Протистояння в Україні навколо вступу до НАТО: витоки і причини

У статті з’ясовуються й аналізуються суспільні явища та причини, які перешкоджають Україні інтегруватися в євроатлантичні структури. Автор аргументовано доводить, що членство України в НАТО — єдина альтернатива серед усіх пропонованих, здатна реально забезпечити безпеку країни.The public phenomena and reasons which hinder to Ukraine to be integrated in euroatlantical structures turn out in the article and analyzed. An author proves argued, that membership of Ukraine in NATO is the unique alternative among all offered, able really to provide safety of country

Analysis of Socio-Economic Indicators on Different Bioenergy Case Studies

Socio-economic indicators are not fully developed and operational while this is an important aspect of sustainability. Seven case studies were analyzed within the Global-Bio-Pact project covering seven countries and five feedstock types. The 100 indicators that are identified are analyzed and evaluated to derive valuable lessons and recommendations. From this analysis it becomes clear that it is essential to look at impacts on different levels: national, regional, and local. This is because, e.g., impacts on a local level are not always reflected in macroeconomic indicators and vice versa. Background indicators, e.g., GDP in a region or the level of unemployment, do not necessarily link directly to bioenergy impacts but can provide a snapshot of the setting in which bioenergy projects operate. This can identify potential important areas of concern (with negative or positive impacts) beforehand. There is a trade-off between accuracy of the data and practicability. This can vary per country and per feedstock depending on data availability. More (accurate) data collection is required on all levels (national, regional, and local). Furthermore, more methodologies, based on quantitative data, have to be developed to gain better insight in socio-economic impacts on the long term

Prospects for Jatropha Biofuels in Developing Countries: An analysis for Tanzania with Strategic Niche Management

The paper reports on recent research in Tanzania about the scope for developing biofuels from an oil-seed bearing plant called Jatropha Curcas Linnaeus. The plant is widely seen to have potential to help combat the greenhouse effect, help to stop local soil erosion, create additional income for the rural poor, and provide a major source of energy both locally and internationally. The oil can be used in diesel engines, oil lamps and cooking stoves, and as a basic component in soapmaking. The seedcake can be used for biogas production and as fertiliser. Our principal analytic tool is Strategic Niche Management (SNM), a recently developed approach rooted in evolutionary innovation theory. We analyse how the scope for an energy transition is influenced by factors at three societal levels distinguished in SNM, namely: the overarching ‘landscape’; the sectoral setting or ‘regime’; and the ‘niche ’ level where the innovation develops and diffuses. Valuable niche processes were found in a few areas, especially in cultivation, but there are still many obstacles in Tanzania’s prevailing energy regime. The development of Jatropha biofuels is still in an early phase. The SNM analysis yields several policy recommendations. Methodological issues arising from the use of SNM are discussed as well

Current and future economic performance of first and second generation biofuels in developing countries

Net Present Value (NPV) and total production cost calculations aremade for first and second generation biofuels in 74 settings, covering 5 fuel output types, 8 feedstock types, 12 countries and 8 combinations of agricultural management systems between 2010 and 2030. Yields are assumed to increase due to better crop management and improved varieties. High NPVs (meaning profitable production) are calculated for cassava (up to 16,000 $/ha) and palmproduction (up to almost 7000$/ha). But cassava can also have a negative NPV which indicates that the project investment is not without risk. The calculated NPVs for jatropha range from -900 to 2000 $/ha, while for sugarcane and soy the NPV is always positive, (2500–5000$/ha and 200–3000 $/ha respectively) and therefore profitable. Total production costs in 2010 are estimated to vary from 5 to 45$/GJ for 1st generation feedstocks in 2010, and from around 10–35 $/GJ in 2020, compared to 20–30$/GJ for fossil fuels. Argentina and Malaysia are the regions with the lowest production costs for biofuel (soy and palm biodiesel for 11–15 $/GJ and 8–23$/GJ respectively), although potential for cost reduction exists in other regions. Production costs of 2nd generation biofuels are estimated to be 17–26 $/GJ in 2020 and 14–23$/GJ in 2030. Poplar based synfuel production in Ukraine has the lowest costs (14–17 $/GJ) and rice straw based bioethanol the highest (23–26$/GJ) – for both the short and long term. The time between investment and benefits, as well as the size of investment and the alternative commoditymarkets, varies with the type of feedstock. The choice of feedstock therefore depends on the local agricultural system, and the preferences and means of the local farmers. Key to the competitive production of 2nd generation fuels is the optimisation of the conversion process, which dominates overall production costs (with 35–65% of total costs). Also important is the efficient organisation of supply chain logistics, especially for the low energy density feedstocks such as wheat straw – requires densification early in the chain. Key factors in the economic analysis are: labour costs and requirements, agricultural efficiency, conversion cost and biomass yields. Acquiring accurate location specific data is essential for detailed analyses

Current and future economic performance of first and second generation biofuels in developing countries

Net Present Value (NPV) and total production cost calculations aremade for first and second generation biofuels in 74 settings, covering 5 fuel output types, 8 feedstock types, 12 countries and 8 combinations of agricultural management systems between 2010 and 2030. Yields are assumed to increase due to better crop management and improved varieties. High NPVs (meaning profitable production) are calculated for cassava (up to 16,000 $/ha) and palmproduction (up to almost 7000$/ha). But cassava can also have a negative NPV which indicates that the project investment is not without risk. The calculated NPVs for jatropha range from -900 to 2000 $/ha, while for sugarcane and soy the NPV is always positive, (2500–5000$/ha and 200–3000 $/ha respectively) and therefore profitable. Total production costs in 2010 are estimated to vary from 5 to 45$/GJ for 1st generation feedstocks in 2010, and from around 10–35 $/GJ in 2020, compared to 20–30$/GJ for fossil fuels. Argentina and Malaysia are the regions with the lowest production costs for biofuel (soy and palm biodiesel for 11–15 $/GJ and 8–23$/GJ respectively), although potential for cost reduction exists in other regions. Production costs of 2nd generation biofuels are estimated to be 17–26 $/GJ in 2020 and 14–23$/GJ in 2030. Poplar based synfuel production in Ukraine has the lowest costs (14–17 $/GJ) and rice straw based bioethanol the highest (23–26$/GJ) – for both the short and long term. The time between investment and benefits, as well as the size of investment and the alternative commoditymarkets, varies with the type of feedstock. The choice of feedstock therefore depends on the local agricultural system, and the preferences and means of the local farmers. Key to the competitive production of 2nd generation fuels is the optimisation of the conversion process, which dominates overall production costs (with 35–65% of total costs). Also important is the efficient organisation of supply chain logistics, especially for the low energy density feedstocks such as wheat straw – requires densification early in the chain. Key factors in the economic analysis are: labour costs and requirements, agricultural efficiency, conversion cost and biomass yields. Acquiring accurate location specific data is essential for detailed analyses

Global experience with jatropha cultivation for bioenergy: an assessment of socio-economic and environmental aspects

This is an assessment of key economic, environmental and social issues pertaining to jatropha biofuels, based on almost 150 studies covering 26 countries. The assessment aims to furnish a state-of-the-art overview and identify knowledge gaps. So far, total jatropha production has remained small. Numbers and value of jatropha projects have even declined since 2008. The economic analyses indicate minimal financial feasibility for projects. Yield increase and value addition (e.g., through utilising by-products) are necessary. Plantations seem to fare the worst, mainly due to the higher financial inputs used in a plantation setting and the still limited yield levels. Smallholders can only achieve financial feasibility in low-input settings and when opportunity costs are low. Unfortunately, hardly any Cost Benefit Analyses (CBA) are based on real data; partly due to a lack of long-running jatropha projects. The environmental impact varies greatly across locations. Most studies indicate significant greenhouse gas (GHG) benefits over fossil fuels; however, this is only achieved with limited inputs and no loss of high C-stock biodiversity. The determinants in Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) are yield, input level, by-products utilization, transesterification, transport distances, and land cover. More LCA research is required with more accurate data, and focusing on nitrous oxide emissions and the relation between production intensity and biodiversity impacts. Minimal negative social impacts have been revealed so far, but discontinuation of projects affects communities through income losses and fostering more negative attitudes towards new projects. Moreover, hardly any studies quantify social impact comprehensively. Detailed data collection is necessary, involving baseline studies to start with. If its financial feasibility is improved, jatropha can still become an option for sustainable energy production, GHG mitigation and rural development, especially through smallholder models. Successful implementation requires careful advance assessment of local circumstances, such as the political climate, gender aspects and land ownership structures