[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v271y2014icp52-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of uncertainty in emergy evaluations using Monte Carlo simulations

Author

Listed:
  • Hudson, Amy
  • Tilley, David R.
Abstract
Emergy evaluations most often rely on point estimates for important energy, material and solar transformity (or more generally unit emergy values, UEVs) parameters. For emergy science to continue its advancement as a tool for assessing energy and environmental sustainability, it needs to include estimates of uncertainty surrounding emergy budgets so that statistical confidence can be assessed. Here, Monte Carlo simulation was used to analyze the effect of uncertainty in the estimates of energy, material and UEVs of system-sources (e.g., sunlight, evapotranspiration, fuel, fertilizer) on the uncertainty of the UEV of the system-yield. Eight unique corn and wheat production systems, reported in the literature, provided the statistical properties (e.g., means, standard deviations, minima) of the energy, material and UEVs of the system-sources, but the probability distribution functions were assumed to be normal, lognormal, or uniform. Uncertainty from system-sources was partitioned into energy/material and UEV. The contribution that a system-source made to total emergy flow was strongly indicative of the amount of uncertainty it contributed. Out of 22 parameters (11 energy/mass and their 11 UEVs), four of them contributed more than 86% of the uncertainty to the UEV of the crop yield. The UEV of nitrogen fertilizer contributed the most uncertainty (19%), followed by the rate of soil erosion (11%), application rate of nitrogen fertilizer (4%), and labor requirements (5%). When uncertainty from all 22 parameters was included, the expected UEV of the crop yield was 118,000sej/J with a total level of uncertainty (95% confidence interval) of ±106,000sej/J (±90% of the mean), indicating that uncertainty was vast. However, ±50% was due to energy/mass uncertainty, while ±40% was due to UEV uncertainty, of which all but ±2% was due to the UEV of nitrogen fertilizer, indicating that little uncertainty (±12,600sej/J) was derived from non-nitrogen fertilizer UEVs. Most of the uncertainty came from the energy/mass, rather than UEVs, indicating that as much care should be given to estimating energy and material use as to selecting or estimating UEVs. Our simulation ignored any multicollinearity that may have existed among the energy/mass use of the system-sources, which likely meant that we overestimated uncertainty. Future investigation should build in the correlations that exist among the system-sources (e.g., nitrogen fertilizer is related to water availability) to better quantify uncertainty. The simulations suggested that uncertainty from UEVs may be hierarchically organized with a few system-sources contributing a majority and most contributing little, indicating that management of uncertainty can be focused on a few parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Hudson, Amy & Tilley, David R., 2014. "Assessment of uncertainty in emergy evaluations using Monte Carlo simulations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 52-61.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:271:y:2014:i:c:p:52-61
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.05.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380013002810
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.05.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Linjun & Lu, Hongfang & Campbell, Daniel E. & Ren, Hai, 2011. "Methods for estimating the uncertainty in emergy table-form models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(15), pages 2615-2622.
    2. Ingwersen, Wesley W., 2010. "Uncertainty characterization for emergy values," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(3), pages 445-452.
    3. Tilley, David R., 2011. "Dynamic accounting of emergy cycling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(20), pages 3734-3742.
    4. Brown, Mark T. & Protano, Gaetano & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2011. "Assessing geobiosphere work of generating global reserves of coal, crude oil, and natural gas," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 879-887.
    5. Ukidwe, Nandan U. & Bakshi, Bhavik R., 2007. "Industrial and ecological cumulative exergy consumption of the United States via the 1997 input–output benchmark model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1560-1592.
    6. S. N. Rai & D. Krewski, 1998. "Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 37-45, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Baral, Nawa Raj & Wituszynski, David M. & Martin, Jay F. & Shah, Ajay, 2016. "Sustainability assessment of cellulosic biorefinery stillage utilization methods using emergy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 13-28.
    2. Iribarren, Diego & Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Rugani, Benedetto & Benetto, Enrico, 2014. "On the feasibility of using emergy analysis as a source of benchmarking criteria through data envelopment analysis: A case study for wind energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 527-537.
    3. Alizadeh, Sadegh & Avami, Akram, 2021. "Development of a framework for the sustainability evaluation of renewable and fossil fuel power plants using integrated LCA-emergy analysis: A case study in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1548-1564.
    4. Tilley, David, 2015. "Transformity dynamics related to maximum power for improved emergy yield estimations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 96-107.
    5. Giannetti, Biagio F. & Faria, Luciana & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Agostinho, Feni & Coscieme, Luca & Liu, Gengyuan, 2018. "Human-nature nexuses in Brazil: Monitoring production of economic and ecosystem services in historical series," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 248-256.
    6. Agostinho, Feni & Bertaglia, Ana B.B. & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2015. "Influence of cellulase enzyme production on the energetic–environmental performance of lignocellulosic ethanol," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 46-56.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Xiaohong & Wu, Liqian & Zhang, Rong & Deng, Shihuai & Zhang, Yanzong & Wu, Jun & Li, Yuanwei & Lin, Lili & Li, Li & Wang, Yinjun & Wang, Lilin, 2013. "Evaluating the relationships among economic growth, energy consumption, air emissions and air environmental protection investment in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 259-270.
    2. Zhang, XiaoHong & Hu, He & Zhang, Rong & Deng, ShiHuai, 2014. "Interactions between China׳s economy, energy and the air emissions and their policy implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 624-638.
    3. Agostinho, Feni & Bertaglia, Ana B.B. & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2015. "Influence of cellulase enzyme production on the energetic–environmental performance of lignocellulosic ethanol," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 46-56.
    4. Agostinho, Feni & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Bonilla, Silvia H. & Sacomano, José B. & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2013. "Urban solid waste plant treatment in Brazil: Is there a net emergy yield on the recovered materials?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 143-155.
    5. Cristiano, S. & Ulgiati, S. & Gonella, F., 2021. "Systemic sustainability and resilience assessment of health systems, addressing global societal priorities: Learnings from a top nonprofit hospital in a bioclimatic building in Africa," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Ulgiati, Sergio & Zucaro, Amalia & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2011. "Shared wealth or nobody's land? The worth of natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 778-787, February.
    7. Fengjiao Ma & A. Egrinya Eneji & Jintong Liu, 2014. "Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Qingsong Wang & Hongkun Xiao & Qiao Ma & Xueliang Yuan & Jian Zuo & Jian Zhang & Shuguang Wang & Mansen Wang, 2020. "Review of Emergy Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment: Coupling Development Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Duian Lu & Jie Cheng & Zhenzhou Feng & Li Sun & Wei Mo & Degang Wang, 2022. "Emergy Synthesis of Two Oyster Aquaculture Systems in Zhejiang Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    10. Iribarren, Diego & Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Rugani, Benedetto & Benetto, Enrico, 2014. "On the feasibility of using emergy analysis as a source of benchmarking criteria through data envelopment analysis: A case study for wind energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 527-537.
    11. Tilley, David, 2015. "Transformity dynamics related to maximum power for improved emergy yield estimations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 315(C), pages 96-107.
    12. Pang, Mingyue & Zhang, Lixiao & Ulgiati, Sergio & Wang, Changbo, 2015. "Ecological impacts of small hydropower in China: Insights from an emergy analysis of a case plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 112-122.
    13. Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Zhifeng & Chen, Bin & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2014. "Emergy-based dynamic mechanisms of urban development, resource consumption and environmental impacts," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 90-102.
    14. Giannetti, Biagio F. & Faria, Luciana & Almeida, Cecília M.V.B. & Agostinho, Feni & Coscieme, Luca & Liu, Gengyuan, 2018. "Human-nature nexuses in Brazil: Monitoring production of economic and ecosystem services in historical series," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 248-256.
    15. Raugei, Marco & Rugani, Benedetto & Benetto, Enrico & Ingwersen, Wesley W., 2014. "Integrating emergy into LCA: Potential added value and lingering obstacles," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 271(C), pages 4-9.
    16. Lyu, Yanfeng & Raugei, Marco & Zhang, Xiaohong & Mellino, Salvatore & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2021. "Environmental cost and impacts of chemicals used in agriculture: An integration of emergy and Life Cycle Assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Lukas Kriechbaum & Philipp Gradl & Romeo Reichenhauser & Thomas Kienberger, 2020. "Modelling Grid Constraints in a Multi-Energy Municipal Energy System Using Cumulative Exergy Consumption Minimisation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    18. Chen, Yuhong & Lyu, Yanfeng & Yang, Xiangdong & Zhang, Xiaohong & Pan, Hengyu & Wu, Jun & Lei, Yongjia & Zhang, Yanzong & Wang, Guiyin & Xu, Min & Luo, Hongbin, 2022. "Performance comparison of urea production using one set of integrated indicators considering energy use, economic cost and emissions’ impacts: A case from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).
    19. Shweta Singh & Bhavik R. Bakshi, 2014. "Accounting for Emissions and Sinks from the Biogeochemical Cycle of Carbon in the U.S. Economic Input-Output Model," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(6), pages 818-828, December.
    20. Lou, Bo & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2013. "Identifying the environmental support and constraints to the Chinese economic growth—An application of the Emergy Accounting method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 217-233.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:271:y:2014:i:c:p:52-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.