• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• 7. Clean energy close
• EU close
• Old English close

The report provides a framework that categorises the different European Union (EU) policies, laws and governance actions identified as impacting upon food value chains in the defined areas of: fairer trading practices, food integrity (food safety and authenticity), and sustainability collaborations along food value chains. A four-stage framework is presented and illustrated with examples. The evidence shows that European Union policy activity impacting upon food value chain dynamics is increasing, both in terms of the impacts of policies upon the chains, and, in terms of addressing some of the more contentious outcomes of these dynamics. A number of policy priorities are at play in addressing the outcomes of food value chain dynamics. unevenness of the distribution of profit within food value chains, notably to farmers. Regulation of food safety and aspects of authenticity has been a key focus for two decades to ensure a functioning single market while ensuring consumer health and wellbeing. A food chain length perspective has been attempted, notably through regulations such as the General Food Law, and the rationalisation of the Official Controls on food and feed safety. However, there are still gaps in the effective monitoring and transparency of food safety and of food integrity along value chains, as exemplified by misleading claims and criminal fraud. This has led to renewed policy actions over food fraud, in particular. EU regulations, policies and related governance initiatives provide an important framework for national-level actions for EU member states and for EEA members. The more tightly EU-regulated areas, such as food safety, see fewer extra initiatives, but where there is a more general strategic policy and governance push, such as food waste reduction or food fraud, there is greater independent state-level activity. Likewise, there is much more variation in the application of both national and European (Competition) law to govern unfair trading practices impacting upon food value chains. This report presents the findings of a survey of members from the VALUMICS stakeholder platform, that were policy facing food value chain stakeholders across selected European countries, including both EU and EEA Member States. The survey was conducted to check the significance of the main policies identified in the mapping exercise at EU and national levels and so to incorporate the views of stakeholders in the research. The responses suggest the policy concerns identified in EU and national-level research resonate with food value chain stakeholders in participating nations. The report concludes by exploring in more detail how the themes of fairness and of transparency are being handled in the policy activities presented. Highlighted are the ways that both fairness and transparency can be extended within the existing frameworks of EU policy activity. The findings in this report provide an important context for further and detailed research analysis of the workings and dynamics of European food value chains under the VALUMICS project.

Efficiency First (E1st) is now an established principle of EU energy policy. It has been embedded in various legislative pieces of the Clean Energy for All package in 2018-2019. This report reviews the background of this concept and existing definitions in order to draw a definition that can serve as a basis for the ENEFIRST project and its specific objectives, that is, making E1st operational for the building sector and related energy systems. Similar concepts such as ‘Integrated Resource Planning’ (IRP) and ‘Energy Efficiency as a Resource’ have been developed in the U.S. and sometimes tried in some European countries. The well-documented U.S. experience shows how this type of approach can be implemented in the electricity sector. The European approach of E1st aims at a broader scope encompassing the entire energy system. Another difference is that the time horizon considered in the implementation of IRP, or similar concepts, in the U.S. is often in line with the cycles of utilities’ energy planning, that is, five to ten years, whilst E1st in Europe is thought to be applied in multiple timeframes, from short-term investment planning to medium-term targets (for 2030) and long-term goals (for 2050). The background analysis also highlights the importance of the scope of costs and benefits considered when comparing supply-side and demand-side resources. The general trend is to expand this scope to take into account multiple impacts, along with the experience gained in assessing them. Based on these analyses, the definition of E1st adopted for ENEFIRST is as follows: "Efficiency First gives priority to demand-side resources whenever they are more cost effective from a societal perspective than investments in energy infrastructure in meeting policy objectives. It is a decision principle that is applied systematically at any level to energy-related investment planning and enabled by an ‘equal opportunity’ policy design." This report then discusses the application of the principle in six policy areas (renewable policy, energy efficiency policy, climate policy, power market rules, building policy and energy security) with reference to the main EU legislations in these areas. The analysis does not claim to be comprehensive, but highlights the major decision points where E1st should be applied. It is the new power market design where the E1st principle is made operational most consistently from network planning to network company regulation. It is yet to be seen, however, to what extent it will be reflected in the European and national implementation. The report also analyses the process and the methodological issues when comparing demand-side resources with supply investments and identifies those typical investments — both at the system and at the household level — where its application should be considered. These decision points are illustrated by comparing business-as-usual decision paths with ones that would integrate the E1st principle.

Although Si and Si-B alloys seem to be perfect candidates as high temperature PCMs (phase change materials) (in terms of their high melting points and latent heat values), a number of scientific/technical challenges have to be faced before introducing them into real Latent heat thermal energy storage (LHTES) devices. A special attention should be paid to a proper selection of reliable refractories for building the PCM container. For this purpose, the involved teams from the Foundry Research Institute in Krakow (FRI) and Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), have agreed to explore two distinctly different approaches: (i) “Non-wetting + negligible reactivity concept” and (ii) “Self-crucible concept”, respectively. In the former attempt, it has been assumed that the selected refractory material will be inert towards the contacting PCMs, i.e. the system will be characterized by non-wetting behaviour and a lack of significant dissolution of the refractory in molten PCM as well as no new reactively formed products. On the contrary, the principles of the latter approach include a reactive formation of continuous interfacial product layer at initial stages of PCM/refractory interaction. The reactively formed layer should play a role of barrier coating, and thus forms a “self-crucible” inside the PCM vessel. In order to accomplish the Project’s goals, Si and Si-B alloys were fabricated by using various metallurgical routes (including an induction melting or an electric arc melting). After that, their high temperature solid/liquid state interaction with refractories selected in accordance to both proposed approaches, was examined. Additionally, a proper thermodynamic assessment of phase equilibria was performed in order to support obtained experimental data.