A Report on Sustainable Systems

This report compares the sustainability of steel and plastic cloth hangers using GaBi software for life cycle assessment. The report analyzes the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the two alternatives. The best alternative is found to be the steel hanger.

A Report on Sustainable Systems
Institution:
Student:

Contents
1. SHOPPING BAGS LIFE CYLCLE ASSEMENT REPORT................................................3
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................................4
Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi..............................................................................................5
Conclusion................................................................................................................................10
References................................................................................................................................10
2. A REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS......................................................13
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................13
Introduction..............................................................................................................................14
Cost Benefit Analysis...............................................................................................................14
Conclusion................................................................................................................................15
References................................................................................................................................16

LIFE CYLCLE ASSEMENT
Executive Summary
Assessment of the lifecycle of a product revolves around the evaluations that are done on the
inputs and the outputs to investigate the possible effects that a product have on the life of its
consumers, the environment and the entire social aspects (Ban, et al., 2012). The assessment
is done during the stage of developing or improving, policy making regarding the
manufacturing and finally at the implementation or consumption stage. There are numerous
softwares that are capable of doing such analysis. However, for this report, we use the GaBi
software (Battarbee & Binney, 2008). This a software certified by ISO and is meant for
improving environment conservation and management (Bulakho & Gasso, 2008).
For Gabi Analysis, the inputs are the raw materials used in the manufacturing prices. The
outputs on the other hand include the emissions and the bi-products (Chau, et al., 2015). The
assessment include the assembly process as well. The final stage of the assessment is the time
of disposal or the retirement stage (Christensen, 2010).
Assessment using GaBi demonstrates that the two alternative have diverse effects in the
environment and to the health of the users as well (Connolly, et al., 2014). However, the
results demonstrates the best alternative, that which has little effects and hence can be
considered to be sustainable in the long run (Curran & Marry, 2012).
We can discuss each of the alternative at a time. The production of steel cloth hang is
evidently expensive resulting into a relatively expensive hanger at the end of the day
compared to the plastic counterpart. However, the steel hanger is relatively strong and
durable hence can stay for long. This implies that one does not have to have frequent
purchase of this product. Arguably, this implies that in the long run, it is economically
sustainable (Das, et al., 2011).

A steel hanger does not have dangerous emissions into the atmosphere during the production
process (De, et al., 2013). This implies that it is arguably environmentally friendly and
sustainable. They do not have dangerous effects to the life of plants.
A plastic hanger on the hand have emissions into the atmosphere resulting from the
decomposition of the hydrocarbons (Dehnen, 2011). While these emission might improve the
life of plants by providing carbon dioxide, they are only sustainable up to a certain level
beyond which they become toxic and non-sustainable (Diadchenko & Kovalenko, 2008).
Therefore, we could argue that long term production of plastic hangers could cause serous
dangerous effects into the atmosphere. This could eventually result into the depletion of the
ozone layer and hence climate change. Climate change could again have diverse effects on
the life of plants hence thwarting the going green agenda (Dosmukhamedov, 2014). Plastic
hangers are not bio- degradable and hence could cause degradation on the fertility of the soil.
This implies that they are not really sustainable.
Given the above insights, it is prudent to say that the best alternative is the steel hanger. Steel
hanger is more sustainable compared to the plastic counterpart (Eleazer, et al., 2012).
Introduction
The purpose of this report is provide an alternative of the best cloth hanger that is sustainable
for use in the long run. This is done by comparing two alternatives of cloth hangers, the
plastic and the steel hanger. The bottom line of this assessment is on the environment effects,
the economic sustainability as well as the social sustainability (Fan, et al., 2011). The
assessment is done in a cycle of the product’s lifetime right from the raw materials to the
retirement or the disposal.

The service required is a suitable hanger for use in hanging cloths efficiently, a hanger that is
cost effective, socially responsible and environmentally responsible. We look for product that
is eco- friendly and is environmentally sustainable (Frano, 2009).
GaBi program software will be used for analysis. The inputs are the raw materials used in the
manufacturing prices (Gehrer, et al., 2014). The outputs on the other hand include the
emissions and the bi-products. The assessment include the assembly process as well. The
final stage of the assessment is the time of disposal or the retirement stage.
GaBi is an ISO certified software. As such, it follows a procedure that is recommended by the
ISO in the life cycle analysis. The recommended procedure by ISO is outlined in the diagram
below

Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi
The process of analysis is as simple as indicated by the screen shots. In a nutshell, the process
involves definition of scope, inventory analysis and finally evaluation of the impact. This
implies that the assessment is actually an iterative process repeating again and again in order
to achieve the desired outcome (Goverdhan & Saikat, 2010)
Raw materials required for the manufacture of one piece of each of the alternatives is given
below.
Alternative Materials Needed Approximate Amount
Plastic hanger 1. HDPE Plastic
2. Water
3. Polyvinyl
1. 90grams
2. 60milllitres
3. 150millitres
Steel Hanger 1. Steel
2. Water
3. Electricity
4. Resins
1. 123grams
2. 40 millilitres
3. 657kw
4. 56 grams
The following output was obtained from the step by step analysis using GaBi.
GaBi Software screenshot results

Step 1 activating the software
Step 2 creating a project

Step 3 Creating Plans
Step 4 Adding Processes

Step 5 Adding flows
Step 6 Final plan

Step 7 Balance Check

Conclusion
The above results shows the outcome of the impact analysis of the production and use of the
metallic (steel) and plastic cloth hangers (Litvinova & Kosulina, 2009). The results have been
produced in a GaBi software. From the results above, it is clears that the two alternative have
diverse effects in the environment and to the health of the users as well. However, the results
demonstrates the best alternative, that which has little effects and hence can be considered to
be sustainable in the long run (Lopez, et al., 2014).
We can discuss each of the alternative at a time. The production of steel cloth hang is
evidently expensive resulting into a relatively expensive hanger at the end of the day
compared to the plastic counterpart. However, the steel hanger is relatively strong and
durable hence can stay for long. This implies that one does not have to have frequent

purchase of this product. Arguably, this implies that in the long run, it is economically
sustainable (Madgin, 2010).
A steel hanger does not have dangerous emissions into the atmosphere during the production
process. This implies that it is arguably environmentally friendly and sustainable. They do
not have dangerous effects to the life of plants (Meyers, 2012).
A plastic hanger on the hand have emissions into the atmosphere resulting from the
decomposition of the hydrocarbons (Mizgirev, 2015). While these emission might improve
the life of plants by providing carbon dioxide, they are only sustainable up to a certain level
beyond which they become toxic and non-sustainable (Muthu & Senthilkannan, 2015).
Therefore, we could argue that long term production of plastic hangers could cause serous
dangerous effects into the atmosphere. This could eventually result into the depletion of the
ozone layer and hence climate change. Climate change could again have diverse effects on
the life of plants hence thwarting the going green agenda. Plastic hangers are not bio-
degradable and hence could cause degradation on the fertility of the soil (Poul, 2009). This
implies that they are not really sustainable.
Given the above insights, it is prudent to say that the best alternative is the steel hanger. Steel
hanger is more sustainable compared to the plastic counterpart.

References
Ban, et al., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of
renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p.
10.
Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming ||
Holocene Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Bulakho, V. L. & Gasso, V. Y., 2008. Role of Amphibians and Reptiles in Creation of an
Ecologiccal Buffer Against Technogenic Pollution. Volume 02, p. 4.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life
Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings.
Journal of Appied Energy, Volume 143, p. 19.
Christensen, T. T., 2010. Solid Waste Technology & Management (Christensen/Solid Waste
Technology & Management) || Introduction to Waste Management. Volume 10, p. 16.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable
transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system.
Journal of Energy, 73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally
Sustainable Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and
Packaging Optimization - Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle
Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.
Das, K., Dey, U. & Bhaumik, R., 2011. A comparative study of lichen Biochemistry and air
pollution status of urban, semi urban and industrial area of hooghly and burdwan distric, west
bengal. Volume 7, p. 13.
Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's
atmosphere. Volume 153, p. 15.
De, P. P., Wcquier, William & Cool, W., 2013. Level Radioactive Waste Management; Spent
Fuel, Fissile Material, Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste Management - The
Belgian Program for Low and Intermediate Short Lived Waste Management: From 1985 to
License Application. Volume 01, p. 09.
Diadchenko, O. & Kovalenko, L., 2008. Estimation of Atmospheric air Pollution Extent on
City Highways by Vehicles with Account of Traffic management. Volume 01, p. 04.
Dosmukhamedov, N. K., 2014. Choice and Justification of the Initial Charge in Processing
Middlings, Recycled Materials and Slag Lead Production. Volume 67, p. 3.

Eleazer, P. R., Lisa, M. C., Maark, A. W. & Andres, F. C., 2012. Comparison of algae
cultivation methods for bioenergy production using a combined life cycle assessment and life
cycle costing approach. Volume 126, p. 9.
Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for
environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang,
China. 180(107), p. 9.
Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier.
Journal of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.
Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production
chain of oil-rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09,
p. 9.
Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated
Environment. 20(10), p. 1.
Litvinova, T. & Kosulina, T., 2009. Recycling of Oil and Gas Complex Solid Wastes.
Volume 10, p. 1.
Lopez, et al., 2014. Assessing changes on poly(ethylene terephthalate) properties after
recycling: Mechanical recycling in laboratory versus postconsumer recycled material.
Volume 147, p. 11.
Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and
regeneration in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives,
25(10), p. 20.
Meyers, R. A., 2012. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology || Solid Waste
solid waste Disposal solid waste disposal and Recycling solid waste recycling , Introduction.
Volume 3, p. 1472.
Mizgirev, D. S., 2015. The concept of improving environmental engineering systems for
integrated waste management ships (IWMS). Volume 01, p. 4.
Muthu, S. & Senthilkannan, 2015. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and
Processes] Environmental Implications of Recycling and Recycled Products || Recycled
Paper from Wastes: Calculation of Ecological Footprint of an Energy-Intensive Industrial
Unit in Orissa, India. Volume 287, p. 24.
Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable
energy integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.
Raban, K., 2009. Substantiation of necessity of performing regular monitoring researches of
the Azov sea water Pollution By Oil Products. Volume 10, p. 03.

Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare
system optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.
Seong, R. L., Donghee, P. & Jong, M. P., 2008. Analysis of effects of an objective function
on environmental and economic performance of a water network system using life cycle
assessment and life cycle costing methods. Volume 144, p. 11.
Simone, M. & Rana, P., 2013. Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste
management with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Volume 18, p.
7.
Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the
carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.
Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe"
(Denmark) Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.
Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high
concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.
Trogl, H. P. & Bravdyova, T., 2012. Comparison of compatibility of study programs Waste
management (J. E. pukyně university in ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) and
Ecobiotechnology (knrtu, Kazan, Russia). Volume 15, p. 04.
Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions
and life cycle impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle
assessment. 36(109), p. 7.
Voloschynska, S. S., 2008. Bioindication of the Heavy Metals Environmental Pollution.
Volume 02, p. 05.
Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable
energies in China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.

2. A REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
Executive Summary
Energy efficiency is the ability of a product to responsibly consume energy while offering the
service to the consumers while maintaining the friendly eco- systems and sustainability. We
look at a florescent tube in our scenario. This is a product that is used both at home and at the
offices (Poul, 2009). We evaluate the rate of energy consumption, the sources of energy as
well as their effects to the social aspects of the consumers, the economic aspects as well as
the contribution towards the going green agenda and climate change at large (Raban, 2009).
The level of efficiency has been investigated based on the relative costs involved in the life
cycle of a fluorescent tube, the benefits associated as well as its sustainability.
The cost benefits analysis has been done over a period of three years. This has been done by
comparing the benefits against the associated costs involved in manufacturing, distributing
and using a standard fluorescent tube (Sarancha, et al., 2014). The overall outcome is that the
tube does not produce dangerous gases such as carbon into the atmosphere. Therefore, it
implies that the tube does not contribute a lot towards the global warning and climate change.

The costs associated with the use of a fluorescent tube is projected to be more than the
benefits in a period of 3 years. This is an indication that this product may not be economically
sustainable in the long run. Therefore, the use could be based on other aspects such as the
social aspects and the contribution towards the going green agenda. The tube however does
not release dangerous gases into the atmosphere, hence it may be environmentally sustainable
in the long run. Similarly, the use of this tube does not cause soil pollution. However, the
tubes are not biodegradable. Therefore, the decision to use this tube can be based purely on
the social and environmental sustainability and not economic sustainability.
Introduction
In this efficiency analysis, the aim is to solve a problem of investigating the possible impacts
of the use of a fluorescent tube to the lives of the users and the environment. We aim at
finding out the benefits associated with the use of a fluorescent tube and comparing this to the
costs that are involved in the use of a tube. As much as the tube can be used for both home
and office lighting, our aim is to actually focus on the tube for home lighting. We evaluate
the suitable ways of reducing environmental effects of the use of this product at home. We
then provide recommendations on the best practices associated with this product and finally a
verdict on whether it is really sustainable for the environment. (Battarbee & Binney, 2008).
The major source of energy for the tube is electricity. Other sources of energy include coal,
biomass, wind and solar energy. However, for this analysis, we consider the electricity as the
major source of energy.

Three Years Cost Benefit Analysis for a Fluorescent tube
Cost benefits analysis involve gathering important relevant information about the products
costs and benefits. These information’s are then assigned currencies. Using a suitable
discount rate, these values are compared over a three years period (Suroviatkina &
Semenova, 2014). The costs under consideration in this case include the purchase price, the
maintenance cost and the cost of power (Trogl & Bravdyova, 2012). The benefits on the other
hand include the efficiency that is derived from the use of this tube. We do this by first
looking at some of the relevant information about the tube.
Relevant information: The information we are interested at include the rate of consumption
of energy, the associated price of purchase, the emissions into the atmosphere and also other
contribution towards the going green agenda (Meyers, 2012).The approximate rate of power
consumption of a fluorescent tube is 675 KW in one month (Poul, 2009). The cost of
purchasing a tube is approximately $32. The maintained cost would mean replacing the
starters or electrification issues, at approximately $2. The cost of installation is approximately
$4. This brings the total cost associated to be $38. The cost of electricity is approximately
$300 per month (Seong, et al., 2008). Therefore, the total cost of purchase and other costs
becomes $338. The approximated benefits associated amount to $297.
Organization that promotes energy efficiency in Australia is the Energy efficiency council
which promotes measures that would ensure there is efficiency of energy use (Simone &
Rana, 2013). The location is selected to be Byron Bay (151° 12' 35.6400'' E) using the New
South Wales selection guide.
Reducing energy consumption by a fluorescent tube can be ensured by adopting and
practicing various energy saving practices such as switching the light off whenever they are

not necessary. Similar, we could seek advice from experts on the best ways possible to reduce
the consumption by buying the best made tubes that are energy saving (Simon, et al., 2008).
The following cost benefits analysis shows a 3 years analysis at 1.5% rate of discount as per
the rate by the central bank of Australia. The outcome is shown in the figure below.
A Simple 3 Year Cost Benefits Analysis
Benefits 297 310.5665
Costs 338 353.4393
Conclusion
The costs associated with the use of a fluorescent tube is projected to be more than the
benefits in a period of 3 years. This is an indication that this product may not be economically
sustainable in the long run (Surviatkina, 2008). Therefore, the use could be based on other
aspects such as the social aspects and the contribution towards the going green agenda. The
tube however does not release dangerous gases into the atmosphere, hence it may be
environmentally sustainable in the long run (Veronica, et al., 2011). Similarly, the use of this
tube does not cause soil pollution (Voloschynska, 2008). However, the tubes are not
biodegradable. Therefore, the decision to use this tube can be based purely on the social and
environmental sustainability and not economic sustainability (Xiliang, et al., 2010).

References
Ban, et al., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of
renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p.
10.
Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming ||
Holocene Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Bulakho, V. L. & Gasso, V. Y., 2008. Role of Amphibians and Reptiles in Creation of an
Ecologiccal Buffer Against Technogenic Pollution. Volume 02, p. 4.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life
Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings.
Journal of Appied Energy, Volume 143, p. 19.
Christensen, T. T., 2010. Solid Waste Technology & Management (Christensen/Solid Waste
Technology & Management) || Introduction to Waste Management. Volume 10, p. 16.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable
transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system.
Journal of Energy, 73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally
Sustainable Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and
Packaging Optimization - Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle
Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.
Das, K., Dey, U. & Bhaumik, R., 2011. A comparative study of lichen Biochemistry and air
pollution status of urban, semi urban and industrial area of hooghly and burdwan distric, west
bengal. Volume 7, p. 13.
Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's
atmosphere. Volume 153, p. 15.
De, P. P., Wcquier, William & Cool, W., 2013. Level Radioactive Waste Management; Spent
Fuel, Fissile Material, Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste Management - The
Belgian Program for Low and Intermediate Short Lived Waste Management: From 1985 to
License Application. Volume 01, p. 09.
Diadchenko, O. & Kovalenko, L., 2008. Estimation of Atmospheric air Pollution Extent on
City Highways by Vehicles with Account of Traffic management. Volume 01, p. 04.
Dosmukhamedov, N. K., 2014. Choice and Justification of the Initial Charge in Processing
Middlings, Recycled Materials and Slag Lead Production. Volume 67, p. 3.

Eleazer, P. R., Lisa, M. C., Maark, A. W. & Andres, F. C., 2012. Comparison of algae
cultivation methods for bioenergy production using a combined life cycle assessment and life
cycle costing approach. Volume 126, p. 9.
Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for
environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang,
China. 180(107), p. 9.
Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier.
Journal of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.
Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production
chain of oil-rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09,
p. 9.
Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated
Environment. 20(10), p. 1.
Litvinova, T. & Kosulina, T., 2009. Recycling of Oil and Gas Complex Solid Wastes.
Volume 10, p. 1.
Lopez, et al., 2014. Assessing changes on poly(ethylene terephthalate) properties after
recycling: Mechanical recycling in laboratory versus postconsumer recycled material.
Volume 147, p. 11.
Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and
regeneration in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives,
25(10), p. 20.
Meyers, R. A., 2012. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology || Solid Waste
solid waste Disposal solid waste disposal and Recycling solid waste recycling , Introduction.
Volume 3, p. 1472.
Mizgirev, D. S., 2015. The concept of improving environmental engineering systems for
integrated waste management ships (IWMS). Volume 01, p. 4.
Muthu, S. & Senthilkannan, 2015. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and
Processes] Environmental Implications of Recycling and Recycled Products || Recycled
Paper from Wastes: Calculation of Ecological Footprint of an Energy-Intensive Industrial
Unit in Orissa, India. Volume 287, p. 24.
Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable
energy integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.
Raban, K., 2009. Substantiation of necessity of performing regular monitoring researches of
the Azov sea water Pollution By Oil Products. Volume 10, p. 03.

Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare
system optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.
Seong, R. L., Donghee, P. & Jong, M. P., 2008. Analysis of effects of an objective function
on environmental and economic performance of a water network system using life cycle
assessment and life cycle costing methods. Volume 144, p. 11.
Simone, M. & Rana, P., 2013. Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste
management with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Volume 18, p.
7.
Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the
carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.
Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe"
(Denmark) Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.
Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high
concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.
Trogl, H. P. & Bravdyova, T., 2012. Comparison of compatibility of study programs Waste
management (J. E. pukyně university in ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) and
Ecobiotechnology (knrtu, Kazan, Russia). Volume 15, p. 04.
Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions
and life cycle impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle
assessment. 36(109), p. 7.
Voloschynska, S. S., 2008. Bioindication of the Heavy Metals Environmental Pollution.
Volume 02, p. 05.
Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable
energies in China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.