Among growing regulatory and investor pressure for high-quality sustainability reporting, accurate carbon accounting has become essential for corporate environmental, social, and governance disclosures. A key challenge exists in calculating Scope 2 emissions, where companies often use generalized national average emission factors, for which accounting approaches differ in how electricity generation, cross-border exchanges, and energy attributes are interpreted and allocated. This study critically reviews literature on data specificity in Scope 2 accounting, analysing methodological differences between locationbased mix and market-based mix approaches defined by GHG Protocol, the role of residual mixes and current spatial and temporal shortcomings of methods related to calculation of life cycle assessment and environmental product declarations. This study aims to explore how an increase in the granularity of company-specific electricity consumption measured data can improve the precision and traceability of related Scope 2 emissions for more qualitative operational decisions in companies. A case study was conducted using hourly electricity consumption data from four manufacturing companies that operate in Latvia over one year. The delivered electricity mix was recorded each hour, and company-specific average hourly and yearly emission factors were calculated based on energy source types. The results demonstrate that company-specific data typically yield lower calculated emissions compared to using Ecoinvent 3.11 database country-specific emission factors. However, these results must further be contextualized within the methodological tensions between physical locationbased and contractual market-based accounting. This study supports the current need for harmonized, high-resolution electricity data practices and integration with digital solutions to support trustworthy carbon emissions disclosures.
The agricultural sector is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions; however, carbon farming practices offer substantial potential for carbon sequestration. As the European Union moves towards more outcome-oriented climate policy, result-based payments may provide an additional incentive for measurable climate benefits. This study assesses the financial competitiveness of potential gross result-based carbon farming payments relative to existing action-based Common Agricultural Policy support and identifies the carbon remuneration levels at which result-based payments become competitive. A case-study farm in Latvia was analysed using farm-level management data, literature-based annual soil organic carbon stock change rates and a calculation framework based on the accounting logic of the draft Carbon Removal Certification Framework methodology. Two scenarios were assessed: a maximum potential scenario and a conservative scenario accounting for uncertainty associated with the combined effects of carbon farming practices. At a commercial carbon remuneration reference value of 35 EUR Mg CO₂eq⁻¹, estimated result-based payments reached 260.89 EUR ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ and 158.22 EUR ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹, respectively, compared with an action-based Common Agricultural Policy benchmark of 178.00 EUR ha−¹ yr−¹. The corresponding financial competitiveness thresholds were approximately 23.9 EUR and 39.4 EUR Mg CO₂eq⁻¹, respectively. Thus, at the commercial reference value, the maximum potential scenario was financially competitive, whereas the conservative scenario remained below the Common Agricultural Policy benchmark. The results indicate that financial competitiveness depends strongly on both carbon sequestration outcomes and remuneration levels. A hybrid approach combining action-based Common Agricultural Policy support with result-based remuneration may provide a more balanced incentive, particularly given uncertainty in soil organic carbon outcomes and additionality constraints affecting early adopters. Since the analysis relies on literature-based estimates and excludes direct soil organic carbon measurements, implementation costs, transaction costs and actual Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification or certification costs, the results should be interpreted as indicative gross payment estimates rather than as a complete assessment of farm-level profitability.
The yeast Phaffia rhodozyma is widely used as a natural source of astaxanthin for aquaculture, but its protein-rich biomass has been less studied as single-cell protein (SCP). This study explored the potential of P. rhodozyma as a dual-purpose production system by optimizing a low-cost medium for a protein-enriched mutant (AEC3/9), while also monitoring astaxanthin formation. A central composite design and response surface methodology (RSM) were used to evaluate the effects of glycerol, urea, ammonium sulphate, and initial pH. Shakeflask cultivations performed in triplicate (250 mL baffled flasks, 20 mL working volume, 22 °C, 250 rpm, 7 days) showed that protein productivity reached its maximum on day 4, which was selected as the reference point for optimization. Astaxanthin was included in the model but was not used as the main optimization target. The optimization results suggested that moderate glycerol concentrations (70–90 g/L), low urea (<0.2 g/L), and slightly acidic pH (5.9) were the most suitable conditions. Under the selected conditions (70.54 g/L glycerol, 0.134 g/L urea, 4.98 g/L (NH₄)₂SO₄, pH 5.86), biomass reached 26.11 g/L with a protein content of 29.79 % (7.78 g/L). Scale-up in a 5 L stirred-tank bioreactor confirmed the feasibility of the process, reaching 33.50 g/L biomass and 6.82 g/L protein at 88 h. The results indicate that protein accumulation occurs before the phase associated with increased astaxanthin production. Optimizing nitrogen source and pH allows stable production of P. rhodozyma biomass on glycerol, supporting its use as an SCP co-product alongside astaxanthin.
The ongoing military aggression against Ukraine has significantly affected the stability and operation of the national energy system, creating unprecedented challenges for electricity security and market functioning. While previous studies have primarily focused on infrastructure damage and generation losses, limited attention has been given to the role of hydropower plants (HPPs) and pumped-storage power plants (PSPPs) in maintaining power system resilience under wartime conditions. This study aims to assess the current state of Ukraine’s energy sector and evaluate the contribution of HPPs and PSPPs to system stability during periods of severe generation shortages. The research is based on the analysis of statistical data on electricity generation in Ukraine, operational information from the national electricity market, and international experience in the development of pumped-storage technologies. Comparative and analytical methods were applied to assess changes in generation capacity, infrastructure damage, and the operational role of PSPPs in balancing electricity supply and demand. The novelty of the study lies in its assessment of the evolving role of PSPPs in ensuring energy system resilience during wartime and its analysis of their increased contribution to balancing electricity supply and demand under conditions of largescale infrastructure disruption. The results emphasize the importance of expanding pumpedstorage capacity and strengthening integration with the European electricity market to enhance the long-term sustainability of Ukraine’s energy sector.
The European Union (EU) has a target for greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land-use change, and forestry in 2030. Within the time frame to 2030, reducing roundwood harvests in managed forests appears to be the only measure capable of substantially increasing forest carbon sinks. The resulting reduction in global net emissions would be considerably smaller than the increase in the EU forest sink because lower harvest levels in the EU are partly offset by increased production elsewhere, and the climate benefits associated with harvested wood products decline. This study assesses the economic costs faced by the EU and its Member States if the latter restrict harvests to meet their targets. Two alternative background settings for policy implementation are considered: one with market-driven harvests and the other with stagnating EU harvests. Under the assumptions made, a comparison of the economic value generated by the forest sector with and without harvest constraints suggests that France, Germany, Finland, Poland, and Sweden would face the highest costs, amounting to several billion euros over the period of 2026–2035. A few EU countries would gain modestly. Outside the EU, the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Russia are the largest economic beneficiaries. The estimated costs vary across Member States, while at the EU level, they are € 1000 per tCO₂ or more during 2030–2035 when accounting for the direct and indirect effects related to forest sector production. In addition, there would be induced effects on the rest of the economy.
