html5-img
1 / 15

Getting European Research Funds

Getting European Research Funds. Dr Philip Griffiths Associate Head of School, Built Environment Centre for Sustainable Technologies University of Ulster. Our Recent Experiences. Getting a Project. Ideas European dimension Relevant programme calls Relevant project size

lee-drake
Download Presentation

Getting European Research Funds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Getting European Research Funds Dr Philip Griffiths Associate Head of School, Built Environment Centre for Sustainable Technologies University of Ulster

  2. Our Recent Experiences

  3. Getting a Project • Ideas • European dimension • Relevant programme calls • Relevant project size • “Supply chain” partners versus themed approach • Meeting the assessment criteria

  4. Assessment Criteria • Scientific and/or technological excellence (relevant to the topics addressed by the call) ( Threshold 3.0/5 ) • Quality and efficiency of the implementation and the management ( Threshold 3.0/5) • Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results ( Threshold 3.0/5) • Total ( Threshold 10.0/15 ) • Does this proposal have ethical issues that need further attention? • Out of Scope

  5. Scoring • 0- The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information • 1- Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. • 2- Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses. • 3- Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary. • 4- Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible. • 5- Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

  6. The Call • THEME EeB.NMP.2011-2 • New efficient solutions for energy generation, storage and use related to space heating and domestic hot water in existing buildings • 39 M Euro available in the call • Lesson #1 – How many projects will the commission likely fund? Contact the project officer.

  7. The expectations from the EU • A wide impact is expected from higher energy-efficient solutions for heating and hot sanitary water production, which contribute to around 50% of energy use in residential buildings. Holistic design of solutions for energy generation, storage and use should increase the overall efficiency by at least 30%. The proposers should also anticipate future targets for energy-efficient buildings. • Lesson #2 – Read the major goals carefully

  8. The Project • Einstein - EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF SEASONAL THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS IN EXISTING BUILDINGS • 17 Partners • Countries – Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Romania, Holland and UK • Total project value – 6.16M Euro • Ulster’s element – 497 k Euro

  9. The main objectives • To make STES systems cost-effective and to adapt this technology to be applied in existing buildings. • To develop a novel, high efficiency, cost-effective and compact heat pump optimized for STES systems. • To develop a Decision Support Tool (DST) for selection, design and evaluation of STES integrated system suitable for existing buildings. • Two pilot plants will be realized and monitored: • In Spain at building level & In Poland at district level.

  10. The partners • Represent solar storage experts & companies, heat pump developers, & companies, district heating installers, directional drillers, civil engineering consultants, developers, control engineers, architects, site owners

  11. The project structure

  12. Specific EU requirements • “A wide impact is demonstrated” by utilising solar resources in widely differing climates (Poland and Spain) at different building scales • “solutions for heating and hot sanitary water production”Heat pumps and space/water heating and season solar storage • Holistic design of solutions for energy generation, storage and use should increase the overall efficiency by at least 30% - as demonstrated by validated design tool from field trials • Lesson #3 – Read the fine print

  13. Lesson # 4 – Read the Finer Print!

  14. And in delivering the proposal? • Scientific and technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call • Progress beyond the state‐of‐the‐art, Methodology and associated work plan, deliverables, risk analysis • Implementation • Management structure and procedures, consortium agreement, the consortium, resources and budget • Impacts • Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property • Ethical issues • Consideration of gender aspects

  15. Conclusions • Possible to access EU funding • Need a strong new idea • Needs to fit with EU’s research agenda • Develop influence through technology platforms • Need a partnership able to deliver • With the correct mix – i.e. from across Europe • Need to show track record • Partner with universities

More Related