As both the human population and living standards grow, so does the worldwide electricity demand. However, the power sector is also one of the biggest environmental polluters. Therefore, options are currently being sought aimed at reducing environmental impacts, one of the potential tools for which concerns the use of life cycle assessment. This study, therefore, focuses on the most commonly used nonrenewable (black coal, lignite, natural gas and nuclear) and renewable sources (wind, hydro and photovoltaic) in the Czech Republic in terms of their construction, operation, and decommissioning periods. Environmental impacts are assessed via the use of selected impact categories by way of product environmental footprint methodology. The results highlight the potential environmental impacts associated with electricity generation for each of the primary energy sources. Black coal and lignite power plants were found to contribute most to the global warming, resource use, energy carriers and respiratory inorganics categories. On the other hand, the impact on water depletion and resource use, mineral and metals categories were found to be most significantly affected by the production of electricity from photovoltaic power plants. Finally, it is proposed that the results be employed to design scenarios for the future energy mix.

Today, packaging is an integral part of most foods and beverages. However, excessive and just one-time applications of packaging can bring about indisputable environmental impacts in the form of large amounts of waste generated. If we want to monitor the environmental impacts of packaging materials, it is advisable to assess them in a complex way including not only the specific packaging but also specific products. No universal methodology currently exists that would enable this type of complex assessment regarding the environmental impacts of packaging in relation to particular products. Therefore, the aim of our study was to develop and test a Package-to-Product (PtP) indicator. For this purpose, the life cycle assessment (LCA) was employed to analyse four selected products considering different life cycle stages of packaging and their impacts on the climate change category. The results of the study confirm that the values of the PtP indicator significantly differ for various products, thus emphasising the need to establish a uniform methodology for individual product groups, such as meat, dairy and vegetable products or beverages. The application of this indicator, however, enables a clear impact assessment of different packaging materials and allows the packaging manufacturers to reduce their overall environmental impacts.

Alternative wastewater treatment (WWT) technologies with lower environmental impacts seem to be the way forward in the pursuit of sustainable wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Process modelling of material and energy flows together with life-cycle assessment (LCA) can help to better understand these impacts and show the right direction for their development. Here, we apply this combined approach to three scenarios: conventional WWT; conventional WWT + chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT); conventional WWT + CEPT + side stream partial nitritation/anammox (PN/A). For each scenario, equations were developed to calculate chemical oxygen demand and nitrogen flow (solid and dissolved form) through the WWTP and to estimate the energy demands of its unit operations. LCA showed that the main environmental impact categories for all scenarios were global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication potential (EP) and marine aquatic eco-toxicity potential (MAETP). Compared with conventional WWT, CEPT and CEPT combined with PN/A resulted in a higher sum of normalized and weighed environmental indicators, by 19.5% and 16.4%, respectively (20.0% and 18.3% including biogenic carbon). Interestingly, the environmentally positive features of the alternative scenarios were often traded-off against other increased negative impacts. This suggests that further development is needed to consider these technologies a sustainable alternative.

The environmental impacts of buildings are based on the construction products, which together with their packaging can be assessed as one product system. To reduce the environmental impacts of buildings, the products and their packaging need to be optimised and analysed using environmental assessment. The purpose of this study is to assess the packaging related to the product according to the Life Cycle Assessment method. The environmental assessment was performed using the Product Environmental Footprint methodology, version 3.0. To compare the primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging, the results of the climate change indicator were used as a base to calculate the Package-to-Product (PtP) indicator. Among the considered scenarios to handle the waste packaging (landfilling scenario, material recovery scenario, energy recovery scenario, and the mixed scenario), the material recovery scenario is the most preferable and, for most of the packaging materials, the scenario with the lowest impact. Following the PtP result, the secondary packaging in the roof tile system has a significant share of the impact of the whole system (16% for the energy recovery scenario). Moreover, the results confirm the PtP indicator as the appropriate indicator to analyse the environmental impacts of construction products.

Environmental impacts of various types of energy production are compared in the scope of an ongoing national research project “Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Production”. The project is using the LCA method to compare the potential environmental impacts of selected energy sources throughout their whole life cycle. The energy sources are representative for the energy grid of the Czech Republic. The inventory data used for the LCA are based on case studies of selected Czech power plants. Presented article is showing the preliminary results – the comparison of environmental impacts of two electricity sources. Lignite power plant and a hydroelectric power plant are compared. Only the impacts of plant operation are compared so far, the construction and decommissioning are not included in the current analysis.