d4sSupported by BP
Editor, Gail Edmondson
Design and Production Chris Jones, design4science ltd
Cover image Harvepino/Bigstock
Printing Holbrook Printers Ltd, Portsmouth PO3 5HX, UK
Publisher Science|Business Publishing Ltd Avenue des Nerviens 79, Box 22 1040 Brussels, Belgium info@sciencebusiness.net
© Copyright Science|Business Publishing Ltd 2014
Printed on FSC certified paper
Photographs 27th EU PVSEC Acalnet Andreas Geick Bigstock BP PLC Climate KIC UK ESBRI Energy Technology Institute European Commission Andreas Geick Graduate Institute of Geneva Greenweek Global Green Growth Forum Grenelle Harvard University Linde Group Ludovic Hirlimann IEA IFP Energies Nouvelles Imperial College London International Institute for Sustainable Development MIT Education NASA GSFC, Craig Mayhew and Robert Simmon National Academy of Sciences Novozymes NREL, Benjamin Ihas/Dennis Schroeder Science|Business, Paul O’Driscoll Toyota TU Berlin UCD Research Dublin UCL University of Essex US Department of Energy
3Energy Transitions
Welcome to The EU Energy Challenge: Can innovation fill the gap?—an event we hope will be the right conversation at the right
time among the right people. It is the right conversation because it is imperative
that the EU find the best energy solutions due to the centrality of energy to its economy, its society and its future.
Today the EU consumes around 13 per cent of the world’s energy. Yet it possesses less than one per cent of global oil and gas reserves. Its recent economic growth has trailed that of the US and the Asian giants. Its energy costs are higher than those of the US and its labour costs are higher than those of China or India. Yet it remains, laudably, committed to taking a leadership position on climate change.
The EU therefore faces a complex problem. How can it secure sufficient energy supplies, minimise energy costs and curb greenhouse gas emissions, without further eroding its competiveness in a fast- changing global landscape? There are gaps between these different objectives—gaps which are not easily closed.
The potential solutions involve many elements— business efficiency, infrastructure investment and international relations among them. However, above all, the answers will require innovation in technology and in policy and behaviour—the way we regulate and use energy as policy-makers and citizens.
Innovation is not only the means by which we can reconcile the EU’s multiple objectives. It is an area where Europe has led the world, from the invention of the steam engine to advances in energy efficiency.
As a result, the EU uses less energy per unit of wealth creation than any other region. The fact that the EU’s economy is relatively energy-light on a per capita basis is a critical advantage to maintain. Energy efficiency is one tool which simultaneously reduces both costs and emissions.
So it is the right time to ask ‘Can innovation fill the gap?’ As a starting point, this magazine summarises the outcomes of eight Science|Business symposia sponsored by BP aimed at informing policy-makers on a diverse set of relevant energy innovation topics.
This summit has attracted policy-makers, industry leaders, academic experts, technology specialists and thinkers from across Europe and beyond. We appreciate your time and we intend that it should be time well spent.
European leaders have shown a strong aspiration to lead in energy over the past decades, first developing a common vision of a sustainable future and then experimenting with different targets, mandates and technologies for achieving it.
I believe the next phase should be one of pragmatic action, with a strong focus on competitiveness. Indeed, we can see that focus developing in the European Commission’s 2030 framework for climate and energy.
Our hope is that this forum will provide fresh thinking and actionable ideas for a Europe where energy is a driver of a future that is both competitive and sustainable—in other words, an event that tackles the complex challenge head on and shows how innovation can indeed fill the gap.
David Eyton, Group Head of Technology, BP
FOREWORD
06 ENERGY SYMPOSIA A series of high-level roundtables on low-carbon technologies from 2011-2014 generated recommendations for accelerating Europe’s energy transition
08 THE ENERGY DIFFERENCE Europe needs to increase investment and lower bureaucratic hurdles for new energy technologies
10 BIOFUELS—THE NEXT GENERATION Funding and innovation progress leads to cautious optimism among researchers, industry and policy-makers
12 HOW TO PLAN EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE Energy system models help governments cut through complexity when planning research investments
14 GETTING CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE TO MARKET
EU’s CCS strategy needs serious rethinking if climate goals are to be met
16 NEW IDEAS FOR MANAGING SCARCE RESOURCES AND ENERGY
In theory, the market should promote the efficient use of resources and energy, but it doesn’t
18 THE RACE TO PRODUCE LOW-CARBON CARS What will it take to develop a mass market for low-emission vehicles, and when are we likely to see it?
22 GAS: TO MUCH OF A GOOD THING? Big in North America, energy from shale faces a series of hurdles before it can have meaningful impact in Europe
24 THE RENEWABLE POWER DILEMMA Renewable energies won’t lower Europe’s carbon emissions until they are affordable and well integrated into the energy system
CONTENTS
POLICY OVERVIEW
Europe needs to find a way of creating [a] kind of innovation super-highway.
Experts at the biofuels symposium debate the challenges of getting second-generation biofuels to market.
7Energy Transitions
Between 2011 and 2014, Science|Business organised a series of eight high-level technology policy symposia on Europe’s energy future with
the support of BP. The following articles give a flavour of the discussions between leading research, industry and policy experts at those events, in some cases updated to take account of more recent developments, and at the same time offer an overview of progress in key areas of Europe’s energy planning, whether R&D policy, the development of alternative energy sources or strategy.
Covering topics as diverse as second-generation biofuels, carbon capture and storage, low-carbon cars, renewables and the grid, or shale gas, each symposium yielded a set of recommendations for technology policy-makers on how to help best develop Europe’s energy future. This is a wide area and not all topics could be covered; one notable omission is nuclear. Some recommendations were unique to the topics under discussion and are listed within and beneath the following eight articles. But others were of a more universal nature. Here is a quick recap.
Take a holistic approach Europe’s energy is a complex matter and it must be viewed as a whole. It’s not only about electricity, or heat, or transport: it’s all connected and if you do anything on one part, you affect the rest, so you’ve got to take an integrated approach. In fact, the EU must take an even bigger- picture view, not only confronting head-on issues like the intermittency of wind and solar generation and the need for increased connectivity, and harmonising standards and regulations across Europe, but prioritising and managing the inevitable contradictions between economic, social and climate needs.
Where’s Europe’s Silicon Valley? Europe lacks a coherent innovation system to take ideas from the universities and other publicly funded research organisations to commercial exploitation. The US, in contrast, has a very well developed innovation pipeline, integrating researchers—whether at
universities or in publicly funded laboratories— with venture capital and private equity, industry and capital markets. In order for the rapid development of ideas to be of benefit to society, and to address pressing issues such as climate change, Europe needs to find a way of creating this kind of innovation super-highway.
Developing energy technology options for market investors to select Because of the importance of delivering energy affordably, competitively, sustainably and securely, promising new and low-carbon technologies and techniques justify enhanced support from innovation and early deployment through to full commercialisation. This needs a long-term framework approach which utilises market forces wherever possible. It should include fundamental scientific research programmes, the identification of emerging technologies with the potential for significant cost and greenhouse gas reduction when mature and deployed at scale, transitional support for their demonstration and early deployment that is highly targeted and time- and cost-limited, and a market environment in which carbon is priced (via the ETS in the EU) to balance important environmental objectives with the critical need to maintain competitiveness, including appropriate protections for energy- intensive and trade-exposed sectors.
Improve communications There have been too many examples where policy-makers and innovators have failed in their communications with the public. Inadequate explanation of the links between biofuels and food prices was one notable case. Another is the number of grassroots movements that have sprung up preventing wind power installations. The lesson to be learned is not just to communicate with, but wherever possible to also involve the public in the policy challenge debate, especially when local communities are particularly affected in some way or other.
A series of eight Science|Business energy symposia held across Europe between 2011 and 2014 yielded a number of concrete recommendations for policy-makers
8 Energy Transitions
The European energy market is complex—so complex, that even experts don’t fully understand how
it works. So how should policymakers figure out which levers will be the most effective in achieving the EU goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95 per cent between 1990 and 2050?
Building a comprehensive model for a low-carbon economy is vital to developing a more effective energy R&D policy. With the publication of the EU’s Energy Roadmap 2050—which explores the challenges posed by the EU’s decarbonisation objective while at the same time ensuring security of energy supply and competitiveness—the European Commission took a significant step towards creating such a model.
But there are still major questions that need to be answered. In particular, how can the private sector be persuaded to pursue energy innovation more aggressively? And how can consumers be persuaded to embrace the new technologies?
There is competition between the world’s major technology blocs in renewable energy research and Europe is lagging its main economic rivals, says
Reinhilde Veugelers, professor of economics at KU Leuven. “The EU is not the frontrunner, with the exception of Germany, which is the strongest player, along with the US and Japan. China and Korea are making big jumps too.”
One of the reasons Europe is trailing in energy research is the complexity of doing business in the EU, say industry leaders, academics and even government officials. Investors must navigate a myriad of EU, national and regional regulations, while other countries have a highly centralised approach, enabling the fast deployment of both demonstration and commercial power plants.
Another reason is a lack of investment. “Europe needs to raise the level of investment and lower the bureaucratic hurdles to trialling and implementing new technologies,” says Richard Templer, Hofmann Professor of Chemistry at Imperial College in London.
The US and China are both less complex places to do R&D in energy— the US because it is highly competitive, and China because they can experiment at scale fairly inexpensively and very quickly, says David Eyton, group head of research and technology at BP. “If you are
looking for pace and cost-effectiveness, China is very competitive.”
European R&D programmes requiring multiple national partners and enormous paperwork have created a disincentive for industry participation to date. “I would characterise the complexity of trying to do R&D under the European Framework Programme as having been something of a block for BP to invest,” says Eyton.
Underinvestment “Uncertainties, both in Europe and globally, have meant that there has been an underinvestment both in energy generation and in networks,” admits Philip Lowe, director general of DG Energy at the European Commission. The Commission’s roadmap to 2050 is designed to give industry a clearer view of what lies ahead and reduce uncertainty, he says.
But Lowe is concerned that governments will be pushed into subsidies before the private sector starts investing—and that this will in the end distort the market and undermine innovation rather than encourage it.
At the same time, there is agreement
THE ENERGY DIFFERENCE: March 11 2011
Towards a more effective energy R&D policy Building a comprehensive model for a low-carbon economy is vital to making the right decisions
David Eyton Richard Templer
9Energy Transitions
that market forces alone are not up to the job. “We need to get away from the notion that there is an invisible hand of the market that will take care of it,” says Tom Kerr, senior energy analyst at the International Energy Agency. Energy policy needs to be driven by the highest levels of government, and be based on a strategic plan developed in partnership with business “sitting as equals at the table”, says Kerr.
One approach that could help square the circle is to make the penalty for not innovating greater. “The amount of money required for grants and subsidies would be much smaller with a strong carbon price,” says Veugelers of KU Leuven.
The EU’s Strategic Energy Technology, or SET-Plan, adopted in 2008, is the technology pillar of the Europe’s energy and climate policy. Its goals are to accelerate knowledge development, technology transfer and market up-take; maintain EU industrial leadership in low- carbon energy technologies; foster science for transforming energy technologies to achieve the 2020 Energy and Climate Change goals; and contribute to the world-wide transition
to a low carbon economy by 2050. The only thing missing from the SET-
Plan is the source of that funding, says the Commission’s Lowe. Funding is, of course, key. Especially as some traditional sources of funds for innovation may not be available.
When it comes to renewable energy technologies, conventional sources of innovation funding are hard to tap. One answer could stem from what is often perceived to be one of Europe’s weaknesses: its ageing population. Europeans have accumulated a lot of savings, says Luc Soete, professor of international economic relations at Maastricht University. This, he suggests, could be applied to developing the continent’s energy infrastructure. “The fundamental challenge is: How do we re-allocate this huge amount of savings into investments?”
Another solution could come from a reallocation of public funds. “The SET- Plan needs to attract not just the very small amount of EU money, but also greater focus from national research organisations. I think that is possible, but it remains a challenge,” says Lowe.
Philip Lowe Luc Soete Tom KerrReinhilde Veugelers
“Europe needs to raise the level of investment and lower the bureaucratic hurdles to demonstrating
and implementing new technologies.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop a systems approach to R&D policy that targets supply, distribution and demand, and informs EU strategy.
Encourage private investment by engaging the highest levels of government, pricing carbon emissions appropriately, making rules as simple as possible and providing as much regulatory certainty as possible.  
Streamline processes for EU support for energy R&D.
Explore innovatory financing such as debt and long-term venture capital financing, leaving the EU to cover projects too big and too risky for nation states or companies.
Solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars have become the most visible symbols of a global shift to
renewable energies. But bioenergy holds significant potential to help speed the transition to a low-carbon energy system.
By 2050, a new generation of sustainable biofuels made from wastes, crop residues and non-fuel crops could provide over a quarter of the world’s total transport fuel, according to a report by the International Energy Agency.
Support for first-generation biofuels, made from the fermentation of sugar cane, sugar beet or cereals or the esterification of vegetable oils, eroded as growing volumes of production in the US and South America drove up food prices and sparked public concern about over-use of water and biodiversity.
Second-generation biofuels are now seen as a key to Europe attaining its energy security and greenhouse gas emission targets. Biofuels, in particular offer the main alternative to the fossil fuels consumed in cars, buses, trucks, tractors, planes and ships, the motors of the continent’s economy
But technology challenges and policy
Stakes are high for next- generation biofuels
BIOFUELS—THE NEXT GENERATION: 28 June 2011
Funding and innovation progress leads to cautious optimism among researchers, industry and policymakers
Novozymes Beta Renewables’ facility will produce up to 50 million litres of cellulosic ethanol annually from agricultural waste.
11Energy Transitions
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) runs strong in Europe. Policy-makers may need to launch an informed public debate on genetically modified organisms in relationship to biofuels, particularly to allay concerns about the leakage of traits conferred by the genetic modification of one species into others, such as common weeds.
Some policymakers believe that Eastern Europe could be a more willing testbed for biofuels from genetically modified crops than many countries in the west of the continent. “There is a lot of possible supply in Eastern Europe,” says Rudolf Strohmeier, deputy director- general, DG Research and Innovation, the European Commission. “In these countries, the GMO debate is not as strong as elsewhere and they need investment... But we need to make it clear that GMOs cannot enter the food chain. People are concerned about what they eat.”
hurdles remain. The cost of producing second-generation fuels is high, and investment in innovation and progress will depend on Europe’s ability to develop a clear framework for industry to gauge risks and returns.
The European Commission’s Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan envisions bioenergy will contribute 14 per cent of Europe’s energy mix by 2020, including up to 10 per cent of transport energy, up from 4 per cent in 2009. In a key step forward, Novozymes inaugurated in October 2013 the world’s first commercial-scale advanced biofuel production plant in Northern Italy. The multi-feedstock cellulosic ethanol plant can handle agricultural waste from a variety of crops, including wheat straw and rice straw, as well as giant cane.
“This is not about changing farm practice, it’s about taking waste left to rot on fields and converting it to sugars,” says Peder Holk Nielsen, president and CEO of Danish biotech company Novozymes, which is looking to build five more plants by 2020. “The process will be cost competitive soon,” says Nielsen.
Advanced biofuel initiatives are also now finding increasing funding support. In July, the biofuel industry—alongside other bio-industries in agriculture, agri- food, forestry/pulp and paper, and chemicals—received a €3.7 billion boost in the form of a public-private partnership to support research and innovation, just under one billion euros from European Commission and €2.7 billion from the Bio-based Industries Consortium.
Research funding will help drive costs down faster. The complex structure of the feedstocks used in advanced biofuels—
such as corn cobs, wheat straw, woody biomass and municipal waste—is more difficult to convert into ethanol than the traditional starch-rich first-generation biofuel feedstocks—such as the corns on the cob, sugar beets or cane. One consequence is that higher quantities of enzymes are needed to convert biomass into the cellulosic ethanol used as fuel. Novozymes, for example, is developing technology to create higher-performing enzymes that require significantly lower dosing and has reduced the necessary amount of enzymes to just a few truckloads a week versus several loads per day.
And scientists are also working at using genetically modified organisms to assist with the creation of biofuels. For example, they are looking at modifying some bacteria to ferment five-carbon sugars as well as the six-carbon sugars that they are already able to ferment.
“To exploit the full potential of these feedstocks will require the more efficient degradation of lignocellulose,” says Christine Raines, professor of plant biology at the University of Essex in the UK.
Raines says researchers have developed a genetically modified switchgrass with an altered lignocellulose structure. Its bioethanol yield is 30 per cent more than conventional switchgrass, she says, and the amount of cellulases needed to break down the lignocellulose is only a quarter to a third that used for ordinary switchgrass, meaning the conversion process requires less energy, she adds.
But it’s not all about new technologies and bringing costs down. Public controversy around bio-engineering and
“There is a lot of possible supply in Eastern Europe.”
Peder Holk Nielsen Christine Raines
RECOMMENDATIONS
Incentivise farmers to experiment with and produce biofuel feedstocks.
Research the impact of biofuels on food prices.
Mandate the use of sustainable biofuels for transport.
Educate the public about genetically modified organisms.
12 Energy Transitions
Planning a sustainable future is a formidable task. Especially if you are helping to shape the destiny of
500 million people in 28 countries. How on earth do you cover all the possibilities in an area as complex either as the European Union or as energy, let alone both at the same time?
An answer which is gaining momentum is to use systems-based modelling—which has helped many fields of science probe complex questions.
The systems approach was originally used to solve the puzzles of life sciences but has since been extended to cover engineering, computing, psychology, sociology and economics. Essentially, it consists of feeding data into a computerised model that captures all the different components of the problem at hand, and seeing how they interact. The model can then be used to explore different scenarios.
When it comes to energy in Europe, the kinds of things that may be evaluated might include: What if more member countries decide to abandon nuclear power? What would happen to the cost of energy if Europe became reliant on biomass from overseas? What if solar panels became twice as efficient as they are?
Both the UK and the US have built
sophisticated models of their energy sectors, and their governments are using these models to help direct R&D spending and subsidies, set energy policies and design regulation. Germany and Japan are also embracing a systems approach to energy innovation. Should the EU do the same?
The EU cannot afford to fully develop every promising new energy technology. A systems approach could help it go beyond the subjective views of technology advocates and make better informed decisions.
In 2007, BP, Caterpillar, EDF, E.ON, Rolls- Royce, Shell and the UK government set up the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) to accelerate the development of affordable clean-energy technologies. Together they built a model of the UK energy system—the Energy System Modelling Environment. ESME has played a significant role in shaping the ETI’s strategy. For example, the ETI decided to invest approximately €30 million in a carbon capture and storage demonstration project, after ESME determined that the UK will almost certainly need CCS to meet its emissions targets.
ESME helps to identify gaps in energy technologies and calculate the cost at which a given technology could become a competitive part of the energy system.
HOW TO PLAN EUROPE’S ENERGY FUTURE: 23 November 2012
Cutting through complexity to plan a better energy future Energy system models help governments make more effective R&D investments
13Energy Transitions
The modelling technique can also make clear the impact of removing an energy source from the system. It showed, for example, that removing biomass would add about £44 billion a year to the UK’s energy costs, and that offshore wind would be an important hedge technology.
The UK experience has shown that analysis of the detailed workings of energy systems can produce unexpected conclusions about which technologies work well together. “Our core model recommends you make lots of hydrogen and store it, because that is easily the cheapest way of storing energy,” says Andrew Haslett, director of strategy development at the ETI.
It also showed that the marginal cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the UK is relatively low up until the country achieves a reduction of about 50 per cent over 1990 levels. “Priority-setting and performance indicators are something we can really take from this exercise... that is certainly scalable,” says Glyn Evans, head of unit, horizontal aspects, DG Research and Innovation at the European Commission.
But the systems approach is far from infallible. Its performance depends on the accuracy of underlying assumptions and the reliability of the data fed into them. And different models will produce
different conclusions. “The reality is when you come to
implement [policy], something will go wrong,” says David Clarke, the ETI’s chief executive. The real value in modelling is in getting industry, scientists and politicians to debate the various topics, he says. “It helps you pinpoint issues.”
ESME, for instance, predicted that photovoltaic (PV) power would be too expensive and intermittent to form a significant part of the UK’s energy system in 2050. Modelling in the Netherlands came to a very different conclusion.
“We did an exercise in the Netherlands and we came up with a lot of PV,” says Ton van Dril, group manager, projections, evaluations and industry at the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. Such differences can help researchers drill down and identify the key assumptions or data contributing to a model’s conclusions, providing essential feedback to help guide better policy decisions.
And, of course, models can’t assess the unknown. Between now and 2050, all experts seem to agree, completely unforeseen energy supply chains may emerge. So even modelling enthusiasts caution about their limitations and discourage policy-makers from relying strictly on a model’s output.
“There is the huge role of cross- fertilisation in R&D,” says Heinz
Ossenbrink, head of the renewable energies unit at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. “The unthinkable will still happen and it might come from outside the energy research and demand.”
David ClarkeAndrew Haslett Heinz Ossenbrink
“Our core model recommends you make lots of hydrogen and store it, because that is easily the cheapest way
of storing energy.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop open models and keep a global perspective—the energy sector is extraordinarily complex and cannot be considered in isolation.
Aim for continual improvement and use multiple models to question and refine data input and assumptions.
Make sure a model’s results are communicated together with key assumptions—policymakers and business leaders need to recognise the limits of models’ capabilities and to be able to challenge their assumptions and input data.
Stay alert for breakthroughs not captured by today’s models—the unthinkable will happen and it might come from a field outside of energy.
14 Energy Transitions
Europe has vowed to create a low- carbon economy by 2050, when it aims to have cut greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 80 per cent relative to 1990 levels. To reach that ambitious goal, it is betting on a portfolio of new energy technologies, including carbon capture and storage, or CCS, which involves capturing the carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other industrial operations and permanently storing it deep underground. But there’s a problem.
Although the technology has been proven to work, few businesses have been willing to invest in CCS because the process is not commercially viable. On average, implementing a CCS process will increase the capital cost of a power station by 25 to 30 per cent and reduce its operating efficiency from about 40 to 30 per cent, says Ronald Oxburgh, member of the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. And governments are reluctant to subsidise CCS because the technology is poorly understood.
To complicate matters further, the huge size and cost of CCS installations result in a slower learning curve. And different capture technologies may be required in different circumstances, reducing the scope for economies of scale and raising individual project costs. Moreover, each potential storage site has different geological characteristics and constraints. Offshore storage is more costly than onshore storage, but it has
greater public acceptance. Despite those challenges, the world’s
first commercial-scale CCS project, Boundary Dam, was launched by SaskPower in Saskatchewan, Canada, in October, and three pilot projects are moving forward in the US and Europe— underscoring the need to collaborate beyond borders.
Policy-makers’ calls for no more than one per cent of the stored CO2 to be lost in leaks over 1,000 years will be challenging to guarantee because subsurface geological surveys aren’t that
accurate, says Stuart Haszeldine, Scottish Power professor of carbon capture & storage at the School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh. And the EU CSS directive’s requirement about retained liability for the stored CO2 even after the CCS operation has closed “needs to be underwritten by governments to avoid a severe deterrent to investment in CCS,” he says.
One of the biggest obstacles faced by CCS, is the high capital cost of building a demonstration project, says David Eyton, group head of technology, BP. His company has made four serious attempts at getting power projects with CCS up and running, he adds. “At least two went
BREAKING THE DEADLOCK – GETTING CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES TO MARKET: 27 April 2013
Europe needs to look beyond its borders for workable carbon capture
David Eyton
Piotr Tulej
“There is no doubt that CCS can be made to work”
EU’s carbon capture and storage strategy needs serious rethinking if climate goals are to be met
to the point of being fully designed, including investments of more than $100 million, but they have all fallen at or before the last hurdle. So we know how difficult it is to take the next step.”
The European Commission’s plans to support 10 to 12 CCS demonstration projects with the goal of achieving commercialisation by 2020 have also proven overly ambitious. Only three projects are likely to be launched, due to lack of funding in EU member countries to support the programme and due to technical and commercial challenges.
“The goal of 2020 for a convincing [EU] demonstration of CCS for commercial viability is probably already unobtainable,” says Ernest J. Moniz, professor of physics and director of the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It’s now time for the EU to rethink its entire approach to CCS, he adds.
Rather than trying to implement a dozen CCS demonstration projects in Europe, Moniz thinks the EU needs to work with governments in other regions to set up a “small number of first-rate projects, with global coordination and cost-sharing”, focused on answering the question: “What does an informed regulator need to know?”
While acknowledging the issues facing its demonstration programme, the European Commission remains committed to the large-scale introduction of CCS before 2030, says Piotr Tulej, head of unit, Low Carbon Technologies, DG Climate Action at the European Commission. “We think that a full-scale demonstration is needed at this point in time,” he said. “We are expecting that large-scale deployment of CCS will happen between 2020 and 2030. We need to talk about how we can stick to that timeframe.”
“The elephant in the room is that we have no global agreement on climate change,” says Jon Gibbins, professor of power plant engineering and carbon capture at the University of Edinburgh. “Whatever cost you have for CCS, it will
always be too high if there is no underlying rationale for doing it. The only rationale for doing CCS in any quantity would be having a global agreement on climate change.”
Europe now risks a major delay in bringing CCS technologies to market, and the inability to tap CCS will hit its ambitious carbon reduction goals.
Given the scale of the climate challenge and Europe’s economic travails, now may be the time for the EU to push for much greater global coordination and cooperation around CCS, says BP’s Eyton. “It feels to me like there is a huge opportunity here to collaborate. “Otherwise we will all perform the same experiment to obtain the same learnings about capture and storage technologies... we need to make sure that we do not duplicate experiments.”
“There is no doubt that CCS can be made to work. All of the bits are there, all of the bits have been demonstrated,” says Lord Oxburgh. “We are really just waiting to put the bits together.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Drop the target of 12 demonstration plants in favour of a few high-quality, well-instrumented projects; relax the onerous requirements of the EU CCS Directive.
Work towards global coordination and governance to avoid replication of trials and demonstrations. 
Create a financial framework, including instruments such as limited liability, carbon pricing, contracts for difference or feed-in tariffs, to help industries build a business case to invest in the first large-scale CCS plants.
Encourage “low-cost CCS”, linking purer streams of CO2 to storage in oil and gas reservoirs offshore, where public acceptance is less of an issue.
16 Energy Transitions
“We cannot go on producing and consuming in the same way,” said Janez
Potonik, European Commissioner for the Environment, in the days running up to the symposium on New Ideas for Managing Resources and Energy, held on 28 September, 2012, in Brussels.
In theory, of course, the market should act as a corrective or balancing force. As resources become increasingly scarce, prices should rise and both companies and consumers should have an incentive to cut their consumption. But in practice, the rational choices that individuals and companies make in their own self- interest end up depleting the overall resources available.
Hence, there is a need for government involvement, said Potonik. “We need to change what we finance and what we reward.”
Resource efficiency has become a top policy priority. In its Roadmap for a Resource Efficient Europe, the European Commission notes that if the world continues using resources at the current rate, by 2050 we will need the equivalent of more than two planets to sustain us. But it isn’t all about saving the planet. Countries that innovate to reduce energy, raw materials and water
use will become more competitive and cut dependence on imports.
The European Union aims to be a global leader in resource innovation. Creating a resource-efficient Europe is one of seven flagship initiatives in the €80 billion Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme for 2014-2020.
In the Science|Business symposium, two main messages emerged: Europe needs to take a holistic approach to resource innovation that fully accounts for the interrelationships between energy, minerals, land and water. And it needs to focus on scale—innovations, sectors and materials that will make a major difference to resource efficiency and deliver large-scale gains
Water is a growing issue for European Union countries. EU water systems are estimated to lose 6 to 40 per cent of volume in transit. Over the past 30 years, droughts across the EU have dramatically increased in number and intensity, affecting 11 per cent of the population
and costing the continent €100 billion, according to the Commission. By 2030, 45 per cent of the EU will suffer from stressed water supplies.
To help national governments put a more accurate value on water, the Commission is looking to create a database tracking how the water in individual river basins across Europe is used. “The way the climate is changing over the Alps has major consequences in terms of water flow,” says Alan Seatter, deputy director-general, DG Environment at the European Commission. “For many river basins, we don’t even know the quantitative flows and who is using them.”
There may also be a case for more consistent pricing of water across Europe to generate the investments needed to ensure that the supply of water keeps up with demand. “We have over 40 per cent leakage in parts of Europe, but only six to seven per cent in Denmark,” Seatter notes. “We do not
NEW IDEAS FOR MANAGING SCARCE RESOURCES AND ENERGY: 28 September 2012
How to live better on less Alan Seatter Julian M. AllwoodJanez Potonik
In theory, the market should promote the efficient use of resources and energy, but it doesn’t
“We could live well with half the steel we are using now. We could make products lighter, keep products longer, and reduce the yield losses.”
David Victor
17Energy Transitions
have a proper value on water services... That is only going to happen by introducing charges.” In surveys of European citizens run by the Commission, 80 per cent of respondents have said they support some form of water pricing, but half of this group also said there would need to be a support mechanism for people unable to pay.
One way for Europe to boost resource efficiency would be to recycle far more waste than it does today, managing it as a resource. “Recycling can cover more than half of our raw-material needs,” says Gwenole Cozigou, director, chemicals, metals, mechanical, electrical and construction industries, raw materials, DG Enterprise and Industry, European Commission. Besides reducing the need to source primary raw materials, recycling also cuts energy usage. Recycling aluminium, for example, takes just five per cent of the energy it takes to produce aluminium from scratch from bauxite.
To encourage more recycling, Europe could develop technical criteria for waste, such as copper and aluminium, to certify that a specific stock is good enough to be used as a secondary raw material. Europe also needs more inspectors checking the quality of waste. One way to facilitate recycling is to encourage consumers and companies to rent, rather than buy, products and equipment. Renting would greatly increase recycling as end-of-life equipment is returned to the manufacturer. Some companies already provide their products as a service. Rolls- Royce, for example, leases its engines to customers who pay according to how much time their aircraft spend in the air.
Another major opportunity to cut resource consumption lies in reducing the volume of materials wasted by
industry. “We could live well with half the steel we are using now. We could make products lighter, keep products longer, and reduce the yield losses,” says Julian M. Allwood, professor of engineering and the environment at the University of Cambridge.
A study Allwood conducted found that one-quarter of the steel produced annually never makes it into a product. As labour is far more expensive than raw materials, the steel industry makes an intermediary product from which its customers can cut out the specific components they need, says the report of the study. The residual scrap is recycled, but this requires a great deal of energy, the report continues, but new processes could potentially create less waste.
“Techniques developed in the textile industry to make the maximum use of the material could be applied,” says Allwood.
And there would be energy benefits in other ways too. In cars and trucks, for example, energy usage is directly proportional to the mass of vehicles. The average vehicle in the UK, for example, achieves 35 miles per gallon, even though Volkswagen has developed several concept versions of a one-litre- engine car with a carbon-fibre body that achieves 235 miles per gallon, or 1.2 litres per 100 kilometres.
“Light weighting needs to be introduced with a very short timeframe. We need to overcome lobbying to make sure this happens,” says John Barrett, professor of sustainability research at the University of Leeds.
Policy-makers can influence the supply of, and demand for, resources in a myriad of ways, such as through regulation, feed- in tariffs, taxation, targeted research, international cooperation and, to some
extent, by guiding market forces through communication campaigns and public- private partnerships. But to be effective, they need to focus on programmes and policies that generate the largest gains, at every stage considering the knock-on effects on the supply and availability of other resources.
And they also need to be decisive and clear, said Commissioner Potonik ahead of the event. Suggesting a Europe-wide ban on landfills would galvanise innovative solutions and waste recycling, he suggested: “Taxing landfill is soft policy. If we would introduce a ban on landfilling, we then create a very clear case for investing in recycling... That will move the industry exactly in the right direction.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use systems analysis to identify the biggest opportunities and market failures and prioritise actions.
Tackle key market failures such as the pricing of carbon and water, the fragmentation of construction supply chains, and designs that inhibit recycling.
Introduce greater incentives to develop and buy lightweight vehicles and renovate buildings, and to rent rather than buy products, making it easier to recycle raw materials.
Encourage recycling by ensuring consumers and companies pay the real cost of landfill.
Base policies on a full and objective assessment of technology maturity. Don’t seek to scale solutions too early, but rather conduct experiments and learn from these.
18 Energy Transitions
Many contenders but no clear winner in race to make the low- carbon car What will it take to develop a mass market for low-emission vehicles, and when are we likely to see it?
19Energy Transitions
The race is on to become the car technology of the future. The prize is a global market in which
70 million vehicles are sold a year but more importantly, a significant contribution to the climate goals set by the world’s governments.
The contenders to replace the petrol or diesel internal combustion engine are electrical vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels and compressed natural gas. There are no clear frontrunners and alternative automotive fuels and technologies still lag conventional internal combustion engines in a number of key areas—including driving range, cost, and the availability of refuelling infrastructure.
At the same time, petrol and diesel engines are becoming more energy efficient, resulting in lower CO2 emissions. But the real clincher is that the alternative technologies are more expensive—for the people developing them and for the consumer. Electrical vehicles or EVs, for example, need batteries that cost around $500 per kilowatt-hour of storage capacity. The battery in a Tesla Model S, for example, is either 60 or 85 kilowatt-hours depending on the model.
The prospects of getting the costs down to mass market levels are far from certain. Lewis Fulton, codirector of the NextSTEPS Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, points out that the cost of batteries has come down from around $800 per kilowatt-hour to $500 per kilowatt-hour in the past three years. But Carlo Pettinelli, director of industrial policy and economic analysis, sustainable growth and EU 2020, at DG Enterprise and Industry, European Commission, stresses that much of the cost lies in raw material and we are not going to get economies of scale. In fact, “more demand could send up prices,” he notes. He is also concerned that a major shift to alternative fuels could open a hole in public budgets. Petrol and diesel taxes deliver over €200
billion a year to EU nations. One answer is to continue to provide
public support to buyers, but even this is unlikely to be enough. Hefty subsidies on electric vehicles in the UK, for example, have failed to attract many buyers.
A more strategic approach, suggests John Polak, professor of transport demand, and head of the Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial College London, would be to sell to fleet managers, who are more likely to assess the total cost of ownership, than to consumers fixated with the upfront cost.
A different angle of attack would be to punish users of vehicles with high emissions with higher taxes. “This has had a major impact in Norway and the Netherlands,” says Didier Stevens, senior manager, European and government affairs, Toyota.
Another factor holding back sales is the lack of suitable refuelling stations. Compounding the problem, different European countries favour different fuels, meaning it could be difficult for international travellers to refuel an alternative technology vehicle once they have crossed a border.
The European Commission’s new Clean Power for Transport policy tries to solve this problem by mandating a minimum coverage of infrastructure for each alternative fuel. But this approach is too complex and costly, says Horst Fehrenbach, biologist researcher, sustainability assessment for bioenergy, life-cycle assessments, energy and waste
management at the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Heidelberg, Germany. He argues that Europe must significantly narrow the number of green car technologies it aims to support by 2020.
It’s clear that the race is far from over. But Europe now has an opportunity to review its policies and adopt a smart approach to investing in R&D for sustainable road transport. It certainly does not lack options.
THE RACE TO PRODUCE LOW-CARBON CARS—WHICH TECHNOLOGY WILL WIN? 21 June 2013
Didier Stevens Horst FehrenbachJohn Polak
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue with current efforts to drive energy efficiency through setting and enforcing tailpipe emission standards.
Focus subsidies and other economic incentives on fleets in urban environments.
Pay attention to the full life-cycle analysis of carbon, from source to use. Electricity and hydrogen, for example, need to be produced, and their impact on the environment depends heavily on the source of energy used.
Plan for the fiscal gap that will open when the public embraces the technologies and fuel taxes fall. 
20 Energy Transitions
Electric vehicles
The technology is improving and the cost of batteries is falling, but electric cars remain too expensive:
• Electric vehicles could start to take off after 2025 and become a more dominant market force after 2030. • The range of EVs remains short and best suited for city use, rather than longer journeys. • The acceptance of plug-in hybrids varies by market and is heavily influenced by tax policies.
“If I only cared about the next seven years, I wouldn’t invest in electric vehicles... The people who are pushing EVs hard are thinking about a market evolution toward where EVs only achieve a sizeable share of car sales (e.g. 25 per cent) after 2030.”
Lewis Fulton, co-director of the NextSTEPS Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis.
Hydrogen fuel cells
Expensive but maybe worth it if customer fears about safety can be allayed. Toyota is launching a car next year: 
• In the long term, hydrogen is potentially a clean form of transport energy storage. • It is competitive in terms of range, performance and refuelling time, but is very expensive. • There is a perception that hydrogen may not be sufficiently safe. • Hydrogen-powered cars will go on sale in the next few years, but are unlikely to have a mass-market presence until 2025 to 2030. • Hydrogen fuel should be produced using renewable energy or natural gas.
“What are the customers’ expectations of a future vehicle? It needs to have the driving performance of today, it should be zero emissions, independent of fossil fuel, recharge in five minutes and have a 500-kilometre range and be economically feasible... Hydrogen meets those criteria except for cost... Customer acceptance that hydrogen is safe... that is the biggest challenge we have ahead of us.”
Didier Stevens, senior manager, European and government affairs, Toyota.
The contenders
21Energy Transitions
Well-proven technology but only delivers modest carbon savings:
• Dual-fuel cars that can run both CNG and petrol or diesel are becoming available. • Using CNG is estimated to lower CO2 emissions by up to a quarter over petrol or diesel (not a whole life-cycle calculation). • If the consumer takes the cost of fuel into account, CNG can be cheaper than petrol or diesel. • The refuelling infrastructure is patchy across the EU.
“CNG is a really strategic [transport] energy carrier for 2020 and beyond.... We will launch a CNG model this year on our Golf- MQB platform, which could be used for 40 models in the group... The price gap is between €1500 to €2000... but after 30,000 kilometres of driving, CNG is generally cheaper (depending on taxes and the vehicle model). We need to convince the customer that CNG is really the most economical fuel and it is really safe... We are starting to do a good job.”
Stefan Schmerbeck, manager future technologies and energy, Volkswagen AG.
Biofuels
The winner in the race right now is biofuels. In Austria, it is 7 per cent of the market. In Germany a little below that:
• Biofuels are gaining traction in some markets, such as Austria and Germany, supported by the local policy framework. • They are compatible with existing refuelling infrastructure. • There are minimal consumer- acceptance issues—biofuels can be mixed easily with regular petrol or diesel. • Second-generation biofuels based on straw and wood (requiring less agricultural land) are under development, but it is not clear whether there will be sufficient biofuels available for widespread use in EU vehicles.
“The technology is ready, the political framework is there and the greenhouse gas and share of renewable transportation fuels targets give the investors the security to invest... You don’t need new cars, new filling stations, you just blend biofuels in. Consumers don’t know they have it in the tank.”
Gerfried Jungmeier, senior researcher, Joanneum Research Institute for Water, Energy and Sustainability in Graz, Austria.
“Consumer acceptance is the biggest challenge ahead of us.”
22 Energy Transitions
Between 2005 and 2012 the gas price paid by US consumers fell 66 per cent. In Europe it rose 35 per
cent. Now, how could that be? The US shale gas revolution has
transformed energy economics in the US, thanks to new technologies bringing down the cost of tapping oil and gas buried in shale. The technique is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is also known. Some experts believe half the Earth’s crust could contain shale gas, suggesting the world’s recoverable hydrocarbon reserves are far greater than was thought a decade ago. Yet many Europeans remain opposed to fracking.
The reason lies at least in part within the haste with which the US adopted the new techniques, says Robert H. Socolow, director of the Climate and Energy Challenge at the Princeton Environmental Institute. “There was a lot of goodwill from the environmental community in the beginning... but the industry was evasive when asked to disclose chemicals, and combative about regulations,” he says. He feels the gas industry squandered a good opportunity and that European governments should do their best to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Europe has a big interest in getting the
debate right. It is a large net energy importer. Some of its energy sources are far from secure but the well-being of its people as well as the functioning of its industry depend heavily on energy prices and availability. At the same time, it is taking a lead in addressing climate concerns, many of which are closely related to energy policy.
Herein lie a series of contradictions, says Frank Umbach, associate director at the European Centre for Energy and Resource Security, King’s College London. For example, the EU has set a target of raising industry’s share of GDP from 15 per cent to 20 per cent by 2020 to enhance economic competitiveness. But that policy contradicts environmental and climate policy objectives, he says.
Europe is already at a competitive disadvantage to its major rivals. “Energy prices are three to four times higher in Europe than in the US and labour costs are often 10 times higher here than in China,” says Tudor Constantinescu, principal adviser to Philip Lowe, director- general of DG Energy at the European Commission. And without access to lower-cost energy, things are likely to get worse.
“European energy-intensive industry is feeling the heat from the boost in
competition,” says Umbach. And lower energy prices aren’t the only benefits from fracking. Chemical manufacturing costs in Germany, for example, are 29 per cent higher than in the US, partly because the shale gas extraction process also generates raw materials for the chemical industry, he says.
At the same time US companies are investing heavily in next-generation technology, increasing the competitive challenge to Europe. “Super-fracking technology is emerging which will drive down the drilling prices per well by up to 70 per cent,” Umbach says.
There are still significant obstacles to developing shale gas in Europe. It must be integrated into a coherent energy system, and regulations must be adopted to ensure water and soil pollution is minimal.
Europe also must assess how much shale gas and oil can be extracted cost- effectively. “The first explorations in some member states are showing mixed results… It will easily take us a decade, if not more, before we see a quantitative impact,” says Jos Delbeke, director- general of DG Climate Action at the European Commission.
Yet another challenge for Europe is access to reserves. In the US, landowners
GAS: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING? 1 October 2013
Striking a very delicate balance
Vladimir Sucha Jos DelbekeRobert H. Socolow Frank Umbach
Big in North America, energy from shale faces a series of hurdles before it can have meaningful impact in Europe
23Energy Transitions
generally have the rights to the minerals beneath their property, and companies have been able to strike deals directly with them to exploit reserves. In Europe, landowners typically don’t own the minerals under their property, so energy companies need to deal with governments, potentially limiting the speed at which shale gas can be exploited.
Also, Europe is populated more densely and shale gas deposits may be close to nature reserves or major population centres, requiring additional safeguards and increasing costs. “Costs in Europe a factor of two or higher than those in the US are being referenced, although we don’t have much experience yet,” says Rene Peters, director gas technology at TNO Energy in the Netherlands and coordinator of the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) Joint Programme on Shale Gas.
Another obstacle may be Europe’s intensive support for renewables. “If we continue to subsidise renewables... we basically crowd out gas,” says Marc Oliver Bettzüge, professor and chair of energy economics at the University of Cologne.
The good news for shale’s backers is that Europe can benefit from the knowledge gained in the US and the declining cost of extraction technologies. Research commissioned by BP shows that water consumption used in shale gas extraction is less than that used in coal extraction, for the same amount of energy. And fracking has not been a major cause of aquifer pollution in the US, as had been feared by some.
Fracking could even have positive environmental impacts. If CO2 were used in place of water, it could lessen the amount released into the atmosphere. “If you put in CO2, you only get half of it back. That is not a bad bit of sequestration,” says Peter Styles, professor of applied and environmental geophysics at the University of Keele.
There will, however, be a need for large-scale carbon capture and storage if shale gas becomes a major component of Europe’s energy mix. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, the world will have to stay within a carbon budget, says Princeton’s Socolow.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use rigorous monitoring of well operations to enforce environmental regulations protecting against water and land contamination.
Learn from the US and ensure industry doesn’t drill in haste. Companies should comply with environmental regulation before drilling starts.
Ensure industry representatives are engaged with local communities and transparent. Industry should pay compensation to communities affected by the extraction of shale gas and encourage citizen science and engagement, particularly with respect to monitoring methane leakage.
Support additional research into potentially recoverable hydrocarbon resources in Europe and create a common methodology for estimates across Europe.
Europe is determined to lead the world in the shift to green energy. But rising volumes of renewables
pose a dilemma. Wind and sunshine are not always available when we want them, or where we need them, making the task of balancing supply and demand a formidable one.
While the contribution of wind and solar power to total energy supply remained below 10 per cent, the issue was not as pressing. But that is changing. Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK already generate more than 15 per cent of their power needs from wind and solar, and Denmark has surpassed 30 per cent from wind power alone.
In Germany the situation is acute. Billions of euros in subsidies have prompted heavy investment in wind and solar power, and renewables now account for 25 per cent of power generation, but on windy days turbines in the north must be shut down or disconnected because there is no way to get the power to southern Germany, where it might be
THE RENEWABLE POWER DILEMMA: 18 March 2014
The real challenge of wind and solar: grid integration Renewable energies won’t lower Europe’s carbon emissions until they are affordable and well integrated into the energy system
25Energy Transitions
interest of cost competitiveness, Spain’s power plant operators have developed a more integrated and efficient approach to grid management. What’s key, says Gagné of Rolls-Royce, is making sure the management incentives are aimed at a “total system approach”.
The long-term prize is a common European energy market. But that ambitious outcome will remain elusive until policy-makers find ways of enrolling consumers in the development of a low- carbon energy system. They need to be convinced that the cost of renewables, which in the short term, as the German case demonstrates, can be quite high, is justified. Policy-makers should shield the public from the more volatile aspects of market behaviour, and speed the implementation of a more integrated EU energy market.
Smart policies and a whole-system approach can accelerate the transition to a decarbonised electricity system. Europe still needs, however, to overcome the political barriers. “We need a paradigm shift,” says the IEA’s Müller. “A shift towards thinking about value, rather than just pushing down generation costs.”
used. And when power from wind farms or solar panels ebbs, utilities must use polluting coal-fired power plants to meet demand.
Part of the problem is that we do not have a full enough understanding of the energy system in its entirety, says Martine Gagné, Head of the Strategic Research Centre at Rolls-Royce plc. “The whole system must be looked at in more detail. We’ve been bringing on renewables without thinking about the system implications.” Such a systems approach is also critical to persuading investors that flexibility really can deliver value.
Europe also needs to fund more objective overall analysis in order to understand current complexities better. For example, Europe may be underestimating how flexible its energy systems already are, says Mark O’Malley, professor of electrical engineering at University College Dublin, and director of Ireland’s Electricity Research Centre. He also argues demand-side management
may be an overrated tool. “Unless you can couple heat and electricity, which would create real volume, as the Danes are in the process of doing, the synergies are just too small.” Whole-system research is the only way to test such hypotheses—and it is key to significant potential savings in infrastructure build and operational efficiencies, O’Malley says.
One of the biggest challenges is communicating the complexities of
renewable energy generation to consumers. Policymakers need to convince consumers that because the value of energy in different places will differ at different times, locational marginal pricing will be critical if a pan- European system incorporating renewables is to function successfully.
“Having the same price zone masks subsidies,” says Simon Müller, energy analyst for the system integration of renewables at the Renewable Energy Division of the International Energy Agency. “If you put locational marginal pricing in, you immediately see them.”
As it stands, the German government has yet to find a cost-effective solution to integrating renewable power. “The Energiewende [the government’s 2011 policy to transition to 100 per cent climate friendly technologies by 2050] has deteriorated into a cost discussion,” says Stephan Reimelt, president and CEO of GE Energy, Germany. “Consumers are asking if we’re doing the right thing.”
As Europe struggles to develop a systems approach to renewables integration, it has much to learn from the US experience, as well as from energy system (or policy) innovators within Europe, such as Denmark, Spain and Ireland.
The US, for example, has instituted locational energy pricing across multiple states and multiple ownership models. Denmark has developed an interconnected energy network incorporating both heat and power, a pioneering move which enables the efficient management of a variable energy supply from renewable sources. And Spain allows the developers of flexible-generation power plants to also operate renewables installations. In the
“We’ve been bringing on renewables without thinking about the system implications.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reward investment in flexible, integrated, cross-border energy generation and transmission systems and stimulate investment in smart technologies to improve the balance of energy demand and supply and more efficient use of assets. 
Communicate better with consumers to help them understand the long-term value of renewables integration.
Enable consumers to benefit from sharp energy price fluctuations prompted by a rising proportion of renewable wind and solar power.
Encourage pricing that reflects the value of energy at a specific location when it is delivered.
Mark O’MalleyGoran Strbac Georg Menzen
26 Energy Transitions
(From the top clockwise): Participants in the June 2013 symposium on low-carbon cars debate technology and policy options; David Eyton, group head of technology, BP; Karl-Friedrich Ziegahn, chief science officer, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, and head of division, Natural and Built Environment; Marie C. Donnelly, director, new and renewable sources of energy, energy efficiency and innovation, European Commission.
Avenue des Nerviens 79, Box 22 1040 Brussels, Belgium
www.sciencebusiness.net