GENERALISED FEEDBACK FOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS AFTER STAGE 1
Call for proposals: Competitive Low-Carbon Energy (H2020-LCE-2017-RES-RIA- TwoStages) Topic: LCE-07-(2016)-2017 Developing the next generation technologies of renewable electricity and heating/cooling Published: 14.10.2015 Deadline: 29.11.2016 (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 the full proposal.
Summary of main shortcomings
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 LCE 07, you should consider only the ones related to the sub-topic where you submitted your proposal:
a. Photovoltaics Most of the proposals did not address clearly how the proposed work goes beyond the state of the art. Proposals were very convincing in their explanations of the materials improvements to be achieved, but less so of the fabrication and up-scaling efforts. In general, proposals' targeted efficiencies were in line with the call text; however stability of this parameter was not clearly addressed, although this a crucial issue for perovskite devices. Some proposals did not specify clearly the cost associated with replacement materials.
b. Concentrated Solar Power In general, costs targets and cost reductions were not fully substantiated. In some cases, the claimed starting TRL was not sufficiently substantiated with respect to global activities (and not just European activities) in this area; similarly, it was not fully demonstrated that the ending TRL was for a cycle or power block, rather than just for individual components. Most of the proposals did not clearly address all the impacts mentioned in the call text, nor were the claimed impacts adequately substantiated.
c. Solar Heating and cooling Some proposals did not clearly address and justify the effect of proposed solutions on the end-user, namely how to minimise the implications for the user in terms of operation and maintenance of the system. The integration of the elements of the proposed solution into a single family house and related limitations (size, existing heating systems, etc.) were often insufficiently addressed by the proposals. Moreover, the influence of the different regional climatic profiles or energy classes of the buildings was often not fully considered. Some proposals did not sufficiently justify the proposed targets for important key performance indicators. Some of the proposals did not substantiate sufficiently the impact on increased reliability and lifetime of the system and reduction of operation & maintenance costs.
d. Wind Energy In some of the proposals, specific aspects related to the proposed concept like up-scaling of the technology to commercial size, or development of new physical noise mitigation measures, were not sufficiently substantiated. In some proposals, how the proposed innovations will be translated into new products and services is not clearly substantiated, particularly with respect to what is already available on the market. In general, proposals addressed only a specific part of the environmental issues related to wind energy development; moreover, they did not address sufficiently all the expected impacts, e.g. on the reduction of the life-cycle environmental impact of the wind turbines, and increase in reliability and lifetime. e. Ocean Energy In several proposals, performance and cost targets were not well substantiated or quantified (i.e. insufficient evidence on how the targets will be reached has been provided). In some of the proposals, standardisation aspects of the envisaged solutions are not specifically addressed. Some proposals did not sufficiently explain the advancement of the proposed solutions beyond the State of the Art. The scalability of the device after the end of the project is not always clearly addressed. In some proposals, some of the expected impacts are not well addressed/quantified or specific to the proposed action.
f. Hydropower In some cases the targets for the turbine efficiency were not clearly addressed. In general, economic and societal aspects were not sufficiently addressed. Some of the expected impacts were not clearly addressed, e.g. the potential increase in maintenance costs, and revenues from the provision of ancillary services.
g. Geothermal Energy In most of the proposals, key performance indicators were provided, however they were not clearly defined and/or sufficiently substantiated. In most cases, proposals did not sufficiently address the risk to society of the proposed solutions. Certain proposals did not convincingly address all the expected impacts of the topic, e.g. some impacts were not clearly quantified and/or insufficient explanation was provided with respect to how the results / figures provided will be reached.
h. Combined Heat and Power Not all the proposals have been always fully clear on specific technological issues, such as: implementation of an appropriate control system (requested by complex processes) or how to deal with integration of components at different levels of development (and scale). In some cases, key performance indicators and specific target costs for the resulting biofuel were insufficiently addressed. In general, environmental, health and safety issues and public acceptance were insufficiently addressed in the proposals. Most of the proposals did not adequately address all the expected impacts listed in the call text, e.g. reliability and lifetime of the CHP system, increase of the technology performance, contribution to increased public acceptance, creation of new business and jobs.
i. RES integration in the energy system Some specific aspects related to the concept, such as targets and key performance indicators related to cost-effectiveness of the proposed solutions, were not adequately addressed in a number of proposals. In some proposals, relevant multidisciplinary aspects of the research (e.g. public resistance and acceptance, business cases, pre-normative and legal issues) are not appropriately addressed, or not extensively integrated in the proposed work. In places, the innovation potential of some of the proposed solutions is not clearly addressed. In some cases, regulations related to the market participants were not sufficiently addressed. Several proposals did not adequately substantiate and/or quantify all the claimed impacts.
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.