PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES · Contacts Nicolas SEGEBARTH Carmine MARZANO E-mails...

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES

Energy efficiency and CO2 utilisation

Research & Innovation Projects for Policy

Research andInnovation

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES – Energy efficiency and CO2 utilisation

European CommissionDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationDirectorate D – Industrial TechnologiesUnit D.2 – Advanced Manufacturing Systems and Biotechnologies.

Contacts Nicolas SEGEBARTH Carmine MARZANOE-mails [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

European CommissionB-1049 Brussels

Manuscript completed in January 2018.

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of the following information.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

Print ISBN 978-92-79-77476-8 doi:10.2777/154816 KI-AZ-18-001-EN-C

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-77477-5 doi:10.2777/74667 KI-AZ-18-001-EN-N

© European Union, 2018Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

mailto:[email protected]



http://europa.eu

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

European Commission

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE

INDUSTRIES Energy efficiency

and CO2 utilisation

Research & Innovation Projects for Policy

2018

3PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES Energy efficiency and CO2 utilisation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

INTRODUCTION 6

POLICY CONTEXT 71. 2050 climate policy targets 82. Investments and investment gaps in research and innovation in Europe 83. Energy efficiency first 94. Circular economy and CO2 utilisation 9

PORTFOLIO OF EU-FUNDED R&I PROJECTS 111. Programme areas contributing to energy efficiency and carbon capture and utilisation 122. Portfolio of beneficiaries 133. Portfolio of research topics covered 14

IMPACT OF R&I FUNDING ON EU POLICY GOALS 171. R&I achievements supporting policy challenges 182. Added value of EU-level R&I investment 203. Impact for policies 21

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 23

4 Research & Innovation Projects for Policy

emissions savings, at 22 % on average, compared to state of the art practices at the start of the project, with significant energy savings and a decrease in operating costs. However, especially for some CCU projects, the availability of abundant and cheap low carbon electric-ity is a necessary condition to realise the claimed envi-ronmental benefits and build a business case. As renew-able energy is still a precious and limited resource for the foreseeable future, suitable policies and tools should be designed to ensure its best use, considering all possible pathways and accounting for the efficient use of limited resources (efficiency in the sense of cli-mate impact reductions per kilowatt hour), while consid-ering all the relevant aspects (environmental, economic, strategic, political). The report also demonstrates the impacts of R&I funding on the speeding up of technol-ogy development and deployment, with an average technology readiness level (TRL) increase of 2.3 during the project lifetime, and a reduction in time to market of 24-36 months. European R&I projects enable com-munity building and efficient resource coordination, bringing together players from different sectors and different countries to achieve an enhanced impact.

Based on the project analysis and on additional infor-mation gathered from projects through a survey, the report proposes five policy recommendations to foster the transition to a cleaner industry, each support by pro-posal for concrete actions and measures.

Projects for Policy (P4P) is a European Commission initia-tive that aims to use research and innovation (R&I) project results to shape policymaking through evidence-based policy recommendations. This report belongs to this ini-tiative. It provides an overview of the policy context and challenges relating to enabling a low carbon economy. It highlights the specific efforts that need to be pursued by process industries, providing recommendations for pol-icy on the basis of an EU funded project portfolio analysis supported by relevant literature in the field.

The policy context is clear. The EU has committed to act to keep global warming below 2°C. To this end, it has set ambitious targets in terms of Greenhouse Gas emissions, with a minimum reduction of 80 % by 2050. The achieve-ment of such targets will require a wide range of policy initiatives, in particular aimed at increasing investments in research and innovation to foster the deployment of clean technologies. The report focuses on energy effi-ciency and on carbon dioxide (CO2) utilisation, from a cir-cular economy perspective.

This study analyses a portfolio of 559 research and inno-vation (R&I) projects funded by the EU over the last dec-ade, addressing specifically energy efficiency and CO2 utilisation (CCU), two different pathways showing diverse technological maturity, to gather evidence concerning the impact of EU funded R&I for these two areas. The portfolio analysis shows that, projects reported sizeable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Build investor confidence in

disruptive low carbon technologies through efficient funding of demonstration projects and easier access to finance.

Realise the full potential of CO2

utilisation, beyond greehouse gas (GHG) mitigation, through targeted regulatory and market measures, supported by harmonised life-cycle sustainability assessment.

Extend the scope of energy audits to foster

the deployment of cutting edge energy efficiency technologies, including support for capacity building of auditors.

Introduce standardised metrics to enhance

R&I funding and decision making processes for low carbon technologies.

Remove regulatory and knowledge

barriers to Industrial Symbiosis so as to unlock the unexploited potential of industrial waste streams and enhance circular utilisation of resources.

FIVE KEY POLICYRECOMMENDATIONS

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY AND REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS

ENERGY EFFICIENCY FIRST CO2 UTILISATION AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY


Energy intensive industries, like the chemicals, cement and steel sectors, are responsible for 20 % of CO2 emis-sions. Drastically lowering these emissions is crucial to reach the agreed EU 2050 Greenhouse Gas Emission reduction objective of at least 80 %. Decoupling produc-tion from the utilisation of fossil resources (75 million tonnes of oil equivalent are used today in Europe as raw material feedstock by the chemical industry) is an addi-tional necessary step towards achieving a more sustain-able society. Electrification, based on non-fossil fuel energy, and the use of biomass, which is put forward in the EU Bioeconomy Strategy, is seen as an obvious solution to decrease dependency on fossil resources. However, biomass resources are limited and have many existing uses, including for food and feed, as well as energy. Their use may also have negative environmental impacts. Therefore, a broader set of technologies must be developed to reduce the dependency of European industry on fossil resources, while making it cleaner and more sustainable. In this context, research, innovation, and investment efforts are necessary to keep European industry competitive at global level, saving jobs from moving to other areas in the world.

The report is not limited to presenting a mere analysis of the EU R&I project portfolios, but sets out the policy con-text, including the relevant legal instruments, putting fore-ward policy recommendations and actions to the Euro-pean Commission, Member States and industry.

This publication builds on a study 1 carried out by inde-pendent experts, Professor André Bardow from Germany and Mr Damien Green from the United Kingdom. The study analysed a wide portfolio of EU research projects (559 in total) addressing energy efficiency and CCU (which stands for ‘carbon capture and utilisation’), com-plemented by consultation of a wide range of stakehold-ers via a survey and a validation workshop held on 6 November 2017. The study outcomes and policy recom-mendations are based on quantitative and qualitative data analysis, of both the R&I portfolio and relevant lit-erature, as well as on survey responses and feedback obtained from a validation workshop.

INTRODUCTION

1 Low-Carbon Process Industries Through Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Utilisation, A Bardow and D. Green, https://doi.org/10.2777/175882.

https://doi.org/10.2777/175882

POLICY CONTEXT


Global engagements to combat climate change and adapt to its effects have been taken in the Paris Agree-ment reached at COP 21 in December 2015, in an effort to limit global warming below 2°C this century 2. This is considered the only way to avoid major climate related catastrophes in the years to come. In the context of this global political drive to achieve a sustainable society, the EU will have to review its current 2050 targets on GHG emissions 3 reduction and milestones to allow for their achievement. The targets are currently as follows:

> 20 % reduction in emissions by 2020 (compared to 1990).



Industry brings significant wealth to society, but industry is also a significant contributor to GHG emissions. In particular, process industries (e.g. steel, chemicals, cement, oil refineries, non-ferrous metals and minerals, glass or pulp and paper) are resource and energy inten-sive and represent 20 % of the global GHG emissions: significant GHG emission reductions from these sectors will be essential to achieving the Paris Agreement goals (the 2011 roadmap sets a EU industry trajectory of 43 % reduction in direct emissions by 2030, compared to 2005. While most industrial emissions are linked to

Investments in research and innovation to build the tech-nological base and to develop energy efficient, clean and low-carbon technologies and support to the wide market deployment of the most efficient technologies are central elements of the overall strategy to meet global climate policy targets. The EU has invested significantly over the years in energy efficiency through its research framework programmes, including the launch of the contractual Pub-

the use of energy, and can be decarbonised through electrification and the decarbonisation of the power supply sector, some industries – such as steel and cement production – generate greenhouse gas emis-sions through their processes, and the chemical/petro-chemical sector products – being based on fossil carbon feedstocks – generate further emissions as their prod-ucts arrive at their end-of-life. Considering the variety of sectors and processes involved, a significant decrease in GHG emissions from the process industries cannot be delivered by a single set of technologies. In this respect, the two topics addressed in this study – energy efficiency (EE) and, to a lesser extent, CCU approaches – can provide a significant contribution to the achievement of GHG targets. They will need to be complemented by a broader spectrum of technological approaches and breakthroughs spanning over multiple domains (e.g. bio-based, CCS, renewable energy, clean steel making, etc.). In terms of regulation and limitation of GHG emissions, the EU has a well established legis-lative framework, with the EU Emission Trading System (EU-ETS) Directive (for which an agreement has been reached November 2017 on its revision for the fourth phase) being a substantial element of this framework. The EU-ETS represents the cornerstone of the EU’s pol-icy to combat climate change and is a key tool for reducing emission intensity from high GHG emitting industrial sectors, such as process industries and the power sector.

lic Private Partnership on “Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and Energy efficiency” (SPIRE cPPP) in Horizon 2020 and dedicated Energy Research Pro-grammes. In addition to the direct funding to research projects, the EU coordinates national research efforts in its strategic energy technology plan (SET plan), in particu-lar Action 6 for energy efficiency and Action 9 also addressing CCU. The ETS directive includes a funding

1. 2050 CLIMATE POLICY TARGETS

2. INVESTMENTS AND INVESTMENT GAPS IN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN EUROPE

2 http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21 3 ‘Emissions’ = CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, SF6, and NF3 measured in CO2 equivalents.

http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21


3. ENERGY EFFICIENCY FIRST

To date, only 17 % of our energy comes from renewable energy sources. Fossil resources represent the major share in the energy mix in the EU and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future 6, while all sectors (heat, transport, etc.) will move towards electrification. As a consequence, energy consumption is directly related to GHG emissions. This is why energy efficiency is considered one of the key approaches to decrease GHG emissions in all sectors, including in the process industry. Major EU policies highlight the importance of energy efficiency; it is for example one of the central areas identified in the Energy Union, with the Energy Efficiency First principle. The EU has established precise targets with respect to energy efficiency improve-ments, including a 20 % improvement by 2020. On 30 November 2016, the European Commission presented

a new package of measures with the goal of providing the stable legislative framework needed to facilitate the clean energy transition – and thereby taking a significant step towards the creation of the Energy Union. This package, named ‘Clean Energy for All Europeans’, stresses further the importance of energy efficiency, proposing a binding 30 % improvement target by 2030 7. These policies include several measures to support energy efficiency, in particular under the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). The ‘Clean Energy for All Europeans’ package also stresses the impor-tance of research and innovation and the business oppor-tunities which could result for the European industry. There-fore, great care must be taken to ensure that EU policy and legislation is coherent and favours these business opportunities.

scheme to support and large-scale demonstration of technologies aimed at lowering emissions (currently the NER300 and the upcoming Innovation Fund). In its renewed EU industrial policy strategy 4, the European Commission reiterated the role, and increasing coordina-tion, of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), of the European Investment Bank (EIB), and of the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) to close the investment gaps. In addition, the instrument on Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) has been designed to facilitate joint and coordinated efforts and investments by Member States and industries in strategic projects. These instruments can represent significant sources of support to research and innovation in clean technologies. However, it is clear that significant

efforts are still needed to establish a more favourable framework to translate research and innovation concrete uptakes by markets.

A 2015 report from the Energy Efficiency Financial Insti-tutions Group (EEFIG) 5, for instance, has suggested that just in the field of energy efficiency the EU’s 2050 decarbonisation target will require EUR 4.25 trillion additional investment (across all sectors) compared to the current business-as-usual pathway. Bridging this investment gap is a key challenge for policymakers to address policy goals. The EU-ETS Directive will be instrumental in strengthening the carbon price signal and in accelerating low-carbon investments.

4. CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND CO2 UTILISATION

In its circular economy package 8, the EU has set clear objectives and proposed a broad set of measures to move towards the establishment of a circular economy for Europe. Moving to a circular economy is the societal

answer to the current unsustainable exploitation of lim-ited natural resources. A circular economy is multifac-eted and will require novel production and consumption systems to enable a shift towards more sustainable

4 Communication on a renewed EU industrial policy strategy (COM(2017) 479).5 http://www.eefig.com6 EU countries agreed on a renewable energy target of at least 27 % of final energy consumption in the EU as a whole by 2030.7 The proposed 30 % target in Energy Efficiency by 2030 will achieve a 23 % cut in energy consumption compared to 2005 levels.8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm

http://www.eefig.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm


utilisation and re-utilisation of scarce resources, such as fossil fuels (e.g. oil and gas). The transition to a circular economy will deeply affect industries which will need investment substantially in advanced manufacturing, in people’s skills and talents, as well as in tangible and intangible assets like research and innovation. Novel busi-ness models will facilitate the circular utilisation of resources to enable this transition. Industrial symbiosis, which includes recovering, recycling, reusing and redirect-ing energy and material streams across multiple indus-trial sectors, holds the potential to enhance the model of circular economy in industry. It needs to be further devel-oped and promoted. In light of establishing a circular economy, CCU may play a role, if CO2 is used as an alter-native feedstock (since it includes the re-use of emitted CO2 sources), instead of being released into the atmos-phere. This CO2 re-utilisation for one or more cycles may reduce the use of fossil-based resources. This potential has to be thoroughly evaluated through appropriate Life-Cycle Assessment methodologies. The term CCU

includes a very broad set of technologies and approaches, which can provide flexibility in transforming CO2 from waste streams, or even air, into a wide array of added value products ranging from fuels, to chemicals and minerals. In addition to potential environmental and GHG emission reduction benefits, CCU may represent a long-term business opportunity for industry, transforming waste (CO2 emissions) into value (new products). Deployment of CCU technologies and approaches could also be a driver for wider use of renewable energy sources (e.g. wind, solar) because it can provide a route to chemical energy storage, allowing the dealing with inherent limitations of fluctuating energy sources (e.g. for grid stabilisation).

The role of CCU to support policy targets is cur-rently under discussion. In this respect, the Scientific Advisory Mechanism (SAM) has been invited by the Commission to provide advice on the climate mitigation potential of CCU technologies by April 2018 9.

9 https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/index.cfm?pg=ccu

https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/index.cfm?pg=ccu

PORTFOLIO OF EU-FUNDED R&I PROJECTS


Energy efficiency is a central objective of the “Sustain-able Process Industries through Resource and Energy Efficiency” contractual Public-Private Partnership (SPIRE cPPP). Most of the projects funded in this context expect gains in energy efficiency. Energy efficiency has how-ever been a long-standing driving principle both for EU policymakers, who have regularly endorsed the principle of “efficiency first”, as a means to reduce energy con-sumption and to reduce GHG emissions, but also for industries, who see in energy efficiency an effective way to enhance their competitiveness. As such, energy effi-ciency has been core to several EU research pro-grammes: the energy and industrial research pro-

grammes (projects funded under FP7 and Horizon 2020, the research for coal and steel programme (RFCS) and the intelligent energy Europe programme (IEE, under the 2007-2013 competitiveness and innovation pro-gramme, aiming mainly at SMEs). The analysis of the complete portfolio of projects funded under these four programmes after 2007 identified 488 different pro-jects addressing energy efficiency for process industries, representing a total EU public investment of EUR 1.36 billion, spread fairly homogeneously over 2008-2017 (see Figure 1). On average, annual funding for energy efficiency projects has increased by 20 % in Horizon 2020 compared to FP7.

A total of 61 projects on CCU technologies have bene-fited so far from a smaller, albeit still very significant, EU funding of over EUR 243 million, from both FP7 and Horizon 2020. Relevant projects have also been funded under the RFCS programme, although their focus was mostly on carbon capture rather than on CO2 conversion. As can be seen in Figure 2, the funding for these tech-nologies has been growing steadily in recent years, reaching EUR 50 million in 2017, since the very first FET and ERC projects from 2008-2009. With regard to the funding programmes, projects are funded mainly through the Energy and the NMPB thematic areas under LEIT (Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technolo-gies) and Societal Challenges pillars of FP7 and Horizon 2020, but also notably from the ERC and the FET, which are fully bottom-up programmes, reflecting the high interest of the academic community and the early development stages for some of the CCU technologies (lower TRLs, requiring still significant development and validation work at lab scale).

1. PROGRAMME AREAS CONTRIBUTING TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CARBON CAPTURE AND UTILISATION

RFCS€111m(101)H2020

€519m(173)

IEE€35m(28)

FP7€695m(183)

FIGURE 1 EU financial contribution to projects addressing energy efficiency in process industries since 2007 by programme


The analysis of the energy efficiency and CCU portfolios shows similar trends in terms of beneficiaries.

A total of 46 countries participated in energy efficiency projects, involving, for FP7 and Horizon 2020, over 2 200 unique participants (3 554 participations), with a balanced representation between research or higher education organisations (19 % each) and private for-profit organisations (56 %), of which no less than 32 % (of the total participations) were SMEs. In terms of budget distribution, as can be seen from Figure 3, non-profit and profit organisations have an equal share (SMEs receiving 27 % in total). This indicates the high interest of industrial partners in this field, as well as the effective open innovation framework offered by the research programmes. From the geographic point of view, the distribution of funding over countries reflects

the EU industrial landscape, with the top six countries receiving most funding being Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands and France. Germany on its own received about 20 % of the funding, double the amount Spain received, in second position.

In the CCU projects, we observed the participation of 26 countries, involving 341 different participants (475 participations). Private for-profit organisations are slightly less present than in the energy efficiency portfolio but still represent 42 % of the participants and 35 % of the funding, reflecting again the high interest of commer-cial entities for this domain of activities, but also in gen-eral a lower technological development level with a larger share of the funding going to research organisa-tions (and confirmed by the TRL analysis in section three).

2. PORTFOLIO OF BENEFICIARIES

€0

€10

€20

€30

€40

€50

€60

20182017201620152014201320122011201020092008

H2020 FP7

FIGURE 2 EU financial contribution to projects addressing carbon capture and utilisation since 2007 by programme and by year

H2020€140m

(29)

FP7€103m(32)


Energy efficiency projects are addressing innovation in all key areas (Figure 4): process design (which covers catalysis and advanced materials, process modification, as well as monitoring and control); resource and energy efficiency; process heat efficiency; process electricity efficiency; and industrial symbiosis. Although not a new concept per se, cross-sectoral industrial symbiosis is still limited to a relatively small number of examples in Europe, an issue which funded projects aim to unlock through digitisation approaches, blueprints and data-sharing (EPOS, Sharebox), but also with systems analysis (SCALER). A number of projects, mainly funded by the IEE and the energy programme, also address capacity building, i.e. projects that promote efficiency networks, energy auditing, energy management sys-tems, training and benchmarking, knowledge transfer, and specifically address the issue of barriers to energy efficiency and effective policymaking. CO2 may be transformed into a wide range of products, for various applications, through different technologies and pro-cesses (Figure 5). CO2 utilisation projects have identified and further developed a broad range of process con-

HES€281m

REC€317m

OTH€31m

PUB€7m

OTH€2m

PRC€586m

REC€67m

HES€87m

PRC€86m

FIGURE 3 Share of the financial contribution going to different types of organisation [HES = Higher Education; PRC = private for profit (excluding education); REC = research organisation; OTH = others; PUB = public body (excluding research and education)]

3. PORTFOLIO OF RESEARCH TOPICS COVERED

cepts to sustainably introduce CO2 into the chemical value chain. Given the early stage of research activities, all catalytic concepts have been addressed, ranging from chemo-catalysis to electro-catalysis, photo-catal-ysis and bio-catalysis, the latter with an emphasis on algae-based conversion of CO2. Some projects focused on catalysis aspects or CO2 capture, while other projects considered the entire value chain from feedstock supply to the final product. The CO2-based products investi-gated in the EU-funded projects include chemicals (e.g. syngas, ethane, propane, oxygenates and alkenes, polymers, and carboxylic acid) and fuels (e.g. methanol and kerosene). The chemicals mainly address bulk chemicals, which could sometimes even be used as fuels, but also polymers (plastics such as PU). In order to provide a net decrease in CO2 emissions, most of these approaches rely on the availability of electricity with a low, or very low, carbon footprint. The mineralisa-tion route to solid inorganic carbonates, which offers possibilities for long term storage of carbon while also being exothermic, is the least tackled approach, followed only by a few projects.

Energy Efficiency Projects CCU Projects


0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ProcessModification /

Refinement50

(46 %)

Process Design / Performance

Resource-Energy Efficiency

Process Heat Efficiency

Information / Capacity Building

Process Electricity Efficiency

Industrial Symbiosis

Catalysts& AdvancedMaterials14(13 %)

Monitoring& ProcessControl44(41 %)0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ProcessModification /

Refinement50

(46 %)

Process Design / Performance

Resource-Energy Efficiency

Process Heat Efficiency

Information / Capacity Building

Process Electricity Efficiency

Industrial Symbiosis

Catalysts& AdvancedMaterials14(13 %)

Monitoring& ProcessControl44(41 %)

FIGURE 4.A Distribution of EE projects in key innovation areas (based on a classification of 176 EE projects)

FIGURE 4.B Distribution of innovations within Process Design key area

EU funding has not only supported the technological development of the field, but also the development of an understanding of the potential of CCU for policy chal-lenges. In this regard, information-oriented projects like SCOT provided techno-economic and environmental assessments, and proposed policy action plans.

Energy efficiency and CCU projects have been funded at all stages of development, supporting their technologi-cal progression and creating a pipeline for commercial-isation. The TRL of energy efficiency products averaged 5.3, while CCU projects only 3.8, which is in line with the generally lower technological maturities of these approaches. In this regard, EU funding has followed the technology maturity curve. For CCU, EU project funding has been particularly important to provide critical mass for early stage research.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

N/A

TRL 9

TRL 8

TRL 7

TRL 6

TRL 5

TRL 4

TRL 3

TRL 2

TRL 1 9 (4.5 %)

16 (7.9 %)

53 (26.2 %)

72 (35.6 %)

84 (41.6 %)

68 (33.7 %)

47 (23.3 %)

22 (10.9 %)

22 (10.9 %)

21 (10.4 %)

FIGURE 6 TRL Spread (all EE and CCU projects were asked to report the starting TRL of their innovations. Each project may address more than one innovation, with different starting TRL; 202 projects provided answers for 414 starting TRLs)

Number of projects (202 responses)

Conversion Chemicals, fuels

Solidinorganic

carbonates

ECOSPHERETECHNOSPHERE

End-of-life

Power plants,industry

Direct use

Biomass

Air capture

CO2

FIGURE 5 CO2 Use (adapted from Bui, Bardow, Mac Dowell et al., Energy Env. Sci., submitted)

IMPACT OF R&I FUNDING ON EU POLICY GOALS


The average GHG saving reported by the projects may appear relatively modest compared to the EU’s 80 % (and foreseeable 95 %) reduction objective envisaged by 2050. However, it must be considered that this target uses a 1990 baseline, while the projects responses refer to current practices (meaning from 2007 onwards, based on the project start). If a 1990 state-of-the-art benchmark was used, much higher figures for GHG sav-ings would be obtained. For instance, applying the 22 % to the 61 % savings already achieved by the chemical sector between 1990 and 2016, would result in GHG reductions of about 70 %. Furthermore, it must also be considered that projects address often only part of the operations within a certain industrial sector (e.g. down-stream processing, reactor, and furnace). Therefore, the results of several projects could potentially jointly be applied leading to higher potential emission savings than those reported by a single project.

The project portfolio assessment and the survey show that the CCU and energy efficiency projects have a sig-nificant potential to improve energy efficiency and to reduce GHG emissions in the EU. On average, the pro-jects reported a GHG saving of 22 %, compared to cur-rent practices (e.g. conventional fossil based process), with some projects claiming GHG reductions of over 40 %. Interestingly, CCU projects reported on average the largest emissions saving potential (32 %), but this might well be linked to the lower TRL (and consequent higher optimism) of these technologies, as well as to the use of different benchmarks and system boundaries (e.g. replacement of fossil-based energy with a low car-bon alternative). With regard to their energy saving potential, 59 % of the projects providing estimates claimed gains of over 10 % and up to over 30 % for almost quarter of them. Some projects reported more modest savings, of less than 10 %. However, those often address the most emissions-intensive sectors, such as steel and cement, where small percentage improvements could result in large absolute savings in GHG emissions.

1. R&I ACHIEVEMENTS SUPPORTING POLICY CHALLENGES

The impacts and results of EU-funded projects on energy efficiency and CO2 utilisation for policies have been assessed based on project reports and on the 2016 SPIRE cPPP progress monitoring report, as well as on a survey of all projects identified and conducted specifically for this study 10.

SUPPORTING GHG ABATEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY GOALS

10 208 responses (37 % answer rate).


CCU technologies, although limited by the low chemical reactivity of CO2, are gaining significant momentum. For example, CO2 could constitute an abundant and recycla-ble carbon feedstock in the circular economy. This facet of the circular economy has particular relevance in Europe considering that carbon feedstocks for energy and manufacturing purposes are mostly imported. Therefore, CCU technologies and approaches could con-tribute to reduce Europe’s dependence on imports. The poor reactivity of CO2 poses an intrinsic challenge and thus the potential size of these technologies is unclear today. The interest in these is also linked to the current transition towards renewable energy sources (e.g. wind, solar). They offer the opportunity for chemical energy storage that could help manage fluctuations in energy supply, along with other solutions to stabilise the grid.

EU R&I investment has been highly valuable within the field of CCU utilisation in providing funding to early stage technology developments (low TRL), addressing major commodities and markets (e.g. fuels, plastics,

fertilisers, etc.) in the chemical industry. Within the ana-lysed portfolio, CCU projects reported the largest poten-tial for GHG savings. However, GHG emission reductions can be achieved in different ways by different CCU tech-nologies. Most projects in the portfolio on CO2-use aim at GHG reductions and avoidance via directly replacing fossil-based feedstocks, improving resource efficiency and integrating renewable energy, but not via the route of carbon storage. Such substitution also increases resource security. Some CCU technologies and approaches can offer direct reductions of CO2 emissions by increasing resource and energy efficiency compared to traditional fossil-based processes (e.g. CO2-based polyols). Other concepts rely on the utilisation of low carbon energy in the production process (e.g. CO2-based fuels), often in the form of renewable hydrogen. Only if these technologies employ zero-carbon energy and are applied to unavoidable CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions from sustainable biomass incineration, CO2 re-captured at the end-of-life of a CCU product or captured directly from air, would lead to net-zero GHG reductions over the

-30 %

-20 %

-10 %

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

Chemicals

CARBON CAPTURE & UTILISATION

MEANREPORTED

SAVINGS

PROCESS DESIGN/PERFORMANCE PROCESS ENERGY& RESOURCE EFFICIENCY

Fuels

Processmodification/refinement

Catalysts& advancedmaterials

Monitoring& process

control

Energy savings Operation cost savingsEmission savings

FIGURE 7 Mean savings for GHG emissions, energy and operating cost as reported by the projects in the survey. Projects are classified by technology focus

CO2 UTILISATION TECHNOLOGIES IN SUPPORT OF GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND OF THE CIRCULAR CARBON ECONOMY


full life-cycle. Critically, with some notable exceptions (e.g. mineralisation, CO2-based polyols), most CCU con-cepts require large amounts of cheap (low carbon) energy to be both economically viable and environmen-tally beneficial.

Beyond the technological developments, the EU-funded projects have provided significant input for policy devel-opment in this area, by identifying barriers for the large-scale implementation of CO2 utilisation. The major bar-riers to the deployment of CO2 utilisation technologies and approaches are the current low prices of fossil feedstocks and low price of CO2 emissions. These fac-tors, coupled with the capital investment needed to

deploy the technology and the often higher operating costs, weigh heavily on the cost of novel CO2-based products, making it often impossible for them to com-pete with established fossil-based alternatives today. In this respect, from the portfolio assessment, it is clear that to be competitive on price terms with fossil based products, CO2-based alternatives would often require some sort of subsidy. Several survey responders drew attention to the need for an explicit definition of the role of captured and avoided by CCU utilisation under the EU ETS scheme, in order to clarify the way towards a circular CO2 feedstock utilisation.

2. ADDED VALUE OF EU-LEVEL R&I INVESTMENT

Projects are mostly cross-sectoral and their research activities include, or are directly relevant to, two or three industrial sectors. Interestingly, the most cited sectors are steel and chemicals, which are major European industrial sectors economically, and are the largest energy consuming industries. This shows how European collaborative research is able to connect different sec-tors and value chains, which is key for cross fertilisation,

transfer of best practises, as well as cross-sectoral transfer, market replication and making industrial sym-biosis a reality. European projects show significant potential in terms of bringing novel technologies closer to market deployment. Data gathered from projects show an average TRL increase of 2.3 (during the project lifetime) with about 50 % of SPIRE projects expecting full deployment of their concepts within a five year

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Iron/SteelChemicals/Pharmaceuticals

Engineering/MachiningFuels

WaterFood/Drink

Non-Ferrous metalsTransportElectricity

CementPaper/Pulp

MineralsBuildings

OtherCeramics

Glass

FIGURE 8 Number of EE and CCU projects reporting relevance to different sectors


period after project completion, speeding up commer-cialisation by 24-36 months compared to the time to market for their internal R&D.

In terms of scientific impact, projects on CCU utilisation are more oriented towards scientific publications com-pared to energy efficiency ones. The number of publica-tions from projects is in line with the average for the FP7 cooperation programme (36 publications by EUR 10 million). However, the majority of projects are still running and a significant share of publications is still expected after the end of the projects. The energy efficiency portfolio, on the other hand, shows a lower number of scientific publications, roughly half of the average for FP7, but with double the number of submit-ted patents (two patents per EUR 10 million funding). This illustrates the lower level of technological maturity of the CCU projects, which seem to still be mostly at an earlier development stage, compared to the energy

efficiency portfolio which is more oriented towards near-market research and IP protection for technology exploitation.

The assessment of the portfolio shows that beyond merely providing financing, EU R&I support has fostered connections between industries, research institutions, and governments, which are vital to building and struc-turing an ecosystem to enable the efficient develop-ment and commercialisation of innovations. Projects have contributed by taking a value chain approach, including all stakeholders, to ensure rapid technology development and fast deployment. On the other hand, the EU has strongly supported the establishment of broad cross-sectoral platforms such as SPIRE and the Climate-KIC flagship enCO2re, which are key to connect actors and structure value chains across sectors, Mem-ber States and regions, and to promote the dissemina-tion and exploitation of scientific outcomes.

3. IMPACT FOR POLICIES

The absence of (harmonised) reporting requirements, tailored specifically to address policy issues, currently makes it very difficult to model the impact of R&I fund-ing on policy goals. In addition, there is a lack of clear benchmarks and models to assess qualitatively and quantitatively the project impacts on specific KPIs (e.g. GHG emission reductions).

A survey amongst participants of projects addressed this difficulty. While based on self-assessment, the survey provided very useful policy information, enabled spotting trends and drawing conclusions. With a response rate of 37 %, the survey shows the great reservoir of policy and technology knowledge that can be mobilised through the EU research projects and shows the great availability and willingness of the actors to provide feedback for policy making.

SUPPORTING THE TRANSFER OF POLICY-RELEVANT INNOVATIONS TO MARKET

The assessment of the project portfolio and the survey results highlighted how EU R&I funding has financed innovations with strong market potential. With the nota-ble exception of the CO2-to-fuels projects (because of their large requirement for renewable energy), most of the projects reported potential to reduce operating costs (7 % on average compared to current practice), high-lighting the potential competitive advantage that novel technologies in energy efficiency may provide to indus-try operators.

It is vital that these technologies achieve commercialisa-tion if they are to improve the competitiveness of Euro-pean industry, realise their potential environmental ben-efits and enable the achievement of the EU’s overarching political targets. On this aspect, the survey respondents flagged a number of issues, corroborating the literature findings, which are hindering the full exploitation of the technologies, up to their market deployment. In particular, project stakeholders revealed that a major hurdle to bring their technologies to the market is related to a range of behavioural and knowledge barriers.


Another major hurdle identified, hindering market deployment, is the scaling up of R&I results, which is considered a major challenge, in particular for expensive large-scale first-of-a-kind demonstrators (FOAK). From the responses to the survey it is clear that significant economic barriers are encountered by private investors when trying to raise the required financing for imple-menting novel technologies at full scale, in order to bring their project results to the market.

Many of the stated breakthroughs, in the CCU portfolio in particular, critically rely on the availability of abun-dant and cheap low carbon electricity to realise their environmental benefits and build a business case. In this respect, the deployment of these technologies needs to go hand in hand with the increase of the renewable energy share and priority should be given to those who provide the most efficient use of energy. Therefore, tools and methodologies are necessary to compare technologies and identify those that will deliver the most benefit next to their needed economic viability. In environmental terms, LCA methodologies are broadly used to assess the environmental footprint of technologies. Therefore, the availability of harmonised LCA methodologies, for CCU in particular, is needed when comparing the GHG abatement potential and other environmental benefits of different CCU technol-ogies. This would allow better informed decisions on the best technological pathways to achieve the GHG abate-ment goals, and in principle, once identified as benefi-cial to deliver policy targets, a certain CCU utilisation technology could then be integrated into relevant EU, national and regional support schemes.

From the assessment of the project portfolio, both for CCU and energy efficiency, industrial symbiosis emerges as a way forward. In Europe there are already several cases of industrial symbiosis clusters, but cross-sectoral integration has yet to be achieved on a broader scale. A deeper integration of industrial operations may lead to significant and even breakthrough improvements in resource and energy efficiency, even for very mature technologies where the processes are highly optimised and therefore major gains are difficult to achieve (e.g. cement, steel). The establishment of broader indus-trial symbiosis in the process industry is one of the major objectives of the SPIRE PPP, where several pro-jects in this direction have already been funded. In addi-tion, industrial symbiosis is crucial to CCU technologies, which are mostly cross sectorial and rely on symbiosis concepts because they generally require the integration of a point source of CO2 (e.g. often gaseous waste streams from an industrial plant) coupled to a conver-sion unit of chemical nature. However, from the analysis of the industrial symbiosis projects included in the port-folio, it emerges that non-technological issues are major hurdles to scaling up industrial symbiosis in Europe. For example, this is the case for contracting issues, issues linked to sharing of information among different com-panies, relevant standards, utility support related to permitting and infrastructure establishment including its management, and regulations linked to utilisation of waste streams (Member State implementation of the waste framework directive in particular).

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS


nology services for projects seeking to move from laboratory validation to industrial prototype. The Invite facility in Leverkusen provides a valuable illustration of the way to go in this regard. Initially established under the F3 FACTORY FP7 project, and set up with regional funding, it operates on a membership basis, allowing industry, including SMEs, and academia to work together under a single roof. The Open Innova-tion Test Beds concept, as proposed in the NMBP work programme 2018-2020, should be exploited the develop further Open Innovation Centres to support large-scale demonstration projects in relation to CCU and energy efficiency more generally.

> Large-scale demonstration projects are medium term in nature so the need to source successive rounds of funding hinders technology progression. To address this obstacle, funding programmes should extend the application of mechanisms such as the ERC Proof of Concept grant to facilitate successive funding of pro-jects in strategic areas such as CCU and energy efficiency.

> As well as the non-economic barriers discussed above, there are of course very significant economic barriers to implementing efficiency improvements on the scale required to meet EU policy goals. In particular, the need for de-risking investments, while guaranteeing faster pay-back times and better ROI, seems one of the major obstacles to pulling increased private investments towards novel energy efficiency technol-ogies. A number of institutions are working on these

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY AND TO THE REDUCTION OF GHG

Bringing breakthrough technologies to market so as to deliver policy goals in relation to low carbon industries will require very significant financial support and smart R&I policies. Public and private financial resources should be marshalled to ensure that projects of relevance to policy challenges are appropriately supported on their TRL journey and can be proven at scale. Appropriate knowledge transfer is necessary for technological uptake and market replication; additional efforts are needed to communicate successful results.

Increasing investor confidence is essential for the uptake of novel low carbon technologies with high GHG reduction potential. Large-scale demonstration projects play a critical role in this regard by showing the techni-cal capacity and viability of these new technologies, thus attracting private investment. Their optimum development is currently hindered by suboptimal financ-ing arrangements and this must be remedied.

> Public financing instruments already exist to fund such large-scale demonstrators, including in national and EU research programmes, the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) and the Innovfin and Energy Demonstration Projects Facility of the European Investment Bank (EIB). However, these need to be applied more efficiently. In particular, given that the scale of demonstration projects, a single financing source will generally not be sufficient to cover the funding need, and flexibility is needed to allow for financing from different public and private sources to be pooled. In this regard, Member States should look at Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI). In addition, the appropriateness of state aid rules, notably in relation to industrial research aid intensity limits, need to be reviewed in the light of the critical importance of projects aimed at reaching climate targets.

> Open Innovation Centres can also have an important role to play and contribute to investor confidence. They provide shared access to equipment and tech-

1. BUILD INVESTOR CONFIDENCE IN DISRUPTIVE LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH EFFICIENT FUNDING OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND EASIER ACCESS TO FINANCE


Commission focused on a new overall energy effi-ciency target of 30 % by 2030, and on the energy performance of buildings. Article 8 of the Energy Effi-ciency Directive remains unchanged. However, to meet the new energy efficiency targets, an appropriate implementation of energy audits will be essential. In the short term, this requires a focus at Member State

issues and provide recommendations to this effect (EC activities on Sustainable Finance 11, the Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group, EIB Innovfin 12).

Standardised risk assessment, bundling of financing propositions, and securitisation vehicles should be fur-ther investigated to widen access to cheap capital.

2. INTRODUCE STANDARDISED METRICS TO ENHANCE R&I FUNDING AND THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR LOW CARBON TECHNOLOGIES

Standardised metrics improve funding decision-making by measuring the impact of R&I funding programmes as well as capturing the value of individual project results. Thus, they can guide future funding decisions by enabling European, national and regional authorities to measure the extent to which publicly funded R&I is on track to deliver the expected policy goals. They can also build private investor confidence in the consistency and reliability of public funding decisions.

> The Commission should lead the way with standard-ised metrics by putting in place an official moving baseline of value chain practices in the EU in relation

to energy consumption, GHG emissions, etc., based on growth forecasts and business-as-usual assumptions. In parallel, R&I projects should be required to produce standard of Key Performance Indicators to improve transparency and impact assessment. On this basis, Member States and regions could develop similar metrics to support policy-making and funding decisions.

> Moreover, such standard metrics could be used by public-private partnerships and in coordination and support actions to connect researchers, projects and industrial communities, as well as communicating success stories and sharing lessons learnt.

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY FIRST PRINCIPLE There is significant technical potential to improve industrial energy efficiency but also the need to unlock this potential by alleviating non-economic and economic barriers to investment.

> Under Article 8 of the Energy Efficiency Directive, Member States have to ensure large enterprises con-duct mandatory energy audits every four years and encourage SMEs to undergo audits and implement their recommendations. In its energy efficiency pro-posals of the Clean Energy Package of November 2016 (COM/2016/0761 and COM/2016/0765), the

3. EXTEND THE SCOPE OF ENERGY AUDITS TO FOSTER THE DEPLOYMENT OF CUTTING-EDGE ENERGY EFFICIENCY TECHNOLOGIES, INCLUDING SUPPORT FOR CAPACITY BUILDING OF AUDITORS

11 https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance_en 12 www.eib.org/attachments/pj/access_to_finance_study_on_bioeconomy_en.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/sustainable-finance_en

http://www.eib.org/attachments/pj/access_to_finance_study_on_bioeconomy_en.pdf


cost-effective way and, hence, adopt appropriate policy measures. In this regard, the EU has started a workshop series on Life Cycle Assessment for CCU and should continue efforts to harmonise LCA meth-odologies for CCU. This should be a short-term priority at European level, and coordinated and aligned with Member States and industry.

> The application of rigorous LCA methodologies to CCU is the pre-requisite to define possible market support for CCU products and captured CO2.

and European level on how to improve audit imple-mentation, taking into account the limited resources available. As the effectiveness of energy audits criti-cally depends on the method used and on the quality of auditors, the EU should promote best auditing prac-tices, developing benchmarking tools, open data and libraries of energy savings opportunities. The training and development of auditors (for example through the Blueprint for Sectoral Cooperation on Skills), the establishment of professional profiles, and the har-monisation of qualification requirements should be explored.

> In the medium term, in the framework of the next revi-sion of the Energy Efficiency Directive, consideration should be given to enlarging the scope of energy audits, so that they include a new forward looking function. In this way, the audit could be a catalyst for increasing awareness in enterprises of the value of energy efficiency innovations and the advantages they may bring in environmental and economic terms. This would be an enhanced pull factor in bringing novel clean and energy efficient technologies into the market, benefitting the citizens, the environment and the economy. Audits could also consider and provide rec-ommendations with regard to industrial symbiosis clus-tering opportunities.

RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE CO2 UTILISATION AND TO A CIRCULAR ECONOMYThe establishment of a circular economy in Europe to move to a sustainable society is one of the key objectives of the European Commission, as set-out in the communication “Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy” 13. In the R&I project portfolios investigated in this report, industrial symbiosis and CCU technologies emerge as having significant potential to contribute to the progress towards a circular economy in Europe. They have the potential to contribute to policy challenges in relation to reducing GHG emissions and strengthening energy security, increasing resource efficiency including circularity of manufacturing and consumption, along with providing novel business opportunities for industry, jobs and growth. The policy recommendations in this section aim at harnessing the potential of these two approaches.

> The European Commission should coordinate the development of harmonised Life Cycle Sustaina-bility Assessment (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing and social LCA) to benchmark the socio-economic and environmental benefits of CCU technologies, as well as the greenhouse gas emis-sions savings (compared to current technologies) over the full life-cycle. This information is necessary to understand which technologies and approaches con-tribute to achieving environmental targets in the most

4. REALISE THE FULL POTENTIAL OF CO2 UTILISATION, BEYOND GHG MITIGATION, THROUGH TARGETED REGULATORY AND MARKET MEASURES, SUPPORTED BY HARMONISED LIFE-CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

13 COM(2015) 614 final.


This could take various forms, for instance, incorpo-rating CCU-fuels as an option to fulfil renewable fuel quotas as proposed by the Commission in the pro-posal for REDII (2021-30), certifying CO2-feed-stock content in chemicals and plastics, and proper accounting of CO2 feedstock-use in the ETS. In this respect, in the revision of the ETS Directive 2003/87/EC, the European Commission deemed a regulatory treatment as being premature considering the cur-rent state of development of CCU technologies. It is recommended that in the next review of the ETS Directive, this exemption is extended to CCU technol-ogies that offer demonstrated permanent storage (e.g. mineralisation). For CCU products where end-of-life emissions happen outside the ETS, and providing therefore no incentive to capture and use CO2, the EU should explore demand-side incentives, such as rec-ognising CCU transport fuels in RED quotas, as pro-posed in the REDII directive, or standards and quotas for inclusion of CCU-chemicals in products in relevant policy instruments. With these principles, all CO2 emissions from ETS sectors would be counted once within the ETS, while incentivising all beneficial CCU pathways even outside the ETS.

> CCU can play a role in the transition to renewable energy sources by utilising excess energy, providing chemical storage in synthetic fuels (methanol, syn-thetic natural gas), and therefore contributing to the low carbon energy transition and energy security. However, these technologies (e.g. CCU fuels) rely on cheap low carbon energy, to provide decarbonisation benefits and be economically viable. Therefore, if the energy storage potential of CCU is to be fully har-nessed, a coordinated and integrated development of renewable energy capabilities at Member State and European level remains a prerequisite. In addition, other linked technologies should also be developed in parallel. This is notably the case for the development of cost-efficient and carbon-efficient hydrogen pro-duction technologies, which are critical to enable CCU in the production of fuels.

> Given that renewable energy will remain a precious and limited resource for the foreseeable future, the EU and Member States should design suitable policies and tools to ensure its best use, while considering all the relevant aspects (environmental, economic, stra-tegic, political). In this context CCU technologies should be supported only when this is considered the best use of renewable energy.

5. REMOVE REGULATORY AND KNOWLEDGE BARRIERS TO INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS SO AS TO UNLOCK UNEXPLOITED POTENTIAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE STREAMS AND ENHANCE CIRCULAR UTILISATION OF RESOURCES

Industrial symbiosis (IS) can provide major improve-ments in energy efficiency and material flows, and can play a role in delivering EU goals relating to emissions reduction, the circular economy and industrial competi-tiveness. However, the realisation of a deep industrial symbiosis is very challenging and faces profound obsta-cles of technical and non-technical nature. Sound life-cycle assessment is again needed to identify bene-ficial routes:

> The EU should consider developing an industrial symbiosis strategy as a follow-up of the implemen-tation of the circular economy action plan and explore the feasibility of legislation to require Member States to promote it in the future.

> The viability of industrial symbiosis is affected by waste permitting requirements that can uninten-tionally create obstacles to transferring resource streams between companies. In 2015, as part of the Circular Economy Package, the Commission has proposed amending waste regulation to remove obstacles to resource valorisation between companies, in particular through the har-monisation of how Member States apply the legal definition of ‘by-product’ and ‘end-of-waste status’, which is a welcome step forward. However, further steps must be taken to ensure that, as a general rule, resource streams used in industrial symbiosis are classified as ‘by-products’ rather than ‘waste’. Such an approach is supported, by the European Parliament.

In the longer term, the definition of waste and the issue of its ownership should be reviewed in the light of a growing body of evidence suggesting that moving towards a circular economy may require a new under-standing of waste as a common pool resource.

> The EU should promote the dissemination of best practices in industrial symbiosis policy at the Member State level. This could include, for instance, extending auditing requirements to consideration of industrial symbiosis and developing best practices, which might be included under the Industrial Emis-sions Directive framework, following the model of the generic BREF on energy efficiency.

> The EU should alleviate barriers to industrial symbiosis by promoting networks, information-sharing tools, and capacity-building initiatives. In this regard, the EU and Member States should take further action to establish platforms for network-building ini-tiatives, such as the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, taking a steer from successful projects that have built energy efficiency networks.

Furthermore, implementing industrial symbiosis requires highly skilled and trusted practitioners to coordinate and advise companies. The EU should sup-port capacity building projects to train industrial sym-biosis specialists at European and Member State level, similar to the way capacity building projects to train energy auditors and managers have been promoted.

> The EU should encourage Member States to facili-tate industrial symbiosis through their planning decisions and infrastructure investments, including its management, promoting industrial clusters and smart cities. One recent EU initiative that may serve as a model in this area is the European Sustainable Chemicals Support Service that is helping six model regions develop sustainable chemical pro-duction practices, including exploring using local waste and CO2 as feedstock. The EU should also ensure that State Aid guidelines do not unduly inhibit Member States from providing incentives for clustering through fiscal reliefs or subsidies.


Policy Area Recommendation Who acts? Actions

Industrial Strategy and reduction of GHG emissions

1. Build investor confidence in disruptive low carbon technologies through efficient funding of demonstration projects and easier access to finance

EC, MS > Increase support to First of a Kind (FOAK) demonstrations, in particular through the coordination of multiple sources of funding.

> Support the development of Open Innovation Centres through research programmes, regional funds, and national programmes.

> Enable successive funding for most successful projects, supporting them over a longer period and range of TRL.

> De-risking investments.

2. Introduce standardised metrics to enhance R&I funding and decision making process for low carbon technologies

EC > Introduce standardised impact metrics to measure potential research impacts.

> Strengthen results communication.

Energy Efficiency First

3. Extend the scope of energy audits to foster the deployment of cutting edge energy efficiency technologies, including support for capacity building of auditors

EC, MS > Improve energy audit implementation (EED art. 8): further develop best auditing practices, benchmarking, open data tools and libraries of energy savings opportunities, and ensure appropriateness of audits and auditors skills.

> Enlarge the scope of energy audits to transfer knowledge from R&D results.

CO2 utilisation & Circular Economy

4. Realise the full potential of CO2 utilisation, beyond GHG mitigation, through targeted regulatory and market measures, supported by harmonised life-cycle sustainability assessment

EC, MS, stakeholders

> Develop harmonised Life Cycle Assessment methodologies to assess and benchmark CCU technologies throughout their development cycle and across the legislative framework.

> Consider further potential benefits of CCU, e.g. resource efficiency and non-GHG emissions for producing synthetic fuels from excess renewable energies.

> Ensure the most efficient use of renewable energy.

> Enable market development of CCU technologies with demonstrated benefits: review existing, and consider new, relevant EU legislation to introduce incentives to enable CCU technologies, both from an emission perspective (e.g. under the EU-ETS), and from a demand-side perspective (e.g. under REDII or under circular economy relevant acts).

5. Remove regulatory and knowledge barriers to industrial symbiosis to unlock unexploited potential of industrial waste streams and enhance circular utilisation of resources

EC, MS > Consider developing an integrated EU industrial symbiosis strategy.

> Review and ensure an IS supportive waste legislative framework, waste permitting in particular.

> Support dissemination of Member States best practices, promote networks, information-sharing tools, and capacity-building initiatives.

> Encourage Member States to facilitate IS through their planning decisions and infrastructure investments.

Getting in touch with the EU

IN PERSON

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service – by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), – at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or – by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU

ONLINE

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU PUBLICATIONS

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en


https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

http://bookshop.europa.eu


http://eur-lex.europa.eu

http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en

Research and innovation results generated by EU Framework Programmes play a key role in addressing societal challenges, strengthening sustainable growth and creating new jobs. They can also provide solid evidence and the latest knowledge to inform and improve policymaking. ‘Research and Innovation Projects for Policy’ is a series of reports exploring this opportunity and putting it into practice. Each report focuses on selected issues and challenges in a topical policy area, highlighting the corresponding pertinent results from Framework Programmes and concluding with concrete recommendations for policy actions in Europe and internationally.

Research and Innovation policy

KI-AZ-18-001-EN-C

ISBN 978-92-79-77476-8

KI-AZ-18-001-EN-N

ISBN 978-92-79-77477-5

PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES · Contacts Nicolas SEGEBARTH Carmine MARZANO E-mails...

Documents

Transcript of PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES · Contacts Nicolas SEGEBARTH Carmine MARZANO E-mails...