The Energy Difference 12 STEPS TO GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE,...

112 STEPS TO GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT ENERGY R&D

The Energy Difference

12 STEPS TO GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT ENERGY R&D POLICY

Report of a Science|Business symposium


Supported by

Hosted by

Representation of the State of Baden-Württemberg to the EU

Supported by

WordsDavid Pringle

DesignPeter Koekoek

Editorial productionGail Edmondson

PhotographyBernard De Keyzer

© Science Business Publishing Ltd 2011

www.sciencebusiness.net

Figure 1 IEA data and analysisFigure 2 Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) and country submissionFigure 3 Country submissions, Kempener et al, 2010

At the first in a series of three high-level academic policy debates on the energy R&D challenge, The Energy Difference, twelve key ideas and recommendations have emerged to better leverage Europe’s research potential and speed the development of new energy technologies.



The global energy system is changing. Governments around the world are setting ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions and shift to new sources of energy by 2050 to avert climate change and develop a secure energy supply. But will the billions of euros being channelled into energy research and development actually deliver new technologies – and will the market embrace them? Only if policy makers understand what makes energy R&D different – and what it will take to unlock a far-greater commitment by private industry to co-fund energy innovation.

On March 11, Science|Business held the first in a series of three high-level academic policy symposia focused on the energy R&D challenge, The Energy Difference. It addressed the policy implications of the unique characteristics of the energy market. The aim of the series, which is supported by BP, is to drive new thinking about how to speed new energy technologies to market.

Most governments rely on the same policy toolkits for energy R&D as they do for computers, drugs or missiles. That’s a problem. Energy research is expensive, long-term and big-scale. And despite the risk and big investments in innovative new sources of energy, the final product is a commodity, and markets are highly regulated.

No matter how innovative the technology used to produce energy, the end result is the same. Unlike a ground-breaking semiconductor or software application, new energy sources can’t attract a premium without ubiquitous carbon pricing. A new type of solar panel must produce electricity at a cost that is competitive with the massive installed base of fossil fuel plants.

Without greater promise of market take-up and financial reward, companies have little incentive to pour billions into new energy technologies. The market structure is skewed against them. “It’s not simply a question of rolling out a technology and letting the market adopt it,” Philip Lowe, Director General for Energy at the European Commission, said in a keynote presentation at the symposium. “The market won’t adopt it unless they have seen it reach levels of large-scale operation at a competitive cost.”

This report summarizes the half-day of debate at the symposium and 12 key ideas and recommendations to make energy R&D more effective and to unlock the innovation chain. While we quote some of our 40 roundtable guests in this report, we do not wish to imply they endorse all or any of the individual suggestions for change that we present here. Our list of recommendations emerged from their lively engagement and the force of their ideas. The symposium took place in Brussels, at the EU Representation of the German state of Baden-Württemberg.

This series of energy symposia is taking place at a critical juncture. To execute its new Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan, the European Commission will need to find fresh resources and channel them expertly. But public funds are scarce. As Philip Lowe, Director General for Energy at the European Commission, acknowledged in a keynote presentation, the only thing missing from the SET Plan is “where the money is coming from”. This report aims to help policy makers answer that question and the many others slowing the development of low-carbon technologies and alternative energy.



Report of a Science|Business symposium

Figure 1 Incremental total primary energy supply in CEM and the world, 2000-08



Part 1 Mastering the complexity• Adopt an integrated energy system modelling approach to inform the EU strategic choices• Develop a systems approach to R&D policy that targets supply, distribution and demand• Conduct R&D on the best way to transition society to a more sustainable energy future

Part 2 Removing the unseen barriers to investment• Make carefully targeted interventions to remove the specific barriers to each new

technology• Ensure that bureaucracy and overly complex rules do not block alternative energy options• Engage the highest-levels of government on how to transition Europe to a more

sustainable energy economy• Set an appropriate price for carbon emissions in the European Union Emissions Trading

Scheme • Give the private sector as much regulatory certainty and clarity as possible

Part 3 Creating public-private partnerships that work • Encourage policy-makers, businesses and universities to work together to develop

national energy plans• Streamline and simplify the processes around EU support for energy R&D

Part 4 Finding new sources to fund energy R&D

• Consider funding new energy technologies through more innovative financial instruments, such as debt-financing and long-term venture capital

• Focus the EU on R&D projects that are too big and too risky for nation-states or companies, and enable the development of interconnected infrastructure and standards

CONTENTS

5

8

14

17

TWELVE STEPS TO A MORE EFFECTIVE EU ENERGY R&D POLICYConclusions of the Science|Business symposium



Build an integrated energy system model for Europe through 2050

Building a comprehensive model for a transformed future energy economy is vital to making the right R&D investments. It also gives private companies greater clarity and incentive to pursue new technologies. British policy makers and industry executives at the UK Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) gained important insights from a detailed modelling of the UK energy market which revealed, for example, that biomass could be critical to meeting the country’s emission reduction goals. The ETI, a partnership between international companies and the UK government to accelerate the development of new energy technologies, is reviewing its investment strategy to reflect the model results.

Some 175 energy technologies and 20 major distribution nodes were built into the ETI’s model, which started with the premise of 80% lower emissions by 2050 and worked backwards. A similar Europe-wide model could enable policy makers to cut through the complexity and figure out which alternative sources of energy to prioritize. The European Commission has already started drawing a roadmap to 2050 including an energy-migration strategy, which should be completed by year end. The next step would be connecting that strategy to detailed R&D in the Commission’s next, multi-annual funding initiative, the successor to the 7th Framework Programme.

Idea 1

Part I Mastering the Complexity

The European energy market is tremendously complex. So complex, in fact, that even experts don’t fully understand how it works. That makes it tough for policy makers to figure out which levers will be the most effective in achieving the EU goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent between 1990 and 2050.

New energy technologies, particularly those based on renewables with inherent variability in supply, add to the complexity and are likely to require new market mechanisms. The design of these mechanisms will require considerable research.



Develop a systems approach to R&D

Now that the EU has determined its energy technology priorities, policy makers should take a “systems perspective”. That means considering how the power, heat and transport sectors interact, and within this energy ecosystem, how the supply, distribution and demand factors interact. They then need to come up with appropriate incentives and rules to move the whole system in the right direction.

Systems thinking also requires policy-makers to implement energy policies in a coherent way across all branches of government. On the demand side, for example, electricity regulators could do more to set tariffs and rules that encourage electricity companies to tap new sources of energy, rather than just the cheapest. On the supply side, governments may need to change their planning regulations. Much more work is required to address the demand side, which remains relatively unexplored in an energy context.

From the symposium discussion:

Richard Templer, Hofmann Professor of Chemistry, and Director of the Porter Institute for Sustainable Bioenergy Research at Imperial College London; Director of UK Co-location Centre for Climate KIC, European Institute of Innovation and Technology: “Frankly Europe needs to raise the level of investment and lower the bureaucratic hurdles to trialing and implementing new technologies.”

Tim Foxon, UK Research Councils Academic Research Fellow at the Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds: Policy makers need to consider carefully how the forces of supply and demand interact. Although the early decarbonisation of the electricity sector, for example, is key to enabling the deployment of low-emission electric transport, “the electricity sector has traditionally offered low returns on investment, so there is little incentive to invest in risky R&D.”

Conduct R&D on the best way to transition society to alternative energies

One of the biggest challenges faced by some low-carbon technologies is social acceptance. Even so-called clean technologies face vocal opposition. In some European countries, wind farms have been blocked by rural communities protesting about the aesthetic impact of towering turbines on the landscape. The commercial deployment of promising new energy technologies in democratic countries risks being delayed for years by public consultation and legal wrangles over the location of the necessary infrastructure. So, governments need to figure out how to convince their citizens to accept the need for new energy sources.

Europe needs a clear and tangible vision of its energy future which citizens can believe in and rally around. A comprehensive model would help overcome national and local resistance to renewable energies. At present, citizens do not see a coherent vision of Europe’s energy future, but a piecemeal view of an uncoordinated future.

Idea 2

Idea 3

Richard Templer, Imperial College London/EIT




Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, head of energy policy and group leader of solar thermal collectors and applications, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems: “We don’t just need R&D in technology. We also have to do R&D on the transition itself, as it is a huge challenge we face to have the transition of our energy system…we have to work on planning, risk scenarios, social acceptance and develop business models to make this happen.”

Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems



Governments need to find a way to channel limited public funds into energy technologies that hold the greatest promise, and, at the same time, encourage private industry to co-invest. Letting governments “pick winners” is controversial. Billions in taxpayer money has been wasted propping up uncompetitive industrial sectors or companies over the years. But most experts believe some form of public sector intervention

Make carefully targeted interventions to remove specific barriers faced by each promising new technology

Although Europe is awash with grants and subsidies designed to encourage the development and usage of renewable energy, these interventions need to be much more precise and focused. In essence, public money should be used to remove a clearly-defined and specific barrier, rather than to provide life-support to unviable technologies.

Ideally, policy makers responsible for choosing which new technologies receive public funding should tap expert knowledge from academia, research and business. One way the EU is attempting to do that is through the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, which is rolling out Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) to bring together actors from R&D, industry and education. The KIC InnoEnergy, launched in December 2009, has projects running across a wide range of alternative energies.

Funded by the UK government, the Carbon Trust provides specialist support to business and the public sector to help cut carbon emissions, save energy, and commercialise low-carbon technologies. It works to open markets for low-carbon technologies, leads industry collaborations to commercialise technologies, and invests in early-stage low-carbon companies.

is the only way to make new sources of power competitive with that generated by existing fossil-fuel driven power plants. Moreover, the complexity of the energy industry, combined with the uncertainty surrounding many new technologies, means that it is difficult to get clear signals from the market about which new sources of power hold the most long-term promise.

Idea 1

Part 2 Removing the unseen barriers to investment




Paul Jefferiss, head of policy, BP group strategy and policy team: “What many support mechanisms have failed to do is to differentiate between the barriers different technologies face…We need to be more discriminating about the way in which we deploy innovation subsidies. Very highly-targeted, differentiated technology accelerators can be fast and cost-effective.”

Philip Lowe, Director General, DG Energy, European Commission: “Because of the catch-up need for investment, it looks inevitable that governments will be tempted and will be pushed by their industries into providing, at least in the short-term, either some explicit subsidy, as in renewables, or implicit subsidy, such as long-term regulated prices, to suppliers in order for them to start investing. But there is a danger in the longer-term because if governments repossess the control of the wholesale market in energy, they will, in the end, kill the goose that is laying the golden egg…Normally speaking, when you have a market failure and you need to correct it, you do so by giving a short-term window of support and then closing it when you believe you are on the way to achieving the objective.”

Karl-Friedrich Ziegahn, chairman, German Co-location Centre for Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy; and programme manager, renewable energies and efficient energy, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology: “We do work on photovoltaic panels, smart grids, clean coal, on the convergence of nuclear and renewable energies, on chemical fuels. We feel there is a huge opportunity to secure energy from chemical fuels: whether these chemical fuels are based on biomass, we have the storage and the distribution capacity for chemical fuels all over Europe, as we have good existing infrastructure – the gas grid, for example.”

Philip Lowe, European Commission

Karl-Friedrich Ziegahn, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology




Reinhilde Veugelers, professor of economics at KU Leuven and a research fellow at Bruegel: Europe isn’t a global leader in renewable energy research. “The EU is not a frontrunner, with the exception of Germany, which is the strongest player, along with the US and Japan. China and Korea are making big jumps too,” she said.

David Eyton, group head of research and technology at BP: “There is competition between the major trading blocks in the world…And I would characterise, to date, the complexity of trying to do R&D under the European Framework Programme as having been something of a block for BP to invest.”

Ensure that bureaucracy and a labyrinth of rules are not blocking investments in alternative energy R&D

One of the reasons that Europe lags behind the US and parts of Asia in the development of alternative energies is the complexity of doing business in the EU. While alternative energy investors in Europe may need to navigate their way through EU, national and regional regulations, some Asian countries have a highly-centralised approach, enabling the fast deployment of both demonstration and commercial power plants. China is moving quickly to deploy alternative energy technologies, enabling it to massively expand its wind power capacity, for example, in the past three years.

Idea 2

Figure 2 China and India’s growth in wind power capacity

David Eyton, BP




Tom Kerr, senior energy analyst at the IEA: “We need to move away from the notion in this area that there is this invisible hand of the market that will take care of it,” he said. Energy policy needs to be driven by the highest levels of government and be based on a strategic plan developed in partnership with business “sitting as equals at the table.”

Stan Zachary, professor of actuarial mathematics and statistics, Heriot-Watt University: “There is presently insufficient economic incentive to invest rapidly in the technologies required for clean energy. This is because the benefits of such do not accrue to those required to make the investments. The natural economic mechanism is a sufficiently high carbon price, but this, or other equivalent economic incentives, require international agreement, making it difficult to formulate European policy without such agreement.”

Persuade the highest levels of government to champion alternative energy R&D

Bringing about the massive changes required to transform the energy landscape depends on presidents and prime ministers expending political capital to champion those changes. The International Energy Agency, for example, blames the slow progress towards a low-carbon economy partly on a lack of political leadership worldwide.

Idea 3

Set a higher price for carbon emissions in the European Union’s Emis-sion Trading Scheme

Launched in 2005, the European Union Emission Trading Scheme is designed to reduce Europe’s use of fossil fuels by setting a cap on overall CO₂ emissions. Under the scheme, large emitters such as power plants and carbon-intensive factories must obtain permits to emit each tonne of CO₂. Companies lacking sufficient permits can either reduce emissions or trade with other companies that have an excess allowance, setting a market price for carbon. But the scheme has been criticised for handing out overly-generous free permits, and setting emissions limits too high, resulting in the carbon price being too low to encourage big emitters to switch to cleaner energy sources. In addition, economic recession has reduced emissions, resulting in a lower carbon market price than is needed to make many renewable energy sources cost competitive.

Responding to these criticisms, the EU lowered the ETS Phase II emissions cap by 6 per cent for the trading period 2008-2012. The Commission is planning additional changes with the launch of ETS Phase III in 2013, when 60% of the permits will be auctioned, compared with less than 4 per cent today.

Idea 4

Tom Kerr, IEA




Reinhilde Veugelers, professor of economics at KU Leuven and a research fellow at Bruegel: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is a ground-breaking instrument. But the scheme needs to put a significantly higher price on carbon to incentivise more research. “The amount of money required for grants and subsidies would be much smaller with a strong carbon price.”

Give the private sector as much certainty and clarity as possible

As it can take a decade to get a major new power plant up and running, energy investors have to make long-term bets, which involve significant risks. The higher the risk, the greater the return investors expect. One of the most significant risks in the energy market is the danger that government policies will change, making specific energy sources more or less competitive. For that reason, policy makers need to make clear long-term commitments to alternative energy that will lower the risks and the returns threshold for investment by the private sector.

Idea 5

Reinhilde Veugelers, KU Leuven/Bruegel




Philip Lowe, Director General, DG Energy, European Commission: The Commission’s roadmap to 2050 is designed to give industry a clearer view of what lies ahead and reduce uncertainty. “Uncertainties both in Europe and globally have meant that there has been an underinvestment both in energy generation and networks.”

Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, head of energy policy and group leader of solar thermal collectors and applications, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems: “World-class R&D requires continuity in working on specific topics and can only be achieved if R&D programmes are predictable and dedicated to specific R&D topics. Stop-and-go support policy and constantly changing priorities inhibit Europe’s R&D capacity.”

Philip Lowe, European Commission



The EU Framework Research programme has been widely criticised for creating unwieldy public-private consortia. Will the European Commission’s Strategic Energy Technology Plan take a smarter approach? The SET Plan envisions national governments and companies teaming up in industry-led consortia (European Industrial Initiatives) to finance large-scale demonstration projects of next-generation technologies in solar energy, biofuels, wind energy, smart grids (including energy storage technologies) and carbon capture and storage. Realistically, given the crippling budget deficits of many European governments, the private sector, and in particular


Luc Soete, director of UNU-MERIT and professor of inter-national economics at the Faculty of Economics and Busi-ness Administration, Maastricht University: “Most of the re-search outcomes have probably been realised first outside of Europe, despite the fact that the research was carried out in Europe. Developing countries, such as China, India and Bra-zil, are still building out their energy infrastructure, so their energy policies are not as constrained as those in Europe by large sunk costs.”

large energy companies, will be vital to funding the SET Plan’s ambitious demonstration projects. That puts an even larger burden on policy makers to ensure that the new public-private model entices industry.

For now, symposium participants noted, the energy R&D landscape in Europe remains less attractive for private companies than that in Asia and the US. Although many global energy companies carry out large-scale research, experts say they are investing the lion’s share of that money outside the EU.

Part 3 Creating public-private partnerships that work

Luc Soete, UNU-MERIT/Maastricht University



Encourage policy makers and businesses to work together as equals to develop national energy plans

Ambitious new national energy plans developed without the knowledge and experience of the private sector are unlikely to work. Governments need to find ways to motivate companies to lend their expertise and provide meaningful input. Experts say the best way to do that is to treat business as an equal partner, in non-bureaucratic structures, so interactions between the private and public sectors are both fast and efficient.

Idea 1


Matjaz Malgaj, deputy head of cabinet for Janez Potočnik, Commissioner for the Environment, Europe-an Commission: “The SET plan is a response to the way research is organized in the EU and its member states – which was not up to addressing the big energy chal-lenge…SET is a very open model. It is not a Soviet plan. It is based on cooperation and competition.”

Streamline and simplify the processes around EU support for energy R&D

One major obstacle for any new technology is attracting financial backing during the so-called “valley of death” between fundamental research and the launch of commercial products. Experts say the EU, in particular, doesn’t have a strong track record in commercialising its energy research. Entrepreneurs often complain that the continent’s venture capital industry is sub-scale and short-term, while public money requires applicants to jump through lots of hoops and comes with endless strings attached.

The Commission is trying to help tackle this perennial problem by bringing its programmes supporting research and innovation together under a “Common Strategic Framework”, so that applicants for EU funding face less bureaucracy and can find support at each stage of the innovation cycle. The EU’s new SET Plan and its cornerstone European Industrial Initiatives programme was designed to address this problem and ensure innovative new energy technologies are brought successfully from laboratory to market.

Idea 2

Matjaz Malgaj, European Commission



David Eyton, group head of research and technology at BP: While Europe has made good progress in some areas of energy research, such as nuclear technology, the complexity of trying to do R&D in Europe can be too great. “It is highly competitive in America…while the Chinese can experiment at scale fairly cheaply and very quickly, so if you are looking for pace and cost-effectiveness, China is very competitive.”

Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, head of energy policy and group leader of solar thermal collectors and applications, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems: “Reduce the process time from application to the start of R&D projects. Innovation needs flexibility and quick reactions. To develop solid proposals for project applications needs time and the process must be transparent and fair. But still there is room to accelerate the process between proposal submission and project start. The European Research Council’s processes could serve as an example.”


Marie C. Donnelly, director of new and renewable ener-gies and innovation, DG Energy, European Commission: The Commission’s research and innovation programmes are being streamlined and simplified to speed up the pro-cess of securing funding. “At the moment, you have to go through three different programmes and this doesn’t make sense. We have to have continuity from blue-skies research to delivery.” However, it isn’t the role of the public sector to actually commercialize research.

Raymond Schonfeld, managing director Single Market Ventures: “The Key Enabling Technologies (KET) pro-gramme of the European Commission, which contains explicit linkages to the energy sector, has identified the ‘valley of death’ as potentially the most important single obstacle to wide-ranging EU-level progress in advanced technologies. Public policy has a role to play in what the KET programme High-Level Group defined as ‘bridging the valley’ “.

Marie C. Donnelly, European Commission

David Eyton, BP



Part 4 Finding new sources of funding for energy R&D

At a time when public money is in short supply, how will Europe fund the R&D required to hit the EU’s emission reduction targets? The International Energy Agency estimates that $10 billion a year is currently spent on energy R&D worldwide by governments and companies, but that figure needs to rise to between $40 billion to $90 billion a year to hit the 2050 goals. The agency believes governments will have to stump up about half of this cash.

Europe’s SET Plan calls for an additional €50 billion to be invested in R&D and related technology demonstration over the next decade. In its roadmap setting out how to achieve the 80% goal, published in March 2011, the Commission argued that full implementation of SET “is indispensable”. But concrete funding for the ambitious plan has not yet materialised.

Figure 3 Public spending on renewable energy RD&D (2010 USD million)




Luc Soete, director of UNU-MERIT and professor of international economic relations at the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University: “One of the specialisations of Europe, one of our characteristics, one of our endowments, is the enormously large savings our ageing populations are putting together,” he, pointed out. “Thank God there is a need for a trillion dollars investment in energy infrastructure, which is better than investing in sub-prime mortgages in the US. The fundamental challenge is: how do we re-allocate this huge amount of savings into investments?”

Consider funding energy R&D through more innovative financial instruments

Policy makers need to look beyond subsidies and grants to more innovative financial instruments, such as debt-financing and long-term venture capital, to support the development of alternative energy. Such instruments could be used to harness a greater proportion of the substantial savings of Europe’s ageing population.

Idea 1

Anil Sethi, CEO of Switzerland’s Flisom, a start-up which develops flexible solar panels: “We are in clean energy and venture capitalists don’t really understand how to support start-ups like ours…It is in commercializing the research where [Europe] gets stuck.”

Philip Lowe, Director General, DG Energy, European Commission: The only thing missing from the SET plan is the source of funding. “We have a fairly good idea of where the money is coming from for 2011 and 2012, but we have got to go further than that to look see what kind of commitment we can make beyond 2013...I’m disappointed to see the US, China and even India, on various indices, spending more in some areas of energy research than the European Union over the past few years…The SET plan needs to attract, not just the very small amount of EU money (from the Framework Programme), but also greater focus from national research organisations. I think that is possible, but it remains a challenge,” he added.

Anil Sethi, Flisom



Focus the EU on R&D projects that are too big and too risky for individual member states or companies

How much energy R&D should be done at the EU level? Europe’s diverse geography means that few alternative energy sources can be deployed across the continent. While Denmark and Scotland might want EU funds devoted to R&D into improving wind turbines, Greece and Portugal would probably prefer EU money to be spent on finding ways to make solar panels more efficient. Moreover, some European countries, notably Germany, are already carrying out their own large-scale R&D.

So, is it time for the EU to take a step back? The EU institutions could concentrate solely on those projects that are too big and too risky to be undertaken by any one country or company alone, such as nuclear R&D and carbon capture and storage demonstration projects, and those which enable the development of interconnected infrastructure. EU policy makers should also look for opportunities to harmonise policies around Europe and standardise key technologies, such as power standards, to help generate scale and efficiency. In this way, the EU could help shape the alternative energy market in the same way it guided the early development of the highly-successful GSM mobile phone networks.

One of the primary roles of EU policy makers is framing the big picture. The role of the EU institutions is to draw up a clear policy framework that will give the energy industry the long-term certainty and continuity it needs to invest in alternative sources of energy, which can take decades to deploy.

Idea 2

Bruno Schmitz, head of unit, new and renewable energy sources at DG Research and Innovation, European Commission: Successful EU interventions under the SET Plan include pushing for a ‘step change’ in technological development, for example, persuading the wind industry to shift off-shore. “There are a number of issues that go beyond what companies can do and this is what we would like to put under the SET umbrella,” he added. “But we need to find money to fund some of these activities or we risk losing momentum.”

Bruno Schmitz, European Commission

The next “Energy Difference” symposium takes place June 28 in Brussels: The Energy R&D Roadmap: The Case of Next-Generation Biofuels. Send an email to [email protected] if you would like a copy of the resulting report emailed to you.



Greg Arrowsmith, Policy Officer, European Renewable Energy Centres Agency

Henrik Bindslev, Chairman, European Energy Research Alliance; and Director of the National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark

Howard Chase, Director, European Government Affairs, BP

Frank Convery, Heritage Trust Professor, Environmental Policy; and Director, Urban Institute Ireland, University College Dublin

Lauren Culver, Energy officer, United States Mission to the European UnionWW

Tom De Rybel, Post-Doctoral Fellow, K.U. Leuven

Marie Donnelly, Director, New and Renewable Sources of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Innovation, DG Energy, European Commission

Gail Edmondson, Editorial Director, Science|Business

David Eyton, Group Head, Research and Technology, BP

Tim Foxon, Research Councils UK Academic Research Fellow, Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds

Thomas Häringer, Deputy Director, Permanent Representation of the State of Baden-Württemberg to the European Union

Meryl Hicks, Executive Assistant to Group Head of Research and Technology, BP

Richard L. Hudson, CEO & Editor, Science|Business

Paul Jefferiss, Head of Policy, BP Group Strategy and Policy Team, BP

Tom Kerr, Senior Energy Analyst, International Energy Agency; and author of recent book, “Gaps in Clean Energy R&D”

Hubert Lemmens, Chief Officer, Grid Services, Elia Group; and Coordinator, European Wind Integration Study

Philip Lowe, Director-General, DG Energy, European Commission

Matjaz Malgaj, Deputy Head, Cabinet of Janez Potočnik, Commissioner for the Environment, European Commission

Francis McGowan, Senior Lecturer, Politics, Sussex Energy Group, University of Sussex

Andrew Mennear, Director, Political Analysis & Trade, Group Strategy & Policy, BP

Joerg Nellen, EU Representative for Energy, German Aerospace Centre

David Pringle, Correspondent (and Rapporteur), Science|Business

Wiktor Raldow, Head of Unit, Energy Conversion and Distribution Systems, DG Research, European Commission

Jens Rostrup-Nielsen, Member, Scientific Council, European Research Council Executive Agency

Bruno Schmitz, Head of Unit New and Renewable Energy Resources, DG Research, European Commission

Raymond Schonfeld, Managing Director, Single Market Ventures

Koen Schoots, Researcher, Policy Studies Unit, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN)

Anil Sethi, CEO, Flisom

Luc Soete, Director, UNU-MERIT; and Professor of International Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University; and Member of the European Research Area Board

Robert Sorrell, Vice-President for Public Partnerships, Research & Technology, BP

Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, Head, Energy Policy, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems; and President of the European Technology Platform on Renewable Heating and Cooling

Richard Templer, Hofmann Chair, Chemistry; and Director of the Porter Institute for Sustainable Bioenergy Research at Imperial College London; Director of UK Co-location Centre for Climate KIC, European Institute of Innovation and Technology

Sinan Tumer, Head of International Research Policy, SAP Research

Reinhilde Veugelers, Professor, Economics, KU Leuven; and Senior Fellow, Breugel

Stan Zachary, Professor, Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics, Heriot-Watt University

Nicolai Zarganis, Director, Danish Energy Agency; and Chairman of the Board, Nordic Energy Research

Karl-Friedrich Ziegahn, Programme Manager, Renewable Energies and Efficient Energy, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; and Chairman, KIC InnoEnergy, European Institute of Innovation and Technology

The Energy Difference - Accelerating Energy Innovation Participants of the Science|Business symposium11 March 2011, Representation of the State of Baden-Württemberg to the EU

P O L I C Y B R I D G EP O L I C Y B R I D G E

The media network to bring fresh ideas into the European policy debate

A BRIDGE ACROSS THE GAP DIVIDING INDUSTRY, UNIVERSITY AND POLICY

An independent network for R&D investmentScience|Business is the fastest-growing pan-European news and events network targeted at university, corporate and policy professionals seeking

With its unique expertise, Science|Business is: - Focused on science, well-connected with academia

and business R&D leaders- A European network with continuous input of fresh

perspectives- A group of top communicators with unique insight

into R&D and the EU- Innovative communications and events

Our partner network

Why you should get involvedKeep tech and innovation policy high on the political agenda- Help build a “Speakers’ Corner” here in Brussels- Place your ideas and proposals in front of key policy makers

Act now: the plans of the new European Commission are in the works todayJoin today:- Get a 30% discount on founders’ fees- Secure a seat on the steering committee- Guaranteed access to all members-only events- Guaranteed access to all subscribers-only content- Brand your organisation as an innovation leader- Current founding members

Innovative format

- Not just one-o� events- We create a community around each topic

UNIVERSITIESMEDIA

INVESTORS

BUSINESSLEADERS

LAWYERS

RESEARCHERS

POLICY MAKERS

PUBLIC AFFAIRSPROFESSIONALS

For more inf

Aristotle University of ThessalonikiChalmers University of TechnologyDelft University of TechnologyESADEETH ZurichImperial College LondonINSEADK.U.LeuvenKarolinska InstitutetMedical University of WarsawNencki Institute of Experimental BiologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)ParisTechPolitecnico di MilanoSETsquaredUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-YvelinesUniversity College LondonUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of WarwickWarsaw University of Technology

Science|Business is the first independent media company that brings together researchers, investors and policy makers in the European innovation community. It publishes news, organises networking events, conducts innovation-policy research, and provides communications consulting tailored to the specialized world of research and innovation. It also manages a non-profit policy think tank, the Science|Business Innovation Board AISBL.

The company works with a membership network of leading research universities, multinational technology companies and government agencies across Europe, from Norway to Greece. It was founded by some of Europe’s top science and technology journalists, applying their contacts and communications skills to catalyzing change and progress in the climate for innovation in Europe.

WWW.SCIENCEBUSINESS.NET

General CorrespondenceRue Belliard 197 Box 121040 Brussels, [email protected] Tel: + 32 2 304 7577Fax: +32 2 304 7572

Press releases and [email protected]

Science Business Publishing Ltd. is a company registered in England, No. 5100435, at 166 Northwood Way, Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 1RB

The Energy Difference 12 STEPS TO GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE,...

Documents

Transcript of The Energy Difference 12 STEPS TO GETTING MORE EFFECTIVE,...