## 3 Results and Discussion
### The Usefulness of the WEC Nexus as a Flow-Fund Ratio and Fund Size in LCA  
Table 8 shows the values of the flow-fund ratio related to the capacity of the regional ecosystem to sequester carbon in the 100% mitigation scenario and C1, C2, and C3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Fund–Flow and Flow–Fund Ratios** & **Unit** & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** \\ \hline Forest land req & ha & 509,651 & 454,762 & 41,522 \\ CO\({}_{2\text{e}}\) & t & 616,766 & 550,342 & 50,249 \\  & Ratio ha+ & 0.83 & 0.83 & 0.83 \\ Electricity (EC) & MW & 985,250 & 1,196,395 & 1,196,395 \\  & Ratio MW-ha & 1.9 & 2.6 & 29 \\  & kgCO\({}_{2\text{e}}\)/MWh [3] & 626 & 460 & 42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Environmental intensity ratios of the CHP plant. Figure 6: Impact of FCS by Ja+Tz parks on the C3 to the three-time scales. A value of 0.83 ha/tCO\({}_{2e}\) was found to be a requirement of forest land, i.e., as net uptake of anthropogenic CO\({}_{2}\) emissions. In this case, the net balance of carbon emissions is positive, which can be considered a benchmark for the local ecosystem's metabolic pattern. In this sense, taking the most extensive use of forest land for CO\({}_{2}\) sequestration as a reference, the C1 scenario generates 1.9 MW/ha, whereas the C3 scenario generates 29 MW/ha, based on FCS. This means that the CHP plant plus PCC technology generates more electricity and steam with less use of ecological resources and fewer emissions (Table 8). Nevertheless, this ratio found could increase or decrease following actions taken to conserve or restore the land forest. As land degrades, the CO\({}_{2}\) sequestration and land productivity capacity also are reduced. This positive feedback increases the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere and aggravates climate change [82], again leading to further forest degradation forced by technologies such as BECCS due to competition for land and other resources. On the other hand, Table 9 summarizes the requirement of the ecological fund to operate the CHP plant for one year for each case. The WEC nexus with the ecological fund is necessary for the CHP plant to fulfill its function, i.e., generate 1196 GWh/yr. However, when a PS is analyzed through FU in LCA, the nexus flow-fund ecological aspect is missed. Unfortunately, these two elements are not integrated into LCA and still operate independently of each other. Moreover, when the process is scaled, and the FF model is considered, it is possible to see different spatial and temporal scale relations between the demand side for the CHP plant of water, PES, and the environmental impacts on the sink capacity by the EFs, connecting the internal view (technosphere) with the external view of the ecosystem (biosphere). The flow-fund ratios, shown in Table 9, allow to obtain the size and quality of ecosystems, which depend on the existence of favorable boundary conditions in a territory to supply ecosystem services, to be identified. This consideration is important because the EFs require a dynamic budget or hypercycle to carry out their metabolism [46; 47] to continue with the function of the supply of ecosystem services. With this data, there is now a threshold area concerning the ecological funds that the CHP plant requires to operate and fulfill its function of supplying electricity and steam to its users. The current result of traditional LCA does not provide a feasibility assessment to connect the ratios between the supply-demand-sink capacities, which should be considered in a sustainability context [84]. In this sense, this proposal differs from another emerging approach that considers the ecosystem services issue in LCA [85; 86; 87], but it is subordinate to the FU model, as it excludes the metabolic patterns of the consumption and environmental load of the process on other time scales.