ライフサイエンスコーパス: carbon footprint

1 d its use can offset a wastewater facility's carbon footprint.

2 plished cleanly in all respects and with low carbon footprint.

3 environmental impact, and in particular, its carbon footprint.

4 , renewable process which reduces subsequent carbon footprints.

5 ds (0.153 kWh); and also achieved a negative carbon footprint (72.6 g CO2).

6 For some crops a trade-off between the carbon footprint and the induced water stress is observe

7 indicators were considered: embodied energy, carbon footprint, and eutrophication potential.

8 nmental pressures (greenhouse gas emissions: carbon footprint; appropriation of biologically producti

9 d to reduce the uncertainty in natural gas's carbon footprint, but understanding system-level climate

10 , commonly referred to with the popular term carbon footprints (CFP), are a widely used metric of cli

11 nt environmental, health, energy, water, and carbon-footprint consequences.

12 rce of CO2, dedicated wells, has the largest carbon footprint further confounding prospects for ratio

13 reenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and reduce the carbon footprint generated by animal production.

14 s that were used to derive average household carbon footprints (HCF) for U.S. zip codes, cities, coun

15 rce recovery in terms of embodied energy and carbon footprint; however, the community scale was shown

16 ocally is only a good strategy to reduce the carbon footprint if no greenhouse heating with fossil fu

17 cities ( approximately 40 tCO2e) and higher carbon footprints in outlying suburbs ( approximately 50

18 In such situations, carbon footprint is a poor representative of the environ

19 A carbon footprint is the sum of greenhouse gas emissions

20 ribution to global greenhouse gas emissions (carbon footprint) is considerably higher than traditiona

21 mass is a potential source of renewable, low-carbon-footprint liquid fuels.

22 the energy embedded in the microalgae with a carbon footprint of 0.74-1.67 kg of CO2/kg of microalgae

23 Our results estimate a nuclear carbon footprint of 21.30 gCO2e/kWh, of which 89% comes

24 First, we estimate the carbon footprint of a hypothetical nuclear facility in S

25 ce a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis of the carbon footprint of both shale and conventional natural

26 analysis is increasingly used to assess the carbon footprint of final consumption.

27 tprint represents less than 25% of the total carbon footprint of gas, the efficiency of producing hea

28 n the process of estimating and modeling the carbon footprint of healthcare.

29 rners are responsible for 36% of the current carbon footprint of households; the discourse should add

30 The average per-capita carbon footprint of infrastructures in industrialized co

31 impacts of Marcellus gas and U.S. coal: The carbon footprint of Marcellus gas is 53% (80% CI: 44-61%

32 The energy requirement and associated carbon footprint of microalgae harvesting reported here

33 In this study, we estimate the carbon footprint of operating theatres in hospitals in t

34 e, the upper bound estimate of the lifecycle carbon footprint of shale gas in China could be approxim

35 We find the mean lifecycle carbon footprint of shale gas is about 30-50% lower than

36 The point at which the higher carbon footprint of some nutrient-dense foods is offset

37 Overall, the carbon footprint of surgery in the three countries studi

38 Here, we estimated the carbon footprint of the existing global infrastructure s

39 ation sites can be minimized, decreasing the carbon footprint of the treatment technology.

40 There are strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of using natural gas for MHDVs, ranging

41 cal suites studied were found to have annual carbon footprints of 5 187 936 kg of CO2 equivalents (CO

42 In this study, we analyze the carbon footprints of the residents living in new housing

43 e results show that the most likely upstream carbon footprints of these types of natural gas producti

44 icient process, leaving very little, if any, carbon footprint or byproducts.

45 The results indicate that energy use and carbon footprint per cubic meter of wastewater treated,

46 or energy cost and energy consumption (e.g., carbon footprint) reduction on system performance at two

47 found that UF generated meagre food-related carbon footprint reductions (1.1-2.9% of baseline 2211 k

48 size, composition, and location of household carbon footprints suggest the need for tailoring of gree

49 y embodied or captured, and by exploring the carbon footprint throughout an energy-intensive activate

50 The smallest carbon footprints were found in newly built outer and pe

51 e potential for firms to lower their overall carbon footprints while improving customer satisfaction