Transcript Dr Philip Griffiths UUJ

Getting European
Research Funds
Dr Philip Griffiths
Associate Head of School,
Built Environment
Centre for Sustainable Technologies
University of Ulster
Our Recent Experiences
Project Acronym
Funding Call
Funding
Time Period
POREEN
EU Marie-Curie
€38,000
2012-2016
NPP SuLa
EU Interreg
£150,000
2012-2014
MERITS
EU FP7
€250,000
2012-2016
EINSTEIN
EU FP7
€500,000
2011-2015
NPP OCTES
EU Interreg
£150,000
2011-2013
CESAR
EU FP7
€355,000
2011-2013
Biomara
EU Interreg
£181,189
2009-2013
Decarbit
EU FP7
£160,000
2007-2012
ENCAP
EU FP6
€200,000
2004-2007
Getting a Project






Ideas
European dimension
Relevant programme calls
Relevant project size
“Supply chain” partners versus themed approach
Meeting the assessment criteria
Assessment Criteria
 Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the
topics addressed by the call) ( Threshold 3.0/5 )
 Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the
management ( Threshold 3.0/5)
 Potential impact through the development, dissemination
and use of project results ( Threshold 3.0/5)
 Total ( Threshold 10.0/15 )
 Does this proposal have ethical issues that need further
attention?
 Out of Scope
Scoring
 0- The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or
cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information
 1- Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or
there are serious inherent weaknesses.
 2- Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there
are significant weaknesses.
 3- Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although
improvements would be necessary.
 4- Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well,
although certain improvements are still possible.
 5- Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant
aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.
The Call
 THEME EeB.NMP.2011-2
 New efficient solutions for energy generation,
storage and use related to space heating and
domestic hot water in existing buildings
 39 M Euro available in the call
 Lesson #1 – How many projects will the
commission likely fund? Contact the project
officer.
The expectations from the EU
 A wide impact is expected from higher energyefficient solutions for heating and hot sanitary
water production, which contribute to around
50% of energy use in residential buildings.
Holistic design of solutions for energy generation,
storage and use should increase the overall
efficiency by at least 30%. The proposers should
also anticipate future targets for energy-efficient
buildings.
 Lesson #2 – Read the major goals carefully
The Project
 Einstein - EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF
SEASONAL THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE
SYSTEMS IN EXISTING BUILDINGS
 17 Partners
 Countries – Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland,
Sweden, Romania, Holland and UK
 Total project value – 6.16M Euro
 Ulster’s element – 497 k Euro
The main objectives
 To make STES systems cost-effective and to
adapt this technology to be applied in existing
buildings.
 To develop a novel, high efficiency, cost-effective
and compact heat pump optimized for STES
systems.
 To develop a Decision Support Tool (DST) for
selection, design and evaluation of STES
integrated system suitable for existing buildings.
 Two pilot plants will be realized and monitored:
In Spain at building level & In Poland at district
level.
The partners
 Represent solar storage experts & companies,
heat pump developers, & companies, district
heating installers, directional drillers, civil
engineering consultants, developers, control
engineers, architects, site owners
The project structure
Specific EU requirements
 “A wide impact is demonstrated” by utilising
solar resources in widely differing climates
(Poland and Spain) at different building scales
 “solutions for heating and hot sanitary water
production” Heat pumps and space/water
heating and season solar storage
 Holistic design of solutions for energy
generation, storage and use should increase
the overall efficiency by at least 30% - as
demonstrated by validated design tool from field
trials
 Lesson #3 – Read the fine print
Lesson # 4 – Read the Finer Print!
EU Project Assessment Criteria
EINSTEIN Response
Collaborative Project 4 M Euro
17 Partners 6.61 M Euro project
New technologies & methods
STES, Heat Pumps, etc
Residential building stock
Poland & Spain trials
Not readily available/acceptable?
Development of design tools
Technology integration to reduce
costs and improve comfort
STES, Heat Pumps, etc
Supply chain & end user involvement
R&D, manufacturers, installers,
specifiers, end-users
Decision support systems and
assessment tools
Development of design tools
Increase the overall efficiency by at
least 30%
Energy efficiency increase of 300%
and primary energy reduction up to
70%
And in delivering the proposal?
 Scientific and technical quality, relevant to the
topics addressed by the call
Progress beyond the state‐of‐the‐art, Methodology and
associated work plan, deliverables, risk analysis
 Implementation
Management structure and procedures, consortium
agreement, the consortium, resources and budget
 Impacts
Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
management of intellectual property
 Ethical issues
 Consideration of gender aspects
Conclusions
 Possible to access EU funding
 Need a strong new idea
 Needs to fit with EU’s research agenda
• Develop influence through technology platforms




Need a partnership able to deliver
With the correct mix – i.e. from across Europe
Need to show track record
Partner with universities