2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The life-cycle water footprint of two hydropower projects in Norway

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
23
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
23
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In ref. the water losses were distributed based on energy production (MWh) and installed capacity (MW), depending on availability of data. Lampert et al also allocated all the losses to the plant closest to the reservoir, but made a clear statement than other plants benefitted from the regulation (but received no water consumption).…”
Section: Dilemmas Related To the Applied Methodologymentioning
confidence: 97%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In ref. the water losses were distributed based on energy production (MWh) and installed capacity (MW), depending on availability of data. Lampert et al also allocated all the losses to the plant closest to the reservoir, but made a clear statement than other plants benefitted from the regulation (but received no water consumption).…”
Section: Dilemmas Related To the Applied Methodologymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This is in line with the findings by Herath et al, which reported the net water consumption to be in the range 45%–60% of the gross rates. Bakken found this ratio to be much smaller and the net rates were less than 2.5% of the gross values.…”
Section: Dilemmas Related To the Applied Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations