Emergia: differenze tra le versioni
Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
Riga 303:
:'''Emergy per capita''': rapporto tra l'emergia totale utilizzata nell'economia di una Nazione e la sua popolazione; può essere una misura del livello di vita medio in quello Stato.
==Controversie==
<!--
The concept of emergy has been controversial within several academic communities including ecology, thermodynamics and economy<ref>Ayres, R.U., 1998. Ecology vs. Economics: Confusing Production and Consumption. Center of the Management of Environmental Resources, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.</ref><ref>Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R.K., Stern, D.I., 2000. Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy. Ecol. Econ. 32, 301–317.</ref><ref>Hau JL, Bakshi BR. 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecological Modelling 178:215–225.</ref><ref>Mansson, B.A., McGlade, J.M., 1993. Ecology, thermodynamics and H.T. Odum’s conjectures. Oecologia 93, 582–596.</ref><ref>Silvert W. 1982. The theory of power and efficiency in ecology. Ecological Modelling 15:159–164.</ref><ref>Spreng, D.T., 1988. Net-Energy Analysis and the Energy Requirements of Energy Systems. Praeger Publishers, New York, 289 pp.</ref>. Emergy theory has been criticized under the assumption that it fosters an energy theory of value to replace other theories of value. This criticism may miss the fact that the goal of emergy evaluations is to provide an "ecocentric" value of systems, processes, and products as opposed to the anthropocentric values of economics. Thus it does not purport to replace economic values but to provide additional information, from a very different point of view, with which public policy might benefit.
While energy quality has been recognized, somewhat, in the energy literature where different forms of fossil energy are expressed in coal or oil equivalents<ref>Cleveland, C.J. 1992. Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the U.S. Ecological Economics. Volume 6, Issue 2, October 1992, Pp 139-162.</ref>, and some researchers have even expressed electricity in oil equivalents<ref>(electricity production potential/MWe) (1000 kW/MW) (8760 hrs/yr.) (0.9 capacity factor) (3413 BTU/kW-hr) (1 bbl oil equivalent/6 x 106 BTU) = Barrels of Oil Equivalent per year (BOE/yr).</ref> by using 1st law efficiencies, many researchers have been reluctant to accept quality corrections of other forms of energy and resources. The idea that a calorie of sunlight is not equivalent to a calorie of fossil fuel or electricity strikes many as absurd, based on the 1st Law definition of energy units as measures of heat (i.e. Joule's [[mechanical equivalent of heat]])<ref>Sciubba, E., 2010. On the Second-Law inconsistency of Emergy Analysis. Energy 35, 3696-3706.</ref>. Others have rejected the concept as being impractical since from their perspective it is impossible to quantify the amount of sunlight that is required to produce a quantity of oil. This latter issue results from a concern about the [[uncertainty]] involved in such quantification. In combining systems of humanity and nature and evaluating environmental input to economies, mainstream economists criticize the emergy methodology for disregarding market driven values as determined by [[willingness to pay]].-->
==Note==
|