services in all

sectors of the national economy. Thus the ratio of

workers in any sector to total employment for the

nation indicates the level of economic production

necessary to satisfy the average needs of the people.

The number of workers in any given economic sector

in a state as a fraction of the total workers in that

state compared to a similar ratio for the nation is an

indicator of the excess or deficit production capacity

that may exist within that sector in the state’s

economy. This ratio is the location quotient (LQ) and

it can be used to determine whether a given industry

sector produces exports. If LQ is greater than one, at

least some of the sector is basic (exporting). If it is

equal to one, the sector production is assumed to just

meet local demand and there is no excess to export.

If the LQ is less than one, the local economic sector

cannot satisfy the average demand and thus it is

assumed that no net export will occur. Sectors

with location quotients less than one are potential

importers of goods and services in that sector. The

formula to calculate the LQ for employment, S, in

industry sector, i, within the economy of a state with

total employment, St

, referenced to employment in

the same industry sector of the national economy, Ni

,

and total national employment, Nt

, is given below.

 t

i

t

i

N

N

S

S

LQ =

(1)
Methods

2-10

The following equation was used to determine

the number of basic jobs, B, in the export portion of

an industry:

 i

t

t

i

i N

N

S

N

S B ⎥ ×

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ −⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = (2)

The number of basic sector workers, B, times

the productivity per worker in the state industry gives

an estimate of the dollar value of exported services.

Multiplication of this number by the emergy to dollar

ratio for the nation gives an estimate of the average

emergy exported from a sector. If both goods and

services are exported from the sector, the dollar value

of the goods exported must be subtracted from total

sector exports to estimate services. Alternatively for

sectors that export both goods and services, the

above method can be applied to more detailed data

from sub-sectors that are almost entirely services

and the export determined based on these sector

divisions.

An estimate of the potential import of services

to a region can be obtained in a similar manner.

Under the assumptions given above, the deficit in

employment in an industry sector should indicate the

amount of service that would need to be imported for

the residents of a region to enjoy the same level of

service from these sectors experienced by an average

person in the nation. To estimate imported services

from the calculated potential, states above the

average per capita income in the nation are assumed

to be able to fill all their need for services, whereas

states below this level were assumed to be able to fill

only part of their needs. For example, West Virginia

is a state shown to be impoverished by many social

and economic indicators, e.g., in 1997 West Virginia

ranked 49th among the 50 states in per capita income

(8). Following the assumption given above, we

assumed that West Virginians could purchase

services in proportion to the ratio of West Virginia’s

1997 per capita income to the 1997 national average

per capita income. This number is only an estimate

and the actual value of services entering the state is

unknown. Assumptions governing the export and

import of services from different industry sectors

might be expected to vary somewhat based on the

particular economic circumstances of individual

states. In using this method, it is important to

ascertain the facts about a given state’s economy

and to make supportable assumptions about service

import-export relationships based on those facts.

Steps in the method to calculate services are given

in Appendix D.

2.4 Creating the Emergy Balance Sheet

The emergy balance sheet is a table containing

the evaluation of the emergy stored in the assets of

the system. The determination of some stored assets

on the balance sheet of a state or region requires

knowledge of the emergy input over the average

turnover time of the storage. For example, to

determine the emergy required for a forest of trees

that are on average 40 years-old, the average annual

energy used to support an area of forest (chemical

potential energy of the water evapotranspired)

would be multiplied by its transformity and then that

number multiplied by 40 to determine the emergy

required to develop the standing crop of trees

comprising the forest. In evaluating an economic

production process, start-up or capital costs are

prorated over the average lifetime of the facility

carrying out a production process. If the energy or

mass of storage present in the system is known, this

quantity can be multiplied by its transformity or

specific emergy to obtain the emergy of the stored

asset. For example, the estimated recoverable coal

reserves in grams could be multiplied by the heat

content in J/g to get energy and then by the

transformity of coal (sej/J) to find the emergy of the

stored asset. Complete methods of developing the

emergy balance sheet including the documentation of

environmental liabilities are under development

(Campbell 2004).

2.5 Constructing the Emergy-Economic

 Overview

Information from the completed emergy income

statement tables is combined to create a Table of

summary flows, which provides the quantities needed

for the calculation of emergy indices. These summary

flows are also placed on the aggregated overview

diagram of the system (Fig 2). The item name often

is sufficient to identify a quantity, but where it is not,

additional explanation is given in the Table notes

along with how the quantity was derived. The
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-11

evaluated energy systems diagram of the macroscopic economic and ecological features of the

system (See Fig. 2) shows important classes of flows,

the details of emergy and money movements across

system boundaries, and a limited number of flows

within the state. The inflows of renewable and

purchased emergy and the outflows of emergy in

products and services are summarized in an even

simpler “3-arm diagram” (Fig. 3) that shows only

the inputs to and outputs from the system.

2.5.1 Summary Emergy and Dollar Flows

The summary table includes information on all

the important emergy and dollar flows for the system

designated with a letter for each category of flow

(see Table 9). Numerical subscripts after a letter

symbol denote a particular flow of a given type. The

renewable energy inflow to the system is designated

with the letter “R”. The letter “N” indicates

nonrenewable energy sources and any renewable

sources that are being used faster than they are

replaced, e.g., soil, timber, groundwater. Flows

shown using the letter “F” are fuels and minerals

imported and/or used within the state. The gross

economic product of the state (GSP) is designated

with the letter “X”. The letter “G” designates

imported goods excluding fuels and minerals. The

dollars paid for all imports are shown with the letter

I, and subdivisions of this sum are given by the

subscripted letter. The dollars brought into the state

as Federal transfer payments are listed with other

dollar inflows (Table 6 and Figure 2). The letters

“PI” designate the emergy flows in human service

that are embodied in the dollars paid for imported

goods and services. Exported products (goods +

electricity) are represented with the letter “B”. The

dollars paid for exports are shown with the letter “E”

and the emergy that accompanies the human service

embodied in these exports is shown as “PE”.

Money entering the state does not bring emergy

into the state per se. However, when spent, money

generates emergy flows. The emergy flows generated

when tourist dollars are spent in the state are

included as emergy exports in Tables 7 and 9.

Campbell (1998) argued that tourists receive value

from their recreational experience and that these

experiences are virtual emergy flows that require

unique emergy storages and flows to exist within

the system for their creation. In this analysis the

emergy purchased by the dollars tourists spend

within the state is taken as a first order estimate of

the emergy value of their recreational experience.

These experiences are classified as exports, because

they would not be possible without the unique

recreational opportunities provided by the emergy

stores and flows that are present in West Virginia.

One hypothesis is that Federal transfer payments

may flow as a counter current to the overall emergy

received by the nation from a state, where the emergy

received by the nation exceeds that expected from the

monetary exchange , i.e., the monetary exchange

balances but the emergy exchange does not. This

relationship has not been proven, and federal outlays

add emergy flows to the state when these monies are

spent within the state, i.e., at the state’s emergy to

dollar ratio. In this latter view federal outlays would

be imports and federal taxes exports because they

represent a foregone opportunity to generate emergy

flows within the state. Even though the former view

of federal outlays may also be true we have chosen

to view federal outlays as imports and federal taxes

as exports in this paper.

2.5.2 Determining the Renewable Emergy Base

 for a System

The objective in determining the renewable

emergy base for a given area of the earth is to

evaluate the degree to which the earth’s renewable

emergy sources have been concentrated in a given

area. All significant inflows are identified and

evaluated, but the items included in the renewable

emergy base for the system are determined in a

manner that avoids double counting inflows, i.e.,

the base includes only the largest of the emergy

sources entering the area that are co-products of the

same generating process. For example, rain and wind

are co-products of the work done by the planetary

heat engine (the latitudinal gradient of temperature

over the world oceans); therefore, only the largest

would be counted toward the renewable emergy base

for any given area. If a system includes land and sea

areas, the renewable emergy base can be determined

for each area and the two inputs summed to obtain

the renewable emergy base for the entire area.
Methods

2-12

Planetary processes are considered to be one

interconnected system for the purpose of determining

the transformities of global products, thus the entire

emergy input to the earth is necessary for the

formation of all global co-products, regardless of the

baseline. As a result the rules to minimize double

counting in determining the natural emergy base for

a given area of the earth will be the same for all

baselines. The simple rule to avoid double counting

when using the 15.83 or the 9.26 baseline to

determine the renewable emergy base for a system is

to only count the largest inflowing emergy of all the

co-products of the planetary system (including tide)

as the emergy base for any given area of the earth.

Under this rule different areas in the same system

may count different single emergies as the direct

base, e.g., tide for a state’s area of coastal ocean and

the chemical potential energy of rain for the land area

of the coastal state can be added together to get the

renewable emergy received by the entire area of the

state. The same spatial resolution for determining the

emergy inflows must be used to insure that bases are

comparable. Where emergy inflows are concentrated

in space, higher resolution of the inputs will result in

a greater emergy base for the system. For example, at

a resolution of 100 m, the zone of breaking waves

would be resolved for a coastal system and the wave

emergy absorbed might be added to the emergy base

for the system after adjustment of the area of the

other inputs, and if it is the largest input received

over the area of the 100 m wide coastal strip. This

dependence on spatial resolution requires that the

emergy analyst consider differences in the emergy

signature across the landscape where they exist, thus

areas of different biogeographic characteristics are

considered separately and the largest emergy inflows

to each are combined to represent the total system

(Campbell 2000a).

2.5.2.1 Renewable emergy received

For any area, use the largest of the energy sources

supplied by the planetary processes (rain, wind,

waves, earth cycle, tides. etc.) at the point that they

enter the system and sum over the entire area of the

system to determine the renewable emergy received.

For rivers that cross into a state or flow along its

borders, the emergy received at the point the river

enters the state is included in the emergy base. If the

river flows along the border between two states, 1⁄2 of

the emergy received is given to each state.

2.5.2.2 Renewable emergy absorbed

Both the emergy in chemical potential energy

(evapotranspiration) and the geopotential energy

(runoff) of water doing work in the system are

counted, because the water used in these two

processes is distinct. These two forms of energy

carried by water interact across the elevation gradient

from mountains to the sea to maximize empower on

the landscape (Romitelli 1997). All tidal energy

received is assumed to be used within the estuarine

and continental shelf area and all wave energy is

assumed to be used when waves break on the shore.

The chemical potential and the geopotential energy

of rivers used in the state is found by determining the

chemical and geopotential energy at the point where

the river leaves the state and subtracting this from the

respective potentials at the point of entry. For

example, a river enters the state 500 m above sea

level and leaves at an elevation of 250 m, the

difference in geopotential energy of the annual water

flows at these two points is the geopotential energy

used within the state.

2.6 Emergy Indices

Emergy indices are often meaningful to

characterize the condition of a region and determine

the relationship between the region and the larger

system. The emergy indices are calculated by

performing various mathematical operations with the

quantities given in the Flow Summary Table. The

emergy indices used in this study are identified

and explained below.

2.6.1 The Emergy/Money Ratio

The ratio of emergy to money is a useful index

because it connects aggregate economic activity to

the emergy flows that support it. An emergy to

money ratio is obtained by dividing the total emergy

use of a state or country by its gross economic

product. The result is the average amount of emergy

that is purchased by spending a dollar in a certain

place (sej/$). In other words the emergy/dollar ratio

tells us the purchasing power of a dollar in terms of

the real wealth (emergy) that it can buy. Money is

used to purchase products such as food, fuels,
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-13

clothing, housing, electricity, information, etc.

according to their market price. Each of these

products also has an emergy value. In addition, many

products of nature contribute to these economic

products but are not traded in the market and thus

have no market value. Dividing the emergy of a

product or service by the emergy to dollar ratio for

its system gives the emdollar value of the item. The

emdollar value of a product or service represents the

portion of the total purchasing power in the system

that is due to a particular product or service from the

economy or from nature. The emergy to dollar ratio

has another useful property. Because dollars are only

paid to people for their services, the emergy to dollar

ratio for a system can be used as an estimate of the

average value of human services in that system.

Thus, multiplying a dollar value of a product or

service by the emergy to dollar ratio gives, on

average, the emergy equivalent of human service

embodied in that item.

2.6.2 The Emergy Exchange Ratio

The emergy exchange ratio (EER) is the ratio

of emergy received to the emergy given in any

economic transaction, i.e., a trade or sale. The

trading partner that receives more emergy will

receive greater real wealth, and therefore, greater

economic stimulation due to the trade. Indices of

equity in exchange between states and nations are

determined by comparing the emergy in imports and

exports. The difference between imports and exports

indicates whether the state or region is a support area

for other regions and/or the larger system. The ratio

of exports to imports indicates the degree to which a

system contributes emergy to or receives it from a

trading partner or its larger system. When applied

to individual products, the EER gives the emergy

advantage to the buyer by determining the emergy

of the exported product relative to the emergy that

could be purchased with the buying power of the

money received in exchange.

2.6.3 The Investment Ratio

The investment ratio is the ratio of the solar

emergy purchased from outside the system to the

solar emergy supplied by the renewable and nonrenewable energy sources from within the system. It

shows the matching of economic investment to the

indigenous resources of a state or region. Lower

values of this ratio indicate that the indigenous

environmental resources are supplying relatively

more emergy per unit of economic activity, and

therefore, environmental resources may be available

and capable of stimulating investment and additional

economic use. The ratio of purchased to free emergy

is a variation of the investment ratio, which compares

purchased emergy with the free contributions of

renewable emergy. Empower density or the emergy

flow per unit area is a related measure that indicates

the spatial concentration of economic activity or the

intensity of development in a state or nation.

2.6.4 The Environmental Loading Ratio

The environmental loading ratio (Odum 1996,

Brown and Ulgiati 2001) is the ratio of the emergy

used from nonrenewable sources (including

renewable sources being used in a nonrenewable

manner) and the emergy imported in goods and

services to the renewable emergy used. It indicates

the expected intensity of impacts to the renewable

emergy base of the system and the probability that

the system will have incurred significant

environmental liabilities on the balance sheet.

2.6.5 Indices of Self-Sufficiency And Dependence

The emergy used from home sources as a fraction

of total emergy use is a measure of the relative selfsufficiency of a state or region. Conversely, the

fraction of total emergy use purchased from outside

shows the dependence of a state or region on the

larger economy of which it is a part. The fraction

of use that enters as imported services indicates the

relative dependence of the state on the service

economy of the nation.

2.6.6 Indices of Sustainable Use

The fraction of use that is free and the fraction

of use that is renewable are indicators of what is

sustainable in the long run. If the difference between

these two indicators is large, it shows that the longterm capacity of the renewable emergy sources to

support life is being degraded. Truly sustainable use

is based on renewable resources alone used in a

renewable manner. A quick estimate of the renewable

carrying capacity of a state at the current standard of
Methods

2-14

living is obtained by multiplying the fraction of use

that is renewable by the present population of the

state. Sometimes the developed carrying capacity at

the current standard of living is also estimated by

multiplying the above number by 8, an average ratio

of purchased to renewable emergy in developed

countries from past studies (Odum 1996).

2.6.7 Indices of Quality of Life

The annual emergy flow per person is

hypothesized to be an index of the overall standard of

living that includes environmental and economic

contributions to the quality of life. This assumes that

the people living in the system actually benefit from

the energy used there. Quality of life is also indicated

by the emergy in electricity use as a fraction of total

use. This ratio is a measure of the relative importance

of the higher transformity activities of people, and

therefore, it should be correlated with the

contributions of technology to higher standards of

living.

2.7 Energy and Emergy Signatures

Energy and emergy signatures of a system show

the magnitude of environmental and economic

inflows and outflows of a system on a synoptic plot

that is useful in characterizing and classifying

systems. The energy signature is a bar graph of

energy flows with the magnitude and direction of the

flow (in or out of the system) in joules per year

shown on the ordinate and the type of energy flow

identified on the abscissa. A bar graph of the same

flows converted to empower (sej/y) is the emergy

signature of the system. Conversion of energy flows

to empower shows the relative contributions of the

various energy inputs in terms of equivalent ability to

do work. If functionally distinct areas have different

emergy signatures (Campbell 2000b) and similar

areas exhibit similarities in their emergy signature,

the emergy signature may be useful in classifying

different environmental systems based on differences

in their inputs (Odum et al., 1977).

Figure 1. A detailed energy systems model of the State of West Virginia (see Tables 2&3 and Appendix A). The large capital

 letters show connections between sectors where a line would be cumbersome.

Soil

Solar

Rivers

Agriculture

Forest

West Virginia

Aquatic 

Ecosystems

Earth

Cycle

Wind Production

Manufacturing

 Service & 

Commerce

Fuel Goods

Services

Government

Power

Plants

Waste

GSP $

Mining

Recreation

 Tourism

Markets

Tourism

Federal

Gov.

ko

k1

k2

k3

k4

k5

k6

k7

k8

k14

k15

Soil 

k20

k21 k23

Coal Oil

Mountain Gas

LimeSand stone

Salt

k40

k64

k66

k67

k69 k70

 People &

Households

 Rain

Snow

Water

Surface

Water

Ground

 People

W

W

R R

G

G

G

G

P

P

k9 k10

k11 R

k12

k13

k16 k17

k18

k19

k22

k24

k25

k26

k27

k28

k29

k30

k31

k32

k33 k34

k35 k36

k37

k38

k39

k41 k42

k43 k44

k45

k46

k47

k48

k49

k50

k51

k52

k53 k54 k55

k56

k57

k58

k59

k60

k61

k62

k63

k68

Transportation

S

S

T

P

T

Rivers

Erosion

Evapotranspiration

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X k71

k72

k73 k74

k75

k76

S

X

P

k77

G

k78

k79 k65

P

k80 k81

k82
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-15

Table 2. Definition of pathway flows for the systems model of West Virginia’s 

 environment and economy shown in Figure 1. 

Pathway Definition of Flow 

k0 Solar Radiation absorbed by farmland 

k1 Wind energy absorbed by farmland 

k2 Rain fall on farmland 

k3 Solar radiation absorbed by forestland 

k4 Wind energy absorbed by forestland 

k5 Rain fall on forestland 

k6 Solar radiation absorbed by surface water 

k7 Wind energy absorbed by surface water 

k8 Rain fall on surface water 

k9 Waste discharge into rivers and streams 

k10 Environmental effects of recreational water activities 

k11 Government improvements to rivers 

k12 River inflow from outside the state 

k13 River water flowing out of the state 

k14 Ground water base flow to rivers 

k15 Fresh water recharge by forests 

k16 Environmental effects of recreation on the forest 

k17 Government management actions to improve forests 

k18 Evapotransporation from forests 

k19 Forest products used by industry 

k20 Forest products exported directly 

k21 Government inputs to agriculture 

k22 Pesticide, fertilizer, and other inputs used in agriculture 

k23 Soil losses due to erosion 

k24 Agricultural products used by industry 

k25 Waste produced by agriculture 

k26 Agricultural products exported directly 

k27 Waste produced in manufacturing 

k28 Waste produced by people and households 

k29 Products exported from the state 

k30 Manufactured products sold in the state 

k31 Water used by industry 

k32 Labor used by industry 

k33 Mined products used by industry 

k34 Imported fuels used by industry 

k35 Goods and services used by industry 

k36 Electric power used by industry 

k37 Water used in power plants 

k38 Mined products used in power plants. 

k39 Electrical power used by government 

k40 Electricity used by people and households 

k41 Coal mined 
Methods

2-16

Table 2. Definition of pathway flows for the systems model of West Virginia’s 

 environment and economy shown in Figure 1. (continued) 

Pathway Definition of Flow 

k42 Sand and salt mined 

k43 Limestone mined 

k44 Gas and oil mined 

k45 Earth cycle energy driving earth uplift 

k46 Electrical power used by the state government 

k47 Labor used by government 

k48 State and local government projects to benefit people 

k49 Goods and services from outside used by government 

k50 Imported goods and services purchased by people 

k51 Fuel used by people and households 

k52 Fresh water used by people and households 

k53 Labor used in the commerce and service industry 

k54 Local goods and services used by people of West Virginia 

k55 Electricity used in the commerce and service industry 

k56 Fuel used in the commerce and service industry 

k57 Commerce and service industries exports 

k58 Local goods and services used to support recreation 

k59 West Virginia forest supporting recreation 

k60 Fresh waters supporting recreation 

k61 Recreated tourists leaving the state 

k62 Tourists and seasonal residents entering the state 

k63 Net migration of people 

k64 Money spent on imported fuel 

k65 Labor used in the electric power industry 

k66 Money spent on imported goods and services 

k67 Money circulating in the state GSP 

k68 Federal subsidies to the state 

k69 Federal taxes paid by the state 

k70 Money acquired from exports and tourism 

k71 Transportation needed to move fuels into the state 

k72 Fuel needed to run and maintain transportation systems 

k73 Labor needed to run transportation system 

k74 Goods and Services used by transportation systems 

k75 Government contributions to transportation 

k76 Transportation systems used to export goods and services 

k77 Labor used in agriculture 

k78 Imported fuel used by the mining sector 

k79 Labor used in mining industries 

k80 Electric power exported 

k81 Coal exported 

k82 Wastes produced by the mining sector 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

2-17

Table 3. Definitions of the components for the systems model of West Virginia’s 

 environment and economy shown in Figure 1. 

Component Definition 

Aquatic Ecosystems All bodies of water that support an ecosystem in West 

Virginia, specifically the rivers and lakes 

Surface Water All rivers and lakes in West Virginia 

Ground Water The quantity of water held in aquifers in the state 

Forests All forest land both managed and unmanaged, including 

all hard and soft wood areas 

Soil The storage of topsoil in forests and farms 

Agriculture All crop, pasture and orchard land 

Mountains Mountain areas of the state 

Coal The storage of coal within the mountains 

Sand and Salt The storage of sand and salt within the state 

Limestone The storage of limestone in West Virginia 

Gas and Oil The storage of gas and oil 

Mining, M All mining industries including coal, sand, salt, 

limestone, gas, and oil 

Production and Manufacturing 

All manufactures of durable and non-durable goods 

including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, fabricated 

and primary metals, and glass, stone and clay products. 

Also includes fish production, farming, forest, and 

mining industries 

Transportation, T All elements of transportation, including movement by 

truck, train, and river 

Power Plants All fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydroelectric plants 

generating electricity in West Virginia 

Government, G State and local government 

Service and Commerce 

Wholesale and retail trade, hotels, restaurants, banking, 

real estate, insurance and construction companies, repair 

shops; the transportation industry, communication and 

utilities; health, legal, social, personal, and repair 

services; waste treatment, hospitals, schools and other 

government services 

People and Households, P The population of West Virginia and their assets 

(households) 

Recreation and Tourism, R 

All cultural and recreational activities in the state, 

including festivals, kayaking, rafting, hiking, camping, 

and historical sites 

Waste, W Waste products created by people, industry, and 

agriculture 

GSP Gross State Product 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-1

the information that they need to make decisions in

the best interest of society.

At present, West Virginia is faced with the

conflicting needs of its people and the nation. There

is a national energy policy initiative for the United

States to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of

energy (National Energy Policy Development, 2001).

At the same time, there is a growing recognition of

the need to establish a sustainable relationship

between society, resource use, and the environment

(National Research Council, 1999). If the same

standard of living is to be maintained in the United

States as global petroleum production declines, fuel

autonomy implies an expansion of national energy

production and economic growth for West Virginia

and other states with a rich abundance of energy

resources. However, there are often large

environmental impacts associated with the extraction

and use of coal. West Virginia is currently caught

between external and internal pressures to increase

economic prosperity through further developing

energy and other natural resources while also

confronting the daunting task of preventing industry

from further damaging the health of human beings

and the environment.

Major environmental problems in West Virginia

(identified by CVI through interaction with

stakeholders) include sediment accumulation in

streams, forest fragmentation, invasion of exotic

species, acid rain, acid mine drainage and the habitat

loss that accompanies such environmental change

(CVI 2002). Also, flooding was identified as a major

environmental threat to human life and property.

Human economic activities such as mining,

timbering, farming, and changing patterns of urban

and industrial growth are the primary forces causing

environmental change in the state. Despite this

economic activity, many places in West Virginia and

throughout the Mid-Atlantic Highlands experience

An emergy analysis of the State of West Virginia

is given in this section of the report to demonstrate

the emergy accounting methodology. The application

of emergy analysis methods in this case study shows

how each of the techniques given in the methods

section is performed. The calculations and

assumptions used in each part of the analysis are

documented and the sources of the information are

given in the Appendices. This section is written as

a stand alone report that can be used by scientists

and managers who are interested in the results

and conclusions of the case study, “An Emergy

Evaluation of West Virginia”.

3.1 Introduction

The economic productivity and well-being of

West Virginians are dependent on the health and

vitality of their environment as well as the wealth

of their stored mineral resources. However, the

environmental contributions to West Virginia’s

economy cannot adequately be evaluated by market

values alone. There is an inverse relationship

between the contribution a resource makes to the

economy and its price (Odum 1996). For example,

when timber is abundant, prices are lowest but the

contribution of timber to that society is greatest

because it is used for many purposes. On the other

hand, after extreme logging, timber becomes scarce

and the cost increases; timber contributions to the

economy are lower because it is no longer commonly

used (Odum, 1996). Economic studies evaluate

wealth by what people are willing to pay for a

commodity, but because money is not paid to the

environment for its work, market values do not

effectively assess environmental contributions to

value (Odum, 1996). Emergy accounts include

comparable estimates of the environmental, social

and economic costs and benefits of alternative

actions. Therefore, the creation and analysis of such

accounts is needed to ensure that managers have all

Section 3

Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation

of West Virginia
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-2

economic problems from low per capita income to

high unemployment and low labor force participation

rates (CVI 2002). In this report, we examine the

larger system that controls the environmental and

socioeconomic characteristics of local systems within

West Virginia. The emergy analysis methods used in

this state-wide report can be applied to provide a

context for environmental and socioeconomic

problems at the local scale and to evaluate alternative

solutions for watershed restoration as proposed in

CVI (2002).

3.2 The Efficacy of Emergy Accounting in

 Answering Management Questions

People need accurate and complete financial

information to answer questions about their fiscal

condition, so that they can make better decisions. The

kinds of questions that can be answered by keeping

accurate financial accounts are many and depend on

the particular system for which the accounts are

being kept. For example, people ask and answer

practical questions about their individual finances

every day. Some of these questions relate to the

financial condition of assets or income, i.e., “How

much money do I have in the bank?” or “Are my

monthly expenditures within my budget?” Other

questions relate to the equity of exchange, e.g., “Is

that used car really worth the money?” or “How

much will the schools improve if my property taxes

go up?” Still other questions are social in nature and

relate to how we are doing compared to others, e.g.,

“Do we have a higher standard of living than the

neighbors?” When the questions relate to financial

condition, dollars are sufficient to provide the

answer. However, where resources in the public

domain are being used, degraded, or developed,

questions about environmental systems cannot be

answered by considering economic value alone. Yet

the health of society depends on accurate answers

to questions about the condition and use of

environmental resources as surely as individual

financial health depends on assessing personal

savings and income.

Standard accounting tools, such as the income

statement and balance sheet, are used to document

the financial health of a firm. It is no less important

that we develop similar tools to assess the condition

of environmental systems. Emergy accounting

provides the means to keep the accounts for the

economy, society, and the environment on a single

income statement and balance sheet. The questions

that we can answer after performing an emergy

analysis of a system are similar to those that we can

answer as a result of doing a financial analysis of a

business or of our individual accounts. The following

key questions to be answered from information on

West Virginia’s environmental accounts were derived

from discussions with environmental managers from

the Canaan Valley Institute and the United States

Environmental Protection Agency: (1) “What is the

current level of economic investment in relation to

West Virginia’s resource base, and is this level of

investment sustainable?” (2) “What is the net

exchange of real wealth between West Virginia and

the nation?” (3) “What are the major causes for any

observed imbalances?” (4) “What actions can be

taken to address an imbalance, if it exists?”

(5) “How does West Virginia’s standard of living

compare to other states and the nation?” (6) “Who

benefits most from the productive use of the state’s

resources?” (7) “How self-sufficient is the state

based on its renewable and nonrenewable

resources?” (8) “How can we manage the

environment and economy of West Virginia to

maximize the well-being of humanity and nature in

the state and in the nation?” The emergy accounts for

West Virginia presented below provided information

and indicators that helped answer these questions.

3.3 Narrative History of West Virginia

The facts and many insights on the history of

West Virginia given in the narrative history were

taken from Rice (1985) and Rice and Brown (1993).

This narrative history is our condensation of these

histories from the perspective of West Virginia as an

environmental system.

For four hundred million years, the area that is

now the Appalachian Highlands was an arm of the

Atlantic Ocean and it was this water body that left

behind many of the natural resources found in the

Appalachian States. The biogeochemical system

acting in this body of water created the vast mineral

deposits of salt, oil, and natural gas in western West

Virginia and limestone from the fossils of marine

animals in the east. To the east of this ancient water

body were highlands from which material eroded and
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-3

washed down the watershed, weakening the

geosyncline and causing the rock strata to be

repeatedly folded and uplifted forming the ridge and

valley region of the state. Prior to the final upheaval,

much of West Virginia was covered by wetland

vegetation. This vegetation decomposed to form peat

that was then buried and subjected to heat and

pressure deep in the earth. This peat was eventually

transformed into the coal beds that now lie beneath

two thirds of the state. Streams and erosion continued

to sculpt the landscape as the periods of uplift and

subsidence followed one after another in succession.

The mountainous landscape that resulted did

much to affect the settlement of the state. The rough

terrain and lack of a unifying river system discouraged many early settlers from coming to West

Virginia because it was both difficult to enter the area

and difficult for early settlers to maintain communication with friends and relatives without good

transportation systems (Rice 1985). Only a few dared

to face the dangers of Indian attacks and disputes

over land, the loneliness of mountain isolation, and

the struggles that came with conquering a wilderness

alone (Rice 1985). Most families were willing to

move only as part of a larger migration.

The first wave of settlers came to present day

West Virginia in 1730. At this time, in an effort to

protect the Virginia colonies from Indian hostilities,

Virginia made land laws that offered speculators one

thousand acres of land for each family they settled

west of the Blue Ridge. The law stipulated that the

families had to come from outside Virginia and be

settled within three years. Most of the families who

settled were from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or

distressed areas of Europe. This mechanism of land

settlement proved to be successful because the lands

of the Shenandoah and Upper Potomac Valleys were

fertile and easily supported both crops and grazing.

The speculators provided financing on easy terms

and charged only three pounds per acre, compared to

the five to ten pounds per acre charged for less

desirable land in Pennsylvania and Maryland. The

speculators also took care of legal matters, an

important consideration for immigrants, who often

had a minimal mastery of the English language and

laws of Virginia (Rice, 1985). The wisdom of the

Virginia legislature in requiring the settlement of

families on the frontier was a key factor in the

success of the land companies and the settlements

they established (Rice and Brown 1993). However,

land laws that were so successful in attracting the first

settlers to West Virginia were to cause trouble in later

years.

The Virginia Land Law of 1779 made preemption

rights and claims based on military treasury warrants

transferable. This enabled speculators to acquire

millions of acres formerly granted to the land

companies and individuals for military service. By

1805, 250 persons or groups had acquired 10,000

acres or more. Many were merchants of Philadelphia,

Baltimore, Richmond, and other eastern cities. Traffic

in land left much of West Virginia in the hands of

absentee owners who often had more interest in

exploiting the resources than in the region itself. West

Virginians suffered from the land system whether

their land was in dispute or not, because speculators

failed to spend resources on development and waited

for the state government to provide roads, canals, and

improvements. Often the land was classified as “wild”

and was taxed at very low rates providing little money

for internal improvements, schools, and services. West

Virginia also failed to require land surveys in

accordance with the spherical earth. This led to layers

of claims, many by non-residents, that were overlapping and vague causing land titles to be insecure.

The chaotic land system deprived West Virginia of

thousands of much needed immigrants and retarded

economic growth. Some men and women settled in

the state and fought for its improvement, but many

others preferred the rich farmland and secure titles

of lands further west (Rice and Brown 1993).

Early West Virginians saw the economic potential

of coal, timber, iron, and other natural resources as

evidenced by their use in local industries, but the

absence of investment capital, lack of developed

markets within the state, and problems in transportation by both land and water, prevented the large scale

exploitation of the state’s natural resources. Historically, the ability to extract, use, and transport the vast

quantities of energy in nonrenewable resources within

the state has been the limiting factor for economic and

social development in West Virginia.

Transportation infrastructure is important for

economic development, especially in a mountainous

state. In West Virginia, the first transportation industry
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-4

was the manufacture of flat boats, which were used

to carry agricultural goods and salt along the rivers.

The need to move coal from the heart of West

Virginia drove the small mining companies to

organize the Coal River Navigation Company in the

1840s and to begin the construction of locks and

dams along the rivers so that larger boats could pass

to the Ohio River. The construction of railroads had

an even larger affect on economic development than

river improvements (Rice 1985). Railroads could be

built near the resources, rather than having to

transport the resources to the river, and their spread

was limited only by the speed at which the rails could

be laid (Rice 1985). The introduction of the railroad

greatly increased the development of all resourceextraction industries in the state.

3.3.1 Salt

For centuries the Indians had visited the salt

springs on the Kanawha River and Little Kanawha

River where they used the basic technique of boiling

brine to make salt. In 1797, the first commercial salt

works opened in the Kanawha Valley. By 1851 there

were 52 salt furnaces lining the banks of the

Kanawha over a 10 mile stretch that produced 2500-

3000 bushels (63625 kg) of salt per day. The industry

peaked in 1846 with the production of 3,224,786

bushels (76,955,120 kg). The salt works drew

hundreds of workers to make the barrels and hoop

polls, work the salt, and run the flatboats needed for

transportation. Thus, the salt industry produced the

first diversified economic life in West Virginia. Salt

making was also the first industry to radically change

the social structure of the state by creating a class of

exploitable industrial workers (Rice 1985).

3.3.2 Coal

The deposits of coal that lie beneath the surface

of the land are the legacy of productive swamplands

that existed at an earlier time. Exploitable seams of

bituminous coal lie beneath two thirds of the state of

West Virginia. For a long time West Virginia coal

was used only in the salt furnaces. It was not sent

outside of the state because the Kanawha River was

too low for navigation by large boats during the

summer and fall months. For this reason, coal was

only used locally within the state in the ironworks,

foundries, paper mills, glass factories, distilleries,

and cotton and woolen mills. However, in 1847,

cannel coal was found at Cannelton, WV. Cannel

coal is a rare, clean-burning variety of coal that

produced the first small coal boom in West Virginia.

Only the very wealthy could afford cannel coal and

the majority was shipped to Boston.

With the expansion of the railroads in the 1880s,

coal production greatly increased. In 1888, Fayette

County became the first county in West Virginia to

mine more than one million short tons of coal

annually and by1912 McDowell County was

producing 13.7 million tons. About 10 to 15 per cent

of the coal mined was converted to coke, although no

coke has been produced since 1979. With the

exception of a brief decrease during economic

readjustments following World War I, coal

production steadily increased until the Great

Depression, rising from 69,783,088 short tons in

1914 to 139,297,146 short tons in 1929. World War II

stimulated a strong resurgence and the peak

production year was 1947, when 173,653,816 short

tons were produced.

Surface mining also rapidly increased after World

War II. In 1950 it composed only 8.8% of the coal

mining, but by 1980 it accounted for 20.7%. This

increase was partly due to the development of heavy

equipment and new technology. This practice has

been controversial because it leaves scarred hillsides,

destroys wildlife habitat, increases soil erosion,

degrades water quality, and increases the risk of

flooding. Surface mining and the mechanization of

the underground mines drastically reduced the labor

force while maintaining high outputs of coal.

3.3.3 Timber

During the Industrial Revolution many Americans

saw the removal of forests as progress. In clearing

land and constructing farm buildings, the first West

Virginia pioneers destroyed trees without regard for

their value as timber. The first saw mill was built in

1776 and logging soon became an important

business. The rivers of West Virginia were not easily

navigable by large barges and initially this slowed the

movement of natural resources; however timber was

quickly removed from the state after the adaptation

of the lock and dam systems, the building of railroads

and the introduction of the band saw. Lumber
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-5

companies, mainly from New York, Pennsylvania,

Michigan, and Minnesota, bought most of the best

timberlands in West Virginia. They usually paid 2-5

dollars per acre when at the time a single yellow

poplar tree could yield 2000 board feet that sold for

eighty to one hundred dollars per thousand board feet

(Clarkson 1964). A band saw could cut seventeen

acres of forest in a single day.

Timber production increased to 1483 million

board feet in 1909. From 1870 to 1920, more than

30 billion board feet were cut (Clarkson 1964).

According to Clarkson (1964), this is enough lumber

to build a boardwalk 13 feet wide and 2 inches thick

extending to the moon. This total does not include

wood carried by streams and rivers to be cut in

Kentucky or Ohio, or the millions of feet burned and

wasted by the pioneers and brush fires following

logging. By 1920, most of the virgin forest was

removed, except for a few isolated areas of small

acreage. Without forests to harvest, the jobs in the

timber industry were no longer available and the

population of the logging towns began to diminish.

In spite of past and present efforts at reforestation

and conservation, timbering and various other

extractive industries have left a legacy of depleted

resources, scarred terrain and fleeting prosperity.

3.3.4 Oil

The first important oil well in West Virginia was

brought into production in 1859, shortly before the

onset of the Civil War. By 1863, the year West

Virginia officially became a state; there were 225

wells, each pumping on average 116 barrels of oil per

day. In 1882, Dr. Israel White, a professor of geology

at West Virginia University, proposed a theory that

oil deposits tended to collect under great arches of

rock known as anticlines. This was found to be true

and led to a dramatic upsurge in oil discovery and

production. The industry peaked in 1900, when

16,195,675 barrels were produced. West Virginia oil

production has been in decline in the 20th century.

3.3.5 Natural Gas

Natural gas fields frequently coincide with oil

regions. The anticlines commonly have natural gas in

the upper strata, oil in the intermediate strata and

water or brine in the lower region. West Virginia was

relatively slow at putting natural gas to commercial

or industrial use; prior to the Civil War, salt making

was the only industry using it. Before 1882, most

natural gas was discovered accidentally by oil and

salt drillers. They considered it a nuisance and made

no effort to conserve it. Unused gas flows sometimes

discharged into the air for months, with thunderous

sounds that could be heard for miles (Rice and

Brown 1993). But by 1906, West Virginia ranked

first among the states in natural gas production. As

with coal and oil, the initial large numbers of small

natural gas operations gave way to a few giants,

e.g., first the Standard Oil Company and later the

Columbia Gas System, who controlled production

and distribution.

3.3.6 Limestone

Limestone is found throughout the state, but the

most valuable limestone lies along the length of the

Allegheny Mountains, on the Cacapon and upper

South Branch Rivers and in the Shenandoah Valley.

Like many West Virginia industries, it reached its

peak production in the past (1977) and output is

now declining. In 1977 the output of sandstone

and limestone was 10,499,000 short tons.

3.3.7 Sand

Sand is another important material deposited

within the state. Some of the sand in West Virginia is

99.8 per cent pure silica. This coupled with the

natural gas and limestone assured West Virginia an

important place in the glass industry, and Wellsburg

had a glass factory as early as 1813.

3.3.8 Iron

When the iron industry first developed, small

furnaces throughout West Virginia produced bar iron,

but by 1830, a facility on the Cheat River made

Morgantown a center of importance for production of

plows, nails, stoves, grates, and other iron products.

Before the Civil War, the major iron-making centers

were in Wheeling, Weirton and on the Cheat River

near Morgantown. The introduction of the open

hearth and Bessemer processes after the Civil War

led to the development of a steel industry that had

major effects on the economy of the state. By 1920,

a number of smaller foundries around the state had
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-6

been absorbed by several much larger operations

centered at Wheeling and Weirton. Two world wars

further stimulated the growth of the industry and in

1932 a large plant was built in Alloy, WV. It made

more than 50 alloys used in the production of highgrade steel and ferrochrome alloy. After World War

II, Kaiser Aluminum built a plant in Ravenswood on

the banks of the Ohio River, presently owned by

Century Aluminum, which added diversity to the

primary metals industry in the state.

3.3.9 Textiles

Textile manufacture, like iron, dates back to

colonial times in West Virginia. Before World War I,

Wheeling was known for its excellent calicos,

Martinsburg and Berkeley Springs were known for

hosiery, Charleston for blankets, and Huntington for

upholstery and work clothes. Synthetic yarns and

fibers began to be manufactured after World War I.

Plants at Nitro and Parkersburg made rayon from the

chemical processing of raw cotton and wood pulp.

A DuPont plant at Belle also produced nylon from

coal, nitrogen, and water, which soon replaced silk

for many purposes because of its durability.

3.3.10 Chemicals

The West Virginia industry with the most rapid

and continuous growth in the twentieth century is

the manufacture of chemicals and their by-products.

The extensive brines in the Kanawha Valley and the

beds of rock salt in the Northern Panhandle, along

the upper Ohio River and from Ritchie to

Monongahela County were instrumental in the

development of the chemical companies in West

Virginia. The loss of German manufactured

chemicals and explosives during World War I led to

the federal government’s construction of a highexplosives plant at Nitro and a mustard gas plant at

Belle. Also, World War II brought both Union

Carbide and DuPont to the Kanawha Valley to

manufacture chemicals (Rice 1985).

The valley produces bromine, magnesium,

sodium, barium, ammonia, and intermediate chemical

compounds that are used to manufacture rubber,

plastics, rayon, nylon, and antifreeze. The industry

also expanded into the Ohio Valley from Huntington

to the northern Panhandle, a region which supplies

coal, brine, and rock salt for the production of

chlorine and carbon. The demand for chemicals

during World War II caused an increase in

production.

3.3.11 Electric Power

After World War I, electric power became an

important energy source. Coal-fired plants were built

in Beech Bottom, Graham Station, Riversville, Cabin

Creek, Albright, Willow Island, Logan, and Denova.

By 1980, most of the electric power in the state was

generated by the American Electric Power System,

the Allegany Power Company, and Virginian Electric

and Power Company (Rice and Brown 1993).

3.4 An Energy Systems Model of West

 Virginia

An energy systems model of West Virginia that

shows the major economic and environmental

forcing functions, components and connections is

presented in Figure 1. It offers a conceptual guide to

thinking about the region and provides the basis for

developing emergy accounts for the state. The

environmental energy sources, along with the fuels,

goods, and services that help make West Virginia’s

economy productive are shown as circles outside the

system boundary. Purchased imports and exports

generate monetary flows that cross the state borders

in exchange for products and services. Tourists bring

money into the state to spend on recreation and the

federal government generates both monetary inflow

(as outlays) and outflows (as taxes). The flows of

energy, material, and information into, through, and

out of the state are identified by the various

pathways, each labeled with a subscripted k. The k’s

are listed and defined in Table 2, but in this paper

they only identify the various pathways. In a

simulation model, each k has a numerical value that

determines the rate of flow of energy or materials

along the pathway. The system components, e.g.,

economic sectors, shown within the diagram are

defined in Table 3. The external forcing functions for

the state are listed below in developing the emergy

income statement for West Virginia. External forcing

functions are arranged in order of increasing transformity from left to right around the edge of the box

indicating the system’s boundaries. In the left hand

corner, solar radiation enters the system followed by
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-7

other natural energies, in the form of wind, rain, the

earth cycle of uplift and subsidence and rivers. Next,

the energy of fossil fuel enters, followed by material

goods and services, people, government and higher

social structures, such as markets.

The model components in Figure 1 include

aggregated aquatic ecosystems, forests, and

agriculture, which together represent the natural

production systems in the state. Storages of

nonrenewable environmental resources are of great

significance in West Virginia. They include coal,

natural gas, oil, sand, salt, limestone, and clay.

Renewable resources such as soil, water, timber and

agricultural production are also important. Waste is

a by-product of human activity and most significantly

affects the aquatic ecosystems of the state as acid

mine drainage, animal waste, and human sewage.

The mining of nonrenewable resources supports

much of the manufacturing in the state, as well as

the generation of electric power. The service and

commerce sector supports recreation and tourism,

which generates a significant part of the gross state

product, GSP. People and households supply the

labor that runs the state. The state population appears

to have been in a pattern of damped fluctuation over

the past 50 years, which has resulted in an overall

decline from its peak of 2.005 million that was

attained in 1950. The transportation sector is critical

for the movement of goods and services into and out

of West Virginia and in the past the transportation

sector has limited the rate of economic development

in the state (Rice 1985).

3.5 The Emergy Income Statement for West

 Virginia

The emergy income statement summarizes the

major annual flows of emergy for the state. It consists

of four accounts, renewable resources (Table 4),

nonrenewable resources (Table 5), imports (Table 6),

and exports (Table 7). Each account or table in the

emergy income statement has six columns as defined

in Table 1. The numbers in column one (Note) refer

to the listing of calculations and assumptions in

Appendix C that document the values given in

column three (Data).

The annual renewable resources and production

for West Virginia in 1997 are shown in Table 4. There

is a corresponding table of renewable natural

resources and products for 2000 in Appendix E,

Table E1. The chemical potential energy of rain on

land is the largest renewable emergy source received

by the state. The earth-cycle emergy of uplift and

erosion and the emergy delivered in the chemical

potential energy of rivers entering the state are each

about 3⁄4 of that supplied by the rain. The largest

source of renewable production in West Virginia is

timber growth, followed by livestock and timber

harvest. Overall, renewable production is only

5% of the emergy produced from mining coal.

Production and use of nonrenewable sources in

West Virginia was evaluated for 1997 in Table 5 with

a corresponding evaluation for 2000 in Appendix E,

Table E2. Coal accounts for the largest production

of emergy in West Virginia followed by electricity,

98% of which is generated from coal-fired plants.

Coal supplies 48% of the emergy in the energy used

within the state, followed by electricity (23%),

petroleum (18%), and natural gas (10%).

West Virginia imports and exports in 1997 are

shown in Tables 6 and 7. There are tables with the

2000 numbers in Appendix E, Tables E3 and E4. The

largest emergy imported to West Virginia in 1997

was in the material goods entering the state. The

second largest emergy inflow was in the services

associated with those goods, followed by the emergy

in petroleum (excluding the natural gas received at

the state border). Federal government outlays do not

bring emergy into the state per se, but generate

emergy flows in the state economy when spent. Total

outlays must be decreased by the amount of taxes

paid to get the net effect of government expenditures.

The emergy flows generated in the state’s

economy as a result of the dollars spent by tourists

are considered to be exports because they represent

assets of the state that “flow out” or are used in

proportion to the experience received. The dollars

that tourist bring into the state are not accompanied

by emergy per se, they generate flows of emergy in

proportion to the state’s emergy to dollar ratio when

they are used to purchase products and services

within the state economy. We assume that the natural,

historical, and aesthetic assets of the state deliver an

experience to tourists that can be measured roughly

by the emergy purchased through the dollars spent in
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-8

tourism. A detailed analysis of the emergy required

for tourists to receive particular experience would

give a more accurate estimate of the value exported;

however, this labor intensive work must wait until a

later time. If all 1997 tourist dollars are spent at the

West Virginia emergy to $ ratio, they comprise 15%

of the emergy embodied in value-added exports

(see Fig. 3).

Coal accounts for the largest amount of emergy

produced in and exported from the state. West

Virginia also imports some coal for electric power

generation, alumina for aluminum production and

iron ore for steel production. Coal and electricity are

the largest exports and together they account for 63%

of the emergy in the state’s exports.

There is a large emergy flow in the transportation

of natural gas through the state as indicated by the

natural gas received (Table 6) and delivered (Table 7)

at state borders. These large flows indicate the forces

that bind the nation as a whole into a system. Much

of the gas simply flows through the state with some

of it stored or removed from underground storage

that is available as a consequence of past natural gas

production. West Virginia produces more natural gas

than it uses and we assumed that the excess was

exported.

3.6 The Emergy Balance Sheet for

 West Virginia

The emergy balance sheet, when fully developed,

provides the information needed to determine

whether a human activity, institution, or system is

sustainable (Campbell 2004). The balance sheet

summarizes the stored assets and liabilities of the

state. It has the same six columns described for the

income statement. Some of the storages of natural,

economic, and social capital found within the state in

1997 are given in Table 8. The stored assets for 2000

are shown in Appendix E, Table E5. Many more

storages of natural, social, and economic capital and

debt need to be evaluated to complete the balance

sheet, e.g., the emergy stored in the assets of

biodiversity, culture, and economic infrastructure and

the debt incurred by loss of biodiversity and natural

lands. Campbell (2004) presented a theoretical basis

for the definition and measurement of environmental

liabilities and the use of emergy-monetary balance

sheets to determine the true solvency of human

endeavors and institutions. Current research at the

USEPA, National Health and Environmental Effects

Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, is

focused on developing the methods to document

environmental liabilities and the completion of

several example balance sheets.

A partial or incomplete balance sheet that

includes only assets, such as the one shown in Table

8, still contains useful information that documents

the stored wealth available in a system. In West

Virginia the natural capital stored in accessible coal

reserves is two orders of magnitude greater than the

second largest emergy storage, the social capital

stored in the education of West Virginia’s people.

Considerable wealth is stored in the standing stock

of trees and in the remaining natural gas reserves.

Combining data from the emergy income statement

and balance sheet we can project that West Virginia

coal reserves will last 306 years, if the 1997

production rate continues into the future.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-9

*The notes for Table 4 can be found in Appendix C at C1. 

Table 4. Annual Renewable Resources and Production in 1997. 

Note* Item 

Data 

J, g, $,ind/yr Units 

Emergy/ 

Unit 

sej/unit 

Emergy 

E+20 sej 

1997 

Emdollars 

E+6 Em$ 

Renewable Resources within West Virginia 

1 Sun, incident 3.07E+20 J 1 3 256 

1 Sun, absorbed 2.64E+20 J 1 3 220 

2 Wind Kinetic Energy 1.07E+17 J 1470 15.8 1315 

3 Earth Cycle 1.39E+17 J 33700 47 3904 

4 Rain, chemical potential energy received 3.32E+17 J 18100 60 5008 

5 Evapotranspiration, chemical potential absorbed 1.56E+17 J 28100 44 3653 

6 Rain, geo-potential on land 3.66E+17 J 10300 38 3142 

7 Rain, geo-potential of runoff 6.02E+16 J 27200 16 1496 

8 Rivers, chemical potential energy received 9.06E+16 J 50100 45 3783 

8 Rivers, chemical potential energy absorbed 2.90E+14 J 50100 0.15 12 

9 Rivers, geo-potential energy received 4.99E+16 J 27200 14 1131 

9 Rivers, geo-potential energy absorbed 2.06E+16 J 27200 5.6 467 

 

Renewable Production within West Virginia 

10 Agricultural Products 1.76E+16 J 63000 11 924 

11 Livestock 28 1475 

 Beef 3.70E+15 J 680000 25 2097 

 All other livestock 3.17E+14 J 792000 3 279 

12 Fish Production 7.22E+11 J 1961800 0.014 1 

13 Hydroelectricity 4.09E+15 J 120300 5 410 

14 Net Timber Growth 2.10E+17 J 20900 44 3658 

15 Timber harvest 2.29E+16 J 68700 16 1311 

16 Ground water 9.49E+14 J 159000 2 126 

Table 5. Annual Production and Use of Nonrenewable Resources in 1997. 

Note* Item 

Data 

J, g, $, ind/yr Units 

Emergy/ 

Unit 

sej/unit 

Emergy 

E+20 sej 

1997 

Emdollars 

E+6 Em$ 

Fuels and renewables used in a nonrenewable manner 

17 Coal Production 4.64E+18 J 39200 1819 151573 

18 Coal Used in the State 9.9E+17 J 39200 388 32340 

19 Natural Gas Production 1.9E+17 J 47100 89 7457 

20 Natural Gas Used in the State 1.7E+17 J 47100 80 6673 

21 Petroleum Production 9.2E+15 J 53000 5 406 

22 Petroleum Used in the State 2.3E+17 J 64700 149 12401 

23 Electricity Production 3.3E+17 J 170400 562 46860 

24 Electricity Used in the State 9.4E+16 J 170400 160 13348 

25 Clay 1.51E+05 T 1.9E+15 3 239 

26 Sand and Gravel 1.7E+06 T 1.3E+15 22 1842 

27 Limestone 1.2E+07 T 9.8E+14 118 9800 

28 Sandstone 856 T 9.8E+14 0.01 1 

29 Soil Erosion from agricultural areas 4.0E+15 J 72600 3 242 

* The notes for Table 5 can be found in Appendix C at C.2. 

Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-11

 Table 81.

 Assets of West Virginia in 1997. 

Note* Item 

Data 

J, g, $, ind/yr Units 

Emergy/Unit 

sej/unit 

Emergy 

E+20 sej 

1997 Emdollars 

E+6 Em$ 

49 Forest Biomass 1.04E+19 J 28,200 2,933 244,400 

50 Coal 1.42E+21 J 39,200 556,640 46,386,666 

51 Petroleum 1.19E+17 J 53,000 63 5,256 

52 Natural Gas 3.13E+18 J 47,100 1,474 122,853 

53 People 1,816,000 Ind. Various 3,837 315,570 

 - Preschool 21,952 Ind. 3.3E+16 7 604 

 - School 1,181,525 Ind. 9.2E+16 1,087 90,584 

 - College Grad 383,808 Ind. 2.7E+17 1,036 86,357 

 - Post-College 51,036 Ind. 1.3E+18 667 53,929 

 - Elderly (65+) 159,518 Ind. 1.7E+17 271 22,598 

 - Public Status 18,160 Ind. 3.9E+18 708 59,020 

 - Legacy 792 Ind. 7.7E+18 61 5,082 

* The notes for Table 8 can be found in Appendix C at C.5. 

1 Additional assets and liabilities evaluated in Campbell (2005) are buildings 481 E+20 sej and bonds outstanding 43 

 E+20 sej, both obtained by converting dollar value to emergy using 1.08 E+12 sej/$. 
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-12

3.7 Overview Models and Flow Summary

Figure 2 shows an aggregated model of the

environment and economy of West Virginia in 1997.

It provides an overview of the emergy and dollar

flows across state boundaries and gives the various

natural and economic sources of the flows. The

pathways on the diagram show the interaction of

renewable and nonrenewable resources within the

system and the exchanges of emergy and dollars that

drive the state’s economy. Table 9 identifies the

flows of emergy and dollars shown on Figure 2. The

table that summarizes the flows of emergy and

dollars for 2000 is found in Appendix E, Table E6.

The pathway symbols and values in Table 9 are used

in Table 10 to calculate indices. The number

indicated in column one directs the reader to a

description of the calculations used to obtain the

summary flows (see Appendix C, Table C6).

Figure 2: Aggregated diagram of West Virginia’s economy and emergy resource base used for the calculation of indices.

Symbols are identified in Table 9. Emergy flows times E+20 sej/y; dollar flows times E+9 $/y.

Goods

Coal, Fuels

 Minerals

 Sun

 Wind

Rivers

 Rain

Markets

Services

West Virginia in 1997

 GSP

$38.3

Soil

Environment

U

s

e

d

N

o

nre

n

e

w

a

bly

Fuels

 

RR

X

F

G

PI

N2

N1

N0

PI3

I2

PE3

F1

B

E

Units:

E+20 sej/yr

E+9 $/yr

3

821

2056

265

948 74

$23.2

375

I $31.1

$31.1

1500

1176

U.S.& World

Economies

Federal

Govt.

Tourists

I4

E5 $6.9

$10.4

E4 $4.0

I1

$1.7

I3

$6.2

7

PE2 319 105

RA

68

E1 $3.9

E2 $26.6

E3 $0.6

PE1

47

x

x

x

x
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-13

Table 9. Summary of Annual Flows for West Virginia in 1997. 

Note 

Letter in 

Fig. 2 Item 

Emergy 

E+20 sej 

1997 

Dollars 

E+9 $ 

1997 

Emdollars 

E+9 Em$ 

54 RR Renewable emergy received 105 8.75 

54 RA Renewable emergy absorbed 66 5.50 

55 N Nonrenewable source flows 2059 171.58 

56 N0 Dispersed Rural Source 3 0.25 

57 N1 Mineral Production (fuels, etc.) 2056 171.33 

58 N2 Fuels Exported without Use 1500 125.00 

59 F Imported Minerals (fuels, etc.) 265 22.08 

60 F1 Minerals Used (F+N1-N2) 821 68.42 

61 F2 In State Minerals Used (N1-N2) 556 46.33 

62 G Imported Goods (materials) 948 79.00 

63 I Dollars Paid for All Imports 31.13 

64 I1 Dollars Paid for Service in Fuels 1.72 

65 I2 Dollars Paid for Service in Goods 23.24 

66 I3 Dollars Paid for Services 6.17 

67 I4 Federal Transfer Payments 10.40 

68 PI Imported Services, Total 375 31.25 

69 PI1 Imported Services in Fuels 21 1.72 

70 PI2 Imported Services in Goods 280 23.33 

71 PI3 Imported Services 74 6.20 

72 PI4 Emergy Purchased by Federal $ 601 50.08 

73 B Exported Products (goods + elec.) 1176 98.00 

74 E Dollars Paid for All Exports 31.08 

75 E1 Dollars Paid for Fuel Exported 3.92 

76 E2 Dollars Paid for Exported Goods 26.60 

77 E3 Dollars Paid for Exported Services 0.58 

78 E4 Dollars Spent by Tourist 4.00 

79 E5 Federal Taxes Paid 6.85 

80 PE Exported Services, Total 373 31.08 

81 PE1 Exported Services in Fuels 47 3.92 

82 PE2 Exported Services in Goods 319 26.58 

83 PE3 Exported Services 7 0.58 

84 PE4 Emergy Purchased by Tourists 231 19.27 

85 PE5 Emergy Purchases Forgone 396 33.00 

86 X Gross State Product 38.3 
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-14

West Virginia

Goods 

 and 

Services 

Environment Value Added Exports

E+20 sej/year

Imports

Fuels

West Virginia

 Fuels

556

265

108 1549

Exported without Use

1500

1323

Figure 3. Summary of West Virginia’s annual environmental and economic emergy flows for 1997.

The state system was further simplified using a

“three-armed diagram” (Figure 3) modified to show

the flows of indigenous nonrenewable fuels. This

diagram gives an overview of the renewable and

nonrenewable emergy base for the state, purchased

imports and exports with a single, simple visual

image. Several key facts that can be easily

determined from the diagram: (1) West Virginia

supplies 68% (556/821) of the nonrenewable fuels

used within the state. (2) In 1997, almost twice as

much emergy was exported as was imported (3049/

1588). (3) The ratio of purchased to environmental

emergy was almost 20:1 (2144/108). (4) Seventythree percent (1500/2056) of the nonrenewable

emergy produced within the state was exported

without use.

3.8 Emergy Indices

Table 10 presents several emergy indices that

help us gain a better understanding of the state of

West Virginia. Similar indices for 2000 are shown

in Appendix E, Table E7. The values of some

important indices and their meaning follow: (1)

Twenty-eight percent of the emergy used in the state

in 1997 was derived from home sources, which

indicates a moderate potential for self-sufficiency.

(2) The emergy use per person was 1.22 E+17 sej/

ind. This value shows that West Virginians could

have a high overall standard of living (see Table 11).

Later we will see why this is not the case. (3) The

import/export emergy ratio shows almost twice as

much emergy leaving the state in exports as is

received in imports, which indicates an imbalance in

the exchange of real wealth with the nation. (4) The

emergy used per unit area was 3.55 E+12 sej m-2,

indicating that the state is developed relative to the

other states in Table 11. This is somewhat surprising

for a state that is 79% forested. However, this result

may be explained in part by the growth trend of the

nation over the time difference (1997 vs. 1979-1992)

between the analyses. (5) The emergy to dollar ratio

was 5.78 E+12 sej/$, which indicates that the

purchasing power of a dollar in West Virginia in

1997 was 4.8 times that of an average place in the

United States. (6) The investment ratio was 2.39,

which indicates a relatively low intensity of matching

(Odum 1996) between purchased economic emergy

from outside the state and the emergy of renewable

and nonrenewable environmental resources within

the state. This index suggests that West Virginia is

still an attractive place for further economic

investment. (7) The environmental loading ratio was

20:1, which indicates an intense matching of

purchased inputs with renewable energy from the

environment potentially resulting in high stress on

ecosystems or a heavy “load” on the waste processing capacity of the environment (see Table 11).

Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-16

Table 10 West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 1997. 

Item Name of Index Expression Quantity Units 

87 Renewable emergy received RR 1.05E+22 sej y-1

88 Renewable emergy used RA 6.6E+21 sej y-1

89 In State non-renewable N0 + N1 2.059E+23 sej y-1

90 Imported emergy F + G + PI 1.588E+23 sej y-1

91 Total emergy inflows RR + F + G + PI 1.696E+23 sej y-1

92 Total emergy used U = RA+N0+F1+G+PI 2.213E+23 sej y-1

93 Total exported emergy B+ PE +N2 3.049E+23 sej y-1

94 Emergy used from home sources (N0+F2+ RA)/U 0.282 

95 Imports-Exports (F+G+PI)-(B+PE+N2) -1.46E+23 sej y-1

96 Ratio of export to imports (B+PE+N2)/(F+G+PI) 1.92 

97 Fraction use, locally renewable RA /U 0.030 

98 Fraction of use purchased import (F + G + PI)/U 0.72 

99 Fraction used, imported service PI/U 0.17 

100 Fraction of use that is free (RA+N0)/U 0.031 

101 Ratio of purchased to free (F1+G+PI)/(RR+N0) 19.9 

102 Environmental Loading Ratio (F1+N0+G+PI)/(RR) 20.4 

103 Investment Ratio (F+G+PI)/(RR+N0+F2) 2.39 

104 Use per unit area U/Area 3.55E+12 sej m-2

105 Use per person U/Population 1.22E+17 sej/ind 

106 Renewable Carrying Capacity 

at present standard of Living 

(RR /U)* 

(Population) 

88,625 people 

107 Developed Carrying Capacity 

at same living standard 

8(R/U)(Population) 709,003 people 

108 WV State Econ. Product GSP 3.83E+10 $/yr 

109 Ratio of WV emergy use to GSP U/GSP 5.78E+12 sej/$ 

110 Ratio of U.S. emergy use to GNP U/GNP 1.20E+12 sej/$ 

111 Ratio of Electricity/Emergy Use El/U 0.072 

112 Ratio Elec. Prod./Emergy Use Elp/U 0.254 

113 Emergy of Fuel Use per Person Fuel use/Population 3.41E+16 sej/ind 

114 Population 1.816E+6 people 

115 Area 6.236E+10 m2
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-17

3.10.1 Characteristics of West Virginia Based on

 Emergy Analysis

West Virginia is a mountainous state with an

average elevation of 457 m, which is higher than all

the other states east of the Mississippi River. In light

of this fact, it is understandable that 33% of the

renewable emergy used in the state is supplied by the

geopotential energy of runoff and by rivers entering

the state. Almost all the remaining 67% of the

renewable emergy used in the state is contributed by

the chemical potential energy of rain transpired by

vegetation on the land. The Ohio River, which forms

the western border of the state, and the New River,

which enters the state across its southeast border,

deliver emergy inflows in fresh water that are as

large as the chemical potential energy of water

transpired, but little of this chemical potential

energy appears to be used in the state.

West Virginia is more richly endowed with fuel

and mineral resources (principally coal), as measured

by emergy density of underground resources, than

any other state that we have studied (see Table 11)

with the possible exception of Alaska. The emergy

density of underground fuel and mineral resources

in West Virginia is 9E+14 sej m-2. This is fifty times

greater than the emergy density estimates for Maine

and Texas, and seventeen times that of the United

States as a whole. For Alaska, the estimates of coal

reserves (Brown et al. 1993) have greater uncertainty

and the emergy density ranges from 0.07 to 4.84 of

that found in West Virginia.

Coal dominates the emergy flows, economic

activities, and ostensibly environmental impacts in

West Virginia. The emergy of coal produced in West

Virginia in 1997 was equal to 82% of the total

emergy used in the state. Most of the coal used in

West Virginia generates electricity for export;

however, it is also an important input to the

chemical and primary metals industries.

The production and use of coal and other products in West Virginia provides a tremendous emergy

subsidy (1.46E+23 sej/y) to the larger economies of

the United States and the world. Approximately, 82%

of West Virginia coal production is exported without

use. In addition, most of the coal consumed in the

state is used to generate electrical power, of which

71% is exported. The coal exported without use

accounts for 100% of the difference between the

emergy exported from and the emergy imported to

the state.

The United States contributes $10.4 billion

dollars in total federal transfer payments to

individuals and state and local governments in West

Virginia. In addition, tourists spend $4 billion dollars

to enjoy recreational activities in the state.

Multiplying these values by the emergy to dollar

ratio for West Virginia in 1997 demonstrates that the

combined expenditures of the federal government

could have generated an emergy flow of 6.01E+22

sej/y, if the money was spent in the state. This is 40%

of the emergy in coal and natural gas that is exported

without use. However, $6.85 billion are paid in

federal taxes, so the net subsidy was 2.05E+22 sej/y

or 14% of coal and gas exports. The net federal

payments to West Virginia, when spent in the state,

generate 1.63E+22 sej/y more emergy flow than if

the money was spent in an average place in the

United States. Thus, a dollar of government money

spent in West Virginia generates a flow of real wealth

that is 4.8 times greater than that generated if that

dollar was spent at an average location in the United

States.

Observation of road construction projects in the

state plus conversations with residents indicate that

the rate of economic and social development in parts

of West Virginia is proceeding at an increasingly

rapid pace. In the past, agriculture, commerce and

industry were primarily organized by the use of

resources available within valleys because

transportation to mills and markets was relatively

easy. Import and export of goods and services relied

upon road and rail systems that were restricted to the

relatively easy passages afforded by following the

courses of rivers and streams, with only a few roads,

often of poorer quality, connecting valley to valley.

The current expansion of intra and interstate

transportation corridors is causing a reorganization

of the way that society uses the landscape and its

resources. The valley-to-valley transportation system

has improved slowly over time; however, a radical

reorganization of the area and the emergy resources

that existing towns and cities can draw upon to

support economic and social structure is expected to

accelerate with the completion of the transportation
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-18

corridors currently under construction. The rapid

growth that is expected to accompany this process is

already under way in the valley of the South Branch

of the Potomac in the towns of Moorefield and

Petersberg.

3.10.2 Comparison with Other States

One way to determine West Virginia’s status

relative to other states and the nation is to compare

emergy indicators and indices. Indices that are

related to system characteristics such as selfsufficiency, sustainability, and equity in the

exchange of real wealth (emergy) are of particular

interest to society because they are related to the

well-being of environmental systems. Table 11

contains comparisons of indices calculated for West

Virginia in 1997 and for North Carolina, Alaska,

Arkansas, Texas, Maine, Florida, and the United

States determined for various earlier years. To

characterize West Virginia’s position relative to other

states and the nation, several indices merit further

attention. However, the indices and results from the

6 earlier state studies are not exactly comparable

with the West Virginia study, because the earlier state

analyses given in Table 11 were preformed using data

that spans a period of 18 years and the methods used

have varied somewhat over this time. We will have a

stronger basis for comparative analysis when a

present study of 7 additional states for the base year

2000 is completed.

The import/export balance of emergy flows

shows the relationships of dependence and

exploitation between trading partners. In a system

where all trade is equitable, the emergy exchanged

will be approximately equal. West Virginia, Texas,

Alaska and Arkansas export more emergy in products

and services than they import, while North Carolina,

Maine, Florida, and the nation import more than they

export. The ratio of exports to imports for West

Virginia is similar to Texas and Arkansas but much

less than Alaska. The excess emergy (imports –

exports) leaving West Virginia is about 75% of

 the excess for Texas and Alaska and 220% of the

Arkansas excess. The emergy gain to the nation from

its trade with West Virginia is large as evidenced by

the emergy exchange ratio (EER) for coal. West

Virginia exported 1497 E+20 sej of coal in 1997,

for which it received $3.92 billion dollars. The

emergy exchange ratio for West Virginia coal in this

year was:

 (1497 E+20 sej/y)/ [($3.92 E+9) (1.2 E+12 sej/$)]

 = (1497 E+20 sej/y)/ (47 E+20 sej/y) = 32:1

Thus, the buyer of West Virginia coal receives

32 times the benefit in real wealth compared to the

emergy buying power of the money paid for the coal,

if that money is spent at an average location in the

United States. If the money is spent in West Virginia,

the advantage to the buyer would be 6.6:1. In either

case, West Virginia coal provides a large flux of real

wealth to support growth in the national and regional

economies. For comparison, Saudi Arabian oil at $40

per barrel when exchanged for US dollars yields 8:1.

The emergy use per unit area is indicative of the

average intensity of development in a state. The

annual emergy use per square meter in West Virginia

is higher than in any of the other states examined in

Table 11. Seventy-nine percent of the state’s land

area is covered by forests, much of which is on

mountainous terrain, so the emergy density number

is surprisingly high. In part, this result may be due to

economic growth in the nation as a whole, during

the 18 year period over which these analyses were

performed. Also, the more complete method used to

account for imported emergy may have contributed

to the high empower density. However, the intense

industrial utilization of coal to generate electrical

power for consumption outside the state and to

support chemical manufacturing, steel production,

and other export industries results in high empower

densities in certain areas. This tendency to spatially

concentrate the industrial use of coal power is further

magnified by the relatively small area of flat land in

West Virginia Thus industry is found to be heavily

concentrated in narrow valleys, e.g., as in the

Kanawha Valley and along the Ohio River, and the

overall result is an average empower density

equivalent to that expected in a developed state.

The renewable emergy base for a state sets limits

on the level of economic activity that is sustainable

without subsidies from outside. West Virginia can

support 4.9% of the present population at the 1997

standard of living using its renewable resources
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-19

alone. If the 1997 standard of living is adjusted by

removing exported electricity from total emergy use,

5.8% of the population could be supported. This

percentage is lower than the national average of

9.8%. Florida and Maine can support 17.3% and

33%, respectively. West Virginia’s large coal reserves

will allow larger populations to be supported at the

1997 standard of living until the reserves run out,

which will be around 300 hundred years in the

future at the current rate of use.

The investment ratio is an indicator of the

competitiveness of a state in attracting additional

investments. Lower ratios are more attractive for

future development. The investment ratio in West

Virginia in 1997 was 2.39:1 compared to an average

ratio of 7.0:1 for the United States as a whole (Odum

1996). In contrast, the environmental loading ratio

was 20:1, which is the highest of all the states in

Table 11. This ratio indicates that economic activities

are probably putting a large stress or load on the

environment of West Virginia. However, the higher

value may be due, in part, to differences in the

methods used to determine the renewable emergy

base of the states.

The fraction of use from home sources was 0.28

in 1997. Only Florida and North Carolina were more

dependent on the national economy. This fact was

also evident from the fraction of total use that was

purchased outside the state (0.72).

The emergy use per person is considered to be an

indicator of the overall quality of life experienced by

the people of a nation or state. The emergy use per

person in West Virginia was very high, only Alaska’s

use per person was higher. As previously mentioned

this index usually indicates the standard of living of

an average person; however, if for some reason the

benefits of emergy use in the state are not transferred

to the people, the total emergy use per person would

not be an accurate indicator of the standard of living

experienced by the people. The emergy use per

person was still high (1.0 E+17 sej/ind) after the

emergy of exported electricity was removed. If the

emergy use per person index was broken down into

the emergy of raw materials and services supporting

industry and the emergy in materials and services

supporting households, a better correspondence with

West Virginia indices of social welfare might be

found.

The emergy to dollar ratio for West Virginia was

4.8 times that of the United States in 1997. This

indicates that in 1997, a dollar spent in West Virginia

purchased about five times the real wealth in

products and services compared to a dollar spent in

an average location in the United States. Areas with

a high emergy to dollar ratio can attract tourists and

new businesses. The emergy to dollar ratio of West

Virginia is similar to that of Maine in 1980, a state

where tourism is a large part of the economy. The

emergy to dollar ratio also indicates how much West

Virginia losses or gains on average when it trades

with various partners (see emergy exchange ratio

and the coal example above).

The ratio of the emergy in the electricity used to

total emergy use is an indicator of the high quality

energy in people’s lives. This indicator of the

standard of living was lower than all the other states

examined except Alaska (0.006). In 1997, this ratio

was 4 tenths of the value obtained for the United

States based on an analysis of conditions in 1983

(Odum et al. 1987). In West Virginia, a large amount

of emergy is being used per person, but the standard

of living is not perceived as high by residents and

in fact has been shown to be low based on the

socioeconomic data (CVI 2002).

3.11 Summary of Findings as Related to

 Management Questions

The findings of the West Virginia emergy

evaluation provide understanding and data to address

the management questions presented above. Here the

question is repeated and then relevant information

from the analysis is presented.

(1) “What is the current level of economic investment in relation to West Virginia’s resource base,

and is this level of investment sustainable?” West

Virginia’s low investment ratio (2.39:1) and high

environmental loading ratio (20:1) show that it is

in a precarious position as a state with abundant

non-renewable resources to support further economic

development while currently suffering from the

degradation of its renewable resources due to past
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-20

and present economic activities. Even though

environmental resources support intense economic

development in parts of the state, West Virginia’s

stored wealth is so great that development pressures

can be expected to continue and increase in the

future. Flat land is limited in West Virginia, which

may in part account for the intensity of economic

development in localized areas. Without major

programs to restore and protect the environment, it

is unlikely that further industrial development will

result in an improvement in the overall quality of life

experienced by most West Virginians. Only 5% of

the current population can be sustained at the 1997

standard of living on the state’s renewable resources

alone.

(2) “What is the net exchange of real wealth

(emergy) between West Virginia and the nation?”

Emergy accounting shows that West Virginia has

great real wealth in natural resources and supplies

a large emergy subsidy to the nation in trade. West

Virginia exports nearly twice (1.92:1) as much

emergy as it receives in return, resulting in an

imbalance of 1.46E+23 sej/y, which is 2/3 of the

annual emergy used in the state. In contrast, the

monetary exchange between West Virginia and its

trading partners is nearly balanced. The ratio of the

monetary value of exports to imports is 0.998:1

(Table 9).

(3) “What are the major causes for any observed

imbalances?” The emergy of coal exported without

use (1.497E+23 sej/y) accounts for all of the

difference between imports and exports in the state.

Thus, the emergy inflow to and outflow from the

state would be close to balanced, if coal exports were

excluded form the calculation. Therefore, the costs

and benefits of coal mining to West Virginia and to

the nation might be considered as a distinct issue.

The economic benefits derived from coal along the

eastern seaboard and in West Virginia are balanced

by the considerable environmental cost of extraction

and processing that is born primarily by West

Virginia. The environmental damage done in the state

as a result of coal mining was not evaluated in this

study, but it will be addressed in future research.

1

This study, 2Tilley (1999), 3Brown et al. (1993), 4Odum et al. (1998a), 5Odum et al. (1987), 6Campbell (1998), 7Odum et al. (1986a,

1998b), 5Odum et al. (1987)

Table 11. Comparison of Emergy Indices for Several States in the U.S. All flows X 1021 sej/y unless otherwise indicated. 

Index W. Virginia1 N. Carolina2 Alaska3 Arkansas4 Texas5 Maine 6 Florida7 US5

 1997 1992 1985 1992 1983 1980 1979 1983 

Renewable Use received/absorbed 10.5/6.6 19 404 19.8 39 15.1 66.2 773 

In State Non-renewable use 55.6 0.2 220 58.2 249 3.4 2.1 5346 

Imported Emergy 158.8 150 13 56.7 307 27.8 284 1936 

Total Emergy Inflows 169.6 220 417 76.5 595 46.3 352 8055 

Total Emergy used 221.3 190 444 135 628 46.3 380 7887 

Emergy used from home sources, no units 0.28 0.21 0.97 0.58 0.84 0.4 0.18 0.75 

Exported emergy including fuels 304.9 66 240 123 501 16.3 95.7 870 

Imports-Exports -146 49 -200 -66.4 -194 11.5 188 811 

Ratio of export to imports, no units. 1.92 0.67 13 2.17 1.6 0.59 0.34 0.58 

Fraction used, locally renewable, no units 0.030 0.10 0.92 0.15 0.06 0.33 0.17 0.1 

Fract. of use purchased outside, no units 0.72 0.79 0.03 0.42 0.37 0.6 0.75 0.25 

Fraction of use that is free, no units 0.031 0.21 0.92 ? 0.12 0.33 0.18 0.22 

Ratio of purchased to free, no units 19.9 3.74 0.10 0.73 7.3 2 4.2 3.5 

Area m2 6.24E+10 1.36 E+11 1.49E+12 1.35E+11 7.00E+11 9.40E+10 3.10E+11 9.40E+12 

Population, individuals 1.8E+06 6.9 E+06 5.E+05 2.E+06 1.57E+07 1.13E+06 8.80E+06 2.34E+08 

Use per unit area, sej m-2 y-1 3.55 E+12 1.39E+12 3.00E+11 9.98E+11 9.00E+11 4.90E+11 1.20E+12 8.40E+11 

Use per person, sej ind.-1 y-1 1.22E+17 2.70 E+16 9.10E+17 5.64E+16 4.00E+16 4.10E+16 4.30E+16 3.40E+16 

Renewable Carrying Capacity, individuals 8.86E+04 6.8 E+05 4.5E+05 3.46 E+05 9.80E+05 3.70E+05 1.53E+06 2.30E+07 

Developed Carrying Capacity, individulas 7.09E+05 5.44 E+6 3.56 E+06 2.77 E+06 7.80E+06 2.90E+06 1.23E+07 1.83E+08 

Ratio of emergy use to GSP, sej/$ 5.78E+12 1.19 E+12 2.30E+13 3.45E+12 2.60E+12 5.00E+12 4.30E+12 2.40E+12 

Ratio of Electricity: Emergy Use, no units 0.072 0.29 0.006 ? 0.18 0.22 0.23 0.17 

Fuel Use per Person, sej/individual 3.41E+16 1.6 E16 5.10E+16 ? 2.90E+16 2.20E+16 2.30E+16 1.50E+16 

Environmental Loading Ratio, no units 20.4 9.14 0.10 5.80 10.31 2.45 4.74 9.20 

Renewable Empower Density sej m-2 y-1 1.7 /1.1 E+11 1.40 E+11 2.71 E+11 1.47 E+11 5.57 E+10 1.61 E+11 2.14 E+11 8.22 E+10 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

3-21

(4) “What actions might be taken to address an

imbalance, if it exists?” Federal outlays to a state

are an obvious way to address trade inequities. West

Virginia receives $3.56 billion in net transfer

payments (outlays – taxes) from the federal

government. This money makes up about 14% of the

existing emergy deficit when converted to emergy

using the West Virginia emergy to dollar ratio. The

question of the equity of exchange between West

Virginia and the nation could be further resolved

using emergy methods to systematically consider all

the benefits and costs accruing to both the state and

the nation as a result of their relationship. This work

must be left to a later time.

(5) “How does West Virginia’s standard of living

compare to other states and the nation?” Quality of

life as measured by the emergy use per capita appears

to be high, but many social indicators are depressed

(CVI 2002). This paradoxical condition can occur

if the benefits of high emergy use fail to reach the

majority of people because of unusual or anomalous

conditions. Three such conditions exist in West

Virginia, which may explain the paradox: (a) the

limited availability of flat land causes much of the

emergy used in the state to be concentrated in a few

heavily developed industrial areas and power

generating centers; (b) 71 percent of the electricity

generated in West Virginia is exported and thus

electricity does not contribute to the quality of life

experienced by West Virginians to the same extent as

in other developed states; (c) 58 percent of the people

live in rural areas far from the industrial centers. The

ratio of the emergy in electricity consumed to total

emergy use shows the standard of living in West

Virginia to be 1/3 of the average for the U.S., NC,

ME, TX, and FL. Social and economic quality of life

measures (CVI 2002), e.g., the state was 49th in per

capita income in 1997, reinforce the picture given by

electricity use.

(6) “Who benefits most from the productive use of

the state’s resources?” The 1997 CFS shows that over

53% of the value and 63% of the tonnage (largely

determined by coal) of West Virginia’s exports goes

to destinations on the Eastern seaboard from New

York to North Carolina and to Ohio and several other

Mid-Western states (2). In addition, the majority of

the electricity generated in West Virginia is exported

to Virginia and other states. Thus, much of the real

wealth produced in West Virginia supports the higher

standards of living found in surrounding regions.

Also, the benefits of past economic activities within

the state, e.g., timbering and mining, have not

contributed proportionately to the standard of living

of the people of West Virginia, when compared to

many other states and the nation (see 5 above).

Absentee ownership of much of West Virginia’s vast

coal and timber resources appears to have been a

factor in the historical impoverishment of the state

(Clarkson 1964, Rice 1985). The bottom-line of this

analysis is that, at present as in the past, more real

wealth is taken from the environment and people of

West Virginia than is returned to them.

(7) “How self-sufficient is the state based on its

renewable and nonrenewable resources?” The

emergy indices of self-sufficiency (emergy from

home sources) and dependence (fraction of use

purchased, fraction purchased service) presented

above are accurate but only show one aspect of West

Virginia’s relationship with the nation and

surrounding regions. The large emergy flows, which

West Virginia supplies to the surrounding economies,

are not used to calculate the fraction of use from

home sources or the fraction of use in imported

services (Table 10). Removing the large emergy

exports in coal and electricity from the exchange

balance makes West Virginia look like a typical

emergy importing state such as Maine or North

Carolina, which have similar support from home

sources (Table 11). Without the coal and electricity

exports, imported emergy exceeds export by 15%.

Paradoxically, West Virginia provides energy

independence and a high standard of living to its

neighbors by sending coal and electricity to the

surrounding regions while the state’s economy is

very dependent on the national economy and many

West Virginians live in poverty. The State’s potential

for self-sufficiency in a lower energy future (Odum

and Odum 2001) may be more accurately shown by

the fact that at least 62% of 1997 fossil fuel energy

use in the state was supplied from home sources and

that 82% of the coal mined was exported. With coal

reserves that will last 300 years at the current rate of

use, in the future West Virginia is potentially one of

the nation’s more self-sufficient states.
Case Study - An Emergy Evaluation of West Virginia

3-22

may become a regular part of a system of checks and

balances governing humanity’s relationship with the

environment.

3.13 West Virginia and the Future

No system on earth exists alone. According to

the maximum empower principle (Lotka 1922, Odum

1996), they all have developed interactions with the

net result that empower (emergy per unit time) moves

toward a maximum for any given set of external

forcing energies. The maximum power principle

implies that human as well as natural systems

become coupled to this end. The mountain areas

of West Virginia are coupled to the coastal plains

of Virginia, Maryland, and Louisiana through water

and sediment movements just as the flow of West

Virginia exports and imports couples the state

economy with the Eastern and Mid-West regions

and with the nation. Energies of many kinds are

exchanged within these systems and all components,

and the system as a whole, should be better off in the

long run as a result of this process. However, when

the external emergy sources to that system are

changing, it often takes some time for emergy flows

to be maximized throughout the system. For this

reason, emergy analysis can help discern where the

patterns of interaction may be improved (by

elucidating conditions that increase emergy flow)

toward the end of attaining greater benefits for the

system as a whole. Achieving an equitable balance

of emergy exchanges among the system components

may point the way toward higher empower for the

whole.

In the future, as world oil production reaches its

peak and declines (Campbell and Laherrere 1998),

the United States will become more dependent on

the remaining deposits of fossil fuels, such as West

Virginia coal. West Virginia can prepare for the

challenge of meeting larger demand for its energy

and environmental resources, by using emergy

accounting methods to evaluate the environmental

and socioeconomic costs and benefits associated

with current economic production systems, energy

technologies, and development plans to determine

what alternative system designs lead to social and

economic prosperity and are also sustainable, i.e.,

compatible with maintaining a healthy environment.

The emergy accounts and indices presented above

are a beginning.

The eighth question “How can we manage the

environment and economy to maximize the wellbeing of humanity and nature?” relates directly to

the decision-making criteria for environmental

managers. Financial managers have a clear criterion

for overseeing the operations of a business, which is

to maximize profits and shareholder value. Energy

Systems Theory provides a parallel maximal

principle, which managers should consider in making

decisions on environmental policy. In this method,

policy outcomes are compared based on the total

environmental, economic, and social emergy flows

realized under each alternative. The maximum power

(empower) principle (Lotka 1922, Odum 1996)

indicates that those systems which maximize

empower in their networks will be the ones that

prevail in evolutionary competition with alternatives.

Emergy accounting and energy systems model

simulations allow managers to quantify the empower

relations among environmental systems with

alternative designs. Maximizing empower for the

entire system gives a clear unified criterion for

decision making and provides an answer to the eighth

management question given above. The use of this

criterion in environmental decision-making may help

society avoid the expense of costly trials and errors,

which are often required under present decisionmaking methods such as adaptive management.

3.12 Recommendations to Managers

Constructing emergy accounts for the State of

West Virginia gave us quantitative and comparable

information to judge the condition of the economy

and environment in the state and to answer management questions. Emergy indices helped us understand

the current condition of the state and how we might

set policies to improve conditions there. Based on

past emergy analyses and the insights gained from

this study, we propose that the methods and

principles of emergy accounting presented in this

report and in Odum (1996) be used to keep consistent

and accurate books for environmental systems. A

possible course for the further development of

methods and tools in environmental accounting

using emergy might parallel the present methods

 and models used in bookkeeping and accounting

(Campbell 2004). If emergy accounting methods

continue to develop and become generally accepted,

independent emergy audits of environmental systems
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

4-1

exports to and from states in the United States,

making it possible to construct accurate accounts for

these important fluxes. (3) We refined and clarified

existing methods of emergy analysis by distinguishing clearly between the renewable emergy received

and the renewable emergy absorbed in the calculation

of indices. (4) We calculated several new transformities (Appendix B) and estimated rough transformities

for commodity classes in the Standard Classification

of Transported Goods (SCTG).

4.1 Standard Method Versus Intellectual

 Creativity

The methods of emergy analysis have evolved

over the past 30 years (Odum 1971, 1983, 1996) and

the vitality and creativity of new insights and ideas

have played an important role by creating a general

and flexibile method. Unfortunately, this has caused

the method to vary over time. For example, previous

emergy analyses for the states of Florida (Odum, et

al., 1986, Odum et al. 1998b), Texas (Odum, et al.,

1987), Alaska (Brown et al., 1993), North Carolina

(Tilley, 1999), Arkansas (Odum et al. 1998a), and

Maine (Campbell, 1998) have each added new

insights and ideas to the method for analyzing states,

but differences in the method make the results of

these analyses, done over many years, only good for

first order comparisons. It is not our intent to limit

the future development of emergy analysis methods;

however, standards for the emergy analysis of states

and other systems are needed to make results

comparable and to ensure that anyone can use the

proposed tools to reproduce results. We hope that the

material presented here makes the method for

constructing the emergy accounts for states

transparent and reproducible to all those who choose

to use and improve it. To this end we included

extensive notes in the appendices that document the

calculations of the entries on the emergy tables.

Appendix D is devoted to a detailed description of

the method that we used to determine emergy imports

and exports. We also include an appendix that

The publication of “Environmental Accounting:

Emergy and Environmental Decision Making” by

H.T. Odum in 1996 made the methods of Emergy

Analysis easily available to the broader scientific

community for the first time. These methods make

it possible to keep “the books” for an environmental

system, including accounts for the economic,

ecological, and social components of these systems,

in common units of solar embodied joules (sejs).

Despite the promise that some scientists see in

emergy methods, the scientific community as a whole

has been slow to recognize this potential.Tests of the

method and comparison of results to other methods

have been infrequent; and therefore, the potential

benefits of adding emergy accounting to the tools

commonly used by environmental managers have

been foregone. One purpose of this technical report

is to make emergy methods and data sources easily

accessible to ecologists, economists, and managers

within and outside the EPA in a peer reviewed

government document, so that they might be more

widely tested and applied in finding solutions for

practical problems encountered in managing the

complex systems of humanity and nature. A second

purpose was to present the results of an emergy

analysis of West Virginia and to test the efficacy

of these methods by addressing questions that

environmental managers had about economic and

environmental conditions and policies for the state

as a whole.

The methods of emergy accounting are relatively

new and still developing, but we believe that they

possess great potential as a tool to aid environmental

decision-making. Several advances in the method

have been presented in this study: (1) We made the

analogy between emergy accounting and financial

accounting and bookkeeping explicit by proposing

the use of emergy income statements and balance

sheets as the standard tools of environmental

accounting (Campbell 2005, Campbell et al. 2004).

(2) We found formerly unused data sources and

revised the method for evaluating imports and

Section 4

Discussion
Discussion

4-2

documents the sources for all the transformities used

and the calculations for the new transformities that

were determined in this study.

4.2 Methods Developed and Refined in This

 Study

The renewable emergy base for a system is an

important characteristic that has been determined

using various rules over the years. The objective in

calculating this quantity is to determine the degree to

which the renewable energy sources of the earth have

been concentrated in a particular area without double

counting any of the inputs. The renewable emergy

delivered to the system boundaries is received by the

system. The part of the renewable emergy received

that is absorbed is most important because it is the

emergy actually used within the system to make

products and services. The mutually supporting role

of the various kinds of energy transformed in the

system has been clearly demonstrated by the

complementary interactions of the geopotential

energy of runoff and the chemical potential energy

of evapotranspiration working together to structure

landscapes (Romitelli 1997, Odum et al. 1998a,

Brandt-Williams 1999). In this study, the renewable

emergy received (RR) and the renewable emergy

absorbed (RA) were clearly distinguished in

definitions and in the calculation of indices. We

think that it is important to distinguish these two

quantities because the transformity of the system

and its products are a consequence of the energy

used in that system, whereas, the energy received by

the system indicates the potential of the system for

development, e.g., the amount of emergy received

may determine the attractiveness of an area for

investment and future development. For example,

potentially, all the river water entering a state can be

used to support economic activities within the state.

In some cases almost all the emergy received is used

in the system, nevertheless, we believe that these

two quantities should be distinguished in future

calculations of emergy indices that use the renewable

emergy base for the system.

The method for calculating the imports and

exports to and from a state in the United States was

revised to use data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s

Commodity Flow Survey for 1997 (this survey was

updated in 2002 but this data was not available at the

time of the study). This revised method resulted in a

major improvement in accuracy over the first method

that we used to determine the imports and exports

to and from the state’s economy. More complete

accounting data caused the ratio of exports to imports

for West Virginia to decrease from 8:1 (this ratio was

found in a preliminary determination using North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) data on

trade with Canada and extrapolation techniques) to

2:1. The difference was due to a more accurate

determination of the emergy coming into the state in

the materials of imported goods, which was formerly

one of the most uncertain numbers in the analysis.

4.3 Quality Assurance: Reliability of the Data

 and Uncertainty

One question that should be asked of any

scientific analysis is, “How do we know that the

results reported are correct and accurate?” This

question is particularly relevant for extensive and/or

complex analyses that draw upon many sources of

data. In common usage, the word “uncertain” means

that something is unknown or doubtful; however, in

scientific language “uncertainty” pertains to the

probability structure of the data. For, example, a

relevant variable such as rainfall can be expressed as

the mean of a normal distribution plus or minus its

standard deviation. Reporting the probability

structure of the data always provides more

information and may in some cases (e.g. risk

analysis) allow better decisions to be made. It

requires a considerable amount of extra work;

however, to obtain probability distributions for all

data in an extensive analysis, and the time and effort

required to obtain this information may not be worth

it, if the variation is small or for some other reason

not important. In emergy analysis there is often a

great diversity in the amount and kind of information

available on the various numbers used in the

analysis. For this reason, emergy accounting

provides 1st order answers to questions on the scale

of the analysis. If more exact answers are needed,

the scale of the analysis can be reduced by using a

smaller window in space and time to set the system

boundaries. As a rule of thumb, emergy analysts aim

to achieve estimates that are within 10% of the actual

value of the variable used in the analysis. Some
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

4-3

numbers will be determined with a higher degree

of accuracy, but others may be accurate only to an

order of magnitude. Because many systems are

characterized by dominant energy flows that exceed

the less important flows by an order of magnitude

or more, a first order estimate of quantities is usually

sufficient to produce a robust analysis. Many emergy

analyses have been performed over the past 20 years

and numerous errors have been found and corrected

in these analyses, but the results of an emergy

analysis are rarely changed by subsequent

corrections.

Over the past three years, many versions of the

West Virginia emergy analysis have been produced;

in this process errors have been found and corrected

and the methodology has been improved. The history

of changes in values and indices in this report is used

to illustrate the sensitivity of emergy analysis to error

correction and improvements in methodology. In

addition, the relevant characteristics of the different

types of data are reported and an explanation of the

techniques used to check and ensure the accuracy and

quality of the numbers used in the analysis is given.

Two sources of uncertainty are considered (1)

uncertainty in the numerical values of the quantities

used in the analysis and (2) uncertainty in the

methods and models used to make determinations.

Uncertainty in the numerical values of the data arises

from imprecision of the measuring device, scanty or

unrepresentative data, and systematic flaws in the

measuring process (Finkel 1990). Model uncertainty

arises from difficulties in determining which

quantities are relevant to the analysis, from the

technical methods used to determine those quantities,

and from the choice of surrogates when the needed

information is not directly available.

Both environmental and economic data are key

inputs to emergy analyses. The broad data quality

objective for these data is that values be determined

to within 10-15% of the actual value with a high

degree of confidence. Environmental data is generally determined to within 10% and meets our data

quality objectives. For example, pyroheliometers

measure incident solar radiation with 2-5% accuracy,

anemometers measure wind speed within about 5%

and rain gauges record precipitation within about

10%, but newer electronic instruments claim ±3%

accuracy.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA)

provided key data on energy production,

consumption and movements. The EIA obtains data

from survey forms, some of which are statistical

samples, as well as from many additional information

sources (42). They report both sampling and nonsampling errors in their surveys, and have extensive

procedures in place to guarantee data quality. In

some cases, almost all participants in a process are

counted. In 1997, for example, EIA documented 1850

coal producers who reported production, which

included all U.S. coal mining companies with

production of 10,000 short tons per year or more. In

most cases, EIA data meets or exceeds our data

quality objectives.

Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) data was

critical in the development of a revised method for

calculating the import and export of emergy to and

from a state. The CFS is a survey conducted every

five years by the U.S. Census Bureau. Both sampling

and non-sampling errors are considered, and the

reliability of the data is reported as the coefficient

of variation with its standard error. The CFS data

meets or exceeds our data quality objectives for total

commodity movements. For example, the dollar

value of inbound shipments to West Virginia was

determined within 6.2% and the tonnage value within

7%, whereas, the dollar value of shipments leaving

the state was determined within 2.6% and tonnage

leaving within 11.8%. In general, the estimated

movements of individual commodities have higher

uncertainties. In summary, we have a high degree

of confidence that the total material, energy, and

monetary flows upon which the energy and emergy

calculations of imports and exports depend have been

determined within 10 - 15% of their actual values.

Whenever the opportunity has arisen, we have

used duplicate data and different calculation methods

to check the accuracy of estimates. For example, the

EIA information on coal imports and exports was

used to check the CFS estimates of these quantities.

Petroleum imports from the CFS were checked

against the petroleum imports that were required to

meet the difference between instate production and
Discussion

4-4

consumption obtained form the EIA data. Potential

temporal anomalies in the economic data were

assessed through collecting and comparing

socioeconomic data for two years.

Long term averages (10-50 years) are used for

environmental variables. In this case, the variation

is not reported because most socioeconomic systems

depend on the long term average environmental

conditions for support and development. Trends or

variations in the long term data would be considered

as a part of a dynamic energy systems model analysis

of the state (not performed in this study).

The effects of our improvements in the

methodology for estimating imports and exports

have already been mentioned above. The change

realized may be somewhat greater than what would

be expected for a mere refinement in methodology

because our first method had not been proven and it

used NAFTA data that proved to be a poor surrogate

for the more accurate CFS data set. In general,

everything that is known to be of importance in

the system under analysis is included. The emergy

associated with each item is an indicator of its

relative importance and determines whether an

 item is included in the analysis.

The effect of correcting an error in the

determination of the energy associated with and

an input is illustrated by the recalculation of the

geopotential energy of runoff absorbed by the

system. In Campbell et al. (2004), this number was

incorrectly calculated, because the energy used was

determined relative to sea level rather than the

minimum elevation of rivers leaving the state. When

this number was corrected, the energy absorbed

changed from 6.59 E+16 J/y to 6.02 E+16 J/y, a

difference of 8.6%. This resulted in a change of 2

E+20 sej/y or 2.9% in the emergy absorbed by the

system and a change of 0.0008 or 2.9% in the

fraction of use that is locally renewable, which is

an important index calculated using the renewable

emergy absorbed. Other calculations that have

been refined have resulted in a similar or smaller

percentage change in the energy, emergy, and

emdollar values. The large change in the ratio of

imports to exports was based on a 30% decrease in

the difference between emergy imported and emergy

exported. The major conclusion that West Virginia

is a net exporter of emergy was unchanged by

methodological improvements and the correction

of errors in calculations.

The transformities and specific emergies by

which the energy or mass flows are multiplied,

respectively, to obtain emergy are critical numbers

in the analysis. Campbell (2003) analyzed five global

water budgets, and determined that the transformities

of global hydrological flows, such as rain, evapotranspiration, and river flow, were determined

 within an average standard deviation of 5.9± 2.5%

of the mean value. These global transformities meet

our data quality criteria for emergy analysis. Multiple

determinations of transformities are not often

available, and an accurate estimate of the differences

that arise from different sources of data and different

estimation techniques is not available for most items.

In a few cases, multiple determinations of transformities using different methods have been carried out.

Odum (1996) determined the transformity of coal

from its relative efficiency in producing electricity

and from its geological production process. The

former method gave an estimate of 4.3E+4 sej/J and

the latter 3.4 E+4 sej/J. The two values are within

12 % of the mean value, which may be a rough

estimate of the model uncertainty in determining

transformities. Appendix B documents the

transformities used in this study and gives sources

for the original determinations. In addition, the

calculations for the new transformities determined

 in this study are given in this appendix.

We estimated the transformity for each SGTG

commodity class to determine the emergy in the

tonnage of each commodity imported. These

transformities are approximated by averaging known

transformities of items within the class (without

services); however, all items in a class are not

included in the determination of the transformity.

In some cases, when a transformity is not known for

any item in the class, the parent material is used as

a surrogate for the item’s transformity. The use of

parent materials results in a minimum estimate of the

emergy imported and exported in these commodity

classes. More work is needed to calculate additional

transformities and to obtain better estimates for

known transformities using multiple data sets and

different calculation methods to determine the

distribution of values.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

4-5

4.4 Future Research and Reports

The methods described in this report represent

a significant step forward in our ability to perform

accurate and comparable emergy analyses of states

within the United States. Comparable state analyses

provide the raw material for the analysis of regions,

which is of particular concern to the USEPA and

other government agencies that are responsible for

the management of environmental, social, and

economic conditions in regional areas, e.g. EPA

Region 3, the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, The

Chesapeake Bay watershed. There are emergy

analyses for seven additional states in various stages

of completion as this report is being written. The five

states of the Mid-Atlantic region (WV, VA, PA, MD,

and DE) are among the eight states analyzed and an

emergy analysis of this region is planned in the

future. In addition, the emergy accounts for the eight

states (MN, IL, NJ, WV, VA, PA, MD, and DE) must

be completed to allow a robust comparative analysis

of emergy indices. Our current research is focused

on the development of methods to evaluate

environmental liabilities, which are needed to

complete the emergy balance sheet. Once this work

is complete, we will have an accounting method

to determine directly whether any human endeavor

is sustainable
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

5-1

Buranakarn V. 1998. Evaluation of Recycling and

Reuse of Building Materials Using the Emergy

Analysis Method. PhD. Dissertation, University of

Florida, UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor MI,

257 p.

Campbell CJ, Laherrere JH. 1998. The End of Cheap

Oil. Scientific American (March): 78-83.

Campbell DE. 1998. Emergy Analysis of Human

Carrying Capacity and Regional Sustainability: An

Example Using the State of Maine. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment 51:531-569.

Campbell DE. 2000a. A revised solar transformity

for tidal energy received by the earth and dissipated

globally: Implications for Emergy Analysis,

pp. 255-264. In M.T. Brown (ed) Emergy Synthesis:

Theory and Applications of the Emergy Methodology.

Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Emergy Analysis

Research Conference, Center for Environmental

Policy, Department of environmental Engineering

Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Campbell DE. 2000b. Using energy systems theory

to define, measure, and interpret ecological integrity

and ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 6(3):

181-204.

Campbell DE. 2003. A Note on the Uncertainty in

Estimates of Transformities Based on Global Water

Budgets, pp. 349-353. In Brown MT, Odum HT,

Tilley DR, Ulgiati S. (eds.) Emergy Synthesis 2.

Proceedings of the Second Biennial Emergy Analysis

Conference. Center for Environmental Policy,

University of Florida, Gainesville.

Campbell DE. 2005. Financial Accounting Methods

to Further Develop and Communicate Environmental

Accounting Using Emergy, pp. ?-?. In Brown MT et

al. (eds). Emergy Synthesis 3. Proceedings of the

Third Biennial Emergy Analysis Conference, Center

for Environmental Policy, University of Florida,

Gainesville.

Adams MB, Kochenderfer JN, Wood F,

Angradi TR, Edwards P. 1993. Forty Years of

Hydrometeorological Data from the Fernow

Experimental Forest, West Virginia. United States

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, General

Technical Report NE-184. 24 p.

Arnold JG., Williams JR. 1985. Evapotranspiration

in a Basin Scale Hydrologic Model, pp. 405-413. In:

Advances in Evapotranspiration, Proceedings of the

National Conference on Advances in Transpiration,

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.

Joseph, MI.

Brandt-Williams S, 1999. Evaluation of Watershed

Control of Two Central Florida Lakes: Newnans

Lake and Lake Weir. Ph.D. dissertation, University

of Florida, 257pp.

Brandt-Williams SL. 2001 (revised 2002). Handbook

of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #4. Emergy of Florida

Agriculture. Center for Environmental Policy,

Environmental Engineering Sciences, University

of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 40 p.

Brown MT, Buranakarn V. 2000. Emergy Evaluation

of Material Cycles and Recycle Options, pg 141-154,

In Brown MT, (ed) Emergy Synthesis, Proceedings

of the First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research

Conference, The Center for Environmental Policy,

Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences,

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Brown MT and Ulgiati S. 2001. Emergy measures of

carrying capacity to evaluate economic investments,

Population and Environment 22, 471-501.

Brown MT, Woithe RD, Odum HT, Montague CL,

Odum EC. 1993. Emergy Analysis Perspectives on

the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Prince William Sound,

Alaska. Report to the Cousteau Society, Center for

Wetlands and Water Resources, CWWR 93-1,

University of Florida, Gainesville.

Section 5

References
References

5-2

Campbell D, Meisch M, DeMoss T, Pomponio J,

Bradley P. 2004a. Keeping the books for the

environment: An emergy analysis of West Virginia.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

94: 217-230.

Campbell DE, Brandt-Williams SL, Cai TT. 2005.

Current Technical Problems in Emergy Analysis.

pp. ?-?. In Brown, MT et al. (eds). Emergy Synthesis

3. Proceedings of the Third Biennial Emergy Analysis

Conference, Center for Environmental Policy,

University of Florida, Gainesville.

Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) 2002. Mid-Atlantic

Highlands Action Plan, Transforming the Legacy,

Canaan Valley Institute, Thomas, WV.

Clarkson R.B. 1964. Tumult on the Mountains:

Lumbering in West Virginia 1770 - 1920. McLain

Printing Company, Parsons, WV.

Degens ET. 1965. Geochemistry of Sediments, A

Brief Survey. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

342 p.

DiGiovanni DM. 1990. Forest Statistics for West

Virginia – 1975 and 1989. United States Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest

Experiment Station, Resource Bulletin NE-114. 28 p.

Finkel AM. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk

Management. Center for Risk Management,

Resources for the Future. Washington, DC. 69 pp.

Garratt, J.R. 1977. Review of drag coefficients over

oceans and continents. Monthly Weather Review,

105:915-929.

Krug WR, Gebert WA, Craczyk, Stevens DJ,

Rochelle BP, Church MR. 1990. Map of mean annual

runoff from the northeastern, southeastern, and mid

Atlantic United States, water years1951-1980,

United States Geological Survey, WRI 88-4094. 11p.

Lotka AJ. 1922. Contribution on the energetics

of evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 8, 147-151.

Martinez-Alier J. 1987. Ecological Economics,

Basil Blackwell, NY 286 p.

Miller BI. 1964, A Study of the Filling of Hurricane

Donna Over Land (1960). Mon. Wealth. Rev. U.S.

Dept. of Ag. 92 (9), p. 389-406.

National Energy Policy Development Group,

National Energy Policy, US Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC, 2001, pg 1-1.

National Research Council, Our Common Journey, a

transition toward sustainability, National Academy

Press, Washington, DC, 1999, pg. 14.

Odum HT. 1988. Self-organization, transformity,

and information. Science 242, 1132-1139.

Odum HT. 1994, Ecological and General Systems.

University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. 644 pp.

(reprint of Systems Ecology, John Wiley, 1983)

Odum HT. 1996, Environmental Accounting: Emergy

and Environmental Decision Making; John Wiley

and Sons, NY.

Odum HT. 1999. “Evaluating Landscape Use of

Wind Kinetic Energy”. Unpublished manuscript.

Odum HT. 2000. Handbook of Emergy Evaluation.

Folio #2. Emergy of Global Processes. Center for

Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering

Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.30 p.

Odum HT, Arding JE. (1991) EMERGY Analysis of

Shrimp Mariculture in Ecuador. Report to Coastal

Resource Center, University of Rhode Island, Center

for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 87 p.

Odum HT, Odum EC. 2000. Modeling for All Scales.

Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 458 p.

Odum HT, Odum EC. 2001. A Prosperous Way

Down. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

326 p.

Odum HT, Brown MT, Christianson RA. 1986b.

Energy Systems Overview of the Amazon Basin.

Report to the Cousteau Society, Center for Wetlands,

CFW Publication # 86-1, University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL. 190 p.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

5-3

Odum HT, Odum EC, Blissett M. 1987, The Texas

System, Emergy Analysis and Public Policy. A

Special Project Report, LB Johnson School of Public

Affairs. University of Texas at Austin, and The

Office of Natural Resources, Texas Department of

Agriculture, Austin.

Odum HT, Romitelli S, Tigne R. 1998a. Evaluation

Overview of the Cache River and Black Swamp in

Arkansas. Center for Environmental Policy,

Environmental Engineering Sciences, University

of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1998.

Odum HT, Odum EC, Brown MT. 1998b.

Environment and Society in Florida. St. Lucie Press,

Boca Raton, FL. 449 pp.

Odum HT, Brown MT, Brandt-Williams SL. 2000a.

Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Folio #1.

Introduction and Global Budget. Center for

Environmental Policy, Environmental Engineering

Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.16 p.

Odum HT, Kem W, Sell M, Boynton W, Lehman, M.

1977. Energy analysis and the coupling of man and

estuaries. Environmental Management 1(4): 297-315.

Odum HT, Odum EC, Brown MT, Scott GB, Lahart

D, Bersok C, Sendzimir J. 1986a. Florida Systems

and Environment.; A supplement to the test Energy

Systems and Environment. University of Florida,

Center for Wetlands.

Odum HT, Wojcik W, Pritchard L, Ton S, Delfino JJ,

Wojcik M, Leszczynski S, Patel JD, Doherty SJ,

Stasik J. 2000b. Heavy Metals in the Environment,

Using Wetlands for Their Removal. CRC Press LLC,

Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 325 p.

Patric JH, Evans JO, Helvey JD. 1984. Summary

of Sediment Yield Data From Forested Land in the

United States, Journal of Forestry 82: 101-104.

Reiter ER. 1969. Atmospheric Transport processes,

Part I. Energy Transfers and Transformations. U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical

Information, Oak Ridge, TN. 253 p.

Rice OK. 1985. West Virginia: A History, University

Press, of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Rice OK and Brown SW. 1993, West Virginia: A

History, 2nd Ed, University Press of Kentucky,

Lexington.

Romitelli MS. 1997. Energy Analysis of Watersheds.

PhD. Dissertation, University of Florida, UMI

Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor, MI. 292 p.

Rosler HJ, Lange H. 1972. Geochemical Tables.

Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam. 468 p.

Scatena FN, Doherty SJ, Odum HT, Kharecha P.

2002. An Emergy Evaluation of Puerto Rico and the

Luquillo Experimental Forest. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, International Institute

of Tropical Forestry, General Technical Report IITFGTR-9, Rio Piedras, PR. 79 p.

State of West Virginia 1935. West Virginia Blue Book,

State Legislative Manual, Charleston, WV.

State of West Virginia, 1999. West Virginia Blue

Book, Charleston, WV.

Tilley DR. 1999. Emergy Basis of Forest Systems,

PhD. Dissertation, University of Florida, UMI

Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor MI, 296 p.

Ulgiati S, Odum HT, Bastianoni S. 1994. Emergy

use, environmental loading and sustainability: An

emergy analysis of Italy. Ecological Modelling 73:

215-268.

Warren Greg. Pers. Comm. Weirton Steel,

Wheeling, WV.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

6-1

(15) West Virginia Blue Book, 1999. Charleston, WV

and Krug, et al. (1990).

(16) Water quality data for the rivers from the USGS

water resources website. New River Glen Lyn, VA

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/va/nwis/qwdata?qw_

count_nu=1¶meter_cd=00095&begin_date=

&end_date=&format=html_table&site_no=

03176500&agency_cd=USGS

For the Ohio River at Sewickley, PA:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/qwdata?_count_

nu=1¶meter_cd=00095&begin_date=

&end_date=&format=html_table&site_no=

03086000&agency_cd=USGS

Point Pleasant WV: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/

nwis/qwdata?site_no=03201500&agency_cd=

USGS&begin_date=&end_date=&format=

YYYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&qw_

sample_wide=0&submitted_form=brief_list

(17) The New River at Glen Lyn VA:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/va/nwis/annual/

calendar_year?site_no=03176500&agency_cd=

USGS&format=html

The Ohio River at Sewickley, PA> http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/annual/calendar_year?

site_no=03086000&agency_cd=USGS&format=

html The Ohio River at Point Pleasant, WV: http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/nwis/annual/calendar_year/

?site_no=03201500

(18) U.S. Department of Agriculture "1997 Census of

Agriculture,Vol.1,Part 48,Chapter1"http://www.nass.

usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/wv-48/toc97.htm

(29 April 1999).

West Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service, "2001

West Virginia Agricultural Statistics." http://www.

nass.usda.gov/wv/page1.pdf (7 Sept 2001).

(1) USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory "Food

Composition and Nutrition."

http://ww.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

(2) U.S. Census, Commodity Flow Survey for 1997.

http://www.census.gov/econ/www/cdstate.html

(3) http://www.eia.doe.gov

(4) http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp

(5) http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/

data_publications/natural_gas_annual/historical/

1997/nga_1997.html

(6) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/

058497.pdf

(7) http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~tchapin/urp5261/

topics/econbase.htm

(8) http://www.nylovesbiz.com/nysdc/

Personalincome/stpcpi9702.pdf

(9) http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/WV.HTM

(10) http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/

register.cgi?task=login&next_url=/cgi-bin/sse/ionp&page=globe_main.ion&app=sse

(11) University of Utah. "Average Wind Speed

(mph)."Meteorological Department. 1993.

http://www.met.utah.edu/jhorel/html/wx/climate/

windavg.html (7 June 1997).

(12) International Heat Flow Commission, "Global

Heat Flow Database", University of North Dakota.

http://heatflow.und.nodak.edu/index2.html (17 May

2002).

(13) West Virginia Blue Book, 1999. Charleston,WV.

(14) Direct measurements of forest evapotranspiration in West Virginia are found at http://

www.esd.ornl.gov/programs/WBW/D1998.HTM

Section 6

Data Sources
Data Sources

6-2

A general source for all states in 1997 is http://www.

nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.

htm and also http://www.usda.gov/nass/sso-rpts.htm

(19) US Dept of Agriculture 1998 Census of

Aquaculture - Table 9 http://www.nass.usda.gov/

census/census97/aquaculture/aquaculture.htm

(20) Electricity Net Generation http://www.eia.doe.

gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wv2p1.html

(21) Forestry Service "West Virginia 1989 Forest

Inventory." (13 July 2000). http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/

fia/states/wv/wvhilite.html A general source for U.S.

timber statistics found at the following web address:

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fplrp595.pdf

 Also useful are Alabama Forestry Commission,

"Southern Wood Conversion Factors and Rules of

Thumb" http://members.aol.com/JOSTNIX/

convert.htm (19 Aug. 1997) and Cooperative

Extension Institute of Agriculture and Natural

Resources "Species Characteristics and Volumes."

University of Nebraska http://www.ianr.unl.edu/

pubs/forestry/g881.htm (14 April 2000).

(22) U.S. Geological Survey, "National Water-Use

data files." http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/spread95/

wvco95.txt (9 July 2001).

(23) West Virginia Department of Energy, "West

Virginia Coal Statistics" http://www.eia.doe.gov/

cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wv1p1.html (30 Oct.

2001).

(24) U.S. Census Bureau Conversion Tables

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/www/sec9.html

(25) Energy Information Administration, "Natural

Gas Production and Consumption for 1999."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/

data_publications/natural_gas_annual/current/pdf/

table_090.pdf (19 Nov. 2001).

(26) Utah's Department of Natural Resources -

Energy Office http://www.nr.utah.gov/energy/pub/

stab99/chap8.pdf

(27) U.S. Energy Information Association Energy

Consumption Estimates by Source, 1960-1999

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/state.data/pdf/wv.pdf

and Energy Information Administration, "West

Virginia State Energy Production and Consumption

for 1999." http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/

_statequads.html (29 June 2001).

(28) Electricity Net Generation http://www.eia.

doe.gov/cneaf/coal/statepro/imagemap/wv2p1.html

(29) US Geological Survey and the West Virginia

Geological and Economic Survey, "2000 Mineral

Industry Study of West Virginia." http://minerals.

usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/985401.pdf

(13 Dec. 2001).

(30) 1997 West Virginia Erosion Estimates.

http://www.wv.nrcs.usda.gov/nri/erosionwater.htm

(31) 1997 Economic Census: Summary Statistics for

West Virginia, http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/wv/

WV000. HTM and Summary Statistics for the U.S.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/us/US000.HTM

and by industry http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/

industry/E3331.HTM

(32) West Virginia Department of Transportation

http://www.wvcorridorh.com/economic/tourism.html

(11 Feb. 2002).

(33) Federal Funds - Summary Distribution by State

(1996) http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/

98statab/sasec10.pdf

(34) West Virginia Coal Reserves

http://www.state.wv.us/mhst/reserves98.pdf

(35) Petroleum Profile of West Virginia, United

States Energy Information Association

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/state/wv.asp

(36) Average price of Bauxite http://minerals.usgs.

gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/bauxite/090398.pdf

Average price of Coal

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/cia/html/

t80p01p1.html

Petroleum Price

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/oilprices/

oilprices_wv.html

Iron Ore Price

http://www.indiainfoline.com/sect/iror/db01.html

Aluminum Price

http://www.amm.com/ref/alum.HTM
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

6-3

(37) For states with an international port of entry data

on imports can be found at http://www.ustr.gov/

outreach/states/westva.pdf Office of the United States

Trade Representative. Also see

http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp

for West Virginia Exports

(38) USDA Farm and farm related employment

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/armandRelatedEmployment/ViewData.asp?GeoAreaPick=STAWV_

west+virginia

(39) Electricity from uranium

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~elsworth/courses/

cause2003/engineofindustry/teamnuclear.ppt

(40) Uranium Industry Annual report 2002, DOE/

EIA-0478(2002) http://www.eia.doe.gov/

fuelnuclear.html

(41) U.S. uranium mining http://www.eia.doe.gov/

cneaf/nuclear/uia/table03.html

(42) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oss/forms.html#eia-7a
Appendix A

Primary Symbols of the Energy Systems Language
Appendix A

A-2

Figure A1. Primary symbols of the Energy Systems Language (modified from Odum 1994).

Energy circuit A pathway whose flow is proportional to the storage or source

upstream.

Source A forcing function or outside source of energy delivering forces

according to a program controlled from outside.

Tank A compartment or state variable within the system storing a quantity

as the balance of inflows and outflows.

Heat sink Dispersion of potential energy into heat accompanies all real 

transformation processes and storages. This energy is no longer usable by

the system.

Interaction Interactive intersection of two pathways coupled to produce an 

outflow in proportion to a function of both; a work gate.

Consumer An autocatalytic unit that transforms energy, stores it and feeds 

it back to improve inflow.

Producer Unit that collects and transforms low quality energy under the control -

of high quality flows.

Box Miscellaneous symbol to use for whatever unit or function is needed. 

Switching Action A symbol that indicates one or more switching actions controlled 

by a logic program.
Appendix B

Sources, Adjustment, and Calculation of Transformities
Appendix B

B-2

B1. Information sources for the emergy per unit values used in this report. The note number links the

emergy per unit values listed in this table to the values used in Tables 4-8. The emergy per unit values in Table

B1.1 are given to three significant figures and shown for the 9.44, 9.26 and 15.83 E+24 sej/y baselines. Values

are transformities with units of sej/J except where other units are noted. For example where emergy per unit

mass is given a (g) for mass is noted next to the item and the units are sej/g. The emergy per unit of education

level is sej per individual and the emergy to dollar ratio (sej/$) is used for services. Table B3.1 gives the factors

used to convert one baseline to another. The 9.44 baseline (Odum 1996) was revised to the 9.26 baseline

(Campbell & Odum, Appendix B in Campbell 1998, Campbell 2000a). The 9.44 values are reported, because

many transformities in the older literature are given relative to this baseline. See http://www.epa.gov/aed/

research/desupp3.html for additional information.

Table B1.1 The values and sources for transformities and specific emergies used in this report.

Note Item 

Source of transformity or 

specific emergy calculation 

Emergy/unit 

9.44 

Emergy/unit 

9.26 

Emergy/unit 

15.83 

1 Incident solar radiation (by definition) 1 1 1 

2 Wind - Odum (1996), p. 309 1496 1470 2.51E+03 

3 Earth Cycle Odum (1996), p. 309 34377 33700 5.76E+04 

4 Rain, chemical potential Odum (1996), 

Campbell (2003) 

18200 18100 3.12E+04 

5 Evapotranspiration, Odum (1996), 

Campbell (2003) 

18200 28100 4.80E+04 

6 Rain, geo-potential, land Odum (1996), p. 309 10488 10300 1.76E+04 

7 Rain, geo-potential runoff Odum (1996) (errata) 27764 27200 4.66E+04 

8 Rivers, chemical Odum (1996), 

Campbell (2003) 

48459 50100 8.13E+04 

9 Rivers, geo-potential Odum (1996), p. 43 27764 27200 4.66E+04 

10 Agricultural Products 

A weighted average of: 

Brandt-Williams (2001) 

See B3 #7. 

 63000 

10 Hay (0.86) See B3 #7. 40100 6.86E+4 

10 Grains, fruits, tobacco See B3 #7. 207600 3.55E+5 

11 Livestock (poultry) Odum et al. (1998) 7.36E+05 792000 1.23E+06 

 Beef cattle See B3 #7. 680000 1.14E+06 

12 Fish Production - Odum et al. (1998a) 2.0E+06 1960000 3.35E+06 

13 Hydroelectricity - Odum (1996), p. 186&305 1.23E+05 120300 2.06E+05 

14 Net Timber Growth - Tilley (1999), p.150 2.10E+04 20600 3.52E+04 

15 Timber Harvest service Tilley (1999) 7.00E+04 68700 1.17E+05 

16 Ground water Odum et al. (1998a) 1.62E+05 159000 2.72E+05 

17 Coal Odum (1996), p. 310 4.00E+04 39200 6.71E+04 

19 Natural Gas Odum (1996), p. 311 4.80E+04 47100 8.05E+04 

21 Petroleum – Crude oil, Odum (1996), p. 311 5.40E+04 53000 9.06E+04 

23 Electricity - Odum (1996),p.305& 311 173681 170400 2.91E+05 

25 Clay Odum (1996) (g) Odum (1996) 2E+09 1.96E+9 3.35E+09 

26 Sand and Gravel (g) ( B3 # 5) 1.33E+9 1.31 E9 2.24E+09 

27 Limestone (g) Odum (1996) 1.0 E9 9.81 E8 1.68E+09 

28 Sandstone (g) Odum (1996) 1.0 E9 9.81 E8 1.68E+09 

29 Erosion, topsoil Odum (1996) 74000 72600 1.24E+05 


Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

B-5

B3. Calculation of New or Revised Transformities. In all cases transformity is determined by dividing the

emergy (sej or sej/y) required for product or service by the energy (J or J/y) in the product or service. In this

section, number simply refers to the new transformity calculations.

No. 

1 Calculation of Transformity for Forest Growth in West Virginia

 Evaportranspiration 3.67E+21 sej/y 

 Net Timber Growth (includes mortality) 2.10E+17 J/y 

 17496 sej/J 

 

2 Calculation of Transformity for Forest Net Primary Production in West Virginia

 Evaportranspiration 3.67E+21 sej/y 

 Net Primary Production of Timber 3.09E+17 J/y 

 11858 sej/J 

 

3 Calculation of Transformity for Forest Storage in West Virginia

 Evaportranspiration 3.67E+21 sej/y 

 Average age of a tree 80 

 Forest Storage 1.04E+19 J 

 Emergy to produce the forest 2.94E+23 sej 

 Transformity of biomass in 80 yr-old trees 28200 sej/J 

 

4 Calculation of the Transformity of the Elderly in West Virginia

This estimate was based on the education level that elderly individuals in 1990 attained in 1930. The 

1990 census showed that 8.75% of the population was 65-74 years old and that 6.24% of the population 

was 75 years and older. 

 

In 1930, 86% of 14-15 year olds were in school. 20% of 18-20 year olds were also in school. 

If the average age at graduation was 18 and the same pattern holds, around 20% of the high school age 

students graduated. In 1940, 4% of 21-41 year olds were enrolled in school. Assuming that these 

students graduated and that they indicate the average status of those born from 1915 to 1920 about 

4% of the 1990 elderly aged 70 to 75 were college graduates. 

The educational status of West Virginia in 1990 was estimated as follows: (1) 80% of 65 and older 

attended school but left between age 15 and age 18. (2) 20% were high school graduates and had some 

college and 4% were college graduates with some graduate work. 

 

 Education Status of Elderly individual Individuals Transformity sej/ind. 

 Total # 65 years or older in 1990 159518 

 school (80%) 127615 9.2E+16 

 college (16%) 25523 2.7E+17 

 post-college (4%) 6381 1.3E+18 

 Emergy of all elderly individuals sej 2.69E+22 

 

 Transformity of the elderly in West Virginia. 1.7 E+17 sej/ind. 
Appendix B

B-6

No.

5 Transformity for Sand from Sandstone % SiO2 

 Sandstone Composition from Rosler and Lange 

(1972) and Degens (1965). Assume complete 

weathering to quartz. 

 Arkose sandstone (California 61.6 

 Glauconite sandstone (Switzerland) 78.34 

 Sandstone 79.63 

 73.19 

 Assume loss of 25% of mass on weathering 0.75 

 Transformity of sand stone 1.00E+09 

 Transformity of sand from weathered sandstone 

based on mass concentration (1.0E9/0.75) 1.33E+09 

 Transformity of sand on the 9.26 baseline (X 0.981) 1.31E+09 

 

6 Transformity for Electricity from Nuclear Power 

 Odum (1996) p. 50, Uranium ore 1.88E9 sej/g = 1.84E+09 sej/g on the 9.26 baseline 

 Odum (1996) p. 154, From evaluation of Lapp (1991) use the figure, on p. 154. 

 Item sej/y Source 

 Emergy from the economy 9.128E+23 Lapp (1991) 

 Emergy from the environment 4.90E+22 Lapp (1991) 

 Emergy from uranium ore 1.43E+23 Calculated below 

 Total Emergy 1.11E+24 Sum previous 3 

 On 9.26 baseline 1.08E+24 X 0.981 

 Joules of electricity generated 2.09E+19 Lapp (1991) 

 

 Transformity of nuclear electricity 5.19E+04 sej/J 

 

 Parameters 

 kWh per kg U fuel 50000 Data source (39)

 Kwh per year generated 5.80E+12 Lapp (1991) 

 tons U fuel used 1.16E+05 calculated 

 tons ore used 7.63E+07 calculated 

 Specific emergy Uranium ore 1.88E+09 Odum (1996) 

 

 Average uranium produced in the U.S. Mine n=10 Data Source (40)

 million lbs U3O8 3.49 

 1000 MT U 1.35 

 Concentrate n=10 Data Source (40)

 million lbs U3O8 4.26 

 1000 MT U 1.64 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

B-7

No.

6 fraction U in U3O8 from data above 0.850703226 calculated 

 Stochiometry 0.847980998 calculated 

 Oxygen, MW 16 128 

 Uranium, MW 238 714 

 For $30 per pound U All sources (mining + leaching) 

 percent U3O8 0.17928 Data source (41)

 

7 Revised Transformities for Agricultural Products. Transformities for the agricultural products given 

in Brandt-Williams (2001) were recalculated with and without services using the 28100 sej/J as the 

transformity for evapotranspiration. The transformities without services included were used to determine 

the emergy of agricultural commodity flows. See http://www.epa.gov/aed/research/desupp3.html. 

Table B3.1 The factors needed to convert one planetary baseline to another. All baselines are XE24 sej/y.

To convert baseline, X To baseline, Y Multiply by 

9.44 9.26 0.981 

9.44 15.83 1.677 

9.26 9.44 1.019 

9.26 15.83 1.710 

15.83 9.26 0.585 

15.83 9.44 0.596 

Table B3.2 Estimation of the emergy to dollar ratio in the United States for 1997 and 2000 

Data and methods in Odum (1996) pp. 312-315 were used to extrapolate the emergy/$ ratio. 

Year 

Fossil fuel use 

J/y Transformity Nuclear J/y Transformity Comment 

1997 8.483E+19 53000 7.048E+18 157000 The transformity for electricity from coal 

2000 8.848E+19 53000 8.451E+18 157000 was used to estimate the emergy 

contribution from nuclear electricity. 

 

 

Fossil fuel use 

E+24 sej/y 

Nuclear 

E+24 sej/y 

Renewable x 

E+24 sej/y 

Other 

E+24 sej/y 

Total 

Emergy Use 

E+24 sej/y GNP $ 

Emergy/$* 

sej/$ 

1997 4.50 1.11 2.10 1.87 9.57 7.95E+12 1.20E+12 

2000 4.69 1.33 2.10 1.87 9.99 9.31E+12 1.07E+12 

* These emergy to money ratios are slightly different from the value used in Campbell et al. 2004a, 

 because the earlier numbers were not corrected to the 9.26 baseline. 
Appendix C

Calculation of Energy and Economic Values Used to

Determine the 1997 Energy and Emergy Accounts

for West Virginia
Appendix C

C-2

C1 Notes for Table 4 – Annual Renewable Resources and Production in 1997. 

The numbers in parentheses and italics refer to data sources given above. Note that E+3= 103

.

 

Note 

0 Area 6.2362 E+10 m2

 

 Total land area of the state. 

 

1 Solar Energy Received 3.074E+20 J/y

 Absorbed 2.644E+20 J/y 

 

 Solar energy received (J) = (avg. insolation)(area)(365 day/y)(4186 J/kcal) 

 Solar energy absorbed = (received) (1-albedo) 

 The average insolation and albedo were obtained from the NASA website (10) referenced in data 

sources. Eleven one-degree lat. by one-degree long. sectors covering the state were averaged.

 

 kW hm-2

 y

-1 J m-2

 y

-1 Joules y-1

 Solar energy received over the state 1369.414 4.93E+09 3.07436E+20 

 Solar energy absorbed by the state 1177.696 4.24E+09 2.64395E+20 

 

 

2 Kinetic Energy of Wind Used at the Surface 1.074E+18 J/y 

 Wind energy = (density)(drag coeff.)(geostrophic wind velocity)3

(area)(sec/year) 

 

 Calculated in Odum (1999) "Evaluating Landscape Use of Wind Kinetic Energy". 

 The wind velocity used was a long-term average of four West Virginia stations up to 

 1993 (11). The common drag coefficient is about 1.0E-3 for ordinary winds of 10 m/s or less 

(Miller 1964) and 3.0E-3 over low mountains Garratt (1977). Winds over land are about 0.6 of 

the wind velocity that the pressure system would generate in the absence of friction (Reiter 1969). 

 

 air density 1.3 kgm-3 

 wind velocity 6.98 mph 

 wind velocity (metric) 3.12 m s-1 

 Geostrophic wind 5.2 m s-1

 drag coeff. 3.00E-03 

 area 6.2362 E+10 m2

 

 sec / year 3.14E+07 

 

3 Earth Cycle Energy 1.39E+17 J/y 

 Earth cycle energy (steady-state uplift balanced by erosion) = 

(land area)(heat flow/area) 

 The heat flow per area is an average of nine wells throughout the state. 

of West Virginia (12). 

Area 6.2362 E+10 m2

Heat flow/area 70.56 mW m-2

 2.23E+06 J m-2 

y

-1

Appendix C

C-4

Table C1.1. Data used to determine the geopotential energy of rainfall. 

County Area m2 Avg. elevation m 30 y avg. rainfall in. geopot. energy 

Hancock 228191120 322.427524 37.38536 6.85386E+14 

Brooke 240176944 314.537809 39 7.34128E+14 

Ohio 281945344 335.586703 39 9.19469E+14 

Marshall 807178112 348.82437 41.29286 2.89704E+15 

Preston 1686139648 630.98804 50.8542 1.34817E+16 

Morgan 595436736 276.183843 37.02715 1.51725E+15 

Mononga. 947073856 404.950628 43.57846 4.16448E+15 

Wetzel 934991488 360.850872 45.24491 3.80371E+15 

Mineral 853182720 397.950762 35.54701 3.0073E+15 

Berkeley 833351552 199.736011 37.40184 1.55124E+15 

Marion 806174464 376.575944 44.14345 3.33926E+15 

Tyler 674734592 293.881773 43.70897 2.15963E+15 

Hampshire 1669929728 377.768439 35.88709 5.64111E+15 

Jefferson 548594112 160.223237 37.32662 8.17519E+14 

Pleasants 348228768 273.18179 42.34601 1.00376E+15 

Harrison 1078628224 366.759651 44.31864 4.3686E+15 

Taylor 454673568 415.159562 45.41841 2.13624E+15 

Doddridge 829267712 335.091023 45.02627 3.11764E+15 

Wood 975464832 243.702585 40.0934 2.37491E+15 

Ritchie 1174552960 297.039562 43.1418 3.75049E+15 

Grant 1243197696 641.02717 38.34443 7.61415E+15 

Barbour 887184064 521.134496 48.06692 5.53749E+15 

Tucker 1090434304 857.48782 52.06758 1.2131E+16 

Hardy 1513710208 537.310292 36.46919 7.39089E+15 

Wirt 608199552 268.670655 42.90828 1.74707E+15 

Lewis 1008180032 377.391402 46.69351 4.42679E+15 

Randolph 2691785216 911.070648 53.8217 3.28891E+16 

Upshur 918238400 560.858453 50.26036 6.44966E+15 

Gilmer 878942080 318.033214 44.5842 3.10539E+15 

Jackson 1220555904 252.196695 42.61932 3.26894E+15 

Calhoun 725900992 307.80376 43.69557 2.43272E+15 

Mason 1152245888 227.116475 41.11225 2.68082E+15 

Pendleton 1807532672 794.104907 38.86252 1.38995E+16 

Roane 1252050048 296.208663 43.66887 4.03547E+15 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-5

County Area m2 Avg. elevation m 30y avg rainfall in. geopot. energy 

Braxton 1337042688 376.932653 47.07839 5.91199E+15 

Pocahontas 2437553408 989.455485 49.93845 3.00115E+16 

Webster 1439527296 753.490796 52.94361 1.43092E+16 

Putnam 906781952 251.909579 41.98552 2.38974E+15 

Clay 889922560 372.487511 46.3062 3.82477E+15 

Kanawha 2357247232 325.598119 44.10259 8.43439E+15 

Cabell 745557888 639.549 42.71017 5.07445E+15 

Nicholas 1693563264 639.549502 49.14842 1.32644E+16 

Wayne 1326469120 272.992341 43.54009 3.92862E+15 

Lincoln 1136250368 290.620653 44.14746 3.63253E+15 

Greenbrier 2651428096 808.361377 45.13994 2.41073E+16 

Fayette 1730641664 612.812798 45.63472 1.20596E+16 

Boone 1302429440 428.168433 46.35194 6.4408E+15 

Logan 1179267712 435.418879 46.64979 5.96859E+15 

Raleigh 1576129536 704.715715 43.79303 1.21203E+16 

Mingo 1097541376 403.322368 45.97489 5.07104E+15 

Summers 951547136 672.4003 38.51943 6.14102E+15 

Wyoming 1299047680 596.885295 45.0688 8.70752E+15 

Monroe 1225340928 708.407376 38.52779 8.3333E+15 

Mercer 1088748160 768.072665 37.73166 7.8621E+15 

McDowell 1384392576 599.940657 42.65404 8.82735E+15 

Total 6.2723E+10 3.655E+17 

Table C1.1. Data used to determine the geopotential energy of rainfall continued.
Appendix C

C-6

7 Geopotential of runoff 6.02 E+16 J/y 

 Geopotential energy of runoff (physical energy of streams) = 

(area)(mean elevation – (base elevation when > sea level)(runoff)(density)(gravity) 

 The annual runoff is a 30 year average. The elevation was also an average based on known elevations 

in the selected area (15). 

 

 Watershed 

 (Great Cacapon, WV) Area 1.75E+09 m2

Elevation 609.6 m 

 (Potomac, Harper’s Ferry) Base elev. 73.2 m 

Runoff/yr 0.3175 m y-1

Density 1000 kg m-3

Gravity 9.81 m s-2

Energy 2.93E+15 J y-1

 

(Bemis, WV) Area 2.98E+08 m2

Elevation 1987 m 

(Cheat R., Morgantown) Base elev. 250.5 m 

Runoff/yr 1.069 m y-1

Density 1000 kg m-3

Gravity 9.81 m s-2

Energy 5.420E+15 J y-1

 

(Little, WV) Area 1.09E+07 m2

Elevation 1215 m 

(Ohio R., Parkersburg) Base elev. 171.3 m 

Runoff/yr 0.48006 m y-1

Density 1000 kg m-3

Gravity 9.81 m s-2

Energy 5.358E+13 J y-1

 

(Buckeye, WV) Area 1.40E+09 m2

Elevation 2303 m 

Note
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-7

 (Ohio R., Point Pleasants) Base elev. 156.7 m 

Runoff/yr 0.5715 m y-1

Density 1000 kg m-3

Gravity 9.81 m s-2

Energy 1.683E+16 J y-1

 

 (Clay, WV) Area 2.57E+09 m2

Elevation 1821 m 

 (Ohio R., Point Pleasants) Base elev. 156.7 m 

Runoff/yr 0.68072 m y-1

Density 1000 kg m-3

Gravity 9.81 m s-2

Energy 2.855E+16 J y-1

 

 (Julian, WV) Area 8.24E+08 m2

Elevation 1667 m 

 (Ohio R., Huntington) Base elev. 149.1 m 

Runoff/yr 0.52578 m y-1

Density 1000 kg m-3

Gravity 9.81 m s-2

Energy 6.45E+15 J y-1

Note
Appendix C

C-8

8 River Chemical Potential Absorbed 2.90E+14 J/y 

 Received 9.06E+16 J/y 

 River chemical potential energy received = (volume flow)(density)(Gibbs free energy relative to 

seawater) 

 River chemical potential energy absorbed = (volume flow)(density) (Gibbs free energy solutes at 

river entry – Gibbs free energy solutes at river egress) 

 

 The Ohio and New Rivers begin and end outside state boundaries delivering part of the chemical 

potential energy that they carry to the state. 

 Total Dissolved solids concentration from the USGS data (16). 

 Gibbs Free energy, G = RT/w ln(C2/C1) = [(8.3143 J/mol/deg)(288 K)/(18 g/mol)] * ln [(1E6 - 

S)ppm)/965000], where R is the gas universal constant, T; the temperature in 0

K, and w: the 

molecular weight of the substance, S is the solute concentration in the river and seawater is assumed 

to contain 35 o

/oo solutes. 

 

Ohio River* Vol. flow 2.948 E+10 m3

/yr 

 (Water Data - USGS) 

 Density 1000000 g/m3 

 Solutes in (at Sewickley, PA) 211.96 ppm 

 G. in 4.711 J/g 

 Solutes. out (Point Pleasant ) 295.55 

 G. out 4.700 J/g 

 absorbed 3.279E+14 J/y 

 received 1.389E+17 J/y 

 

New River Vol. flow 4.466 E+09 m3/yr 

 (Water Data - USGS) 

 Density 1000000 g/m3 

 Solutes in (Glen Lyn, VA) 84 ppm 

 G. in 4.728 J/g 

 Solutes out (Point Pleasant ) 295.5 

 G. out 4.700 J/g 

 absorbed 1.257E+14 J/y 

 received 2.112E+16 J/y 

 

 *If the river flows along the border the state, the energy was distributed equally between the states on 

 opposite sides of the river. 

Note
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-9

9 River Geopotential Absorbed 2.06E+16 J/y 

 Received 4.99E+16 J/y 

 

 Geopotential energy received (relative to sea level) = (flow vol.)(density)(height at entry) (gravity). 

 Geopotential energy absorbed = (flow vol.)(density)(height entry - height egress)(gravity) 

 Ohio and New Rivers are the only rivers that begin and end outside of the state 

 Data on water flow and height of the gauge are from USGS Water Resources Data (17).

 

 

Ohio River* Vol. Flow 2948 E+10 m3

/y 

 ( Water data - USGS) 

 Density 1000 kg/m3 

 Height In 207.26 m 

 (Height at Sewickley, PA) 

 Height Out 155.45 m 

 (Height at Point Pleasant) 

 Gravity 9.81 m/s2 

 Absorbed 1.499E+16 J/y 

 Received 5.994E+16 J/y 

 

New River Vol. Flow 4.466 E+9 m3

/y 

 (Water Data - USGS) 

 Density 1000 kg/m3 

 Height In 454.23 m 

 (at Glen Lyn, VA) 

 Height Out 155.45 m 

 (at Point Pleasant) 

 Gravity 9.81 m/s2 

 Absorbed 1.309E+16 J/y 

 Received 1.99E+16 J/y 

 *If the river borders the state half the calculated energy was used 

Note
Appendix C

C-10

10 Agricultural Products 1.759E+16 J/y

(amount sold)(energy/unit) Production data is from the West Virginia Agricultural Statistics

 Service Tables 42,43, and 37 in (18). Most energy per unit values used were found in the

 USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory (1).

 Hay Mass 8.0382E+11 g/y 

 Energy/unit 18901 J/g 

 1.519E+16 J/y 

 

 Oats 132,249 bushels/y 

 14514.96 g/bushels 

 Mass 1,919,588,945 g/y 

 Energy/unit 16280 J/g 

 3.125E+13 J/y 

 

 Wheat 421,453 bushels/y 

 27215.54 g/bushel 

 Mass 11,470,070,980 g/y 

 Energy/unit 14230 J/g 

 1.632E+14 J/y 

 

 Corn 3,651,139 bushels/y 

 25401.17 g/bushels 

 Mass 92,743,202,433 g/y 

 Energy/unit 19736 J/g 

 1.830E+15 J/y 

 

 Tobacco Mass 2737090 lbs/y 

 1,241,522,948 g/y 

 Energy/unit 14651 J/g 

 1.819E+13 J/y 

 

 Soybeans 482,228 bushels/y 

 27215.54 g/bushels 

 Mass 13,124,095,423 g/y 

 Energy/unit 17,410 J/g 

 2.285E+14 J/y 

 

 Apples Mass 52,394,370,290 g/y 

 Energy/unit (1) 2160 J/g 

 1.142E+14 J/y 

 

 Peaches Mass 4,615,592,663 g/y 

 Energy/unit (1) 1650 J/g 

 7.616E+12 J/y 

 

 Wool Mass 80,796,141 g/y 

 Energy/unit 20934 J/g 

 1.691E+12 J/y 

Note
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-11

11 Livestock 4.00E+15 J/y 

 (annual production mass)(energy/mass) 

 The number sold is taken from the 1997 Census of Agriculture (18).

 

 Turkeys # sold 4468456 

 wt 7257.5 g/animal 

 Energy /unit (1) 6690 J/g All classes, meat and skin 

 2.170E+14 J/y 

 

 Cows # sold 863647 

 wt 3.5E+05 g/animal 

 Energy /unit (1) 12180 J/g Choice carcass 

 3.7E+15 J/y 

 

 Hog/Pig # sold 24884 

 wt 9.00E+04 g/animal 

 Energy /unit (1) 15730 J/g Fresh carcass 

 3.52E+13 J/y 

 

 Sheep/lamb # sold 40709 

 wt 68038.9 g/animal 

 Energy /unit (1) 7406 J/g Raw leg, shoulder, arm 

 2.051E+13 J/y 

 

 Horses # sold 16787 

 wt 476271.99 g/animal 

 Energy /unit (1) 5560 J/g 

 4.445E+13 J/y 

 

12 Fish Production 7.22E+11 J/y 

 (mass)(energy/mass) 

Based on the 1998 trout sales of stocked fish reported by the US Department of Agriculture, 1998 

Census of Aquaculture (19). 

 Mass 369,000 lbs/y 

 453.59 g/lb 

 Energy/mass 4311.58 J/g 

 

13 Hydroelectricity 4.09E+15 J/y 

Energy Information Administration, Electricity Net Generation by Fuel in West Virginia, 1997 (20).

 

Note
Appendix C

C-12

14 Net Timber Growth 2.10E+17 J/y 

 Based on forest growth from 1975 to 1989, which are the last two inventories done for 

West Virginia by the U.S. Forest Service (21) (DiGiovanni 1990). 

 Forest Growth 491,132,000 ft3

 

 1.39E+13 cm3

 

 green wt 1 g cm-3 

 Forest growth 1.39E+13 g y-1 

 

15 Timber Harvest 2.29E+16 J/y 

 Based on the forest statistics for West Virginia (21) DiGiovanni (1990). 

Forest Harvest 462,542,000 board ft 

 84,098,545 ft3

 

 2.38E+12 cm3

 

 dry wt 0.5 g cm-3 

 Forest mass 1.19E+12 g y-1 

 

16 Groundwater Chemical Potential Energy 9.49E+14 J/y 

 (vol.)(density)(Gibbs free energy) 

 Based on the volume of ground water withdrawn in 1995 (22). 

 G = RT/w ln(C2/C1) = [(8.3143 J/mol/deg)(288 K)/(18 g/mol)] * ln [(1E6 - S)ppm)/965000] 

 

 Volume used 2.02E+08 m3

 y

-1 

 (US Geological Survey on water use for state) 

 Density 1000000 g m-3 

 S 342 ppm 

 Gibbs free energy 4.69 J/g 

C2 Notes for Table 5 – Annual Production and Use of Nonrenewable Resources in 1997.

17 Coal Production 4.64E+18 J/y 

 Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy (23). Unit conversions may be found at 

(24). 

 Short tons/y 1.74E+08 

 g/short ton 9.07E+05 

 J/g 2.94E+04 

 

18 Coal Used in the State 9.92E+17 J/y 

 Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy (23). 

 

 Short tons/y 3.72E+07 

 g/short ton 9.07E+05 

 J/g 2.94E+04 

Note
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-13

19 Natural Gas Production 1.89E+17 J/y 

Taken from the Energy Information Administration Natural Gas Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - 

West Virginia, (25). The annual flows of natural gas are not exactly balanced because gas is supplied 

to and removed from underground storage. The flows balance over a longer averaging period. 

 Amount 1.72E+08 1000 ft3 

 J/1000 ft3

 1.1E+09 

 

20 Natural Gas Used in the State 1.75E+17 J/y 

 Taken from the Energy Information Administration Natural Gas 

 Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - West Virginia (25). 

 

 Amount 1.59E+08 1000 ft3

 

 J/1000 ft3 1.1E+09 

 

21 Petroleum Production 9.2E+15 J/y 

 From Utah's Department of Natural Resources 

 - Energy Office (26)

 

22 Petroleum Used in the State 2.3E+17 J/y 

(Energy Information Administration) From the State 

Energy Data Report of West Virginia 1960-1999. (27)

 

23 Electricity Production (without hydroelectricity) 3.26E+17 J/y 

 Energy Information Administration (28). 

 Amount 9.042E+10 kWh 

24 Electricity Used in the State 9.45E+16 J/y 

Energy Information Administration. From the State 

Energy Data Report of West Virginia 1960-1999. (27) 

 Amount 2.62E+10 kWh 

 

Mineral Production 

 Taken from the 1997 and 1998 Mineral Industry Studies 

 of West Virginia by the US Geological Survey and the 

West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey (29). 

 

 

25 Clay 151000 tons 2.96E+20 sej/y 

 Emergy/Mass 1961864407 sej/g (From Odum 1996) 

 

 

26 Sand and gravel 1670000 tons 3.34E+21 sej/y 

 Emergy/Mass 1.31E+09 sej/g (Calculated in this study) 

 

Note
Appendix C

C-14

27 Limestone 12000000 tons 1.18E+22 sej/y 

 Emergy/Mass 980932203 sej/g (From Odum 1996) 

 

 

28 Sandstone 856 tons 8.40E+17 sej/y 

 Emergy/Mass 980932203 sej/g (From Odum 1996) 

 

 

29 Soil Erosion Total 5.03E+15 J/y 

Agricultural lands 3.99E+15 J/y 

(farmed area)(erosion rate)(organic fraction)(energy). The farmed area was taken from the 1997 census 

of Agriculture (18). The organic fraction was taken from Odum (1996). Erosion rates for cropland and 

pasture from the USDA (30) and for forest from Patric et al. (1984). 

 Cultivated Crop Area 641899.62 acres 

 Erosion rate 4.3 ton/acre/y 

 Erosion 27601685 ton/y 

 Org. fraction 0.03 

 907185 g/ton 

 22604.4 J/g 

 Energy 1.69803E+15 J/y 

 

 Non-Cultivated Farmed area 695391.26 acres 

 Erosion rate 0.8 ton/acre/y 

 Erosion 556313 ton/y 

 Org. fraction 0.03 

 907184.74 g/ton 

 22604.4 J/g 

 Energy 3.42239E+14 J/y 

 

 Pastureland Area 528696.4 acres 

 Erosion rate 6 ton/acre/y 

 Erosion 3172178 ton/y 

 Org. fraction 0.03 

 907184.74 g/ton 

 22604.4 J/g 

 Energy 1.9515E+15 J/y 

 

 Forested Land Area 12173404.9 acres 

 Erosion rate 0.139 ton/acre/y 

 Erosion 1692103 ton/y 

Organic 

fraction 

0.03 

 907184.74 g/ton 

 22604.4 J/g 

 Energy 1.04097E+15 J/y 

 

 The erosion rate for the forested land was measured at Shavers Fork, WV. 

Note
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-15

 C3. Notes for Table 6 - Imports to the West Virginia economy in 1997.

Note 

30 Coal 2.32E+17 J/y 

 Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy (23). 

 Short tons/y 8.70E+06 

 g/short ton 9.07E+05 

 J/g 2.94E+04 

 

31 Petroleum 2.2E+17 J/y 

 Value is the difference between the production and consumption within the state. Also estimated from the 

data in the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (2). 

 

32 Natural Gas (Received at state border) 2.0E+18 J/y 

 Taken from the Energy Information Administration data on Natural Gas (5). 

 Most natural gas received passes through the state and thus it is not considered as an import. This value 

would not usually be shown in an emergy analysis, but it is given here to a give an idea of the emergy 

flows linking the nation. 

 Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - West Virginia, 

 Amount 1.79E+09 1000 ft3

 

 J/1000 ft3

 1.1E+09 

 

33 Iron Ore 4.41E+13 J/y 

 Data from Weirton Steel. Iron ore to satisfy 1997 production. 

 3.00E+06 tons/y 

 2.72E+12 g/y 

 16.2 J/g 

 

34 Bauxite imported (corrected number) 4.4E+13 J/y 

 Assume the ratio of bauxite ore to primary aluminum production is 4:1, alumina to production is 

2:1(Century Aluminum, Ravenswood WV). 

 Aluminum production 1.7E+05 MT/y 

 bauxite 6.7E+05 MT/y 

 6.7E+11 g/y 

 6.5E+01 J/g 

 

35 Emergy of Services in Goods Imported 2.99E+22 sej/y 

 Data on shipments from the 1997 Commodity flow Survey, US. Census Bureau (2). 

 Units 

 Total in bound shipments 3.33E+10 $/y 

 Shipments of West Virginia origin 8.34E+09 $/y 

 Dollar value of imported goods 2.50E+10 $/y 

 Emergy to dollar ratio for the US in1997 1.20E+12 sej/$ 

 Emergy in the services embodied in imported goods 2.99E+22 sej/y 

 

36 Emergy of Materials in Imported Goods (without fuels) 9.48E+22 sej/y 

 Data on material shipments into West Virginia by commodity class from the 1997 Commodity Flow 

Survey (2), Additional State Data, Table 12. See Appendix B for the calculation of average transformities 

for the SCTG commodity classes. Appendix D gives details of the method of calculation used here. 
Appendix C

C-16

Table C3.1 Emergy imported to West Virginia in material commodity flows. 

SCTG 

Code Commodity Class J or g y-1

Emergy 

per unit Units 

Emergy 

sej y-1

1 Live animals and live fish 9.42E+13 4.39E+05 sej/J 4.14E+19 

2 Cereal grains 1.10E+15 1.82E+05 sej/J 1.99E+20 

3 Other agricultural product 2.09E+15 2.33E+05 sej/J 4.88E+20 

4 Animal feed and products of animal origin 4.58E+15 1.22E+06 sej/J 5.58E+21 

5 Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations 1.91E+15 3.27E+06 sej/J 6.24E+21 

6 Milled grain products and preparations 2.93E+15 1.82E+05 sej/J 5.33E+20 

7 Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils 1.80E+16 1.12E+06 sej/J 2.01E+22 

8 Alcoholic beverages 3.62E+14 5.89E+04 sej/J 2.13E+19 

9 Tobacco products. 6.05E+14 6.50E+05 sej/J 3.93E+20 

10 Monumental or building stone 3.23E+09 9.81E+08 sej/g 3.17E+18 

11 Natural sands 3.69E+11 1.96E+09 sej/g 7.23E+20 

12 Gravel and crushed stone 6.46E+12 4.91E+08 sej/g 3.17E+21 

13 Nonmetallic minerals 7.30E+11 1.96E+09 sej/g 1.43E+21 

14 Metallic ores and concentrates 3.04E+10 2.71E+09 sej/g 8.23E+19 

15 Coal 2.25E+17 3.92E+04 sej/J 8.84E+21 

17 Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel 1.07E+17 6.47E+04 sej/J 6.93E+21 

18 Fuel oils 7.04E+16 6.47E+04 sej/J 4.56E+21 

19 Coal and petroleum products 5.22E+16 6.47E+04 sej/J 3.38E+21 

20 Basic chemicals 2.06E+12 2.75E+09 sej/g 5.65E+21 

21 Pharmaceutical products 3.55E+10 2.75E+09 sej/g 9.77E+19 

22 Fertilizers 1.94E+11 2.99E+09 sej/g 5.80E+20 

23 Chemical products and preparations 1.89E+11 9.90E+09 sej/g 1.87E+21 

24 Plastics and rubber 4.61E+11 2.71E+09 sej/g 1.25E+21 

25 Logs and other wood in the rough 3.24E+15 1.96E+04 sej/J 6.35E+19 

26 Wood products 5.67E+11 1.49E+09 sej/g 8.44E+20 

27 Pulp, newsprint, paper, and paperboard 6.01E+15 1.40E+05 sej/J 8.40E+20 

28 Paper or paperboard articles 3.18E+15 1.67E+05 sej/J 5.33E+20 

29 Printed products 6.58E+10 4.95E+09 sej/g 3.26E+20 

30 Textiles, leather, and articles 1.74E+15 7.18E+06 sej/J 1.25E+22 

31 Nonmetallic mineral products 2.46E+12 3.09E+09 sej/g 7.60E+21 

32 Base metal in primary or semi-finished form 1.30E+12 5.91E+09 sej/g 7.70E+21 

33 Articles of base metal 4.42E+11 5.91E+09 sej/g 2.61E+21 

34 Machinery 1.15E+11 7.76E+09 sej/g 8.89E+20 

35 Electronic and other electrical equipment 1.57E+11 7.76E+09 sej/g 1.22E+21 

36 Motorized and other vehicles 6.82E+11 7.76E+09 sej/g 5.29E+21 

37 Transportation equipment 3.83E+10 7.76E+09 sej/g 2.97E+20 

38 Precision instruments and apparatus 4.61E+09 7.76E+09 sej/g 3.58E+19 

39 Furniture, mattresses, lamps, lighting 4.81E+10 2.89E+09 sej/g 1.39E+20 

40 Miscellaneous manufactured products 2.66E+11 1.61E+09 sej/g 4.29E+20 

41 Waste and scrap 6.24E+11 2.16E+09 sej/g 1.35E+21 

43 Mixed freight 5.85E+11 6.32E+09 sej/g 3.70E+21 

0 Commodity unknown 8.01E+10 ? ? 

 Total sej/y 1.19E+23 

 Total without fuels sej/y 9.48E+22 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-17

37 Services 

The emergy in imported and exported services was determined using a variation of the base-nonbase method 

from economic analysis. Data on employment and revenues by NAICS sector for West Virginia and for the 

United States as whole (31) were used to estimate services exported and imported from the state using a 

modification of the location quotient and assumption methods. The formulae in the text are evaluated using data 

from the tables below. 

 

Table C3.2 Export and Import of Services Between West Virginia and the Nation

Economic Sectors

Parameters Agricult. Mining Utilities Construct. Manufact. Wholesale Retail trade Transport. Informat. 

US sector (Ni) 0.0249 0.0041 0.0057 0.0457 0.1362 0.0467 0.1128 0.0236 0.0247 

State Sector (Si) 0.0337 0.0349 0.0113 0.0457 0.1062 0.0347 0.1314 0.0212 0.0173 

 (Si - Ni ) 0.0089 0.0308 0.0057 0.0000 -0.0300 -0.0120 0.0186 -0.0024 -0.0074 

$/employee US 70034 341821 585899 151563 227502 700357 175889 108959 203255 

$/emp. WV 19321 264699 420160 99198 251237 432277 156048 136256 149509 

 

Location Quotient 1.36 8.50 2.00 1.00 0.78 0.74 1.16 0.90 0.70 

(Si) ÷ (Ni) 0.007 0.047 0.011 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.004 

(St) ÷ (Nt) 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 

Basic jobs (B) 6075.20 21113.14 3882.36 -4.04 -20546.35 -8239.19 12742.19 -1620.47 -5088.21 

Exp(+) or imp(-) $* 1.17E+08 5.59E+09 1.63E+09 -6.12E+05 -4.67E+09 -5.77E+09 1.99E+09 -1.77E+08 -1.03E+09 

Services in Sector none part part imports none Local (no) Local (no) Local (no) imports 

Assumption Base Base Base nonbase Base nonbase nonbase nonbase nonbase 

$ value of goods all goods 5.03E+09 1.38E+09 all goods 

Services exported# 0 5.61E+08 2.48E+08 0 

*

Export is determined by multiplying basic jobs by the $/employee in the West Virginia sector. Potential import 

 is determined by multiplying the basic job deficit by the $ per employee in the U.S. sector. Basic sectors can 

 export. 

# The export sectors summed here are only part service at this level of sector aggregation. Subtracting the dollar 

 value of the goods exported in the sector from total estimated exports gives an estimate of the services exported. 

 An alternative method (Table C3.3) considers higher resolution sector data where the export sectors evaluated 

 are almost all service.

 

Economic Sectors continued: 

Parameters 

Finance& 

Insurance 

RealEstate

& Rental 

Profession. 

Scientific Managem. 

Administ. 

Support 

Education 

Services 

HealthCare 

Social Ser. 

Arts& 

Entertain. 

Accomo.

& Food 

US sector (Ni) 0.0471 0.0137 0.0432 0.0211 0.0593 0.0026 0.1094 0.0128 0.0762 

State Sector (Si) 0.0308 0.0085 0.0240 0.0069 0.0313 0.0012 0.1397 0.0096 0.0752 

 (Si - Ni ) -0.0162 -0.0053 -0.0192 -0.0142 -0.0280 -0.0014 0.0303 -0.0032 -0.0010 

$/employee US 376639 141515 111029 35328 40278 63659 65262 65956 37074 

$/employee WV 205448 114420 75120 30082 37138 45921 60844 49389 31694 

 

Location Quot. 0.66 0.62 0.56 0.33 0.53 0.47 1.28 0.75 0.99 

(Si) ÷ (Ni) 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.004 0.005 

(St) ÷ (Nt) 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 

Basic jobs (B) -11113.89 -3599.22 -13175.53 -9750.06 -19172.28 -931.94 20767.66 -2205.81 -718.72 

Exp(+) imp(-) $* -4.19E+09 -5.09E+08 -1.46E+09 -3.44E+08 -7.72E+08 -5.93E+07 1.26E+09 -1.45E+08 -2.66E+07 

Services in Sector Imports Local (no) Imports Imports Imports Imports Local (no) Imports Imports 

Assumptions nonbase nonbase nonbase non base nonbase nonbase nonbase nonbase Base 
Appendix C

C-18

Sectors continued:

Parameters Other Ser. Auxillar. Governm. 

US sector (Ni) 0.0263 0.0064 0.1576 

State Sector (Si) 0.0264 0.0071 0.2028 

 (Si - Ni ) 0.0002 0.0007 0.0452 

$/employee US 81659 14231 141198 

$/employee WV 64655 1279 51394 

 

Location Quot. 1.01 1.11 1.29 

(Si) ÷ (Ni) 0.006 0.006 0.007 

(St) ÷ (Nt) 0.006 0.006 0.006 

Basic jobs (B) 112.39 492.67 30980.10 

Exp(+) imp(-) $* 7.27E+06 6.30E+05 1.59E+09 

Services in Sector Local (no) Local (no) Local (no) 

Assumptions nonbase nonbase Base 

 

Table C3.3 Alternative Method for Determining Exported Service: 

 Detailed Analysis of the Mining and Utilities sectors 

Parameters 

Drilling oil 

& gas wells 

Support 

activities for 

oil & gas 

Support 

activities 

for coal 

Electric 

services 

US sector (Ni) 0.0004 0.0009 0.0000 0.0020 

State Sector (Si) 0.0007 0.0014 0.0021 0.0032 

(Si - Ni ) 0.0003 0.0006 0.0021 0.0012 

$/employee US 138072 5451 22610483 465837 

$/employee WV 77043 77270 135639 398779 

 

Location Quot. 1.7317 1.6791 52.6411 1.6347 

(Si) ÷ (Ni) 0.0096 0.0093 0.2910 0.0090 

(St) ÷ (Nt) 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 0.0055 

Basic jobs (B) 214 398 1425 850 

Exp(+) imp(-) $* 1.65E+07 3.08E+07 1.93E+08 3.39E+08 

Service exported ($) 5.80E+08 

 

Table C3.4 Determination of Imported and Exported Services 

Potential for Importing ($) 8.01E+09 Multiply deficit employment times U.S. worker productivity in sectors 

assumed to be capable of importing services in Table C3. 2 and sum 

over the sectors. 

Fraction of potential ($) 

imported 

6.17E+09 We assume that states with average per capita income can import the 

service deficit and that states below US avg. per capita income can 

import a fraction of the deficit equal to average per capita income of the 

state /average U.S. per capita income. In 1997 this fraction was 

$19628/$25412 or 0.77 for West Virginia. Multiply potential imports by 

0.77 to estimate imported services. 

Emergy in exported 

services sej/y 

7.0E+20 Multiply the basic employment in the detailed service sectors above by 

West Virginia worker productivity and sum. Multiply this dollar amount 

by the emergy to dollar ratio of the U.S. in 1997 to estimate the emergy 

exported 

Emergy in imported 

services sej/y 

7.4E+21 Multiply the imported services times the emergy to dollar ratio of the 

U.S. in 1997. 

Appendix C

C-20

Table C3.6 US employment and productivity by Industry sector, 1997 continued. 

 Sales, receipts or Dollars per Fraction of total 

 Sectors NAICS Employees shipments $1000s Employee Employees 

Arts& entertainment 1587660 104715028 65955 0.01280 

Accommodation & food 9451226 350399194 37074 0.0762 

Other services 3256178 265897685 81659 0.0262 

Auxiliaries 792370 11275968 14231 0.0063 

Government 19540000 2759000000 141197 0.1575 

Table C3.7 West Virginia detailed export sector employment and the dollars generated per employee. 

 Number of Sales, Revenues, Dollars per Percent of total 

 Sectors NAICS Employees Shipments $1000s Employee WV Employees 

Mining Services 2944 312178 106039 0.0042 

Drilling oil&gas wells 506 38984 77043 0.0007 

Support activities for oil & gas 985 76111 77270 0.0014 

Support activities for coal 1453 197083 135638 0.0021 

Electric services (electric 

power distribution) 

2190 873325 398778 0.0031 

Table C3.8 U.S. employment in detailed export sectors and the dollars generated per employee, 1997. 

 Sales, receipts or Dollars per Fraction of total 

 Sectors NAICS Employees Shipments $1000s Employee US Employees 

Mining Services 168806 19898686 117879 0.0013 

Drilling oil&gas wells 52858 7298223 138072 0.0004 

Support activities for oil & gas 106118 11501280 5451 0.0008 

Support activities for coal 4993 578449 22610483 0.00004 

Electric services (electric 

power distribution) 

242347 112894143 465836 0.0019 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-21

38 Federal Government 

 Personal Income Tax 2631000000 $/y Data Source: (33)

 Social Security Tax 2150000000 $/y State of West Virginia (1999) 

 Business Taxes 2067026316 $/y State of West Virginia (1999) 

 Total Tax (effective export) 6.85E+09 $/y 

 Total Outlay to government 

and individuals 

1.04E+10 $/y From the U.S. Statistical Abstract 

for 1998 (33)

 

 Net Gov. Funds spent in WV 3.56E+09 $/y 

 (1.04E+10)-(6.85E9) 

 

C4. Notes for Table 7 - Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 1997.

39 Coal 3.82E+18 J/y 

 Provided by the West Virginia Department of Energy 

(23). 

 

 

 Short tons/yr 1.43E+08 

 g/short ton 9.07E+05 

 J/g 2.94E+04 

 

40 Natural Gas (Production Exports) 6.65E+15 J/y 

 Calculated from the Energy Information Administration 

 Natural Gas Summary Statistics for Natural Gas-West Virginia (25), 

Export is production – consumption. 

 

 Amount 6.05E+06 1000 ft3

 

 J/1000 ft3 1.1E+09 

 

41 Natural Gas (Delivered at state border) 2.08E+18 J/y 

 Taken from the Energy Information Administration Natural Gas 

(5). See Note 32 on the natural gas received at the state border. 

 Summary Statistics for Natural Gas - West Virginia (25). 

 

 Amount 1.89E+09 1000 ft3

 

 J/1000 ft3 1.1E+09 

 

42 Electricity 2.35E+17 J/y 

 Energy Information Administration, (28). 

 From the State Energy Data Report of West Virginia 1960-1999 (27). 

 (Net generation)-(Consumption) = 6.53E+10 kW h 

 

 

43 Steel 2.00E+12 g/y 

 From Greg Warren at Weirton Steel in Wheeling, West 

Virginia 

 

 2.20E+06 ton/y 

Note
Appendix C

C-22

44 Services embodied in exported goods. 

 Data on shipments from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (2). 

 Data on electricity from EIA (27). Electricity is not included in the CFS data. 

 Units 

 Total shipments to all destinations 3.56E+10 $/y 

 Shipments to West Virginia destinations 8.34E+9 $/y 

 Dollar value of exported goods (2) 2.72E+10 $/y 

 Emergy to dollar ration for the US in 1997 1.20E+12 sej/$ 

 Emergy exported in the services embodied in 

goods including fuels 3.27E+22 sej/y 

 

 Dollars paid for electricity @ .05 $/KWh (27) 3.27E+09 $ 

 Emergy in services in Electricity exported 3.92E+21 sej/y 

 Total Emergy in services embodied in goods 3.66E+22 sej/y 

 

 Dollars paid for coal 3.92E+09 $ 

 Emergy in services in coal exported 4.70E+21 sej/y 

 

45 Material in exported goods 

 Data on material shipments from West Virginia to all states by commodity is from The U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 1997 Commodity Flow Survey (2), Additional State Data, Table 12. In 

some cases shipment weight from the commodity flow survey was converted to energy. See 

Appendix B for the calculation of average emergy per unit for the commodity classes. 

 

Table C4.1 Emergy in the materials exported from West Virginia 

SCTG 

Code Commodity Class J or g 

Emergy 

per unit Units 

Emergy 

sej y-1

1 Live animals and live fish 0 4.393E+05 sej/J 0 

2 Cereal grains 0 1.818E+05 sej/J 0 

3 Other agricultural product 0 2.334E+05 sej/J 0 

4 Animal feed and products of animal origin 4.034E+14 1.217E+06 sej/J 4.471E+20 

5 Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations 1.720E+15 3.270E+06 sej/J 5.624E+21 

6 Milled grain products and preparations 2.857E+13 1.818E+05 sej/J 5.195E+18 

7 Other prepared foodstuffs & fats & oils 0 1.120E+06 sej/J 0 

8 Alcoholic beverages 0 5.886E+04 sej/J 0 

9 Tobacco products 1.595E+14 6.500E+05 sej/J 1.037E+20 

10 Monumental or building stone 0 9.810E+08 sej/g 0 

11 Natural sands 4.046E+11 1.962E+09 sej/g 3.969E+20 

12 Gravel and crushed stone 1.660E+11 4.905E+08 sej/g 8.143E+19 

13 Nonmetallic minerals 0 1.962E+09 sej/g 0 

14 Metallic ores and concentrates 0 2.711E+09 sej/g 0 

15 Coal 3.82E+18 3.924E+04 sej/J 1.500E+23 

17 Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel 0 6.475E+04 sej/J 0 

18 Fuel oils 4.021E+14 6.475E+04 sej/J 2.604E+19 

19 Coal and petroleum products 1.26E+17 6.475E+04 sej/J 8.170E+21 

20 Basic chemicals. 3.860E+12 2.750E+09 sej/g 1.061E+22 

21 Pharmaceutical products. 0 2.750E+09 sej/g 0 

22 Fertilizers 0 2.993E+09 sej/g 0 

Note

Appendix C

C-24

C5. Notes for Table 8 - Value of West Virginia Storages in 1997.

49 Forest Storage 1.04E+19 J 

 Based on the forest statistics for West Virginia in the last inventory done by the U.S. 

 Forest Service in 1989 Digiovanni (1990).

 Forest Standing mass 7.60E+08 tons 

 6.89E+14 g 

 15069.6 J/g 

 

50 Available Coal Reserves 1.42E+21 J 

Based on the estimated recoverable coal reserves in 1998 by the West Virginia Bureau of 

Commerce (34).

 mass 53326657317 tons 

 g/short ton 9.07E+05 

 J/g 2.94E+04 J/ton 

 

51 Available Petroleum Reserves 1.19E+17 J 

Taken from (35) the Energy Information Administration Department of Energy.

 Amount 2.10E+07 Barrels 

 5.4E+06 Btu/barrel 

 1.1E+14 Btu/yr 

 

52 Available Natural Gas Reserves 3.13E+18 J 

Taken from (5) the Energy Information Administration Department of Energy (1997).

 Amount 2.85E+09 1000 ft3

 

 J/1000 ft3 1.1E+09 

 

53 People 

 Using the percentages from the 1990 Census data 

 1997 Population 1816000 people 

 

 Number of individuals 

 1990 Fraction 1990 1997 

 Preschool 21680 0.0121 21952 

 School 1166871 0.6506 1181525 

 College Grad 379048 0.2113 383808 

 Post-College 50403 0.0281 51036 

 Elderly (65+) 157540 0.0878 159518 

 Public Status* 17935 0.0100 18160 

 Legacy# 792 792 

 

*

Public Status is estimated as one per cent of total population. 

#

All individuals listed in the index to West Virginia: A History by O.K. Rice are counted 

as part of West Virginia’s legacy. 

 A few of those legacy individuals are: 

 Henry Davis - West Virginian senator and democratic candidate for the Vice 

 Presidency of the United States in 1904 (lost to Roosevelt and Fairbanks) 

 Belle Boyd - confederate spy born in Martinsburg, WV 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-25

 John Brown - known for his actions at Harper's Ferry 

 Pearl S. Buck - author who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1938, born in Hillsboro 

 Alexander Campbell, religious leader and educator. Bethany College and the Disciples 

 of Christ. 

 Cornstalk - Shawnee Indian chief 

 John Davis - constitutional lawyer who argued 140 cases in the Supreme Court, most at 

 the time also the unsuccessful democratic candidate for the US Presidency in 1924 

 (lost to Coolidge), born in Clarksburg. 

 Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson - confederate general, and exemplary leader. 

 John Kenna - West Virginian representative and senator, born in St. Albans. 

 Walter Reuther - president of the United Automobile Workers, born in Wheeling. 

 Francis Pierpont-governor of the "Restored Government of Virginia" during the 

 Civil War born in Morgantown 

 Mary Harris "Mother" Jones - leader of strikers in the coal camps who fought for fair 

 labor laws 

C6. Notes for Table 9 – Summary Flows for West Virginia in 1997

54 Renewable emergy sources received (Table 4) are the chemical potential energy in rain, 

and the chemical potential energy in rivers. Renewable emergy sources absorbed by 

(used in) the system are the chemical potential energy of rain evapo-transpired, the 

geopotential of runoff doing work on the land, and the chemical potential and 

geopotential energy of the rivers used as the river flows through the state. 

55 Nonrenewable sources (Table 5) include fuels and minerals coal, natural gas, petroleum, 

clay, sand and gravel, limestone and soil erosion where it exceeds soil building, i.e., in 

agricultural areas. 

56 Dispersed Rural Source (Table 5) is the soil erosion in agricultural areas. This category 

includes any renewable resource that is being used more rapidly then it is being replaced. 

57 Mineral Production (Table 5) is the emergy in the mined tonnage of coal, natural gas, 

petroleum, clay, limestone, sandstone, sand and gravel. 

58 Fuels exported without use are the quantities of coal and natural gas exported without 

first being used in a production process in the state. (coal production + import – use = 

1522 E+20 sej/y) compared to the commodity flow survey number for coal (1497 E+20 

sej/y). Use commodity flow survey number and add 3 E+20 sej/y natural gas exports. 

59 Imported minerals and fuels are coal, petroleum, iron ore and bauxite (Table 6). 

60 Minerals used (includes fuels): Add mineral production and mineral imports and subtract 

fuels exported without use. 

61 In state minerals used: Subtract minerals exported without use from mineral production. 

62 The material imported in goods was determined from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey 

by summing the tonnage by commodity class from states with significant exports to West 

Virginia. (see note 36). 

63 Dollars paid for imports is the sum of the dollar value of imported goods including fuels 

and minerals and all other goods and services. 

64 The services in imported minerals including fuels are determined below. 

Table C6.1 Services in Imported Minerals 

 Amount $/amount $ 

Iron Ore (T) 3.0E+06 28.9 1.73E+08 

Bauxite (T) 6.7E+05 27 1.8E+07 

Coal (sT) 8.704E+06 26.64 2.32E+08 

Petroleum (Btu) 2.09E+14 

Petroleum (Barrels) 3.89E+07 

Petroleum (Gal) 1.63E+09 0.799 1.31E+09 

 Total 1.73E+09 

 The prices of these items can be found in the data sources given at (36)
Appendix C

C-26

65 Dollars paid for goods without fuels and minerals is the total dollar value of goods imported 

from the CFS ($2.5E+10) minus the dollar value in fuels and minerals calculated above. 

66 Dollars paid for imported services as determined using the base-nonbase method (Table C3.3). 

67 Federal transfer payments are the total outlay of funds by the Federal government (note 38). 

68 Imported Services Total is the sum of the emergy in services associated with imported goods, 

fuels, and minerals, and pure services. 

69 Imported Services in fuels and minerals is the emergy equivalent of the human service 

represented by the money paid for fuels and minerals. Dollars are converted to emergy using the 

1997 emergy/$ ratio for the US. 

70 Imported Services in Goods is the emergy equivalent of the money paid for goods minus that 

paid for fuels and minerals. (use 1.2E+12 sej/$). 

71 Imported Service is the emergy equivalent of the money paid for services (note 37). 

72 Emergy purchased by Federal dollars spent in the state. Use West Virginia emergy/$ ratio. 

73 Exported Products is the emergy in the goods exported including electricity (Table 7). 

74 Dollars Received for Exports is the sum of the payments for all exported goods and services 

75 Dollars Received for Exported Goods other than fuels, is the dollar value of the exported goods 

($2.72E+10) less fuels. 

76 Dollars Received for fuels and electricity are determined in Table C6.2. 

 

Table C6.2 Services in Exported Fuels and Electricity

1997 prices 

 Amount $/amount $ 

 Coal (Short T) 1.43E+08 26.64 3.8E+09 

 Natural Gas (tcf) 6.09E+06 3.00 1.8E+07 

 Total fuels 3.92E+09 

 Electricity (kWh) 6.53E+10 0.05 $/kWh 3.27E+09 

 

77 Dollars Paid for Services as determined by the base-non-base method given in (Note 37). 

78 Dollars spent by tourists in West Virginia from West Virginia Dept. Transportation (32). 

79 Federal Taxes Paid is the sum of personal income, social security, and business taxes (Note 38). 

80 Total Exported Services is the sum of the emergy equivalents in human service in fuels, goods 

and services exported. 

81 Exported Services in Fuels is the emergy equivalent of the human service in the dollars paid for 

fuels exported. Service is determined using the US emergy/$ ratio. 

82 Exported Services in Goods is the emergy equivalent of the services embodied in all value 

added exported goods (goods and electricity minus fuels exported without use). 

83 Exported service is the emergy equivalent of the dollar value of exported services (Note 37). 

84 Emergy Purchased by Tourists is the emergy purchased when tourists $ are spent in West 

Virginia, i.e., at West Virginia’s emergy to dollar ratio. 

85 Emergy Purchases Forgone is the emergy equivalent of taxes paid to the Federal government. 

This number was determined using the West Virginia Emergy/$ ratio. 

86 Gross State Product of the State of West Virginia in 1997. 

87 Renewable Emergy received (note 54). 

88 Renewable Emergy Absorbed (note 54). 

89 In-State Nonrenewable Use is the sum of dispersed rural sources (N0) and in-state mineral 

production (N1). 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

C-27

C7. Notes for Table 10 - Calculation of Emergy Indices.

90 Imported Emergy is the sum of imported minerals (F), goods (G), and services (PI). 

91 Total Emergy Inflow is the sum of renewable emergy received (RR), and the emergy imported 

in the previous note. 

92 The total emergy used in the state (U) is the sum of the renewable emergy absorbed (RA), the 

emergy used form dispersed rural sources (N0), fuels and minerals used (F1), and the goods (G) 

and services (PI) imported. 

93 Total exported emergy is the sum of the emergy in the materials of exported goods (B), the 

emergy of services associated with goods and with pure service (PE) and the emergy of fuels 

and minerals exported without use (N2). 

94 The emergy used from home sources is the sum of emergy from dispersed rural sources, instate minerals and fuels used (F2), and renewable emergy absorbed divided by total use (U). 

95 Import minus export is the difference between imported emergy (note 90) and exported emergy 

(note 93). 

96 Ratio of exports to imports is the quotient of the expression in note 93 divided by the 

expression in note 91. 

97 Fraction of use that is locally renewable is the ratio of renewable emergy absorbed to total use. 

98 Fraction of use that is purchased is the ratio of imported emergy (note 90) to total use (note 92). 

99 Fraction of use in imported service is PI divided by U. 

100 Fraction of use that is free is the sum of the renewable emergy absorbed and emergy from 

dispersed rural sources divided by total use. 

101 Ratio of purchased to free is the quotient of the sum of imported fuels and minerals (F1), 

imported goods (G) and imported services (PI) divided by the sum of the renewable emergy 

received (RR) and the emergy from dispersed rural sources (N0). 

102 Environmental loading ratio is the quotient of the sum of the emergy from dispersed rural 

sources (N0), imported fuels and minerals (F1), imported goods (G) and imported services (PI) 

divided by the renewable emergy received (RR). 

103 Investment Ratio. There are several possible investment ratios (Odum 1996). This one 

compares imported emergy (note 90) to the emergy supplied form within the state. The emergy 

from within the state is the sum of the renewable emergy received (RR), the emergy from 

dispersed rural sources (N0), and the emergy from in-state fuels and minerals (F2). 

104 Emergy use per unit area (Empower density) is the total emergy use (U) divided by the area. 

105 Use per person is the total emergy U divided by the population. 

106 Renewable carrying capacity at the present standard of living is found by dividing the 

renewable emergy received by total use and then multiplying this fraction times the present 

population. 

107 Developed carrying capacity at the present standard of living is approximately eight times the 

renewable carrying capacity. 

108 West Virginia State Economic product (note 86). 

109 Ratio of West Virginia emergy use to GSP. Divide U by X. 

110 Ratio of U.S. Emergy use to GNP. See Appendix B3.2. 

111 Ratio of emergy in electricity use to total use (El/U). See Table 5 for electricity use. 

112 Ratio of electricity production to total use (Elp/U). ). See Table 5 for electricity production. 

113 Fuel use per person is the sum of coal, natural gas, and petroleum used in the state (Table 5, 

620E+20 sej/y) divided by population. 

114 Population of the State in 1997 

115 Area of the State 
Appendix D

Calculating Imports and Exports of Materials and Services
Appendix D

D-2

D1. Creating Export/Import Spreadsheets for

Materials

The method used to determine the emergy

exported from and imported to West Virginia was

further developed in this study to take advantage of

the extensive data on this subject provided by the

U.S. Census Bureau’s Commodity Flow Survey (2),

which is performed every five years. This innovation

resulted in a marked improvement in the accuracy

with which imports and to a lesser extent exports of a

state’s economy can be determined. Even though the

CFS provides all the information needed to document

exports and imports it is not tabulated in the form that

we need and some of the information is hidden rather

deeply in the data base. To make our method

transparent and reproducible, we have described in

detail the characteristics of the database, data sources

and methods that we used to determine the emergy

imported and exported from West Virginia. These

methods should be applicable to the determination of

imports and exports for any other state. To facilitate

following the method described below the appropriate

tables from the CFS should be accessed when needed.

If the data tables or presentation of information

change in the future these instructions will have to be

altered.

Export Calculations

Determining material and energy flows for

exports is straightforward with few extrapolations or

assumptions needed, because the data are relatively

complete as provided in the CFS. Data on dollar

value and tonnage of export shipments between states

by commodity class comes from the Commodity

Flow Survey (CFS), Table 12 (Additional State Data).

This data is also summarized in Tables 5, 7, and 8 in

the CFS. The CFS uses several data codes when a

numeric measurement is not given and these codes

were handled in a consistent manner. For example,

most states have an S or a D in one or more data

fields for some commodity shipments. These letters

indicate variable data (S) or a single source of

information (D) that would risk disclosure. In the

export calculation method, no estimate of exports was

made for commodity classes with and S or D in both

the $ value and tonnage columns for instate

shipments. When this occurs there is often an S or a

D in the “all destinations” category, as well. In this

case there are too many unknowns to make an

estimate. Materials moving in these classes were

assumed to remain within the state or to constitute a

negligible fraction of exports. Commodities with a

dollar value but no information on tonnage were

retained in the data because the tonnage could be

reasonably estimated using the price per ton obtained

from the dollar value and tonnage of the commodity

going to all destinations.

Before transferring data from Table 12 to an

interim spreadsheet, all dashes (indicating no data)

were replaced with zeroes. If there was evidence that

some flows were not actually zero, remained

uncounted, or were different from the estimates

provided, additional information was used when the

emergy exported in each commodity class was

determined. For example, coal exports also were

determined using Energy Information Administration

(EIA) Data. The Commodity Flow Survey provides

a summary table (Table 7) of shipments to all states

from the state of origin. Note that the top row in this

table gives the total dollar value and tonnage of

shipments from the state followed by a set of rows

for dollar value and tonnage shipments to each state

to which the state of origin is shipping. This includes

a row for the state of origin itself, which will be

referred to as instate shipments from now on.

An export table (see Table D 1.2) with 11

columns was made to use in determining the tonnage

exported in various commodity classes. The

commodity classes for SCTG, SIC, and NAICS

industry classification codes and the approximate

conversions used in this paper are shown in Table

D1.1. The column headings for the export table are

as follows (1) SCTG code, (2) Description of the

class, (3) All Destinations Value($ mil), (4) All

Destinations Tons(000), (5) $/Ton, (6) Instate

Shipments ($ mil), (7) Instate Shipments Tons(000),

(8) Known (directly measured) exports Tons(000),

(9) Instate Tons (000) estimated using $/T, (10)

Estimated exports tons (000), (11) Final Exports

(estimated exports are adjusted to sum to the total

missing tonnage). Table D 1.2 omits column 2, the

verbal description of the SCTG code name, because

of space considerations. The steps in estimating

exports from a state, e.g., West Virginia, using the

data in the spreadsheet columns described above are

as follows:
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

D-3

First, copy the Commodity Class code and description

from the Commodity Flow Survey Table 12

(Additional Data) for the state, for which exports are

to be calculated Columns (1 and 2). Remember in

following the instructions below that column numbers

refer to the 11 column headings recommended above.

The 10 columns shown in Table D 1.2, which is

missing column 2, have been numbered to match the

verbal description.

1. Copy the $ value and tons moving from the state to

all destinations for all commodities, Columns (3)

and (4).

2. Calculate the $ per ton. Column (5)

3. Copy data ($ and Tonnage) for shipments of all

commodities with final destination in the state of

origin, e.g., from WV to WV, Columns (6) and (7).

4 Calculate known exports by subtracting instate

shipments (column 7) from the shipments moving

to all destinations (column 4) for all commodities

for which tonnage has been measured, directly,

Column (8).

5. Sum the tonnage of directly measured export

shipments (Column 8) and subtract from the total

tonnage moving to all destinations. The total

tonnage is given at the top of the All Destinations

column in Table D 1.2 and in CFS Table 12.

6. Calculate the tonnage of instate shipments for any

commodity for which a $ value of instate

shipments is given in column 6 by dividing by the

$ per ton (column 5). Record in Column 9 the

estimated instate shipments.

Table D1.1. Approximate conversion between SCTG , SIC and NAICS industry classification codes 

developed for this study. These conversions are only approximate and better information might be 

developed of used if available.

Class Combined Code SCTG code SIC code NAICS Code 

agricultural products, grain A 2,3 1 111 

livestock, seafood, animal products B 1,4 2,9 112 

logs, rough wood C 25 8 113 

metallic ores D 14 10 2122 

coal E 15 12 2121 

non-metallic minerals, gravel, stone, sand F 11,12,13 14 2123 

prepared food products, alcohol, tobacco G 5,6,7,8,9 20,21 311,312 

textiles, leather, apparel H 30 22,23,31 313 

lumber wood product I 26 24 321 

furniture, fixtures J 39 25 337 

paper products K 27,28 26 322 

printed products L 29 27 323 

chemicals M 20,21,22,23 28 325 

refined petroleum products N 17,18,19 29 324 

plastics and rubber O 24 30 326 

building materials, non-metallic P 10,31 32 327,331 

primary metal products, semi-finished Q 32 33 331 

fabricated metal products. Cans etc. R 33 34 332 

machinery (not electrical) S 34 35 333 

electrical equipment , precision instruments T 35.38 36,38 334,335 

transportation equipment U 36,37 37 336 

miscellaneous manufactured goods V 40 39 339 

scrap and waste W 41 49 (?) 562 (?) 

unknown, mixed or special classes Y 43 92,98,99 99999 
Appendix D

D-4

7. Estimate the tonnage exported in these commodity

classes by subtracting the instate tonnage

estimates (column 9) from tonnage moving to all

destinations (column 4). Record these estimates in

Column 10.

8. Sum the estimated export shipments (column 9)

and divide into the difference between directly

measured exports and total exports. If this ratio

equals 1 combine directly measured and estimated

exports in their respective commodity classes into

Table D1.2. Calculation of West Virginia Exports from the state to state commodity shipments found 

in the Commodity Flow Survey as Additional Data in Table 12. 

SCTG 

Code 

All 

DestinationsV

alue($ mil) 

All 

Destinations

Tons(000) $/ton 

Instate 

Value 

(mil $) 

Instate 

Tons(000) 

Measured 

Exports 

Tons(000) 

Estimate 

Instate 

Tons(000) 

Estimate 

State 

Exports 

Final 

Adjusted 

Exports 

Col. 1 Col. 3 Col. 4 Col. 5 Col. 6 Col. 7 Col. 8 Col. 9 Col. 10 Col. 11 

Total 35570 233760 8336 66249 167511 167511 

1 - - 0 - - 0 0 

2 - - 0 - - 0 0 

3 S S 356 S S S S 0 

4 129 467 276 87 438 29 29 

5 609 259 2351 50 21 238 238 

6 29 14 2071 20 11 3 3 

7 223 S 843 S S S S 0 

8 365 351 1040 365 351 0 0 

9 440 19 23158 177 7 12 12 

10 S S 94 S S S S 0 

11 32 793 40 4 347 446 446 

12 53 5667 9 51 5484 183 183 

13 S S 29 S S S S 0 

14 S S 689 S S S S 0 

15 4943 187835 26 1107 44488 143347 143347 

17 393 S 272 S S S S 0 

18 227 964 235 224 954 10 10 

19 532 3335 160 78 163 3172 3172 

20 3918 5152 760 425 897 4255 4255 

21 1996 S 32716 S S S S 0 

22 S S 216 S S S S 0 

23 1512 946 1598 518 290 656 656 

24 2582 1316 1962 485 387 929 929 

25 370 5627 66 132 S S 2007 3620 3406 

26 900 3869 233 216 1045 2824 2824 

27 69 108 639 S S S S 0 

28 123 87 1414 58 S S 41 46 43 

29 483 S 2499 S S S S 0 

30 S S 9097 S S S S 0 

a single column (11) and you are done. If greater

or less than 1 multiply each estimated commodity

by this ratio to adjust the flows so that directly

measured and estimated exports will sum to the

known tonnage of total exports shipped to all

destinations. Record these numbers in Column

(11), Final Adjusted Exports, and fill in column

with the directly measured values from

Column (8).
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

D-5

Transferring Export Data to the Emergy

Evaluation Spreadsheet

Columns 1, 2 and 11 beginning with SCTG code

1, can now be transferred to the emergy export

evaluation section. Do not include commodities with

zero flow. These are only shown in Table D 1.2 as

placeholders to present a complete listing of all

commodity categories.

Import Calculations

Table 12 from the CFS web site, “Additional

State Data”, used in the export calculation, has

information on the exports by commodity class going

from all the other states to the state of destination

(West Virginia). Data from the other 49 states that

might be exporting to the study state were combined

to determine imports. Inbound shipments by state of

origin to the state of destination are summarized in

Table 8 of the CFS, but commodity classes are not

shown. For states without a U.S. Customs port, state

to state commodity shipments will capture almost

everything entering the state. When one or more U.S.

customs ports are located in a state the foreign

imports entering the state need to be determined

separately, regardless of whether they are

immediately exported to another state. We assume

that these imports bring some value to the state by

simply passing through.

The inbound tonnage shipped in each

commodity category was used to calculate the

emergy imported in goods. The five steps used to

estimate imported emergy to a state are as follows:

(1) a quick tally of the total tonnage coming into the

study state from other states was obtained by

consulting Table 8 in the CFS report. The states that

had a number entered in the percent of total inbound

shipments column were identified. The total

percentage of imports directly measured was

determined by summing the percentages. We would

like the total percent of tonnage from the states used

to estimate imports to be at least 95% of the tonnage

of total inbound shipments (2). Once the subset of

states exporting to the study state was identified,

31 937 5007 187 263 3658 1349 1349 

32 4158 6306 659 449 S S 681 5625 5294 

33 860 851 1011 525 465 386 386 

34 2109 187 11278 483 48 139 139 

35 1326 120 11050 242 S S 22 98 92 

36 2900 519 5588 212 S S 38 481 453 

37 320 S 10622 S S S S 0 

38 234 2 117000 S - S S 0 

39 159 45 3533 57 12 33 33 

40 692 134 5164 140 S S 27 107 101 

41 S S 148 S S S S 0 

43 794 425 1868 605 314 111 111 

-- 99 38 2605 S S S S 0 

Class Totals 158122 9977 167511 

Difference (Total - Class Total from Column 7 in this Table. 9389 

Fraction (Difference/Class Total -Column 7/Column 9 this table) 0.941 

Table D1.2. Calculation of West Virginia Exports from the state to state commodity shipments found 

in the Commodity Flow Survey as Additional Data in Table 12 continued 

SCTG 

Code 

All 

Destinations

Value($ mil) 

All 

Destinations

Tons(000) $/ton 

Instate 

Value 

(mil $) 

Instate 

Tons (000) 

Measured 

Exports 

Tons(000) 

Estimate 

Instate 

Tons(000) 

Estimate 

State 

Exports 

Final 

Adjusted 

Exports 
Appendix D

D-6

missing values for the tonnage for specific

commodities coming from each state were estimated.

(3) If a dollar value of the inbound commodity

shipments was known and tonnage was not listed, the

tonnage was estimated based on the cost per ton as

described above and shown in Table D 1.2. A large

fraction of total inbound shipments from some states

had missing values for both dollar value and tonnage

(an S or D entered into the field). In this case, the

missing data would have resulted in large errors in

the estimate of total imports and thus the

development of a method to handle this situation was

warranted. The tonnage fields for inbound shipments

from a state of origin to West Virginia containing and

S or a D were handled by assuming that a state’s

exports to any other state would on average follow its

overall export profile, i.e., the fraction of total

shipments accounted for by each commodity.

Missing tonnage data was distributed among

commodity classes by adjusting the overall export

profile. The missing tonnage is equal to total

shipments to West Virginia minus commodities with

numeric entries for tonnage. This tonnage was

distributed among the commodity classes of inbound

shipments by adjusting the state’s overall export

profile so that the unknown inbound shipments made

up 100% of the missing inbound tonnage. (4) The

inbound tonnage in each commodity class for a state

was transferred as a single column to a second

worksheet with data from all of the identified import

states. (5) Then each commodity class was summed

across the rows for all states to create the column of

data with imported tonnages in each commodity class

for the emergy table.

1. The following steps describe the estimation

of the unknown tonnage (S and D) as

illustrated for Alabama’s shipments to West

Virginia shown in Table D 1.3. For all of the

states importing to the study state, copy the

total tonnage in each commodity class

exported to all destinations and the tonnage

exported to the state you are evaluating

(columns 2 and 3 in Table D 1.3), onto a

spreadsheet.

2. Calculate the price per ton for all inbound

shipments by commodity class from any

state exporting to the study state according

to the instructions given above for exports.

3. Replace all dashes with a zero. Although

Table D 1.3 only presents one state, the same

procedure will be used for all states sending

a significant quantity of imports to the study

state.

4. Next, missing tonnage values are estimated

for any commodity class that reported a

dollar value of exports to the state but no

tonnage. In some cases calculating the price

per ton for the state of origin is not possible,

but there is still a dollar value for exports.

Prices per ton can be quite variable, but an

estimate can be made by finding an adjacent

state with similar export conditions for the

product and substituting this price in the

spread-sheet making a note on its origin. Fill

in all tonnage movements possible using this

method. Combine the tonnages estimated on

the basis of average price with the tonnages

that were directly measured. Sum this

column and subtract from the total tonnage

exported to get the tonnage that will be

distributed using the export profile (see the

number in italics at the top of column 4 in

Table D 1.3). For example, the total export

from Alabama to West Virginia is 318

thousand metric tons but the sum of all

commodities determined directly and

estimated based on dollar value only adds

up to 27 thousand tons, the difference is

then 291 thousand tons.

5. Create a fourth column for the state’s export

profile, which will be used to distribute the

missing tonnage across the remaining

commodities that had either an S or D in

both the dollar value and tonnage fields.

The export profile is the fraction of the total

tonnage accounted for by each commodity as

determined from the shipments to all

destinations. Calculate the profile by

dividing the tonnage for each commodity

exported by the total tonnage exported for

that state. Only those commodities that have

an S or D in both dollar value and tonnage

fields are recorded in column 4. Sum the

fractions to determine the fraction of total

tons accounted for by the commodities with

missing data.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

D-7

6. The next step is to adjust these fractions to

represent the expected fractions of the

missing tonnage imported to the state in each

commodity class with missing data. Create a

fifth column, the adjusted fraction of missing

tonnage imported in each class, where each

fraction of the tons in the export profile

(individual values in column 4) will be

divided by the fraction of the total tons that

is missing (the sum of all fractions in column

four). The sum of all values in column 5

should equal one, or 100%.

7. In the last column (column 6), copy over the

reported and estimated data for tonnage for

any commodity where it is available from

column 3. For all of the missing

commodities (those with and S or D in both

the $ value and tonnage fields), multiply the

total missing tonnage (at the top of Column

4) by the corresponding percentage (in

Column 5) for each commodity class known

to have a flow but for which tonnage is

unknown, and transfer this number to the

appropriate field in column 6. For example,

if data is missing for textiles, multiply 291

thousand tons by the fraction of textiles or

0.0172, to get 5 thousand tons textiles

imported. Sum this column to make sure it

adds up to the total tonnage.

8. Transfer this tonnage data for each

commodity to an import table creating a

column for each state.

9. Sum across the states (rows) for each

commodity to find the total tonnage

imported in each commodity class and

transfer this to the import section of the

emergy evaluation.

Custom’s Imports

If the state has a Customs’ port, locate the

appropriate data on the USITC data web site (37).

The Customs’ site requires a password, but

registration is free. To get the correct data report, a

series of dialogue boxes must be completed. The

choices that should be made are as follows:

q Dialogue 1 – U.S. General Imports; NAICS

code; current US Trade

q Dialogue 2 – Customs value; 1997; All import

commodities; All countries; All country subcodes; create new district list

q Enter the name, select the districts, then

highlight the name when you return to original

page;

q In 1,000,000; annual; NAICS 3 digit;

aggregate all countries together; aggregate

import programs; display districts separately

q Dialogue 3 – Arrange in this order: District;

NAICS 3

q Dialogue 4 – District; General customs value;

Show all; Sort 1997; 5000 records; other display

options are optional
Appendix D

D-8

Table D1.3: Example of estimating missing import data. Alabama to West Virginia

Description 

Total Tons 

from 

Alabama 

(thousands) 

Tons to WV 

(thousands) 

Fraction of 

total tons for 

missing data 

Fraction of 

missing 

tonnage to 

WV 

Total Tons to 

WV 

(thousands) 

 All commodities 256234 318 291 

Live animals and live fish 125 - 0.0 

Cereal grains S - 0.0 

Other agricultural products 1682 - 0.0 

Animal feed and products of animal origin 7194 S 0.028 0.059 17.2 

Meat, fish, seafood, and their preparations 1836 S 0.007 0.015 4.4 

Milled grain and bakery products 386 S 0.002 0.003 0.9 

Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils 4408 S 0.017 0.036 10.5 

Alcoholic beverages 482 - 0.000 0.0 

Tobacco products 51 S 0.000 0.000 0.1 

Monumental or building stone S - 0.000 0.0 

Natural sands S - 0.000 0.0 

Gravel and crushed stone 36211 - 0.000 0.0 

Nonmetallic minerals 2905 S 0.011 0.024 6.9 

Metallic ores and concentrates S - 0.000 0.0 

Coal 30993 - 0.000 0.0 

Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel 12659 - 0.000 0.0 

Fuel oils 3605 - 0.000 0.0 

Coal and petroleum products, 4671 S 0.018 0.038 11.1 

Basic chemicals 7460 S 0.029 0.061 17.8 

Pharmaceutical products 33 S 0.000 0.000 0.1 

Fertilizers 2382 S 0.009 0.020 5.7 

Chemical products and preparations 1271 S 0.005 0.010 3.0 

Plastics and rubber 1585 S 0.006 0.013 3.8 

Logs and other wood in the rough 40817 S 0.159 0.334 97.3 

Wood products 12443 S 0.049 0.102 29.7 

Pulp, newsprint, paper, and paperboard 8949 S 0.035 0.073 21.3 

Paper or paperboard articles 977 - 0.000 0.0 

Printed products 324 S 0.001 0.003 0.8 

Textiles, leather, and articles of textiles or leather 2120 S 0.008 0.017 5.1 

Nonmetallic mineral products 16613 S 0.065 0.136 39.6 

Base metal in primary or semi finished forms and 

in finished basic shapes 11212 17 17.0 

Articles of base metal 4208 S 0.016 0.034 10.0 

Machinery 753 1 0.000 1.0 

Electronic and other electrical equipment and 

components and office equipment 688 S 0.003 0.006 1.6 

Motorized and other vehicles (including parts) 957 S 0.004 0.008 2.3 

Transportation equipment 251 S 0.001 0.002 0.6 

Precision instruments and apparatus 10 - 0.000 0.0 

Furniture, mattresses and mattress supports, 

lamps, lighting fittings, and... 501 S 0.002 0.004 1.2 

Miscellaneous manufactured products 2965 9 9.0 

Waste and scrap 2130 - 0.0 

Mixed freight 2000 - 0.0 

Commodity unknown S - 

subtotals to check 27 0.476 1.000 318 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

D-9

D2. The Method for Calculating Services

Imported and Exported

In this study, we adapted the base-nonbase

method from economics to estimate the emergy of

pure services imported and exported from West

Virginia or any other state. This method was first

used in an emergy analysis by Odum et al. (1998)

and we used that work as a starting point. The theory

and formulae for estimating services are given in the

methods section above. There follows a detailed

description of how we estimated exported and

imported services. This material is given so that our

method will be transparent and reproducible and

therefore easier to refine and improve.

To determine exported and imported services,

go to the NAICS economic sector data U.S. data (31)

and then choose the state from the menu in the upper

left-hand corner. You will also need agricultural and

government data not given in (31). Government

expenditures by state are available in the U.S.

Statistical Abstract for 1997 (also online).

Agricultural data can be obtained from Economic

Research Service, USDA Data- Farm and FarmRelated Employment (38). These instructions create

one large table comparing all of this data, but if

smaller pieces are preferred, use a method that makes

sense as long as the basic guidelines are preserved.

A) Using the list of non-farm industries given by

NAICS two digit industry codes and recorded

on the U.S. Census Bureau web site, there are

18 industry sectors (Table D 2.1), to which

agriculture and government should be added.

This table will be used to classify each sector

as base or non-base. As mentioned in the

services section of the main paper, base sectors

are those that will have enough production to

export, while non-base sectors are more likely

to serve the local (state) economy. Agriculture,

manufacturing, mining, and state and federal

government are sectors that are often considered to be basic sectors. In the case of

West Virginia, the utilities industry was

added because it exports a large fraction of

the electricity produced. Non-basic industries

provide mostly local services such as support

services and the retail industries like grocery

stores, dry cleaners, drug stores etc. The data

for each state should be examined and each of

the 20 industry sectors designated as basic or

non-basic industries using a set of initial

assumptions. Since this method is only used to

determine services imported and exported, each

industry category must be further considered

from this point of view. For example, in West

Virginia exports from the manufacturing and

agriculture sectors are almost entirely goods

(this can be verified by examining the more

detailed listing of higher digit industry sectors

in the U.S. Census Bureau listing by NAICS

code, see web site given above), the service

component of which is determined below. In

addition the mining and utilities sectors also are

largely goods exporting sectors, however, each

of these sectors has a service component. To

accurately estimate the exports from these two

sectors the detailed level of NAICS industry

categories was used. This information is

available at the same web address (31). For

example, within the mining sector there is a

category for mining support activities. For

West Virginia this category includes classes

for drilling oil and gas wells, support activities

for oil and gas operations and support activities

for coal mining. All three of these are sources

of potentially exportable services. The detailed

code data should be used when it is needed for

the particular economic situation in a given

state. However, the two digit data can be used

where the entire sector provides services for

export or that might be imported. Table 1 gives

a list of the 20 two digit industry categories and

the assumptions that were made about them for

West Virginia.

B) In the second table, the 20 sectors become the

column headings and the data and calculations

using this data are the rows. Table D 2.2

presents an abbreviated version of the total

table (See Appendix C for the complete West

Virginia table). The following steps are the

same for calculating values for all columns, or

sectors, and match the note numbers in Table D

2.2; however, you might want to complete rows

15 and 16 first. An explanation of the rows in

Table D 2.2 follows:

1) U.S Paid employees. This number is from

either the U.S. census table or one of the

other two sites listed above for agriculture

and government.
Appendix D

D-10

2) U.S. Sales, Receipts or Shipments ($1000).

This number is from either the U.S. census

table or one of the other two sites listed for

agriculture and government.

3) U.S. Dollars per employee. Divide row 2 by

row 1 and multiply by 1000.

4) U.S. Fraction of Total Employment. Divide

row 1 by the value for line 15 (see note 15).

5) State Paid employees. This number is from

either the WV census or from one of the

other two sites listed above for agriculture

and government.

6) State Sales, Receipts or Shipments

($1000).This number is from either the WV

census or from one of the other two sites

listed above for agriculture and government

7) State Dollars per employee. Divide row 6 by

row 5 and multiply by 1000.

8) State Fraction of Total Employment. Divide

row 5 by line 16 (see note 16).

9) Location Quotient. Divide row 8 by row 4.

If this number is >1 the state is able to

export a portion of this sector’s productivity.

10)Sector ratio of regional to national

employment. Divide row 5 by row 1.

11)Ratio of regional to national employment.

Divide row 16 by row 15. This is a constant

across all sectors and is an indication of the

overall available workforce, regional to

national.

12)Basic sector jobs. The number of basic jobs

in a sector is found by subtracting the

fraction of national employment in the

region from the fraction of regional sector

employment in the national sector, and then

multiplying by national employment in the

sector. Subtract row 11 from row 10 and

multiply the difference by row 1. A positive

number indicates an exporting sector and a

negative number indicates a potential

importing sector. However, the original

assumptions about sector behavior will

determine whether the potential for export or

import is realized.

13)Exported goods and services are determined

by multiplying the regional sector

productivity per worker by the number of

workers in the basic part of the sector. In

other words, multiply row 12 by row 7

unless the initial assumptions about this

sector make it a non-basic or non-exporting

sector. Potential imports are determined by

multiplying the national sector productivity

per worker by the deficit number of workers

for the sectors importing services. Multiply

a negative value in Row 12 by the value in

row 3.

14)Exports are corrected by subtracting the

services in exported goods from the potential

exports of a sector. For West Virginia this

was done for two sectors – mining (see 14')

and utilities.Other basic sectors were shown

to either not export or to export only goods.

The dollar value of goods exported from the

sector must be subtracted form the total

exports obtained in 13 to get an estimate of

the services exported. We also estimated

services exported by an alternative method.

To use this method, step down one level

of information into the structure of the

exporting sector. Detailed information for

these sectors is available (click on the arrow

next to the sector in the main tables). Using

this data, complete the same procedure used

above for the pure service components of the

sector to determine services exported

directly. These estimates are totaled and

constitute the estimate for exported services

when summed over all basic sectors that

export. To estimate the actual imports, we

assumed that a fraction of the potential

import (a negative amount on line 13) equal

to the ratio of West Virginia’s per capita

income to national per capita income is

actually imported into the state as explained

above. Sum the positive values for exported

services and the negative values for imported

services, respectively. These totals are

transferred to the import/export tables in the

emergy evaluation for total services

15)For 1997 studies of U.S. states, the number

provided here can be used for the national

totals. It is the total employment for all

sectors including agriculture and

government.

16)West Virginia total employment in 1997 is

the sum of employment in all sectors

mentioned above.
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

D-11

Table D2.1. NAICS industry sectors and their assumed sector types for WV. 

Industry Sector Type Notes 

Agriculture Basic-export all goods 

Mining Basic-export Support activities (only) 

Utilities Basic-export Electric services (only) 

Construction Nonbasic Local markets 

Manufacturing Basic All goods 

Wholesale trade Nonbasic Local markets 

Retail trade Nonbasic Local markets (no export) 

Transportation & Warehousing Nonbasic Local markets 

Information Nonbasic Potentially imported 

Finance &Insurance Nonbasic Potentially imported 

Real estate & rental Non-basic Local markets 

Professional, scientific services Non-basic Potentially imported 

Management of companies Non-basic Potentially imported 

Administrative support & waste 

management 

Non-basic Potentially imported 

Educational services Non-basic Potentially imported 

Health care and social assistance Non-basic Local markets (no export) 

Arts, entertainment & recreation Non-basic Potentially imported 

Accommodation and food service Basic not imported or exported 

Other services (not public) Nonbasic Local markets 

Auxiliaries Non-basic Local markets 

Government Basic not exported 
Appendix D

D-12

Table D2.2. Calculation of basic sector jobs and the estimated dollar values for exported 

and imported services. 

Assumed sector behavior from Table 1 base non-base 

 Note Item Mining Constr 

1 U.S Paid employees 509006 5664840 

2 U.S. Sales, Receipts or Shipments ($1000) 173988778 858581046 

3 U.S. Dollars per employee 341820.68 151563.16 

4 U.S. Fraction of Total Employment 0.004094585 0.04556954 

5 State Paid employees 23927 31312 

6 State Sales, Receipts or Shipments ($1000) 6333463 3106093 

7 State Dollars per employee 264699.42 99198.17 

8 State Fraction of Total Employment 0.034013838 0.04451211 

9 Location Quotient 8.31 0.98 

10 Sector ratio of regional to national employment 0.05 0.01 

11 National ratio of regional to national employment 0.01 0.01 

12 Basic sector jobs 2.10E+04 -7.44E+02 

13 Potential state services export/import 5.57E+09 -7.38E+07 

14 State services export (+) or import (-) 1.02E+08 -3.69E+07 

14' Estimation of services actually exported using data for the entire mining sector. 

More detailed sector data that separates out service components may also be used 

 Total non-service mining receipts, WV 6,021,285,000 

 Total non-service mining employment, WV 20983 

 Total non-service mining employment, US 340200 

 Fraction total employment, WV 0.0298 

15 Total U.S. employment, all sectors plus agriculture 

and government 

124311992 

 

16 Total WV employment, all sectors plus agriculture 

and government 

703449 

 

 

 
Appendix E

West Virginia Emergy Accounts for 2000

Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

E-3

Table E3. Imports to the West Virginia Economy in 2000. 

Note Item 

Data 

J, g, $, 

ind/yr Units 

Emergy/ 

Unit 

sej/unit 

Emergy 

E20 sej 

2000 

Emdollars 

E6 Em$ 

30 Coal 2.30 E+17 J 39200 90 8,426 

31 Petroleum 2.16 E+17 J 64700 140 13,060 

32 Natural Gas (Received at state boarder) 1.58 E+18 J 47100 744 69,550 

33 Iron Ore 4.41 E+13 J 6.08 E+07 27 2,506 

34 Alumina/Bauxite 4.4 E+13 J 1.47 E+07 6 604 

35 Services Embodied in the Goods 2.50 E+10 $ 1.07 E+12 268 25,000 

36 Material in the Goods Various J or g Various 948 77,705 

37 Services 6.2 E+09 $ 1.07 E+12 663 62,000 

38 Federal Government Outlays 1.07 E+10 $ 5.79 E+12 620 57,900 

Table E4. Exports from the West Virginia Economy in 2000. 

Note Item 

Data 

J, g, $, 

ind/yr Units 

Emergy/ 

Unit 

sej/unit 

Emergy 

E20 sej 

2000 

Emdollars 

E6 Em$ 

39 Coal 3.19 E+18 J 39200 1250 116,867 

40 Natural Gas (Production Exports) 1.20 E+17 J 47100 57 5,282 

41 Natural Gas (Delivered at state 

border) 

 1.75 E+18 J 47100 824 77,032 

42 Electricity 2.42 E+17 J 170400 412 38,539 

43 Steel 2.00 E+12 g 3.38 E+09 68 6,317 

44 Services Embodied in the Goods 2.72 E+10 $ 1.07 E+12 291 27,200 

45 Material in the Goods Various J or g Various 776 72,523 

46 Services 5.80 E+08 $ 1.07 E+12 6 580 

47 Migration (total) 2660 People Various 4.2 344 

 Preschool 876 People 3.3 E+16 0.3 24 

 School 1188 People 9.2 E+16 1.1 90 

 College Grad 479 People 2.7 E+17 1.29 106 

 Post-College 117 People 1.3 E+18 1.5 125 

48 Tourism 4.0 E+09 $ 5.79 E+12 232 21,682 

38 Federal Taxes Paid 6.1 E+09 $ 5.79 E+12 353 32,990 
Appendix E

E-4

Table E5. Value of West Virginia Storages in 2000. 

Note Item 

Data 

J, g, $, ind/yr Units 

Emergy/Unit 

sej/unit 

Emergy 

E20 sej 

2000 Emdollars 

E6 Em$ 

49 Forest 1.04 E+19 J 28200 2933 274,093 

50 Coal 1.42 E+21 J 39200 556640 52,022,429 

51 Petroleum 1.19 E+17 J 53000 63 5,894 

52 Natural Gas 3.13 E+18 J 47100 1474 137,779 

53 People 2000 population 1,808,344 Ind. 3908 365,394 

 Preschool 21,635 Ind. 3.3 E+16 7 667 

 School 1,164,463 Ind. 9.2 E+16 1071 100,122 

 College Grad 384,232 Ind. 2.7 E+17 1037 96,955 

 Post-College 56,266 Ind. 1.3 E+18 731 68,360 

 Elderly (70+) 163,101 Ind. 1.7 E+17 277 25,913 

 Public Status 18,568 Ind. 3.9 E+18 724 67,678 

 Legacy 792 Ind. 7.7 E+18 61 5,699 
Environmental Accounting Using Emergy: West Virginia

E-5

Table E6. Summary of Flows for West Virginia in 2000. 

Note 

Letter in 

Fig. 2 Item 

Emergy 

E20 sej 

1997 

Dollars 

$/yr 

2000 

Emdollars 

Em$/y 

54 RR Renewable emergy received 105 9.82 

54 RA Renewable emergy absorbed 66 6.17 

55 N Nonrenewable source flows 1958 182.99 

56 N0 Dispersed Rural Source 3 0.28 

57 N1 Mineral Production (fuels, etc.) 1955 182.71 

58 N2 Fuels Exported without Use 1312 122.62 

59 F Imported Minerals (fuels, etc.) 263 24.58 

60 F1 Minerals Used (F+N1-N2) 906 84.67 

61 F2 In State Minerals Used (N1-N2) 643 60.09 

62 G Imported Goods (materials) 948 88.60 

63 I Dollars Paid for all Imports 31.13 

64 I1 Dollars Paid for Service in Fuels 1.72 

65 I2 Dollars Paid for Service in Goods 23.24 

66 I3 Dollars paid for Services 6.17 

67 I6 Federal Transfer Payments 10.7 

68 PI Imported Services Total 375 35.05 

69 PI1 Imported Services in Fuels 21 1.96 

70 PI2 Imported Services in Goods 280 26.17 

71 PI3 Imported Services 74 6.92 

72 PI4 Emergy purchased by Federal $ 620 57.94 

73 B Exported Products (goods + elec.) 1188 111.03 

74 E Dollars Paid for Exports 31.08 

75 E1 Dollars Paid Fuel Exported 3.92 

76 E2 Dollars Paid for Goods 26.6 

77 E3 Dollars Paid for Exported Services 0.58 

78 E4 Dollars Spent by Tourist 4.0 

79 E5 Federal Taxes Paid 6.1 

80 PE Total Exported Services 379 35.42 

81 PE1 Exported Services in Fuels 48 4.49 

82 PE2 Exported Services in Goods 324 30.28 

83 PE3 Exported Services 7 0.65 

84 PE4 Emergy Purchased by Tourists 237 22.15 

85 PE5 Emergy Purchases Forgone 353 32.99 

86 X Gross State Product 39.7 
Appendix E

E-6

Table E7. West Virginia Emergy Indicators and Indices for 2000. 

Item Name of Index Expression Quantity Units 

87 Renewable Emergy Received RR 1.05E+22 sej y-1

88 Renewable Emergy Used RA 6.6E+21 sej y-1

89 In State Non-renewable N0 + N1 1.958E+23 sej y-1

90 Imported Emergy F + G + PI 1.586E+23 sej y-1

91 Total Emergy Inflows RR + F + G + PI 1.691E+23 sej y-1

92 Total emergy used U = RA+N0+F1+G+PI 2.298E+23 sej y-1

93 Total exported emergy B+ PE +N2 2.879E+23 sej y-1

94 Emergy used from home sources (N0+F2+ RA)/U 0.31 

95 Imports-Exports (F+G+PI)-(B+PE+N2) -1.29E+23 sej y-1

96 Ratio of export to imports (B+PE+N2)/(F+G+PI) 1.81 

97 Fraction use, locally renewable RA /U 0.030 

98 Fraction of use purchased import (F + G + PI)/U 0.68 

99 Fraction used, imported service PI/U 0.15 

100 Fraction of use that is free (RA+N0)/U 0.029 

101 Ratio of purchased to free (F1+G+PI)/(RR+N0) 20.6 

102 Environmental Loading Ratio (F1+N0+G+PI)/(RR) 21.3 

103 Investment Ratio (F+G+PI)/(RR+N0+F2) 2.11 

104 Use per unit area U/Area 3.7E+12 sej m-2

105 Use per person U/Population 1.27E+17 sej/ind 

106 Renewable Carrying Capacity at 

present standard of Living 

(RR /U)* 

(Population) 

82,702 people 

107 Developed Carrying Capacity at same 

living standard 

8(R/U)(Population) 661,619 people 

108 WV State Econ. Product GSP 3.97E+10 $/yr 

109 Ratio of WV emergy use to GSP U/GSP 5.79E+12 sej/$ 

110 Ratio of U.S. emergy use to GNP in 

2000 

U/GNP 1.07E+12 sej/$ 

111 Ratio of Electricity/Emergy Use El/U 0.073 

112 Ratio Elec. Prod./Emergy Use Elp/U 0.25 

113 Emergy of Fuel Use per Person Fuel use/Population 3.4E+16 sej/ind 

114 Population 1.811E+6 people 

115 Area 6.236E+10 m2