Paydaşlar ve Ulusal İrtibat Noktaları tarafından Avrupa Komisyonu'na iletilen sorulara ilişkin tarafımıza hususi olarak iletilen cevaplar bu sayfa üzerinden paylaşılmaktadır.
Normal şartlar altında, çağrı başlıklarına dair genel soru ve cevaplar (varsa), ilgili çağrı başlığının Funding and Tenders Portaldaki "Topic related FAQ" bölümünde yer almaktadır.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
All capacities are in the scope
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
Question: May PVT and/or PV + battery systems be included into the application, and in this way fall into the scope of the topic?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).)
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.
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Question 1 : The 1st 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 2nd 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).