EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION 
Brussels, 2.5.2013  
SWD(2013) 157 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
JRC Scientific and Policy Reports R & D Investment in the Technologies of the 
European Strategic En ergy Technology Plan 
Accompanying the document 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Energy Technologies  and Innovation 
{COM(2013) 253 final} 
{SWD(2013) 158 final}  
 
 Table of contents 
 
 
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 
1. Overall assessment.................................................................................................6  
2. Methodology and data considerations................................................................. 10  
2.1 Scope of the analysis ......................................................................................... 10  
2.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................11  
Table 1. Geographical coverage of public RD&D investment.................................... 12  
2.3 Data sources...................................................................................................... 13  
2.3.1 Data sources for EU RD&D investment ............................................................... ....... 13  
2.3.2 Data sources for Member  States’ RD&D investments .............................................. 14  
2.3.3 Data sources for corporate R&D investment .............................................................. 1 5 
3. Results and discussion: identifying cu rrent efforts for satisfying financing 
needs of SET-Plan technologies.................................................................................. 18  
3.1 EU RD&D investment ............................................................... ........................................... 19  
3.1.1 The 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7) ......................................21  
3.1.2 The European Investment Bank-EIB ...........................................................22  
3.1.3 The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development-EBRD .............23  
3.2 National R&D investment ............................................................... ..................................... 27  
3.2.1 Competent authorities and main RD&D policies .......................................27  
3.2.2 Public RD&D investments: com parison between the EU, the USA and 
Japan ....................................................................................................................33  
3.3. Corporate R&D investment .................................................................................. 40  
3.3.1 The selection of main companies ............................................................... ..................... 40  
3.3.2 Sampling and errors of sampling ............................................................... ...................... 41  
3.3.3 Geographical distribution of corporate R&D investment ........................................ 44  
3.3.3.1 Wind energy technology ................................................................................... 45  
3.3.3.2 Solar energy technology: The case of photovoltaics ........................................ 49  
3.3.3.3 Electricity grids technology .............................................................................. 51  
3.3.3.4 CCS technology ................................................................................................ 53  
3.3.3.5 Bioenergy technology ....................................................................................... 55  
3.3.3.6 Nuclear fission technology ............................................................................... 57  
 
 
 3   
 
  
 
 
 
      The assessment and analysis of European investments in energy RD&D is crucial for better designing energy research and technology development policies and preparing for the commercialisation of specific technologies.   This analysis has been prepared by the Commission’s Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (SETIS), specifically by the Institute for Energy and Transport of the JRC. It provides an overview of th e public and private RD&D investments in 
the SET-Plan portfolio of technologies: wind, solar (photovoltaics and concentrated solar power), electricity grids, bioenerg y, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and 
nuclear fission. The concentrated solar po wer, fuel cells and hydrogen technologies 
have been partially covered in this report (as only public efforts are accounted for). The assessment year of the present analysis is 2010 due to the two year delay in availability of pertinent data and statistics.  The primary objective is to identify the ex tent to which public and private efforts 
were able to satisfy the financing needs of technology development in the SET-Plan, 
identified in 2009 to be in the range of  EUR 5.2 - 5.4 billion per year. This work 
does not however examine to extent to which the RDD priorities funded match those of the Technology Roadmaps to 2020 as described in SEC (2009) 1295
. 
 The present assessment identifies different sources of finance and maps the capacities at the level of European Member  States. Future analysis is needed to 
assess the extent to which various technol ogy push and market pull policies have 
been efficient in inducing research and innovation for low-carbon energy technologies. Moreover further analysis  will aim to identify sources of 
competitiveness for the European energy technology leading companies.  
 
 4  
Introduction   
 Since 2008, the EU implements the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) with 
the aim to 1) accelerate energy technology de velopment, technology transfer and up-take; 
2) maintain EU industrial leadership on low- carbon energy technologies; 3) foster science 
for transforming energy technologies to achi eve the 2020 energy and climate change 
goals; and 4) contribute to the worldwide transition to a low-carbon economy (COM(2007)723 final; COM(2009)519 final). The implementation of the SET-Plan has 
led to the establishment of large scale prog rams, called European Industrial Initiatives 
(EIIs), which bring together industry, the research community, the Member States and the European Commission in risk-sharing part nerships aiming at the rapid development 
of key energy technologies at the European level. Six technologies have already been 
identified as the focal points of the first EIIs (SEC(2009)1295): wind, solar (photovoltaics and concentrated solar power), electricity grids, bioe nergy, carbon capture 
and storage,  Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking  and nuclear fission. The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking is also considered as part of the SET-Plan. It has been one of the first Joint Technology Init iatives (JTI) of the European Commission, 
established before the formation of the SET -Plan and its EIIs.  Having as goal the 
elaboration of strategic and permanent collaborations between major research organisations and institutes in the field of  energy technology research European Energy 
Research Alliance (EERA) and it s Joint programs (JP) have been set in place since 2009. 
EERA JPs seek to provide a better coor dination of funding with respect to 13 
technologies
1-2. SETIS is the European Commission’s Information System for the SET-
Plan, and it makes the case for technology options and priorities, monitors, reviews 
progress regarding implementation, asse sses the impact on policy and identifies 
corrective measures if needed3. 
 
For the above-mentioned selected technology area s, there is no directly quantifiable link 
between research expenditures and the valu e of the results obtained from research. 
However, to make each low-carbon technology fu lly cost-competitive, more efficient and 
proven at the right scale for market roll-out,  identifying concrete research, development, 
demonstration and market replication activities is crucial in maximising the industrial and 
societal returns. Therefore, part of the broad scope of the SET-Plan focuses on capacities mapping, which aims at providing an assessment of the current public and corporate RD&D investment in low-carbon en ergy technologies in the EU. The ultimate 
objective is to offer a benchmark of the curre nt RD&D investments to serve as a basis 
for the planning of future RD&D investments that will be needed for addressing the key 
technology challenges identified by the SE T-Plan. Unlike the strongly focussed and 
coordinated energy technology policies in  the USA and Japan, pan-European 
cooperation has been hampered by diverse organisational structures in energy RD&D, 
ranging from institutional set-ups to progra ms and public-private partnerships. The SET-
Plan addresses these drawbacks through join t planning and implementing at European 
level by leveraging on the resources and RD&D assets of EU energy technology landscape. In 2009 JRC-SETIS presented an estimation of the public and corporate R&D 
                                                       
 
1 The 13 technologies are photovoltaic, wind, geotherm al, smart grids,   bioe nergy, carbon capture and 
storage, materials for nuclear, AMPEA, concentrated solar power, energy storage, fuel cells and hydrogen, 
ocean energy and smart cities. 
2 EERA (Coordinating energy rese arch for a low carbon Europe): www.eera-set.eu/index.php?index=13.  
3 Strategic Energy Technology Information System (SETIS): http://setis.ec.europa.eu/.  
 
 5 investment for a series of low-carbon energy technologies and this has been used as a key 
reference for policy development in the EU (JRC 2009).  Acknowledging the limitations of the present an alysis in gathering in vestment data (both 
for the private and public sector), this report seeks to provide an estimation of the total 
European RD&D investment for the year 2010. This includes the EU public sector RD&D investment, Member States’ nationa l public sector RD&D investment and 
corporate RD&D expenditure. By including the current RD&D investment in the SET-Plan technologies from major European compan ies the report also seeks to identify the 
extent to which private firms (under)i nvested in low-carbon technologies.  
 Information on RD&D investment of the EU Member States is gathered using the IEA 
RD&D open access statistics database. In order to approximate the corporate RD&D 
investment for the SET-Plan technologies the methodology developed by JRC-SETIS 
for the 2009 edition of the Capacities Map has been herein extended. The main data sources used in the analysis for the cor porate RD&D were the EU Industrial RD&D 
Investment Scoreboard, companies’ annual reports and patent data from the European 
Patent Office and WIPO (World Intellectual Patent Organization).   The technological scope of the present analysis mainly focuses on the so-called “SET-Plan technologies”: wind energy, solar energy
4, electricity grids, bioenergy (bioethanol, 
biodiesel and biogas), carbon capture and stor age (CCS) and nuclear fission. In addition, 
fuel cells and hydrogen technologies are also  analysed from the point of view of the 
Member States and EU funding.  To the extent that was possible, the report has compared its findings both at aggregate and sectorial level with other open access sour ces and found them in good agreement.  
 
                                                       
 
4 Due to missing information for the corporate part, only public efforts are accounted for Concentrated 
Solar Power, both for private and public R& D investment is assess ed for PV technology.  
 
 6 1. Overall assessment 
 European and national programs and support sche mes (i.e. loans) have provided in 2010 
considerable funding to the development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies (see Figure 1). This indicative distribution of financial support does not 
include the subsidies to RES deployment, which in some countries have also been used to cover capital costs and therefore, have an inducing effect on innovation in renewable energy technologies.  
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Indicative distribution of  the financial support (own investments, grants and loans) of the main 
bodies involved in financing energy efficiency proj ects, RES RD&D and deployment programs (European 
Commission, EIB and EBRD) for the year 2010. RSFF wa s assumed to be evenly distributed over 6 years 
and EEPR assessment included  only effective payments to CCS and wi nd projects by the end of 2010. (***) 
indicate that funding has been used for the support of both resear ch and deployment activities. Data on 
national programmes may include also  direct expenditure in energy-related projects co-funded by the 
European Union and/or other countries. 
 
 In the fiscal year 2010, the aggregated amou nt of EU (i.e. FP7), corporate and public 
R&D investment in the six SET-Plan technol ogies was approximately EUR 5.04 billion
5. 
The distribution of investment was not unif orm across technologies, with wind and solar 
energy having benefited from higher shares  than the other SET-Plan technologies (see 
Figure 2a & b). Investments in wind and photovoltaics (PV) were  EUR 881.66 and EUR 
901.03 million respectively, while for electric ity grids and carbon capture and storage 
(CCS) they were  EUR 323.25 and EUR 400.39 million respectively.  
                                                        
5 This figure excludes the contribution to fuel cells and hydrogen from the EU (EUR 51.41 million) and 
of the Member States (EUR 211.54 million). 
 
 7  
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00 1400.00NuclearBioenergySolarWindCCSGridsEU-FP7 Public RD&D Corporate R&D
 
Figure 2a. Estimate of public and corporate R&D by  technology and source (2010). EEPR funding is 
not included.  
 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%NuclearBioenergySolarWindCCSGridsEU-FP7 Public RD&D Corporate R&D
 
Figure 2b. Shares of public and corporate R&D by technology and source (2010). EEPR funding is 
not included. 
 
In general, public investment in RD&D was lower than corporate investment. For 
the nuclear and the bioenergy sectors, the European Union (through FP7) provided 
 
 8 higher support than for other SET-Plan technologies, as the nuclear and the 
bioenergy sectors together accounted for 42 % of the funds distributed through FP7. 
The EEPR funding also provided signific ant funding to wind and CCS technologies. 
For example, the EU contribution to CCS  technology would increase from 4% 
(figure 2b) to 15% when th e EEPR grant provided to th e selected projects in 2010 
was also considered along the FP7 grants. For the non-nuclear SET-Plan technologies, corporate R&D was usually high er than public investment (59.2% of 
total investment). In line with the Lisbon ta rget, the share of cor porate investment in 
wind technology was higher than 67%, wh ile for nuclear technology it was 52%. 
Investment in nuclear technologies exceeded 
EUR 1,418.07 million. Fast reactor 
developments attracted investment of approximately EUR 132.25 million. 
 The private sector did play an important role in technology development, especially for mature technologies. For example, this analysis shows that corporate investment 
of selected companies from the wind energy sector reached 76% of total investment. Also for PV technologies, the participation of  the private sector was very significant, 
where corporate R&D covered 64% of total R&D efforts of the sector. Similarly, 65% of total R&D investments in the bioe nergy sector represented private efforts. 
Overall, corporate R&D funding in non-nucl ear energy technologies increased from 
2007 levels ( EUR 1
.24 billion6), reaching a total amount of EUR 2.33 billion in 20107.  
  
France
29%
Germany
12%Italy
7%Poland
6%Netherlands
5%Norway
4%Denmark
4%Sweden
4%Finland
3%Switzerland
3%Other MS
7%
Spain 
4%
United Kingdom
12%
 
a. Public RD&D investment 
                                                        
6 Excluding CSP and FCH 2. 
7 This amount reflects JRC-SETIS ca lculations based on a patent analys is, for the companies that do not 
provide information about their R&D ex penditures. A time lag of one year was used to take into account 
the delay from the generation of research results until their impact on innovation is visible. This figure may 
change with future calculations.  
 
 9 
France
27%Switzerland
7%Spain
5%Italy
4%Norway
3%Sweden
1%
Germany
31%
Denmark
13%United Kingdom
8%Other MS
1%
 
b. Corporate R&D investment 
Figure 3. Estimate of public RD&D (a) and corporate R&D (b) investment in European Member States 
for the year 2010. Public RD&D inve stment under ‘Other MS’ include thos e in Austria, Ireland, Belgium, 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic and Port ugal. Corporate RD&D inve stment under ‘Other MS’ 
include those in Belgium, Neth erlands, Finland and Austria. 
 
 The spatial distribution of public and corporate R&D investment has changed between 2007 and 2010, see Box 1.   
 
 
Research activities were highly concentrated in Europe: 4 countries (Germany, France, United Kingdom and Denmark) accounted for 75% of total R&D investment in 2010. In these countries intense research activities were developed both by public and corporate 
parties, addressing almost all the SET-Plan  technologies. This spatial distribution of 
R&D investment tends to show that market size matters in the localisation and intensity Box 1 – Comparison with the 2009 Capacities Map 
• In Italy, the R&D public funding share decreased from 16% in 2007 to 7% in 
2010. This confirms the decreasing trend of public funding for low carbon technologies in Italy with a yearly average decrease of 
€4.06 million since 2001. 
In contrast, corporate R&D initiatives intensified in Italy (from a 2% share in 2007 to 4% in 2010). 
• Contrary to Italy, Germany’s public fu nding increased in 2010 by 66% from 
the 2007 level. However, as a share in the European public investment, Germany’s public R&D funding share decreased from 23% in 2007 to 12% in 2010. This decrease is not the result of a decrease in German public funding, 
but can rather be attributed to an increase in the public R&D investments in other European countries. 
• France and United Kingdom maintain the same intensity of public investment 
as the ones displayed in 2007.  
 
 10 of research activities for low-carbon tec hnologies. As the correlation coefficient8 between 
public R&D and GDP was 0.68, this indicates that larger countries tend to invest more in R&D for low-carbon technologies than smaller co untries (see Figure 3). Also, corporate 
R&D investment was sensitive to the size of the market: the correlation coefficient 
between corporate R&D and GDP was 0.72. Th erefore, countries with high public 
RD&D funds simultaneously account for the largest corporate R&D investments. In 
2010 larger economies tended to invest mo re in SET-Plan technologies than smaller 
ones.   2. Methodology and data considerations 
 
2.1 Scope of the analysis 
The objective of this work is to provide for the year 2010 an estimation of the level of 
RD&D investment directed towards the lo w-carbon energy technol ogies addressed by 
the SET-Plan, called hereafter “SET-Plan technologies”: wind, solar, electricity grids, bioenergy, CCS and nuclear fission
9. In addition, fuel cells and hydrogen technologies 
have also been addressed. The Fuel Cells  and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU)10 
has been one of the first Jo int Technology Initiatives (JTI) of the European Union, 
established before the SET-Plan and its EIIs. It is a private-public partnership at European level, established in 2008 to develop and implement a targeted RD&D and demonstration program with a total budget of  EUR 940 million up to 2013, of which 50% is contributed by the European Commission and 50% by the private sector. The FCH JU aims to accelerate the development an d deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen 
technologies by executing an integrated Eur opean program of research and innovation 
activities. It strives towards a common programmatic and implementation frame for its Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) with that  of the SET-Plan EIIs. Consequently, a 
Technology Roadmap to 2020 has been proposed for the hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. As such, seven technologies are studied herein.   2.2 Methodology 
Information on investments in the SET-Plan technologies have been gathered by source of financing i.e., EU RD&D investments, th e Member States’ public RD&D investments 
and corporate R&D expenditure. Although  a large effort was made to include 
information from all Member States, unfortun ately, 12 Member States are missing from 
this analysis due to lack of data and/or procedures for data acquisition. As such, the report covers 16 EU Member States and two Associate States
11. Table 1 gives an 
overview of this coverage. 
 
                                                        
8 The correlation coefficient gives an indication of the strength and the intensity of two variables (in this 
case public R&D and GDP). In gene ral it varies between -1 and 1.  A negative value shows opposite 
evolution , while a value of 1. 0 indicates similar evolution.  
9 The nuclear energy in the SET-Plan priority technol ogies only concerns Genera tion IV reactors. Due to 
the difficulties in obtaining RD&D investment data  allocated only on Generati on IV reactors, here the 
total investment for nuclear fission are investigated. 
10 Fuel Cells and Hydrog en Joint Undertaking: http://www.fch-ju.eu . 
11 In the case of Hungary we have compared the data obtained from IEA Statistics with the ones from 
National Innovation Office Information System (NIOIS).  While wind, solar and fuel cells & hydrogen are 
better represented by the NIOIS,  the rest of the technologies ar e better represented by IEA. 
 
 11 Table 1. Geographical coverage of public RD&D investment 
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, 
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak 
Republic, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom  
Member States 
covered 
Norway, Switzerland* 
Greece, Luxembourg,  Member States 
not covered Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovenia# 
* Associate State 
#  Not a member of IEA 
 
The most recently published investment data, used in this analysis, refer to fiscal year 
2010. The main database for public R&D invest ment at national level is the IEA RD&D 
statistics, which however does not include complete datasets for several countries. Consequently, a basic “gap filling” method has been used, where data from 2009 were attributed to the fiscal year 2010. This “gap-filling” method was mainly applied to 
Austria, France and the Netherlands. The same approach was used to fill in data gaps for 
other past years: whenever entries were missi ng, the data from the latest available year 
were assumed. Furthermore, questionnaires di stributed by SETIS to Member States 
stakeholders and the EII Teams, were also used to fill in and validate the datasets. 
 When available, data on demonstration proj ects for the SET-Plan technologies were also 
accounted for. Data on public RD&D projects were recovered from the IEA database on Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure Statistics. The indicators that are provided on energy RD&D take into account research, de velopment and demonstration related to the 
production, storage, transport, distribution and rational use of all forms of energy; and 
they cover basic research when it is clearly oriented towards the development of energy-related technologies, applied research, experimental development and demonstration (IEA Guide to Reporting Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure Statistics, OECD/IEA, 
2011). It is noted that deployment projects are excluded from RD&D investments.  The present analysis is focused on the assessment of one single indicator: the RD&D investments
12 in 2010. RD&D expenditures incurred in 2010 have been taken into 
account, such as the cost of materials and services consumed in research and 
development activities, the cost of wages and other related costs of personnel engaged in 
research and development activities. Expenditures related to RD&D activities, which are not attributed to the period of analysis have not been considered, e.g. technology and patent licenses, amortization of intangible  assets such as patents and licenses, 
depreciation of equipment and facilities to th e extent that they are used for research and 
development activities, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, franchise licenses, government licenses, goodwill, and other item s that lack physical substance but provide 
long-term benefits to a company. These types of assets are subject to amortisation, which 
is usually deployed over a period of 3 to 5 years (as presented in the annual reports). Subsequently, they provide a bigger picture of the medium term evolution of RD&D 
capacities of a company at the extent to which the firm is playing a role not only in the technology development, but also in technology diffusion. For the present analysis patent 
data serve only to redistribute the global RD&D  over the specific sectors, considering in 
this case research expenditures not as a measure technological change, but rather an 
input to innovation activities (Oslo manual 2005). 
                                                       
 
12 Other indicators could be used in order to provide a more complete picture of the level of RD&D 
efforts on a medium term basis, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, franchise licenses, 
government licenses and goodwill. 
 
 12 2.3 Data sources 
2.3.1 Data sources for EU RD&D investment  
The 7th Research Framework Program (FP7) and the EURATOM Framework Program 
are the key sources of RD&D financing at EU level of non-nuclear and nuclear fission 
technologies, respectively. Other energy-related EU funding schemes, including the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (C IP) with its Intelligent Energy Europe 
(IEE) program, the Structural and Cohesion Funds, the Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) InnoEnergy, the European Energy Program for Recovery (EEPR) 
and the LIFE+ Program may as well play a ro le in supporting the SET-Plan technologies. 
For example, within the Cohesion Policy budget, in the period 2007-2013 significant funding is dedicated to sustainable energy, with over EUR 10 billion planned for investments in energy efficiency and renewa bles across the EU as a whole, and, in 
addition, a strong focus has been put on rese arch and innovation (for which the amounts 
cannot be separated by research field) and the EEPR, launched in 2009, dedicated EUR 
1 billion to CCS and  EUR 565 million to offshore wind. By the end of 2010,  EUR 700 million had been distributed: EUR 361 million to gas and electricity infrastructure projects and the rest to wind and CCS projects
13. 
 However, not all of the mentioned programs co uld be assessed quantit atively at the level 
of detail needed for this analysis. For the pu rpose of the present analysis, the programs, 
for which data could be obtained, were considered. Primarily, the expenditure of the FP7 and the EURATOM Framework Program 2007-2011 was analysed. Most of the funded projects are planned for several years, whic h create difficulties for estimating annual 
appropriations. The method followed in this study was to evenly divide project budgets 
over the number of project years. Each proj ect execution year shares an equal amount of 
funds, irrespective of the starting  and ending month of the project. 
 
2.3.2 Data sources for Member  States’ RD&D investments 
The main data source for the analysis of pub lic RD&D investment in  the EU countries is 
the IEA RD&D Statistics14, which has several limitations  (see Box 2). Another data 
source is the Eurostat GBAORD (Governm ent Budget Appropriations or Outlays on 
RD&D. An important difference between these two sources is that the GBAORD provides highly aggregated data on the RD &D expenditure in several defined sectors 
including energy, while the IEA offers disaggre gated data to certain extent, especially in 
the category of renewable energy sources. Since GBAORD data are aggregated, they 
cannot be used for the objective of this stud y. Moreover, data for 2010 have been 
reported by only a few EU Member States.            
                                                       
 
13 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/L exUriServ/LexUriServ.do?ur i=CELEX:52011DC0217:EN:HTML:NOT . 
14 IEA RD&D Statistics: http://www.iea.or g/stats/rd.asp . Box 2 – Limitations IEA RD&D Statistics 
• Since not all the IEA members provide data regularly, data gaps are present for 
certain technologies or countries  
• Only 19 of the 27 EU Member States  are IEA members. This results in a 
systematic lack of data from Bulgaria,  Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, 
Malta, Romania and Slovenia. 
• The most recent data are from 2010, co ming from only 15 European countries 
(Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, 
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Repub lic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the 
UK). For the rest of the 4 countries covered in this report, a methodology 
called “gap-filling” was used to obtain da ta for 2010. Furthermore, some of 
the data provided are highly aggregated  for the renewable sector. Greece is one 
example and for this reason it is not included in this study. 
 
 13  
  Even though the report mainly aims at assessi ng the intensity of investment in the EU, it 
also attempts a comparison with investment s made in two other large economies, the 
USA and Japan. In doing so, the goal is to identify the technologies for which Europe invests less than the other developed economies.  In USA the RD&D funding in energy technology and innovation is mainly provided by the Department of Energy (DoE). The IEA RD&D Statistics was used as the primary data source as the USA is an IEA member. Another source is the “DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Developmen t, & Demonstration Database” (Gallagher 
and Anadon, 2012), which provides slightly different values from what is reported by IEA. The latter has been used for the purpos e of checking the reliability of the data 
reported to IEA.  The Japanese government continuously increa ses public investment in energy RD&D 
and innovation to achieve its ambitious clea n energy development objectives. Japan’s 
Council for Science and Technology Policy recently recommended the creation of a national RD&D system to centralize the management of RD&D activities. The council recommended that the government put in place a national process to evaluate RD&D activities with respect to their contributi on to the technology development roadmap, as 
well as a process to continuously evalua te international RD&D trends and Japan’s 
competitive position in each targeted techno logy (CSTP, 2009). This is carried out 
through a number of ministries: 
• Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) 
• Ministry of Education, Culture, S ports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 
• Ministry of International Affairs and Communications (MIC) 
• Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) 
 Moreover, Japan’s New Energy and Indust rial Technology Development Organization 
(NEDO)
15 is tasked with enhancing Japan’s industrial competitiveness through targeted 
RD&D and support for new technology commerc ialization. The IEA RD&D Statistics 
was used as the main data source. Other sources have been checked for the purpose of comparison.  
2.3.3 
Data sources  for corporate R&D investment  
While the EU Industrial R&D Investment Sc oreboard is an important data source for 
basic information on annual corporate R& D investments (JRC 2009), additional 
important data are provided by the annual reports and facts figures provided by the 
individual companies. Data on corporate R& D have been herein collected from several 
sources (EPO, EU Industrial Scoreboards Annual report and consolidated financial 
statements).    The annual reports of companies provide a we alth of information on the firm's produced 
and shipped capacity (eventually backlog, un conditional offers, revenue and turnover), 
stock exchange information (earnings per share,  book value  per share, share price at December 31, solvency) and employees (and R&D personnel). The financial statements in the annual reports disclose specific data on R&D, such as the level of intangible assets 
                                                       
 
15 NEDO: http://www.nedo.go.jp . 
 
 14 (except goodwill), research and development ex penditures, capitalized research projects, 
software, patents and their amortization. Validation of data and filling of data gaps (when data are not re adily available) on R&D 
potential is based on industrial scoreboard bulletins. The sample of companies considered for the present analysis includes firms that are not among the first 1400 global investors or firms that do not disclose information about their financial activity. Consequently, the estimation of corporate R&D investments was supported by a patent 
analysis to which a time-lag was assumed, to  account for the time between the research 
activity and the filing of the resulting patent application. Hence, another important data 
source for this analysis was the EPO (European Patent Office) and WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) database s. Jointly EPO and WIPO offer a more 
complete picture of the research intensity of the European firms and an accurate picture 
of the degree of R&D localization. A close look  to patenting intensity reveals that even in 
the presence of economic crisis, pa tent applications continue to grow
16. 
 There are however some disadvantages related to a patent analysis approach. Firstly, not 
all firms patent their activity, as a firm could opt for industrial secrecy to prevent knowledge spillovers. Secondly, patents are not perfect indicators in capturing their 
commercial use: Lanjouw et al. (1998) and Po pp (1999) argue that adoption of most 
patented inventions is not widespread, due to the fact that most patents have little commercial value.  “Accordingly, the results  of studies using patent data are best 
interpreted as the effect of an average patent , rather than any specific invention” (Popp, 
2005: p. 214). Thirdly, on specific themes, such as renewable energy technologies, 
patenting activity is also subject to a particular caveat: as environmental policy changes, it may affect the direction of patenting activity.  Market-based pollution control policies, for 
example, tend to induce a shift from cost-red ucing to emission-reducing innovation. This 
may complicate the interpretation of time trends of technological innovation (Popp, 
2007).  Despite these drawbacks, patenting is a systematic activity; and its analysis can provide a comprehensive picture of innovative a ctivities, since patents are usually filed in 
the early stages of the technolog y life cycle (Griliches, 1990). 
 Using a combination of the above data sources  for each of the technological fields of 
interest, key EU-based industrial companies ha ve been identified for further analysis in 
the context of this work. Although this is n ecessary for practical purposes, as it would be 
unrealistic to consider analysing all relevant industrial players, it also induces uncertainty, as the universe of firms that are selected for analysis is subject to some limitations:  
• In this analysis, most of the technolog ies were approximated only by the largest 
investors. Small companies might have had a strong commitment to R&D, but were not considered in the analysis due to the difficulty related to data gathering. Therefore, the strategy chosen for identifying the European companies tends to underestimate the total R&D efforts dedicated to SET-Plan technologies. However, for the PV sector this limitati on was overcome by including into the 
analysis smaller companies as well. To the extent that it was possible, the 
sampling error in the estimation of R&D investment in low-carbon technology for the set of the selected companies was calculated. 
• Larger firms often have R&D centres in different countries or even continents. 
With the current fast trend of globalisation, the classification of these companies (EU or non-EU) and the accounting for the R&D investment in Europe has 
                                                       
 
16 http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/ en/articles/2011/article_0004.html . 
 
 15 become increasingly difficult. For the present analysis the total R&D investment 
of a company has been attributed to the country that hosts the headquarters. 
Once the key industrial players for each ener gy technology have been identified based on 
their production capacities or innovation acti vities, the bottom-up approach adopted in 
the 2009 Capacities Map was followed to distribute specific private R&D investment: 1) collection of total R&D investment data of th ese companies; 2) allocation of the R&D 
investment to individual the SET-Plan technol ogies if the companies are engaged in the 
development of more than one technology;  3) summation of the R&D investment per 
technology from all identified companies.  It is noted that patent intensity diffe rs across technologies and some SET-Plan 
technologies are interlinked. For example, it is difficult to distinguish the degree to which patents in wind energy related topics also describe electricity grid improvements. The 
same discourse is also relevant to PV in verter companies. Many of the technological 
improvements in inverters also improve the grid. For the present analysis a methodology 
that could separate the relative importance of interconnected fields was not employed.  
                                As stated above, uncertainty is inherent to the adopted methodology. To increase 
confidence in the outcome of this analysis, the results were compared to other sources that gather and analyse data on RD&D investment, such as Bloomberg New Energy 
 Box 3 – Strategies employed in redis tributing R&D budgets over the specific 
sectors  
In the absence of information about a comp any’s specific patent applications, for a 
particular technology, and in the absence of  disclosure of its total amount of R&D 
expenditure, available information about th e number of employees in research and 
their wage have been used in order to estimate their R&D budget. The approach has already been used in the 2009 Capacities Map (JRC 2009).  When the total amount of R&D expendit ure of a company involved in many 
technologies is known, a patent analysis  was used for the distribution of R&D 
investments in the various technology fields. It was assumed, as in the previous Capacity Map (JRC 2009) that the distribution of patents across the relevant technologies is a proxy for the distribution of its R&D expenditures, as there is 
significant correlation between patents and R&D spending (e.g. Griliches, 1990; Jaumotte and Pain, 2005). In order to a ssess the intensity of R&D expenditure per 
specific field, the shares of a specific SE T-Plan technology patent application in the 
total patent applications of a company wa s computed. A time lag was also assumed 
to take into account the delay between the time that research takes place and its impact on innovation.  Furthermore, for the specific case of PV  sector, a novel approach was used: the 
R&D investment in PV technology was estimated from the number of patent applications of companies active on solar energy and the average R&D investment per PV patent. The value of R&D investme nt per PV patent was assumed to be the 
average between the figure of 1 million euro, which is quoted as a typical R&D investment for a PV patent (see Breyer  et al., 2010) and the average R&D 
investment per patent on any technology in the country that hosts the selected company. 
 
 16 Finance (BNEF). BNEF focuses on a portfolio of technologies including marine and 
small hydro, but does address CCS, nuclear fission and the power grid. As such, the comparison of the results was limited to spec ific technologies, such as solar, wind and 
biofuels.  
3. Results and discussion: identifying cu rrent efforts for satisfying financing 
needs of SET-Plan technologies 
 
The present assessment is focused on the RD&D investment on the SET-Plan technologies in 2010. The primary objective is to identify the extent to which public and private efforts were able to satisfy the fina ncing needs of technology development in the 
SET-Plan. Achieving the EU’s “20-20-20” go als and the “Roadmap 2050” vision require 
low-carbon energy technology innovation; and the SET-Plan has been launched as a powerful initiative towards this direction. The overall financing needs of SET Plan 
Technologies are presented in Box 4.  Other targets for research and development ar e also identified within the Europe 2020 
Strategy: building on Lisbon Strategy, one esse ntial target proposed to be reached before 
2020 is the level of R&D investment that should reach 3% of Europe’s GDP (see Box 4).                          With respect to corporate R&D investment, the Lisbon Strategy
17 proposes that two 
thirds of total R&D expenditure should be financed by the business enterprise sector.  
                                                        
17European Union Parliament Website Lisbon Europe an Council 23 and 24 March Presidency Conclusion Box 4 – The financing needs of SET Plan Technologies  
The financing needs of technology development, as described in the SET-Plan roadmaps (SEC (2009) 1295), i.e. for the implementation of the European Industrial 
Initiatives (EIIs), range between  EUR 58.5  billion to  EUR 71.5 billion over the 
period 2010-2020. By technology, such financing needs are as follows:  
• Wind:  EUR 6 billion 
• Solar: EUR 16 billion (EUR 9 billion for PV and EUR 7 billion for CSP) 
• Bioenergy: EUR 9 billion 
• CCS: EUR 10.5-16.5 billion 
• Electricity grids: EUR 2 billion 
• Nuclear: EUR 5-10 billion 
• The Smart Cities Initiative:  EUR 10-12 billion 
 In addition, the cost of implementation of the Roadmap for the European Energy 
Research Alliance reaches EUR 5 b illion over the next 10 years.  
 These investments should be shared between industry, the Member States and the European Commission. The partition of the cost for each EII may vary as well as 
for the activities within each EII (SEC (2009) 1295). This implies that Europe has to invest roughly EUR 5.4 billion per year on th e six SET-Plan technologies until 2020 
(this excludes investments in smart cities, fuel cell and hydrogen).  
 
 17  
In view of the financing needs identified in  Box 4, the present re port assesses hereafter 
the current (2010) support for the developm ent of SET-Plan technologies by source of 
funding. Section 3.1 and 3.2 present the public (EU and national) RD&D investment dedicated to the SET-Plan, while Section 3. 3 presents the JRC-SETIS estimations for 
corporate RD&D investment.  Public RD&D investment
 
The estimated public (EU and national) RD&D  investments dedicated to the SET-Plan 
technologies in 19 European countries, as explained in the previous section, in 2010 
reached EUR 2.26 billion, out of which, EUR 2.02 billion are national funds and EUR 
0.24 billion are EU funds through the 7th Research Framework Program and EURATOM. The distribution of funding over the 19 Member States is described in the following sections. This amount is comparab le with the public RD&D investment in 
Japan (EUR 2.36 billion) and USA (EUR 1.76  billion). The results for the different 
countries and the seven SET-Plan technologies, the trends of investment in the past decade, and the uncertainties associated to th em are presented, analysed and discussed in 
this section.  3.1 EU RD&D investment The main European bodies involved in the financing of SET-Plan technologies and hence in related RD&D activities are the European Commission, EIB and EBDR. The large scale investment is assured through European banks (loans, Sustainable Energy 
Initiative Programme and Technical Coope ration Funds Programme) and European 
funding, such as the Seventh Framewo rk Programme, the Competitiveness and 
Innovation Framework Programme (Entrepr eneurship and Innovation Programme and 
Intelligent Energy Europe) and regional po licy (European Regional Development Fund 
and Cohesion Funds).   The investments made by the major Europe an funding in 2010 were EUR 0.86 billion, 
mainly focused on renewable energy tec hnologies. The EU funding in 2010 was 
distributed through the various instruments as follows (Ecofys 2011): 
• EUR 72 million through the SME Guarantee  Facility of the Entrepreneurship 
and Innovation Programme  
• EUR 79 million through the High Growth and Innovative SME Facility of the 
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme 
• EUR 30 million from European Lo cal Energy Assistance Program 
• EUR 680 million through the European Regional Development Fund and 
Cohesion Fund. 
 In section 3.1.1 the intensity of funding through FP7 by technology in 2010 is presented (EUR 240.6 million were used to finance the SET-Plan technologies). 
Another funding instrument designed to ma ke energy supply more reliable and help 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while simu ltaneously boosting Europe’s economic 
recovery is the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR). The program was launched in 2009 and dedicated EUR4 billion to co-finance renewable energy projects in 
the fields of gas and electricity infrastructu re (44 projects) and offshore wind (9 projects); 
and CCS (6 projects). EEPR allocated EUR 1billion to CCS and EUR 565 million to 
 
 18 offshore wind18.  In 2010, EUR 334 million were dist ributed through EEPR, of which, 
EUR 146 million to offshore wind projects and  EUR 193 million to CCS projects.  
More information on the allocation of EU funds can be found on the internet through 
the Cordis website, the Cohesion Policy Project, DG INFSO: ICT for Sustainable Growth, Intelligent Energy Europe –Projects, JESSICA - Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas, JESSICA for Smart and Sustainable Cities, 
INTERREG projects.  The data provided abov e was extracted from of a review of the 
European and national financing of renewabl e energy, produced by Ecofys in 2011, for 
the European Commission (DG ENER).  
The Risk-Sharing Financing Facility (RSFF) is another innovative FP7 debt-financing 
instrument co-developed by the Europe an Commission and the EIB to provide 
additional loan finance for research, development, demonstration and innovation in the European research area
19. The FP7 and the EIB will each contribute with EUR 1 billion 
for the period 2007-201320. Through a leverage effect, this contribution will underpin 
loans and guarantees by the EIB of approx imately EUR 10 billion. RSFF loans have 
already been provided to R&D and innovati on projects in the field of energy, which 
involve R&D in renewable energy technolog ies (low-carbon technologies). The current 
FP7 budget for risk-sharing (max. EUR 1 billion until 2013 with EUR 500 million already allocated by 2010) might not be sufficient if there is high demand for  RSFF loans 
(including demand for larger demonstration projects related to SET-Plan implementation)
21. From 2007 to 2009, 62 projects  were approved for RSFF and have 
received EUR 6.3 billion. These projects were implemented in 18 EU Member States and 
2 FP7 Associated Countries. 17% of this funding was related to energy topics (EUR 1041 million in total). Assuming that the annual intensity of RSFF in 2010 was at the 2009 
level, RSFF would have potentially dist ributed EUR 347 million for energy related 
projects.   In addition, the European Commission’s propos al for Horizon 2020 indicates that EUR 
1.1 billion of RSFF may be used for the implementation of SET-Plan projects over the 2014–20 period
22. 
 
3.1.1 The 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7) 
The total EU contribution to the FP7 pr ojects during the period 2007-2012 is 
approximately EUR 1.52 billion .This value refers only to the FP7 Energy Theme’s 
budget lines; this is raised to EUR 1.78 b illion when contributions  to the FCH-JTI are 
taken into account, which results in EUR 0.30 billion per year on average.  Figure 4 presents an estimate of the FP7 contribution to the SET-Plan technologies in 
2010. The Community funds in FP7 and EURA TOM are EUR 0.24 billion. Nuclear 
fission receives about a third of the total funds, followed by fuel cells and hydrogen, bioenergy, electricity grids and solar energy. Th e total figure shows an increase compared 
to the one from 2007 (EUR 0.16 billion, JRC 2009). The differences include the slight 
                                                       
 
18 European Energy Programme for Recovery: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/eepr/index_en.htm . 
19 RSFF projects are evaluated by the EIB and va lidated by the European Commission (DG RTD, co-
operation with other DGs) if the pr oject contribute to FP 7 objectives 
20 Sharing risk in research , development & innovation: www.eib.org/rsff . 
21 Presentation by M. Koch: www.ceps.eu/files/Koch.pdf.  
22 Investing where it matters: An EU budget for long-term growth. Download from: 
www.ceps.eu/book/investing-where-it-ma tters-eu-budget-long-term-growth . 
 
 19 decrease in CCS, wind energy, fuel cells and hydrogen; and the increase in the rest of 
technologies (solar, bioenergy, electricity grids and nuclear fission). Moreover, CCS 
technology has also been supported by th e EU through the EEP R programme that 
effectively distributed EUR 193 million to CCS projects23 in 2010. 
 
CCS, 16.9, 7%Nuclear fission, 57.7, 25%
Fuel cells and Hydrogen, 
51.4, 21%Electricity grids, 29, 12%Wind, 10.1, 4%
Solar, 33.6, 14%
Bioenergy, 42, 17%
 
 
Figure 4. Estimation of EU FP7 funds (in absolute  -million euro- and relative terms) in SET-Plan 
technologies in 2010. 
 
However, the FP7 budget dedicated to energy-r elated projects includes a wider range of 
technologies than those addressed in the presen t report. By consequence, there is some 
uncertainty with the present assessment, resul ting mainly from: 1) raw data – some 
projects simultaneously address two or more technologies but have been allocated to one 
to avoid double-counting; 2) methodology – th e budgets of all projects are evenly divided 
by the number of execution years, irrespective of the actual starting  date of a project 
within 2010 or the distribution of activi ties throughout the duration of a project. 
Nevertheless, the impact of this uncertainty is  expected to be limited; hence the results 
provide a good indication of the effort and the trend of investment at the EU level.  
3.1.2 The European Investment Bank-EIB 
In assuring financial support to the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors, the European Investment Bank-EIB has substanti ally increased its support over the last 5 
years. Its annual lending increased more th an tenfold since 2006 (EUR 0.5 billion) 
reaching EUR 6.2 billion in 2010. The majority of this lending is directed to wind and solar power generation.  
The EIB has also developed other means of financing, such as equity and carbon funds, 
to further support renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects. The EIB also manages and participates in several other in itiatives and programmes related to energy 
                                                       
 
23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/L exUriServ/LexUriServ.do?ur i=CELEX:52011DC0217:EN:HTML:NOT . 
 
 20 and climate change, such as the Mediterra nean Solar Plan (MSP) and the GEEREF 
(Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund). 
Spain
13%Germany
12%France
3%Other MS
13%
Italy
16%Cyprus
3%
Romania
4%
Hungary
4%
Belgium
7%Greece
5%United Kingdom
20%
 
Figure 5. EIB expenditure in renewa ble technologies addressed by the SET-Plan in 2010, in million euro 
(source: EIB24). The projects taken into account are those for which the loan has been signed in 2010. The 
EIB loans included in 'Other Member States' refer to the ones signed with Finland, Slovenia, Czech 
Republic, Malta, Estonia, Poland , Portugal, Austria and Sweden. 
 
 
The main EIB beneficiaries in 2010 were Italy, UK, Germany and Spain, which received 
almost 61% of EIB investment s (see Figure 5). In the energy sector, 55% of the funds 
were allocated to electricity grid improvements , while 33% were directed to wind energy  
projects (mostly offshore) and 11% to PV proj ects. This snapshot is different from that 
of 2009, when wind was the principal sector funded by EIB, with EUR 1.28 billion representing 46% of total EIB expend iture on renewable energy that year. 
 
3.1.3 The European Bank for Reco nstruction and Development-EBRD 
The strategic initiatives of EBRD are design ed to pursue the challenges of increased 
energy security and energy efficiency, which can contribute to str onger productivity and 
economic growth in lesser developed countries. In order to achieve these goals, the EBRD commitments accounted for nearly one quarter of total EBRD financing in 2010: 
21% of the signed projects are energy related , comprising both natural resources and the 
power sector.  Investment under the Sustainable Energy In itiative rose 64% between 2009 and 2010. 
The Bank signed 21 projects in 13 countries with a total value of more than EUR 1.2 billion, approximately one third more than in 2009 in terms of the level of investment 
and number of projects (EBRD annual repor t). The Bank shows a strong interest in 
financing wind projects and in particular large wind farms, such as the 120 MW 
                                                       
 
24 For example, data about Austria can be found at: www.eib.org/projects/loans/sectors 
/energy.htm?start=2010&end=2010&region= european-union&country=austria  
 
 21 Margonin project in Poland. Table 2 provides an overview of projects for which a loan 
has been signed in 2010. Loans are mainly provided to wind energy (EUR 207.6 million) 
and electricity grid projects (EUR 581.3 million) and to a lesser extent hydro, CCGT (combined-cycle gas turbine) and natural gas. El ectricity grid projects ar e of high priority 
for EBRD in 2010 (51% of projects in power and energy sector are grid related). This technology also represents a priority for EIB loans in 2010 as well (see section 3.1.2.). 
 
 22  Table 2 EBRD expenditure for Power and Energy in 2010, in milli on euro. The projects taken into  account for 2010 are those for which the loan has been signed in 2010 (source: 
EBRD) http://www.ebrd.com/p ages/research/publications /flagships/annual.shtml.  
 
Country  
Project name  
Description Portfoli
o class Total  
project
 value  EBRD 
loan   EBR
D 
equity Total 
EBRD 
finance  
Bulgaria Suvorovo Windfarm A loan to fi nance the construction of a 60MW wind power 
generation station. Private 103 42.5 0 42.5  
Hungary Magyar Wind Equity part icipation in Iberdrola Wind Fa rm portfolio. Private 200 0 50 50  
Lithuania Lietuvos Elektrine Financing of a new combin ed-cycle gas turbine power plant. State 360.4 71 0 71  
Poland Polska Wind Equity participation in Iberdrola Windfarm portfolio. Private 300 0 75 75 
Latvia Latvenergo Riga CHP-2 The construction of a new combined cycle gas turbine unit to replace 
the old conventional gas-fired units. State 394.33 84.99 0 84.99  
Kazakhstan Aktobe combined heat power 
rehabilitation The loan will be used for the re habilitation and upgrade of the 
equipment. State 50 40 0 40 
Georgia Black Sea Energy Transmission 
System Financing of the construction of a new 315 kilometre high voltage 
transmission line and a "back-to-back" substation.  State 315 80 0 80 
Poland Energa S.A. Financing of ex tension/upgrade of electricity distri bution network State 567.07 67.40 0 67.40  
Bulgaria Gas Rimini Loan to finance the developmen t of the gas network in Trakia. Private 62.6 20 0 20 
Serbia EPS Metering Loan to fund acquisition/in stallation 200,000 advanced meters. State 80 40 0 40  
Poland Margonin Wind Farm Fi nancing towards construction and operation of a 120 MW wind 
farm in the Margonin region. Private 184.71 40.08 0 40.082  
Serbia Western Balkans Sustainable Energy 
Direct Financing Facility Financing of small hydropower pl ant. Private 2.52 1.4 0 1.4  
Ukraine South Ukraine Transmission Project Loan to fu nd construction of 750 kV 190km overhead line between 
Zaporizhzhia NPP and Kakhovska substations. State 449 175 0 175 
Russia RusHydro Bond Issue Participati on in RusHydro's bond issue as an an chor investor. Stat e 107.77 107.77 0 107.772  
Russia Federal Grid Company Financing will cont ribute to the modernisation of the Pakhra 
substation. State 87.65 87.65 0 87.655  
Montenegro EPCG Metering and Distribution  Loan for meteri ng and distribution network re construction. State 43.5 35 0 35 
Turkey Sedas Electricity Distribution Loan  Financing of SEDAS'capital investment  programme. Privat e 482.84 77.25 0 77.256  
Georgia Telasi Rehabilitation Project Inve stment programme to improv e electricity supply in Tbilis i. Private 24.72 19.31 0 19.3 14  
FYROM Western Balkans Sustainable Energy 
Direct Financing facility Loan for the construction and op eration of seven small hydropower 
plants. Private 11.57 6 0 6 
 
 233.2 National R&D investment 
 
3.2.1 Competent authorities and main RD&D policies   
Europe lacks of a top-down structure to coor dinate and manage the RD&D activities from 
all Member States, which reduces the effecti veness and efficiency of the pan-European 
exploitation of synergies in strategic energy pl anning. Box 5 presents the different European 
Member State competent authorities for RD&D policies.  
 
 
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
  
Source: Compiled using data recovered from http://www.res-legal.eu/compare-policies/ . 
 
   There is diversity in financial incentives and policy instruments in the EU Member States 
that encourage the development of RD&D acti vities in SET-Plan technologies (see Table 3). 
Direct support to innovation activities is manife sted through public subsidies to research and 
demonstration (in France, Germany and UK). Indirect support for R&D is provided in Belgium (credit tax) and the Netherlands (p ublic-private partnerships) to encourage the 
active participation of private parties. Box 5 – European Member State compet ent authorities for RD&D policies 
 Competent authority 
AT Austrian Federal Climate and Energy Fund  (Klima- und Energiefonds) 
BE Administration of Company Taxes and Income - SPF Finance. 
Federal Science Policy Department 
BE Energy Technology Innovation Platform (MIP) 
BE The Department of Energy and Sustainable Building (DG04)  
Department of Economy, Employment and Research (DG06) 
DK The Minister of Climate, Energy and C onstruction(The Green Labs DK Programme) 
DK The transmission grid operator Energinet. dk is in charge of the subsidies. 
EE Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Ministry of Education and  
Research, Ministry of Agriculture. Founda tions (Entreprise Estonia, Archimedes  
Foundation, Rural Development Foundations respectively). 
FI Ministry of Employment and the Economy, The Centre for Economic Development,  
Transport and the Environment  
FR French energy agency ADEME. 
FR French National Research Agency (ANR). 
DE Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) 
GR Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping; Ministry of Environment, 
Energy and Climate Change (MEEC) 
IE The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ir eland (SEAI) administers the programme. 
IT The ministry of Economic Development, ENEA(National agency for new technologies, 
Energy and sustainable economic development),  CNR(Italian National Research Council) an d
RSE(Ricerca sul Sistema Energetico),.  
LU The competent authorities are the Ministry of Economics and the Ministry of Finance. 
NL  ‘Topconsortia voor Kennis en Innovatie’ or TKI’s (Top-class Consortia for Science  
and Innovation). Off-shore Wind   
PT Energy Agency (ADENE)  
ES The Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness 
SE Swedish Energy Agency  
 
 24 Table 3. Main RD&D policies within Euro pean Member States (www.res-legal.eu) 
Country RD&D Policies Description 
AT Neue Energien 2020 program (Smart Energy R&D , Energy Efficiency , 
Renewable Energy, Education, Awaren ess Raising, Tec hnology Transfer) Austrian Climate and Energy Fund allocated EUR 30 million  
BE national Partial exemption of 75% of the business tax  An indirect fiscal mechanism collect ed EUR 500 million for investment in 
R&D. 
BE regional Flanders: The Environment and Energy Technology Innovation 
Platform.  Finance specific research projects to  develop sustainable technologies, 
products and services.  
BE regional Wallonia: Department of Ener gy and Sustainable Building; 
Department of Economy, Employ ment and Research of the 
Public Service of Wallonia Advance payment of up to 70 % of in vestment costs for projects of applied 
research or technolog ical development. 
 
DK Green Labs DK Programme finance projects related to energy efficiency and 
renewable technologies. The programme’s budget is 210 million DKK (approx. EUR 28 million) for a 
period of two years, from 2010 to the end of 2012. 
DK Forsk-El Programme - Support for research and development of 
environmentally friendly pow er generation technologies ForskEL is financed through a so-ca lled Public Service Obligation (PSO), 
which is paid by final energy consumers. 
EE Operational Programme for the Develo pment of Economic Environment  2007-2013 
FI Grants R&D projects for generation of renewable energy  
FR Fonds démonstrateur.  Grene lle of Environment (Ademe)  
SEED programme), electricity from renewable energies (PROGELEC 
programme), or sustainable transport (TDM programme). A fund of EUR 325 million was granted for the period 2009 to 2012 for 
environmental demons tration projects.  
DE 6th Energy Research Programme For the pe riod 2011-2014, the budget is EUR 3.5 billion  
GR Ai Stratis - the first green island: non-interconnected island in Aegean Sea 85% of the electr icity consumption is met by RE S technologies 
IE Renewable Energy RD&D Programme -  
IT ENEA, CNR and RSE Research program on electrical system 
LU No specific RD&D Policies. general support scheme within the Law of 5.6.09 The fina ncial support covers 25% to 100% of the e ligible costs  
NL R&D programme based on Funding  from th e parties involved  60% funding from privat e companies  and 40% from the government   
PT Fundo de Apoio à inovação - FAI Fund to Support Innovation -  
ES National plan of scientific resear ch, development and technological 
innovation 2008 - 2011) Energy, climate change mitigation, ener gy efficiency; Sustainable mobility / 
transport; Other climate change areas.  
SE Grants for research and development in the field of wind en ergy Offshore projects and onshore projects (baring wind speed re strictions). 
GB UK Renewable Energy Strategy GBP 50 million until 2015 (innovation activi ties in offshore wind, marine 
energy, waste and biomass) 
 
 25 In addition to the above mentioned national funding, since 2008, EU Member States 
have launched national economic recovery programmes. The fiscal stimulus envisages 
support to R&D activities in the field of re newable energy technologies. The green share 
in these recovery packages focuses mainly on the following categories: investment in 
energy efficiency, investment in transport infrastructure, vehicle scrappage schemes, 
investment in renewable energy sources and funds to support eco-innovation (Pollitt, 2011).  The size of the stimulus packages and their green part are summarised in Table 4.   
Table 4. Summary of the stimulus packages in several EU Member States. Due to lack of information, 
some Member States (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, and 
Spain) are not included. 
 
Member States Size of stimulus 
package (€ bn) Size green part 
(€bn) Share green part 
(%) Implementation 
period 
Austria 1.9 1.07 56 2009-2012 
Belgium 1.7 0.17 10 2009-2011 
Czech Republic 2.7 0.90 33 - 
Cyprus 0.5 0.03 1 - 
Denmark - 15.60 - - 
Estonia ~1.0 0.25 ~20 2009-2010 
Finland - 0.20 - - 
France 26.0 3.55 8-20 2009-2010 
Germany 80.0 10.60 13 - 
Italy 65.5 3.80 6 2009-2011 
Lithuania 1.5 0.30 20 - 
Latvia - 0.80 - - 
Netherlands 17.3 2.90 17 - 
Portugal - 0.31 - - 
Slovak Republic 1.5 0.17 6-12 2009-2010 
Slovenia 1.3 0.20 15 - 
Sweden 12.0 0.70 5-6 2009-2011 
UK 31.4 1.60 5 2009-2010 
 
Most of the economic stimulus programmes pr esented above have a duration of a few 
years and include 2009 and 2010 (see Table 4). The green parts of the stimulus package from Denmark and Germany are remarkable (in absolute terms). Italy, France and the Netherlands are also countries with significant green parts..  However, only in a few 
Member States, part of the green share of  the package focuses on R&D and innovation 
related to renewable energies: 
• France: EUR 150 million for R&D of low-ca rbon vehicles (4% of the green part) 
• Germany: EUR 500 million for R&D of alter native mobility concepts (5% of the 
green part) 
• Sweden: EUR 39 million for green technologies, such as biogas and solar-cells 
(6% of the green part) 
• Slovenia: R&D focus stated, but absolute value and field unspecified 
 The R&D and innovation measures offer the potential for long-term economic benefits, though it is difficult to quantify the scale of these benefits. However, as shown above, they are very limited in the stimulus packages in the EU Member States.  In assuring financial support to the renewable energy sector, national loans have been put in place to encourage related research activities (Table 5).     
 
 26 Table 5. Summary of the national loans in the selected EU Member St ates (www.res-legal.eu) 
Country Name of the support Loan features Amount  
BG Bulgarian Energy 
Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy 
Credit Line -BEERECL Maximum loan amounts to EUR 
2,500,000 in one or more loans, 
unless otherwise approved by the 
EBRD. From 2004-2010 BEERECL, financed 152 
projects, EUR 110.82 million loans were 
disbursed and EUR 19.15 million incentive 
grants have been awarded to businesses. 
HR HBOR Bank scheme 
(Programme for 
Environmental 
Protection) The minimum loan amounts to 
HRK 100,000 (approx. EUR 
13,000). The interest rate is 
variable from 2-4% per year.  Credit lines with EIB for the financing of 
SMEs, environmen tal projects and 
infrastructure pr ojects in the public and 
private sector of EUR 250.0 million25. 
CZ ECO-ENERGY 
Programme  The maximum loan is CZK 50 
million (approx. EUR 2 million). 
The interest rate is fixed at 
1%/year.  Co-financed by the Structural funds 
(ERDF, ESF,etc.) Overall budget of ECO-
ENERGY - OP Enterprise and 
Innovation was 65.722 million for 2010 26 
DK Loan guarantees for 
local initiatives for 
construction of wind-
energy plants The maximum guarantee is 
500,000 DKK (approx. EUR 
67,209) per project  Energienet.dk has provided a budget of 10 
million DKK (approx. EUR 1.3 million ) 
for guarantees.  
DE KfW Renewable Energy 
Programme  Up to 100% of the investment 
costs eligible for financing 
(without VAT), however, not 
more than EUR 25 million per 
plant/project.  Loans totalling EUR 1.2 billion were 
granted in 2010 for investment in 
environmental and climate protection  
(KFW annual report). 
ES The Centre for The 
Development of 
Industrial Technology 
CDTI 
 Programs such as INNPRONTA Loans were granted for Wind(30.3 
million), PV (11.38 million), CSP(10.7 
million), Bio-energy (3.77 million ), 
CCS(5.28 million), Grids(6.83 million ), 
Nuclear Energy (0.22 million)  
LT The Fund of the Special 
Programme for Climate 
Change Mitigation The amount to be provided by the 
credit institution shall be no less 
than 20% of the loan.  No information has been found on the 
amount invested for 2010.  
PL National Fund for 
Environmental 
Protection and Water 
Management - RES The amount of loan may be PLN 
4  to 50 million (EUR 1-12 
million) but must not exceed 75% 
of the project costs d) Priority 
Programme RES). The 
investment must exceed PLN 10 
million (EUR 2.4 million)  The total budget for renewable energy and 
combined heat and power for 2009-2012 is 
around EUR 333.6 million. In 2010
financing of environmen tal protection by 
the National Fund 27 :  PL 1269 million as 
loans and capital investment of 
NFEP&WP ;PL 4298 million subsidies 
and grants from funds of NFEP&WP and 
EU Funds;PL 347 million as bank loans. 
SI Eko Sklad The minimum. interest rate for is 
the three-month EURIBOR rate 
+ 1.5 percentage points  The calls currently open provide a total of 
EUR 25 million for municipalities, 
enterprises and EUR 5 million for 
residents. 
 
The variety of programs that are in pla ce makes the collection of data on national 
investment from all the Member States difficult. Recent initiatives such as the SETIS project mapping offer opportunities to monito r EU national funding in a centralised way 
to explore Europe’s full potential in RD&D capacities. This initiative aims to identify 
                                                       
 
25 HBOR Bank annual report 2010. 
26http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ erawatch/opencms/information/cou ntry_pages/be/country?section=
ResearchFunders&subsection=I mportantResearchProgrammes . 
27 http://www.nfosigw.gov.pl/en/fina ncing-environmental-protection/ . 
 
 
 27 gaps and topics28 for leveraging best on-going efforts with complementary joint actions 
as prioritised by the Implementation Plans of each EII.   
3.2.2 Public RD&D investm ents: comparison between the EU, the USA and Japan 
The total RD&D investments dedicated to the SET-Plan technologies in 2010 from the 
19 European countries addressed in this re port are estimated to be EUR 2.02 billion, 
which shows a significant increase in the past decade (EUR 929.04 million29). The level 
of European RD&D investment in 2010 is comparable with that of Japan and USA for the same year. However, these three economies display different trends from 2001 to 2010: while R&D investment clearly increase s in Europe and USA, they are slightly 
decreasing in Japan. Moreover, the intensity of investments in these countries is very 
different: from 2001 to 2010, an annual av erage increase of EUR 82.86  million in the 
EU is observed, while it is significantly high er in the USA (annual increase of  EUR 202.0 
million). The growth rates of public subsidies in these three major economies display similar trends but are significantly different in absolute terms: the yearly average increase 
in the growth rate in the USA is 2.2% and while  in the EU it is 0.7 %. The yearly growth 
rate of RD&D in the USA is rapidly changing , reflecting to some extent policy choices, 
since a higher priority is now given to the fe deral strategy for alternative energy research. 
For example, in 2001, R&D investment in low-carbon technologies in USA represented 
only 17.65% of those in Japan. Since then, RD &D spending in USA showed a significant 
increase, in all the SET-Plan technologies, wi th an even distribution of funding between 
them. Especially in recent years (2008-2010),  among the low-carbon energy technologies, 
bioenergy, electricity grids, solar energy an d CCS take increasingly larger shares. R&D 
investments show a peak in 2009 due to th e economic stimulus package, the so-called 
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act” (abbreviated as ARRA). ARRA was 
enacted by the 111
th United States Congress in 2009 to create jobs and promote 
investment and consumer spending during th e recession. The combin ation of the energy 
related provisions in ARRA and the regular federal RD&D funds have been considered 
an important step in creating a sustainable energy system for the future of the USA 
(Anadon et al., 2009). This shows the sign ificant position of low-carbon RD&D in the 
strategic planning of the energy sector in the USA.  The source for public spending data in the USA was the “DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Development, & Demonstration Database” (Gallagher and Anadon, 2012), which has also been used for this analysis. A comparison of data included in the IEa and DoE databases is shown in Table 6.    
Table 6. Comparison of the energy RD &D data from IEA and DOE databases 
Energy technology IEA (€ million) DOE (€ million) 
Carbon storage & storage 169.88 114.56 
Solar energy 197.06 185.89 
Wind energy 63.42 60.33 
Biofuels 593.43 165.11 
Nuclear fission 354.85 383.99 
Fuel cells & hydrogen 251.42 155.03 
Electricity grids 134.39 128.68 
                                                        
28 To facilitate this process questionna ires have been distribu ted by SETIS to Member  States stakeholders 
and the EII Teams. 
29 In 2009, the JRC public investment totalled EUR 1.14 billion, including EUR 172.48 million for FCH 2 
and EUR 38.48 million for CSP.  
 
 28 Table 6 shows that for most of the technolog ies, data are comparable, except for fuel 
cells and biofuels, where the difference between  the two data sources is significant. The 
reason for this difference is that, the data on biofuels in the IEA database include the production of liquid biofuels (EUR 142.70 million) and other biofuels (EUR 450.74 
million). Here, the RD&D activities on “other  biofuels” focus on 1) assessing biofuel 
production potential and associated land-use effects, and, 2) genetics and biology to 
develop new crop varieties or modify certain characteristics of exis ting varieties (IEA 
Guide to Reporting Energy RD&D, 2011 ). The DOE data focus on biomass and 
biorefinery systems and presumably do not include the same activities as the IEA 
database.  The comparison of RD&D investments for 2010 reveals that Japan, Finland, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have higher intensity in RD&D investments (defined as the ratio of RD&D investment over GDP). Cou ntries like Germany and Italy have a high 
RD&D investment in absolute terms, but a low R&D intensity: measured as the RD&D investment per GDP , the public R&D intensi ty in these countries reaches barely 0.01%. 
Table 7 and Figure 6 show the RD&D inve stments for the SET-Plan technologies per 
GDP for the important economies under study.  Countries with high GDP show also a 
high level of investment in low-car bon technologies. Moreover, the correlation 
coefficient between public RD&D and GDP is 0.68, indicating that the size of the 
market is an important factor for the R&D intensity for low carbon technologies.  
 
Table 7. National RD&D investments in the SET-Plan technologies  
Country RD&D investment  
(€ billion) GDP         
(€ billion)30 RD&D investment/GDP 
 
France 0.685 1937 0.035%  
Germany 0.237 2496 0.010%  
United Kingdom* 0.250 1710 0.015%  
Italy 0.136 1553 0.009%  
Poland* 0.124* 355 0.035%  
Netherlands 0.102 589 0.017%  
Norway 0.090 318 0.028%  
Spain* 0.080* 1049 0.008%  
Denmark 0.074 236 0.031%  
Sweden* 0.073* 350 0.021%  
Finland 0.067 179 0.037%  
Switzerland 0.064 416 0.015%  
Belgium 0.034 356 0.009%  
United States 1.764 10937 0.016%  
Japan 2.364 4150 0.057%  
* The RD&D investment data for these countries are based on the content of IEA RD&D 
statistics database after being corrected by JRC-SETIS in consultation with the Member States. 
 
Innovation activities in renewable energy are seen as important determinants for Europe’s green growth. In order to fulfil the 20/20/20 climate and energy targets, the overall European investments from the priv ate and public research and development 
sectors should reach 3% of GDP (Box 6). In the absence of synergie s with other actors 
and considering that two thirds of total R&D investment should be made by the private 
sector, public RD&D investment should a ccount for 1% of GDP. Table 7 reveals that 
EU countries such as Finland, France and Poland invest in SET-Plan technologies around 3.5% respectively of the above-menti oned target of 1%. For the year of 2010, the 
                                                       
 
30 Data source: Eurostat for 2010 (onlin e data codes nama_gdp_c and tec00001). 
 
 29 intensity of public R&D investments in SET-Pl an technologies is low in Italy, which also 
has private R&D investments below the Lisbon target (48% of total R&D investment in 
SET-Plan technologies). On the contrary, the low intensity of public R&D investment in Spain and Germany is accompanied by high  intensity of corporate R&D investment 
(almost 65% of total R&D investment in SET-Plan technologies in Spain, and almost 80% of total R&D investment in SET-Plan technologies in Germany).    
 
 
The intensity of public R&D investment in each technology is shown in Figure 6. It 
reflects the priorities that have been given to the technological development of SET-Plan 
technologies. However, although electricity grid s are of great importance for the future 
deployment of renewable sources, the R&D intensity remains small.   
020406080100120140160180200
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Wind Solar Nuclear Bioenergy CCS grids FCH2
 
Figure 6. RD&D intensity by technolog y per country in 2010. RD&D intensit y is defined as ratio of public 
R&D investment to GDP and expressed as 10-6 
 
Moreover, the R&D priorities by technology are quite different for Europe, Japan and 
the USA. However all three countries displa y a high level of in vestments in nuclear 
fission. Even though it has a decreasing trend, R&D investments in Japan were made 
predominantly into nuclear fission (83%)31. Nuclear fission investments account for the 
                                                        
31 As the year of the present assessm ent is 2010 does not take into a ccount consequences of Fukushima 
accident which took place in 2011  Box 6 – Europe 2020 Strategy 
The Europe 2020 Strategy has identified three priorities: Smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth. Innovation is recognised as a key driver for revitalizing the European economy. Building on Lisbon Strateg y, one essential target proposed to 
be reached before 2020 is the level of R&D investment that should reach 3% of 
Europe’s GDP. Moreover, the 20/20/20 climate and energy targets should be met. In 2010, the Commission estimated that th e level of R&D expenditure in Europe 
was below 2%, which is lower than level of investments in USA (2.6%) and Japan 
(3.4%). 
 
 30 largest share of the EU RD&D investments, followed by fuel cells, bioenergy, solar 
energy and CCS. In the USA the focus of RD&D  investment in the energy sector is to a 
large extent on fossil fuels and energy e fficiency. Hereafter a comparison of the 
distribution of research across SET-Plan tec hnologies in the European Member States, 
Japan and the USA is presented ( Figure 7).    
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Poland
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
EU 18+ CH+NO
United States
Japan
Wind Solar Nuclear Bioenergy CCS Grids FCH2
 
Figure 7. Technological breakdown of the total RD&D investment per country (EU Member States, Japan 
and the USA) in 2010 
 
 The distribution of RD&D investments across the SET-Plan technologies varies 
substantially between countries:  
• Public RD&D investment in Japan, France and Belgium is focused to a great 
extent on nuclear fission technology.  
• With its abundance of biomass feedstock,  bioenergy shares are around 70% of 
the RD&D investment in Sweden, followed by Finland, Denmark and the USA 
for the same reason. Besides this, RD&D heavily focuses on production of ethanol from cellulose, referred to as second-generation biofuels.  
• In Finland and Denmark, fuel cells and hydrogen have a significant share among 
all SET-Plan technologies. 
• A distinction of solar technology into PV and CSP (Table 8), reveals that 
countries tend to invest less in CSP (almost 15% of the total investments in solar energy) than in PV technology.    
Table 8. PV and CSP RD&D investments per region in 2010 
 PV (€ million) CSP (€ million) 
FP7 28.93 4.63 
EU Member States (incl. 
Norway & Switzerland) 245.46 39.45 
Japan 80.47 0.00 
USA 163.08 33.98 
  
 
 31 Among the European countries that invest  the most in CSP technology are Germany 
(EUR5.84 million), Italy (EUR 13.00 million), Spain (EUR 10.80 million) and Switzerland 
(EUR 3.62 million.  
 
Figure 8. Regional distribution of the public RD&D  investment in the SET-Plan technologies in 2010 
 
Figure 8 shows the national RD&D investme nts of the leading European economies in 
the SET-Plan technologies in 2010. France acco unts for almost one-third of the total 
R&D investment (EUR 0.58 billion), followed by the United Kingdom (EUR 0.26 billion), Germany (EUR 0.24 billion) and Ital y (EUR 0.14 billion). These four countries 
combined account for two-thirds of the total European national RD&D investments in the SET-Plan technologies. These countries are also the main investors in 2010 to both fossil fuels and renewable energy technologies. On a yearly basis, these countries show a different attitude towards financing renewa ble energy sources, nuclear and fossil fuels 
(including CCS).   The case of United Kingdom is described be low first, which shows the highest increase 
in RD&D budgets, both for fossil fuels and for renewable energy technologies. 
Compared to 2009, the United Kingdom in 2010 shows a significant increase (219%) in 
 
 32 national RD&D budget for fossil fuels, mainly attributed to CCS technology: CCS 
represents 95% of the total RD&D budget for fossil fuels in 2010 (compared to 85% in 
2009). In addition, the UK’s governmental RD&D budget also increases by 78% for renewable energy sources from 2009 to 2010 and by 51% for nuclear technologies. Thus, R&D investment increases for both low-carbon technologies and fossil fuels.  There is a different approach in Germany,  where RD&D investment in fossil fuels 
decreases by 18%, with RD&D for CCS decrea sing at a slower rate (by only 1%). RD&D 
in nuclear energy technologies decreases by 5% while for renewable energy sources RD&D increases by only 1%. As in other countries, RD&D budgets seem affected by the global economic recession.  Also affected by the economic crisis is Italy, a country that displays an interesting pattern. 
In 2010, RD&D in renewable energy decrease s by 9%, while it increases for nuclear by 
9.8% and for fossil fuels by 4%. This finding is consistent with the support for nuclear power by the Italian government at that time. However, the Italian nuclear programme faced strong local opposition and ten Italian regions blocked a law aimed at reopening nuclear facilities. Therefore the evoluti on of technology development depends on the 
effectiveness of public policies, which in turn  is affected by the level of public consensus 
for a specific technology (Corsatea and Dalmazzone, 2012).   In France, RD&D public funding increased for both fossil fuels and renewable energy, showing an average yearly increase of EUR 15 million for the Set-Plan technologies
32. 
From 2001 to 2010 most of the Set-Plan technologies receive growing public funding, while RD&D investment for nuclear fissi on programs showed an average annual 
decrease of EUR 8.37 million. In fact, from 2009 to 2010, public RD&D decrease by 
EUR 105 million (almost 15%). More than 35% of this reduction is attributed to the 
decrease in public RD&D investment in nuclear technology.   From the analysis presented above it is c oncluded that beyond the economic crisis, and 
the specific countries’ industrial specializat ion, the socio-political acceptance has also 
played an important role in shaping the intensity of RD&D public investments in low-carbon technologies in 2010. However, this ou tcome may reflect also  the advantages and 
constraints with regard to the renewable en ergy resource potential, the current energy 
mix and its historical development, and regiona l industrial capacities (Figure 6 and 7).  
   
                                                       
 
32 From 2001 to 2010  
 
 33 3.3. Corporate R&D investment 
 The European innovation activities on lo w-carbon technologies are not only subject to 
domestic policies (such as European support for research or policies promoting deployment of renewable energy sources), but also respond to policies in the non-EU 
countries, where these low-ca rbon technologies are deployed. Su ch sensitivity to policies 
of non-EU countries is reflected on an in creased regionalization of the production 
capacities for low-carbon technologies. Scale-intensive companies are subject to globalization the most, where sources of innov ation are both internal and external to the 
firm. On the one hand, European companies are attracted by green stimulus packages of foreign markets; and foreign companies coul d benefit from the environmental/climate 
policies of European countries. On the other hand, innovation of foreign companies could be influenced by European envir onmental policies. Additionally, the economic 
crisis has triggered dramatic changes to the organization of the productive systems of major in-house R&D energy technology companies. This has led to a leakage of assets reflected in a decreased employment and innovation activities in Europe. 
 
3.3.1 The selection of main companies  In this analysis, most of the technologies ha ve been approximated only by the largest 
companies. Although small companies can be  very committed to RD&D, they are not 
considered in this analysis due to difficul ty of data gathering. Therefore the strategy 
chosen in this analysis for identifying the main European companies tends to underestimate the total RD&D efforts dedicated to SET-Plan technologies. 
 The notion of large companies/investors considered for this analysis should be interpreted in the light of two criteria: the production capacities (measured in terms of 
cumulative annual power generation capacity of manufactured units) and the innovation efforts (measured in terms of patent applications). Sometimes, the two criteria (production and research) are closely linked together: large companies develop important 
R&D activities mostly relying on own internal effort, and called hereafter science-based  
companies. Other firms are relying on both internal and external efforts, and called 
hereafter scale-intensive  companies. The last category of fi rms considered in this analysis 
comprises large firms, which do not develop important research activities, and called hereafter supplier-dominated  companies. 
 The companies involved in producing wi nd energy technology were identified as science-
based.  The sample of firms considered in the analysis for this sector relies extensively on 
recruiting high quality scientists. Research activities for these companies are largely 
performed in-house, and are characterized by intensive patenting activities and 
‘technology races’ that push upward the front ier of knowledge production. Solar energy 
technology companies are scale-intensive, re lying both on in-house and external R&D. 
To increase their market share innovation efforts of these companies were focused on 
cost reduction and process optimisation. In general, scale-intensive firms invest 2.58% 
from sales on R&D and direct their innovati on efforts into applications that renew 
markets. The level and the localization of research in SET-Plan technologies for scale-intensive and science-based companies are determined by the providers of these technologies. This is the case for solar, biofuels and wind technology companies.  For the supplier-dominated companies, the innovation and production activities are decoupled. The supplier-dominated companies were identified also in the previous edition of the Capacities Map (JRC 2009) in  the light of Pavitt’s Taxonomy (1984): the 
 
 34 companies involved in the traditional energy sector are considered to be supplier-
dominated, where the relevant R&D efforts are carried out by the original energy 
equipment manufacturers and suppliers (OEM s) (Jacquier-Roux and Bourgeois 2002). 
The identification of the companies considered  as relevant for measuring the research 
intensity in a certain SET-Plan technology did not  rely only on statistical classification of 
economic activities (NACE). The present anal ysis includes also traditional energy 
companies (producing energy from fossil fu els) which rely extensively on sources of 
innovation external to the firm.   The assessment of R&D investments of all these companies (supplier dominated or science /scale intensive) is based on an evalua tion of their innovation activities, such as 
the number of patent applications. This is the case of companies involved in CCS and the electricity grids. The intensity of patenting  in these specific technologies is considered 
as a proxy of their R&D efforts for that field. This approach is also subject to limitations, where the biggest shortcoming comes from the patent’s nature. The patent approach should be able to identify individual technologies; however for technologies that are closely linked, this methodology produces results with a degree of uncertainty. For 
example, in many occasions it is difficult  to disentangle the degree to which patents 
related to wind energy also result in electricity grid improvements. The same situation is valid for PV inverter companies. Many of the technological improvements in inverters 
also indirectly improve grid connectivity. Expe rt opinion should address the issues of the 
present methodology and suggest improvements for future analysis.   In summary, the main companies considered in this analysis were identified based on their production capacity and by their innovation efforts. Certain associations, such as EPIA (European Photovoltaic Industrial A ssociation), EWEA (European Wind Energy 
Association), and the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel 
Power Plants (ZEP) provided support for the identification of the main actors.   3.3.2 Sampling and errors of sampling
 
For each SET-Plan technology, key industrial EU-based companies have been identified. For wind and solar energy technologies, the selection of main companies was based on 
their innovation activities (thorough analysis  of EPO and WIPO databases), analysis of 
markets (e.g. through the surveys from EUROBSERV’ER 2010 and 2011), and information on production capacities (throug h the companies’ websites). For electricity 
grids, CCS, nuclear energy and biofuels a pa tent analysis was only employed, as described 
below.  
• Wind: The selected European wind manufacturer companies account for more 
than 40 % of global supplied capacity and 15% of total WIPO wind patent applications. Based on the number of European wind technology developers (31-including non-active) and a sample size (1 2) the theoretical margin of error is 
22% for the wind sector
33. The complete sample includes European and non-
European wind companies that account for more than 75% of global supplied 
capacity. 
• Solar: The selected European solar manufacturer companies account for 63 % of 
European cell production and cover 20% of  WIPO patent applications for solar 
energy material and 10% for modules. Based on the number of solar companies (240 in 2012) and the sample size of this report (32) the theoretical margin of 
                                                       
 
33 Plus or minus in percentage points, 95% of the time. 
 
 35 error is 16.16% for the solar sector34. The sample includes European and non-
European solar technology companies that account for about 84% of global 
supplied capacity.  
• Electricity grids: The EPO classification is used, which is the only data source 
that distinguishes the patent applicat ions related to grid connections. The 
European manufacturers represent just a small share of the applicants of patents for electricity grid technology: a search by country codes reveals that 11.5 % of the total electricity grid patent applic ations at EPO in 2010 was made by 
European companies. Based on grid paten t applications filled by European 
companies in 2010 (116) and a sample size of electricity grids (19) the theoretical margin of error associated to this sampling is 20%. The final selected European grids technology developers account for more than 60% of all patent 
applications filled in at EPO by European based companies.  
• CCS: The major investors in CCS technology were identified based on a novel 
EPO classification (2010). Based on the CCS-r elated patent applications filled by 
European companies in 2010 (14735) and a sample size of 22 companies, the 
theoretical margin of error associated to  this sampling is 18%.The final selected 
European CCS technology developers account for 50% of all patent 
applications filled in at EPO by European based companies.  
• Nuclear:  Based on nuclear energy related paten t applications filled by European 
companies in 2010 (48) and a sample size of 13 companies, the theoretical margin 
of error associated to this sampling is 23.46%.The final selected European nuclear technology developers account for 49% of all patent applications filled 
in at EPO by European based companies.  
• Biofuels:  The WIPO classification has been used, as it provides a separation of 
liquid and solid fuels. Data accounts only for bioethanol, biodiesel and biogas; hence, they include all liquid biofue ls except vegetable oil production and 
genetically engineered organisms. Such a choice is supported by the limited information on production, mostly offered by the Eurobarometers. The theoretical margin of error associated to this sampling is 16.2%. The final selected 
European biogas technology developers account for 12.4% of global patent 
applications.  
 The total sample of firms included in this report includes 102 companies  identified as 
main R&D investors in the SET-Plan technologies. Only 22 large companies are simultaneously active in all 6 SET-Plan technologies. German and French companies 
have a diverse portfolio of technologies, suc h as Siemens (DE), Bosch (DE) and Alstom 
(FR). The sample also includes also companie s that invest both in traditional fossil fuels 
and renewable energy sources (such as BP in  the UK and Statoil in Norway). For some 
companies it was possible to recover data  from the World Top 1400 R&D Investors 
included in the European Scoreboard. For the companies that are not listed on the stock exchange, and thus, not obliged to publish th eir financial report, relevant information, 
such as annual reports and yearly facts, was extracted from the companies’ internet sites.   For companies focused on a single technology,  it was assumed that their research 
activities remain within the main field of their business subject. However, an effort was 
made to disentangle their research efforts between energy generation and grid connections. The newest EPO classification allows the identification of patents that are 
                                                       
 
34 Plus or minus in percentage points, 95% of the time. 
35 Including all subsidiaries.  
 
 36 used for both main energy generation technolog ies, such as wind or solar, and their 
related application to grid connectivity. Theref ore, particular attention was paid herein to 
allocate the R&D investment to energy generation and to improvement in grid connectivity.  For companies with a diverse technological profile the share of patents for renewable energy sources with respect to the overall in tensity of patenting was used to capture the 
level of research in specific technologies. Specific R&D funding intensity per patent by industry was also used in the absence of total R&D expenditure.  However, acknowledging that not all companies patent for obvious reasons (fear of imitations or knowledge spillovers) further calculations were also made to provide information on specific research expenditures. One approach was to estimate R&D expenditures from the number of research ers in a specific technological field (JRC, 
2009). A rough estimation of the R&D invest ment is obtained by assuming an average 
R&D investment per research employee ra nging between €120,000 and €150,000 (JRC 
2009). The R&D-to-sales intensity ratio wa s also used to compare R&D investments 
obtained by a combination of computations described above.   3.3.3 Geographical distribution  of corporate R&D investment
 
Using the above described methodology, it has been estimated that the selected sample 
of companies invested EUR 3.047 billion in  2010 in the SET-Plan technologies (wind, 
PV, nuclear fission, biofuels, CCS and electric ity grids).  This estimate is based on 
companies in 14 countries (13 EU Member St ates and Switzerland). Overall, corporate 
R&D funding in non-nuclear technologies increased from 2007 levels (EUR 1.24 billion
36), reaching  EUR 2.33 billion in 2010. Cor porate R&D is highly concentrated in 
Europe: 88% of R&D investment in the SE T-Plan technologies is carried out in 5 
countries: Denmark, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany and France (see Figure 9). The last two countries account for 54% of  the total R&D efforts. The results are 
consistent with the intensity of public support toward environmental issues, over the last 
years in these countries.  With respect to the previous edition of the Capacities Map (JRC 2009), Italy shows an 
increase in private investment, while in  Sweden and Austria corporate R&D has 
decreased. It is recalled that public fundin g decreases in Italy by 22% during the same 
period, while corporate initiatives intensify (from 2 to 4% of the selected sample). 
 The industrial specialization of a country also affects the R&D intensity in specific low-carbon technologies. Countries such as Germ any and France have a multi-technological 
investment portfolio (Figure 9): solar and wi nd initiatives represent more than 72% of 
Germany's corporate R&D expenditures. In France, bioenergy and nuclear initiatives 
represent 85% of corporate R&D expenditures  in the country. This situation has not 
changed since 2007.  
                                                       
 
36 Excluding CSP and FCH 2. 
 
 37 
 
 
Figure 9. Indicative regional distri bution of corporate R&D investment  in SET-Plan technologies in 2010. 
The intensity of colours reflects the magnitude of corporate R&D investment. The pie charts reflect the 
distribution of corporate R&D investment to the SET Plan technologies. 
 
3.3.3.1 Wind energy technology 
In 2007, Europe was a global leader in wind  energy technology, holding a 61% share of 
the globally installed wind energy capacity in 2007 and hosting 7 of the top 10 wind energy suppliers in 2006 (EUROBSERV’ER, 2008a). In 2010, Europe accounted only 
for 48 % of total installed wind capacity an d 27% of new installed capacity; and hosted 
only 5 of the top 10 wind energy companie s (including Repower, which was bought in 
2009 by the Indian company Suzlon). China is rapidly expanding in the wind energy sector with 3 companies in the top 10 wind manufacturers in the world and accounting for 46.2% of global installed capacity in 2010. 
 
 
The penetration of wind power in the energy  markets of developing economies triggers 
technological improvements, new business so lutions, new products and production 
reorganization of the European-based companies in order to serve these new customers. To this end, European companies redirect and resize their research efforts to adapt their 
 
 38 technologies the needs of the new markets. The general principle in 2010 was “thinking 
globally, acting locally”. Delocalization was s een as a way of reductions in the cost of 
shipments and manufacturing (JRC, 2012). Consistent with their globalization strategy, 
European and American companies are in this context more exposed to knowledge spillovers and research collaborations than their Chinese counterparts.  The European firms considered in the analysis
37 continue to intensify research efforts in 
2010, with an average increase of 21% in  R&D expenditure over 2009 levels.  The 
aggregated R&D investment of EU-based companies ( EUR 670 million in 2010) is the result of an assessment of 11 companies.  Vestas, Siemens, Gamesa, Enercon, and 
Nordex are the largest investors in the sample. Nordex showed the largest annual increase of R&D investment in relative terms (80%), and Vestas in absolute terms (EUR 130 million). 52% of the total corporate inve stments is made in Denmark, followed by 
Germany (28%) and Spain (10%).  The estimated corporate R&D investment in wi nd energy has increased by an order of 
magnitude (130%) since 2007. This increase is  not uniform across countries, as it is 
higher for Demark (158%) and Germany (240%) and lower for France (3.4%).  The JRC-SETIS estimates of the European corporate investments in wind energy (EUR 670.15 million) are not far from the 2012 edit ion of BNEF. The latter source reports that 
global investment in wind technology devel opment was USD 800 million.. At a country 
level, not surprisingly, Germany and Denmark invested the most in Europe followed by 
Spain and France.  Corporate R&D represents 76% of total R&D investment in wind energy, which is a typical value for a mature technology. This va lue is increased in relative terms by 5 % 
with respect to 2007 levels. It is noted  however that the share of corporate R&D 
investment decreases to 65 % when the EEPR contribution is included. The estimates of public and private R&D (Fig ure 11) indicate that countries with high 
public R&D funds simultaneously account for the largest corporate R&D investments.  
                                                       
 
37 Nordex (DE), Vergnet (FR),  Siemens (DE), Vestas Wind (DK), Acciona Energy(ES), Alstom (FR), 
Gamesa (ES), Enercon (DE), REPower Systems (DE), Dong Energy (DK), Iberdrola (ES). 
 
 39 
Public RD&D, 
201.41 (20%)EU-FP7, 
10.10 (1%)EEPR,
 146.00 (14%)
Corporate R&D,
 670.14 (65%)
 
Figure 10. R&D investment in wind ener gy technology in 2010 (in million euros) 
 
 The total R&D investments in wind energy technology in 2010 were €881.66 million (EUR 1027.66 if the EEPR contribution is  included). The EU contribution was EUR 
10.10 million through FP7 and EUR 146 million from EEPR funding for offshore projects. Public national investments accoun ted for EUR 201.41 million, increased by 
78% over 2009 levels and 143% with respect to 2007 levels. The level of public RD&D 
programs the highest in the United Kingdo m (EUR 67.33 million), Germany (EUR 36.77 
million) and Spain (EUR 23.76 million)
38 , which together they accounted for 63% of 
public Member State investments. The cont inuous increase of investments in wind 
energy is consistent with the stated goals of  large European countries to achieve the 20-
20-20 goals with an increased share of wind in their renewable mix.  
 The ratio of R&D investments of European companies to their turnover is on average 
2.587%. As, in general, engineering firms allocate 7% of their sales for R&D expenditures, the above average value of 2. 6% could be interpreted as underinvestment 
in research for wind energy. The R&D-to-sales ratio is higher for companies dedicated to wind energy, such as Vestas (almost 5% ) and lower for multidimensional technology 
companies, such as Dong Energy and Iber drola for which this ratio is below 0.5%. 
 To some extent, the intensity of research  efforts is correlated with the firm 
characteristics: American General Electric and Danish Vestas are among the key investors in wind technology. Asian companie s are smaller compared with the European 
ones, but lately successful in the wind b usiness Nonetheless, Chinese companies’ 
cumulative turnover represents as much as 85% of Vestas’ revenues. Chinese firms are less R&D intensive
39, investing only 10% of what Vestas invested in 2010. 
                                                        
38 The public R&D investment in Spain is obtain by ad ding up the investment made by national research 
centre for energy research(CIEMAT) and Energy investments made by The Centre for the Development 
of Industrial Technology in 2010.  
39 According to JRC-SETIS calculations. 
 
 40  
 
 
Figure 11. Indicative regional distribution of public  and corporate R&D invest ments in wind energy 
technology (2010). The intensity of colours reflects an  aggregate (public and cor porate) R&D investments. 
The symbols reflect onl y the public RD&D. 
 
3.3.3.2 Solar energy technology: The case of photovoltaics  
The global solar market is dynamic, growing from EUR 5.415 billion (USD 7 billion) in 
2004 to EUR 63.439 billion (EUR 82 billion) in 201040. In 2004, Japan led the world in 
annual production of PV systems with abou t 500 megawatts (MW), followed by Europe 
(300 MW) and the United States (140 MW).  Japan hosted at that time many of the 
world's largest solar companies. At that ti me 2 European companies were also among the 
world leaders (BP Solar, and RWE Schott Solar). In 2010 the situation was completely 
different: Chinese companies (such as Suntech, Jasolar, Trinasolar, Yingli), dominated the 
market. European companies with la rge scale production were Q-Cells, SMA 
Technologies and Schott Solar 
 
                                                        
40 Becky Stuart2010 PV market growth strong, http://www.pv-magazine.com/ news/details/beitrag/2010-
pv-market-growth-stron g_100002459/#axzz24rNTpfZ2 . The same report mentions a 105% growth from 
year to year (in 2009 the industry generated USD 40 billion).  
 
 41 One of the reasons for these changes of the so lar market was the high price elasticity that 
stimulates demand and redirects investment s, also away from Europe (Germany) to 
emerging markets such as China or India.  The strategy embraced by the European 
companies was delocalization with local pr oduction serving local consumption. The 
globalization process of the European compan ies justifies the delocalization of their 
facilities outside Europe, as a way of avoidi ng exchange rate disadvantages, reducing 
transport routes and costs and enhancing customer service. (JRC, 2011b) provides 
additional causes for the current situation related to research, manufacturing and market 
implementation of PVs.   
 
Concerning their technological specializati on, many European companies, such as 
Siemens, Bosch, and British Petroleum (BP), developed large-scale production facilities 
for crystalline silicon technology. Few European companies invested in the second generation of PV (Centrotherm PV, Q-Cells  ag) and none of the European firms 
invested in third generation technologies.   Global corporate R&D investment in PV technologies for the sample of firms 
considered in this analysis, reached EUR 1,653 million (USD 2,139 million), with EU ranked second with EUR 574.57 million (USD 743 million) after Asia (USD 916 million or 42 % of global investment). The findings of  this analysis are consistent with those of 
BNEF that state for the same period USD 2.1 billion for corporate investments in R&D.  The selected sample of corporations includ e international competitors such as  American 
firms that account for 19.5% share in globa l R&D investments,  Japanese firms that 
account for 21% share of the global R&D, Korean firms that account for 15 % of global R&D and Chinese firms that  account for 5% of R&D investment. Looking at the 
complete sample of companies, the average R&D-to-sales intensity varies between 1.4% 
(France and Spain) to 3.2% in Germany, Ja pan and USA. The highest R&D intensity is 
shown by Japan,   German firms account for a quarter of gl obal R&D investments and 57% of European 
investments. The analysis has shown that European firms
41 continue to intensify research 
efforts with an average annual increase  of EUR 58 million between 2003 and 2010. In 
relative terms, in 2010 the highest increase was by Centrotherm PV (83%), whereas in absolute terms the highest annual increase of R&D expenditure was by Oerlikon Solar 
(EUR 33 million). However, the R&D-to-sales intensity for the EU-based PV companies is around 2.16%, indicating that thes e companies underinvested in research. 
 Corporate R&D investments were focused on th e improvement of production processes 
and cost reduction for first and second PV generation (crystalline technology and thin-film). Current efficiencies of different PV  technology modules using wafer-based single-
crystalline silicon range between 14-20%.., Wafer-based multi-crystalline silicon PV 
systems have 13-15% efficiency, The effici ency of thin films using amorphous silicon 
ranges between 6-9%, thin films based on cadmium telluride 9-11% and copper indium 
gallium (di)selenide thin films 10-12% (IEA  Industry Conversion Efficiencies 2010, 
technology Map).  
                                                       
 
41 Centrotherm PV(DE), Conergy (DE), Manz auto mation (DE), Meyer Burger (CH), Oerlikon Solar 
(CH), PV Crystalox Solar (DE), PVA TePla (DE), Q-Cells ag (DE), Roth&Rau (DE) , Schott ag (DE), 
SMA Solar Technology (DE), Solar Wo rld (DE), Solon1 (DE), Sunways (DE), von Ardenn e (DE), Wacker 
BU Polysilicon (DE).  
 
 42 The distribution of total R&D expenditure in European countries is shown in Figure 12. 
Research is highly concentrated in two countries (Germany with a 49% share and Switzerland with a 13%share) accounting for more than 63% of total R&D expenditure. 
Their research intensity is correlated to public incentives for renewable energy.   In contrast to PV, most of the countries in vested negligible amounts in CSP, with the 
exception of Germany (EUR 5.84 million), It aly (EUR 13.00 million), Spain (EUR 10.80 
million) and Switzerland (EUR 3.62 million).  The total R&D investments in solar energy technology in 2010 were EUR 901.03 million
42. Even though corporate R&D accounts for almost 64 %, public investments are 
not negligible (EUR 297.53 million from EU  Member states and EUR 33.60 million as 
FP7 contribution).   
 
Figure 12. Indicative regional dist ribution of public and corporate R&D investments in PV technology 
(2010). The intensity of colours reflects an total (p ublic and corporate) R&D in vestment. The symbols are 
reflecting only the public RD&D.  
 
PV public R&D investment is the highest in Germany (EUR 53.64 million). Northern 
European countries with relatively small poten tial due to the low irradiation conditions, 
such as the Netherlands and Norway also make significant investments. The high level of 
                                                        
42 The amounts refer to PV and CSP R&D investment . PV R&D investment amounts EUR 0.81 billion, 
from which EUR 210.96 million from EU Member stat es and EUR 28.93 million as FP7 contribution.  
 
 43 R&D expenditure in Norway is due to private investments from companies such as REC 
and Orkla Elkem solar. In contrast, the high investments in the Netherlands are due to public initiatives (almost EUR 28 million).  
3.3.3.3 Electricity grids technology 
Several factors incentivise R&D activities dedi cated to electricity grids, such as the shift 
from a centralised generation towards an increasing deployment of distributed energy resources, the need for larger cross-border interconnection capacities to ensure higher 
security of supply and access to the most efficient energy resources and the foreseen transmission over long distances of electricity generated in locations far from the actual 
consumption centres.  Grid technologies can be grouped into high voltage, medium voltage, low voltage and 
demand-side management technologies. It shou ld also be noted that super-high voltage 
(well above 400kV) is also currently being studied in an attempt to significantly decrease losses and increase reliability of power transmission. 
• For high and extra-high vo ltage (so-called "super grids"), HVDC – high voltage 
direct current and FACTS – flexible AC transmission systems, seem to be the 
most promising technologies and therefore are the main targets  of private R&D 
funds.  
• At medium voltage, low voltage and de mand side management, R&D activities 
are oriented towards research in smart grids, including not only the study and manufacture of specific equipment, but also the integration of ICTs into the 
distribution network and end-customer appliances. For further reference see the forthcoming edition of the smart grids inventory, expected in the first half of 2013. 
 The sample of European firms investing in gr id technology was selected using as criteria 
the intensity of their patenting at WIPO
43. Among the main investors in grid applications 
are European inverter companies and wind technology manufacturers. The involvement of these companies aims to supply a product th at is able to be implemented in diverse 
topographical conditions and various electric ity networks. Consequently, firms customize 
solutions for new markets, enhance product varieties and adapt technologies to different 
natural context and improve efficiency of exis ting manufacturing turbines. An example is 
the PMDD technology for which some companies claim that it is superior to traditional drive train machine, with respect to grid c onnectivity. The same is observed for the PV 
inverter companies: many of the technological  improvements in the inverters also have 
an indirect impact on grid connectivity. As  an example, SMA Technologies became 
involved early on in the area of grid manageme nt in order to make it possible to integrate 
more photovoltaic plants into the German electricity network.  The total R&D investment in electricity grid technology in 2010 was EUR 323.25 
million. The national R&D investment reac hed EUR 150.63 milli on, and FP7 funding 
was EUR 29 million. Corporate R&D investment had a 44% share of the total amount. Concerning corporate R&D, countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Spain accounted for 70 % of the research in grid technology. The special case of Swiss ABB 
                                                       
 
43Auxilien [AT], Fronius Int Gmbh [AT], Hehenberger Gerald [AT], Eandis [B E], Vestas [DK], ABB 
Technologies [CH], Areva [FR], Ne xans [FR], Adensis Gmbh [DE], Bo sch Gmbh Robert [DE], Enercon 
[DE], Repower Systems AG [DE], RWE AG [DE], Si emens [DE], SMA Solar Technology [DE], Nordex 
[NO], Smartmotors [NO], Ingeteam Energy SA  [ES], Gamesa [ES], ABB Technologies [CH].  
 
 44 Technologies Company is noted, which alone has a 31% share of R&D expenditure in 
electricity networks.   An indicative regional distribution of pu blic and corporate R&D investments in 
electricity grid technology in 2010 is presented in Figure 13.   
Figure 13. Indicative regional distribution of public and corporate R&D investments in electricity grid 
technology (2010). The intensity of co lours reflects an aggregate (public  plus corporate) R&D investment. 
The symbols reflect only public RD&D. 
 
European RD&D investments in electricity gr ids have more than doubled from 2007 to 
2010. The steady increase of RD&D investment  in electricity grids of the Member States 
confirms the ever growing concern for the pressure of increasing demand on existing 
electricity networks.   The highest share of the public RD&D invest ment in electricity grids across EU Member 
States was in Poland (31%
44), Italy (13%), United Kingdom (8.2%), Germany (7%) and 
the Netherlands (7%).  
                                                        
44 Data provided by the Sherpa of the SET-Plan Steering Group.  
 
 45 3.3.3.4 CCS technology 
The total R&D investment in CCS technol ogy in 2010 was EUR 400.39 million (EUR 
593.39 million if the EEPR contribution is included). The FP7 contribution was EUR 
16.90 million. Public investment was very si gnificant (EUR194.62 million) (Figure 14).  
 
Public RD&D, 
194.62 (33%)EU-FP7, 
.16.90 (3%)EEPR, 
193.00 ( 32%)Corporate R&D,
 188.87,( 32%)
 
Figure 14. R&D investment by source of funding for CCS technology in 2010 
 
 
An indicative regional distribution of public  and corporate R&D investments in CCS in 
2010 is presented in Figure 15.    Corporate R&D accounts for as much as 47.17% of total investment. A close look to the composition of corporate R&D investment in this sector (around EUR 189 million in 
2010) reveals an ever growing interest fo r this technology of large utilities and oil 
companies. The identification of the main Eu ropean companies investing in CCS-related 
applications was based on the composition of  the technology platform for zero emission 
fossil fuel power plants (ZEP ETP) and in formation on the intensity of their patenting 
activities at WIPO
45. In the case of R&D investment in CCS technology, a decoupling of 
public and private efforts was observed: in c ontrast to the other technologies, public and 
corporate R&D investments are not correlated at country level. Corporate R&D investments are higher in Germany (BASF, Siemens) and Switzerland (Alstom). Only for 
United Kingdom both public and corporate R&D investments (Shell, BP) are correlated. With respect to 2007 levels, the public R&D in CCS related topics has increased almost tenfold in United Kingdom, and by 50% in France.   
 
                                                        
45 Blackcarbon [DK], Novozymes [DK], Air Liquide [F R], Basf [DE], Bosch Gmbh Robert [DE], Evonik 
Degussa [DE], Linde [DE], Siemens [DE], AST Engineer ing [IT], Stichting Energie [NL], Tno [NL], Aker 
Clean Carbon As [NO], Sargas AS [N O], Statoil [NO], Nordic Gas Clea ning AB [SE], Al stom Technology 
Ltd [CH], Shell [UK], BP [U K], Carbon Cycle Ltd [UK].  
 
 46 
 
 
Figure 15 Indicative regional distri bution of public and corporate R&D investments in CCS technology 
(2010). The intensity of colours reflects an aggreg ate (public plus corporate) R&D investment. The 
symbols reflect only public RD&D. 
 
 
3.3.3.5 Bioenergy technology 
The public R&D investment remains rather low compared to corporate investments 
(EUR 365.3 million from EU Member states  EUR 42 million as FP7 contribution and 
EUR 750 million from the private sector). France is a major investor, followed by 
Sweden and the UK. Public R&D investments tripled in France compared to 2007, while halved in the UK (which had the most intensive R&D at country level in 2007). It is difficult to assess with a high level of accu racy the R&D investment for this technology, 
as Member States do not explicitly disclose data on biofuels, but rather allocate it under 
the category 'bioenergy-related research'.  However, countries with high public biofuel-related R&D budget are home to companies with substantial research investments in biofuels (i.e. France, Germany, Italy, and the UK): the correlation coefficient between 
public and corporate R&D investments is 0.59 (Figure 16). 
 
 47 
 
Figure 16. Indicative regional di stribution of public and corporate R&D investments in bioenergy 
technology (2010). The intensity of colours reflects an  aggregate (public and co rporate) R&D investment. 
The symbols reflect only public RD&D. 
 
The sample of companies was selected ba sed on patent applications at EPO and 
WIPO46. These companies focus their R&D investments on biodiesel, bioethanol and 
biogas. As in the previous version of the Capacities Map (JRC, 2009), the companies included in the analysis are specialised biof uel companies, large car manufacturers and oil 
companies. The latter two categories of firm s account for the majority of the corporate 
R&D investment in bioenergy. The total R&D budgets For some biodiesel and bioethanol producers were not available. In order to approximate their R&D investment 
in bioenergy the number patent applications of these firms was multiplied by the average 
R&D investment per patent of the rest of biofuels producers that their budget was 
known. In doing so, sample of companies ca ptured also smaller companies, not present 
in the Industrial Scoreboards or not quoted  on the stock market, which however made 
considerable research efforts that led to patent applications at EPO or WIPO. 
 The above-mentioned approach allowed the a ssessment of 33 firms involved in R&D in 
bioenegy technology. Their total R&D invest ment was around EUR 750 million. This 
represents a three-fold increase from the 2007 levels.  
                                                       
 
46 Novozymes [DK], Cursor Oy [FI], Air Liquide [FR], Arkema [FR], IFP Energies Nouvelles [FR], 
Marliere Philipe Instituts Pasteur [F R], Saint Gobain [FR], Tereos [FR] , Total S.A. [FR], Veolia [FR], 
Diester Industrie [FR], Anaergia Inc [DE], BASF [DE], Bayer [DE], Bosch GmbH Robert [DE], 
Hoermann Interstall GmbH & Co KG [DE], KSB Ak tiengesellschaft [DE], KWK GBR [DE], Linde [DE], 
Sattler AG [DE], Siemens [DE], Voith Patent GmbH [DE], ADM Biodiesel [DE], Crop Energies [DE], 
Eni [IT], Abengoa [ES], Biosling Ab [S E], Novartis [CH], BP[UK], Shell [UK].  
 
 48 3.3.3.6 Nuclear fission technology 
In 2010, the R&D budget for fast reactors, one of the SET-Plan technologies, was EUR 
130 million. One third of this investment  represents EURATOM funding of projects 
(around EUR 40 million). The development of fa st reactors takes place mainly in France, 
where sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) initiati ves have been nurtured since early 50’s. In 
2010 the development of SFR-based ASTRID prototype (500-600 MWe) has triggered annual investments of approx. EUR 80 million during the period 2009 - 2017
47. The total 
cost of the ASTRID project after 2017 is esti mated to be EUR 5 billion. An alternative 
technology to SFR, the lead-cooled fast neut ron reactor (LFR) has generated an annual 
investment of EUR 10 million in Belgium: the MYRRHA pilot plant “is scheduled to be 
operational in 2020 and its cost is estimated  as EUR 960 million (ESNI Concept Paper). 
Another project on lead cooled technology is the Genius project, which has triggered 1 million annual investments in Sweden.  In 2010, Member States R&D investment in nuclear fission was EUR 600.7 million and the EU contribution was EUR 57.70 million.  The estimated overall corporate R&D 
investment in nuclear fission technology was EUR 720 million
48, almost 52% of overall 
investment in nuclear technology. Public an d corporate efforts are highly correlated (the 
correlation coefficient is 0.97).  Both private and public funds largely concen trate in France, which accounts for 62% of 
corporate and 60% of public R&D investment  (Figure 17). Generally, countries which 
invest in renewable sources tend to invest also in nuclear technology: in 2010 the correlation coefficient between total R&D investment in SET-Plan technologies and nuclear R&D investment by European country was high (0.97). Previous studies have demonstrated that countries that have already invested in nuclear or hydro power have lower energy prices and have little motivati on to invest in renewable energy sources 
(Popp et al 2011). The present assessment cannot identify a substitution effect among the R&D investment by type of SET-Plan technologies. However, a close examination 
shows that there is no correlated movement in investment between nuclear and wind technologies (correlation coefficient is almost 0): countries which invest in wind energy 
technology have a low share in nuclear R&D in vestment and vice versa. The exception is 
Germany where nuclear and wind technology have the same intensity in R&D investment.  
 
                                                       
 
47 Total budget is EUR 650 million from 2009 to 2017 to  which industrial participation rises to 20%. 
48 Plansee [AT], Areva [FR], EDF [F R], Menser Carbonne Loraine [FR] , Ald Vacuum [DE], Bakal Semen 
[DE], Nukem Technologies Gmbh [DE], RWE AG[DE], An saldo [ES], Del Nova Vis [ES], Iberdrola [ES], 
Vestingkhaus Ehlektrik [SE]. 
 
 49 
 
Figure 17. Indicative regional distri bution of public and corporate R&D investment in nuclear fission 
technology (2010). The intensity of colours reflects an  aggregate (public and co rporate) R&D investment. 
The symbols reflect onl y the public RD&D. 
 
 
3.3.4 Analysis of uncertainties As in the previous edition of the Capacities Map (JRC, 2009), assumptions were made to compensate for missing information to reduce th e overall uncertainty of theresults of this 
analysis.  It was assumed that no uncertainty is associated  with the data from companies active in a 
single technology, whose R&D investment is known through annual reports or the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard.  It was assumed that all their R&D investment 
is allocated to the respective technology.  For the rest of the companies for which the R&D investment is obtained using patent analysis uncertainty ranges of ±10% and ±50% were applied. A reduced uncertainty (between ±20 and ±30%) is attributed wh en cross checking methodologies (patent 
analysis vs. researchers' wages vs. R&D expend iture-to-sales ratio intensity) arrive to the 
same results. Higher uncertainty (±50%) is allocated when estimates rely on only one 
method of estimation of R&D investments (mainly a patent analysis). Based on these assumptions: 
• The maximum uncertainty in the wind energy corporate R&D investment is ± 
EUR 75.64 million, roughly ±11% of the total R&D investment.  
 
 50 • The maximum uncertainty in the solar energy corporate R&D investment is± 
EUR 58.61 million, roughly ±10% of the total R&D investment.  
• For CCS, electricity grids, biofuels and nucl ear the higher level of uncertainty (30-
50%) was assumed, as the companies ar e focused on many technologies and 
hence, cross checking is not possible in view of the limitations in data availability. 
The maximum uncertainty of corporate R&D investment is ± EUR 750 million 
for these technologies. 
 
Overall, the maximum uncertainty in the esti mates of corporate R&D investment is ± 
33.21%.  
 
 51 4. Conclusions  
 The goal of the present assessment is to pres ent the public and corporate investment in 
energy technology innovation in Europe, at EU, national and corporate levels in 2010. 
The methodology employed to estimate public and private RD&D investment in specific 
technologies, is associated with a great deal of missing data and hence with 
uncertainties
49.  
 This assessment finds that the total public RD&D investment in the SET-Plan portfolio of technologies in Europe in 2010 is comparab le with those in Japan and the USA. The 
evolution of public RD&D investment seem s to be affected by the economic recession, 
by the Member States’ specific industrial capacities, as well as by the socio-political acceptance for low-carbon technologies. Both public and corporate RD&D investments are commensurate to the size of the market:  large countries such as France, United 
Kingdom, Germany, and Italy have higher research intensity in SET-Plan technologies and account together for more than 62% of both public and corporate RD&D in Europe. Countries’ industrial specialization leads also to a higher RD&D intensity in specific low-carbon technologies. Countries such as Germany and France reflect a multi 
technological investment environment: Germany invests mostly in solar and wind energy, 
while in France priority is given to bioene rgy and nuclear technology. Summarizing, EU 
countries share one or more priorities in public RD&D spending on energy technologies which indicates that Europe has great potential in this front if more active policy coordination and synergies are exploited.   The present assessment also identifies the extent to which current efforts for technology 
development are able to satisfy the SET-Plan financing needs, previously identified to be in the range of EUR 5.2 billion to 5.4 billion per year (see Box 4), though it does not attempt to compare the funded priorities against those in the Technology Roadmaps 
(JRC, 2009a). Regarding the current financin g sources for the SET-Plan technologies, 
public and private, the present analysis estimates that EUR 5.3 billion is the total RD&D investment (EU-FP7, national and corpora te R&D). This amount would rise to EUR 
5.64 billion when the effective EEPR paym ents in 2010 for CCS and offshore wind 
projects are taken into account. However, th is assessment considers all investment for 
nuclear fission technologies (not only Generati on IV reactors, which are the focus of the 
SET-Plan). By technology, the RD&D inve stment was higher for wind (EUR 0.88 
billion) and PV technologies (EUR 0.9 billion) and lower for electricity grids (EUR 0.32 billion) and CCS (EUR 0.4 billion). By adding the EEPR contribution for CCS in 2010 (EEPR payments in 2010 for CCS being EUR 0.19 billion) the present assessment identifies a financing gap with respect to SET-Plan needs for CCS technology. Partly, the 
under-investment identified for CCS could be  the result of a low corporate contribution: 
the private share in CCS investments was 47% (and barely 30% if EEPR funding is taken 
into account), which is below the Lisbon strategy that targets that two thirds of R&D expenditure should be financed by the b usiness enterprise sector. Except for CCS, also 
electricity grids present a corporate R&D un derinvestment (45%). Corporate investments 
in wind technology are in line with the Lisbon target displaying a high corporate share for 
RD&D investment (76%). The overall corporate RD&D funding in non-nuclear 
technologies was EUR 2.33 billion in 2010. Despi te this high value, at a firm level, EU 
wind manufacturing companies are associated  with an average RD&D-to-sales ratio of 
                                                       
 
49 Applying a range of uncertainties from 20-50% for the private sector firms, for which RD&D data were 
not available, we finally obtain an overall uncertainty of not more than ±33% for the estimates on the 
corporate RD&D investment. 
 
 52 2.87%, and PV companies of around 2. 2%. Based on JRC-SETIS estimates, major 
Korean PV manufacturing firms spend almost 4% of their turnover on RD&D. Compared to the average investment in engineering sectors of 7%
50 of turnover in R&D, 
it seems that European companies (with some  exceptions) underinvest in research. The 
consequences could be important in the con text of international competition: in 2007 
Europe hosted 7 of the top 10 wind energy  suppliers, while in 2010 only 5. China is 
rapidly expanding, with 3 wind technolog y developers in the first top 10 wind 
manufacturers and accounting for 46.2% of gl obal installed capacity in 2010. Europe also 
comes second after Asia in corporate RD&D investment in PV technology.  The EU needs to plan carefully its support to energy RD&D and the appropriate allocation of investment. In this context, a lot could be gained from improving transnational collaboration in RD&D, as advocated by the SET-Plan initiative. 
Furthermore, in view of the important conclusions stemming from the analysis of RD&D investment, as presented in this work, the methodology of collection and processing relevant data need to be furthe r improved. In this direction, The European 
Commission intends to work with the Member States and the industry in the immediate 
future.   
                                                       
 
50 For engineering sectors Laleman and Albrecht, 2011 id entified an average R&D to sales ratio of 7%. 
 
 53 Acronyms 
 
EUR (€)  Euro 
CCS Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage 
DoE  Department of Energy (USA) 
EII European Industrial Initiative 
EPIA  European Photovoltaic Industry Association 
EIB European Investment Bank 
ERBD  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
EPO  European Patent Office  
EU European Union 
FP Framework Programme 
GBAORD Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays on R&D 
GDP  Gross Domestic Product 
IEA International Energy Agency 
IEE Intelligent Energy Europe 
JRC Joint Research Centre (of the European Commission) 
JTI Joint Technology Initiative 
MS Member State of the European Union 
NACE  Statistical Classification of Economic Activities 
OECD  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
PV Photovoltaic 
R&D  Research and Development 
RD&D  Research, Development and Demonstration 
SETIS Strategic Energy Technology Plan Information System 
SET-Plan  (European) Strategic Energy Technology Plan 
WIPO  World Intellectual Patent Organization 
ZEP  The European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants  
                       
 
 54 References  
 
Alkemade, F., Kleinschmidt, C., Hekkert, M.P., 2007. Analysing emerging innovation 
systems: a functions approach to foresight. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 3(2), 139-168. 
Anadon, L.D., Gallagher, K.S. and Bunn, M., 2009. DOE FY 2010 Budget Request and 
Recovery Act Funding for Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment: Analysis and Recommendati ons. Energy Technology Innovation Policy 
research group, Belfer Center for Sc ience and International Affairs, Harvard 
Kennedy School, USA. 
Anadon, L.D. and Holdren, J.P., 2009. Poli cy for Energy Technology Innovation. In: 
Acting in Time on Energy Policy. Washin gton, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 
Archibugi, D., 2001. Pavitt’s Taxonomy sixteen  years on: a review article, Economics of 
Innovation and New Technology, vo l. 10, pp. 415 – 425, 200. 
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Ca rlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., 2008. Analysing the 
functional dynamics of technological innov ation systems: A scheme of analysis. 
Research Policy, 37, 407-429. 
BNEF, 2011.Global trends in renewable energy investment 2011. Bloomberg ‘New 
Energy Finance. 
BNEF, 2012. Global trends in renewable energy investment 2012. Bloomberg ‘New 
Energy Finance, Frankfurt School of  Finance & Management GmbH 2012. 
Breyer Ch., Birkner Ch., Kersten F, Gerl ach A, Goldschmidt J.Ch., Stryi-Hipp G., 
Montoro D.F. , Riede M., 2010 Research and development investment in pv – a 
limiting factor for a fast PV diffusion? 
COM(2007) 723 final, 2007. Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A European St rategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-
Plan) ‘Towards a low carbon future’. Brussels. 
COM(2008) 30 final, 2008. Communicati on from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 20 20 by 2020, Europe’s climate change opportunity. 
Brussels. 
COM(2009) 519 final, 2009. Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan). Brussels. 
COM(2011) 112 final, 2010. Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon 
economy in 2050. Brussels. 
COM(2011) 885/2, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European 
Parliament, the Council the European Ec onomic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions. Energy Roadmap 2050. Brussels. 
Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP), 2009. Low Carbon Technology Plan. 
Government of Japan. 
Corsatea T. and Dalmazzone S. (2012) A Regional Analysis of Renewable Energy 
Patenting in Italy, ICER Working Paper No. 6/2012. 
Dailmer, 2011. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen technologies in Europe: Financial and 
technology outlook on the European sector ambition 2014-2020. 
Dechezlepretre  and Glachant, 2011). Do es foreign environmental policy influence 
domestic innovation? Evidence from the wi nd industry, European Association of 
 
 55 Environmental and Resource Economists  18th  Annual Conference, 29 June - 2 July 
2011, Rome. 
Ecofys 2011 Financing Renewable Energy in the European Energy Market. EUROBSERV’ER 2010: Wind Energy Barometer.  EUROBSERV’ER 2011: Wind Energy Barometer.  EUROBSERV’ER 2011: Photovoltaic Barometer. Gallagher, K.S. and Anadon, L.D., 2012. DO E Budget Authority for Energy Research, 
Development, & Demonstration Database. Energy Technology Innovation Policy 
research group, Belfer Center for Sc ience and International Affairs, Harvard 
Kennedy School , USA. 
Haščič, I., Frans de Vries, Johnstone, N., Medh i, N., 2009. Effects of Environmental 
Policy on the Type of Innovation: The Case of Automotive Emission-control 
Technologies, ISSN 1995-2848. 
Haščič, I., Johnstone, N., Watson, C. Kaminker, 2010. Climate Policy and Technological 
Innovation and Transfer: An Overview of Trends and Recent Empirical Results, 
OECD Environment Working Paper. 
Hicks, J. R., 1932. The Theory of Wages. Macmillan, London, 1st edition. Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O. , Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E.H.M., 2007. 
Functions of innovation systems: A n ew approach for analysing technological 
change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74, 413-432. 
Hudson, L., Winskel, M. and Allen, S., 20 11. The hesitant emergence of low carbon 
technologies in the UK: the micro-CHP i nnovation system. Technology Analysis & 
Strategic Management, 23(3), 297-312. 
IEA, 2011. Clean energy progress report – IE A input to the Clean Energy Ministerial. 
IEA, 2011. IEA Guide to Reporting Ener gy RD&D Budget/Expenditure Statistics. 
IEA 2010 Industry Conversion Effici encies 2010, Technology Map. 
Jacobsson, S., 2008. The emergence and trouble growth of a 'biopower' innovation 
system in Sweden. Energy Policy, 36, 1491-1508. 
Jaffe, AB et Newell R. and Stavins R. (2005) A tale of two market failures, Ecological 
economics 54(2-3), 164-174. 
Jaffe, A.B. and K. Palmer (1997), “Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel 
Data Study”, Review of Economics and Statistics 79, pp. 610-619. 
JRC  2009a Technology Map of the European  Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-
Plan). Part 1 - Technology Descriptio ns (JRC 2009) EUR 24117 EN - 2009 
JRC 2009b R&D Investment in the Priority Technologies of the European Strategic 
Energy Technology Plan, authored by Wiesenthal,T, Leduc,G., Schwarz,H-G, 
Haegeman K JRC Reference Reports, Report EUR 23944 EN. 
JRC 2011 Capacities Map 2011. Update on the R&D Investment in Three Selected 
Priority Technologies within the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan: Wind, 
PV and CSP, authored by Gnamus, A.,  JRC Reference Reports, Report EUR 67437 
EN. 
JRC 2011b Research, Solar Cell Production an d Market Implementation of Photovoltaics 
authored by Arnulf  Jager-Waldau  Report EUR 24807 EN 
JRC 2012 Wind status Report, authored by Roberto Lacal Arantegui, Teodora corsatea 
and Kiti Suomalainen , report EUR 25647EN  
Jaumotte F & Pain N, 2005. "From Innovation Development to Implementation: 
Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey," OECD Economics Department 
Working Papers 458, OECD Publishing. 
Mowery, D.C., 2009. Nelson RR and Martin BR. Technology Policy and Global 
Warming: Why New Policy Models are Needed (Or Why Putting New Wine in Old Bottles Won’t Work). Mimeo. 
 
 56 Narayanamurti, V., Anadon, L.D., and Saga r, A.D., 2009. Institutions for Energy 
Innovation: A Transformational Challeng e. Energy Technology Innovation Policy 
research Group, Belfer Center for Scie nce and International Affairs, Harvard 
Kennedy School, USA. Available at: 
 http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/public ation/19572/institutions_for_energy_inn
ovation.html . 
Narayanamurti, V., Anadon, L.D., and Sa gar, A.D., 2009. Transforming Energy 
Innovation. Issues in Science and Technology, 57-64. 
Negro, S.O., Hekkert, M.P., Smits, R.E., 2007. Explaining the failure of the Dutch 
innovation system for biomass digestion - A functional analysis. Energy Policy, 35, 925-938. 
Negro, S.O., Suurs, R.A.A., Hekkert, M.P., 2008. The bumpy road of biomass 
gasification in the Netherlands: Explaining the rise and fall of an emerging innovation system. Technology Forecasting & Social Change, 75, 57-77. 
Newell, R., 2008. A U.S. Innovation stra tegy for Climate Change Mitigation. The 
Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2008-15. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/12_climate_change_newell.aspx
. 
Nightingale, P., Miller,R., Tidd J., and Hopkins M (2011) Why Patterns of Technical 
Change Differ: Further Steps Towards an Integrated Typology 
OECD/IEA, 2011. IEA Guide to Reporti ng Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure 
Statistics.OECD, 2005. 
OECD, 2005. Oslo Manual – Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation. OECD/IEA, 2011. IEA Guide to Reporti ng Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure 
Statistics. 
Oslo Manual – Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation. Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory, 
Research Policy 13: 343–373. 
Pollitt H., 2011. Assessing the implementation and impact of green elements of Member 
States’ National Recovery Plans. Fina l report for the European Commission (DG 
Environment), Cambridge, UK. 
Popp, D., 2002. Induced innovation and ener gy prices, American Economic Review, 
92(1), 160-180. 
Popp, D., 2005. Lessons from patents: Using patents to measure technological change in 
environmental models, Ecologic al Economics, 54(2-3)209-226. 
Popp, D., 2007. R&D subsidies and climate policy: Is there a “free lunch", Climatic 
Change 77(3-4), 311-341. 
Popp, D., Haš čič, I., Medhi, N., 2011. Technology an d the diffusion of renewable energy, 
Energy Economics, 33(4), 648 -662. 
Praetorius, B., Martiskainen, M., Sauter, R. and Watson, J., 2010. Technological 
innovation systems for microgeneration in  the United Kingdom and Germany - a 
functional analysis. Technology Analysis & Strategic Manageme nt, 22(6), 745-764. 
SEC(2009) 1295, 2009. Commission Staff Worki ng Document Accompanying document 
to the Communication from the Commissi on to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Soci al Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions on Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan) A Technology Roadmap. Brussels. 
Suurs, R.A.A., Hekkert, M. P., 2009. Competition between first and second generation 
technologies: Lessons from the formation of  a biofuels innovation system in the 
Netherlands. Energy, 34, 669-679. 
 
 57 Suurs, R.A.A., Hekkert, M.P., Kieboom, S., Smits, R.E.H.M., 2010. Understanding the 
formative stage of technological innovation sy stem development: The case of natural 
gas as an automotive fuel. Energy Policy, 38, 419-431. 
van Alphen, K., van Ruijven, J., Kasa, S., Hekkert, M.P., Turke nburg, W., 2009. The 
performance of the Norwegian carbon di oxide, capture and storage innovation 
system. Energy Policy, 37, 43-55. 
van Alphen, K., Hekkert, M.P., Turkenburg, W.C., 2010a. Accelerating the deployment 
of carbon capture and storage technologies by strengthening the innovation system. 
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4, 396-409. 
van Alphen, K., Noothout, P.M., Hekkert, M.P., Turkenburg, W.C., 2010b. Evaluating 
the development of carbon capture and st orage technologies in the United States. 
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 971-986. 
Weiss, C. and Bonvillian, W., 2009. Structuri ng an Energy Technology Revolution. The 
MIT Press.