Use of the Life Cycle Approach for the Evaluation of Industrial Water Management Alternatives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In a context of more and more stress on the water resource, the industries are pushed to improve their water efficiency. Water management must reconcile legal requirements with technical and environmental performances to ensure that one does not compromise the other. Therefore, a fundamental question arises: What are the environmental impacts associated with different industrial water management alternatives? To address this inquiry, this research conducts a case study, analyzing different water management alternatives using a Life Cycle Analysis approach. A Combined Cycle Power Plant was chosen due to its simplicity and significance in terms of water use. The scenarios compared are based on the functional unit "managing water necessary to produce 1 MWh of electricity". Only water treatment associated structure, energy and chemicals to fulfill the defined functional unit were considered. Three distinct water recovery systems were analyzed and subsequently combined with different water supply and release options. Zero-recovery scenario, representing base case; partial recovery scenario through reverse osmosis, and total recovery scenario under Zero Liquid Discharge, in which thermo-distillation is applied. Furthermore, all scenarios were virtually reassigned to another water-scarce context for a more comprehensive geographical sensitivity analysis. In this research a Life Cycle Analysis was performed. Results are presented as carbon footprint (in CO2-eq) and water footprint (in m3 world-eq using AWARE) as mid-point indicators. A damage assessment has also been conducted to evaluate the relative contribution of global warming potential and water scarcity relative on Human Health and Ecosystem Quality Areas of Protection, among the contribution of all other midpoint impact categories. Withdrawn and released water volumes decrease with higher recovery rates while water consumption remains unaltered. Thus, the water footprint, based on freshwater consumption, substantially changes with different recovery rates only if non-freshwater resource is involved. CO2-equivalent emissions are caused mainly due to natural gas burned to produce the required electricity. Human health impacts are primarily dominated by global warming potential in non-water-scarce or highly developed countries. In this aspect, lower energy intensive water treatment routes should be prioritized over freshwater savings. However, the water scarcity footprint impacts dominate human health impacts for scarce and less developed countries. Thus, freshwater savings become important in those cases. Ecosystem quality exhibits lower geographical variation compared to human health impacts, and the differences between scenarios are dominated by global warming potential variation. Recycling does not necessarily lead to lower water scarcity footprints and can result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. It is crucial to consider the water scarcity context and trade-offs before making decisions about water management. Legislation based solely on water withdrawal and release volumes may lead to undesirable environmental impacts, beyond not ensuring water savings. Nevertheless, when debating water management options, the present work aims to facilitate informed decision-making regarding potential environmental impacts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».