COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT JRC Scientific and Policy Reports R & D Investment in the Technologies of the European Strategic Energy 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
Date: 2013-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, bioenergy, clean technology, co-financing, innovation, new technology, nuclear fission, public-private partnership, renewable energy, research and development, research programme

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 Energy 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} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
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 .............................................................. 15 
3.  Results  and  discussion:  identifying  current  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:  comparison  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 

 
 
 
 
 
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 the public and private RD&D investments in 
the SET-Plan portfolio of technologies: wind, solar (photovoltaics and concentrated 
solar  power),  electricity  grids,  bioenergy,  carbon  capture  and  storage  (CCS)  and 
nuclear fission. The concentrated solar power, 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  extent  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  technology  push  and  market  pull  policies  have 
low-carbon  energy 
been  efficient 
technologies.  Moreover  further  analysis  will  aim 
identify  sources  of 
competitiveness for the European energy technology leading companies.  

inducing  research  and 

innovation  for 

to 

in 

3 

 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction   

Since 2008, the EU implements the Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) with 
the aim to 1) accelerate energy technology development, technology transfer and up-take; 
2) maintain EU industrial leadership on low-carbon energy technologies; 3) foster science 
for  transforming  energy  technologies  to  achieve  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  programs,  called  European  Industrial  Initiatives 
(EIIs),  which  bring  together  industry,  the  research  community,  the  Member  States  and 
the European Commission in risk-sharing partnerships 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, bioenergy, 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  Initiatives  (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 its Joint programs (JP) have been set in place since 2009. 
EERA  JPs  seek  to  provide  a  better  coordination  of  funding  with  respect  to  13 
technologies1-2. 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,  assesses  the  impact  on  policy  and  identifies 
corrective measures if needed3. 

For the above-mentioned selected technology areas, there is no directly quantifiable link 
between  research  expenditures  and  the  value  of  the  results  obtained  from  research. 
However, to make each low-carbon technology fully 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 energy technologies in the EU. The ultimate 
objective is to offer a benchmark of the current 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  SET-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 programs and public-private partnerships. The SET-
Plan  addresses  these  drawbacks  through  joint  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,  geothermal,  smart  grids,      bioenergy,  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 research 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/. 

 4 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
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 analysis in gathering investment 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’  national  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 companies the report also seeks to identify the 
extent to which private firms (under)invested 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  corporate  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  energy4,  electricity  grids,  bioenergy  (bioethanol, 
biodiesel and biogas), carbon capture and storage (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 sources 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 assessed for PV technology. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
1.  Overall assessment 

European and national programs and support schemes (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 projects, RES RD&D and deployment programs (European 
Commission, EIB and EBRD) for the year 2010. RSFF was assumed to be evenly distributed over 6 years 
and EEPR assessment included only effective payments to CCS and wind projects by the end of 2010. (***) 
indicate that funding has been used for the support of both research 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  amount  of  EU  (i.e.  FP7),  corporate  and  public 
R&D investment in the six SET-Plan technologies was approximately EUR 5.04 billion5. 
The distribution of investment was not uniform 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  electricity  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). 

 6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
EU-FP7

Public RD&D

Corporate R&D

Grids

CCS

Wind

Solar

Bioenergy

Nuclear

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

Figure 2a. Estimate of public and corporate R&D by technology and source (2010). EEPR funding is 
not included.  

EU-FP7

Public RD&D Corporate R&D

Grids

CCS

Wind

Solar

Bioenergy

Nuclear

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 significant funding to wind and CCS technologies. 
For  example,  the  EU  contribution  to  CCS  technology  would  increase  from  4% 
(figure 2b) to 15% when the EEPR grant provided to the selected projects in 2010 
was  also  considered  along  the  FP7  grants.  For  the  non-nuclear  SET-Plan 
technologies,  corporate  R&D  was  usually  higher  than  public  investment  (59.2%  of 
total investment). In line with the Lisbon target, the share of corporate investment in 
wind  technology  was  higher  than  67%,  while  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  bioenergy  sector  represented  private  efforts. 
Overall, corporate R&D funding in non-nuclear energy technologies increased from 
2007 levels ( EUR 1.24 billion6), reaching a total amount of EUR 2.33 billion in 20107.  

Switzerland
3%

Finland
3%

Other MS
7%

Sweden
4%

Denmark
4%
Spain 
4%

France
29%

Norway
4%

Netherlands
5%

Poland
6%

Italy
7%

Germany
12%

United Kingdom
12%

a. Public RD&D investment 

6 Excluding CSP and FCH2. 
7 This amount reflects JRC-SETIS calculations based on a patent analysis, for the companies that do not 
provide information about their R&D expenditures. 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. 

 8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Italy
4%

Spain
5%

Norway
3%

Sweden
1%

Other MS
1%

Germany
31%

Switzerland
7%

United Kingdom
8%

Denmark
13%

France
27%

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 investment under ‘Other MS’ include those in Austria, Ireland, Belgium, 
Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovak Republic and Portugal. Corporate RD&D investment under ‘Other MS’ 
include those in Belgium, Netherlands, Finland and Austria. 

The spatial distribution of public and corporate R&D investment has changed between 
2007 and 2010, see Box 1.  

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  funding  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. 

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 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of research activities for low-carbon technologies. 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 countries (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.  Therefore,  countries  with  high  public 
RD&D  funds  simultaneously  account  for  the  largest  corporate  R&D  investments.  In 
2010  larger  economies  tended  to  invest  more  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  low-carbon  energy  technologies  addressed  by 
the  SET-Plan,  called  hereafter  “SET-Plan  technologies”:  wind,  solar,  electricity  grids, 
bioenergy,  CCS  and  nuclear  fission9.  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  Joint  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 and deployment of fuel cells and hydrogen 
technologies  by  executing  an  integrated  European  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, the Member States’ public RD&D investments 
and  corporate  R&D  expenditure.  Although  a  large  effort  was  made  to  include 
information from all Member States, unfortunately, 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 general 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 technologies only concerns Generation IV reactors. Due to 
the  difficulties  in  obtaining  RD&D  investment  data  allocated  only  on  Generation  IV  reactors,  here  the 
total investment for nuclear fission are investigated. 
10 Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 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 are better represented by IEA. 

 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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 
Norway, Switzerland* 
Greece, Luxembourg,  
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovenia# 

Member  States 
covered 

Member  States 
not covered 
* 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 investment 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  missing,  the  data  from  the  latest  available  year 
were  assumed.  Furthermore,  questionnaires  distributed  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 projects 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, development 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 the extent that they are used for research and 
licenses, 
trademarks, 
development  activities,  copyrights, 
government licenses, goodwill, and other items 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). 

trade  names,  franchise 

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. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  (CIP)  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 role 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  renewables  across  the  EU  as  a  whole,  and,  in 
addition, a strong focus has been put on research 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 projects13. 

However, not all of the mentioned programs could be assessed quantitatively at the level 
of detail needed for this analysis. For the purpose 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,  which  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 project 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 public 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  (Government  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 disaggregated 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  study.  Moreover,  data  for  2010  have  been 
reported by only a few EU Member States. 

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, coming from only 15 European countries 
(Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Norway,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovak  Republic,  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  data  for  2010.  Furthermore,  some  of 
the data provided are highly aggregated for the renewable sector. Greece is one 
13 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0217:EN:HTML:NOT. 
example and for this reason it is not included in this study. 
14 IEA RD&D Statistics: http://www.iea.org/stats/rd.asp. 

 12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Even though the report mainly aims at assessing the intensity of investment in the EU, it 
also  attempts  a  comparison  with  investments  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,  Development,  &  Demonstration  Database”  (Gallagher 
and  Anadon,  2012),  which  provides  slightly  different  values  from  what  is  reported  by 
IEA.  The  latter  has  been  used  for  the  purpose  of  checking  the  reliability  of  the  data 
reported to IEA. 

The  Japanese  government  continuously  increases  public  investment  in  energy  RD&D 
and  innovation  to  achieve  its  ambitious  clean  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 contribution to the technology development roadmap, as 
well  as  a  process  to  continuously  evaluate  international  RD&D  trends  and  Japan’s 
competitive  position  in  each  targeted  technology  (CSTP,  2009).  This  is  carried  out 
through a number of ministries: 

•  Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) 
•  Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, 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  Industrial  Technology  Development  Organization 
(NEDO)15 is  tasked  with  enhancing  Japan’s  industrial  competitiveness  through  targeted 
RD&D and support for new technology commercialization. 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  Scoreboard  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 wealth of information on the firm's produced 
and  shipped  capacity  (eventually  backlog,  unconditional  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. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
(except goodwill), research and development expenditures, capitalized research projects, 
software, patents and their amortization. 
Validation of data and filling of data gaps (when data are not readily 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)  databases.  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, patent applications continue to grow16. 

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  Popp  (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-reducing 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 activities, since patents are usually filed in 
the early stages of the technology 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  have been identified for further analysis in 
the context of this work. Although this is necessary 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 technologies 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  limitation  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. 

 14 

 
 
 
                                                        
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 energy technology have been identified based on 
their production capacities or innovation activities, 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 these companies; 2) allocation of the R&D 
investment to individual the SET-Plan technologies 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  differs  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  inverter  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.  

 Box 3 – Strategies employed in redistributing R&D budgets over the specific 
sectors  
In the absence of information about a company’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 the 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  expenditure  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 assess the intensity of R&D expenditure per 
specific field, the shares of a specific SET-Plan technology patent application in the 
total patent applications of a company was 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 investment 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. 

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 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  specific  technologies,  such  as  solar,  wind  and 
biofuels. 

3. Results and discussion: identifying current 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 financing needs of technology development in the 
SET-Plan. Achieving the EU’s “20-20-20” goals 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 are also identified within the Europe 2020 
Strategy: building on Lisbon Strategy, one essential 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). 

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 billion 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 the six SET-Plan technologies until 2020 
(this excludes investments in smart cities, fuel cell and hydrogen).  

With  respect  to  corporate  R&D  investment,  the  Lisbon  Strategy17 proposes  that  two 
thirds of total R&D expenditure should be financed by the business enterprise sector.  

17European Union Parliament Website Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March Presidency Conclusion 

 16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
In view of the financing needs identified in Box 4, the present report assesses hereafter 
the current (2010) support for the development 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  comparable  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 them 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  Cooperation  Funds  Programme)  and  European 
funding,  such  as  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  the  Competitiveness  and 
Innovation  Framework  Programme  (Entrepreneurship  and  Innovation  Programme  and 
Intelligent Energy Europe) and regional policy (European Regional Development Fund 
and Cohesion Funds).  

The investments made by the major European funding in 2010 were EUR 0.86 billion, 
mainly  focused  on  renewable  energy  technologies.  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 Local 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  make  energy  supply  more  reliable  and  help 
reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  while  simultaneously  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 infrastructure (44 projects) and offshore wind (9 projects); 
and  CCS  (6  projects).  EEPR  allocated  EUR  1billion  to  CCS  and  EUR  565  million  to 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
offshore wind18.  In 2010, EUR 334 million were distributed 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 above was extracted from of a review of the 
European and national financing of renewable 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  European  Commission  and  the  EIB  to  provide 
additional loan finance for research, development, demonstration and innovation in the 
European research area19. 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  approximately  EUR  10  billion.  RSFF  loans  have 
already  been  provided  to  R&D  and  innovation  projects  in  the  field  of  energy,  which 
involve  R&D  in  renewable  energy  technologies  (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 
to  SET-Plan 
larger  demonstration  projects 
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  distributed  EUR  347  million  for  energy  related 
projects.  

related 

for 

In addition, the European Commission’s proposal 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 period22. 

3.1.1 The 7th Research Framework Programme (FP7) 
The  total  EU  contribution  to  the  FP7  projects  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 billion 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  EURATOM  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. The 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 validated by the European Commission (DG RTD, co-
operation with other DGs) if the project 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-matters-eu-budget-long-term-growth. 

 18 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  the  EU  through  the  EEPR  programme  that 
effectively distributed EUR 193 million to CCS projects23 in 2010. 

CCS, 16.9, 7%

Electricity grids, 29, 12%

Wind, 10.1, 4%

Nuclear fission, 57.7, 25%

Solar, 33.6, 14%

Bioenergy, 42, 17%

Fuel cells and Hydrogen, 
51.4, 21%

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-related projects includes a wider range of 
technologies than those addressed in the present report. By consequence, there is some 
uncertainty  with  the  present  assessment,  resulting  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 – the 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  activities  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  substantially  increased  its  support  over  the  last  5 
years.  Its  annual  lending  increased  more  than  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  initiatives  and  programmes  related  to  energy 

23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0217:EN:HTML:NOT. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
and  climate  change,  such  as  the  Mediterranean  Solar  Plan  (MSP)  and  the  GEEREF 
(Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund). 

Cyprus
3%

Other MS
13%

United Kingdom
20%

France
3%

Romania
4%

Hungary
4%

Greece
5%

Belgium
7%

Germany
12%

Italy
16%

Spain
13%

Figure 5. EIB expenditure in renewable 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 investments (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 projects. 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 expenditure on renewable energy that year. 

3.1.3 The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development-EBRD 
The  strategic  initiatives  of  EBRD  are  designed  to  pursue  the  challenges  of  increased 
energy security and energy efficiency, which can contribute to stronger 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  Initiative  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  report).  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 

 20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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. Electricity grid projects are 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.). 

21 

 
 
Table 2 EBRD expenditure for Power and Energy in 2010, in million 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/pages/research/publications/flagships/annual.shtml.  

Country 

Project name 

Description 

Bulgaria 

Suvorovo Windfarm 

Hungary 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Latvia 

Magyar Wind 
Lietuvos Elektrine 
Polska Wind 
Latvenergo Riga CHP-2 

Kazakhstan  Aktobe 

combined  heat  power 

rehabilitation 
Black  Sea  Energy  Transmission 
System 
Energa S.A. 
Gas Rimini 
EPS Metering 
Margonin Wind Farm 

A  loan  to  finance  the  construction  of  a  60MW  wind  power 
generation station. 
Equity participation in Iberdrola Wind Farm portfolio. 
Financing of a new combined-cycle gas turbine power plant. 
Equity participation in Iberdrola Windfarm portfolio. 
The construction of a new combined cycle gas turbine unit to replace 
the old conventional gas-fired units. 
The  loan  will  be  used  for  the  rehabilitation  and  upgrade  of  the 
equipment. 
Financing  of  the  construction  of  a  new  315  kilometre  high  voltage 
transmission line and a "back-to-back" substation.  
Financing of extension/upgrade of electricity distribution network 
Loan to finance the development of the gas network in Trakia. 
Loan to fund acquisition/installation 200,000 advanced meters. 
Financing  towards  construction  and  operation  of  a  120  MW  wind 
farm in the Margonin region. 
Financing of small hydropower plant. 

Western Balkans Sustainable Energy 
Direct Financing Facility 
South Ukraine Transmission Project  Loan to fund construction of 750 kV 190km overhead line between 

Georgia 

Poland 
Bulgaria 
Serbia 
Poland 

Serbia 

Ukraine 

Russia 
Russia 

Zaporizhzhia NPP and Kakhovska substations. 
Participation in RusHydro's bond issue as an anchor investor. 
Financing  will  contribute  to  the  modernisation  of  the  Pakhra 
substation. 
Loan for metering and distribution network reconstruction. 
Financing of SEDAS'capital investment programme. 
Investment programme to improve electricity supply in Tbilisi. 
Loan for the construction and operation of seven small hydropower 
plants. 

RusHydro Bond Issue 
Federal Grid Company 

Montenegro  EPCG Metering and Distribution  
Sedas Electricity Distribution Loan 
Turkey 
Telasi Rehabilitation Project 
Georgia 
Western Balkans Sustainable Energy 
FYROM 
Direct Financing facility 

 22 

Portfoli
o class 

Private 

Private 
State 
Private 
State 

Total  
project
 value  
103 

200 
360.4 
300 
394.33 

State 

50 

State 

315 

State 
Private 
State 
Private 

567.07 
62.6 
80 
184.71 

EBRD 
loan   

42.5 

0 
71 
0 
84.99 

40 

80 

67.40 
20 
40 
40.08 

Private 

2.52 

1.4 

State 

449 

175 

State 
State 

107.77 
87.65 

107.77 
87.65 

State 
Private 
Private 
Private 

43.5 
482.84 
24.72 
11.57 

35 
77.25 
19.31 
6 

EBR
D 
equity 
0 

Total 
EBRD 
finance  
42.5  

50 
0 
75 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

50  
71  
75 
84.99  

40 

80 

67.40  
20 
40  
40.082  

1.4  

175 

107.772  
87.655  

35 
77.256  
19.314  
6 

 
 
 
 
 
3.2 National R&D investment 

3.2.1 Competent authorities and main RD&D policies   
Europe lacks of a top-down structure to coordinate and manage the RD&D activities from 
all  Member  States,  which  reduces  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  pan-European 
exploitation of synergies in strategic energy planning. Box 5 presents the different European 
Member State competent authorities for RD&D policies. 

Box 5 – European Member State competent authorities for RD&D policies 

Competent authority 
Austrian Federal Climate and Energy Fund  (Klima- und Energiefonds) 
Administration of Company Taxes and Income - SPF Finance. 
Federal Science Policy Department 
Energy Technology Innovation Platform (MIP) 
The Department of Energy and Sustainable Building (DG04)  
Department of Economy, Employment and Research (DG06) 
The Minister of Climate, Energy and Construction(The Green Labs DK Programme) 
The transmission grid operator Energinet.dk is in charge of the subsidies. 
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Ministry of Education and  
Research, Ministry of Agriculture. Foundations (Entreprise Estonia, Archimedes  
Foundation, Rural Development Foundations respectively). 
Ministry of Employment and the Economy, The Centre for Economic Development,  
Transport and the Environment  
French energy agency ADEME. 
French National Research Agency (ANR). 
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) 
Ministry of Development, Competitiveness and Shipping; Ministry of Environment, 
Energy and Climate Change (MEEC) 
The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) administers the programme. 
The ministry of Economic Development, ENEA(National agency for new technologies, 
Energy and sustainable economic development), CNR(Italian National Research Council) and
RSE(Ricerca sul Sistema Energetico),.  
The competent authorities are the Ministry of Economics and the Ministry of Finance. 
 ‘Topconsortia voor Kennis en Innovatie’ or TKI’s (Top-class Consortia for Science  
and Innovation). Off-shore Wind   
Energy Agency (ADENE)  
The Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness 
Swedish Energy Agency  

AT 

BE 

BE 

BE 

DK 
DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 
FR 
DE 

GR 

IE 

IT 

LU 

NL 

PT 
ES 
SE 

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 activities in SET-Plan technologies (see Table 3). 
Direct support to innovation activities is manifested 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  (public-private  partnerships)  to  encourage  the 
active participation of private parties. 

23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Main RD&D policies within European Member States (www.res-legal.eu) 
Country  RD&D Policies 

Description 

AT 

BE 

BE 

Neue  Energien  2020  program  (Smart  Energy  R&D ,  Energy  Efficiency , 
Renewable Energy, Education, Awareness Raising, Technology Transfer) 

Austrian Climate and Energy Fund allocated EUR 30 million  

national 

Partial exemption of 75% of the business tax  

regional 

BE 

regional 

Flanders: The Environment and Energy Technology Innovation 
Platform.  
Wallonia:  Department  of  Energy  and  Sustainable  Building; 
Department  of  Economy,  Employment  and  Research  of  the 
Public Service of Wallonia 

An  indirect  fiscal  mechanism  collected  EUR  500  million  for  investment  in 
R&D. 
Finance  specific  research  projects  to  develop  sustainable  technologies, 
products and services.  
Advance payment of up to 70 % of investment costs for projects of applied 
development. 
research 

technological 

or 

-  Support 

for  research  and  development  of 

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. 
ForskEL  is  financed  through  a  so-called  Public  Service  Obligation  (PSO), 
which is paid by final energy consumers. 
2007-2013 
R&D projects for generation of renewable energy  

Green Labs DK Programme finance projects related to energy efficiency and 
renewable technologies. 
Forsk-El  Programme 
environmentally friendly power generation technologies 
Operational Programme for the Development of Economic Environment  
Grants 
Fonds démonstrateur.  Grenelle of Environment (Ademe)  
SEED  programme),  electricity  from  renewable  energies  (PROGELEC 
programme), or sustainable transport (TDM programme). 
6th Energy Research Programme 
Ai Stratis - the first green island: non-interconnected island in Aegean Sea 
Renewable Energy RD&D Programme 
ENEA, CNR and RSE 
No specific RD&D Policies. general support scheme within the Law of 5.6.09  The financial support covers 25% to 100% of the eligible costs  
R&D programme based on Funding  from the parties involved 
Fundo de Apoio à inovação - FAI Fund to Support Innovation 
National  plan  of  scientific  research,  development  and 
innovation 2008 - 2011) 
Grants for research and development in the field of wind energy 

For the period 2011-2014, the budget is EUR 3.5 billion  
85% of the electricity consumption is met by RES technologies 
-  
Research program on electrical system 

 60% funding from private companies  and 40% from the government   
-  
Energy,  climate  change  mitigation,  energy  efficiency;  Sustainable  mobility  / 
transport; Other climate change areas.  
Offshore projects and onshore projects (baring wind speed restrictions). 
GBP  50  million  until  2015  (innovation  activities  in  offshore  wind,  marine 
energy, waste and biomass) 

A  fund  of  EUR  325  million  was  granted  for  the  period  2009  to  2012  for 
environmental demonstration projects.  

UK Renewable Energy Strategy 

technological 

DK 

DK 

EE 
FI 

FR 

DE 
GR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
NL 
PT 

ES 

SE 

GB 

 24 

 
 
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 renewable 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. 

stimulus 

Member States 
Austria 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Latvia 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Slovak Republic 
Slovenia 
Sweden 
UK 

of 

Size 
package (€ bn) 
1.9 
1.7 
2.7 
0.5 
- 
~1.0 
- 
26.0 
80.0 
65.5 
1.5 
- 
17.3 
- 
1.5 
1.3 
12.0 
31.4 

Size green part 
(€bn) 
1.07 
0.17 
0.90 
0.03 
15.60 
0.25 
0.20 
3.55 
10.60 
3.80 
0.30 
0.80 
2.90 
0.31 
0.17 
0.20 
0.70 
1.60 

Share  green  part 
(%) 
56 
10 
33 
1 
- 
~20 
- 
8-20 
13 
6 
20 
- 
17 
- 
6-12 
15 
5-6 
5 

Implementation 
period 
2009-2012 
2009-2011 
- 
- 
- 
2009-2010 
- 
2009-2010 
- 
2009-2011 
- 
- 
- 
- 
2009-2010 
- 
2009-2011 
2009-2010 

Most of the economic stimulus programmes presented 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-carbon vehicles (4% of the green part) 
•  Germany: EUR 500 million for R&D of alternative 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). 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BG 

HR 

CZ 

DK 

Bulgarian Energy 
Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy 
Credit Line -BEERECL 
HBOR Bank scheme 
(Programme for 
Environmental 
Protection) 

ECO-ENERGY 
Programme 

Loan guarantees for 
local initiatives for 
construction of wind-
energy plants 

DE 

KfW Renewable Energy 
Programme  

The Centre for The 
Development of 
Industrial Technology 
CDTI 

Table 5. Summary of the national loans in the selected EU Member States (www.res-legal.eu) 
Country  Name of the support 

Loan features 
Maximum loan amounts to EUR 
2,500,000 in one or more loans, 
unless otherwise approved by the 
EBRD. 
The minimum loan amounts to 
HRK 100,000 (approx. EUR 
13,000). The interest rate is 
variable from 2-4% per year.  
The maximum loan is CZK 50 
million (approx. EUR 2 million). 
The interest rate is fixed at 
1%/year.  

Amount  
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. 
Credit  lines  with  EIB  for  the financing  of 
SMEs, 
and 
infrastructure  projects  in  the  public  and 
private sector of EUR 250.0 million25. 
Co-financed  by 
funds 
(ERDF, ESF,etc.) Overall budget of ECO-
ENERGY 
and 
Innovation was 65.722 million for 2010 26 

- OP  Enterprise 

the  Structural 

environmental 

projects 

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.  

Up to 100% of the investment 
costs eligible for financing 
(without VAT), however, not 
more than EUR 25 million per 
plant/project.  

Programs such as INNPRONTA 

ES 

LT 

PL 

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.  

National Fund for 
Environmental 
Protection and Water 
Management - RES 

SI 

Eko Sklad 

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 minimum. interest rate for is 
the three-month EURIBOR rate 
+ 1.5 percentage points  

Loans  totalling  EUR  1.2  billion were 
granted 
in 
investment
environmental and climate protection  
(KFW annual report). 

in  2010 

for 

Loans  were  granted 
for  Wind(30.3 
million),  PV  (11.38  million),  CSP(10.7 
(3.77  million), 
million),  Bio-energy 
CCS(5.28  million),  Grids(6.83  million), 
Nuclear Energy (0.22 million)  

No  information  has  been  found  on  the 
amount invested for 2010.  

and 

capital 

The total budget for renewable energy and 
combined heat and power for 2009-2012 is 
around  EUR  333.6  million.  In  2010
financing  of  environmental  protection  by 
the National Fund 27 :  PL 1269 million as 
loans 
of 
NFEP&WP  ;PL  4298  million  subsidies 
and grants from funds of NFEP&WP and 
EU Funds;PL 347 million as bank loans. 
The calls currently open provide a total of 
for  municipalities, 
EUR  25  million 
for 
enterprises  and  EUR  5  million 
residents. 

investment

The  variety  of  programs  that  are  in  place  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 monitor 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. 
26 http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country_pages/be/country?section=
ResearchFunders&subsection=ImportantResearchProgrammes. 
27 http://www.nfosigw.gov.pl/en/financing-environmental-protection/. 

 26 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
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 investments: 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  report  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  increases  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  average  increase  of  EUR  82.86    million  in  the 
EU is observed, while it is significantly higher 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 federal 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, with an even distribution of funding between 
them. Especially in recent years (2008-2010), among the low-carbon energy technologies, 
bioenergy,  electricity  grids,  solar  energy  and  CCS  take  increasingly  larger  shares.  R&D 
investments  show  a  peak  in  2009  due  to  the  economic  stimulus  package,  the  so-called 
“The  American  Recovery  and  Reinvestment  Act”  (abbreviated  as  ARRA).  ARRA  was 
enacted  by  the  111th  United  States  Congress  in  2009  to  create  jobs  and  promote 
investment and consumer spending during the recession. The combination 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 significant 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 
Carbon storage & storage 
Solar energy 
Wind energy 
Biofuels 
Nuclear fission 
Fuel cells & hydrogen 
Electricity grids 

IEA (€ million) DOE (€ million) 

169.88 
197.06 
63.42 
593.43 
354.85 
251.42 
134.39 

114.56 
185.89 
60.33 
165.11 
383.99 
155.03 
128.68 

28 To facilitate this process questionnaires have been distributed 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 FCH2 
and EUR 38.48 million for CSP. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Table  6  shows  that  for  most  of  the  technologies,  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  existing  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). Countries 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 intensity in these countries reaches barely 0.01%. 
Table  7 and Figure 6 show the RD&D  investments 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-carbon  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 

GDP          

RD&D investment/GDP 

RD&D investment  
(€ billion) 
0.685 
0.237 
0.250 
0.136 
0.124* 
0.102 
0.090 
0.080* 
0.074 
0.073* 
0.067 
0.064 
0.034 
1.764 
2.364 

France 
Germany 
United Kingdom* 
Italy 
Poland* 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Spain* 
Denmark 
Sweden* 
Finland 
Switzerland 
Belgium 
United States 
Japan 
*  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. 

(€ billion)30 
1937 
2496 
1710 
1553 
355 
589 
318 
1049 
236 
350 
179 
416 
356 
10937 
4150 

0.035% 
0.010% 
0.015% 
0.009% 
0.035% 
0.017% 
0.028% 
0.008% 
0.031% 
0.021% 
0.037% 
0.015% 
0.009% 
0.016% 
0.057% 

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  private  and  public  research  and  development 
sectors should reach 3% of GDP (Box 6). In the absence of synergies 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 account 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-mentioned target of 1%. For the year of 2010, the 

30 Data source: Eurostat for 2010 (online data codes nama_gdp_c and tec00001). 

 28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
intensity of public R&D investments in SET-Plan 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).  

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  Strategy,  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  the  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%). 

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 grids are of great importance for the future 
deployment of renewable sources, the R&D intensity remains small.  

Wind

Solar

Nuclear

Bioenergy

CCS

grids

FCH2

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

y
l
a
t
I

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
l
o
P

n
i
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

m
o
d
g
n
i
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Figure 6. RD&D intensity by technology per country in 2010. RD&D intensity 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  display  a  high  level  of  investments  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 assessment is 2010 does not take into account consequences of Fukushima 
accident which took place in 2011 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  efficiency.  Hereafter  a  comparison  of  the 
distribution  of  research  across  SET-Plan  technologies  in  the  European  Member  States, 
Japan and the USA is presented ( Figure 7).   

Wind

Solar

Nuclear

Bioenergy

CCS

Grids

FCH2

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

y
l
a
t
I

d
n
a
l
o
P

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

n
i
a
p
S

y
a
w
r
o
N

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

n
e
d
e
w
S

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

e
c
n
a
r
F

m
o
d
g
n
i
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S

O
N
+
H
C
+
8
1
U
E

n
a
p
a
J

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i
n
U

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 

FP7 
EU Member States (incl. 
Norway & Switzerland) 
Japan 
USA 

PV (€ million)
28.93 
245.46 

CSP (€ million) 
4.63 
39.45 

80.47 
163.08 

0.00 
33.98 

 30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 investments of the leading European economies in 
the  SET-Plan  technologies  in  2010.  France  accounts  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 Italy (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  renewable  energy  sources,  nuclear  and  fossil  fuels 
(including CCS).  

The case of United Kingdom is described below 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 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 decreasing 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 decreases 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  evolution  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  technologies32. 
From  2001  to  2010  most  of  the  Set-Plan  technologies  receive  growing  public  funding, 
while  RD&D  investment  for  nuclear  fission  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 concluded that beyond the economic crisis, and 
the  specific  countries’  industrial  specialization,  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 outcome may reflect also the advantages and 
constraints  with  regard  to  the  renewable  energy  resource  potential,  the  current  energy 
mix and its historical development, and regional industrial capacities (Figure 6 and 7).  

32 From 2001 to 2010 

 32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                        
3.3. Corporate R&D investment 

The European innovation activities on low-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-carbon technologies are deployed. Such sensitivity to policies 
of  non-EU  countries  is  reflected  on  an  increased  regionalization  of  the  production 
capacities  for  low-carbon  technologies.  Scale-intensive  companies  are  subject  to 
globalization the most, where sources of innovation 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  could  benefit  from  the  environmental/climate 
policies  of  European  countries.  On  the  other  hand,  innovation  of  foreign  companies 
could  be  influenced  by  European  environmental  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  have  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  difficulty  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  firms  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 wind 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 frontier of knowledge production. Solar energy 
technology  companies  are  scale-intensive,  relying  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  innovation  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 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  (OEMs)  (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  analysis  includes  also  traditional  energy 
companies  (producing  energy  from  fossil  fuels)  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 evaluation 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. Expert 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 Association), 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 (through  the  companies’  websites).  For  electricity 
grids, CCS, nuclear energy and biofuels a patent 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  (12)  the  theoretical  margin  of  error  is 
22%  for  the  wind  sector33.  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. 

 34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  applications  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  applications  at  EPO  in  2010  was  made  by 
European  companies.  Based  on  grid  patent  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-related 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 patent 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  biofuels  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, such as Siemens (DE), Bosch (DE) and Alstom 
(FR). The sample also includes also companies 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  their  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. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
used  for  both  main  energy  generation  technologies,  such  as  wind  or  solar,  and  their 
related application to grid connectivity. Therefore, 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 intensity 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  researchers  in  a  specific  technological  field  (JRC, 
2009). A rough estimation of the R&D investment is obtained by assuming an average 
R&D  investment  per  research  employee  ranging  between  €120,000  and  €150,000  (JRC 
2009).  The  R&D-to-sales  intensity  ratio  was  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  electricity  grids).    This  estimate  is  based  on 
companies  in  14  countries  (13  EU  Member  States  and  Switzerland).  Overall,  corporate 
R&D  funding  in  non-nuclear  technologies  increased  from  2007  levels  (EUR  1.24 
billion36), reaching  EUR 2.33 billion in 2010. Corporate R&D is highly concentrated in 
Europe:  88%  of  R&D  investment  in  the  SET-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  funding  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 Germany and France have a multi-technological 
investment  portfolio  (Figure  9):  solar  and  wind  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 FCH2. 

 36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Figure 9. Indicative regional distribution 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 and 27% of new installed capacity; and hosted 
only 5 of the top 10 wind energy companies (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  solutions,  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 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
technologies the needs of the new markets. The general principle in 2010 was “thinking 
globally,  acting  locally”.  Delocalization  was  seen  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 analysis37 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 investments is made in Denmark, followed by 
Germany (28%) and Spain (10%). 

The estimated corporate R&D investment in wind 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 edition of BNEF. The latter source reports that 
global investment in wind technology development 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  value  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  (Figure  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). 

 38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
EEPR,
 146.00 (14%)

EU-FP7, 
10.10 (1%)

Corporate R&D,
 670.14 (65%)

Public RD&D, 
201.41 (20%)

Figure 10. R&D investment in wind energy 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  accounted  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 Kingdom (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  continuous  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 Iberdrola 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 companies are smaller compared with the European 
ones,  but  lately  successful  in  the  wind  business  Nonetheless,  Chinese  companies’ 
cumulative turnover represents as much as 85% of Vestas’ revenues. Chinese firms are 
less R&D intensive39, investing only 10% of what Vestas invested in 2010. 

38 The public R&D investment in Spain is obtain by adding 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. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Figure  11.  Indicative  regional  distribution  of  public  and  corporate  R&D  investments  in  wind  energy 
technology (2010). The intensity of colours reflects an aggregate (public and corporate) R&D investments. 
The symbols reflect only 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 about 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 time 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 
large  scale  production  were  Q-Cells,  SMA 
market.  European  companies  with 
Technologies and Schott Solar 

40 Becky Stuart2010 PV market growth strong, http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/2010-
pv-market-growth-strong_100002459/#axzz24rNTpfZ2. The same report mentions a 105% growth from 
year to year (in 2009 the industry generated USD 40 billion). 

 40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
One of the reasons for these changes of the solar market was the high price elasticity that 
stimulates  demand  and  redirects  investments,  also  away  from  Europe  (Germany)  to 
emerging  markets  such  as  China  or  India.  The  strategy  embraced  by  the  European 
companies  was  delocalization  with  local  production  serving  local  consumption.  The 
globalization  process  of  the  European  companies  justifies  the  delocalization  of  their 
facilities  outside  Europe,  as  a  way  of  avoiding  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  specialization,  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 include international competitors such as  American 
firms  that  account  for  19.5%  share  in  global  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, Japan and USA. The highest R&D intensity is 
shown by Japan,  

German firms account for a quarter of global R&D investments and 57% of European 
investments. The analysis has shown that European firms41 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 these companies underinvested in research. 

Corporate R&D investments were focused on the 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  efficiency  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  automation  (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 World (DE), Solon1 (DE), Sunways (DE), von Ardenne (DE), Wacker 
BU Polysilicon (DE). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  invested  negligible  amounts  in  CSP,  with  the 
exception of Germany (EUR 5.84 million), Italy (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 
million42. 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 distribution of public and corporate R&D investments in PV technology 
(2010). The intensity of colours reflects an total (public and corporate) R&D investment. 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 potential 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 states and EUR 28.93 million as FP7 contribution. 

 42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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 dedicated 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 should 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 voltage (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  demand  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 grid technology was selected using as criteria 
the intensity of their patenting at WIPO43. 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 that is able to be implemented in diverse 
topographical conditions and various electricity networks. Consequently, firms customize 
solutions for new markets, enhance product varieties and adapt technologies to different 
natural context and improve efficiency of existing 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 connectivity. 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 management 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  reached  EUR  150.63  million,  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  [BE],  Vestas  [DK],  ABB 
Technologies [CH], Areva [FR], Nexans [FR], Adensis Gmbh [DE], Bosch Gmbh Robert [DE], Enercon 
[DE], Repower Systems AG [DE], RWE AG [DE], Siemens [DE], SMA Solar Technology [DE], Nordex 
[NO], Smartmotors [NO], Ingeteam Energy SA [ES], Gamesa [ES], ABB Technologies [CH]. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Technologies Company is noted, which alone has a 31% share of R&D expenditure in 
electricity networks.  

An  indicative  regional  distribution  of  public  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 colours reflects an aggregate (public plus corporate) R&D investment. 
The symbols reflect only public RD&D. 

European RD&D investments in electricity grids 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 investment 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. 

 44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
3.3.3.4 CCS technology 
The  total  R&D  investment  in  CCS  technology  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 significant (EUR194.62 million) (Figure 14).  

Corporate R&D,
 188.87,( 32%)

Public RD&D, 
194.62 (33%)

EEPR, 
193.00 ( 32%)

EU-FP7, 
.16.90 (3%)

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  for  this  technology  of  large  utilities  and  oil 
companies. The identification of the main European 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 information on the intensity of their patenting 
activities at WIPO45. In the case of R&D investment in CCS technology, a decoupling of 
public and private efforts was observed: in contrast 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 [FR], Basf [DE], Bosch Gmbh Robert [DE], Evonik 
Degussa [DE], Linde [DE], Siemens [DE], AST Engineering [IT], Stichting Energie [NL], Tno [NL], Aker 
Clean Carbon As [NO], Sargas AS [NO], Statoil [NO], Nordic Gas Cleaning AB [SE], Alstom Technology 
Ltd [CH], Shell [UK], BP [UK], Carbon Cycle Ltd [UK]. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Figure  15  Indicative  regional  distribution  of  public  and  corporate  R&D  investments  in  CCS  technology 
(2010).  The  intensity  of  colours  reflects  an  aggregate  (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 accuracy 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). 

 46 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  16.  Indicative  regional  distribution  of  public  and  corporate  R&D  investments  in  bioenergy 
technology (2010). The intensity of colours reflects an aggregate (public and corporate) R&D investment. 
The symbols reflect only public RD&D. 

The  sample  of  companies  was  selected  based  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 biofuel companies, large car manufacturers and oil 
companies. The latter two categories of firms 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 captured 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 assessment of 33 firms involved in R&D in 
bioenegy  technology.  Their  total  R&D  investment  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  [FR],  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 Aktiengesellschaft [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 [SE], Novartis [CH], BP[UK], Shell [UK]. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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 fast reactors takes place mainly in France, 
where sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) initiatives 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 - 201747. The total 
cost of the ASTRID project after 2017 is estimated to be EUR 5 billion. An alternative 
technology to SFR, the lead-cooled fast neutron 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 million48, almost 52% of overall 
investment in nuclear technology. Public and corporate efforts are highly correlated (the 
correlation coefficient is 0.97). 

Both private and public funds largely concentrate 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  motivation  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 investment 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 [FR], Menser Carbonne Loraine [FR], Ald Vacuum [DE], Bakal Semen 
[DE], Nukem Technologies Gmbh [DE], RWE AG[DE], Ansaldo [ES], Del Nova Vis [ES], Iberdrola [ES], 
Vestingkhaus Ehlektrik [SE]. 

 48 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
Figure  17.  Indicative  regional  distribution  of  public  and  corporate  R&D  investment  in  nuclear  fission 
technology (2010). The intensity of colours reflects an aggregate (public and corporate) R&D investment. 
The symbols reflect only 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 the 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  when  cross  checking  methodologies  (patent 
analysis vs. researchers' wages vs. R&D expenditure-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. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  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 nuclear the higher level of uncertainty (30-
50%)  was  assumed,  as  the  companies  are  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  estimates  of  corporate  R&D  investment  is  ± 
33.21%. 

 50 

 
 
 
4. Conclusions  

The goal of the present assessment is to present 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 
uncertainties49.  

This assessment finds that the total public RD&D investment in the SET-Plan portfolio 
of technologies in Europe in 2010 is comparable with those in Japan and the USA. The 
evolution of public RD&D investment seems 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 bioenergy 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  financing  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  corporate  R&D).  This  amount  would  rise  to  EUR 
5.64  billion  when  the  effective  EEPR  payments  in  2010  for  CCS  and  offshore  wind 
projects  are  taken  into  account.  However,  this  assessment  considers  all  investment  for 
nuclear fission technologies (not only Generation IV reactors, which are the focus of the 
SET-Plan).  By  technology,  the  RD&D  investment  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 business enterprise sector. Except for CCS, also 
electricity grids present a corporate R&D underinvestment (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. Despite 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. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  context  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  technology  developers  in  the  first  top  10  wind 
manufacturers and accounting for 46.2% of global 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  further  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 identified an average R&D to sales ratio of 7%. 

 52 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
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  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 Recommendations. Energy Technology Innovation Policy 
research  group,  Belfer  Center  for  Science  and  International  Affairs,  Harvard 
Kennedy School, USA. 

Anadon,  L.D.  and  Holdren,  J.P.,  2009.  Policy  for  Energy  Technology  Innovation.  In: 
Acting in Time on Energy Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 
Archibugi, D., 2001. Pavitt’s Taxonomy sixteen years on: a review article, Economics of 

Innovation and New Technology, vol. 10, pp. 415 – 425, 200. 

Bergek,  A.,  Jacobsson,  S.,  Carlsson,  B.,  Lindmark,  S.,  Rickne,  A.,  2008.  Analysing  the 
functional  dynamics  of  technological  innovation  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,  Gerlach  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  Strategic  Energy  Technology  Plan  (SET-
Plan) ‘Towards a low carbon future’. Brussels. 

COM(2008)  30  final,  2008.  Communication  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  Economic  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).  Does  foreign  environmental  policy  influence 
domestic  innovation?  Evidence  from  the  wind  industry,  European  Association  of 

 54 

 
 
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. DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, 
Development,  &  Demonstration  Database.  Energy  Technology  Innovation  Policy 
research  group,  Belfer  Center  for  Science  and  International  Affairs,  Harvard 
Kennedy School, USA. 

Haščič,  I.,  Frans  de  Vries,  Johnstone,  N.,  Medhi,  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  new  approach  for  analysing  technological 
change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74, 413-432. 

Hudson,  L.,  Winskel,  M.  and  Allen,  S.,  2011.  The  hesitant  emergence  of  low  carbon 
technologies in the UK: the micro-CHP innovation system. Technology Analysis & 
Strategic Management, 23(3), 297-312. 

IEA, 2011. Clean energy progress report – IEA input to the Clean Energy Ministerial. 
IEA, 2011. IEA Guide to Reporting Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure Statistics. 
IEA 2010 Industry Conversion Efficiencies 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 Descriptions (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 and 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. 

55 

 
 
Narayanamurti,  V.,  Anadon,  L.D.,  and  Sagar,  A.D.,  2009.  Institutions  for  Energy 
Innovation:  A  Transformational  Challenge.  Energy  Technology  Innovation  Policy 
research  Group,  Belfer  Center  for  Science  and  International  Affairs,  Harvard 
Kennedy School, USA. Available at: 
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19572/institutions_for_energy_inn
ovation.html. 

Narayanamurti,  V.,  Anadon,  L.D.,  and  Sagar,  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  strategy  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  Reporting  Energy  RD&D  Budget/Expenditure 

Statistics.OECD, 2005. 

OECD, 2005. Oslo Manual – Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation. 
OECD/IEA,  2011.  IEA  Guide  to  Reporting  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.  Final  report  for  the  European  Commission  (DG 
Environment), Cambridge, UK. 

Popp,  D.,  2002.  Induced  innovation  and  energy  prices,  American  Economic  Review, 

92(1), 160-180. 

Popp, D., 2005. Lessons from patents: Using patents to measure technological change in 

environmental models, Ecological 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., Haščič, I., Medhi, N., 2011. Technology and 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 Management, 22(6), 745-764. 
SEC(2009) 1295, 2009. Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying document 
to  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social 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. 

 56 

 
 
Suurs,  R.A.A.,  Hekkert,  M.P.,  Kieboom,  S.,  Smits,  R.E.H.M.,  2010.  Understanding  the 
formative stage of technological innovation system 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.,  Turkenburg,  W.,  2009.  The 
performance  of  the  Norwegian  carbon  dioxide,  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  storage  technologies  in  the  United  States. 
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 971-986. 

Weiss, C. and Bonvillian, W., 2009. Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution. The 

MIT Press. 

57