Study examines state and prospects of European energy research
Europe is investing more than its competitors in research and development (R&D) for new energy technologies, but its research lacks coordination and focus, according to a recently report published by the European Commission. 'The state and prospects of European energy research' compares the non-nuclear energy research portfolio of the EU and several large Member States with those of Europe's main competitors: Japan and the US. On first inspection, Europe appears to be taking the lead in research into new energy technologies. According to the study, Europe collectively invests more of its public funds in energy research, particularly in wind energy, fuel cells and hydrogen research, carbon capture and storage, and concentrated solar thermal power. Overall, Europe spends €332 million annually on its renewable energies research compared to €192 million in Japan, and €144 million in US. But money is not everything. The study also looks at the areas covered in each of the R&D portfolios. One of the key characteristics of the Japanese and US portfolios is that they tend to feature clearly defined and specific sets of objectives. A good example is hydrogen and fuel cells, where specific commercialisation and cost reduction objectives are defined in both the Japanese and American roadmaps. By comparison, the study finds that the objectives of the EU research programme tend to be more general. This can be explained by the fact that the EU R&D portfolio has to take into account the various priorities and objectives of stakeholders when formulating European research objectives. This keeps objectives at a general level to facilitate consensus. This can be advantageous, the study argues, for technologies that are researched at a very early stage. Initially, it makes sense to have broad research objectives, not prioritising any technology on the basis of early indications of potential. This means that the EU portfolio tends to create an environment conducive to fostering a multitude of ideas and creating a truly broad base for future research. However, the study finds that by having a more generalised portfolio, the EU research framework fails to lend itself to easy project review, making it difficult to assess the progress of different research programmes and take corrective actions in order to realign projects to the initial objectives. This becomes a bigger issue towards the later stages of technology development, when it would make more economic sense to focus research and resources on a few promising technologies rather than spread efforts across the technology spectrum. The study suggests that Europe could consider incorporating some of the features of the US and Japanese approach into its research scheme. Specifically, it recommends creating a more direct link between energy, climate and competition objectives and related R&D; defining precise milestones needed for technology transfer such as time frames, cost reductions and technical performance; and increased and continued monitoring and evaluation of progress in order to adjust the portfolio when necessary. The study also calls for a greater alignment between EU research and Member State research priorities. Despite some countries being at the forefront of research into new energy technologies, many Member States' activities lack direction and are unconnected to what is going on at EU level. This is illustrated in the area of bioenergy. Despite a small number of Member States (Sweden, Latvia and Finland) being very active, the use of the technology, as well as further research in the domain, is still random in most European countries, notes the study. Coordinated action was initiated in the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) to network national programmes for bioenergy research with the establishment of the Bioenergy ERA-NET. It is expected that, through collaboration, the national programmes will produce higher-quality results while, through coordination, exchange of additional information will be promoted and duplication avoided. But there is further need for concerted action between the EU and Member States, argue the authors of the study. Priorities should be to support the transfer of existing knowledge and mature technologies within Europe, to ensure further technology development, and also to develop a common view of the role that these new technologies should play in a future European energy system. Developing a common view has to take into account the varying conditions in the regions of Europe, as well as specific opportunities for the use of such energies. It is therefore the joint responsibility of the EU and its Member States, say the authors of the study. Otherwise there is concern that some regions in Europe will not benefit from the additional socio-economic opportunities to be had from these new technologies. In the case of intensified use of bioenergy, the study foresees increased regional economic development and job creation.