Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından Küme 5 Çalışma Programındaki Çağrılara İlişkin Yapılan Açıklamalar

"HORIZON-CL5-2025-04-D6-11: Innovative air mobility and services for sustainable and smart urban, peri-urban transport – Societal Readiness pilot” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen soruya Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

Question 1: E-VTOLs are mentioned in the call. Are passenger movements expected to be part of the proposal?

• Reply: The proposal’s primary focus is on enabling very low-level unmanned aviation and, above all, preparing cities through the development of guidelines and infrastructure setup. While the mention of eVTOLs may suggest passenger transport, the context clearly supports cargo delivery, variety of services by UAS as well. The proposal does not prioritise passenger mobility but instead aims to lay the groundwork for a broader urban air mobility ecosystem including UAS.

Question 2: Do logistic applications only refer to transportation activities or does they also cover sensing applications (e.g. using drones to monitor air quality in a city)?

• Reply: Logistic applications mentioned in the call are not limited to transportation. The use of drones for activities such as air quality monitoring, noise measurement, traffic observation, infrastructure inspection, environmental assessments, and various types of deliveries are all within scope. These services are part of the broader use of drones to support urban and peri-urban operations.

“HORIZON-CL5-2025-04-D5-15: Optimal integrated onboard renewable energy solutions, by considering Wind-Assisted Propulsion Systems (ZEWT Partnership)” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen soruya Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

Question: The requirements include a demonstrator, but it does not explicitly mention the minimum size of the vessel. However, in the expected outcomes, it is said “The methodology is expected to allow integration of wind energy used in propulsion of ships directly into calculations of GHG intensity of the energy used on-board, both in context of Fuel EU maritime and International Maritime Organization (IMO) Life Cycle assessment (LCA) guidelines”, which to some may be interpreted as like the vessel should be at least 5000 GT, although others interpret it as that the demo ship may be smaller as long as it will provide relevant insights and data for future improvements of the regulations. Any advice regarding this?

• Reply: The scope of the topic requires in the first bullet-point describing the  aspects to be addressed that “(t)his demonstration will be used to also validate the methodology for integration of the energy provided by the WAP devices to the ship propulsion”. Therefore, the characteristics of the full-scale demonstrator should comply with the vessels covered by the FuelEU maritime Regulation and the IMO LCA guidelines (eg. ships above 5000 GT).

“HORIZON-CL5-2025-04-D5-11: Demonstration of battery energy storage systems in existing and new vessels” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen soruya Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

Question: There is a confusing point in the list of requirements in the scope part.

• Reply: There was a formatting mistake unnoticed at the time of publication. The 4 bullet points following the text “Solutions are expected to include one or more of the following:” should be considered as sub-bullet points, as appears in the following text. 

• Innovative measures for range extension, which should go beyond the simple scaling up of existing commercial battery systems to increase the range. Solutions are expected to include one or more of the following:
  • New onboard energy storage system concepts enabling high energy-densities suitable for different waterborne applications;
  • Innovative onboard energy efficiency measures including but not limited to, thermal management, electrical architecture, high voltage electrical components, energy management and energy modelling for optimal operation including weather routing, integration of renewable energy technologies (e.g. photovoltaic panels, wind-assisted propulsion), and improved vessel hydrodynamic efficiency; 
  • Concepts for extending the operating lifetime of batteries through advanced architecture, onboard monitoring, control, and analytics; 
  • Concepts for rapid in-route charging or battery replenishment while maintaining desired operating schedules. Fast charging and onshore power supply (OPS) concepts should adhere to the IEC/IEEE standards which are under development, and the consortium is expected to liaise with the technical committee in IEC/IEEE and converge technical solution with standard under development. Other solutions enabling intermittent in-route power transfer to vessels may also be demonstrated.

All other bullet points after that are required.

“HORIZON-CL5-2025-04-D5-10 Innovative solutions for energy conversion and safety of low and zero-carbon fuels in waterborne transport (ZEWT Partnership)” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen soruya Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

Question 1: Does the requirement “Development of parameters ensuring technical compatibility between the fuel and energy conversion system” mean that mechanical components should be able to handle chemicals introduced by using new fuels?

• Reply: The requirement asks for the development of parameters addressing all relevant items ensuring the technical compatibility between the fuel and energy conversion system taking into consideration all aspects in the scope. The parameters should be developed considering at least: i) the materials and components used in construction, ii) the safety of the power conversion system and its integration on-board, and iii) the reduction of GHG and air pollutant emissions.

 Question 2: Does combined power output include hypothetical power generation solutions composed by 3MW PEMFC + 3 MWh batteries?

• Reply: By “combined power output”, the topic refers to the total power installed coming from one single type of power conversion system, but which could have several similar sub-systems installed. For instance, when the topic says, “Fuel cell solutions are expected to deliver results that will reach a combined power output of at least 5 MW”, there are no single 5MW marinized fuel cells stacks on the market that can be installed off the shelf, so we expect that several FC stacks will be installed. The total power output of the series of stacks should be then at least 5MW.

 Question 3: Would a solution be eligible where the 55% of overall energy efficiency from fuel energy to shaft propulsion is reached including the heat recovery derived from the thermal power produced by the generation system selected (regardless Area A or Area B)?

• Reply: Yes.

A question on Societal Readiness pilot topics in Work Programme 2025:

Question: Can an entity participating in a Societal Readiness pilot topic also participate in the CSA for monitoring and evaluation and vice versa?

• Reply: There is no specific eligible criterion as regards organisations’ participation in both the monitoring and evaluation CSA and other Societal Readiness pilot topics. However, participating in the monitoring and evaluation CSA and in other SR pilot topics in parallel would give raise to potential conflict of interest which must be avoided, i.e. the relevant organisations should put in place measures that address the potential conflicts of interest, so that they acts as a neutral broker vis à vis all SR pilot projects.

“HORIZON-CL5-2026-01-D6-07: Innovative construction and maintenance, with the use of new materials and techniques, for resilient and sustainable transport infrastructure” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen sorulara Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

In relation to the text in scope “Validation of all the proposed solutions and proofs of concepts is to be carried out in at least two large-scale demonstrations. The demonstrations should cover at least two different transport infrastructure types (e.g., road, rail, waterborne, airport) which are located on at least two different Trans European Transport Network (TEN-T) corridors. The demonstrations should also cover different environments and phases of the infrastructure life cycle (e.g. design, construction, maintenance, decommissioning).”

Question 1: Are nodes of the TEN-T network also included, and which structures are considered part of the nodes?

• Reply: Urban nodes are part of the TEN-T and their components, which include ports, are defined in article 40 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1679. As per Article 42, first and last mile connections between and to the access points to the trans-European transport network may include also metros or tramways. The selection of the transport infrastructure types, which will be part of the large demonstrations, will have to be justified in the proposal.

 Question 2: For the demonstrators, do we need to cover all phases of the infrastructure life cycle, or is it acceptable to focus on at least two of them?

• Reply: While the topic text states that the projects should cover the entire life cycle of transport infrastructures, the specific bullet point on the validation of all the proposed solutions and proofs of concepts mentions that the demonstrations should cover different environments and phases of the infrastructure life cycle. Therefore, it is up to the proposals to explain which phases will be demonstrated and their rationale.

 Question 3: Are Health and safety issues especially for repair and maintenance topics important as well? 

• The focus of the topic is on innovative solutions for sustainability and resilience along the entire life cycle of the transport infrastructures. Health and safety issues should be addressed as long as they are justified by the proposed solutions.

Question 4:  Are there any preferred LCA methodologies, indicators, or environmental product declaration (EPD) frameworks to be followed to ensure compatibility with EU policy or ongoing standardization efforts?

• The topic does not mandate any specific methodology or framework, therefore any choice should be duly substantiated in the proposal.

Question 5:  Does the call focus only on traditional LCA approach or also some unification towards carbon footprint according to the requirements of EU taxonomy and ESRS standards is expected?

• As mentioned above, the topic does not prescribe any specific methodology so that the approach adopted by the applicants has to be duly justified in the proposal.

Question on the gender balance criterion in Work Programme 2025:

Question: On which “type” of researchers is the gender ratio based? And how is the “leading role” defined?

Reply:  Annex F for WP 2023-2024 states "...the gender balance among the researchers named in the researchers table in the proposal will be used as a factor for prioritisation;"

Annex for WP 2025, states "... the gender balance among the researchers with a leading role named in the researchers table in the proposal, will be used as a factor for prioritisation."

So, for WP 2023-2024 the ex aequo criterion relates to the gender balance in research teams (independently of their leading role). The change to the gender balance in lead researchers (in the project, calculated for the whole consortium) applies to calls under WP 2025 and onwards. The leading role could be both the task leader and work package leader, as long as they are declared as having a leading role in the researchers table in the proposal template.

1. HORIZON-CL5-2025-01-Two-Stage-D2-02: Cost-effective next-generation batteries for long-duration stationary storage (Batt4EU Partnership)” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen soruya Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

Question: Are non-electrochemical storage technologies in scope?

• Reply: This topic only addresses only electrochemical storage. Therefore, all non-electrochemical storage technologies are out of scope.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-02-08 Minimisation of environmental, and optimisation of socio-economic impacts in the deployment, operation and decommissioning of offshore wind farms

Question : Under the scope part in the topic text it lists that: ’An assessment framework for installations is needed with nature inclusive design options valuing ‘created habitats’ vs ‘natural habitats’, however this created habitats’ vs ‘natural habitats is not explicitly mentioned again in either action 1 or 2. This is also the case with the use of the term ‘cumulative’ that appears in the scope text but not in the specific actions. Is it correct to interpret that anything listed in the scope part of the text before the actions is because these aspects are supposed to be covered regardless of what specific action is chosen by the project?

Reply: The introductory paragraph of the “scope” provides general information on the objectives of the topic, that are then specified in more details in the following part for the actions 1 and 2 separately. The relevance of the generic part of the scope may differ for the different actions.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-02-02: Robotics and other automated solutions for construction, renovation and maintenance in a sustainable built environment (Built4People Partnership)

Question : How should solutions be distributed within the (at least) 3 prototypes? (“reference to the sentence Test and validate the prototyped solutions in at least three prototypes….”)

• Reply: There is no strict and specific requirement on how many solutions need to be tested in each prototype. Therefore, the applicants have the flexibility to approach this in a way that best suits the project objectives, and they are free to select which and how many solutions will be tested in each prototype. Robustness and relevance of this approach will be assessed as part of the evaluation of the proposal.

For example, they could:

• Test all solutions in one demo site,
• Test some solutions in the second prototype,
• Test only one solution in the third prototype.

The applicants are thus encouraged to select the approach that best fits the specific needs and contexts of the proposed solutions and prototypes.

Question: May funded activities under this topic include the construction / renovation of tunnels (for instance train tunnels)?

Reply: In line with the topic scope ‘the development of robotic and automated solutions to support sustainable building construction, renovation and maintenance processes’, the focus is only on buildings. Tunnels for transport are therefore out of scope.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-02-04: Design for adaptability, re-use and deconstruction of buildings, in line with the principles of circular economy (Built4People Partnership)

Question : Could you expand on the line: "Address all components of buildings, including structural elements, envelopes, interior fixtures and fittings, and technical building systems" and validation needed?

• Reply: Proposals are expected to deliver construction and renovation solutions that facilitate the deconstruction and reuse of buildings. These solutions should be ‘based on the integration of innovative tools, products, techniques, processes and methods’. The topic then sets a number of additional requirements, among which are, that: The proposed solutions are validated in a relevant environment (real-life or close to real-life) and to reach TRL 5-6 by the end of the project. The proposed solutions address all components of buildings (including structural elements, envelopes, interior fixtures and fittings, and technical building systems). The part relating to ‘all components’ is not optional; proposers must demonstrate that their solutions cover all building components.

Question : The scope requires to “Covers at least two different countries, with diverse climatic conditions”. How do we ensure that this condition is fulfilled and that it makes the proposal eligible?

• Reply: It is up to the applicants to propose the best location for the validation of the solutions at TRL5 or 6 in a relevant environment (real-life or close to real-life), taking into account that at least two different countries, with diverse climatic conditions, must be covered. Independent external experts will assess, among others, the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art and also the soundness of the proposed methodology, which includes the validation of the solutions in a relevant environment. The topic text does not refer to a specific reference source of climatic conditions, so applicants must justify their choice and may, for example, quote official sources about climate zones to support their argument.

1. “extended service life of buildings” (expected outcome/bullet point no. 3). Is it required to quantify/measure this through specific integrated methods (such as sensors) or is it sufficient to explain how the new technology can be integrated in existing systems and how it will contribute to an overall extended lifetime? 
   It is up to the applicants to propose what they consider as the best pathway to credibly demonstrate the extension of the service life of buildings. Experts will assess whether the proposed solutions and environment are in line with the call text and of sufficient ambition. They will also assess the expected impact of the proposal using the standard evaluation criteria, in particular regarding the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, as well as the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project, and the suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts.

2. “address all components of buildings, …envelopes,…” (scope/bullet point no. 2 d). What is the exact definition respectively which kind of envelope (e.g. tight, loose, thermal, etc.?) should be envisaged within the project proposal? Does this imply a complete enclosed envelope that has walls, ceiling and floor?
   Within the context of the scope outlined for this topic, proposals are expected to ensure that the solutions validated address all components of buildings, amongst which “envelopes”. The topic does not prescribe which kind of envelope should be envisaged. The solutions are expected to be validated in a relevant environment (real-life or close to real-life) at TRL 5-6 by the end of the project.

3.  “local and regional value chains/sourcing” (scope/bullet points no. 2 e) & f) and no. 3 c) ). How are these terms to be interpreted correctly? E.g. using local/regional material A from e.g. Portugal and then processing it by using a new technology provided by a local/regional SME in e.g. Germany resulting in a demonstrator? How to define “local”: specific to a country or Europe or within a vicinity of e.g. 200 km? Since it is a European project with European partners it is not possible to stick e.g. to just one country.
   The scope/bullet points nr. 2 e) and nr. 3 c) refer mainly to the workforce, including that of SMEs, whereas the scope/bullet point nr. 2 f) refers to sourcing of products and materials.
   In the context of this topic, ‘local’ and ‘regional’ are geographical dimensions that should be interpreted in line with the principles of circular economy and based on life-cycle approaches.
   As such, these dimensions should be understood as contributing to the acceptance/buy-in and replication of the innovative solutions and relate to geographically limited areas which may however extend across local, regional, or national borders.

4. In the topic text it says, that the validation of the solutions should “Cover residential and non-residential projects, half of which at least should be renovation projects.” 
   How big must be the part of new constructions or could the project concentrate solely on renovations?
   The scope of the topic is to enable construction and renovation that embeds the principle of extending the service life of buildings, and facilitate adaptability to changing user needs, reuse, and deconstruction, in a life-cycle optimisation and circular economy perspective. Therefore, it is expected that the proposal addresses the integration of innovative tools, products, techniques, processes and methods in both new construction and renovation of buildings. 
   Independent external experts will assess the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art and also the soundness of the proposed methodology, which includes the validation of the solutions in a relevant environment. The topic text does not specifically refer the scale of the demonstrations. However, it is indicated that the proposal is expected to cover residential and non-residential projects, half of which at least should be renovation projects. In conclusion, the proposals are expected to cover new construction and renovation of buildings and the validation of the solutions is expected to be done in residential and non-residential projects, half of which at least should be renovation projects.

5. On the slide of the Infoday to Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-02-04 it says: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding.” 
   Does this imply, that applicants should contact the JRC during the proposal time? 
   There is no obligation to contact the JRC either during the proposal preparation step or, in the case that the project is selected for funding, during the project lifetime. Selected proposal(s) could consider the involvement of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), as part of the consortium or not, as long as the consortium considers that the involvement of the JRC can provide added value. This does not constitute an advantage over other proposals.

“HORIZON-CL5-2024-D6-01-08: Improved transport infrastructure performance – Innovative digital tools and solutions to monitor and improve the management and operation of transport infrastructure” çağrısı ile ilgili gelen soruya Avrupa Komisyonu tarafından verilen cevabı aşağıda bulabilirsiniz.

Question: The topic requires to set up at least 3 pilot demonstrations, while addressing all 6 outcomes. Is it expected that all 6 outcomes are tackled in each of the 3 pilots or can they be distributed across the pilots?

•  Answer: It is not expected to address each of the 6 outcomes within each pilot. However, each pilot should be able to demonstrate the proposed solutions (Include at least three pilot demonstrations of the proposed solutions in operational environment (minimum at TRL7) on land and inland waterways transport infrastructure) and the different infrastructure types should be assessed therein (Different infrastructure types should be assessed in each of the pilot demonstrations).

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-02-05 Digital solutions to foster participative design, planning and management of buildings, neighbourhoods and urban districts (Built4People Partnership

Question:What is the definition of ‘deep renovation’  as mentioned in the topic text?

• Reply: In the context of the topic, renovation means any kind of energy-related building renovation, which has the aim of increasing the energy performance of buildings. The Commission Recommendation (EU) 2019/786 of 8 May 2019 on building renovation categorises a renovation as deep if it targets over 60% of primary energy savings. In the specific context of this Topic, applicants can use regional/national definitions of deep energy-related renovation or a 60% reduction in energy use.

Question A Local Authority is wondering whether only renovated buildings/districts/neighbourhoods (deep renovation solutions) are eligible or could they also identify newly built buildings where the digital solutions are tested?

• Reply: Proposals under this topic are expected to focus on the development of digital solutions for a stronger participation of end users, citizens and other relevant stakeholders in the design, planning and management of the renovation of existing buildings, neighbourhoods and/or districts. 
  Proposals are also expected to develop digital solutions that allow to analyse and model different scenarios for to-be-renovated buildings, neighbourhoods and / or districts in terms of energy use and generation, and/or facilitate participative design and planning through visualisation, analysis and engagement with data that is directly relevant to building users as well as citizens in the surrounding urban area.
  In terms of outcomes, it is specified that the project results are expected to contribute to greater acceptability and uptake of sustainable deep renovation solutions. 
  Therefore, to address this call topic, proposals should focus on deep renovation of existing buildings, neighbourhoods and/or districts and deliver at least three demonstrators, without precluding that a proposal may also address digital solutions in new constructions. 
   

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D2-02-02: Post-Li-ion technologies and relevant manufacturing techniques for mobility applications (Generation 5) (Batt4EU Partnership)

1. Question: What is the definition of Gen5 Batteries?

 Answer: The list of chemistries under gen 5, which the topic is based on is listed in the 2021 SRIA (https://bepassociation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BATT4EU_reportA4_SRIA_V15_September.pdf ) page 52: “Post Li-ion: Li-Air, Li S, Na-ion, multivalent metal-ion, metal-air, redox f low, etc: Gen. 5”

2.Question:   A cost target of 75 euro/kWh at pack and cell level by 2030 is specified in topics CL5-2023-D2-02-01 and CL5-2024-D2-02-02. How stringent is this target in comparison with performance targets defined in these topics?

 Answer: The cost target of 75 euro/kWh at pack/cell level specified in topics “HORIZON-CL5-2023-D2-02-01: Advanced materials and cells development enabling large-scale production of Gen4 solid-state batteries for mobility applications (Batt4EU Partnership)” and “HORIZON-CL5-2024-D2-02-02: Post-Li-ion technologies and relevant manufacturing techniques for mobility applications (Generation 5) (Batt4EU Partnership)” provides an indication that the reduction of cost per kWh is of paramount importance to the competitiveness of the European battery industry. It is also key to the competitiveness of the mobility sectors that can take advantage of Gen4 and Gen5 batteries described in the two topics. Proposals that focus on increased battery performance without meeting the cost target of 75 euro/kWh at pack/cell level must provide clear indication that this will not hinder the global competitiveness of the sector(s) in which such battery would be applied, also providing evidence that cost per kWh does not have the same relevance as a competitiveness parameter in said sector(s).

3. Question: Under topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D2-02-02, can the research be focused on the sodium-metal batteries?

 Answer: Sodium-metal batteries are indeed eligible to apply to topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D2-02-02, as they are conversion systems. Li-ion and Na-ion are excluded.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D2-02-01: Sustainable high-throughput production processes for stable lithium metal anodes for next generation batteries (Batt4EU Partnership)

Question: Does the definition of solid-state electrolytes include solid polymer electrolytes or are they purely ceramic solid-state electrolytes (oxide or sulphide type)?

•  Answer: Solid polymer electrolytes are within the scope of the topic, the type of electrode has not been specified.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-02-02: Development of next generation synthetic renewable fuel technologies

• Question 1: If a fuel is produced using ONLY the CO2 and the hydrogen contained in biogas obtained from biomass, is this fuel acceptable or excluded from this topic?
  • Answer: Using only biogas constituents is not sufficient from a technical point of view, as biogas contains typically 40% CO2 and less than 1% hydrogen. Extra hydrogen and energy would be needed. Therefore the topic specifies “Process energy will also be renewable. …Pathways via production of renewable hydrogen or renewable hydrogen ionic compounds from all forms and origins of renewable energy (e.g., electricity, direct sunlight, heat) are in scope.”
• Question 2: Does the word “novel” refer to a new, non-existing fuel? Or does it mean a novel technology for the production of fuels?
  • Answer: The topic expects activities to  achieve TRL 3-4 by the end of the project , thus “novel” refers mainly to the production pathway. Without being excluded, non-existing fuels would require activities of more fundamental research.
• Question 1: What does “synthetic renewable fuels” mean?
  • Answer: The topic explains what these fuels are: “Development of next generation technologies for the production of novel synthetic renewable liquid and gaseous fuels from CO2, and/or renewable carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen or their compounds and from renewable energy.”
• Question 2: If a fuel is produced from carbon and hydrogen obtained from organic residues (wastewater treatment plant sludge, organic fraction of solid municipal waste), is this fuel considered a synthetic renewable fuel, or is it excluded from this topic?
  • Answer: As regards hydrogen, the topic states “ Pathways via production of renewable hydrogen or renewable hydrogen ionic compounds from all forms and origins of renewable energy (e.g., electricity, direct sunlight, heat) are in scope”. CO2 can be of any origin as far as it is energy neutral, although preferably renewable or from DAC. Carbon as element should be renewable (see Question 1 above). Process energy should be renewable (requirement under scope).
• Question 3: Is a proposal acceptable if a fuel is produced from syngas obtained from biogas?
  • Answer: Not clear if the source is biogas or further processed biogas to syngas as compositions are different. The answer on the sources for carbon and hydrogen and energy are found in Question 2 above.
     

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-02-03 Development of smart concepts of integrated energy driven bio-refineries for co-production of advanced biofuels, bio-chemicals and biomaterials

Question : The reference on synergies with topic HORIZON-CL6-2023-ZEROPOLLUTION is outdated. What is the right topic identifier? 

Reply: The topic HORIZON-CL6-2024-ZEROPOLLUTION-02-2:Innovative technologies for zero pollution, zero-waste biorefineries is the one that should be referred to. Overall, the expectation is that once related projects are funded under the Cluster 6 topic, they could generally cooperate with projects from the Cluster 5 topic

Question: Could you clarify what should be done to address the expected outcome "Contribute to the Mission Innovation 2.0 mission of Integrated Biorefineries."? 

• Reply: Mission Innovation 2.0 mission of Integrated Biorefineries aims at developing and demonstrating innovative solutions to accelerate the commercialisation of integrated biorefineries. Developing zero-waste and neutral or negative carbon emission energy-efficient biorefinery concepts under this topic, in potential collaboration within international members of the mission, is contributing to the mission’s goal.

• Question 1: What is the meaning of “integrated biorefineries” as stated in the title?
  •  Answer: The integration aspect is presented in the scope sentence: “Development of zero-waste and neutral or negative carbon emission energy-efficient biorefinery concepts for enabling the production of low-cost advanced biofuels through coproduction of added value bio-based products and bioenergy” where a range of products including energy is sought to minimise any mass and energy waste.
• Question 2: The topic says: “Development of zero-waste…..through co-production of added value bio-based products and bioenergy.” Is it mandatory to produce “bioenergy” in addition to biofuels? Should bioenergy be a final output of the biorefinery or an intermediate output to feed the conversion process?
  • Answer: The topic requests:” The integration design…., addressing the process heat and power needs by the use of co-produced bio-heat and bio-power, capturing and reusing biogenic effluent gases and sequestering biogenic emissions, for example in the form of biochar as soil amendment, such as to maximize overall material and energy efficiencies.” Bioenergy is one of the outputs of the integrated biorefinery, that can be used both for internal use in the process and output, depending on the integration design.
• Question 3: Is it mandatory to address more than one type of pathways? For example, thermochemical and biological? Or is it possible to address only one type of pathways?
  • Answer: The topic requests “ Conversion of biogenic wastes and residues as well as algae and aquatic biomass through chemical, biochemical, electrochemical, biological, thermochemical pathways or combinations of them in highly circular processes are in scope” Although not mandatory to address many pathways, it is possible to address combinations.
• Question 1: The topic says “Conversion of biogenic wastes and residues as well as algae and aquatic biomass”. Has the “as well” to be read as “and” or as “and/or”? Is it mandatory to work with both types of feedstock or will one of them suffice? 
  • Answer: “as well” should be read “and/or”. Therefore, it is not mandatory to work with both types of feedstock but it is possible to do so.
• Question 2: Are plants grown on marginalised lands considered as residues and thus as suitable/eligible feedstock 
  • Answer: The topic does not mention marginal lands energy crops. To be eligible these should be included in the Annex IX Parts A and B of the revised Renewable Energy Directive.
     

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-02-04: Design for adaptability, re-use and deconstruction of buildings, in line with the principles of circular economy (Built4People Partnership)

Question 1 : Is the project expected to develop solutions: for the future disassembly of future projects/buildings, for the integration of reused building materials in today’s construction and renovation projects, or both? In the first point of the scope part: is it possible to develop other sustainable innovative materials than the ones listed in the text? 

• Reply: The topic text does not specifically refer to ‘disassembly’. However, the topic text requires proposals, among others, to validate construction and renovation solutions that ‘(…) facilitate deconstruction and reuse (…)’, ‘(...) improve the ease of reuse of construction elements and products from existing buildings (…)’ and ‘(…) can flexibly adapt to local/regional sourcing of innovative products and materials to increase replication. (…)’. Experts will assess whether the proposed solutions and environment are in line with the call text and of sufficient ambition. They will also assess the expected impact of the proposal using the standard evaluation criteria, in particular regarding the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, as well as the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project, and the suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts. 

Question 2 : Would a virtual environment be acceptable as a close to real-life environment to validate the solutions?

• Reply: The topic text requires, among others, that the solutions are validated in residential and non-residential projects, half of which should be renovation projects. Additionally, the validation of the solutions should cover at least two different countries, with diverse climatic conditions. When proposing the use of a virtual environment, applicants have to demonstrate that they will still meet all validation requirements of the call text and achieve at least TRL 5 at the end of the project.

Question 3 : On the sentence: “Develop building elements and products that can be disassembled and reused.”: what TRL level is expected at the start and at the end?  Also, what is the connection between this requirement and the following one in the text?

• Reply: The Commission Services cannot provide further elaboration on the topic text. Regarding the expected TRL, the topic text indicates that activities are expected to achieve a TRL 5-6 by the end of the project. There is no indication of a start TRL. It is up to the participants to decide how they approach the validation requirements at TRL 5-6. Proposals are expected to address both aspects, i.e. solutions that address all components of buildings and that are validated at TRL 5-6 by the end of the project.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-02-04, Critical technologies for the future ocean energy farms

Question : In the first point of the scope part: is it possible to develop other sustainable innovative materials than the ones listed in the text? 

• Reply: Project are expect to develop new sustainable materials with improved characteristics. The materials listed are examples (‘such as’) and other innovative materials are also possible. 
   

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-15 HVAC, HVDC and High-Power cable systems

Question : Does the topic text mean that a proposal could have two activities (at least one activity in subtopic A, B, C) but that they must have two validation tests in different EU member states/associated countries?

• Reply: AThe topic requires the following conditions to be met: 
  1.    Three (3) activities from any of the points in A, B, D, E, F are mandatory to be chosen. 
  2.    Two demos are mandatory, each in a different MS or AC.
  3.    In each demo, AT LEAST 1 of the 3 selected activities are mandatory to be tested

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D5-01-08: Competitiveness and digital transformation in aviation – advancing further composite aerostructures

Question : In scope, what does the request  “[technologies] should be scale-demonstrated” mean with respect to a regular ‘’demonstration”? Isn’t demonstration contradictory with the expected TRL 2-4 at the end of the project?

• Reply: The focus is on advancements in composite aerostructures, delivering new tools and processes for challenging industrial cases. The wording “scale-demonstrated” in the relevant sentence in the scope, may not be confused with “full-scale demonstration activities”. Scale demonstration in this case has the meaning of going beyond coupon level and perform research on a smaller scale (e.g. 1:10, 1:50 or any other depending on the case) that will make the results relevant to challenging industrial cases. At large, we aim the research to remain at laboratory environment (TRL 4). On a case-by-case basis, limited number of WPs could exceed TRL 4, however the available budget for this topic would be difficult to support. The wording “expected TRL” signifies that no project is penalised going beyond the proposed limits (on the contrary).

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D5-01-11: Achieving high voltage, low weight, efficient electric powertrains for sustainable waterborne transport (ZEWT Partnership)

Question : The topic text refers alternatively to “AC or DC” (expected outcomes, scope) and to “AC and DC” (scope). Are AC and DC to be considered equally or can the focus be placed on DC or AC?

• Reply: The expected outcomes and scope introduce the issue by indicating that the topic will demonstrate battery storage systems interfaced to AC or DC distribution systems because, once integrated in the vessel, the battery will be interfaced to a distribution system that will be either DC or AC. However, this doesn’t preclude the project from designing battery management systems of high voltage battery installations for AC and DC distribution systems, as the topic indicates the project has to address. Therefore there is no mistake in the text.

The question will be added to the online FAQs.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-01-03: Alternative heating systems for efficient, flexible and electrified heat generation in industry

Question 1: Is a heating process at very high temperatures (800-950ºC) in the scope of the topic? 

• Reply: A heating technology that is contactless, applied precisely where needed and with shortened reaction times, to heat a process at very high temperatures (800-950ºC) is in scope, as it is not excluded by the Note “the electrification of furnaces to heat large volumes at very high temperatures is not in the scope of this topic, because it is covered in Cluster4 work programme”, which specifically refers to “heating large volumes”. Some of the technologies listed in the scope as examples are indeed capable of very high temperatures.

Question 2: On the meaning of ‘contactless’: are hot air or steam considered as “unconventional and contactless heat sources”? Is the frequency of the sources an important criterion? 

• Reply: : Hot air or steam are neither unconventional nor contactless. The frequency of the source is not a criterion, but the reaction time must be short.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-08: Demonstration of sustainable wave energy farms

Question:Is the wave energy farm expected to be attached to the port water breakers or in open water? Which distance is expected from the mainland?

• Reply: The topic does not specify where the devices should be located, this is up to applicants to define the best configuration. The wave energy farms have to be connected to the electricity grid. The innovation component should mainly lie on the pilot farm systems, thus supporting industrial manufacturing activities that enable a cost-effective and high-performance pilot farm.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D1-01-04: Improved toolbox for evaluating the climate and environmental impacts of trade policies

Question:Does the topic exclusively focus on agriculture and livestock or alternatively other 'key sectors' can be considered?

• Reply: There is nothing in the topic that would suggest that it would be “exclusively focused on agriculture and livestock”. On the contrary, these are only mentioned as one example of key sectors, although for each one a specific methodology is expected. Therefore, such a methodology should be proposed for this sector, but there can also be others.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-16: Demonstration of innovative pumped storage equipment and tools in combination with innovative storage management systems

Question:The topic mentions that “Solutions should deliver innovative hydropower technologies adapted to unconventional storage schemes, including e.g. low-head locations”. At what altitude the Commission considers that we are facing low-head location?

• Reply:Head refers to the change in the water levels between hydro intake and discharge point. Altitude is not prescribed in the topic.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-14 - Condition & Health Monitoring in Power Electronics (PE) - Wide Band Gap PE for the energy sector

Question: The expected outcome is "Demonstration of Condition and Health Monitoring (C&HM) for converters of wind turbines generators and HVDC converter stations or MVDC converters (solar energy)”.  Should only one form of energy generation - either wind or solar - be addressed in an application?

• Reply:The R&I topic does not address the type of energy generation, but C&HM for the PE to it associated, whatever the type of generation might be. For wind energy, we refer to the converter of the wind generator and the HVDC converter station while for PV the PE equipment involved is the MVDC. Therefore, the type of generation not being explicitly requested in the call, the proposer is free to address the PE equipment linked to wind, PV or both.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-12 Energy Management Systems for flexibility services

Question: Is it mandatory to make a demonstration at regional level?

• Reply:Yes, it is mandatory to make a demonstration at regional level

Question: Given that a pilot is always in a concrete “local” site, how is the project expected to cover the “regional level”?

• Reply: The request refers to the part “Demonstrate aggregation of multiple (building or industrial) energy management systems to provide flexibility services (wholesale market price signals, demand response, flexible production, smart charging, balancing & frequency services, congestion management) to the electricity network.” The aim is to demonstrate at regional level how different local level pilots can work together, for example how the EMS of different buildings or industrial sites can work together. This can be regional within an Member State or across borders.

Question: Can we consider a heat pump producer as a home appliances producer and what exactly is the definition of an aggregator?

• Reply:Yes, a heat pump producer can be considered as a home appliances producer. The definition of an aggregator follows the description figuring in the EU electricity directive: ‘aggregation’ means a function performed by a natural or legal person who combines multiple customer loads or generated electricity for sale, purchase or auction in any electricity market; ‘independent aggregator’ means a market participant engaged in aggregation who is not affiliated to the customer's supplier.

Question: The text contains several occurrences of the words ‘include’, ‘involve’ or ‘cooperate with’. Can you please clarify what is expected from these actions?

• Reply: ‘Include’ requires entities to be part of the project as partners, while ‘involve’ and ‘cooperate with’ means that the cooperation/involvement does not require them to be project partners (though it is welcome to have them as partners). It is left to the consortium to assess the most appropriate configuration.

Question: What does the term "energy system management service company" precisely refers to?

• Reply: It is meant: ‘companies that provide EMS (energy management system) systems including hardware and software for industries and/or buildings’.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-03: Demonstration of improved intermediate renewable energy carrier technologies for transport fuels

Question: Is the “intermediate energy carriers” mentioned in the text include “intermediates” that are final products and that may be used as fuel without further purification/processing?

• Reply:The call specifies  that: the finished quality is expected to be suitable so that the intermediates can be either directly upgraded in existing refinery infrastructures and/or further purified and processed in existing chemical infrastructures to drop-in liquid and gaseous advanced biofuels and synthetic renewable fuels, or directly used for shipping propulsion or in other off-road transport. The final products are the intermediates and not the upgraded fuels. Some direct uses like off-road transport or shipping are possible as these may handle intermediates.

Question:  Are jet-fuel are acceptable?   

• Reply:Jet fuels are not acceptable

Question: Is the aviation sector included as a target of this topic? In other words, how should the expression “off-road transport” be interpreted?

• Reply:The call specifies  that the finished quality is expected to be suitable so that the intermediates can be either directly upgraded in existing refinery infrastructures and/or further purified and processed in existing chemical infrastructures to drop-in liquid and gaseous advanced biofuels and synthetic renewable fuels, or directly used for shipping propulsion or in other off-road transport. The final products are the intermediates and not the upgraded fuels. Some direct uses like off-road transport (as for example in agricultural machinery) or shipping are possible as these may handle intermediates. Final aviation renewable fuels are not acceptable, intermediates that can be converted to final aviation renewable fuels are eligible. Examples of intermediates are provided in the text of the topic.

Question: Is it in scope to investigate other sources of CO2 in addition to biogenic sources?

• Reply:CO2 can be of any origin, as it does not carry energy

Question: Is in the scope of the topic to investigate new feedstock sources for refineries?

• Reply: The scope of the topic is described in the call. The aim is to upgrade the intermediates.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-10: Next generation of renewable energy technologies

Question: What does “direct utilization of renewable energy sources” mean?

• Reply:The renewable energy source is converted into use (heat, cooling, fuels, work) without intermediaries being carried to the use. In that respect, electricity could be produced in the case of a direct use integrated into a product or a process.

Question:  Should the renewable energy source be spent without converting it to electricity before its final use?

• Reply:Electricity can be produced if its use is integrated within the process that needs it. What is excluded as an example is producing electricity to feed an electrolyser to produce a fuel. However, using renewable energy to directly produce fuels through electrochemical process would be ok.

Question:   Could you please give examples of “direct utilization of renewable energy sources”? If possible, one with “wind”.

• Reply:Examples are imbedded power generation to processes or products. For wind, an idea could be revisiting the concept of wind energy to power mechanical devices.

Question: Is the production of ammonia through the electrolysis of water with simultaneous reaction with nitrogen within the scope, even if hydrogen is produced as a by-product, as a one-step process in which ammonia and hydrogen are produced simultaneously (the focus being on the production of ammonia)?

• Reply:Indeed only hydrogen through electrolyser is excluded. However, it should be reminded that the scope of the topic is “to address high-risk/high return technology developments for game changing renewable energy technologies.”. Developing electrolysers that can be operated with electricity from any origin is not a game changing renewable energy technology as such. However solutions like “direct utilization of renewable energy sources” through electrochemical process would be in scope. Kindly note that topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D2-01-04: Emerging energy technologies for a climate neutral Europe addresses “Novel energy generation/conversion methods” that would cover electrolyser development.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-06 Innovative applications/integration of geothermal heating and cooling in industry

Question: Are projects expected to improve the state-of-the-art for deep geothermal resources extraction or is it sufficient to consider those resources as available?

• Reply: The topic does not specifically request advances in the extraction of deep geothermal resources, therefore, unless they are necessary to meet the other requirements, the proposals do not necessarily have to include them.

Question:  What is expected to be compulsorily addressed precisely among: heat pump systems / energy piles / energy sheet pile walls / alternative cycle working media?

• Reply:Projects should include (one or more of the following three technologies): heat pump systems,  energy piles and energy sheet pile walls. The inclusion of alternative cycle working media is not mandatory but its exclusion from the proposals should be properly justified.

Question : Must harvesting of geothermal energy be part of the project or is it enough with the use of the heat pump in industry?

• Reply:[…] position geothermal utilisation (including underground storage) as a crucial pillar for the (heat and/or cold) transition of industrial energy systems […] suggests that the use of a heat pump in industry alone does not fulfil the requirements of the topic.

Question  In case harvesting of geothermal energy must be part of the project, are the costs of geotechnical surveys and the drilling of geothermal wells eligible?

• Reply: The topic does not exclude the costs of geotechnical surveys and the drilling of geothermal wells eligible, however these should be appropriately justified in the context of the topic.

 Question: The topic mentions: “Projects should consider the application of cascading residual geothermal waste heat to neighbouring industries or the built environment”. The indicative budget per project (3 M€) does not seem enough to include a district heating for neighbouring industries. Do proposals have to make a district heating or is it enough to simulate this cascading of residual geothermal waste heat?

• Reply: Given the final expected TRL, the use of an experimental set-up to simulate the behavior of a downstream waste heat application is acceptable to demonstrate the cascading effect in a relevant environment.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-01-03 Alternative heating systems for efficient, flexible and electrified heat generation in industry

In the scope of the call, a note provides the following restriction : “Note: the electrification of furnaces to heat large volumes at very high temperatures is not in the scope of this topic, because it is covered in Cluster4 work programme”.

Question: What does “heat large volumes” exactly refer to ? What does very “high temperatures” exactly refer to ?  

Reply:

• In the note in the Cluster5 topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D4-01-03 “Note: the electrification of furnaces to heat large volumes at very high temperatures is not in the scope of this topic, because it is covered in Cluster4 work programme.”, the topic referred to in Cluster 4 is “HORIZON-CL4-2023-TWIN-TRANSITION-01-33: Electrification of high temperature heating systems (Processes4Planet Partnership) (IA)” 

• There is no precise definition of “very high temperature” or “high volumes”, but the Cluster 5 topic scope focusses on “Alternative forms of energy such as for example ultrasound, microwaves, plasma, infrared, visible and ultraviolet radiations … are unconventional and contactless heat sources, that create the possibility of new, efficient and flexible processes, in that they are applied precisely where they are needed and with shortened reaction times”, while in the Cluster 4 topic, the scope mentioned: “The topic focuses on the sustainable electrification of high temperature heating systems, for example, industrial furnaces, kilns and crackers among others” and was covered in 2023.

    

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-14: Condition & Health Monitoring in Power Electronics (PE) - Wide Band Gap PE for the energy sector

Question : As this topic seems to be divided into 2 thematic sub-projects (one combining A+B to achieve the outcome a, the other one addressing B to achieve the outcome b) and also demonstrated in at least 2 pilots is it possible to put a focus on one sub-project? / Does a project need to cover all the indicated requirements equally? 

• Reply:  Both have to be addressed, it is up to the applicants if they want to focus more on one as long as they can convince the evaluators that this effort distribution is the best way to address the topic.

Question : Indicative number of grants is 3: why not asking for complementary proposals with limited requirements more suitable for the proposed budget OR offer a higher budget/project to sufficiently cover all aspects of the topic? 

• Reply:  No, an amendment of this is not foreseen, so the text is applicable as published.

Question :  Is it possible to extensively overshoot the indicative budget in duly justified cases? 

• Reply:  Theoretically yes, but practically this is not advisable as it might lower selection success probability.

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-13: DC and AC/DC hybrid transmission and distribution systems

Question : Do proposals have to address all the bullets in subtopic A)a, plus subtopic A)b, plus subtopic A)c, plus all the bullets in subtopic B) and all the bullets in subtopic C)? 

• Reply:  Yes, the proposals have to address ALL the subtopics and ALL the bullets and EACH subtopic will have one demonstrator. 

Additional information: The topic stems from three topics put all together in one bigger. In fact, the budget is around 6 M€ (2 projects for total of 13 M€); each subtopic (A, B, C) would be one project for ~ 2 M€, which is feasible for 3 studies (the bullets in the subtopics) and one demonstrator in lab or industrial setting (TRL is 4,5).)

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-01-07: Development of hydropower equipment for improving techno-economic efficiency and equipment resilience in refurbishment situations

Question: The topic does not specify the scale of the hydropower facilities addressed. Does it mostly focus on the refurbishment of large-scale hydropower plants or are small-scale plants equally in scope?

Reply:

• Indeed, the size of the hydropower plant is not prescribed and can include, both small and large-scale hydropower

Question: Should the Lifecycle-Thinking perspective be applied to all the materials involved in the process, including possible old waste material from the refurbished plant, or is it sufficient to consider only the new materials used in the refurbishment process?

Reply:

• The proposed solution should be addressed on a life cycle basis. In particular also circularity by design refers to the proposed solution. While not mandatory, if waste material from the refurbished plant can be recycled and reused, this is in line with the circularity concept, which can be included.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-04- Innovative components and configurations for heat pumps

Question: Is this topic mainly focused on relatively low-capacity (0-100 kW) heat pumps for domestic or light commercial use, or are higher capacities and temperatures for industrial use also covered by the topic?

Reply:

• All capacities are in the scope

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-03-01 Increasing the efficiency of innovative static energy conversion devices for electricity and heat/cold generation

Question: As for the pilot(s): Since the topic text says „in different Member States ...“, we understand that while we could combine different technologies in one pilot, at the same time we would have to cover at least two MS / AC = at least two pilots – is that right?

Reply:

• Two pilots would be the absolute minimum. As the text says “Development of at least three of the above-mentioned technologies” and “Validation/demonstration of the activities developed in (1) with at least one pilot for each technology”, three pilots (covering one or more technologies) in three MS/AC is the standard.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-13 Operation, Performance and Maintenance of PV Systems

Question: May PVT and/or PV + battery systems be included into the application, and in this way fall into the scope of the topic?  

• Reply:  

  The scope of the topic is not on thePV system itself, but rather on the monitoring, processes and models which increase a PV system's operational performance, stability and reliability.

• multi-aspect sensing (optical, thermal, electrical) into PV modules to suppress degradation, detect unwanted operating conditions and avoid failures
• smart control/tracking systems (e.g. coupled with real-time monitoring data, forecasting, EMS, etc.) for performance optimisation
• hybrid or integrated monitoring-diagnostic imagery solutions for maximum spatiotemporal granularity and diagnostic resolution.
• edge AI and Big Data to improve the energy yield (advanced module control, self-reconfigurable topologies, etc.), module and plant models, monitoring and yield forecasting considering user behaviour and modelling of the entire electricity system including storage
• large, wide and possibly publicly available datasets to enable, foster and empower AI for Digital PV at European scale
• automated and predictive PV asset management software based on sensor-data-image fusion and/or AI / Machine learning techniques to reduce human effort
• AI-based energy trading at plant level, taking care of specific climates /applications / conditions.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-05: Advanced exploration technologies for geothermal resources in a wide range of geological settings

Question: The scope of the topic mentions both pre-drill risk assessment and high-resolution reservoir characterisation, does this mean that the proposed technology must focus on the exploration phase (i.e. before the drilling of the first well in the field) or should it cover the exploitation (i.e. when many wells will be drilled in the field) as well ?

• Reply:  The topic focuses on exploration and leaves out the exploitation phase. 

Horizon-CL5-2023-D3-02-01 Development of near zero-emission biomass heat and/or combined heat and power including carbon capture

Question Is carbon capture a specific research topic of the project or should just be investigated how existing carbon capture technologies can be coupled with the heating/combined heat and power technology developed?

• Reply:  The scope explains that technological interfaces for carbon capture, but not carbon capture technology itself, are to be included.

Question Is a process producing biochar, heat and electricity within the scope of the topic?

• Reply:  The focus of the topic is not on biochar production, but on biobased heat and/or ombined heat and power technologies. While this does not per se exclude biochar, the requested carbon capture interface refers to the carbon produced by heat and/or ombined heat and power technology production.

Question: Does sewage sludge count as "sustainable biomass residue" in this topic?

• Reply: Sewage sludge is covered by the topic, but only in solid form, as the topic requires the use of sustainable solid biomass residues.

Question: To what extent must the exhaust gas values for sewage sludge-specific pollutants (e.g. dioxins, heavy metals, special hydrocarbons) be measured or monitored? 

• Reply:  The topic requires development of close to zero-emission technologies for all relevant solid or gaseous pollutants, therefore including also those mentioned in the question. These emissions have to be assessed for the running system at pilot scale.

Question: Is compliance with the legal limits for the specific pollutants in the waste gas critical in the project at TRL5?

• Reply: The net-zero-emission technologies are expected to be in any condition at emission levels below already existing legal emission limits, therefore full compliance with them is expected.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-14: Digital twin for forecasting of power production to wind energy demand

Question What is the meaning of “End user location” (bullet nr. 5 under Scope relates to “End user location and needs”) in the context of a digital twin? 

• Reply:  The digital twin to be developed under this topic should include accurate simulations that take into account simultaneously predictions on renewable energy production, energy consumption and price predictions. Such a digital twin is expected to integrate at least three of the elements listed in the topic description. One of the elements listed is “End user location and needs”, which are elements characterising the energy consumption. Therefore, if “End user location and needs” is one of the elements integrated, it should be part of the digital twin developed.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-15 : Critical technologies to improve the lifetime, efficient decommissioning and increase the circularity of offshore and onshore wind energy systems

Question In the scope section, it is mentioned that: “Project can address one of the following points:.. (9 bullets). We would like to clarify whether this means that each proposal must address exactly or at least one of the points listed. / Moreover, do you expect that the three funded projects will cover all bullets being mentioned under the scope?

• Reply:  As stated in the call text, the list of points that can be addressed is not exclusive and other solutions can be considered as well. Projects can address one of the points listed in the call text. / The three funded projects are not necessarily expected to cover all bullets mentioned under scope.

The first outcome specifies “Improved overall lifetime, reliability, recyclability, sustainability, operability and maintainability of onshore and offshore wind turbines and foundations/substructures” 

Question 1:  Is it obligatory to address both wind turbines AND foundations/substructures in the same proposal?

• No, it is also possible to address only one of the two. In the scope it is stated that projects can address one of the points listed and, overseeing the points, it is clear that some of them are not relevant for both turbines and foundations/substructures

 
Question 2: Is it obligatory to improve ALL the six aspects mentioned (lifetime, reliability, recyclability, sustainability, operability and maintainability)?

• No, it is also possible to improve only some of the six aspects mentioned, but it is advised to consider all aspects because a change might have a positive impact on one aspect of the wind turbine, but it can have a negative impact on another aspect. 

Question 3:  Is it obligatory to address both onshore and offshore in the same proposal?

• No, it is also possible to address only one of the two

In addition, the fourth bullet point within the scope specifies “The development of bio-based fibres and resins with improved mechanical properties”
 
Question 4:  Do both fibres and resins have to be bio-based? Or only fibres have to be bio-based?

• No, it is also possible to address only one of the two 

The topic text states, in the sentence introducing the bullet points of the scope: “Project can address one of the following points:”. Moreover, after the bullet points of the scope, it is stated that “it is not excluded to consider other solutions.” Therefore, the topic is very open and other possible solutions can be proposed, as long as they fulfil the requirements defined for the expected outcome.
 

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D4-01-05: Innovative solutions for cost-effective decarbonisation of buildings through energy efficiency and electrification

In reference to the sentence part: “… is supplemented by an ambitious 5-year replication strategy for the solutions demonstrated, which will be implemented within the duration of, and after, the project.”

Question Does it mean that the project duration MUST be 5 years? / Can the project duration be less than 5 years?

• Reply:  The duration of the project is not specified. It is for the applicants to decide the optimal duration based on their proposed approach. The period of 5-years refers to the replication strategy which will be implemented within the duration of, and after, the project. This means that the replication strategy should be launched within the duration of the project, with commitment to continue its implementation until the full 5-year period of  the strategy has been completed at a corresponding date after the end of the project. The period of implementation of the 5-year strategy that takes place within the duration of the project will depend on the work plan of the proposal. / The project duration can be less than 5 years.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D4-01-03: Interoperable solutions for positive energy districts (PEDs)

Question Can you please specify if the costs related to the purchase of photovoltaic panels and of charging stations for EVs is fully admissible? Such components would be necessary for the development and demonstration of the proposal concept.

• Reply:  The costs of innovation in processes and technologies that directly address the topic would be eligible for funding, including all those elements taken from previous research that can still be considered innovative at the time of proposal submission.
  Components that would be necessary for the development and demonstration of the proposal concept (i.e. used to analyse the interaction between energy and mobility) would therefore be admissible at proposal stage. The extent of the innovation and appropriateness of the budget, which has to be demonstrated by the applicants, will be assessed by the independent evaluators using the standard evaluation criteria as part of the evaluation process.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D4-01-01: Innovative cost-efficient solutions for zero-emission buildings

Question 1
The topic states “Demonstrations that include at least three REAL-LIFE new construction projects” 

1.1    What does “real-life” mean?

• “Real-life” means not virtual. We want to see physical construction projects. This is in line with the TRL levels 6 – 8. Please refer to ANNEX G of the Horizon Europe Work Programme General Annexes for a definition of the TRL levels.

1.2    Is it necessary that the construction of the buildings takes place during the project lifetime?

• Yes (see remark above on “real-life”).

Question 2
The topic states “of which one at least should target public buildings”. Is a social-residential building to be built by the “Housing and Rehabilitation Agency” of a regional government considered to be a public building?

• There is no one-size fits all definition of a public building. 

The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) includes a number of provisions related to public buildings. It does not, however, define the term public buildings. Instead the Directive gives flexibility to Member States on how they apply the term in their territory.

In the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), the provisions in Article 5 apply to the entities (i.e. public body) rather than the public building itself. Article 2 of the EED indicates that “public bodies” means contracting authorities as defined in Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (2).
Based upon these two elements, under this topic a public building can be considered as a building owned or occupied by a public body. Additionally, if Member States have a legal definition of a public building in their legislation, this could also be applied.
 

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-03-01: Increasing the efficiency of innovative static energy conversion devices for electricity and heat/cold generation

Q1. 
What is the contextual meaning of Expected Outcome, sentence 2: "The results are expected to contribute to at least three of the outcomes in A and B". For one project, does it mean that we have to cover at least three different technologies from the A list? (E.g. Thermoelectric, Thermovoltaic, and Thermionic.) Or could we combine three bullet points ("technologies") from A and B? (E.g. Thermoelectric, heat recovery, heat/cold generation from electricity.)

• The text specifies: “The results are expected to contribute to at least three of the outcomes in A and B”, i.e.: at least 1A & 2B or 2A & 1 B.

Q2. 
When defining the technologies in A, the bullet point list is of "energy conversion devices using physical effects such as"…
Does the wording "such as" mean that other physical effects/technologies than the five ones listed in A could be within the scope? 
One example could be the magnetocaloric effect, which is very similar to the electrocaloric effect.

• Yes, other physical effects/technologies than the five ones listed in A could be within the scope. Other physical effect/technologies addressed should be “in line” with the examples given.

Q3. 
The Expected Outcome starts with the following sentence: "Projects are expected to develop further the harvesting of renewable energy in areas/conditions where other conversion systems are less efficient, less convenient or not possible." Does this mean that all the activities should rely on renewable energy, or is it sufficient that only one of the three technologies is based on harvesting of renewable energy?

• The focus lays on renewable energy. Though, the text also includes waste/unused excess energy. This should be in line with the expected outcome from section B. 

Q4. 
The outcomes in B include "heat/cold generation from electricity" and "applications in areas such as industrial, automotive …". 
Should this be linked to renewable energy? As an example, should the electricity for heating/cooling be provided by renewable energy?

• The link to renewable energy is preferable but this is also ok to consider heating/cooling be provided by renewable energy. 

Q5. 
In Scope (1) first bullet, there is explicit mention of "applications in energy waste recovery (e.g., industry,…)". 
Does this mean that energy harvesting is really not limited to renewable energy as stated in the first sentence?

• Indeed, this is right, energy harvesting is really not limited to renewable energy

Q6. 
Which and how many outcomes should be the focus of the research project? Is it correct to choose (at least) three outcomes from the bullet-pointed list made of A plus B?

• The text specifies: “The results are expected to contribute to at least three of the outcomes in A and B”, i.e.: at least 1A & 2B or 2A & 1 B.

Q7.

Which and how many pilots should be developed during the research project? / how can we develop three pilots in three different EU Member States/Associated Countries?

• Validation/demonstration of the activities developed in (1) with at least one pilot for each technology in different EU Member States/Associated Countries.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-07: Development of next generation advanced biofuel technologies

With regards to the sentence: “The new technologies should also address specifically uses in fuel cells for all transport modes for electricity generation from biofuels used as renewable energy carriers with high conversion efficiency and low pollution.”

Q: What is the purpose of “electricity generation”? 
R: The purpose is to use biofuel in the fuel cell

Q: What is the expected use of the electricity generated? 
R: Powering any transport powertrain based on fuel cells

Q: Is it required to address uses in one type of fuel cell or in several types of fuel cells? 
R: This is not specified as a requirement but at least one type is expected to be tested

Q: What does “for all transport modes” refer to? 
R: Road, aviation, maritime (fuel cells types)

Q: Must the biofuel be for all transport modes? 
R: No, but all transport modes are included – the choice is for the proposal developer
 

The text mentions “the production of novel advanced liquid and gaseous biofuels from biogenic residues and wastes including CO2 and organic part of wastewater or micro-algae”.

Question: 1) What exactly is meant be the “organic part of wastewater”?;  2)  Does it include sewage sludge?

• Reply:  1) Organic part of wastewater” is the organic matter that is dissolved in the wastewater;  2) Sewage sludge is one type of wastewaters
   

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-02-11 Advanced concepts for crystalline Silicon technology

Question: In the Scope of the Call it is required that proposals develop architectures approaching the theoretical efficiency limit of c-Si cells with the use of 5 technologies. It is not clear if ALL of them should be addressed, or if the applicant should focus on ONE (or some) of them.

• Reply:  Proposers are expected to address the best combination of/ as many as possible options from those mentioned or additional ones.
   

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-01-01: Renewable Energy Valleys to increase energy security while accelerating the green transition in Europe

Question 1:  How much energy /heat is expected to be generated within the REV living lab? 
Reply: The RE valley must demonstrate in real life conditions the sustainable and cost-effective production and storage of renewable energy in a local, peri-urban or regional community. Thus the energy (power, heat and fuel) to be produced should satisfy such needs annually, which vary depending on the size of the community and no exact amount can be defined a-priori.

Question 2: Does the  REV living lab needs to be one flagship site or be composed of several sites to demonstrate different "geography and climate" across several usage cases  (e.g., "buildings, mobility, industry, industrial parks")?
Reply: The RE valley can be either distinct but combined systems or unique poly-generation systems (i.e., in the same infrastructure) to deliver multiple energy carriers from combined renewable energy resources and technologies in order to serve the local community for its different energy end uses. Consideration of different potentials in terms of geography, climate and natural resources in the concept design means that the RE valley concept design should be customized on the local conditions.

Question 3:  If we want to set up a  REV living lab  in a large city, we could supply energy, heat, and cooling for a part of that city; however, we cannot fully cover the local energy needs on an annual basis of the entire city. Does this requirement prevents from setting up a  REV living lab  in a large city?
Reply: According to the call text, ‘peri-urban settings’ are in the scope. Therefore, the living lab is not necessarily expected to cover fully the energy needs of an entire city, but of part of it. Indeed, as it is not reasonable to set up a demonstration project such as the RE valley in a scale which falls beyond demonstration. A large city will be the next step in up-scaling the RE valley concepts from a small community to a bigger one.

Question 4:  With regards to the definition of living labs, what is the size/scale expected and can they include existing infrastructure or not?
Reply:  The definition of living lab itself is well known (Wikipedia: The Living Lab is a methodology where citizens, residents and users are considered key players in the research and innovation process.) The topic itself does not specify a size but it should be relevant to be able to demonstrate the concept of REV.
From the topic scope:
Renewable energy valleys (REV) are understood as decentralised renewable energy systems that offer a viable and efficient solution to the challenges of ramping up the production of green energy, diversify our energy supplies, and reduce our demand for fossil gas, coal and oil. REV are fully covering the local energy needs on an annual basis. For example, local production and consumption, reduced transmission and distribution losses thanks to the reliance on local networks for energy needs, greater operational flexibility and reduced dependence on expensive fuel imports all contribute to a higher energy autonomy, a more secure supply, and lower, more stable overall energy costs, including for individual citizens. In addition, REV can alleviate a part of the load on the centralised grid and avoids blockages by the capacity of the grid.
Therefore the size is linked to what can be achieved, fulfilling the bold sentence.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-01-08: demonstration of sustainable tidal energy farms

Question: The call text states that the project should “operate the farm at least 2 years in the lifetime of the project”. Does that mean that the complete 4MW should be operated for 2 full years, or is it acceptable that the farm is launched incrementally, and that the 2 years of farm operation can be counted from the moment that 2 systems are grid connected?

Reply: The call text indicates that the project is expected to deploy a tidal energy farm with a minimum capacity of 4 MW and to operate this farm (minimum 4 MW) at least 2 years in the lifetime of the project. A minimum of 4 MW should be operated for 2 full years and after the project it is expected that the farm will continue to be operated for at least 8 years.
 

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-01-15 Supporting the green and digital transformation of the energy ecosystem and enhancing its resilience through the development and piloting of AI-IoT Edge-cloud and platform solutions

Please note that the option to use “Financial Support to Third Parties” (FSTP) mentioned in the scope of the topic HORIZON-CL5-2023-D3-01-15 is confirmed. The submission platform will be amended in the coming days to allow declaring the FSTP amounts in the budget table (Part A / online form) of the proposals, and an additional upload slot will be added for the more detailed explanation of the use of FSTP by applicants. The information template for this additional annex is now available on the F&T portal page (link) and will be added soon to the downloadable annexes of the Submission system.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D2-01-05: Hybrid electric energy storage solutions for grid support and charging infrastructure (Batt4EU Partnership)

In relation to the sentence from the topic text: “The objective is to design and demonstrate in at least three different use cases a Hybrid Energy Storage System (HESS)…”
Question: Is it meant that one prototype/design of HESS solution is developed within the project and the same solution is demonstrated in three different use cases or is it expected to develop three different systems? Can all use cases be demonstrated in the same demo (location)?

• Reply: There is no hard restrictions on where or how the demos take place, the emphasis is more on the relevance and efficiency of the demonstrations. The choice will need to be justified, and will be taken into account in the evaluation procedure.

Question: In relation to the storage system: is hydrogen storage considered as one of the possible storage systems?

• Reply:  Hydrogen is indeed eligible as one of the electrochemical storage systems. However, it should be underlined that, as the focus of the topic is on electrical storage, only solutions combining hydrogen with fuel cells will be taken into account. Any other uses of hydrogen storage are outside the scope of the topic.

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D5-01-18: Advanced transport emissions monitoring network

Question 1: Do all 24 monitoring stations have to be able to individually monitor all pollutants (including emerging pollutants such as ammonia) on a real-time basis, providing it with real-time data?

Reply:  Yes, we expect all stations to include all pollutants with 24/7 hr monitoring given that solutions exist (unless you are thinking of ammonia particulate, we mean gaseous NH3 from car exhausts) and a running project is developing such stations.

Question 2: Some cities/districts already have state of the art measuring infrastructure installed (often linked to previous, similar research projects); does the project allow cooperation with said cities to counter this investment cost?

Reply:  Yes, provided that the measuring requirements are in accordance to these specified in the call text. Moreover, for new installations , we expect the cost to be amortised with time since the monitoring stations are expected to stay in the cities beyond the duration of the project.

Question 3: Can the chosen measurement configuration vary among cities within the same project, tailored to the cities’ characteristics and coordinated as such with city authorities?

Reply: We expect that modelling will allow to perform the connection with exposure, and source data are needed to feed such modelling, while allowing to provide data for acute exposure in traffic sites, while the contrary is not straightforward: therefore the exact positioning and configuration of the monitoring system(s) is left up to the consortium, provided it complies with the requirements mentioned in the call.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2023-D6-01-09: Climate resilient and safe maritime ports

Question 1:  The text states: “Develop solutions for ensuring the performance and safety of a) seaports, b) connected inland waterways infrastructure c) connected hinterland land infrastructure, during periods of extreme weather events.” Do all points a), b) and c) need to be addressed or can it be only some of them?

• Reply: All three points a), b) and c) need to be addressed.

Question 2:  The text states: “Develop standard procedures and methodologies to foster the implementation of measures (structural, operational, institutional and social) to address climate risks and hazards. Include at least three pilot demonstrations of the proposed solutions in operational environment (minimum at TRL7) for three seaports with connected inland waterways infrastructure on CEF corridors. The pilots should select the most effective measures and combinations of measures and determine how and when they can best be implemented over time as conditions change.” Should the ports that will be used as pilot ports satisfy the conditions that they are both seaports and connected inland waterways infrastructures? Are Norwegian and more specifically Oslo port eligible to be used as a pilot port? 

• Reply: Yes, pilot ports should be seaports with connected inland waterways infrastructure on CEF corridors. The list of sea ports/ inland ports can be found in the TEN-T annex II

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D5-01-02 Innovative battery management systems for next generation vehicles (2ZERO & Batt4EU Partnership)

Question: Does the topic require a BMS belonging to a battery mounted on a vehicle, tested in the appropriate environment of relevance? For example, if using a car from a car sharing fleet as use case, is the test to be carried out on a urban route ? Alternatively, can the test be carried out in a simulated environment that reproduces real conditions? 

Reply:  HORIZON-CL5-2023-D5-01-02 is a joint topic between 2Zero and BATT4EU partnership, with main aim to advances the design, functioning and data accessibility of an efficient battery management system (BMS), expected to achieve at least TRL 6 by the end of the project. Validation is to be done ‘under real driving conditions', thus solution(s) are expected to be demonstrated in a car (which has the most demanding requirements in the expected impacts) in the appropriate environment, and not only by simulation.
 

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D1-02-01: EU-China international cooperation on data and model development for pathways to carbon neutrality: focusing on decarbonisation, energy efficiency and socio-economic implications of the transition.

The topic specifies, among other things, that actions should: “Consider different geographical scales and the role of cities in the transition pathways.”

Question:   Could you give further interpretation of the “role of cities”? This could mean several things. On the one hand it could be interpreted as including city governments as stakeholders in the process of developing models and/or policy recommendations, on the other hand this could be interpreted to mean focusing on urban areas as such in the modelling. Or both of those things. 

• Reply: Both interpretations are indeed applicable in this case. This issue was left open intentionally so that consortia could see what the best way would be to include and cover this particular aspect. This can happen e.g. through modelling that considers the city scale, but it could also be tackled in different ways, such as doing a case study or involving stakeholders that work on the city (rather than the national) level.
   

HORIZON-CL5-2023-D2-01-05: Hybrid electric energy storage solutions for grid support and charging infrastructure (Batt4EU Partnership)

Question: In relation to the storage system: is hydrogen storage considered as one of the possible storage systems?

Reply:  Hydrogen is indeed eligible as one of the electrochemical storage systems. However, it should be underlined that, as the focus of the topic is on electrical storage, only solutions combining hydrogen with fuel cells will be taken into account. Any other uses of hydrogen storage are outside the scope of the topic.

Topic HORIZON-CL5-2023-D5-01-18: Advanced transport emissions monitoring networks

Question 1: Is the call expecting that projects deliver emissions for all of the 24 locations across the 8 cities in a continuous mode? Or is it sufficient to perform 24/7 monitoring of air pollutant concentrations in at least 24 locations and sporadic measurement of emissions in some locations? According to current cost estimates from different providers, it would basically consume the majority of the budget to do both in a continuous monitoring mode.

• Reply: . Both noise and pollutants should be measured in real time in 8 cities as prescribed in the text. It’s  up to the applicants to propose the exact number of stations, the sampling rate,  and any modelling that might be required to balance the number of measuring locations in order to cover the entire city. Regarding the cost, in general we want that investment to last longer than the duration of the project and that’s why the involvement of cities is sought. An amortisation rate should be applied to the project duration.

Question 2: In the scope of the call text, it is mentioned that ‘exhaust and non-exhaust sources contribute significantly to total traffic related PM10 emissions, thus it is important to monitor both these categories of pollutant emissions, while differentiating their contribution to PN’. This would seem to imply that source apportionment is expected. Is this true? Is it limited to this case of PM10 exhaust/non-exhaust? Or, following the methodologies applied in ongoing projects listed in the call text, is there an expectation that source apportionment (real-time or in hindsight) be used to connect measured air pollutant concentrations (monitoring) to emissions to provide policy support in a dynamic way? Stated differently, to comply with expected outcomes, will a project work plan have to include real time source apportionment or can other methods be selected to support policy and, for example, facilitate dynamic traffic management strategies?

• Reply: Monitoring both exhaust and non-exhaust pollutant emissions is needed to reach the expected outcomes of the topic. It’s up to the consortium to come up with a strategy to achieve those outcomes -we refrain from prescribing specific methods as non-unique solutions may exist.

Topic: HORIZON-CL5-2024-D1-01-03: Paleoclimate science for a better understanding of the short- to long-term evolution of the Earth system

Question 1 : The 1^st expected outcome recites "Better process understanding of past climate changes, their variability and interactions with ecosystems, leading to improved Earth system models based on paleoclimate data". What is intended with variability and interactions with ecosystems? What is the temporal scale of reference? Is it referred to a variability from an interannual scale to a multidecadal scale (comparable with the climatic models) or is it referred to a generic variability included in the glacial/interglacial cycles?

• Reply: The temporal scale is not fixed, but should be appropriate to the scope of the topic, which is paleoclimate.  Typically, paleoclimatic records have a (much) lower temporal resolution than annual, but some records may allow reconstructions of a high temporal resolution.  Projects are likely to use multiple lines of evidence, which are likely to differ in many respects, including their temporal scale (period covered) and resolution. This also relates to interactions with ecosystems, which can vary in temporal scale and resolution from annual (e.g., in the case of dendrochronology or pollen deposits) to multiple millennia (e.g., in the case of biome shifts associated with glacial cycles). 

Question 2 : Concerning the 2^nd expected outcome "Assessment of driving and feedback mechanisms (e.g., the carbon cycle evolution and water cycle process), and precise timing and dynamics of deglaciation and glaciation.", if Earth System Models have to be used, it is unlikely that an organisation may realize a simulation that is as long as to cover glacial and interglacial cycles at a resolution sufficiently high to allow the variability study at high frequency and with ecosystemic impacts (as requested in the other bullet points). Given the current technological state of the art, these simulations are impossible to carry out due to limited computational capacity. How can this be solved?

• Reply: As in the case of the first point, it should be interpreted in context.  The research should contribute to the improvement of Earth system models (as mentioned in the first bullet), but that does not mean that the outcome mentioned in the second bullet should be chieved via Earth system models, let alone that it should be done only through those.  Multiple methods and lines of evidence can be used, which can contribute through various ways, such as better data or better process understanding

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D5-01-12: Combining state-of-the-art emission reduction and efficiency improvement technologies in ship design and retrofitting for contributing to the "Fit for 55" package objective by 2030 (ZEWT Partnership)

Question: Is the project expected to develop the same technology for all 3 vessel types or have different technologies/solutions developed for each?

• Reply:The project can decide which technologies to cover based on the ship type and use cases demonstrated. The use of the same or different technologies will depend on the decision of the consortium, however for all three concept designs -shot sea, inland and high-seas vessel types-, both retrofit solutions and a completely new design should be proposed, and the following aspects must be addressed, as described in the scope of the topic:

• Energy system modelling and fast simulation assessment to demonstrate the expected energy efficiency gains life-cycle emission reductions achieved by the resulting designs within their operating reference cases
• Development of an open-source design assessment tool which can be used to assess the operational Carbon Intensity of vessel designs
• Development of decision-support or automation systems to facilitate the most effective implementation of operational energy efficiency improvements
• Plans for exploitation and dissemination of results including a strong business case and sound exploitation strategy

Question: Is TRL 7 expected for the final concept as an average for the 3 vessels types or for each individual technology developed?

• Reply:The combination of solutions produced by the project should reach at least TRL 7, minding the goals of the FitFor55 package goals. It is also expected that the project will combine different close to market technologies already individually demonstrated or developed to TRL 7

Question:Should each technology be already demonstrated at TRL 7 prior to implementation with other technologies?

Reply:It is not strictly mandatory that each technology used in the project has already has been demonstrated up to TRL 7. However, the topic aims among its goals to demonstrate the integration of close to market technologies to showcase their largest impact, and specifically states that “several technologies and solutions” are expected to already be demonstrated or developed to TRL 7. It will be for the evaluators to assess whether the proposed solutions have the potential to meet the objectives

HORIZON-CL5-2024-D1-01-01: Enhanced quantification and understanding of natural and anthropogenic methane emissions and sinks

Question: The Scope mentions “carefully selected European land sites and European sea sites”, does this mean including any non-European sites in the activities is not allowed or at least discouraged?

• Reply: The focus should be on Europe, in support of better understanding of European sinks and sources.  However, other sites are not excluded and may even be desirable, e.g. for better process understanding, as reference areas or to support the expected outcome “Enhanced science base in Europe to perform global and regional (European) scale high-resolution assessment…”.

Question: The first bullet under Scope mentions “…over different Earth’s ecosystems (terrestrial, terrestrial-aquatic continuum, and marine sub-seafloor)”, is it required to include all the ecosystems included in the brackets?

• Reply: The list should be seen as indicative, not the least because they represent broad categories and not exhaustive. The important thing is to include different ecosystems in support of the overall objectives (better process understanding and quantification).