UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AJ UR3ANA-CHAMPAJGN ENGINEERING NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. The person charging this HjU^rfol ftf ranwinsible for its return to the library from which It WaSMMthdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- nary action and may result in dismissal from the llniversity. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSI ILLINOIS UBRA'RY AT U HAMPAIGN L161— O-1096 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/optionsforenergy79hann Z/W^A /w :ring library of illinois U>*Ai ILLINOIS Center for Advanced Computation UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN URBANA. ILLINOIS 61801 CAC DOCUMENT WO. 79 OPTIONS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION Tt * Library f (h# AUG 2 7 1976 CAC Document No. 79 OPTIONS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION By Bruce Hannon 18 June 1973 CAC Document No. 79 OPTIONS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION by Bruce Hannon Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign Urbana, Illinois, 6l801 February, 1973 This research vas supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. ABSTRACT The development and use of the nation's first large energy flow- model is explained. The direct and indirect commitment of the various types of energy to each of 362 industrial and commercial sectors has been developed for the U. S. economy in 19&3. The energy model is applied to the automobile, the process of automation, beverage containers, protein production, and family expenditures. The total energy (and employment) demands for these goods and services are determined and the conservation potential is estimated for certain cases. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work of Drs. Robert Herendeen and Clark Bullard forms the basis for much of this paper. I am deeply indebted to them for their careful and perceptive efforts. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction .... 1 Modeling Energy Use ..... 2 Energy Conservation Options 5 Production Efficiency 5 Product Use Efficiency 8 Rate of Energy Use. 9 Additional Research 11 References . . ............ 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Total (Direct and Indirect) Energy vs. Employment Intensities for 362 Sectors in 1963 13 2. Changes in Total Energy and Employment (Direct and Indirect) for a 10$ Increase in Final Demand From the Noted Industry, Proportionately Absorbed From All Other Industries for 362 Sectors in 1963 Ik 3. Changes in Total Energy and Employment for a 10$ Growth in the Noted Industry's Deliveries to Final Demand and a Proportionate Decrease in the Deliveries of All Others for 362 Sectors in 19&3, An Enlargement of the Center Portion of Figure 2 15 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Energy and Employment (Direct and Indirect) for the Private Auto in 1963 16 2. The Total Energy and Employment Required to Deliver a Pound of Protein to the Consumer Thru Various Food Products in 1963 17 k. Preliminary Total (Direct and Indirect) Energy and Employ- ment Generated by the Average U. S. Urban Family in 1950 (3.0 people) and in i960 (3.1 people) . 18 U. Preliminary Direct and Indirect Energy Budgets of Three Different Income Class Four Person Families, 1970 19 INTRODUCTION A country that runs on energy cannot afford to run short. If it does, its processes decline dramatically, from the most fundamental metal processing to incidental pleasure transportation. Yet in the U. S., where fast rising per capita energy demands (50$> increase since 1952 [l, 2]) nearly intersect the home supplies of some energy forms, we turn more and more to imported petroleum as the chief sources of energy. Thus we raise the dependence of this country on the rest of the world, raise the risk of an interrupted energy supply and raise the risk of U. S. Involvement in an armed intervention to protect a foreign energy source. It is true that we "can't afford to run short," yet the price demanded for extending the energy supply lines may be- come more than the country is willing to pay. Home supplies can be extended through the substitution of coal for oil and gas and through the use of nuclear electric power. But the substitutions require a great deal of time. The long range planning horizon for most utilities is about 10-15 years. Massive capital reallocation for fuel substi- tution would be required to extend the timing problems beyond the anticipated intersection of supply and demand [3l« Further, fear of the environmental impacts of strip mining for coal, power plant emissions of heat, radiation, oxides of nitrogen and of sulfur, etc., auto emissions, and other air, soil and water pollutants, does not seem to retard our unbridled con- sumption of energy. The concept of energy conservation appears to be a loophole in the fabric of the energy dilemma. Using less energy in homes, industry and transportation, both thru increases in efficiency and by restriction of use, offers a way to decrease external dependency and avoids extra impact on the environment. In brief, a country that runs on energy cannot afford to waste it. MODELING ENERGY USE In this paper I intend to discuss the options for energy conservation by describing a model and early results obtained by the Energy Research Group at the Center for Advanced Computation (CAC) in the University of Illinois at Champaign- Urbana. The work is mainly supported by the National Science Founda tion and the Energy Policy Project of the Ford Foundation. CAC has developed a mathematical model as a result of an in depth look at the methods for conserving energy. This model will be discussed first in crdei to most efficiently explain the results as it is applied to each area of potential conservation. Before one should speak of conserving energy (or of increasing the supply) he should understand in some detail where energy is going and the total energy cost of every good and service. Then he could determine the energy conserved by switching from one good or service to an alternative or by eliminating its use. Likewise the energy cost of the sub- stitution of new technology could be estimated. A simple static model which accounts for all the activities in the U. S. and for which much data has been collected is all that is initially required. Such a model was developed by Leontief and the U. S. Department of Commerce [k, 5] for dollar flows in the U. S. economy. This model has been converted to an energy flow model by Herendeen [6] for 19&3, utilizing the most recent data available. The model is linear and is described by the matrix equation E = R (I - A)" 1 Pq (1) Here E is the direct and indirect energy use of a prescribed type; R is a vector which describes the amount of that type of energy in British Thermal Units (BTU) per dollar of total output of each of the industries in the U. S.; I is the unity matrix; A is the Department of Commerce's direct dollar matrix of trans- actions between each industry and all the others; P is an activities matrix of the dollar flow from each industry to a particular activity per dollar of that activity; and q is a vector which describes the total amount of dollars spent under a certain program on each of the activities described by P. In our model the maximum size of R is 362 elements; of A, 362 squared elements; of P, 362 rows and 220 columns, and of q, 220 elements. There are currently five R vectors representing coal, refined petroleum, gas, electricity and the total primary energy. If the meaning of R is changed slightly to occupational employment per dollar of total output for each industry [7], then E is the total (direct and indirect) employment of a particular occupation required for the specified q. Currently the model can represent 165 occupations. Pollution vectors are now being fitted to the model. If we are to be realistic in setting goals for energy conservation, the employment and pollution effects must be understood and compensated. Thus for a specified list of activities (q), the direct and indirect energy and employment requirements and pollution generated in the industrial and commercial sectors can be determined for the technology in use in 1963- We are currently developing R vectors for 19&7 with the hope that the A matrix will soon be available from the Department of Commerce. At this point, we can begin to urider stand how energy use changes with concomitant alterations in demands for goods and services. Direct energy is that used by a particular industry to produce a unit of its goods and services. Indirect energy is that energy used by all the suppliers of materials and services to this industry and by all the suppliers of the suppliers , etc., to supply only those materials -which were needed for the unit of good or service. Indirect energy is the limit of an infinite sum of terns which although they increase in plurality, decrease in value. This process . in seme cases, includes the amount of production of a particular industry used to make a unit of its ovn production, a "feedback" process. That is, it includes the consumption of cars used by steel company executives to make the steel which is consumed in making a car. Projecting the matrix to future years is difficult. Changes must be made to the elements in S to reflect the change in efficiency and substitution 'effects of the industrial and commercial use of energy, e.g., a swriteh to oil from coal to generate electricity. Changes in A must reflect the new- technologies adopted by an industry, e.g., electric steel furnaces replacing the ocen hearth processes. Changes in ? must be made to reflect the technolog- ical change in final processing techniques and the changes in consumer choice, e.g., the increasing amounts of paper and plastic packaging used in retail food establishments. The H vectors will change rapidly, yet as more data become available from specific energy use studies, projection difficulties decrease. The A matrix j is relatively stable [8] but the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made several projections. The ? matrix is being developed by special investigation at CAC and at the Department of Commerce. Error propagation and sensitivity analyses techniques are underway at the Center. The entire model with its techniques for manipulation are being installed en the national AREA [9] computer network. Installation should be finished for the 1963 models by August of 1973. The matrices and vectors can be reduced to any desired size by aggrega- tion techniques. On the other hand more detail is often needed than is now available and pertinent rows and columns of the A matrix must be judiciously subdivided. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPTIONS There are many specific techniques -which can be imagined to conserve energy. From this plethora of opportunities, one can discern three general categories: efficiency of production, efficiency of product use, and control of the rate of energy use. Each of these can be thought of in the context of three broad classes of users; personal consumption, government and industry, in order to realize the options for energy conservation. PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY Because of the low cost of energy (only 3-&fo of producers' price in 1963), it is presumed by many that industries simply do not strive to use energy efficiently in their production processes. Compelling arguments for this point of view are made by Berg [10], who claims that about 25$> of the total U. S. energy use could be saved through more efficient use. For example, savings of up to 39$ could be realized in the operation of certain equipment in the steel industry. But railroads have improved tneir energy use efficiency by a factor of 10 since the early part of the century through a change to diesel fuel and through improved hauling techniques [ll]. Recycling of a.luminum, steel, paper, cardboard and plastic offer rich energy saving opportunities [12], The most ubiquitous energy increase in industrial processes, however, is believed to have occurred via automation, i.e., the displacement of labor from the production process. The ratio of production workers' wages to the cost of electricity increased steadily by 225$, from 1951 to I969 [13,11+]. During that time the wholesale price index for electrical machinery increased by 50$ [15]. These factors indicate the pressure on the. industrial decision makers to eliminate the increasingly expensive worker from the process and substitute machines which increase its energy intensity. We have examined the process of automation in some detail, with the model described in equation (l) [l6]. If q is specified so as to require a one dollar increase in delivery to final consumption from a given industry, then Fig. 1 shows the direct and indirect energy use and employment arising through out the economic system. While a large proportion of the industries are centrally clustered, there are some very energy intensive industries (asphalt coatings and asphalt paving, cement, primary aluminum, building paper, and chemicals) and some very labor intensive industries (hospitals, hotels, credit agencies). The pattern shown in Figure 1 represents the energy and labor requirements of an additional dollar delivered to- final demand. It represents, for a consumer, the direct and indirect effect on energy and employment of the expenditure of one dollar in each industry. It does not include an multiplier effects of the expenditure. It Is, therefore, inappropriate for use in an impact analysis. Another way to consider the problem is to examine the effects of a 10 percent proportionate growth in each industry, with an offsetting decrease prorated among the other industries in proportion to their share of deliveries to final consumption. In Figures 2 and 3, first quadrant industries are pri- marily agricultural; second quadrant industries are basic material production, construction and fabrication oriented; third quadrant industries are service oriented with a high degree of technology and high wages, and fourth quadrant industries are service oriented without a great degree of special labor saving technology and with low wages. Most industries fall into quadrant 2 indicating that the nature of the structure of the 1963 economy is to respond to an increa in production by becoming more energy intensive and less labor intensive. Thus, Figures 2 and 3 are addressed more to the policymaker concerned abou the question of growth. The magnitudes reflect the relative dependence of the U. S. society in 1963 on each of its industries. For example, a 10$ increase in delivery to final demand by "motor vehicles" would have required a direct and indirect energy increase of 3*+ trillion BTU and a decrease in employment of 78,500 jobs (direct and indirect). Further, a 10$ increase in deliveries of postal services to final demand would have reduced energy consumption by about k trillion BTU and increased employment about 6,200 i n 19^3 • Note that some intermediate products deliver little to final demand such as steel and primary aluminum. A problem with this approach is that the gain in delivery to final demand is absorbed proportionately from all other industries. On the other hand, the product of an industry competes with only a few other products, e.g., aluminum with steel and wood as structural members, steel with glass and plastic as food containers. (This type of product competition is described in the next section. ) If one industry's gain were at the expense of a few competitors, the com- plexion of Figures 2 and 3 would change. Suppose for instance that a one billion dollar gain in the primary aluminum deliveries was obtained at the expense of an identical loss in steel deliveries. Then from fig. 1 energy use would increase about lie trillion BTU (about 0.2$ of the total) and employment would decrease by 15,000 jobs (about 0.03$ of the total). An identical increase in primary aluminum deliveries at the proportional expense of all other industries would produce an increased use of energy of 332 trillion BTU and a loss of 65,000 jobs. The results so far indicate that, in general, most U. S. industries are trading labor for energy (becoming more energy intensive, less labor intensive) as they grow. Such industries as well as their competitors can be identified through the use of the CAC models (Equation l). Thus, if economic growth is 8 desired it can be guided so as to minimize the impact on energy use and maximize employment demands. In any event, the model clearly provides an estimate of the total energy and employment impact of desired shifts in demands . Several other process efficiency studies, either underway or completed, include Moyers T [18] study on the value of residential insulation. Also, Stein [19] and Socolow [20] have shown the value of better heating and lighting techniques for public buildings and residences. Product Use Efficiency The variety of goods and services available in*U. S. today provides -what Toffler calls "overchoice" [21]. "When the historical perspective of the development of the products is added, the variety of the system is even larger. For example, beer is today available in 23 different package combinations. "While at the same time about 5 other configurations, including the consumer- owned container, have become obsolete. Another example of variety is the choice of passenger transportation between cities; plane, train, bus and car. But the intercity passenger train is now almost completely defunct. One can speculate that certain members of the existing variety of prod- ucts are more energy efficient, per unit of service, than others. For instance, it has been shown [12] that refillable bottles are about one- third less energy consumptive per unit of ' beverage than are paper, glass, aluminum or steel disposable containers. Folk [22] demonstrated that if the nation were to shift completely to returnable beverage containers, employment would rise by 130,000 jobs, and annual consumer cos + .s would decrease by §l.k billion. The ^national energy savings would be about 0.5$, half of which would not be saved ;if the consumer savings were absorbed by an increase in average personal con- I sumption. Several other product comparisons are now being investigated at the Center. In particular, the intracity auto and bus are being compared. Re- sults of energy and labor cost of the auto in 19^3 are presented in Table 1. The auto consumed 12. h% of the GNP, required 12.0$ of the total employment and consumed about 20.7$ of the total U- S. energy. This amounts to about 7900 BTU per passenger-mile and 5-5 jobs per hundred thousand passenger- miles. Preliminary estimates indicate that the bus* is about one-third as energy intensive as the auto, and that total U. S. energy use could be re- duced by about 5$ by a full shift to buses. All U. S. transportation required (direct and indirect) h2% of the total national energy consumption in 19&3 [6]. An extremely interesting product alternative is the use of picture phones as a substitute for physical transportation [23]. Another interesting application of the concepts of product-use efficiency is shown in Table 2 where the total energy and employment demands to supply a pound of protein by various means is determined. Cheese is considerably more energy efficient than meat, milk or fish in the forms consumed in the U. S. in 1963. Other product alternatives are such as food preparation and packing, clothing fibers, home appliances, etc., are also being investigated for their unit energy and employment demands at the Center. The impact of such shifts on consumer cost, employment and pollution should be thoroughly understood before policy recommendations can be made. Rate of Energy Use Ultimately all the product and process energy efficiency gains may be in- adequate. Then the rate of energy use would have to be restricted. What are 10 the priorities of restriction? How does the individual and his/her family draw upon the energy resource base? In which areas of use (direct and in- direct) will an energy use restriction be least harmful? How does the direct and indirect energy use per family vary with such socio-economic variables as age and income of the family head? A study to determine the energy cost of various lifestyles is underway at the Center. The first goal is to establish, through the use of equation (l), the influence of age, income, family size, etc on the total energy budget of a family. Such studies will reveal the family dependence on total energy for housing, food, clothing, transportation, etc. so that if a priority of need is established, energy savings due to rationing can be estimated. . Further, the impact on low income families of an increase in energy cost can be estimated. Finally, studies such as these can be used to plumb the energy demands of varying degrees of affluence, of leisure, by con- venience and variety of consumer products. A very preliminary total energy and employment comparison of the average urban family (about 3 persons) in the U. S. in 1950 and i960 is made in Table 3 Several interesting tentative facts emerge. First, energy use and employ- ment change are not proportional to change in constant dollar expenditures. Second, direct energy consumption is about one half of the total energy demand. Third, each family generates about the expected direct and indirect employment (1.1 per family), that the family itself provides, i.e., working head of house- hold and one out of 10 working spouses. The effect of family (four person) income level on energy demand is shown in Table h. • Due to the preliminary nature of the estimate, the same energy coefficients were used for the same category, in each income class. This proce- dure yields a total family energy demand which is roughly proportional to incom< A more detailed estimate now underway at the Center for Advanced Computation, will demonstrate hew those in each different income class varying their specific buying habits accordingly. The data of Table h do reveal an energy dependency on food which declines with income, an energy dependency on housing which rises with income and an energy dependency on transportation which peaks with the intermediate income level. These three categories demand about 75$> of the total family direct and indirect energy. The same three categories require 5&f of the low budget income and about kT?o of the other two budgets. From this information we can infer that a rise in the price of energy would be preferentially difficult for the low budget family. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH Possibilities for future research on energy conservation are plentiful. In particular, the impact on energy consumption of information flow thru the consumer (advertising, status gradients, etc.) needs to be quantified. Under an energy conservation program it may need regulating. Government activities and policies appear to have a major Impact on energy use. For example, an inequitable subsidy of airlines and trucks over rail- roads produce unfavorable economic attractiveness for the less energy intensive railroads. In addition, taxation programs may significantly favor such things as family growth and urban sprawl. Also, the demonstration effects alone of such internal federal government programs as recycling paper, building heating and lighting patterns, highly efficient fleet automobiles, could lead to significant future energy savings for the rest of the nation. The energy storage and distribution systems should be optimized against sudden shortages, particularly for critical areas of production such as agriculture. Agriculture and food processing required, on the average, in 1963, about h.5 times as much energy in the form of fossil fuels (directly and indirectly) as the delivered energy content of the developed food. In 12 all, food processing for human consumption required about 9% of the energy consumed in the U. S. in I963 [6]. Priorities for emergency- rationing should be estimated so as to maintain the fundamental energy services to the nation. However, the conservation potential of agriculture and food processing can be realized through use of less packaging and more labor intensive farming. Plans for implementing the adoption of well known means of conserving energy should be enacted. For example, residential insulation and high efficiency autos are very productive and well recognized areas for near-term energy savings. Land use planning is probably the most fundamental long term key to energy conservation. Communities could be planned around total energy systems in which waste heat from small power plants is used to heat or cool the community's buildings. Work and home could locate geographically so as to minimize transportation energy requirements. en v£> a\ i-( Z M go fa o H U W en cn vD CO OS o p* CO W M H M 00 a a H 23 l-H H CO Z r^ H o> S I-l SH o ►! i-l fa Qj < ^"} C3 w pj m CO w > fa [H hJ o w d Q w O z S w >< -*-N u H H U ►J g o fa M g 2 M W n s 2 o < .J H g a w s i M a >< ^_^ o fa 3g g w H o d i-< W fa 1 1-1 o fa CO <0 fa co O X o X! X LD 4- O 60 •o u >> •a C o > •w u 4J (LI O 03 O x 60 cd 3 O a. x° XI •€ x 3 «-i x Ocu t-l J3 cnuuCLO j-coa>fa v U x fa x O O •C fa to s B 60 C 'H > cfl fa 4-) c e o fa u CO aj CU fa X i-H CO CO 4U X fa e CU cd 60 -U Nfi O •a J2 r-l 1-4.-I XI ■-i o o i-ibO >*, •H CD •HJ-I 3 o •u i-< ^E 4JO X 09 o i-i to 4>H M4-I X •H 3 O u -Q-H ^x 4J B i-< ^ M ■^ •H c CD 4J 4-1 IWx tH X CU to B to X n n ■U 3 cc X fa 0) CO X r-H fa o .o X X XA X CO 3 OX U fa •H H C 01 i-l E X •H fa 3 X n c« fa fa X *5 »-ItJ X we „>* 4j x fag^ *" * ^- X X x Xx^x J^X^ X „ = "x^/x* x *** x * x »x » x * yt x »y : « x S« x v xx x ^ x \ •*£ : X ^' /" ft" *x x»: jr. X x < xx X » o e CU CU fax o at M H ^ x Ceo 0-< Ccd 4J ocu cnE o u fa JJ co cu M o cu 01 M-l 14-1 o u + -f- -f- -+- + + CM o o o o o CO -- m" w a 3< < O fa o H - £D _J "^ o UJ d I— I— co LD 3* cn 06h'0 QNVW3Q 08h - OSE'O 082"0 012*0 OTiI "0 OLO'O ivNii ox $ G96i *3d ma Nomiw - JL0U3N3 JLcJUWIUd "1H101 ooo t o -p w cd -P •H ft w o § En ^ R K W co rH Cti CO V ID •H •H fi -P (U •H A3 H o •H -P 2 CO aj bO I bO A3 O -P 8 rH •iH •P H In o -p o o 1? h 4 + -f + + D'tlB 0"£9 0"2h 0*12 O'O 0"I2- 0"2Tr ni9 Nomiyi 'iou3N3 iuioi ni sbonuho s o s H W co S w <: M 0:5 ~- u en > o m er> ►4 <-" w _ O Z M CO - CO . >< Ctf 0\ p!OH H E-< co a x !=> W « gco CO W Q O 2 M M ft, Cn a w o w w H o o >» o M u H3 CO V XI U OS o > M 0) •H CQ O x 00 0) > c cd o • C >-< - u cu 3 X U-l 4-t td X 01 0) en i-H e 3 m O • OJ p"> XI o )-i M CO y 1-1 X tH cd e CO o m u u o CM cd V m OO 60 > y !-< H u OJ i-H •H 4-1 0) cd S X a> OJ cd x I— + + + + CO PQ r\i O >-3 »— * (x< O CO g S-P bO C Jh CO CO -P c d W O o d O >i -H hO XI m VO H • P ^ o co vo CM VO \o d a o 'd w •H o P ^ o d Pn -p M 1 ■d CO , — 1 CO w d o VO +3 03 d o 1 1 • X! S ^ CO h' H X Jh X! hO O CO * CO d PM CO o d o P< -p W W a3 o •H a d o • *\ Jh •H O •H CO Q CO •H -P O o o O o cH +5 -P o5 O o o o ^H o3 ^ ON | H ° a O d ■d OO OO CVJ H I o rH o •H CO H LT\ H o d & CO -P o -P o O CH -P *ti " H H fi O d d • *\ d w -P +3 ■^2- O P o o a IXN Ph o EH -p CO rH d £ d "d -p O o b +5 CO ffi o3 Q > CO H •h 'd Pi H O CO O d •\ ■s PI P-H CO CJ •H ra s iH C— ON H CO O x> d -d -d d CO -69- o O CO 3 • P> -d o • ■ • • CO d on o O O O CO 'd -d o & X5 ■P A £ rH to -d d d H d d CO x o -p CJ c3 -P w x> cd ■H d CJ d •H -p O ► H >> M CO C CO -p , p o w CJ hO a o -p -d Jh •H •H d d d d a; 3 E>4 Pm -P •H ■d nd & w 0] •P o O w •rH 5h -d •H CO & & *> CO CO o ~ o CO -P d w o ■d XJ erf -P d -d -p a) & •H w ^! CO o 03 a> d CO o o CO X! «H £ d -- — ^ * — n Ph S O p4 Ph d X o •«— ' CO -P XI c o e ^ £ro o I rH o ft rH £ I a O cti VO e On cu H O CU -p u pq biXO Sh Q r-\ ft o (D ft CU -p u ID a CU i-i o • ro CU o , E vo- £> ON S H &5. d w o VO ON 0) H fi 3 CU bOH ?h ft CU O d. CU W ft ^O -p . o ro CU u •H C •d in on a i-i ft -p c 0) co o •-3 P»"0 O I H O ft H £ i W -d r< O 05 LTN £ ON CU H o O LTN LT\ © CO cu -=J- o CO ON GO CO « IPv ITN -3" LTN o CO IXN VO co ro On CO _d- no -3" ro H CVJ o VO O • • o c- q cu ON ON CO j- vo H CO CO CM CO LTN CM OJ ON vo LTN CO ITN O ro ON H t- o co o o LTN H O rH CO ■ LTN + OJ NO CO ITN JTN c— CO tr- io. LTN ON ON on rH NO IfN VO VO CO OJ C ON H H •d C C -H- — S3 > O «H bOO a s rH O >H tf 0) rH O rH -d" rH -=f VO -Hr •H P>4 CI 1 a • ■ « fl w -d C— OJ o rH ON ro ON w d c c- VO CO rH t— H ctf O tf OJ H ,0 LTN E a3 Sh on cu -P £> rH O O EH . CO >» ^ _^ • cd f cu •H CU ' -•s E MXi -P ITN OJ ON e- c— c- ITN •H c<3 " «-^ -H c- on rH CO CO CO VO rH rH O -d OJ rH LTN OJ OJ LTN LTN CU CU LTN C -69- »\ *\ £ O 0) bO C •H CO o cu >d Jh tti C_) WlrH C aj •H cl ^t O -|J w O rH rH CJ CD d o r-l o -d 'd c cd a o a •H o -P -H aJ -p 0) cd rH CJ o d a.) Ti (x; w c O •H -P cci •p O P. w a! w •H r-l .a ^H O E u O cu •p jc d •p <; o a o •H -P CU ft cj X c cu aj & £ d n ^! O C -P O M O d •H cti C a w Q) X crt EH LTN CO o CO o 3 rH On ^- rH vo U"N vo ITN LTN o ON G OJ vo -p o cu rH •H •d LTN LTN O LTN LTN O CO O t>- OJ LTN 'd aJ -P O EH t3 CU -P CJ H CU < ^ H rH O O H o o o ro ro ro « ft ft O tr— On -P ft E cu >1 rH -P CO d -d c H aJ o X> o a^ H vO 4-1 C m o o cu 60 3 pa x: 60 I ^ >> (U 60 Cu >-i '-' 0) C W C CO qj o m rH M r-i cu m O D.H fa H ^> o M 4-1 r^ VD C on O CO CTi r-i ■u rH CJ O 0) I t-j r-» #k 60 >•. cu to *a eo ex w 3 j-i ^ M w CU fa c M cu fa s 4-1 fa •H •n #"N ss a ^ o fa CO ^-N co Xl 3 fa CJ pq 4J w vo c S o -, cu M 60 a. 4-1 u ^ fa Q) CU 7S 60 c W -a fa Pi 3 w pq fa fa S M o Q fa co /~v w 4-» CD C h mo CO CJ T rH CvJ On oo m CO m oo rH CM CM r^ CO m CM m r^- CO rH CO o rH VO rH « cu rt <0 4-1 c H CO o 6 CD £>, QJ •H r4 • 4-1 X CU cx, •H O o fa CU E >-i CJ M *~\ V-i D CD 3 C Pu o <*a CO CD 4-> CJ M CU v^ 4-1 u C CD cu < u 60 o O in rH ^-^ 60 o C r-i CJ CJ CO c a* •H CO rH c rH r-i •H CD J2 o u >-l a' o •H co •vJ CD c 4-) •H cu CU •H 10 CO 4-1 o 3 CD O T3 J^ x: o V-J 4-1 o o O »-i rH CU 4J 4J o cu cu H fa fa H U r^i o o CO PL< fa CO CM CM vO CM CU -p o a) r4 o o CDA rH XI x> CO cu 4-1 fa e. *\ m a} o c: r~- cO rH X> CO c P •H cu 4-1 rH CU 03 X> rH •H CO rH O 4-1 3 a PQ •H rH o «S rH u • H 4-4 CJ • fa CO fa o 4-> CO ^ >5 T3 CJ -P o •H 60 4-) M c 6A) fn •H c CU CD •H > 3 r« ■H CD c! 4-1 CO tJ CO !5 60 •s CJ 2 rH o fa r~- •H CIN -P & rH cO -P o fa •* pi w fa -a CJ s c H o CO H o W X! H ■d 60 H OJ •H < o fa H C! C/J cO • O >■ cu 4-1 fa <& 60 o < c CU PH CO fci 3 rH o CfH X! CJ o CJ m >•, M o y, 4-1 CU •H CU a W p > 4-1 CD o c ■H CO P o flj 4-1 •H crt W CJ O TJ E g •s 3 13 CU E •H r-i $ rH CU O u CO CJ ^d fa 4J XI «% o >-i P r4 2 >, M •H O 60 rs XI 4-J r4 E CO C CU o t>, fa CU C rJ fn B fa m crt 14-1 r^ > o o o TJ rH r-- CO rH • CU ON c H 4-J c§ T-i o •H a. •H cu 1 O 4-1 a r^ 4-1 V4 >i 60 o hn • u ro fa u CO CU ^D o <]) • c ON u r. fa w rH fa M REFERENCES 1. National Economic Research Associates, Inc., "Energy Consumption and Gross National Product in the United States," 80 Broad Street, New York, New York, March, 1971, Table 1. 2. U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the U. S. , 1971 , Washington, p. 210. ~ " '~ ~ ~~~ 3. Inter Technology Corporation, The U. S. Energy Problem , Box 3^0, Warrenton, VA 22186, November, 1971, Volume 1, Summary, Figure k 3 p. 9. kc Leontief, W. W. , Input - Output Ec onomic s , Oxford University Press, New York, 1966. 5c U. S. Department of Commerce, Input-Output Structure of the U. S. Economy: I.963, Washington, I969, Volumes I, II, III. 6. Kerendeen, R. A., "Use of Input -Output Analysis to Determine the Energy Cost of Goods and Services," Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 61801, Document No. 69, 20* Feb., 1973- 7. Bezdek, Roger, "Alternate Manpower Forecasts to 1975 and I98O, Second Guessin the U. S. Department of Labor," 1972 Proceedings of the Business and Economi Section of the American Statistical Association, pp. ^31-^-36. 8. Carter, A. P., "Changes in the Structure of the American Economy," 19^-7 "to 1958 and 1962," Review of Economics and Statistics, k$, 1967, pp. 209-22J+. 9. Roberts, L. G. and Wessler, B. D., "The ARPA Network, " Advanced Research Projects Agency, Washington, D. C, May, 1971* 10. Berg, Chas., "Energy Conservation thru Effective Utilization," National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C, June, 1972- 11. Interstate Commerce Commission, "Transportation Statistics in the U. S.,"' Washington, D. C, annual report. 12. Hannon, Bruce, "System Energy and Recycling: A Study of the Container Industry," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 72-WA-ENER- 3, 1972. 13. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, U. S., 1907-70, Washington, D. C, Bulletin 1312-7, Table 5. lh. Edison Electric Institute, Statistical Yearbook of the Electric Utility Industry for 1969 , New York, Sept, 1970, p. 53- 15. U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the U. S. , 1971* Washington, D. C, 9 2 edition, p. 336. 16. Folk, H. and Hannon, B. , "An Energy, Pollution and Employment Policy Model," Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 61801, Document No. 68, February, 1973* 21 17. Harmon, Bruce and Nakagama, S., "The 1963 Direct Employment Intensity Vector/' Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 61801, Document No. 63, January, 1973* il8<. Moyers, John C, "The Value of Thermal Insulation in Residential Construction: Economics and Conservation of Energy," Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 37830, Report ORNL NSF EP 9, December, 1971. [19. Stein, Richard, "Architecture and Energy," Stein and Associates, 583 5th Ave. , New York, New York, IOO36, December, 1971- 20. Grot, Richard, and Socolow, R. H. , "Energy Utilization in a Residential Community," Center for Environmental Studies, Princeton University, February, 1973. 21. Toff ler, Alan, Future Shock , Random House, New York, Chapter 12, July, 1970. 22. Folk, Hugh, "Employment Effects of a Mandatory Deposit Regulation, " Institute for Environmental Quality, State of Illinois, 309 West Washington, Chicago, 60606, January, 1972. 23^ Goldsmith, A., "The Relationship of Telecommunications to Urban Transportation," 8th Autumn Meeting, National Academy of Engineering, 12 October, 1972- — "— »■