SETIS

Strategic Energy Technologies Information System
Menu

European Initiative on Smart Cities

Overall Results

Overall,the findings of this report indicate that already today, substantial R&Dinvestments are directed towards low-carbon energy technologies, in particularfrom industry. Public research funding in EU Member States complements corporateR&D investments. However, the share of energy-related research in the totalof public research remains limited for most Member States.

Theaggregated R&D spending towards selected non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies1 amounted to €2.38 billion in 2006/7, out of which €1.66 billion originate fromcorporate R&D investments in 2007, while €0.57 billion stem from publicnational R&D budgets in EU Member States in 20072The public R&D budgets of EU Member States are taken fromthe IEA R&D statistics. They refer to the year 2007, but data gaps werefilled with data from earlier years back to 2003. Note that the IEA statisticsmiss out data for a number of EU Member States.and €0.16 billion are financed through the European 6th Research FrameworkProgramme3 in 2006 (see Figure 7).


Overall results 1

Figure 7: Indicative R&D investment in non-nuclear SET-Planpriority technologies from industry (2007), the public national sector (2007)and EU funds through FP6 (2006)

Source: corporate data resultfrom the analysis of the present report; public national data from IEA,complemented with direct information from some Member States; EU data from FP6.

This iscomplemented by the nuclear R&Dbudget, for which no single figure can be provided as it was not possibleto narrow down R&D investments to research on generation IV reactors, whichare the focus of the nuclear fission related activities within the SET-Plan. Nevertheless,some distinction could be made between the total nuclear-related budgets and alimited nuclear R&D budget excluding e.g. research on environmentalprotection, waste storage and safety considerations, which narrow down thenuclear research on plain reactor technologies that are considered to includeresearch on generation IV. Following the narrow approach, reactor-relatedresearch investments may be around €0.46 billion, while the total nuclear fissionR&D budgets including research on all nuclear energy-related would exceed €1.2billion. Fusion related research adds another €0.48 billion to this figure.

Thecentral figure taken in the following as estimate for the total R&Dinvestments in all (nuclear and non-nuclear) low-carbon technologieshighlighted by the SET-Plan therefore amounts to €3.3 billion.

CorporateR&D investments

The centralapproach used in this report leads to an estimate of around €1.86 billion in2007 of total corporate R&D investment in the low-carbon technologies considered(nuclear + non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies).Thisfigure would rise to some €2.2 billion if all nuclear-related R&D effortswere included, i.e. also those related to radiation safety and wastemanagement. This meant an increase in the order of magnitude of some 15% compared to theroughly estimated R&D investment in the year 2006 (for limitations of thiscomparison see box 3).

CorporateR&D investments are spread throughout most EU Member States. Nevertheless,the headquarters of companies with a substantial R&D investment inlow-carbon technologies are largely concentrated in a few Member States, namelyGermany, France, UK, Denmark, Spain and Sweden, which together account for almost95% of the total. Note, however, that this geographical distribution may bedistorted by uncertainties associated with the methodology applied.

Overall results 2
Figure 8: Indicativeregional distribution of corporate R&D investment (2007) in SET-Planpriority technologies by countries that host the headquarters of the R&D investingcompanies

Source: Analysis of the present report

Note: Figures are subject to important uncertainties.The associate to countries is done at the basis of location of headquarters,not on the basis of location of the R&D activities.

Nevertheless,a comparison to the results of other studies (see Table 4) supports theapproximate size of this outcome but confirms that this figure should beconsidered as rough estimate.

Source

This report

BERD

New Energy Finance

ERMINE

SRS NET&EEE

Sectoral coverage

Total selected low-carbon technologies

Business- and Enterprise R&D expenditure in energy-related fields

Clean Energy R&D Investment including energy efficiency but excl. nuclear

R&D investments in power generation (all technologies)

All private energy research

Geographical  coverage

EU

EU

EMEA

EU

EU

Corporate R&D (€ billion)

1.9

5.7 (2.2 if only funds by BES)

3.5

3.9

2

Table 4: Comparison of results across various studies

  • According to the New EnergyFinance assessment, the corporate investment in clean energy technologiesamounted to around US$4.8 billion (ca. €3.5 billion) in 2006 in the EMEAregion. A large part of the discrepancy with the findings of this report may beexplained by the broader definition of clean energies applied, which comprisessubstantially more technologies than the few considered in this report such asimprovements of energy efficiency, even if nuclear technologies have not beenincluded. The difference in the geographical boundaries may be considered as oflimited importance.


  • The ERMINE project found for2004 an overall R&D investment of the EU electricity supply industry of €1billion and €7.5 billion of other industries. A large part of this (€3.9 billion)was attributed to R&D in the power generation sector, yet comprising alland not only low-carbon technologies.


  • According to the SRS projectresults, industry spent around €2 billion in energy research. It must be notedthat the latter database contains important gaps and may thus tend to be anunderestimation.


  • According to the Eurostat BERDdatabase, the business and enterprise R&D expenditures for variousenergy-related sectors amounted to €5.7 billion in 2007 (gap filled; see Table2). This aggregated figure likely constitutes a low estimate as data for someMember States are missing at the high level of detail. In order to make thesefigures more comparable to the central approach used within this report, onlythe R&D expenditures that are funded by the business enterprise sectorshould be compared. These would amount to around €2.2 billion forenergy-related sectors. However, this is most probably an underestimation, giventhat the data availability is worse for data broken down by source of fundsthan for expenditures financed from all funds. If, therefore, we assumed thatthe share of energy-related R&D expenditures within total BERD (4%) issimilar for investments from all funders and those from the business sectoronly, the business sector funded energy-related R&D expenditures wouldamount to €4.2 billion.

    The BERD figure would then more or lessconfirm the order of magnitude of the results obtained, bearing in mind thedata problems and the fact that the technologies considered in the present reportare a small but innovation-intensive subset of all energy technologies. Furthermore,unlike the EU R&D Investment Scoreboard, the BERD figures relate to R&Dinvestments performed by business on a certain territory, while disregardingthe geographic location of the headquarters.

PublicR&D investments by Member States

 Overallspending on energy R&D

Thetotal energy-related public R&D spending in the EU Member States amountedto €2.56 billion or €2.52 billion in 2007 according to the GBAORD and IEAdatabases, respectively. This amount is less than half of the energy-relatedpublic R&D budgets in 1985 due to a sharp decline in the 1980s and early1990s in particular of nuclear energy R&D, but is well above the lowspending of the late 1990s/early 2000s (see Figure 10).

Intheory, the IEA RD&D statistics and the energy-related parts of the GBAORDcannot directly be compared as the IEA database includes demonstration on topof R&D activities. In practice, however, budgets for demonstrationactivities are provided only by few IEA members, amounting to about 9% of thetotal on the aggregated EU level (see Chapter "Methodology").

Table5 shows the overall energy-related R&D budget by EU Member State accordingto the GBAORD and IEA Member States.It becomes obvious that public energy R&D largely concentrates on a fewMember States. The aggregated energy R&D budgets of France, Germanyand Italyaccount for around 65% of the aggregated budget from all Member States accordingto both the GBAORD and the (modified) IEA databases.

Relativeto GDP, France and Finlandare spending the highest energy R&D investments among the EU Member States(based on GBAORD data). In general, however, the differences among EU MemberStates are of limited nature. Compared with the Japanese public energy R&Dbudget appropriations (0.11% of GDP in 2006), the aggregated EU figure (0.02%of GDP in 2007, almost unchanged from 2006) reveals an enormous difference inthe importance attributed to energy R&D.

Settingthe energy-related part of the GBAORD in relation to the overall GBAORD canprovide an indication of the importance of energy in a country's overallresearch budgets. The result is presented in Figure 9. On an EU aggregatedlevel, the share of energy R&D in total R&D budgets was 2.9% in 2007,with only few Member States showing a substantially higher share (such asHungary). This compares to a share of 15.2% in Japanand of 1.1% in the USA.A comparison between individual EU Member States and Japan or the USA isdistorted due to the fact that the budgets from the EU Research FrameworkProgramme are not included, which can play an important role e.g. for nuclearfusion.

Table5 reveals differences in the aggregated EU totals between the GBAORD and theIEA databases in the order of €40 million, despite the fact that one might haveassumed the IEA figures to be larger due to their (partial) inclusion of demonstrationactivities on top of R&D. Parts of the difference may be explained by thedistinct regional coverage of the databases, which stems from the fact that notall EU Member States are IEA members. Other dissimilarities relate to thesectoral breakdowns with GBAORD following the NABS nomenclature and the IEA ascientific/technological structureMoreover, even though both database ask forprovincial (e.g. Länder) R&D spending to be included when significant,there may be differences in the extent to which this data is being submitted bythe Member States. For many countries, this data is not in the data submittedto the IEA (see also chapter "Methodology").. With regard to individualcountries, important discrepancies between the two databases can be observed inparticular for Spain and theUK, but also for Denmark, Germanyand France.From a methodological point of view, Table 5 illustrates the differences madeby the gap-filling procedure explained in the chapter "Methodology" and discussed further inchapter "Analysis of uncertainties". In this report, however, a number of gaps could be filledthrough direct contact with the Member States, thus reducing the need for gapfilling. 

 

GBAORD for "Production, distribution and rational utilization of energy" (2007)1) 2)

Public budget for energy RD&D, IEA (2007), gap-filled 3) 4)

€ million

% of EU total

No gap filling; 2007 data

(€2007 million)

Gap filling up to 2003 & with national data

( €2007 million)

% of total

Average 2002-07

(€ million)

% of total

Austria

31.7

1.2%

31.9

31.9

1.3%

34.1

1.6%

Belgium

38.4

1.5%

94.3

94.3

3.7%

n.a.

n.a.

Bulgaria

n.a.

n.a.

Not IEA member

Cyprus

0.1

0.0%

Not IEA member

Czech Rep.

20.2

0.8%

n.a.

7.0

0.3%

n.a.

n.a.

Denmark

47.5

1.9%

99.7

99.7

4.0%

59.3

2.8%

Estonia

1.9

0.1%

Not IEA member

Finland

78.1

3.0%

n.a.5)

102.9

4.1%

83.9

3.9%

France

760.1

29.7%

867.2

867.2

34.4%

847.5

39.4%

Germany

542.7

21.2%

414.4

414.4

16.4%

378.7

17.6%

Greece

13.4

0.5%

n.a.

Hungary

34.1

1.3%

5.6

5.6

0.2%

4.4

0.2%

Ireland

0.0

0.0%

6)

16.3

0.6%

10.9

0.5%

Italy

359.5

14.0%

354.5

354.5

14.1%

326.8

15.2%

Latvia

2.7

0.1%

not IEA member

Lithuania

3.1

0.1%

not IEA member

Luxemburg

0.5

0.0%

n.a.

Malta

0.0

0.0%

not IEA member

Netherlands

118.5

4.6%

n.a.

147.4

5.8%

139.2

6.5%

Poland

8.2

0.3%

n.a.

Portugal

10.5

0.4%

2.0

2.0

0.1%

2.4

0.1%

Romania

14.8

0.6%

not IEA member

Slovak Rep.

0.2

0.0%

n.a.

Slovenia

1.0

0.0%

not IEA member

Spain

350.0

13.7%

70.6

70.6

2.8%

59.0

2.7%

Sweden

90.5

3.5%

87.5

87.5

3.5%

90.6

4.2%

UK

32.6

1.3%

220.8

220.8

8.8%

116.1

5.4%

Total EU

2560.3

100.0%

2248.5

2522.1

100%

2149.5

100%

US (IEA data)

 

 

 

2616.7

104%

2363.3

110%

JP (IEA data)

 

 

 

2505.8

99%

2680.8

125%

Table 5: Total energy-related R&D budgets in EU MemberStates, the USA and Japan accordingto the GBAORD and IEA databases

Source: GBAORD, IEA (basedon data retrieved in January 2009), manipulated as described below

Notes on Table 5:

  1. Gap-filling back to 2003, details ongap filling in the main sheet of each technology.
  2. Data onGBAORD energy for HU from 2005; Data for PT, UK and IT comefrom 2006.
  3. Gap-fillingin the IEA data is the following: 2007 for DK, HU, IT, PT, ES, SE (excl. smart gridsfor 2003), the US and Japan; 2006 for FI (excl. CSP for 2004), NL (excl. CSPfor 2003); 2003 for CZ; No or very limited data for SK (2003), GR (last in2002), LU (last in 2000) and PL (no data). Note that data for the year 2007have been taken directly from national sources instead of the IEA for thefollowing Member States: AT, DE, UK,FR and BE.
  4. No averagevalues over the period 2002-2007 have been estimated for BE, CZ and GR due tolimited time series data (data available for one year only).
  5. Officialnational data for Finlandshow that the total Finnish energy R&D investment increased by around 40%between 2006 and 2007 to reach €142.8 million. As, however, no officialbreakdown by technology could be obtained for the year 2007, the presentassessment is based on data from 2006 instead.
  6. Officialnational figures for 2006 were used as proxy for the year 2007 (instead ofusing the data from the IEA).

Overall results 3

Figure 9: Shareof energy-related R&D funding (i.e. production, distribution and rationalutilisation of energy) in the overall public R&D funding in selected EUMember States, Japan and theUSA(2007) 

Source: GBAORD

Overall, the above figures indicate that inabsolute numbers public energy-related research in the EU is still concentratedon relatively few Member States. The aggregated Member States publicenergy-related R&D budget saw an increase compared to its minimum in thelate 1990s/early 2000s, but still remains far below its values from two decadesago, largely due to declining nuclear energy R&D funds. Despite the renewedincrease in recent years, the share of the EU's total budget dedicated toenergy-related research (yet excluding the funds of the EC through e.g. the FrameworkProgrammes) was limited (2.9%) and well below its share in the early 1980s(around 12%) or 1990 (4%).

R&Dspending in SET-Plan priority technologies

Despite an overall decreasing energyresearch budget over the past two decades (with a slight uptake in more recentyears, see Figure 10), investments in non-nuclear SET-Plan prioritytechnologies have been more or less stable throughout the 1990s with anincrease afterwards. In 2007, Member States invested around €570 million inR&D related to the non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies, some 35% oftheir total public non-nuclear energy R&D budgets.

Overall results 4

Figure 10: Trends in the aggregated public energy R&D funding of EU Member States (1985-2007; excluding EU funds) and detailed breakdown for the year 2007

Source: IEA (data retrievedin January 2009),gap filled and complemented by official national data for someMember States

Note: The 2007 figures include the filling of datagaps with data from back to 2003. Note that no modification was undertaken toe.g. account for differences related to the changes in the French methodologyfor data between 1990 and 2002 (see also chapter "Analysis of uncertainties"), the fact that Germandata do not include the new Länder prior to 1992 or missing data for Belgiumfor the years 2000-2006. For the year 2007, both national (DE, FR, UK,AT, BE) and IEA data have been considered and gaps were filled for only FI, NLand CZ. For Ireland,official national data for the year 2006 have been used instead of the 2007figures from the IEA database. Only 19 of the 27 EU Member States are IEAmembers, meaning that data for 8 Member States are systematically missing; forothers, data for some years may be missing.

In 2007, France,Italy and Germany are the largest European publicinvestors in the selected non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies, followedby the UK, Denmark, Spainand the Netherlands(see Figure 11). The distribution of research spending towards the individualtechnologies, however, varies substantially across the Member States, reflectingdifferent constraints with regard to the natural potential of renewable energytechnologies, the current energy mix and its historical developments andindustrial capacities.

The EU funds through FP6 (€157 million; see chapter "Methodology" for more details) are in the order of the top investing Member State.Adding those funds to the aggregated Member States funding would bring the EU'stotal public R&D investment to non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies to€728 million.

This would put the EU ahead of comparableR&D budgets in the USA (€437million in the USA) and Japan (€187 million;see Figure 11), despite the fact that both regions have slightly higher totalenergy R&D budgets (see Table 5). Such a pure quantitative comparison,however, is misleading due to the important differences in the way in whichenergy R&D is being carried out in the different regions. 

Overall results 5

Figure 11: Aggregatedpublic support to selected non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies of some EUMember States(and FP6 funds), the USA andJapan 

Source: IEA RD&Dstatistics, gap filled and complemented by official national data for someMember States as described below; FP6

Note: The R&D investments of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Portugal,Ireland and Hungaryare not displayed as they would not be visible at the scale used in this chart.They are nevertheless respected in the present assessment.

A comparison between countries suffers from data gapsas the IEA database missed data for a number of EU Member States. Gap fillingfor EU applied with data from back to 2003. Older data for e.g. Greece and Luxembourg are not included andwere dismissed. Furthermore, data on regional R&D investments are often notincluded. Also relevant energy R&D that is being carried under non-energyresearch programmes (e.g. basic research) is not included for many countries.

Data are complemented by or modified according tonational statistics in the case of Germany,France, the UK, Austriaand Belgium.For Ireland,official national data for the year 2006 have been used instead of the 2007figures from the IEA database.

The latest available IEA data for the USAare for 2002 for PV and CSP. Hence, 2007 data were taken from US DOE (2008) andCurtright et al. (2008). No annual average is provided for BE due to a lack ofdata over the period 2002-2007 (only 2007 was available).

For FP6, commitments have been assessed at the projectlevel and then annualised over the effective duration of FP6 as described indetail in the section "Energy-related R&D investments under FP6".

Even though the present analysis focuses on transportbiofuels rather than total bioenergy-related R&D, an indication of thelatter is also provided in the chart. This seems necessary given that manycountries provide data on bioenergy research, but not on the sub-category'biofuels' even though it would be sensible to assume for a number of countriesthat a substantial part of bioenergy research is dedicated to biofuels R&D.

Unlike the strongly focussed andcoordinated energy technology policies in the USA through the Department ofEnergy (DoE) and Japan through the Ministry for Economy, Trade and Industry(METI), no single European programme exists for fostering low-carbontechnologies (with the exception of fusion related research).

Pan-European cooperation ishampered by diverse organizational structures in energy R&D, ranging fromthe institutional set-up to programmes and public private partnerships(Wiesenthal et al., 2008). Non-aligned research strategies and sometimes subcriticalcapacities, the variety of national regulations and technical specificationstend to fragment the market and inhibit industry investments in high-risktechnologies. Even though a number of recent initiatives aim at improving boththe science-industry link and cooperation among Member States, currentprocedures remain far away from a coherent strategic priority setting atpan-European level that would enable to exploit synergies in energy R&D.

Recent initiatives such as theERA-NETs have started to tackle this problem. So far, however, NETWATCH4 data indicate that transnationalR&D co-operation in low carbon energy R&D has been rather limited untilnow. Under FP6, energy R&D represented 7% of the whole ERA-NET activityNote that for comparison purposes, other energy relatedERA-NETs such as ERA-NET Transport or ERA-Build are not included since inearlier surveys of DG-RTD they were not attributed to this thematic field., or 5 ERA-NETs in 5different low carbon energy areas. 22 countries have been involved: 19 EUMember States and 3 associated countries, Norway being very active with 3participations. In general, the EU Member States being most active in ERA-NETsstem from the group of large energy R&D investors (see Table 5). Germany and the Netherlands participate in all 5co-operations, and also coordinate all energy ERA-NETs. Sweden, Denmark,Austria, Spain, Franceand United Kingdomparticipate in 4 of them. Italyis underrepresented with participation in only 1 energy-related ERA-NET. Thenew Member States on average participate in only in 1 ERA-NET in this field, Polandleading with 2 participations and 1 observer role.

Thefields covered by the FP6 ERA-NETs are photovoltaic solar energy (PV-ERA-NET),innovative energy technologies (INNER), hydrogen and fuel cells technology(HY-CO), clean energy fossil technologies (FENCO-ERA) and bio-energy(BIOENERGY). Most of the calls had a clear experimental character and were usedby the ERA-NETs to develop and test possible strategies of future cooperation.

Between2006 and 2008, these five ERA-NETs launched 11 joint calls. The time from thestart of the ERA-NETs to the first call is about 2 years, which seems to be astandard in all ERA-NETs, not only in energy. Future transnational co-operationinitiatives will therefore have to take into account a certain delay in thelaunch of first calls. All calls were funded through a virtual pot mode,enabling countries and regions to apply existing national procedures and to payfor their own participants, without trans-national flows of national funding.The budget committed by these five ERA-NETs to the 11 joint calls has been €23.3million, equalling a mere 4 % of the total aggregated public budget that MemberStates dedicated to R&D on non-nuclear SET-Plan priority technologies in2007.5

Overall, the assessment indicates thatdespite important steps towards an increased collaboration in energy research,the EU may not be using the full potential for innovation of the internalmarket by exploring synergies between Member Statesin the development and deployment of new energy technologies. This means thateven though the sum of national public budgets of EU Member States exceedsthose of the USA and Japan,such a comparison is misleading. The USA and Japanese market size,investment and research capacities far exceed those of most Member Statesalone.

Public R&D budgets from Member Statesdirected to nuclear research amount to €0.28 billion for nuclear fusionand €0.59 billion for nuclear fission related R&D. If, for the purpose ofthis report with its focus on generation IV reactors, the parts dedicated tonuclear safety, environmental protection, fissile materials control andradiation protectionThese parts are summarised in the IEA category IV.1.4'Nuclear Supporting Technology'. were not taken into consideration in the latter figure, the nuclearfission 'reactor technology' related R&D budget would be reduced to €0.25 billion.

The overall aggregated Member States'public spending towards SET-Plan priority technologies in the year 2007 amountto around €1.1 billion (around half of which goes to each nuclear andnon-nuclear low-carbon technologies) thus accounting for 43% of the totalenergy-related public R&D investments (i.e. not only those to low-carbon technologies).

Table 6 summarises the aggregated MemberStates public R&D support by SET-Plan priority technology based on GBAORDand IEA data (with and without gap-filling for the IEA data, indicating theimportance of and risks related this type of data treatment). For information,figures for Japan and the USAare also provided, based on the data from the IEA RD&D database.

As in some cases Member States provideddata for a main category (e.g. bioenergy), but not for the subcategory selectedfor this report (e.g. transport biofuels), relevant main categories are alsoincluded in Table 6. The additional information is useful for estimating theuncertainty created by using data on the high level of detail. For example, theUSAsignificantly invests in bioenergy research, but, no data is available onbiofuel-related R&D in the IEA database. Considering the ambitious UStargets on biofuels in general and second generation biofuels in particular(ligno-cellulosic ethanol), one may assume that substantial parts of thebioenergy research budgets are dedicated to biofuels R&D. This, however,could not be captured with the available data.6


Categories used in this report

GBAORD 2007

IEA (EU19) 2007

IEA

Terms by GBAORD

R&D budget

Terms by IEA

RD&D budget

USA

Japan

€ million

€ million

€ million

with gap filling (2003-2006)

without gap filling

with gap filling up to 2003

€ million

€ million

Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable Energy Sources

351

Renewable Energy Sources (cat. III)

469

557

304

128

Wind

Water, wind and wave energy

15

Wind (cat. III.2.)

72

81

36

2

PV

Solar thermal and photovoltaic energy

125

Photovoltaics (cat. III.1.2.)

123

136

101

2

CSP

Solar Thermal Power and High Temp. Apps. (cat. III.1.3.)

32

33

11

0

Biofuels

 

 

Production of Transp. Biofuels incl. from Waste (cat. III.4.1.)

65

65

n.a.

5

Bioenergy

Research into biomass conversion... with a view to energy

21

Total bioenergy (cat. III.4)

183

245

143

15

H2/FC

n.a.

n.a.

H2 and fuel cells (cat. Group V.)

164

171

183

135

Smart Grids

n.a.

n.a.

Electricity transm. & distr. (cat. VI.2.)

33

47

35

34

CCS

n.a.

n.a.

Total CO2 Capture and Storage ( II.3.)

36

39

71

9

Fossil fuels

Fossil fuels and their derivatives

33

Fossil Fuels (cat. II)

219

240

268

221

Nuclear fission

Nuclear fission

140

Nuclear fission (cat. IV.1.)

559

587

231

1528

Nuclear fission: narrow down to SET-P technology

 

 

Nuclear fission (cat. IV.1.) - Nuclear Supporting Technology (cat. IV.1.4)

231

248

153

652

Nuclear fusion

Nuclear fusion

139

Nuclear fusion (cat.IV.2.)

265

278

228

94

Table 6: Aggregated public R&D support to selected energytechnologies in the EU, Japanand USAin 2007 according to GBAORD and IEA

Source:Data from GBAORD and IEA RD&Dstatistics; all data downloaded in January 2009; data treated as described.

Note: Data on the selected low-carbon technologiesconsidered in this report are put in bold letters.

Data for PV and CSP in the U.S.based on recent literature (Curtright, 2008; US DOE, 2008). Data arecomplemented by national statistics in the case of Germany,France, the UK, Austriaand Belgium.For Ireland,official national data for the year 2006 have been used instead of the 2007figures from the IEA database.

Energy-relatedR&D investments under FP6

The most relevant budget line in the FP6programme for energy-related R&D projects was 'Sustainable Energy Systems'with an allocated budget of €810 million over the period 2002-2006.7 In additionto the project funds, the European Commission's Joint Research Centre spent €72.6million on the priority 'Energy' over the FP6 period (JRC, 2008). It should benoted that the budget earmarked in FP7 for non-nuclear energy activities is€2350 million, yet over a longer time period (2007-13). On an annual average,this nevertheless means a substantial increase.

The scope of the present analysis goesbeyond the energy projects financed under the 'core' energy budget line'sustainable energy systems' as described in the chapter "Methodology". To the extentpossible, it also includes relevant projects funded under budget lines such as'sustainable surface transport' or 'horizontal research activities involvingSMEs', 'Aeronautics and Space' and 'Nanotechnologies and nanosciences'. Intotal, project funds stemming from 'non-core-energy funds' add some €100million to the R&D on SET-P priority technologies, mainly in the areas ofhydrogen and fuel cells, CSP and PV.

The total support to non-nuclear SET-Planpriority technologies through the various budget lines of FP6 has beenestimated to have been in the order of €629 million over the period 2002-2006,or €157 million on an annual average.

Complementing the FP budgets, the EURATOMframework program allocated €815.5 million to fusion activities. The total EURATOMcontribution for nuclear fission-related activities was €189.2 million.However, only a smaller part of this is dedicated to research in new nuclear(GEN IV) reactor technologies, which are explicitly mentioned in the SET-Plan.Those activities are mainly financed under the topic 'Innovative Concepts' (ca.€17 million) within the budget line 'Other activities'. The JRC spent anadditional €280.1 million on nuclear energy, yet mainly not directed towardsGEN IV reactors (JRC, 2008).

A broad range of other funding schemesexist, parts of which may be used for e.g. demonstration projects of new energytechnologies. Without being comprehensive, box 1 briefly describes some of them, partlybased on an earlier study (DG TREN Task Force, 2008).

Box 1 - Other EU financing funds

Intelligent Energy Europe has been an EU programme for the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. The IEE I programme lasted from 2003 to 2006. It had a total budget of €200 million over the period 2003-2006, of which €69.8 million were allocated to energy efficiency, €80 million to renewable energy sources, €32.6 million to energy aspects of transport, and €17.6 million on the promotion of renewables and efficiency at international level.

A further breakdown can be obtained when assessing the commitments under IEE I instead of the budget. Within ALTENER, commitments to Renewables for Electricity Generation amounted to €18.6 million, to Renewables for Heating and Cooling to €16.6 million and for Small Renewables to €15.9 million; commitments to biofuels accumulated to €10.5 million.

The IEE II programme started in 2007 as part of the €3.6 billion Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme. It will last to 2013. Altogether, around €727 million will be available to fund projects for the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable energy. This implies a doubling of the average annual budget compared to the IEE I Programme.

Within the Cohesion Policy, support to energy-related R&D activities takes place in various forms. Firstly, within the Cohesion Policy €49.9 billion are allocated for supporting Research and Technological Innovation over the period 2007-2013, parts of which apply to the technologies and actors considered here. In addition, these funds will help to improve the research infrastructure in general, supporting e.g. R&D activities in research centres, technology transfer and cooperation activities. Secondly, €9 billion are allocated to support renewables and energy efficiency over the same period, mainly focusing on demonstration and deployment. In the context of the Cohesion Policy initiatives to support the European Economic Recovery Package, an amendment has been adopted to the European Regional Development Fund to allow energy efficiency and renewables interventions in residential buildings in all EU Member States. This opens the possibility for Member States to reallocate a further €8 billion to these types of investments. Finally, Cohesion Policy funds can also use innovative financing mechanisms to increase the leverage of public investments and encourage private sector participation. Examples of this are JESSICA and JASPERS that can both support energy investments with Cohesion Policy funds with the collaboration of the EIB among other international institutions.

The Trans-European Networks 'Energy' are used for promoting electricity and gas infrastructure projects. With regard to low-carbon energies, they may play a role for e.g. financing offshore wind connections or of reserve capacities and smart grids for a better integration of fluctuating renewable energy carriers.

The last reform of the Common Agricultural Policy decided in November 2008, known as 'Health Check', shifts funds from direct aid to farmers into Rural Development funding through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The additional funding obtained for five identified "new challenges", including climate change and renewable energy, totals 8.2 billion Euros for 2010-2013.

 -------------------

1 Technologies included are: hydrogen and fuel cells; wind energy; photovoltaics; carbon capture and storage; biofuels; smart grids and concentrating solar power.

2 The public R&D budgets of EU Member States are taken from the IEA R&D statistics. They refer to the year 2007, but data gaps were filled with data from earlier years back to 2003. Note that the IEA statistics miss out data for a number of EU Member States.

3 The payment commitments under the Sixth EC Framework Programme were assumed to be evenly spread over the years of its duration. Note that the (annualised) energy-related R&D budget of FP7 is substantially above that of FP6. 

4 NETWATCH is a Central Information Platform on Transnational R&D Programme Collaboration, being constructed by IPTS and contracted by DG RTD.

5 Note that the comparison of the total amount of all energy-related ERA-NETs calls launched under FP6 with the annual public R&D spending of Member States towards non-nuclear SET-P priority technologies results in an overestimation of the percentage dedicated to joint calls, given that the calls usually relate to multi-annual projects and that they were launched during the period 2006-2008.

6  In Figure 11 and Figure 15 this is addressed by including also the total bioenergy R&D budgets. Furthermore, in Figure 11, estimates have been made for the PV and CSP R&D budgets despite this data not having been available.

7 Decision 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council