From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Someone should include an introduction sentence that tells you what context the term is employed in and who made it - I had to read the whole paragraph then half the article to understand what the hell emergy was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Article rewritten[edit]

Content of Emergy page was replaced by MT Brown and S Ulgiati according to a mandate received from the International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER) during the most recent Biennial Emergy Conference (16-18 January 2010). MT Brown is the ISAER Historian and S Ulgiati is President-elect 2010. We thank those who displayed their efforts in earlier attempts of setting up an emergy page and other related pages in Wikipedia. Suggestions on strengthening the article are welcome.Mtbrown8 (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I've just protected the article for three days due to the edit warring. Please discuss the issue here to try to come to a consensus or take the matter to WP:AFD. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. However, the article and conflict of interest are already under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Emergy. Unless there's a good reason to start another discussion elsewhere, I suggest continuing it there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's good reason to discuss it here, as the discussion isn't really about conflict of interest any more, and is more about what the content of this page should be like. Let's have a proper discussion here and fix up the page accordingly. (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion for fixing the page[edit]

I have tagged the page as needing several types of cleanup, including fixing conflict of interest and neutrality, but more than that, making it more broadly understandable. Please discuss how this might be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

High level comments for fixing the page:

1. Take a look at pages for other "good articles" and emulate the style and substance of them: Wikipedia:Good_articles

2. Any citation that is included should have substantial text (at least a couple of sentences) providing context for which the citation is support. (For example, the whole "Uses of methodology" section shouldn't be a de-facto references section, but instead should be explanatory and use the citations only where needed as backup.)

3. Take a look at how the Exergy page has substantial text before the table of contents that gives a synopsis of the topic before diving into the history -- I think that might be a good approach.

4. Instead of discussing alternative approaches only under "controversies", it might be worth early on in the article doing a detailed but accessible comparison of Emergy, other approaches to Embodied energy, Exergy, etc.

I don't know that I have the knowledge to make these edits, but am happy to help revise in targeted ways as needed. (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a badly-written article on a very marginal topic. It is not clear from this article what emergy is, or how it is calculated. It needs to be significantly revised, clarified, and the less relevant material removed.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Per tag, I copyedited this mess. Comments:

  • This thing desperately needs a simple but real example that goes through the calculations, which make no sense as described here. That may make it possible for a reader to actually understand what this is talking about.
  • The idea that there is some objective conversion ratio between forms of emergy that are different from energy is risible, but ok, if that's the claim, flesh it out. How do you derive the ratios?
  • Most of the refs for this piece are from Odum. These are not reliable sources. Need third party sources.
  • At first, I thought this was just about trying to do a complete accounting of the energy involved in producing some product/service, which would be very worthwhile, but then I realized that this was something else.
Lfstevens (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 10 April 2016[edit]

Table 2, the section "Selected Performance Indicators" in Table 2 points to Figure 1 for definitions of U= N+R+F+S. However, those abbreviations are not presented in Figure 1.

In Figure 2 R and N are presented. U is also there but marked as Y. F is also there, but not with the same meaning as in "U= N+R+F+S".

I see two possible roads of correction:

1) Let TAble 2 instead point to Figure 2, and then change the formulas to: Emergy released Y=R+N+F Emergy Yield Ratio EYR=Y/F Environmental Loading Ratio ELR=(F+N)/R Renewability  %REN=R/Y Emergy Investment Ratio EIR=F/(R+N)

2) Use the abbreviation from Odum (1996, p.83) instead (Reference 1 in the Notes section), where the following abbreviations are used for the same picture: Y= N+R+M+S (equals U= N+R+F+S) F= M+S which then give: Emergy released Y=R+N+M+S Emergy Yield Ratio EYR=Y/F = Y/(M+S) Environmental Loading Ratio ELR=(F+N)/R = (M+S+N)/R Renewability  %REN=R/Y Emergy Investment Ratio EIR=F/(R+N) = (M+S)/(R+N) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)