GENERALISED FEEDBACK for successful applicants after STAGE 1

Call for proposals: Low-Carbon Energy (H2020-LC-SC3-2018-RES-TwoStages_First Stage)

Topic: LC-SC3-RES-11-2018Developing solution to reduce the cost and increase performance of renewable technologies

Published: 27.10.2017

Deadline: 31.01.2018 (stage 1)

The stage 1 evaluation is now finished.

Statistics for the call are available via the flash call info update on the Participant Portal.

In order to best ensure equal treatment, successful stage 1 applicants do not receive the evaluation summary reports(ESRs) for their proposals, but this generalised feedback with information and tips for preparing thefull proposal.

General

It is reminded that EU funding will not be granted to any legal entities that are a subsidiary of or are co-owned (more than 50%) by entities that are subject to EU restrictive measures, for example, legal entities listed in Annex III of Council Regulation No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, such as GAZPROM. Consortia are encouraged to ensure that they do not request funding for any of these entities, although these entities can be partners that do not request funding.

Summary of main shortcomings

Overall, the quality of proposals was generally high with 26 of 94 proposals passing to the second stage.The bullet points below are not always applicable to your particular proposal, they give an overview of typical shortcomings in proposals evaluated and summarise observations of experts involved in evaluation. They relate to the different sub-topics related to topic LC-SC3-RES-11-2018, you should consider only the ones related to the sub-topic where you submitted your proposal:

  • In most of the proposals, the proposed methodology was not fully elaborated, especially in the description of the testing aspects in a real environment of the addressed RES technology(ies).
  • In most of the proposals,the starting and ending TRL of the individual components addressed in the proposal were not convincingly defined.
  • In some of the proposals, the starting and ending TRL of the whole system being developed were not convincingly defined.
  • In most of the proposals, the extent to which the project activities will bring technologies to TRL 4-5 at the end of the project (as requested in the call text) was not sufficiently substantiated.
  • In most of the proposals, the use of stakeholder knowledge from outside the consortium was not convincingly addressed.
  • In most of the proposals, the extent to which the proposed solution(s) will reduce the CAPEX and/or OPEX of energy generation from the addressed technology was not well substantiated.
  • The proposals did not always provide a credible baseline from which the cost reductions have been compared and calculated.
  • In most of the proposals, there was insufficient information in the proposal to verify the alignment of the cost reduction with sectorial targets as stated in the Declarations of Intent of the SET Plan, or, in case of technologies already competing in the energy market, on how the targeted cost reduction will make the energy generation comparable to generation costs from fossil fuel sources.

Technology-specific shortcomings.

a. Floating Wind

  • In some proposals, the extent to which the novel components will be reliable, sustainable and cost-efficient was not sufficiently substantiated.
  • In some cases, the scale of the prototype used for testing was not sufficiently defined.

b. Onshore Wind

  • In some proposals, the use of the interdisciplinary approaches was not sufficiently emphasised and the environmental impacts relating to the new materialswere not sufficiently addressed.

c. Ocean

  • Some proposals did not adequately integrate behavioural modelling aspects.

d. Geothermal

  • In some of the proposals,the innovation potential of the proposed geothermal technology was not clearly addressed.

g. Bioenergy

  • Some of the proposals did not sufficiently justify how their proposed solution lowered environmental impacts.
  • Some of the proposals did not sufficiently address economic aspects related to the proposed solutions, such as business and market analysis.
  • Some of the proposals did not convincingly address how high resource efficiency and high overall and electrical conversion performance will be reached.

In your stage 2 proposal, you have a chance to address or clarify these issues.

Please bear in mind that your full proposal will now be evaluated more in-depth and possibly by a new group of outside experts.

The full proposal must be consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.