{"id":2697,"date":"2016-12-06T14:28:31","date_gmt":"2016-12-06T14:28:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/?p=2697"},"modified":"2024-07-16T11:51:41","modified_gmt":"2024-07-16T10:51:41","slug":"application-of-the-water-unavailability-factor-for-characterisation-of-water-use-in-lca-studies-in-the-czech-republic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/2016\/12\/application-of-the-water-unavailability-factor-for-characterisation-of-water-use-in-lca-studies-in-the-czech-republic\/","title":{"rendered":"Application of the water unavailability factor for characterisation of water use in LCA studies in the Czech Republic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary<\/h2>\n

The following article summarises the results of testing a\u00a0method for the characterisation of water use in the system of life cycle assessment in the Czech Republic. The chosen method allows for robust expression of water use in the equivalent values of the reference system. The method is based on the potential renewability of water resources. To apply the method in the Czech Republic, characterisation factor values were derived for individual hydrological third\u00ad\u2011order catchments in the Czech Republic. These values were compared with values calculated for specific profiles from the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute. In addition, water footprint of electricity production process in selected power plants and heat plants in the Czech Republic was determined by using a\u00a0tested method. Given the fact that the chosen method does not cover the issue of impacts on human health and ecosystems, the identified values represent (only) the \u2018\u2018water scarcity footprint of electricity and heat production processes in power plants and heat plants.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n\"img_2337_uprava\"<\/a>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

\u2018\u2018Water footprint\u2019\u2019 is a\u00a0technical term which started to appear in water management practice from the 1990\u2008s. Water footprint was defined as the total amount of water used directly or indirectly for production, including consumed and polluted water [1]. This concept received some criticism, which pointed to the fact that such a\u00a0defined water footprint tells us nothing about the impacts that water use brings. The community involved in life cycle impact assessment came up with its own understanding of the concept of water footprint and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed and issued a\u00a0norm classifying water footprint in the category of life cycle impact assessment [2]. In Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), all information regarding inputs and outputs is collected throughout the life cycle of the examined product system. In relation to the water footprint, it then finds the amount of water used or consumed during the life cycle. Subsequently, during the Life Cycle Impact Analyses (LCIA) phase, the determined quantity of used or consumed water is transferred via the so\u00ad\u2011called characterisation factors to the units expressing\u00a0the so\u00ad\u2011called \u2018\u2018midpoint\u2019\u2019 impact categories [3]. One of the factors commonly used for \u2018\u2018water consumption\u2019\u2019 characterisation is the Water Stress Index (WSI) [4]. However, there are many other characterisation factors [5]. Although the concept of Water Stress Index is commonly incorporated into leading LCA databases, it is criticised [6] in that it is a\u00a0synthetic measure based on the results of hydrological models with problematic physical expression, which do not differentiate between water sources (precipitation, groundwater, surface water).<\/p>\n\"ansorge-1\"<\/a>\n

Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of the water unavailability factor in terms of the required land area (reproduced with permission from: [7])
\nThis figure is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0).<\/h6>\n

In response to some of the deficits of the Water Stress Index, a\u00a0method was published in 2015 [7] which is based on the assessment of water sources renewability in the selected area. Unlike Water Stress Index (and other similar characterisation methods), this method does not use the value of water use in the selected area for constructing the characterisation factor, so situations cannot occur where water use is calculated \u2018\u2018twice\u2019\u2019 [6]. Other advantages of the method include the ability for spatial and temporal differentiation, as well as differentiation of various types of sources.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/h2>\n

Description of the tested method<\/h3>\n

The idea of a\u00a0characterisation factor built on the renewability of water sources is based on the assumption that the impact of the use of the unit amount of water is inversely proportional to the ability of the source to supply or substitute this amount. Precipitation is virtually the only water source. In a\u00a0catchment with water or precipitation scarcity, a\u00a0larger area or a\u00a0longer time must be available to create the desired amount of water. In other words, the potential impact can be expressed as a\u00a0catchment area or the time required to obtain a\u00a0unit amount of water from each water source. The characterisation factor is defined by equation 1.<\/p>\n\"ansorge-vzorec-1\"<\/a>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
where<\/td>\nfwuax,l<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\nis<\/td>\nthe characterisation factor of \u2018\u2018water unavailability\u2019\u2019 for a\u00a0source x<\/em> in a\u00a0location l<\/em>,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nAx,l<\/sub>\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe area required to obtain the unit amount of water at a\u00a0defined time from a\u00a0source x<\/em> in a\u00a0location l<\/em>,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nAref<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe area required to obtain the unit amount of water at a\u00a0defined time under reference conditions,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nTx,l<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe time required to obtain the unit amount of water from a\u00a0defined area from a\u00a0source x<\/em> in a\u00a0location l<\/em>,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n Tref<\/sub>\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe time required to obtain the unit amount of water from a\u00a0defined area under reference conditions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Factors Ax,l<\/sub><\/em> and Tx,l<\/sub> <\/em>are defined by equations 2 and 3.<\/p>\n\"ansorge-vzorec-2\"<\/a>\n\"ansorge-vzorec-3\"<\/a>\n\n\n\n\n\n
where<\/td>\nQA,ref<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\nis<\/td>\nthe reference water quantity per unit of time [m3<\/sup>\/year],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nQT,ref<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe reference water quantity per unit of area [m3<\/sup>\/m2<\/sup>],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n Px,l<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe annual capacity of a\u00a0water cycle to restore a\u00a0source x<\/em> in a\u00a0location l <\/em>[m\/year].<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Reference water quantity may have any value. To determine the reference value [7] the authors of the method proceed from the approximate global precipitation average per 1\u2008m2<\/sup> of the Earth\u2019s\u00a0surface, which is approximately 1\u2009000\u2008mm. They use this value to express the characterisation factor for precipitation as well as surface water and groundwater sources, explaining that all sources of fresh water come from precipitation. Therefore, they consider the global average precipitation value to be an appropriate indicator for weighing renewability of water sources (in this sense, fossil groundwater without the possibility of replenishment from precipitation, which does not occur in the Czech Republic anyway, is not considered a\u00a0renewable source). The resulting water footprint, determined by this method, is expressed in m3<\/sup> H2<\/sub>Oeq.<\/sub>, which can be physically interpreted as a\u00a0reference precipitation amount, and, in the case of using reference values proposed by the authors of the method, as the amount of average precipitation on the Earth.<\/p>\n

The total runoff can be considered as corresponding to natural recharge capabilities of groundwater from precipitation. The total runoff is composed of two components: direct and primary runoff. Direct runoff is formed from precipitation and primary runoff means the part of the total runoff which comes from groundwater sources. The amount of direct as well as primary runoff is defined by the hydrological cycle and can be considered as the theoretical maximum amount usable by society (note: this assumption neglects the requirement to maintain ecological flows, whether they are defined in any way; at the same time, however, it is not fundamentally contrary to the idea of grey water footprint [1]).<\/p>\n

Table 1. Example of water scarcity footprint calculation (source: [7])<\/h5>\n\"ansorge-tabulka-1\"<\/a>\n

With a\u00a0precipitation of 1000\u2008mm\/year, 1\u2008m2<\/sup> and 1 year is required to achieve the reference value of 1\u2008m3<\/sup>. The water unavailability factor fwua = <\/em>1.0. For an explanation of method application, let us consider a\u00a0catchment area of 1\u2008km2<\/sup>, precipitation of 500\u2008mm\/year, surface water runoff of 100\u2009000\u2008m3<\/sup>\/year and basic runoff 50\u2009000\u2008m3<\/sup>\/year. In this catchment with precipitation of 500\u2008mm\/year, either an area of 2\u2008m2<\/sup> or a\u00a0time of 2 years is required to achieve a\u00a0reference volume of 1\u2008m3<\/sup>. The characterisation factor of precipitation (p) fwuap<\/sub>=<\/em>\u00a01000\u2044500\u00a0=\u00a02. If the runoff level from the catchment is 100\u2008mm\/year (e.g. in a\u00a0catchment area of 1\u2008km2<\/sup> = 1 x 106 m2<\/sup>, 100\u2009000\u2008m3<\/sup> runoff in a\u00a0year), then the characterisation factor of surface water runoff (sw) fwuasw<\/sub>= <\/em>1000\u2044100 = 10. Similarly, the characterisation factor of groundwater (gw) fwuagw<\/sub>= <\/em>1000\u204450 = 20.<\/p>\n

The potential impact of water use in the catchment can then be calculated for each source by multiplying the sum of the usage of each resource by its characterisation factor according to equation 4.<\/p>\n\"ansorge-vzorec-4\"<\/a>\n\n\n\n\n\n
where<\/td>\nfwuaxl<\/sub>\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\nis<\/td>\nthe characterisation factor of \u2018\u2018water unavailability\u2019\u2019 for a\u00a0source x<\/em> in a\u00a0location l<\/em>,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nWSF\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe water scarcity footprint based on a\u00a0potential impact\u00a0 [m3<\/sup> H2<\/sub>Oeq.<\/sub>],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nWIx,l<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe result of the inventory analysis of water use based on water consumption in a\u00a0source x<\/em> in a\u00a0location l <\/em>[m3<\/sup>].<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

If for any product, service, institution or process at a\u00a0described catchment, 2.0\u2008m3<\/sup> of rainfall, 1.5\u2008m3<\/sup> of surface water and 0.5\u2008m3<\/sup> of groundwater is consumed, the water scarcity footprint is 44.0\u2008m3<\/sup> H2<\/sub>Oeq.<\/sub> (see Fig. 1 <\/em>and Table 1<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Characterisation factor values for third\u00ad\u2011order catchments<\/h3>\n

The characterisation factor value fwuasw<\/sub><\/em> from equation 5 can be easily obtained from data provided by the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute (CHMI). However, in the case of LCA studies, it often happens that a\u00a0large number of different water sources are used within the assessed life cycle, and obtaining data from CHMI would be rather expensive and time consuming. Therefore, \u00a0a\u00a0model approach was also tested to calculate characterisation factor fwuasw<\/sub><\/em> using hydrological characteristics of third\u00ad\u2011order catchments derived by the BILAN model. Detailed procedures of hydrological characteristic determination is stated in a\u00a02015 article [8]. Basic characteristics calculated using the BILAN model and used for processing the characterisation factor are the data on precipitation and total runoff related to the respective third\u00ad\u2011order sub\u00ad\u2011basin. For these characteristics, characterisation factor values fwuap<\/sub><\/em> and\u00a0fwuasw<\/sub><\/em> were calculated (Table 2<\/em>). As reference values for determining characterisation factors, a\u00a0precipitation value of 1000\u2008mm\/year per area of 1\u2008m2<\/sup> was used, i.e. the same values as the authors of the tested methodology used [7]. The choice of these reference values will allow direct comparisons with other studies using the same \u2018\u2018global\u2019\u2019 reference values.<\/p>\n

Table 2. Factor of water unavilibility (fwua) for watershed 3rd<\/sup> order and reference fwuaref<\/sub> = 1.0<\/h5>\n\"ansorge-tabulka-2\"<\/a>\n

When dealing with larger catchments, consisting of several third\u00ad\u2011order hydrological catchments, the value of the average characterization factor of the entire catchment \u00a0fw\u035eu\u035ea\u035e<\/em>sw<\/em>\u00a0<\/sub>is calculated according to equation 6. To compare the results obtained, 34 profiles with published hydrological data were selected [9]. The characterisation factor value fwuasw-CHMU<\/sub><\/em> from equation 5 was then determined from the available data of CHMI and compared with the calculated characterisation factor\u00a0 fw\u035eu\u035ea\u035e<\/em>sw<\/em>\u00a0<\/sub>in the case of a\u00a0composite catchment, or fwuasw<\/sub><\/em>.<\/p>\n\"ansorge-vzorec-5\"<\/a>\n\n\n\n\n\n
where<\/td>\nfwuasw-CHMU<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\nis<\/td>\nthe average characterisation factor of \u2018\u2018water unavailability\u2019\u2019 determined from CHMI data,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nQA<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe average flow through a\u00a0CHMI station [m3<\/sup>\/s],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nA<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe catchment area [km2.<\/sup>].\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\"ansorge-vzorec-6\"<\/a>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
where<\/td>\n\u00a0fw\u035eu\u035ea\u035esw<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\nis<\/td>\nthe average characterisation factor of \u2018\u2018water unavailability\u2019\u2019 of surface water,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nfwuasw<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe characterisation factor of \u2018\u2018water unavailability\u2019\u2019 of surface water in catchment l<\/em>,<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nQl<\/sub>\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe annual runoff from catchment l<\/em> [m3,<\/sup>],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nPl<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe annual runoff level from catchment l<\/em> [m],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nLl<\/sub>\u00a0<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nthe catchment area l<\/em> [m2<\/sup>],<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\nPref<\/sub><\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\nannual precipitation in reference conditions [m\/year].<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Power plant selection<\/h3>\n

Testing the method in the Czech Republic was based on information on the operational water consumption of selected Czech power plants. By permit analysis under Act no. 76\/2002 Coll. (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), the third\u00ad\u2011order catchments, which form a\u00a0catchment of a\u00a0power plant, were identified for each power plant (see Table 3<\/em>). For each catchment of the power plant which is formed by two and more third\u00ad\u2011order catchments, an \u2018\u2018average\u2019\u2019 characterisation factor value \u00a0fw\u035eu\u035ea\u035e<\/em>sw<\/em>\u00a0<\/sub>was determined according to equation 6.<\/p>\n

Table 3. Water scarcity footprint of Energy units (only power generation proces without downstream and upstream processes)<\/h5>\n\"ansorge-tabulka-3\"<\/a>\n

To evaluate the water footprint of power plants, the data on electricity and heat production in selected power plants were used, for which data were available on water consumption for electricity and heat production between 2004 and 2013 (see Table 3<\/em>). Detailed information on the method of data processing can be found in a\u00a02016 article [10].<\/p>\n

Results<\/h2>\n

In the first part of our analysis, the values of calculated characterisation factors for third\u00ad\u2011order catchments were compared with the values calculated directly from the data for specific profiles of CHMI. As indicated in Table 4<\/em>, in 16 out of 35 profiles (46%) the differences between determined characterisation factors were up to \u00b110%. In other 8 profiles (23%), the difference of factor values ranges between \u00b110% and \u00b115%. Unfortunately, in four cases (11%) the difference is bigger than 25%.<\/p>\n

However, the aim of this article is not testing the results of the hydrological model, but the description of possible applications of characterisation factor for assessment in the context of LCA studies. It can only be pointed out to future processors of LCA studies that using model outputs within the comprehensive evaluation of the LCA type is generally possible (and sometimes even necessary), but it is always vital to both verify and validate the data used and the results achieved. A\u00a0probable explanation for high differences in some catchments lies in uncertainties with water use, because the modelled values correspond to the \u2018\u2018natural\u2019\u2019 state, while the CHMI values are based on measured values and are therefore influenced by current water use.<\/p>\n

The second part of our analysis dealt with the determination of the water footprint of selected power plants (see Table 3<\/em>). The expected results were confirmed: the water footprint of power plants with once\u00ad\u2011through cooling is generally lower than the water footprint of operations with recirculation cooling. The situation in both nuclear power plants suggests the importance of LCA evaluation. Although the specific consumption of both nuclear power plants is similar (1.979 or 2.079), the impact of electricity production in both plants is significantly different (7.48 or 11.74\u2008m3<\/sup> H2<\/sub>Oeq.<\/sub>\/MWh). Simply put, we can say that in the process of 1 MWh of power production in the Dukovany power plant, 11.74\u2008m3<\/sup> of reference quantity of water is needed, which was determined as \u2018\u2018global average precipitation\u2019\u2019, while at the Temel\u00edn power plant it is only 7.48\u2008m3<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Table 4. Comparison of values of characterisation factor of Czech Hydromet. Institute profiles computed from characteristics of profiles and characteristics of catchment<\/h5>\n\"ansorge-tabulka-4\"<\/a>\n

This is due to the fact that the Dukovany nuclear power plant lies on less water flow with a\u00a0smaller catchment and lower runoff level. Therefore, although its specific water consumption for production of 1 MWh of power is only 105% of Temel\u00edn\u2019s\u00a0specific consumption, the water footprint of the process of 1 MWh of electricity and heat production is about 57.0% higher than the water footprint of the process of electricity and heat production in the Temel\u00edn nuclear power plant. It is important to realize, however, that these ratios apply only to the electricity and heat production sub\u00ad\u2011process itself in a\u00a0power plant. In regard to the fact that when testing the method, the water footprint of other processes within the life cycle was not determined (extraction of primary raw materials, their processing, transport, spent fuel management, distribution of produced power, etc.), these ratios cannot be related to the whole life cycle of both power plants.<\/p>\n

The water footprint of the tested plants is then based on the amount of power produced and is expressed in m3<\/sup> H2<\/sub>Oeq.<\/sub>\/year. The value thus obtained is, in layman\u2019s\u00a0terms, the amount of \u2018\u2018global average precipitation\u2019\u2019 which are \u2018\u2018consumed\u2019\u2019 in power plants per year. Again, it should be noted that this is only a\u00a0one sub\u00ad\u2011part of water footprint, which is related only to the process of energy production itself in a\u00a0power \/ heat plant, i.e. it is not the value of the water footprint of the entire life cycle of electricity and heat production in these power plants.<\/p>\n

Discussion<\/h2>\n

The tested method proved easy to use. For local LCA studies, it is possible to use average precipitation in the Czech Republic as a\u00a0reference quantity instead of \u2018\u2018global\u2019\u2019 precipitation. Using the average precipitation in the Czech Republic is recommended, especially for applications with a\u00a0shorter time step, in monthly steps for example, when it is possible to consider real monthly precipitation as a\u00a0reference, while in the case of \u2018\u2018global\u2019\u2019 precipitation, 1\/12 of the annual global precipitation can be used.<\/p>\n

The authors of the method also assume that all water is available for use, which of course is only a\u00a0theoretical assumption. In real conditions, it is not possible to use either all precipitation or the entire runoff from a\u00a0catchment. From the perspective of application use, it is not a\u00a0major problem, for example for surface runoff to subtract \u2018\u2018minimal residual flow\u2019\u2019 or otherwise defined \u2018\u2018ecological flow\u2019\u2019. In the case of groundwater and precipitation, however, this construction is not so clear. Moreover, by such extension a\u00a0certain elegance of the proposed concept and the independence of the concept on subjective decision\u00ad\u2011making is lost, since the decision about \u2018\u2018what will be subtracted\u2019\u2019 is a\u00a0subjective decision by the study investigator.<\/p>\n

The principle of the method shows that the method is not entirely suitable for some applications, for example deciding on the impact on the availability of local water sources in different locations, since the results of the characterisation model are only linked indirectly to the actual water availability at the assessed location.<\/p>\n

The data presented also do not include water loss by evaporation from reservoirs which are a\u00a0part of water management of the individual power plants. In the case of Temel\u00edn nuclear power plant, the loss by evaporation from Hn\u011bvkovice reservoir is approximately 7% of the difference between withdrawal and discharge for the power plant. In the case of Dukovany nuclear power plant, evaporation from Dale\u0161ice – Mohelno reservoir is even around 14%. The different localisation of withdrawals and discharges was neglected for this testing purpose. It can play important role in real application of tested method. For example, nuclear power plant Temel\u00edn draws water from catchment 1-06-03 but discharges waste water to the catchment 1-07-05. These two catchments have the different hydrological condition and (of course) different value of characterization factor. In real study have to be withdrawals from catchment 1-06-03 calculated as losses and discharges to catchment 1-07-05 as gains with different values of characterization factor.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n

A\u00a0characterization model based on the renewability of water sources has proved to be a\u00a0readily usable tool, enabling the use both of data obtained by measuring (or derived from it) and the results of mathematical models. To facilitate the application of the method in practice, a\u00a0table of characterisation factors of precipitation and total runoff for individual third\u00ad\u2011order catchments was prepared. The testing showed that in the case of the input data from mathematical models, validation and verification of this data is important since for some catchments the results have an error exceeding \u00b110\u201315\u2005%. Specific applications in selected 32 power and heat plants showed that the water footprint in terms of life cycle assessment is lower in plants with once\u00ad\u2011through cooling as compared to plants with recirculation cooling.<\/p>\n

The tested method does not address current use of water sources and assumes that the entire runoff is available to users. The tested method also does not address the issue of water degradation, the effect on ecosystems and on humans. For such life cycle impact assessment, it is necessary to use other characterisation methods. The results obtained using the tested method can be described only as water scarcity footprint.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgements<\/h3>\n

The article was written within the project QJ1520322 \u2018\u2018Procedures for compilation and verification of a\u00a0water footprint in accordance with international standards\u2019\u2019 addressed with financial support from the Ministry of Agriculture (Program zem\u011bd\u011blsk\u00e9ho aplikovan\u00e9ho v\u00fdzkumu a\u00a0experiment\u00e1ln\u00edho v\u00fdvoje Komplexn\u00ed udr\u017eiteln\u00e9 syst\u00e9my v\u00a0zem\u011bd\u011blstv\u00ed 2012-2018 \u201cKUS\u201c \/ Programme of agricultural applied research and experimental development Complex sustainable systems in agriculture 2012\u20132018). Characteristics of the third\u00ad<\/em>\u2011<\/em>order catchments calculated by the BILAN model generated under the project Strategy for protection against negative impacts of floods and erosion phenomena of nature\u00ad<\/em>\u2011<\/em>friendly measures in the Czech Republic, which is co\u00ad<\/em>\u2011<\/em>financed by the European Union\u00a0\u2013 the European Regional Development Fund, the State Environmental Fund and the Czech Ministry of Environment under the Operational Programme Environment. The data on the operational water consumption in thermal power plants and heat plants were prepared within the project TD020113 \u2018\u2018Impacts of socio\u00ad<\/em>\u2011<\/em>economic changes in society on water consumption\u2019\u2019 addressed with financial support from the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic within the programme.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following article summarises the results of testing a method for the characterisation of water use in the system of life cycle assessment in the Czech Republic. The chosen method allows for robust expression of water use in the equivalent values of the reference system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":2674,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[91],"tags":[648,651,647,650,646,649],"coauthors":[399],"class_list":["post-2697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-applied-ecology","tag-characterisation-factor","tag-heat-plant","tag-life-cycle-impact-assessment","tag-power-plant","tag-water-footprint","tag-water-scarcity"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2697"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30363,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2697\/revisions\/30363"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2697"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.vtei.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}