Resources, Conservation and Recycling

31 (2001) 293–316
www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Emergy analysis of municipal wastewater

treatment and generation of electricity by
digestion of sewage sludge
Johanna Björklund *, Ulrika Geber, Torbjörn Rydberg
Department of Ecology and Crop Production Science, Swedish Uni6ersity of Agricultural Sciences,
SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Received 14 January 2000; accepted 6 October 2000

Abstract

This study examines and evaluates, by using emergy analysis, the use of environmental
resources for wastewater treatment in a Swedish town. Emergy analysis was applied, while it
facilitates the comparison of resource use of substantially different kind. In the emergy
analysis, all resources are assessed on the basis of the amount of direct and indirect solar
energy required in their generation. The study also includes an evaluation of the amount of
emergy associated with the production of wastewater. On the basis of our analysis, we
suggest that the large amount of emergy that wastewater contains are in proportion to the
amount of resources employed for wastewater treatment and the extensive effects on
surrounding ecosystems of discharge of untreated wastewater. The use of local renewable
natural resources in Swedish municipal wastewater treatment systems is negligible compared
with the use of purchased inputs, processed largely with the support of fossil energy. A
drastic shift of this order would demand that extensive land areas surrounding human
settlements be (indirectly or directly) devoted to wastewater treatment. These areas are not
accessible today. Our analysis also indicates that resource requirements from the economy in
the production of electricity by the digestion of sewage sludge is about two times the total
resource use for generation of the average mix of electricity used in the town. We, therefore,
conclude that if the only reason to digest the sludge were to produce electricity, it would be
more resource-efficient to purchase the electricity on the Swedish distribution net. Accord-
ingly, there is no resource economy in producing biomass to digest just to increase the energy
production at the wastewater treatment plant. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights
reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-1-8671422; fax: +46-1-8673571.

E-mail address: johanna.bjorklund@evp.slu.se (J. Björklund).

0921-3449/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 3 4 4 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 9 1 - 4
294 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

Keywords: Emergy; Wastewater treatment; Biogas; Resource use; Energy analysis

1. Introduction

Wastewater treatment is an inevitable part of the lifestyle and of the structural

organisation of society in the industrialised countries of the world. The structure of
human society, with large population centres together with the impoverishment of
natural ecosystems in the neighbouring landscape (especially the reduction of
natural wetlands that could be used for local wastewater treatment), has forced us
to further concentrate wastewater in order to be able to control the outflow with
help of technology. A high amount of chemical products alien to nature, long
distance travel and global food distribution have also strengthened the need for
control and technology in wastewater treatment. In other words, expenditure on
wastewater treatment is necessary in the creation of a modern city functioning
without human and environmental health problems. In that perspective, wastewater
treatment is an expense of the management strategy that is needed to obtain the
qualities that constitute society in the industrialised part of the world.
Municipal wastewater treatment systems have environmental impacts on different
scales. This implies that one has to consider not only the impact on the local
environment of resource use at the wastewater treatment plant and of the dis-
charged treated water, but also the impact on global and local scales of the
production of external inputs used at the plant (e.g. changes in global climate
caused by emissions from use of fossil fuels and local environmental impact from
extraction of raw material used in machinery and buildings at the wastewater
treatment plant).
Resource use and emissions from construction and operation of Swedish munic-
ipal wastewater treatment systems have been studied by e.g. Ødegaard (1995),
Tillman et al. (1996), Bengtsson et al. (1997), Delin and Grundelius (1998).
Ødegaard (1995) evaluated the energy consumption, and the environmental impact
due to the withdrawal of raw material for construction and due to emissions from
treatment by using weighting factors employed in Life cycle assessment (LCA), for
the different treatment steps in conventional treatment plants. Bengtsson et al.
(1997), Delin and Grundelius (1998) studied differences in the environmental
impact of alternative ways to treat wastewater, including conventional treatment,
urine sorting and liquid composting, by using LCA and exergy analysis. These
studies illuminate the direct use of energy and other resource; as well some aspects
of the environmental impact in different wastewater treatment alternatives. Further-
more, Nilsson and Bergström (1995) developed indicators based on representative
physical flows for internal environmental book-keeping, in order to improve site
management at wastewater treatment plants.
None of these studies included the indirect resource use due to human labour or
an evaluation of the environmental work in the generation of the resources used.
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 295

Furthermore, the analyses are reluctant and arbitrary while dealing with trade-offs
between resources of substantially different kind.
Analyses that do not regard human labour, environmental work and quality
differences between different natural resources, scarcely deal with environmental
impacts at substantially different places and times, or with the trade-off between
them. Such studies are, therefore, not sufficient to rely on when discussing ecolog-
ical sustainability on larger time and spatial scales.
In emergy analysis, all environmental work that sustains a specific system can be
quantified (Odum, 1996). Different resources are measured on a common basis,
which takes into account the differences in their time and territorial demand.
Qualities generated in both the ecological and the economic system are considered.
The evaluation of natural resources, labour and service in an emergy analysis is
donor based-calculated from the work by nature for a particular generation, and is,
therefore, contrary to an economic analysis, which is based on utility values (e.g.
the receivers’ ‘willingness-to-pay’). The method is founded on principles for organ-
isation and optimisation of self-organising systems, developed out of theories in
ecosystem ecology (Odum, 1994).
In this paper, an emergy analysis is carried out of the wastewater generation and
of the wastewater treatment in a town with about 9500 inhabitants in the southern
part of Sweden. Furthermore, the resource use efficiency in electricity production
by digestion of sewage sludge at the wastewater treatment plant is evaluated.
We also discuss the need for structural changes to reduce the use of external
resources for the treatment of wastewater. These changes imply a decentralisation
of the food support system as well as the system for treatment of wastewater.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the wastewater treatment plant

The wastewater treatment plant, Haga, serving the town of Surahammar, is

located 50 km north of Lake Mälaren and about 150 km west of Stockholm. In
1995, the total inflow of wastewater was 2 100 000 m3 and the inflow of organic
substances (BOD7, biochemical oxygen demand measured under specific conditions
over 7 days, in tons of O2), nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) were 151, 46 and 7.5
tons, respectively. Retention in the wastewater plant, as a mean for 1994 –1995, was
96, 22 and 95% for BOD7, N and P, respectively, (Anonymous, 1995).
The wastewater is primarily treated mechanically in cleaning filters and sand
traps and in a pre-sedimentation process (Fig. 1). Secondly, biological nitrification,
stabilisation of organic matter and chemical phosphorus precipitation with FeSO4
occur simultaneously in aeration basins, followed by end-sedimentation basins.
After treatment, the water is discharged into the river Kolbäcksån, in the Lake
Mälaren catchment area.
The raw sludge that settles during the wastewater treatment is digested anaerobi-
cally. In 1995, the amount of biogas produced from raw sludge was 100 000 m3.
 296
J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316
Fig. 1. Energy diagram of Surahammar wastewater treatment system (after Anonymous, 1995). Transp., transportation.
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 297

Due to discontinuity in the production of sewage sludge, approximately 75 000 m3

of the gas was utilised (Anonymous, 1995). The biogas is used mainly to produce
electricity for internal use at the treatment plant.
Digested sludge is dried on storage beds. During 1995, about a third of the sludge
was applied to agricultural land producing willow, while the rest was deposited on
a dump. At present, sewage sludge may only be applied on areas not used for
production of human food or animal feed (Naturvårdsverket, 1996). As efforts are
made to apply all sludge on land surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, and
it has been estimated that enough areas are available, calculations were made as if
the total amount of sludge was applied to agricultural land.

2.2. System boundaries and sources of data

2.2.1. Wastewater generation

In the analysis, wastewater was considered to be a by-product of all activities that
are the outcomes of the water used in households (Fig. 2a) and the food eaten (Fig.
2b), for the reason that none of the other outcomes valuable to humans can be
obtained without the generation of waste. Use of energy and other resources for
transport, processing and food storage were also included (part of flow c).

Fig. 2. Overview diagram of the urban area of Surahammar. The indications a, b and c represent flows
contributing to emergy in household wastewater. WWT, wastewater treatment; Dep., deposit.
298 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

2.2.2. Wastewater treatment

The analysis of the treatment comprised the wastewater from its entry into the
wastepipe system to the return of the treated water and the digested sludge to the
surrounding ecosystems. Included in the analysis were the wastepipe system, the
wastewater treatment, the production of biogas, the generation of electricity and the
application of digested sludge to agricultural land.
The analysis was based on data from environmental and economic accountings
from 1995 and on personal communications with staff at the wastewater treatment
plant. The quantities of materials used for the construction of the plant were
calculated from construction drawings.
Structures such as buildings, pipe systems and paved surfaces were converted to
an annual input by calculating the turnover time of the components based on their
lifetimes. To calculate the amount of concrete and reinforcement in basins and
digesters, and to estimate beams in buildings, standards were calculated from
representative parts of the buildings. Three percent of the total amount of materials
in buildings and machinery was estimated to be needed for maintenance and only
the largest material flows were considered (iron, concrete and asphalt). Lifetimes of
buildings and machinery were estimated to be 50 and 20 years, respectively.

2.2.3. E6aluation of efficiency in energy production

A separate analysis of the generation of electricity by digestion of sewage sludge
was conducted and this generation was compared with the emergy use for the
generation of the average mix of electricity that was used in the town of
Surahammar.
As the year 1995 was the first year when the gas engine was in use, the amount
of electricity produced increased during the following years. So the value of 75 000
m3 biogas utilised in 1995 was used as a basis to calculate a representative amount
of electricity that would have been generated by digestion of raw sewage sludge
(Table 4, Footnote 12).

2.3. The emergy analysis

Emergy is a measurement of the amount of direct and indirect energy of one kind
that has been used to generate a resource. Solar emergy is measured in units of
solar emjoules (sej) and is the product of the solar transformity (from now on only
referred to as emergy and transformity) and the available energy in the resource.
The transformity is the solar energy used to make 1 J of a resource. Emergy may
also be evaluated per mass. For a more comprehensive description of the method
of analysis, see Odum (1994, 1996).
Transformities from other studies were used when possible (Table 1). When no
transformities were available, new values were calculated. The reliability of the
transformities used is crucial to the quality of the analysis. When transformities
from other studies were used in this study, the context may have differed from that
for which they were calculated, and for a few transformities, it was impossible to
avoid double counting with regard to service. A sensitivity analysis regarding
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 299

Table 1
Transformities or emergy per mass used in the study

Item Transformity or emergy/mass References

(sej U−1)

Solar insolation 1 sej J−1 Per definition

Wind 1500 sej J−1 Odum (1996)
Rain, chemical potential 1.82E+04 sej J−1 Odum (1996)
Ground water 4.10E+04 sej J−1 Brown et al. (1995)
Refined oil 6.60E+04 sej J−1 Odum (1996)
Electricitya 1.19E+05 sej J−1 This studyb
Asphalt 4.74E+08 sej g−1 This studyb
Concrete 7.34E+08 sej g−1 This studyb
Pig iron 2.65E+09 sej g−1 Buranakarn (1998)
Insulation (Rockwool) 1.84E+09 sej g−1 This studyb
Brick 2.52E+09 sej g−1 This studyb
Machinery (steel end-products) 4.10E+09 sej g−1 Buranakarn (1998)
Plastic, polyvinyl chloride 5.87E+09 sej g−1 Buranakarn (1998)
Copper 6.80E+10 sej g−1 Brown et al. (1995)

a
Average for electricity used in the town. Calculation based on 2/3 hydroelectricity and 1/3 nuclear
power (D. Lundin, Vattenfall, Ramnäs, personal communication, 1997), using 8.0E+04 sej J−1 for
Swedish hydroelectricity (Odum, 1996) and 2.0E+05 sej J−1 (estimated world mean for electricity
Odum, 1996) as a reasonable estimate for the part deriving from nuclear power.
b
The full calculation is available from the authors.

transformities for the largest emergy inputs verified that this did not affect the main
conclusions of the study.
In the emergy accounting total emergy needed for a production is assigned to all
by-products of that production, on the ground that they are all needed to generate
the desired outcome (Odum, 1996). Accordingly, in the case of the wastewater, all
emergy required to generate the water used in households, the food eaten and the
resources used for transport, processing and food storage was assigned to the
wastewater. However, corrections have to be made to avoid double counting of
emergy when different flows, originating from the same source, are again converg-
ing. Sun, wind and rain originate from the annual emergy input to earth, therefore,
in the present analyses only rain, which gives the greatest emergy contribution, has
been included in the total (Footnote 3, Table 3).
To account for emergy in purchased goods, both the emergy input from the
environment to generate the raw material and the emergy in human service to make
the raw material usable in the economic system were calculated. Emergy in service
was calculated from a ratio of the average emergy flow per unit money flow for
Sweden (2.15E + 11 sej SEK − 1 Lagerberg et al., 1999). This ratio relates the human
economy to its biophysical basis and is an estimation of the natural resources need
indirectly to generate the human services that each unit of money buys (Odum,
1996).
300 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

3. Results

3.1. Emergy in wastewater lea6ing households

The emergy in the wastewater leaving households in the urban area of Suraham-
mar was calculated as 6.0E +19 sej (Footnote 5, Table 2) and the corresponding
transformity as 3.8E +06 sej J − 1. This is more than one order of magnitude larger
than the total emergy used to treat the water (Tables 2 and 3).

3.2. Emergy in resource use for treatment of wastewater

Service (e.g. processing and manufacturing of raw materials in the economic

sector and direct labour, captured by emergy in money flows) accounted for the
largest emergy input (63%) to the treatment system (Footnotes 21–27, Table 3).
Direct services (labour, administration and interest) caused the largest (35%)
emergy inflow and of these, emergy in interest, which accounts for emergy use in
society caused by the money flow arising, was the single most significant factor
(18%).
Emergy in electricity and fuel (Footnotes 4 and 5, Table 3), without service for
the transformation in the economic sector (considered in items under Footnotes 21
and 22, Table 3), was 20% larger than the total amount of emergy in all other raw
materials (purchased goods and depreciation of buildings, machines and pipes)
(Footnotes 6 – 20, Table 3). Furthermore, electricity alone caused the highest single

Table 2
Emergy analysis of household wastewater

Footnotea Item Raw (unit per Emergy per unit Solar emergy
year) sej J−1 or SEK E+15 sej per year

Raw material
1 Groundwater 1.04E+13 J 4.10E+04 424
2 Swedish food 23 000
consumption pattern
Ser6ice
3 Production of drinking 1.10E+07 SEK 2.15E+11 2362
water
4 Swedish food 34 000
consumption pattern
5 Total in wastewater 1.59E+13 J 3.76E+06 59 790
Total energy in 1.6E+13 J
wastewater
Total emergy assigned 6.0E+19 sej
to wastewater
Transformity of 3.8E+06 sej J−1
wastewater

a
Footnotes to Table 2 in Appendix A.
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 301

Table 3
Emergy analysis of wastewater treatment

Footnotea Item Raw Emergy per unit Solar emergy

(unit per year) sej J−1, kg or SEK E+15 sej per
year

Direct en6ironmental inputs

1 Solar insolationb 1.81E+10 J 1 0.0
2 Windb 4.47E+10 J 1500 0.1
3 Rain 2.69E+10 J 1.82E+04 0.5
Raw material
4 Electricity 2.67E+12 J 1.19E+05 318.3
5 Oil 1.02E+12 J 6.60E+04 67.6
6 Buildings; sheet-iron, 3.24E+06 g 2.65E+09 8.6
beams, reinforcement
7 Insulation 3.25E+05 g 1.84E+09 0.6
8 Concrete 6.76E+07 g 7.34E+08 49.6
9 Bricks 1.67E+06 g 2.52E+09 4.2
10 Pipes; concrete 7.77E+07 g 7.34E+08 57.0
11 Plastic 1.76E+06 g 5.87E+09 10.3
12 Iron 4.38E+05 g 2.65E+09 1.2
13 Copper cables 1.25E+05 g 6.80E+10 8.5
14 Paved surfaces 1.38E+07 g 4.74E+08 6.5
15 Plastic in scrapers 2.00E+04 g 5.87E+09 0.1
16 Machinery 1.15E+06 g 4.10E+09 4.7
17 Chemicals 2.40E+07 g 2.65E+09 63.6
18 Maintenance; 5.92E+06 g 2.65E+09 15.7
iron/sheet-iron
19 Concrete 1.17E+08 g 7.34E+08 85.5
20 Asphalt 2.07E+07 g 4.74E+08 9.8
Ser6ice
21 Electricity 2.83E+05 SEK 2.15E+11 60.8
22 Oil 9.60E+04 SEK 2.15E+11 20.6
23 Depreciation of 1.17E+06 SEK 2.15E+11 251.6
buildings and
machinery and
machinery
24 Purchased chemicals 1.02E+06 SEK 2.15E+11 218.4
and material in
maintenance
25 Labour 1.09E+06 SEK 2.15E+11 233.5
26 Administration 4.20E+05 SEK 2.15E+11 90.3
27 Interest 1.64E+06 SEK 2.15E+11 353.5
Total emergy use for wastewater treatment 1941

a
Footnotes to Table 3 in Appendix A.
b
Excluded from total to avoid double counting.

input of emergy through raw resources (17%). Concrete, which accounted for
depreciation of basins and pipes and materials used for maintenance, was the
second largest (10%).
302 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

Fig. 3. Aggregated diagram of emergy contribution from different sources to Surahammar wastewater
treatment system. Service used for manufacturing of raw materials is included in the figures for the
material flows. Adm., administration.

The analysis also showed that emergy due to construction and maintenance of
buildings, pipes and machinery accounted for 38% of the emergy (Fig. 3). If emergy
in interest was furthermore added, this figure raised to 56%. The rest was due to the
operation of the plant. The emergy input from local environmental resources such
as sun, wind and rain was 0.03% (Footnote 1–3, Table 3).
When the total emergy used in the entire treatment system was split to reveal
emergy used in the different parts of the system, the wastepipe system was found to
cause about 26% of all emergy use, the treatment of the water 60%, digestion of
sludge and production of electricity 11% and storing and spreading the digested
sludge 3% (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Emergy inflow to different parts of the wastewater treatment system, as a percentage of total
yearly emergy inflow, and emergy in structure, based on depreciation costs, as a percentage of total
depreciation per year.
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 303

Table 4
Emergy analysis of electricity production by digestion of sewage sludge

Footnotea Item Raw (unit per Emergy per unit Solar emergy
year) sej J−1, kg or SEK E+15 sej per year

Purchased inputs
1 Oil 6.43E+11 J 6.60E+04 42.4
2 Electricity 3.65E+10 J 1.19E+05 4.3
3 Iron 3.76E+06 g 2.65E+09 10.0
4 Machinery 1.40E+05 g 4.10E+09 0.6
5 Concrete 1.41E+07 g 7.34E+08 10.3
6 Copper 2.50E+04 g 6.80E+10 1.7
7 Insulation 5.10E+04 g 1.84E+09 0.1
8 Bricks 1.05E+06 g 2.52E+09 2.6
9 Paved surfaces 1.16E+06 g 4.74E+08 0.5
10 Service 2.98E+05 SEK 2.15E+11 64.0
11 Human labour 7.32E+04 SEK 2.15E+11 15.7
12 Total in electricity 4.86E+11 J 3.14E+05 152
Total energy in 4.9E+11 J
electricity
Total emergy assigned 1.5E+19 sej
to electricity
Emergy used per unit 3.1E+05 sej J−1
electricity

a
Footnotes to Table 4 in Appendix A.

3.3. Electricity from digestion of sewage sludge

The emergy use for the digestion and electricity generation was 3.1E + 05 sej J − 1
(Table 4). The main inputs were service in purchased inputs, depreciation and
maintenance (42%) and oil for the heating of the sludge (28%).

4. Discussion

4.1. Calculation of emergy in wastewater

As a consequence of considering wastewater to be a by-product of all activities

that are the outcomes of the food and the drinking water that we use, wastewater
will contain all emergy for the generation of these resources in society. Hence, the
amount of emergy in the wastewater could be seen as a reflection of a great
proportion of the human lifestyle.
Our analysis indicates that the large investment of natural resources and technol-
ogy for the treatment of wastewater is, nevertheless, small in relation to the amount
of emergy the wastewater is carrying, with a ratio of emergy in treatment to emergy
in sewage of about 1/31. This relationship between production and feedback is
consistent with waste recycling in natural ecosystems, where recycling proceeds with
304 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

small emergy costs, but over long periods of time, with low concentrations of
nutrients and with fluctuating efficiency in treatment. It would, however, be
interesting to compare our results with future analysis of other waste recycling
systems in society, where high requirements on efficiency and reliability were
necessary, as in the present study.
In our analysis, we have only considered wastewater as a by-product of the
outcomes from emergy use in food and water production. However, wastewater
also contains emergy from other sources such as chemicals used by households and
industries, and compounds from building materials washed out by collected rainwa-
ter. One might argue that wastewater is a by-product of the quality of modern
society and must carry all the emergy used in the society. This could be calculated
as the per capita emergy use in the region1 times the population in Surahammar. If
this calculation is made, the emergy in wastewater would be 3.9E + 20 sej, which is
nearly one order of magnitude larger than in our analysis, and the transformity
would be 2.4E + 07 sej J − 1.
High transformity may, according to Odum (1991, 1994, 1996) indicate a high
potential impact. Genoni (1997), Genoni and Montague (1995) found a correlation
between transformity of substances and the transformity for the tropic level in
which they bioaccumulate and they suggest a relationship between the transformity
of a substance and the way it behaves in biological systems. It is obvious that
untreated wastewater discharged into a lake or a sea has a strong effect, and, if the
ecosystem that receives the emergy is not organised to efficiently use the new
resource, the structure and the function of the system will change so that it can do
so. One interesting question for further research is, therefore, to what extent, and
under what circumstances, the effect on surrounding ecosystems of discharge of
untreated wastewater could be predicted by the amount of emergy associated with
this flow.

4.2. Wastewater treatment

Haga wastewater treatment system is, to a large degree, supported by highly

processed purchased inputs and uses minimal amounts of renewable resources from
the local environment. Great efforts are made to replace the direct work of natural
processes driven by sun, wind and rain with technologies considered to be more
controllable. This requires among other things, buildings, pavements and
machinery.
The more the products are processed in an economic system, the lower the direct
environmental contribution in the products and the greater the part of the emergy
from service (indirect environmental emergy used in society for resource transfor-
mations, assessed by emergy in relation to the flow of money). If a major part of
the emergy in an analysis originates from service, the analysis corresponds to an

1
Calculation based on the Swedish average of 40.7E+ 15 sej per capita (Lagerberg et al., 1999). The
average income in the region in relation to the Swedish average, indicated that this figure was a
reasonable approximation of the per capita emergy use in the region.
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 305

economic analysis and solutions that increase the cost efficiency are likely to reduce
the use of external resources, which, according to the former argument, derive from
resource use in the generation of service, and hence, the emergy efficiency will also
be improved. Changes in direct use of local environmental resources at the plant
may only result in marginal improvements in emergy efficiency, while changes in
the surrounding society will have substantially larger effects on the resource use at
the local plant. One way to improve the use of emergy as a tool for evaluation of
resource use in human-dominated systems might be to trace all resource use back
to its source, instead of using emergy per unit of money flow as a denominator of
an average resource use in service. This is a most circumstantial method, and in
many cases, it may not even be possible. It could though be appropriate to calculate
different emergy to unit money flow for different kinds of services.
Conventional Swedish wastewater treatment plants are associated with large
buildings and heavy materials. The results of our analysis are in accordance with
this, but they are of course sensitive to the estimated lifetimes of machinery and
buildings. If the lifetime is halved, which means 25 and 10 years for buildings and
machinery, respectively, the emergy input to construction and maintenance will
increase from about 40 to 50%. Emergy input to construction plus maintenance and
to operation would then be equally large. This result diverges from the result of an
LCA, of an equivalent Swedish wastewater treatment plant, which indicated that
the environmental impact from the construction of the plant was considerably less
(8% of total energy use and 18% of emission of nitrous gases) than that from the
operation, when lifetimes similar to those in our study were used (Tillman et al.,
1996).
The difference between the two studies is due to the fact that assessment of the
environmental work required for generation of resources (converted to solar
energy) is the basis for the evaluation of resource use in the emergy analysis, while
in LCA this work is not at all included. In a case like the present, while emergy
input due to the use of local renewable resource is negligible, total emergy use may
also be considered an indicator of the environmental impact caused by the process.
In LCA, the environmental impact is instead measured by, for instance, support
energy use and amounts of different kinds of emissions.
There are efforts to decrease the use of electricity in wastewater treatment in
Surahammar and as the use of electricity causes one of the largest separate inputs
of emergy to the system, it may be worth devoting time and effort to a reduction
in the electricity used. A reduction of 50% would reduce the total emergy use for
wastewater treatment by about 10%.
4.3. Electricity from digestion of sewage sludge

Together with efforts to diminish energy use, there have been several attempts at
Swedish wastewater treatment plants to find a use for the energy in biogas
produced by digestion of sewage sludge. Many of the wastewater treatment plants,
which, like that in Surahammar, were constructed during the 1960s have surplus
digester capacity and are also interested in adding more biomass to the digester to
increase the energy production.
306 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

When analysing and comparing the emergy use for electricity generation in
Surahammar, we did not include the generation of sewage sludge, as it would take
place irrespective of whether electricity is produced or not and it would be senseless
to produce sewage sludge just to generate electricity. If other biomass, produced for
the purpose of digestion, had been used, the emergy use in its generation would, of
course, have been included.
Comparing different transformities for different processes that generate similar
outputs is a way to evaluate the efficiency in the production. The process with the
lowest transformity requires least emergy. However, there is a thermodynamical
limit, which sets the definitive lower boundary for each kind of process (Odum,
1996). In biological and technical systems, this boundary will probably never be
reached, because it requires that all reactions would take place under ideal
conditions.
Odum (1996) has estimated the mean emergy use for the generation of one unit
of electricity (transformity) in the world to about 1.7E + 05 sej J − 1. For Swedish
hydroelectricity, the transformity is calculated to 8.0E + 04 sej J − 1 (Odum, 1996),
which makes it a comparatively efficient way to produce electricity. Moreover, in
hydroelectricity, the large direct environmental work originating from kinetic
energy in flowing rivers and streams, in addition to small efforts from the economy
to generate the electricity, brings about a large contribution to the economy. This
kind of evaluation is of course sensitive to how and to what extent the analysis
includes impacts on the local environment caused by the power plant.
Being aware of the inconsistency of calculating emergy use for the electricity
generated by digestion of sewage sludge without including the emergy in the sludge,
an emergy use of 3.1E + 05 sej J − 1 generated electricity indicates a comparatively
low efficiency. This electricity production is not competitive compared with the
average mix of electricity used in the town of Surahammar (2/3 hydroelectricity and
1/3 nuclear power). The generation of electricity by digestion of sewage sludge
required about two times the emergy use for the generation of the average mix of
electricity in the town (Table 1).
The electricity generation from sewage sludge could not carry the resource use
required for the digestion. However, it might be reasonable to consider the biogas
as free, with the motivation that it is caused by the need to sanitise the sludge and,
therefore, only the resource use for the generation of the electricity from the biogas
produced should be included. In this case, the required emergy for the electricity
generation would be only about 20% of the requirements for the average electricity
used in the town.
The efficiency in the use of external resources for electricity generation at the
plant can be improved to some extent by a more continuous operation of the
digestion and more efficient use of the water from the cooling of the gas engine
than was observed in the present study. The conclusion of our analysis is, however,
that if the only reason to digest the sludge were to produce electricity, it would be
more resource-efficient to purchase the electricity on the Swedish distribution net.
In a similar study Ødegaard (1995) states, on the basis of energy analysis and
LCA, that biogas production from sewage sludge digestion is an important energy
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 307

source and suggests that ‘processes that maximise biogas production should, …, be
favoured’. The result of our study contradicts to this, in that it indicates that there
is no resource economy in producing biomass only for the reason of generating
biogas in this kind of plant. Accordingly, the digestion of sewage sludge has instead
to be motivated by its value as a way to sanitise the sludge, which has to be
compared with sanitation methods, in which local renewable environmental work,
with lower transformity, is employed.

4.4. Need for structural changes

The management of wastewater in our study demanded a lot of energy and other
resources, but the use of local renewable resources, such as sun, wind, rain, local
biomass production etc., was practically non-existent. There is a contradictory
relationship between the need for external inputs and the demand on the local
environment. Knight (1995) states that the change from wastewater treatment
systems that rely on technological energies to systems that rely on natural energies
results in ‘systems being land intensive rather than energy intensive’. There is a
reciprocity between the amount of resources used in the concentration of nutrients
(the food support system) and the resources that have to be spent on the dispersion
(the wastewater treatment system) and these resources could either be drawn from
local sources by the expropriation of large areas of land (or less land for longer
periods of time) or by the use of much high technology and large amounts of
external inputs (which could be perceived as areas expropriated from other places
or from other time periods). To decrease the use of external resources, a reorgani-
sation of human settlements and the landscape around them would be necessary, so
that sufficient areas of land for wastewater treatment would be available where
people live. It would also require changing our lifestyle so that we could obtain
better control over the input side of the system in order to be able to decrease
control over the output side, the wastewater treatment.

5. Conclusions

A striking conclusion from our analysis is that there is a large amount of emergy
associated with the flow of wastewater. In that perspective, the great amount of
resources and technology that have been invested by society for its treatment might
be reasonable and to reduce the use of external inputs and rely on local ecosystem
processes (in wetlands) would demand an extensive amount of land.
Furthermore, the contribution to the economy from the electricity produced by
digestion of sewage sludge at the wastewater treatment could not motivate the
digestion of sewage sludge and there are no reasons to produce biomass with the
purpose of producing electricity by digestion in this type of plant. The emergy
analysis indicates that the resource use efficiency in this form of electricity genera-
tion is substantially less than the efficiency in generation of the average mix of
electricity used in the town.
308 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

Acknowledgements

We especially wish to thank Peter Jernberg, Inge Carlsson, Eva Myrin and Bengt
Wittur, Kommunateknik A.B., Surahammar, for their great interest and support,
which made this study possible, and for their patience with all our intricate questions.
Thanks also to colleagues in the research program on ‘Resource Efficient Agricultural
and Horticultural Systems’ at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, for
valuable comments on earlier drafts and M.T. Brown, University of Florida, for
constructive criticism of the manuscript.

Appendix A. Footnotes to tables

Amount of purchased inputs derives from environmental (Anonymous, 1995) and

economic accountings (Peter Jernberg and K. Johansson, Surahammar, personal
communication, 1997). Quantities of materials used for the construction of the plant
were calculated from construction drawings.

Footnotes to Table 2.

1 Energy in groundwater (amount of water) (water density)

2 Swedish food consumption pattern
3 Service in drinking water,
production cost for pumping
and transportation
(Gibbs free energy, G; drinking
water in relation to salt water)
Salt concentration; drinking water,
145 ppm (Myrin E, Kommunal-
teknik AB, Surahammar, personal
communication, 1997) salt water,
35 000 ppm (Odum, 1996) G=
((8.33 J mol−1 K−1) (300 K)/18 g
mol−1) ln (999 855/965 000)=4.93
J g−1 (2.10E+06 m3) (1.00E+06
g l−1) (4.93 J g−1)= 1.04E+13 J
((total emergy use (exclusive ser-
vice) for Swedish food consump-
tion, 1996 Johansson et al.,
1996)/(population in Sweden))
(population in Surahammar)
((212.99E+20 sej)/(8.8E+06))
(9500)=2.30E+19 sej
(amount of drinking water used
Anonymous, 1995) (price per m3
(E. Myrin, Kommunal Teknik AB,
Surahammar, personal communi-
cation, 1997)) (1.11E+06 m3)
(9.90 SEK m−3)= 1.10E+07 SEK
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 309

4 Service in Swedish food con- ((total emergy in service used

sumption pattern for Swedish food consumption,
1996 Johansson et al., 1996)/
(population in Sweden)) (popu-
lation i Surahammar)
((315.27E+20 sej)/(8.8E+06))
(9500)= 3.40E+19 sej
5 Wastewater, total amount 2.10E+06 m3 (Anonymous,
1995)
Energy content in water (amount of water) (water
density) (Gibbs free energy, G;
wastewater (256 ppm) in rela-
tion to salt water (35 000
ppm)) G=((8.33 J mol−1 K)
(300 K)/18 g mol−1) ln
(999 744/965 000)= 4.91 J g−1
(2.10E+06 m3) (1.00E+06 g
l−1) (4.91 J g−1)= 1.03E+13 J
Energy content in organic material (mg COD per l water) (g
mg−1) (kcal g−1 COD) (J
kcal−1) (amount of water) (188
mg l−1 H2O) (1.00E–03 g
mg−1) (3.4 kcal g−1 Haug,
1993) (4186 J kcal−1) (2.10E+
09l)=5.62E+12 J
Total energy in wastewater 1.59E+13 J

Table 3. Emergy analysis of wastewater treatment.

1 Solar insolation
Total roof area 1839 m2
Paved surfaces 2900 m2
Storage, digested sludge 4000 m2
Annual insolation (K. Andersson, 3.10E+06 J m−2
SMHI, personal communication, 1995)
Total insulation (total area) (annual insula-
tion) (1839+2900+4000 m2)
(3.10E+06 J m−2)= 1.81E+
10 J
310 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

2 Wind
Energy in wind, E 5.11E+06 J m−2
Equations used for calculations (Mon- E= 365
1 (~u(z)t) ~= z (u*)
2

teith and Unsworth, 1990), (S. u*=ku(z)/ln ((z–d)/zo), ~ is

Karlsson, SLU, personal communica- the shearing stress (N m−2),
tion, 1997)
u(z) is the wind speed on
height; z, the daily mean
value; t, the time (s per day);
z, the density=1.22 kg m−3;
u*= friction velocity (m s−1);
k= von Kármáns constant=
0.41; z =10 m; d, the zero
plane displacement, 0.63*
crop height; and zo is the
roughness parameter=0.1–
0.13* crop height
Total wind energy (energy in wind) (total area,
see Footnote 1) (5.11E+06 J
m−2) (8739 m2)= 4.47E+10 J
3 Rain
Total annual precipitation 624 mm (average for a period
of 30 years Alexandersson et
al., 1990) (total area, see
Footnote 1) (precipitation)
(density of water) (Gibbs free
energy in rain Odum, 1996)
(8739 m2) (0.624 m) (1.00E+
06 g m−3) (4.94 J g−1)
Total energy in rain water 2.69E+10 J
4 Electricity
Total purchased (742 954 kWh) (3.60E+06 J
kWh−1)= 2.67E+12 J
5 Oil
Purchased to plant 2.66E+04l
Oil used for sludge spreading 4.83E+02l (total amount of
digested sludge; 190 ton, ap-
plication of 5 ton sludge per
ha and mean spreading dis-
tance; 7.3 km, return trip)
Total oil used (2.71E+04l) (3.78E+07 J
l−1)= 1.02E+12 J
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316
6 Iron in buildings
Sheet-iron in walls and roofs
Steel in gas storage
Iron beams for walls and roofs
g iron per m2 wall area
g iron per m2 roof area
Reinforcement in concrete
g iron per m3 concrete
Total amount of iron
7 Insulation material
Total amount of insulation
8 Concrete
Concrete area in basin buildings in rela- 2.1 m2 total area per m2 floor
tion to floor area
311
(total covered area) (weight of
sheet (thickness; 1.25 mm))
(5.19E+03 m2) (1.00E+04 g
m−2)= 5.19E+07 g
3.90E+07 g
6.10E+03 g m−2 (calculated
from floor in mechanical
treatment)
9.70E+03 g m−2 (total wall
area) ( g iron per m2)+(total
roof area) (g iron per m2);
(1.66E+03 m2) (6.10E+03 g
m−2)+(1.38E+03 m2)
(9.70E+03 g m−2)= 2.35E+
07 g
3.10E+04 g m−3 (calculated
from floor in mechanical
treatment)= 3.90E+04 g m−3
(calculation from concrete cul-
vert)= 7.90E+04 g m−3 (cal-
culation from concrete wall of
digester) (m3 concrete) (g iron
per m3) (1.09E+03 m3)
(3.10E+04 g m−3)+(7.00E+
01 m3) (3.90E+04 g m−3)+
(1.45E+02 m3) (7.90E+04 g
m−3)= 4.78E+07 g
(total amount of iron)/(esti-
mated life length) (1.62E+08
g)/(50 year)= 3.24E+06 g
4.64E+02 m3 (total amount
of insulation) (density)/(esti-
mated life length); (4.64E+02
m3) (3.50E+04 g m−3)/(50
year)= 3.25E+05 g
area (calculation from me-
chanical treatment)
312 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316
Total amount of concrete in buildings
Concrete in sludge storage
Total amount of concrete
9 Bricks
Total amount of bricks
10 Concrete in wastepipe system and exter-
nal pipes at the plant
Total amount of concrete
11 Plastic in wastepipe system
12 Iron pipes at plant
13 Copper cables (rough estimate)
14 Paved surfaces and asphalt in digested
sludge storage
15 Plastics in scrapers
((total surface area in basin
buildings) (2.1)+(total floor
(and wall) surface area in
other buildings)) (mean thick-
ness) (density) ((1.27E+03m2)
(2.1)+(1.94E+03 m2)) (0.30
m) (2.26E+06 g m−3)=
3.13E+09 g
2.48E+08 g
(total amount of concrete)/(es-
timated life length) (3.38E+
09 g)/(50 year)= 6.76E+07 g
(wall area) (wall thickness)
(density)/(estimated life
length) (5.53E+02 m2) (0.12
m) (1.26E+06 g m−3)/(50
year)= 1.67E+06 g
(3.88E+09 g)/(50 year)=
7.77E+07 g
(amount of plastic)/(estimated
life length) (8.81E+07 g)/(50
year)= 1.76E+06 g
(2.19E+07 g)/(50 year)=
4.38E+05 g
(6.25E+06 g)/(50 year)=
1.25E+05 g
(total surface (see Footnote
1)) (weight per surface area)
(life length) (6.90E+03 m2)
(1.00E+05 g m−2)/(50
year)=1.38E+07 g
(amount of plastic)/(estimated
life length) (1.00E+06 g)/(50
year)= 2.00E+04 g
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 313

16 Machinery
Iron in scrapers 1.00E+06 g
Cleaning grating 1.00E+06 g
Containers 7.34E+05 g
Floor grating 3.38E+06 g
54 pumps 3.70E+06 g
Air machine 7.00E+05 g
Stirrer 9.73E+05 g
Gas engine 1.45E+06 g
Heat exchanger 2.50E+05 g
Total amount of iron in machinery in (total weight) (estimated life
plant length) (1.32E+07 g)/(20
year)= 6.59E+05 g
Machinery for sludge spreading 4.86E+05 g per year (weight
of tractor 5 ton, wagon 3.5
ton, total use 470 and 60 h
per year, respectively, life
length 15 years)
Total amount of machinery 1.15E+06 g
17 Chemicals
Total amount of ferrous sulphuric acid 3.20E+08 g
Ferrous (Fe2+) content 2.40E+07 g (product infor-
mation, Surahammars bruk
AB)
Sulphuric acid content 2.88E+07 g (product infor-
mation, Surahammars bruk
AB)
This chemical is a by-product of ironworks. Only the content of iron is
considered as this is used for the precipitation of phosphorus
18 Iron in maintenance 5.92E+06 g (3% of iron in
buildings, machinery and
pipes)
19 Concrete in maintenance 1.17E+08 g (3% of concrete
in pipes)
20 Asphalt in maintenance 2.07E+07 g (3% of sludge
storage and paved surf.)
21 Service in electricity 2.83E+05 SEK
22 Service in oil 9.60E+04 SEK
23 Service in depreciation of buildings and 1.17E+06 SEK
machinery
314 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

24 Service in purchased material 1.02E+06 SEK

in maintenance
25 Labour 1.09E+06 SEK
26 Administration 4.20E+05 SEK
27 Interest 1.64E+06 SEK

Table 4.Emergy analysis of electricity production by digestion of sewage sludge.

1 Oil ((amount of sludge heated) (density)

(heat specificity) (temperature differ-
ence))-(heat prod. by gas engine)
((7.30E+03 m3) (1.00E+06 g m−3)
(4.2 J g−1, °C) (27°C))–(1.84E+11
J)=6.43E+11 J
2 Electricity for sewage pump and Stirrer, 0.95 kW, 365 days, 24 h per
stirrer day; 8322 kWh Pump sewage, 6 m3
h−1, 1.5 kW, 7300 m3 sewage; 1825
kWh (8322+1825) (3.6E+06 J
kWh−1)= 3.65E+10 J
3 Iron in buildings
Sheet-iron in walls and roofs 3.97E+06 g
Steel in gas storage 3.90E+07 g
Iron beams for walls and roofs (total wall area) (g iron per m2
(Footnote 6, Table 3))+(total roof
area) (g iron per m2 (Footnote 6,
Table 3)) (1.71E+02 m2) (6.10E+03
g m−2)+(3.88E+01 m2) (9.70E+03
g m−2)= 1.42E+06 g
Iron pipes 1.18E+07 g
Reinforcement in concrete (9.70E+01 m3) (3.10E+04 g m−3
(Footnote 6, Table 3))+(7.00E+01
m3) (3.90E+04 g m−3 (Footnote 6,
Table 3))+(1.45E+02 m3) (7.90E+
04 g m−3 (Footnote 6, Table 3))=
1.72E+07 g
Total iron in buildings (total amount of iron)/(estimated life
length) (7.34E+07 g)/(50 year)=
1.47E+06 g
 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316 315

Maintenance 2.29E+06 g (estimated to 3% of iron

and machinery weight)
Total iron amount of iron 3.76E+06 g
4 Machinery; gas engine, pump, stir- (2.80E+06 g)/(20 year)/Footnote 16
rer, heat exchanger Table 3)= 1.40E+05 g
5 Concrete in buildings (m3 concrete in walls and floor)
(density)/(estimated life length)
(3.12E+02 m3) (2.26E+06 g m−3)/
(50 year)
Total amount of concrete 1.41E+07 g
6 Copper cables (1.25E+06 g)/(50 year)=2.50E+04 g
7 Insulation (total amount of insulation) (g m−3)/
(estimated life length) (7.29E+01 m3)
(3.50E+04 g m−3)/(50 year)=
5.10E+04 g
8 Bricks (wall area) (wall thickness) (g m−3)/
(estimated life length) (3.48E+02 m2)
(0.12 m) (1.26E+06 g m−3)/(50
year)= 1.05E+06 g
9 Paved surfaces 1.16E+06 g (20% of paved surface)
10 Service 2.98E+05 SEK (64% of total oil use,
10% of expenditure on administration
and 20% of interest, maintenance and
depreciation)
11 Human labour 7.32E+04 SEK (10% of total expen-
ditures for labour at the plant)
12 Electricity production (75 000 m3 gas utilised, 6 kWh m−3
gas, 30% efficiency)= (4.50E+05
kWh) (0.3) (3.60E+06 J kWh−1)=
4.86E+11 J

References

Alexandersson H, Karlström C, Larsson-McCann S. Temperature and Precipitation in Sweden 1961–

1990. Reference Normals. Sweden: SMHI Meteorologi, 1990.
Anonymous, 1995. Miljörapport enligt miljöskyddslagen. Reningsverket Haga. KommunalTeknik AB,
Surahammar, Sweden, 1995.
Bengtsson M, Lundin M, Molander S. Life cycle assessment of wastewater systems, case studies of
conventional treatment, urine sorting and liquid composting on three municipalities. Technical
Environmental Planning. Chalmers University of Technology. Göteborg, Sweden, 1997.
316 J. Björklund et al. / Resources, Conser6ation and Recycling 31 (2001) 293–316

Brown MT, Odum HT, McGrane G, Woithe RD, Lopez S, Bastianoni, S. Emergy evaluation of energy
policies for Florida. Report to the Florida Energy Office. Center for Environmental Policy,
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 1995.
Buranakarn V. Evaluation of recycling and reuse of building materials using the emergy analysis
method. Dissertation. University of FLorida, Gainesville, 1998.
Delin S, Grundelius E. Utveckling och riktningsanalys, exergiberäkningar i Luleå och Strängnäs
kommuner eller hur kan man veta om man hushållar med resurserna på ett hållbart sätt? Rep. No
7. Institutionen för Samhällsbyggnadsteknik, Avdelningen för Restproduktteknik, Luleå Tekniska
Universitet, Luleå, Sweden, 1998.
Genoni GP. Towards a conceptual synthesis in ecotoxicology. OIKOS 1997;80:96– 106.
Genoni GP, Montague CL. Influence of the energy relationship of trophic levels and of elements on
bioaccumulations. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 1995;30:203– 18.
Haug RT. The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publisher, 1993.
Johansson S, Doherty, SJ, Rydberg T. Swedish foodshed analysis, 1996. Submitted to Proceedings of
The First Biennial Emergy Analysis Research Conference-Energy Quality and Transformities in
Gainesville 2–4 of September 1999.
Knight RL. Wetlands systems for wastewater management: implication. In: Hall CAS, editor. Maximum
Power: The Ideas and Applications of H.T. Odum. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1995.
Lagerberg C, Doherty SJ, Nilsson PO. Evaluation of the resource use efficiency and sustainability of the
Swedish economy using emergy based indices, In: Lagerberg C, editor. Emergy Analysis of the
Resources Use in Greenhouse Crop Production and of the Resources Basis of the Swedish Economy.
Dissertation. Alnarp, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 1999.
Monteith JL, Unsworth MH. Principles of Environmental Physics. London, UK: Edward Arnold, 1990.
Naturvårdsverket. Användning av avloppslam i jordbruket. Naturvårdsverket, Lantbrukarnas riksför-
bund, Svenska vatten-och avloppsverksföreningen. Stockholm, 1996.
Nilsson J, Bergström S. Indicators for the assessment of ecological and economic consequences of
municipal policies for resource use. Ecol Econ 1995;14:175– 84.
Ødegaard H. An evaluation of cost efficiency and sustainability of different wastewater treatment
processes. Vatten 1995;51:291–9.
Odum HT. Energy and biogeochemical cycles. In: Rossi C, Tiezzi E, editors. Ecological Physical
Chemistry. Proceedings of an International Workshop, 8 – 12 November 1990, Siena. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publisher, 1991.
Odum HT. General and Ecological Systems. An Introduction to Systems Ecology. Niwot, CO:
University Press of Colorado, 1994.
Odum HT. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. New York, NY:
Wiley, 1996.
Tillman A-M, Lundström H, Svingby M. Livscykelanalys av alternativa avloppssystem i Bergsjön och
Hamburgsund. Delrapport från ECOGUIDE-projektet Rep. No. 1996:1. Avdelningen för teknisk
miljöplanering, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola. Göteborg, Sweden, 1996.