Deliverable D1 (PDF / 1,7 MB) - GHG

Transcription

GHG‐TransPoRD Reducing greenhouse‐gas emissions of transport beyond 2020: linking R&D, transport policies and reduc‐
tion targets Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
An analysis of present research efforts for reducing transport-related
GHG emissions and the European innovation system transport
Deliverable D1
Due date of submission:
31.07.2010
Actual date of submission: 06.08.2010
Dissemination level: Public
Start date of project:
01.10.2009
Duration: 24 months
Lead contractor for this deliverable:
IPTS
Work package: WP1
Revision: Final
Grant Agreement Number: 233828
Contract No: TCS8-GA-2009-233828
Project co-funded by the
European Commission – DG RTD
7th Research Framework Programme
GHG‐TransPoRD Reducing greenhouse‐gas emissions of transport beyond 2020: linking R&D, transport policies and reduction targets Instrument: Coordination and support actions – Support – CSA-SA
Co-ordinator:
ISI
Fraunhofer Institute Systems and
Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany
Dr. Wolfgang Schade
Partners:
TRT
Trasporti e Territorio SRL, Milan, Italy
IPTS
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
European Commission – DG-JRC, Seville, Spain
TML
Transport & Mobility, Leuven, Belgium
ITS
Institute for Transport Studies
University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
v
GHG-TransPoRD
Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions of transport beyond 2020: linking R&D, transport
policies and reduction targets
Report information:
Report no:
D1
Work package no:
1
Title:
Authors:
Guillaume Leduc, Tobias Wiesenthal, Burkhard Schade (IPTS)
Jonathan Köhler, Wolfgang Schade, Luis Tercero (Fraunhofer – ISI)
Version:
Final
Submission: 06.08.10
Date of publication: 27.10.2010
This document should be referenced as:
Leduc, G., Köhler, J., Wiesenthal, T., Tercero, L., Schade, W., Schade, B. (2010): Transport R&D Capacities in the EU. Deliverable report of GHG-TransPoRD (Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions of transport
beyond 2020: linking R&D, transport policies and reduction targets). Project co-funded by European
th
Commission 7 RTD Programme. Fraunhofer-ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Project information:
Project acronym:
GHG-TransPoRD
Project name:
Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions of transport beyond 2020: linking R&D, transport policies and reduction targets
TCS8-GA-2009-233828
01.10.2009 – 30.09.2011
European Commission – DG RTD – 7th Research Framework Programme.
ISI - Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany.
TRT - Trasporti e Territorio SRL, Milan, Italy.
IPTS - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission – DGJRC, Seville, Spain.
TML - Transport & Mobility, Leuven, Belgium.
ITS - Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
http://www.ghg-transpord.eu/
Contract no:
Duration:
Commissioned by:
Lead partner:
Partners:
Website:
Document control information:
Status:
Approved
Distribution:
GHG-TransPoRD partners, European Commission
Availability:
Public (once status above is approved)
Filename:
GHG_TransPoRD_D1_Innovation_and_RDD_Analysis.pdf
Quality assurance:
Imke Gries
Coordinator`s review:
Wolfgang Schade
Signature:
Date:
vi
GHG-TransPoRD D1
vii
Table of Contents Acknowledgments........................................................................................xviii Executive summary and conclusions .............................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................8 PART I – Quantitative assessment of present R&D efforts ...........................9 1. Scope of the quantitative assessment ....................................................10 2. Methodology..............................................................................................13 2.1 Methodology for estimating corporate R&D investments ...........13 2.2 Methodology for estimating public R&D investments of
EU Member States .....................................................................19 2.2.1 GBAORD (Government Budget Appropriations or
Outlays on R&D) ........................................................................19 2.2.2 IEA RD&D statistics ...................................................................20 2.2.3 Other information sources ..........................................................22 2.3 EU FP7 public transport R&D investments ................................25 2.4 Search of patent applications .....................................................26 3. RESULTS I – Overall R&D investments in transport ..............................29 3.1 Corporate R&D investments ......................................................29 3.1.1 Overall analysis based on the EU Industrial R&D
Investment Scoreboard ..............................................................30 3.1.2 BERD (Business enterprise sector's R&D expenditures) ...........43 3.1.3 Comparison between EU Industrial R&D Investment
Scoreboard and BERD...............................................................44 viii
GHG-TransPoRD D1
3.2 Public R&D investments from Member States .......................... 48 3.3 Transport-related R&D investments under FP7 ........................ 49 3.4 Key outcomes from the overall analysis .................................... 56 4. RESULTS II – R&D investment for reducing GHG emissions by
mode and technology. Results from a bottom-up analysis.................. 57 4.1 Road transport .......................................................................... 57 4.1.1 Total corporate R&D.................................................................. 58 4.1.2 Corporate R&D investments for reducing GHG emissions ........ 63 4.1.3 Public research.......................................................................... 66 4.1.4 R&D investment in road vehicle technologies ........................... 66 4.1.5 Synthesis ................................................................................... 71 4.2 Air transport ............................................................................... 74 4.3 Maritime transport ..................................................................... 77 4.4 Rail transport ............................................................................. 80 4.5 Key outcomes from the bottom-up analysis .............................. 82 5. RESULTS III – Outcome of the patents analysis ................................... 84 5.1 Dynamics of patent applications ................................................ 84 5.2 Patenting activity by country ...................................................... 86 5.2.1 Hybrid and electric vehicles ....................................................... 87 5.2.2 Mobile fuel cells ......................................................................... 87 5.2.3 Biofuels ..................................................................................... 88 5.3 Snapshot of patenting activity by company ............................... 89 5.3.1 Hybrid and electric vehicles ....................................................... 90 5.3.2 Mobile fuel cells ......................................................................... 92 5.3.3 Biofuels ..................................................................................... 94 5.4 Key outcomes from the patents analysis ................................... 96 Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
ix
PART II – Qualitative analysis of the innovation systems transport ..........97 6. Technology Innovation System analysis of low carbon cars ...............98 6.1 Introduction and scope of the analysis .......................................98 6.2 Low carbon innovations in cars ..................................................99 6.2.1 The rush to electric vehicles .....................................................100 6.2.2 The decisive impact of policy ...................................................102 6.3 Methodology ............................................................................104 6.4 Analysis....................................................................................106 6.4.1 Actors .......................................................................................108 6.4.2 Networks ..................................................................................111 6.4.3 Institutions ................................................................................113 6.5 Levels of activity in the functions of the innovation
system......................................................................................114 6.5.1 Knowledge creation..................................................................114 6.5.2 Guidance on the direction of search.........................................114 6.5.3 Entrepreneurial experimentation ..............................................115 6.5.4 Market formation ......................................................................116 6.5.5 Resource mobilization ..............................................................116 6.5.6 Legitimation ..............................................................................117 6.5.7 Development of positive externalities or ‘free utilities’:
knowledge diffusion through networks .....................................117 6.6 Conclusions: Environmental innovation in the Automobile
Industry ....................................................................................118 7. Innovation systems of aviation, railways and maritime ......................122 7.1 The aviation sector innovation system .....................................122 7.2 The innovation system in railways ...........................................125 7.3 The maritime innovation system ..............................................128 7.4 Common aspects of the innovation systems in aviation,
railways and shipping ...............................................................130 x
GHG-TransPoRD D1
8. Innovation system of transport (ISyT) .................................................. 130 8.1 Further analysis of ISyT – functions of ISyT ............................ 130 8.2 Conclusions ............................................................................. 133 References .................................................................................................... 134 Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................... 145 ANNEX I: KEY EU-BASED COMPANIES AND DIVISIONS ......................... 146 ANNEX II: QUALITITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF EUROPEAN R&D
ACTORS AND PROGRAMMES .............................................................. 148 9. European R&D actors and programmes .............................................. 149 9.1 Road transport ........................................................................ 149 9.2 Air transport ............................................................................. 152 9.3 Rail and maritime .................................................................... 154 9.4 Alternative motor fuels............................................................. 156 10. National R&D actors and programmes................................................. 158 10.1 Germany ................................................................................. 158 10.2 France ..................................................................................... 159 10.3 UK ........................................................................................... 166 10.4 Sweden ................................................................................... 168 10.5 Spain ....................................................................................... 170 10.6 Italy.......................................................................................... 172 10.7 Poland ..................................................................................... 175 11. Overview of product-related environmental innovations by
automotive manufacturers .................................................................... 189 Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
xi
xii
List of tables
Table 0-1: Summary of results – Approximates for the year 2008 .................... 7 Table 2-2: IEA categories related to transport RD&D budgets ........................ 21 Table 2-3: Key sources providing qualitative and quantitative
information on national transport R&D activities............................. 24 Table 3-4: Pros and Cons of the overall assessment ...................................... 29 Table 3-5: R&D investments, sales and total number of employees
related to the 'Transport' sector (2008)........................................... 31 Table 3-6: R&D investments, sales and total number of employees of
the EU automotive industry (2008) ................................................. 41 Table 3-7: Business and enterprise R&D expenditures in transportrelated fields in 2008 aggregated for EU Member States............... 44 Table 3-8: Aggregated corporate R&D support to selected transport
sectors at world level (2008)........................................................... 46 Table 3-9: Aggregated public R&D budget of selected transport
subsectors in selected EU countries .............................................. 48 Table 3-10: Public RD&D budgets allocated to transport-related R&D
activities .......................................................................................... 49 Table 4-11: Approximate R&D investments in the EU automotive sector
(2008) ............................................................................................. 58 Table 4-12: Approximate R&D investments in road vehicle technologies
(2008) ............................................................................................. 69 Table 4-13: Approximate R&D investments in civil aeronautics (2008) ............. 74 Table 4-14: Approximate R&D investments in maritime transport (2008) ......... 77 Table 4-15: Approximate R&D investments in rail transport (2008) .................. 80 Table 6-16: Summary of EU emissions reduction policies for
automobiles .................................................................................. 104 Table 8-17: Indicators to deepen the analysis of ISyT for the different
functions ....................................................................................... 132 Table 9-18: 2030 guiding objectives (2010 baseline) ...................................... 150 Table 9-19: Key EU and world bodies of the road transport sector ................. 152 Table 9-20: Key EU and world bodies of the air transport sector .................... 154 Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
xiii
Table 9-21: Key EU and world bodies of the rail/maritime transport
sector ............................................................................................155 Table 10-22: Key French public organisms undertaking transport-related
R&D ..............................................................................................162 Table 10-23: PREDIT 4 programme ..................................................................163 xiv
GHG-TransPoRD D1
List of figures
Figure 1-1: Schematic illustration of the approach for the present study .......... 11 Figure 2-2: Distribution of R&D investments per research employee ............... 16 Figure 2-3: Schematic overview of the methodology ........................................ 18 Figure 2-4: Overview of actors and programmes in transport research
at EU level (simplified) .................................................................... 22 Figure 3-5: Weight of transport-related sectors with regard to R&D
investments, sales and number of employees – World level
(2008) ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 3-6: Distribution of R&D investments from transport-related
companies worldwide (2008) .......................................................... 33 Figure 3-7: Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU
and non-EU based transport-related companies over the
period 2002-2008 ........................................................................... 34 Figure 3-8: Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU
and non-EU based automotive manufacturers over the
period 2002-2008 ........................................................................... 35 Figure 3-9: Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU
and non-EU based automotive suppliers over the period
2002-2008 ...................................................................................... 36 Figure 3-10: Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU
and non-EU based industry of the 'Commercial vehicles
and trucks' category over the period 2002-2008 ............................ 37 Figure 3-11: Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU
and non-EU based industry of the 'Aerospace and defence'
category over the period 2002-2008............................................... 38 Figure 3-12: Weight of the 'transport' sector on R&D investments, sales
and number of employees – EU27 ................................................. 39 Figure 3-13: Cumulated corporate R&D expenditures from EU-based
companies investing in transport R&D (2008) ................................ 40 Figure 3-14: R&D investment of the EU automotive industry in 2008................. 42 Figure 3-15: Comparison of worldwide R&D investments between the
two databases over the period 2002-2008 (total transport
and NACE 34 category; data in real terms €2005) ............................ 47 Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
xv
Figure 3-16: Transport-related research under FP7 (indicative budget) ............. 50 Figure 3-17: Overall FP budget allocated to the aviation sector .........................54 Figure 4-18: Recent trends in net sales, R&D investments and R&D
intensity of the EU automotive industry (2007-2009;
normalised data 2007=1) ................................................................62 Figure 4-19: Approximate R&D breakdown and intensity of the EU
automotive industry in 2008 ............................................................64 Figure 4-20: R&D investment flows in road vehicle technologies for
reducing GHG emissions (overall picture only, R&D topics
coloured in grey are those for which the R&D investment
will be estimated). ...........................................................................68 Figure 4-21: Overall public and private R&D investment flows in the
automotive sector in 2008 ...............................................................72 Figure 4-22: Share of public R&D investment into different road
technologies (2008) ........................................................................73 Figure 4-23: R&D investment into GHG emissions reduction
technologies by source of funds (2008) ..........................................73 Figure 4-24: Overall turnover and R&D spending flows of the aerospace
and defence sector in 2008 ............................................................75 Figure 5-25: International patent applications (PCT+EPO, overlap
excluded) pertaining to the three selected technology
fields. For comparison, the number of international patent
applications was indexed for all technology fields, with the
number of patent applications in the year 1990
corresponding to an index of 100. ..................................................85 Figure 5-26: Annual number of patent applications related to electric
vehicles and fuel cell vehicles from the EU automotive
industry over the period 1990-2009 ................................................86 Figure 5-27: Breakdown of European patents pertaining to hybrid and
electric vehicles, differentiated by country ......................................87 Figure 5-28: Breakdown of European patents pertaining to mobile fuel
cells, differentiated by country ........................................................88 Figure 5-29: Breakdown of European patents pertaining to biofuels,
differentiated by country .................................................................89 Figure 5-30: Workflow for identifying applicants in each technology field
and for ascertaining the share of relevant patent
xvi
GHG-TransPoRD D1
applications compared to the total patent applications for
each applicant. ............................................................................... 90 Figure 5-31: Share of the different applicants in the year 2007 for hybrid
and electric vehicles ....................................................................... 91 Figure 5-32: (left) Specialization of applicants in the field of hybrid and
electric vehicles expressed as the share of relevant patents
in the overall portfolio of a company/institution. (right)
Specialization of patent applicants in the field of hybrid and
electric vehicles expressed as a function of their relative
contribution to patents in this field for the year 2007. ..................... 92 Figure 5-33: Share of the different applicants in the year 2007 for mobile
fuel cells ......................................................................................... 92 Figure 5-34: (left) Specialization of applicants in the field of mobile fuel
cells expressed as the share of relevant patents in the
overall portfolio of a company/institution. (right)
Specialization of patent applicants in the field of mobile fuel
cells expressed as a function of their relative contribution to
patents in this field for the year 2007.............................................. 93 Figure 5-35: Share of the different applicants in the year 2007 for
biofuels ........................................................................................... 94 Figure 5-36: (left) Specialization of applicants in the field of biofuels
expressed as the share of relevant patents in the overall
portfolio of a company/institution. (right) Specialization of
patent applicants in the field of biofuels expressed as a
function of their relative contribution to patents in this field
for the year 2007. ........................................................................... 95 Figure 6-37: A sectoral system of innovation .................................................... 105 Figure 6-38: Application of the Sectoral System of Innovation and TIS
approaches ................................................................................... 106 Figure 6-39: The innovation system for automobiles ........................................ 107 Figure 6-40: Examples of partnerships worldwide for developing electric
vehicles (PHEVs, HEVs, BEVs) ................................................... 112 Figure 7-41: Innovation system Aviation ........................................................... 124 Figure 7-42: Innovation system Railways ......................................................... 127 Figure 7-43: Innovation system Shipping ......................................................... 129 Figure 8-44: Functions of ISyT ......................................................................... 131 Transport R&D Capacities in the EU
xvii
Figure 8-45: The reinforcing feedback between functions of the ISyT .............. 133 Figure 10-45: Overview of Spanish transport research actors and
programmes ..................................................................................171 xviii
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Acknowledgments
This report has been prepared as part of the FP7 co-funded project GHG-TransPoRD.
The authors wish to acknowledge all partners of the consortium for their valuable contributions to this report.
For the input to the descriptions of individual country's R&D systems we would like to
thank Prof Peter Mackie and Prof David Watling from ITS Leeds as well as Matthew
White (DfT) for the UK description; Inge Vierth (VTI) for the Swedish part; JeanFrançois Gruson (IFP) for the French case study; Andreas Dorda (BMVIT) for his input
on the Austrian R&D system in transport; and Alessandra Moizo (TRT) for drafting the
Italian case. The authors would also like to thank Thomas Schubert (EC) for the provision of data on funding under FP7 and Gabriele Jauernig (GOPA-Cartermill) for data
input extracted from the Transport Research Knowledge Centre database.
This work has been presented and discussed during the joint GHG-TransPoRD/IEA
stakeholder meeting on 17th and 18th June 2010 in Paris. The authors are grateful for
the high-level discussion that helped in improving the analysis. A draft of this report has
been circulated to several stakeholders at the EU-level, including the EU technology
platforms ERTRAC, ACARE, ERRAC, WATERBORNE-TP, the ERA-NET projects
AirTN, MARTEC and ERA-NET TRANSPORT, as well as EUCAR. We would like to
acknowledge the input received from this review, in particular from Simon Godwin
(EUCAR) and Xavier Aertsens (ERTRAC).
1
Executive summary and conclusions
A change towards more environmental sustainability is one of the central challenges
faced by the (European) transport sector. Technological improvements will play a central role in achieving this change, complementing other measures1. Yet, the currently
dominating technological portfolio will be insufficient for reducing the sector's emissions
in line with European climate change targets (Schade et al., 2010; Fontaras and Samaras, 2010). Hence, the research and development, and ultimately the market introduction, of innovative low-carbon technologies and fuels are crucial for the sector's longterm perspective.
In this context, a key question to be answered is whether the sector's research capacities are up to meet this challenge. While the inherent uncertainty in linking R&D efforts
with technology improvement makes it difficult to postulate the future level of research
needed for successfully offering the technological options required, an analysis of the
present transport research capacities is a first step towards answering this question. To
this end, the present report analyses the volume and direction of present research efforts of both industry and public players, supplemented by an analysis of patent applications. This quantitative snapshot is complemented by the qualitative assessment of
the innovation system transport (ISyT), which goes beyond the narrow focus of R&D
but sketches out the interlinkages between major R&D players, instruments, functions
etc. that are relevant for innovation in the transport sector. To this end the report
sketches out and starts the full analysis of the Innovation System of Transport (ISyT),
concentrating the analysis on a modal scope, but providing the recommendation to
extend the analysis by three integrative analyses: logistics technologies, passenger
and freight transport.
Concerning the quantitative snapshot it should be pointed out that officially available
data do not allow for a comprehensive assessment of R&D efforts in the transport sector; data become even worse when trying to estimate the parts of the total research
investments dedicated to a single technology or a group of technologies. Hence, an
assumption-based bottom-up analysis has been applied in order to nevertheless derive
some results at the EU-level for industrial and public research efforts. This approach
combines information on companies total R&D investments taken from the companies
annual report, as collected and processed in the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, with a number of other pieces of information that can be used as an indication of
1 See e.g. the recent TERM report that estimates that measures to 'improve' technologies in transport will
play a major role in reducing the GHG emissions of transport, even though also other measures are
needed (EEA, 2010).
2
GHG-TransPoRD D1
the allocation of total research investment in various technologies. This approach implies that the results are associated with elevated uncertainties and therefore provide a
rough indication only. Moreover, as the analysis of industrial R&D efforts concentrates
on a limited number of actors (yet, the main ones), the actual figures may be higher.
Similarly, lack of data for some EU Member States and the fact that the figures obtained for public R&D investments often do not include neither regional funds nor institutional budgets mean that the results tend to be an underestimation. Finally, the focus
of the assessment on the latest year for which most data has been available at the time
of preparation of the report – 2008 – implies that the recent dynamics in transport related research, much of which triggered by the economic downturn, have not been fully
reflected; also the recent additional public support to the sector ('s R&D) is therefore
not fully included. In order to nevertheless provide some outlook of more recent trends,
2009 figures for corporate R&D investments in road transport, are also included.
Despite the above limitations, a comparison of results with other scattered pieces of
information confirms the findings of the present report. As important as the confirmation
with other studies is the fact that the three different approaches combined in this report
– i.e. the quantitative assessment of R&D investments; the analysis of patents; and the
qualitative description of the innovation system transport – come to similar conclusions
where comparable. This allows drawing some policy-relevant conclusions despite the
limitations in the underlying data.
1. The transport sector is the largest industrial R&D investor in the EU with an investment volume of around €40 billion in 2008. Herewithin, research efforts of the automotive industry are clearly dominating, followed by those of the aviation sector.
R&D investments of the automotive sector have been further disaggregated into
road passenger and road freight transport and supplier components. We find significantly higher levels of R&D investment volumes and a higher R&D intensity of car
manufacturers compared to manufacturers of commercial vehicles. This can be explained by the very distinct nature of road passenger and road freight transport. In
road freight transport, the high competition and the consequently high price pressures means that transport companies focus largely on reducing their costs. Given
the significant share of fuel costs out of the total operating cost for commercial vehicles, the fuel efficiency of new trucks is an important purchase criterion. Nevertheless, transport companies will follow a strict economic calculus when buying new
equipment and are not ready to pay for 'innovative technologies' as such. This
situation is different in passenger cars, where consumers' choice is influenced by a
variety of factors. Cars are more exposed to a 'differentiation and branding pressure', and innovative technologies can be one selling factor.
3
R&D investments in rail and maritime are more limited, comparing the absolute values with road and air. However, when setting the R&D investments in relation to the
net sales of the sectors – i.e. the R&D intensity – this heterogeneity becomes less
pronounced. In 2008, R&D intensities in the road sector are around 5% (passenger
cars: 5.1% and commercial vehicles: 3.6%), while aviation (civil aeronautics) shows
significantly higher (7.6%) and rail (4.3%) and maritime (3.4%) slightly lower values.
EU-based transport companies hold a large share in global transport-related R&D
investment, followed by companies with headquarters in Japan and the USA. Considering the truly global nature of the transport industry with most of its players acting at world level, however, this geographical allocation is of limited significance.
2. Industrial R&D investments are highly concentrated in a few main players, with 12
companies2 accounting for 80% of the total transport-related R&D investments. This
can be explained by the market structure of the transport industry, which is mainly
oligopolistic competition, and the fact that most of the technological development
comes from inside the industry rather than being purchased (as is the case e.g. in
the energy sector). However, this picture changes for alternative fuels and new
technologies other than conventional internal combustion engines. Here, specialised niche providers have entered the market as well as major industries from nontransport sectors such as electric utilities. Often, new coalitions between established car manufacturers and component suppliers and these newcomers emerge,
leading to a relatively rapid sharing of the new knowledge and therefore accelerating innovation within the sector in a vertical way ('supplier path'). At the same time,
however, the high competition between the major car manufacturers means that horizontal knowledge exchange is limited to those areas where car manufacturers
consider collaboration advantageous, such as collaborative research projects under
the EU research framework programmes. In aviation, the particular situation of
close links between military and civil developments creates an important knowledge
transfer, which is very pronounced in this sector.
3. The role of public R&D investments (both from Member States and EU FP7 funds)
is very heterogeneous between the different transport modes. While it is comparably low in the automotive sector (2.5% of the total) as a whole, which is also due to
the fact that the total investments of this sector are by far the largest of all modes,
its role is much more pronounced in other modes. Public funds account for 17% for
aviation, 23% for rail and 35% for maritime. Each mode has particular circums2 Note that the analysis is undertaken at the level of parent company, not on individual brands. A list of
parent companies and related brands and divisions can be found in annex 1.
4
GHG-TransPoRD D1
tances that account for this. Aviation is heavily dependent on public R&D and procurement spending for military purposes. The rail industry still has a considerable
degree of public ownership of railway systems and operations (e.g. SNCF and
Deutsche Bahn). The maritime sector in the EU is limited to mainly specialist products and military production. Military procurement, as with aviation, leads to a high
level of public R&D for initially military applications.
4. All modes dedicate an important part of their R&D efforts to technologies that reduce emissions of GHG3, taking into account investments both from industrial and
public funders (see Table 0-1). For the road sector, this part has been estimated to
be around one third (increasing to more than 40% if including also technologies to
reduce the emissions of air pollutants). It is also around one third in aviation, but
this figure may include some R&D focusing on other environmental issues, such as
reduction of noise or air pollutant emissions. For rail, the part is more limited (20%),
whereas it is higher for maritime transport (48%).
A crucial factor in guiding industrial research into the development of environmental
technologies has been public policies via the setting of standards and/or the creation of incentives to foster no- or low-carbon vehicles. These policies are not only a
driver for R&D but also create a market demand for innovative products, ensuring
companies that their development pays off. Yet, these policies cannot be seen as
taken unilaterally by governments; on the contrary, the non-negligible influence of
the transport industry on policy making suggests that they are more consensual.
Moreover, there are co-benefits for investing in R&D on technologies that reduce
GHG emissions such as reduced fuel consumption and thus improved energy security with respect to reducing fossil fuel dependence, which may have been another
important driver for allocating efforts to the technologies.
5. For the automotive sector, a further breakdown of research efforts into three technology groups has been performed. From this it becomes obvious that within the
GHG emission reduction R&D efforts, and herewithin focusing on engine technologies, the largest focus of industrial research lies on the optimisation of conventional
internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles (including hybrids) are the most relevant field of developing non-conventional engine technologies. This is strongly supported by evidence from an analysis of patent applications, which also hint at the
rapid increase in the importance given to this technology in recent years. Fuel cell
3 Note that technologies that can reduce GHG emissions are not necessarily being developed for this
purpose only but by other than environmental considerations, e.g. to increase the 'joy of driving', and
may be (partly) outweighed by more performant cars etc. They are nevertheless allocated to 'GHG
emission reduction' for the purpose of the present assessment.
5
vehicles and biofuels show comparably lower industrial R&D investment. Unlike for
electric vehicles with strong dynamics, the patent search indicates for fuel cell technologies a stagnating trend in later years. This can be interpreted as these technologies loosing relative importance compared to booming electric vehicles, meaning
that there is a possibility of lock-in to electric vehicles, considering also that the major firms or technology alliances are now concentrating on electric vehicles. Nevertheless, there are also synergies between the development of battery electric and
fuel cell (electric) vehicles.
6. Public R&D funds follow more or less opposite trends, hence complementing the
industrial research efforts. Within the above technologies, they are most elevated
for fuel cells, and more limited in the case of EV and conventional engines. This becomes even more pronounced when looking into the relative contribution of public
funds: they rise from a mere 2.5% for conventional engines to some 30% for biofuels and 36% for fuel cells. This finding is well supported by innovation theory. In
general, technologies that are close-to-market and thus require expensive pilot
plants and up-scaling would face larger industrial contribution, while technologies
that are further from market are mainly publicly financed as industry would not want
to take the risk. Having in mind that hydrogen-fuelled fuel cell vehicles (FCV) are
both not likely to enter the market in large quantities soon and have been researched more intense in the first years of the last decade already, the limited corporate R&D investments dedicated to them in 2008 do not come as a surprise.
Nevertheless, FCV are seen as a strategic long term option also over battery vehicles for longer range vehicles (see Thomas, 2009; Campanari et al., 2009; Offer et
al., 2010), which explains that industry also keeps investing in them, but with a
lower urgency.
7. The economic downturn has largely affected the transport sector in 2009. Net sales
of EU-based manufacturers of passenger cars have decreased by around 10%
compared to 2008, and by around 33% for manufacturers of commercial vehicles.
Also R&D investments have decreased, but at a considerably slower pace than the
turnover. Compared to 2008, R&D investments fell by some 11% for passenger car
manufacturers and ca. 7% for truck manufacturers. This implies a constant R&D intensity for passenger car manufacturers and an increase for road freight vehicle
manufacturers. At the same time, there are indications of R&D investments getting
more focused on technologies with a shorter expected return on investment. This
may imply a further focus on e.g. electric vehicles at the detriment of fuel cell vehicles. Also the importance of research dedicated towards 'green technologies'
seems to increase according to scattered pieces of information available.
6
GHG-TransPoRD D1
To some extent these findings may indicate that companies consider investments in
R&D as a strategy for overcoming the times of crisis being well positioned compared
to their competitors in the expected uptake after the crisis. Experience from the effect of liberalisation on R&D in the energy sector also suggests that a higher price
pressure favours incremental innovations with lower risks, which would confirm our
findings. One nevertheless needs to take into account that a one-year change can
also be influenced by a number of other factors, such as inertia in adapting R&D
budgets on a short term, and should therefore not be over-interpreted.
All in all, the analysis finds that EU-based transport-related companies are the largest
R&D investors of the European society. Significant parts of their R&D investments are
dedicated to the reduction of GHG emissions throughout all modes, often influenced by
policies that provided regulations which directly or indirectly steered the direction of
industrial research. Public research complements industrial research – it is more pronounced in aviation, rail and maritime than in road transport; within road transport it
concentrates on technologies that are promising long-term options, but which receive
less industrial attention given their comparably lower level of maturity. With the growing
importance of non-conventional technologies and fuels, a number of niche providers
enter the market, which otherwise is largely dominated by very few players. Their
knowledge is often spread rapidly in a vertical way through coalitions between newcomers and established manufacturers, while knowledge diffusion among competing
manufacturers of e.g. cars remains limited.
From this snapshot we conclude that the European transport sector is prepared to
develop the low-carbon options that can bring it in line with the EU climate
change strategy, but may require a further reliable framework to guide its investments (even more) into this direction. Public R&D funds can help to avoid a
lock-in effect into short/medium-term options by supplementing corporate research
efforts in areas that are a lower priority for industry as they would bear fruits only on the
longer-term horizons.
Table 0-1:
7
Summary of results – Approximates for the year 2008
Category/segment
Road
ICB - Automotive manufacturers
ICB - Automotive suppliers
ICB - Commercial vehicles and trucks
ICB - Automotive industry
Air
ICB - Aerospace and defence
Total transport
ICB – Transport
Eurostat BERD (BES funds)
Estimated corporate R&D
R&D investTurnover
R&D
ment (€bn)
(€bn)
intensity
WORLD
53
19.6
6.9
79.5
1213
437
233
1883
4.4%
4.5%
3%
4.2%
15.6
379
4.1%
95.1
71
2262
4.2%
Est. public R&D
Public MS
EU FP7
(€bn)
(€bn)
Total
R&D (€bn)
EU-27
Road
ICB - Automotive manufacturers
ICB - Automotive suppliers
ICB - Commercial vehicles and trucks
ICB - Automotive industry
Automotive manufacturers
Passenger cars
Commercial vehicles (trucks, buses)
Automotive suppliers
Automotive sector
Eurostat BERD (BES) - Manufacture of
motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers
20.9
9.5
2.4
32.8
21.7
17.9
3.8
9.3
31
7.5
4.8
~1.5
Eurostat BERD (BES) – Manufacture of
~13.4
~10-11
~7.9
~2.6
~5-6
~1.3-1.6
~0.3-0.4
~0.27
4.4
GBAORD NABS 07 051 – Aerospace
equip. manufacturing and repairing
Rail
Rail total
R&D – GHG emissions reduction
0.85
~0.17
Eurostat BERD (BES) – Manufacture of
0.4
railway, tramway locomotives, rolling stock
0.65
0.15
31.8
~0.21
~0.06
~10.3-11.3
~0.08-0.12
~0.06-0.1
~0.14
~0.07
~0.02
~0.07
~0.06
~5.1-6.1
~1.4-1.7
~0.5-0.6
~0.4
129
62.5
5.8%
7.6%
0.6
~0.25
0.4
~0.16
5.7
~1.9
0.4
Maritime
Maritime total
0.57
~0.3
Eurostat BERD (BES) – Building and
0.2
repairing of ships and boats
4.9%
6.1%
3.6%
5.1%
4.8%
5.1%
3.6%
6.7%
5.2%
21.4
R&D – Environmental technologies
- Automotive manufacturers
- Automotive suppliers
R&D - Conventional ICEs
R&D - Electric vehicles
R&D - Fuel cells
R&D – Biofuels
Air
ICB- Aerospace and defence
Civil aeronautics
aircraft and spacecraft
423
156
66
645
455
349
107
138
594
All modes
ICB – Transport
Total transport
40.3
37.2
~12-13
26.7
19.8
4.3%
0.24
~0.05
0.02
~0.005
1.1
~0.22
16.5
3.4%
0.26
~0.1
0.05
~0.02
0.9
~0.4
774
693
5.2%
5.4%
1.8
~0.6
0.6
~0.25
39.5
~13-14
Rounded numbers
Note: Estimates from our bottom-up analysis are highlighted in grey; Note that the figures stemming from the different
databases (EU Scoreboard, Eurostat BERD, GBAORD) are not comparable due to methodological differences (sectoral
definition, allocation method, etc.). ICB = Industry Classification Benchmark
8
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Introduction
The European Union is committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least
20% by the year 2020 compared to 1990 levels in order to fight global climate change.
In the long run, there is an agreement that developed countries will need to bring down
their emission levels by some 60-80% compared to the same base year.
While over the past decade most sectors managed to reduce their emission levels,
transport emissions experienced a continuous rise. The transport sector will therefore
need to undergo significant changes in order to become more sustainable and to not
endanger the fulfilment of the European climate and energy objectives. Technological
changes are expected to play a pivotal role in reducing the environmental impacts of
transport (EEA, 2010). A broad portfolio of technological options to reduce GHG emission in all transport modes are currently being researched, developed or already implemented. Their techno-economic characteristics and the GHG emission reduction
potentials are further discussed in WP2 and WP3 of the GHG-TransPoRD project. On
that basis, scenarios will be developed that hint at the areas in which additional policies
and measures are most needed in order to fully exploit the reduction potentials, also
pointing out priority research fields in transport.
As a starting point for the analysis of additional research efforts, current R&D capacities in the transport sector need to be known. This report therefore aims at estimating
the most recent R&D investments in the EU by industry and public funds from Member
States and at the EU level. This assessment is complemented by an analysis of patent
applications, which provide additional information such as the dynamics of various research fields over time. At the same time, it sketches out the innovation system transport by assessing the main (institutional) actors being involved in R&D and trying to
identify links between them.
The report is structured as follows: It starts with the executive summary and the conclusions that can be drawn from the various approaches combined in this work. The
report's first part then focuses on quantitative assessment of today's investment in R&D
efforts and the patent analysis. Each of the sections is wrapped up with a brief summary of key messages. The second part then provides an overview of the innovation
systems in low-carbon cars, aviation, railways and maritime. Additional, detailed information on e.g. the key actors in R&D at the European scene or in various EU Member
States are placed in the annexes, which also contain an overview of environmental
innovations of major car manufacturers. This additional material backs the assessment
of the innovation system and provides more details on the programmes named in the
quantitative assessment, but can also be seen as a stand-alone part.
PART I – Quantitative assessment of present R&D efforts
9
10
GHG-TransPoRD D1
1.
Scope of the quantitative assessment
The objective of this chapter is to estimate the current corporate and public R&D investments that are allocated to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the transport
sector in the EU. The analysis focuses on the latest year for which (most) data were
available in form of annual company reports or figures from supranational databases
such as the IEA and Eurostat. This has been 2008 at the time of writing of this report.
Even though the main focus lies on providing a 'snapshot' of present R&D investments,
in some cases data from earlier years are provided in addition.
The breakdown of the analysis follows the transport modes road, rail, air and maritime.
To the extent possible, R&D investments are then further broken down by groups of
technologies following the idea of decomposition:
Total emissions = Activity *
Energy Emissions
*
Activity
Energy
Herein, the factor energy/activity is associated with a group of measures that aim at
improving the efficiency of the mode, while the factor emissions/energy largely comprises alternative fuels. The factor activity is outside of the scope of this work.
The report will assess the levels of R&D investments at four distinct levels (Figure 1-1):
• R&D invested in 'transport': it refers to the total R&D investment from all transport
modes. It is a highly aggregated figure for which a rather reliable database is available and that can be compared with several other studies.
• R&D invested by transport mode: this second level of assessment requires quantifying the R&D investment flows assigned to the different modes namely road, rail,
maritime and air transport.
• R&D invested for reducing energy use and GHG emissions: this third level of analysis is much more complex since it requires 1) to set up a methodology for excluding
all R&D activities that do not explicitly focus on environmental-related issues (e.g.
safety, comfort, infrastructure) and 2) to separate research activities dealing with
GHG emissions reduction from those on air pollutant emissions. Except in a few
cases, this amount is generally unknown and therefore requires some further assumptions.
• R&D invested at technology group level: data is generally not available at this high
level of technological detail. Hence, several rough assumptions ('guess-timates')
have been made to come up with an indication of the order of magnitude of this figure. This implies that the uncertainty associated with the results increases with the
level of detail given. In the present study, R&D investments will be assessed for the
automotive sector and distinguishes between three technology groups: conventional
11
engine technologies, electric vehicles (including hybrid technologies) and alternative
fuels (biofuels, hydrogen and fuel cells).
In addition to the above breakdown, the R&D investments are distinguished by the type
of source funds (corporate, public Member States, EU funding). The objective is thus to
come up with a proxy of the three matrices shown in Figure 1-1 below.
GHG EMISSIONS = ACTIVITY Χ
ENERGY INTENSITY Χ
Consumer choices = f (distance
travelled, driving patterns…)
J/km – Vehicle technologies
CARBON INTENSITY
CO2/J – Future transport fuels
1- Total R&D investment in ‘Transport’
2- R&D investment by transport mode
3- R&D investment for reducing the environmental impact
3a- GHG emissions reduction
3b- Air pollutants
4- R&D investment per mode, technology and source of funds
T1
T2
T3
T4
,,,
Tj
,,,
Tn
ROAD
T1
RAIL
Technologies
Transport
modes
ROAD
AIR
T1
RAIL
T2
T3
MARINE
ROAD
AIR
RAIL
MARINE
T2
T3
T4
T4
,,,
Tj
,,,
,,,
Tj
,,,
Tn
Tn
EU funding
Member States
AIR
MARINE
Corporate R&D
Figure 1-1: Schematic illustration of the approach for the present study
12
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Box 1: Terminology used in the present study
R&D investments
To the extent possible, the definition of R&D follows the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2002). Companies are
hold to apply this definition in their reporting within the International Accounting Standard 38 ('Intangible
Assets'). The IEA statistics contain some demonstration figures; however, these are in general limited.
Regarding the EU public R&D spending, only funds within the 7th Research Framework Programme have
been assessed. While these indeed include some support to demonstration activities, their main focus lies
on R&D.
R&D investments in 'transport'
This generic term is somewhat vague since it can include R&D activities in many domains making it difficult to clearly define the boundaries of the 'transport' sector within or across the different modes. Broadly
speaking, the present analysis mainly refers to R&D on vehicle technologies (e.g. for improving energy
efficiency, reducing pollutant emissions, improving safety, comfort, etc.). To the extent possible, R&D investments related to transport infrastructure will be ignored (although it is very difficult to undertake in most
of the cases, especially for public funding) as well as military applications. More specifically, R&D in 'Road'
transport is related to research in all road vehicle technologies as a whole e.g. on passenger cars, trucks,
two-wheelers, etc. R&D in 'Rail' transport mainly focuses on R&D investment related to rolling stock e.g.
trams, metro, regional trains, locomotives, high and very high speed trains. R&D in 'Air' transport is related
to research on civil aeronautics, i.e. excluding defence and space-related R&D activities. Finally, R&D in
'Maritime' transport refers to research on all type of ships (cruise, cargo, yachts, etc.) for commercial or
recreational purposes (military applications are not considered).
R&D investments for 'reducing GHG emissions'
Firstly, assessing the share of R&D investments dedicated to reduce the GHG emissions requires removing non-directly related R&D activities i.e. on safety, comfort, infrastructure, communication technologies,
etc. Secondly, it is methodologically complex to separate R&D allocated exclusively to 'energy-saving'
technologies from R&D towards 'environmentally-friendly' technologies, the latter generally including R&D
on fuel consumption reduction but also on air pollutants and noise.
The equation is very complex owing to the fact that technologies designed to reduce GHG emissions (climate change) do not systematically lead to environmental improvements and vice versa. For instance,
there are many examples showing that decreasing CO2 for an engine can increase NOx emissions; decreasing noise can increase CO2 emissions, decreasing NOx emissions can also increase CO2 emissions, etc. Moreover, such an analysis should be based on a life cycle perspective. Ideally research would
identify and develop such technologies that lead to win-win-win situations for climate mitigation, air pollution and noise.
Note also that providing a precise definition of 'GHG emissions' is complex. To simplify, if we consider
alternative fuels, it refers to GHG emissions over the whole life cycle (WTW). But in a broad sense (e.g.
with regard to energy saving technologies), it mainly refers to GHG emissions during the use phase (TTW),
which can be directly emitted (CO2 emissions related to the amount of fuel burnt) or indirectly emitted (e.g.
HFC-134 emissions due to air conditioning leakages, etc.).
Eventually, some research efforts that results in enhanced fuel efficiency or decreased weight etc. may
have been motivated by other than environmental considerations, e.g. to increase the 'joy of driving', and
may be (partly) outweighed by more performant cars etc. Nevertheless, the technology can save GHG
emissions and would thus be allocated to this group for the purpose of the present exercise.
2.
2.1
13
Methodology
Methodology for estimating corporate R&D investments
The analysis of corporate R&D investments builds on a bottom-up approach at the
level of individual companies. Hence, the most important data input are the companies'
financial statements that are published in their annual reports (which are obligatory for
companies listed on the stock exchange).
This information is collected in the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, which is
therefore used as the most important single data source. It is prepared from companies' annual audited reports and accounts and collects data on R&D investment for
1000 EU-based and 1000 non-EU based companies that are grouped according to the
ICB4 classification. Companies are allocated to the country of their registered office,
which may differ from the operational or R&D headquarters in some cases.
In order to complement and validate this company-based approach at the aggregated
level of total transport-related R&D investments, data on sectoral R&D expenditures
have been used based on the Eurostat/OECD BERD (Business enterprise sector's
R&D expenditure) database. BERD contains data on the business enterprise sector's
expenditure in R&D for different socio-economic objectives following the NACE5 classification. Furthermore, the expenditures are given by sources of funds, disaggregated
into business enterprise sector (BES), government sector (GOV), higher education
sector (HES), private non-profit sector (PNO) and abroad (ABR). We assessed transport-related BERD data for funds from all sources and those funds that stem from the
business enterprise sector BES. The latter is more comparable to the central bottom-up
approach of this report that looks into the R&D investments that stem from the companies' funds (to the extent that the publicly funded parts can be identified and subtracted).
Both databases have been manipulated in order to fill data gaps in the latest available
year 2008 with data from previous years where available. This is explained in more
detail in the relevant sections. The databases allow for an overview of the R&D investment of transport-related sectors in the EU, by Member States and globally.
4 Industry Classification Benchmark
5 European statistical classification of economic sectors
14
GHG-TransPoRD D1
The data do nevertheless not directly allow a further breakdown of R&D funding into
different technologies, and there is currently no single dataset that would allow for such
an analysis. For this reason, a bottom-up assumption-based approach has been applied in the present work (based on Wiesenthal et al., 2009), which consists of six
steps:
Step 0: The identification of key industrial players by mode/technology group and single technology.
Key industrial players and innovators in the transport sector and by technology
(group) were identified. Identifying them one by one instead of relying on the
classification by sector allowed to include also companies from ICB sectors that
are not necessarily transport-related, such as energy-related industries that can
be important stakeholders (e.g. for alternative fuels) and those that act in the
supply chain.
In total, around 200 relevant companies have been identified6. Note, however,
that since the lists of key companies are not exhaustive, neglecting minor players that might, in sum, provide a far greater R&D commitment, they tend to underestimate the total R&D efforts dedicated to transport technologies.
Step 1: The gathering of information on R&D investments of these companies.
Secondly, the overall R&D investments in the year 2008 had to be identified for
the companies selected. Combining information from various sources allowed
for the identification of data on R&D investments for 122 out of the 200 companies. As mentioned above, the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard
proved to be the single most important data source for this step. To the extent
possible, gaps in the information of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard have been filled through a systematic research of annual reports or other
information for those companies that are not listed on the stock exchange and
thus are not obliged to publish their financial reports.
Step 2: The elimination of R&D dedicated to non-transport related activities.
Even though most of the companies identified are exclusively active in the
transport sector, a number of large companies also have substantial activities in
non-transport sectors. This is the case in particular for large supranational companies such as Bosch, Siemens, Alstom, etc. but also energy/oil companies that
6 Around half of them being energy suppliers and fuel cell companies.
15
are important in the area of alternative fuels. For those players, assumptions
had to be made on the parts of their overall R&D activity that are directed towards transport. In a number of cases, this figure can directly be derived from
official sources. In other cases, it was approximated by e.g. the turnover of the
various branches, thus including some uncertainty to the results.
Steps 3-5: The allocation of the R&D investments to transport modes (step 3), GHG
emission reduction (step 4), and single technologies (step 5).
For companies active in more than one transport mode an allocation of the R&D
investments by mode were performed. In a next step, a further breakdown to
activities that aim are reducing GHG emissions and those that rather aim at enhancing safety or comfort had to be made. Note that an intermediate 'instrumental' step often had to be performed, focusing on R&D investments into 'environmental technologies', as for this sub-group, more information was available
than for 'GHG emission reduction technologies'. In a final step, an even further
breakdown of the research efforts to distinct technology groups and individual
technologies has been aimed at in the road transport sector.
This allocation requires additional information as there is no data available at
this level of detail. To this end, companies' annual reports and corporate sustainability reports were systematically analysed for additional information on the
breakdown of R&D investments. Moreover, the websites of individual companies and associations were screened for further information, enhanced by free
searches that delivered additional information in the form of e.g. presentations
and speeches from company key actors or press releases.
In the easiest cases, this additional information revealed the allocation of the
R&D investment to the different technologies. For most companies, however,
the R&D expenditures could be narrowed down to a particular field (e.g. 'GHG
emission reduction') with certain accuracy but then needed to be further split
between the various technologies based on qualitative information. In that
cases, some substantiated "guess-timates" based on expert knowledge had to
be performed in order to allocate their R&D investment to single technologies.
These "guess-timates" build on a number of indirect indications, such as the
number of researchers by field that allowed a rough estimation of the R&D investments by applying an average R&D investment per research employee. An
average investment of €120,000 to €160,000 per research employee was found
to be a suitable proxy based on information from 67 companies or research
centres (Figure 2-2). This range was then used for further estimates, unless
16
GHG-TransPoRD D1
more precise figures could be obtained for the specific company. Other companies announced future R&D investment plans, which were subsequently 'extrapolated' to the 2008 data. In other cases, figures on the net sales of various
business units could be identified and helped to narrow down relevant R&D investments.
Number of companies/subsidiairies
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
[90-120]
[120-160]
[160-200]
>200
R&D investm ent per research em ployee (k€)
Figure 2-2: Distribution of R&D investments per research employee
Source: IPTS (based on a variety of information sources)
The use of patents (or patent applications) proved to be one of the most important tools in approximating the R&D investments by technology group. Based on
the assumption that patents may reflect a company's research effort, the distribution of patents across the relevant technologies was used as a proxy for the
distribution of its R&D expenditures. Linking input indicators such as R&D
spending to output indicators (such as patents) entails a number of problems as
the transport sector' includes a broad variety of technologies and industries with
different characteristics regarding the research intensity needed for a patent
and the propensity to patent. As a consequence, the average R&D intensity per
patent may differ considerably between technologies. Companies may also decide to classify or label patents in a way that makes it difficult to detect them
with the patent search scheme applied here. Despite these general constraints
regarding the use of patents, they may nevertheless be used as a rough indicator within the scope of this analysis, taking into account that studies show a
strong correlation between the number of patents granted and the R&D investments (Popp, 2005; Kemp and Pearson, 2007)7. In general, there is the consideration that patents are a good indicator of the direction of research and of the
7 Popp (2005) shows that patents are a suitable mean for obtaining R&D activity in highly disaggregated
forms.
17
technological competencies of firms (Oltra et al., 2008). Furthermore, with regard to the special sector in question, patents are much more accessible than
any information of research efforts by technology, as the automotive industry is
the industry which protects the most its innovation with patents8.
Certainly, one needs to keep in mind the time delay between R&D inputs and
outputs. Investments in research need some years before it materializes in the
form of patents or patent applications. Hence, using patent data from the latest
available years (2007/2009) as a proxy for the R&D investments in the year
2008 leads to some systematic error. Despite the uncertainties resulting from
this procedure, it is still considered a valuable input to the assumption-based allocation process when having in mind that its outcome will not be able to deliver
more than an estimation of the order of magnitude.
Two distinct patent analyses have been used in the present work: a keywordbased research of the European Patent Office's database Espacenet and a
search by category of the PATSTAT database. Combining these two different
approaches helps in overcoming the specific shortcomings of each of them. For
more information see section 2.4.
Not only the patent search, but also its application as a proxy for the R&D investment breakdown follows a two-track approach. Firstly, we determine the
share of patents on a certain technology in relation to the overall patents of a
company as an indication of their share of research efforts in this technology.
Alternatively, we use the relative distribution of patents across the different lowcarbon technologies as an indication for the relation of the R&D efforts among
them. This latter approach makes sense in those cases where – from other approaches or literature – the R&D investment in one technology had been determined before with a reasonable degree of uncertainty, stemming e.g. directly
from company sources.
To the extent possible, several of the above mentioned approaches have been
combined for individual companies in order to reduce the uncertainty of the estimates. Nevertheless, the allocation process proves to be the greatest source
of uncertainty in the present work.
Step 6: The summing up of the individual companies' R&D investments by mode, technology group and single technology.
8 42.5% of firms of the industrial sector 'Motor vehicles' protect their innovation with patents (Oltra et al.,
2008).
18
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Sources: Experts, breakdown of a sector’s turnover by company, own
research through EU platforms, associations, etc.
0- Identify key EU companies investing in transport R&D
PHASE 0
1- Total R&D expenditure of the company
Sources: EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard; Annual Reports
PHASE 1
YES
Are all R&D efforts
going to the transport
sector?
Allocate 100% of the R&D
spending to transport-related
activities
NO
Sources: Annual reports; financial reports; company website, etc.
Assessing the share of the R&D
spending going to transport-related
activities
Approaches: Annual sales by division; R&D employees per division. Non-transport
R&D activities are removed (e.g. Alstom ‘Power’, Wartsila ‘Power Plants’)
PHASE 2
2- Approximate R&D expenditures in transport
YES
Are all R&D efforts
going to one transport
mode?
spending to the relevant mode
NO
Sources: Annual reports; financial reports; company website, additional information
from the company (e.g. speeches), etc.
spending allocating to each mode
Approaches: Annual sales by transport mode; R&D employees by transport mode
PHASE 3
Increase of the
uncertainty level
3- Approximate R&D expenditures by mode
YES
Are all R&D efforts
aiming at reducing
GHG emissions?
spending to GHG emissions
reduction
NO
spending for reducing GHG
emissions
Sources: Direct contacts, annual reports, sustainability reports, company
website, additional information from the company (e.g. speeches, plans),
information from EU projects, press releases, etc.
Approaches: Proxies derived from company’s R&D mapping (list of
relevant R&D centres, R&D employees, turnover, etc.)
PHASE 4
Feedback Checking
consistency
4- Approximate R&D expenditures for reducing GHG emissions
YES
Are all R&D efforts
going to one
technological field?
Allocate 100% of the R&D spending
to the relevant technology
NO
spending allocating to each technology
Sources: Direct contacts, annual reports, sustainability reports, company
website, additional information from the company (e.g. speeches, plans),
information from EU projects and specific studies, etc.
Approaches: Proxies derived from company’s R&D mapping (list of
relevant R&D centres, R&D employees, turnover, etc.)
Patents analysis: Combined several methods (e.g. keyword-based
approach, PATSTAT)
PHASE 5
5- Approximate R&D expenditures by technology
Figure 2-3: Schematic overview of the methodology
2.2
19
Methodology for estimating public R&D investments of
EU Member States
The most straightforward way to collect data on public transport-related R&D investments in Member States would be to rely on figures extracted from available supranational datasets such as the Eurostat GBAORD9 and the IEA RD&D statistics10. Due to
significant data gaps, in particular at a higher level of detail (e.g. limited number of MS
covered, not all data are available for the year 2008, etc.) information from these two
databases has been completed to the extent possible by national information on R&D
budgets/expenditures. Alongside our own country-based analysis with respect to national research programmes and budgets, a wide number of data has been taken from
works carried out by different EU projects and platforms (section 2.2.3).
2.2.1 GBAORD (Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays
on R&D)
GBAORD (Government Budget Appropriations or Outlays on R&D) are all appropriations allocated to R&D in central government or federal budgets. It is also recommended that provincial or state government should be included when its contribution is
significant, while local government funds should be excluded (OECD, 2002). Data are
collected from government R&D funders and maintained by Eurostat and the OECD.
GBAORD are broken down into 13 main socio-economic objectives according to the
purpose of the R&D programme or project following the NABS (Nomenclature for the
Analysis and Comparison of Scientific Programmes and Budgets) classification.
The category NABS 07 05 'Manufacture of motor vehicle and other means of transport'11 is the most relevant category for the present report. It covers research into the
following subsectors:
• NABS 07 051: 'Aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing'
• NABS 07 052: 'Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts (including agricultural
tractors)'
• NABS 07 053: 'Manufacture of all other transport equipment'
Unfortunately, at the time of this study the data provided by the GBAORD presented
major limitations in term of geographical coverage (only data for seven Member States
9 Note that the Eurostat GERD (Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D) database, which contains R&D
expenditure by R&D performers, could not be used as its breakdown does not provide the level of detail required for this report.
10 http://www.iea.org/stats/rd.asp
11 NABS 07 05 is part of the socio-economic objectives NABS 07 'Industrial production, and technology'.
20
GHG-TransPoRD D1
are available) and time horizon (up to the year 2007 only). The (incomplete) figures
given by the GBAORD are presented in chapter 3.2.
2.2.2 IEA RD&D statistics
The International Energy Agency (IEA) hosts a publicly accessible database on energy
RD&D budgets from the IEA member countries. Data is collected from government
RD&D funders. The latest available data are for the year 2008. Similar to the procedure
applied for GBAORD data, some straight forward 'gap filling' process was applied for
the IEA data. For entries missing for 2008, the value from the latest available year was
applied down to the year 2004; data older than 2004 were not considered. This approach slightly distorts the overall picture, but is nevertheless justified given that the
main interest of this report lies on the aggregated EU figures.
As only 19 of the 27 EU Member States are IEA members, the database systematically
contains no data for the other countries, i.e. for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Romania, and Slovenia.
Unfortunately, the breakdown of the IEA R&D database does not allow covering all the
RD&D efforts of the transport sector at the level of detail required in the present study
(e.g. no distinction between each transport mode) and could not be used as a central
source of data for this work. However, the RD&D budgets allocated by Member States
to different vehicle technologies (see Table 2-2 below) can be of high interest.
In the present study, data from the categories I.3 'Transportation' and VI.3 'Energy
Storage' are used to have an estimate of the public R&D investments12 in new engines
and electric vehicles (including hybrids). Furthermore, public R&D investments on biofuels and hydrogen and fuel cells13 will be derived from the categories V.1 'Total hydrogen' and V.2 'Total Fuel Cells' (following IEA, 2009a).
Unlike the GBAORD, the IEA database covers demonstration activities on top of pure
research and development activities. 'Demonstration projects' are of large scale, but
are not expected to operate on a commercial basis (IEA, 2008a). In practice, however,
most IEA member countries do either not provide data on funds directed towards demonstration, or do not display them separately.
12 Note that for the purpose of this report, we consider the IEA data as mainly related to R&D investments.
13 Note that RD&D budgets allocated to 'Transport biofuels' are not systematically provided but are covered under the wider category 'Bioenergy'. Likewise, RD&D budgets going to mobile applications of
fuel cells are sometimes missing but only available under the category 'Total fuel cells' i.e. including
all fuel cell applications.
Table 2-2:
21
IEA categories related to transport RD&D budgets
IEA category
Description
I.3 Transportation
• analysis and optimisation of energy consumption in the transport sector;
• efficiency improvements in light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, non-road vehicles
• public transport systems;
• engine-fuel optimisation;
• use of alternative fuels (liquid, gaseous);
• fuel additives;
• diesel engines;
• stirling motors, electric cars, hybrid cars;
• other.
III.4.1 Production of transport biofuels including from wastes
• conventional bio-fuels;
• cellulosic conversion to alcohol;
• biomass gas-to-liquids;
• other.
V.1 Total Hydrogen
Total Hydrogen = Hydrogen production + Hydrogen storage + Hydrogen transport and
distribution + Other infrastructure and systems
R&D
V.2 Total Fuel Cells
Total Fuel Cells = Stationary applications +
Mobile applications + Other applications
V.2.2 Mobile applications
mobile applications of fuel cells
VI.3 Energy Storage
• batteries;
• super-capacitors;
• superconducting magnetic;
• water heat storage;
• sensible/latent heat storage;
• photochemical storage;
• kinetic energy storage;
• other (excluding fuel cells).
Source: IEA, 2009b
22
GHG-TransPoRD D1
2.2.3 Other information sources
Three main types of sources have been consulted to collect information about the national R&D programmes (and annual budget funding when available): ERA-NETs, the
documents published by the European Technology Platforms (e.g. Strategic Research
Agenda) and the results from EU FP7 projects on related topics.
An overall picture of the main European actors and R&D programmes related to the
different modes of transport is given in Figure 2-4 below (details can be found below
and in chapter 9 in the annex). Broadly speaking, research planning and programmes
defined under FP7 through large EU initiatives is the result of long collaborative works
between all the different stakeholders (European Commission, Member States, private
sector, associations, etc.) in the frame of e.g. the EU technology platforms and ERANETs.
Road
ERA-NET ROAD
ERTRAC
ERRAC
Rail
Electrification roadmap
SRA, …
SRA, …
EAGAR
EGCI
TPT-SST
SAFIER
ERRAC ROAD MAP
EMAR2RES
Maritime
MARTEC
WATERBORNE TP
SRA, …
SRA, …
CASMARE
TPT-AAT
AGAPE
CREATE
Air
AirTN
ACARE
SRA, …
SRA, …
ERANETs
Figure 2-4:
ETPs
EU initiatives
CSSA
Clean Sky JTI
SESAR JU
Key FP7 projects (excl. ERANETs)
Overview of actors and programmes in transport research at EU
level (simplified)
Note: EU research programmes related to hydrogen and fuel cells (e.g. HFC JTI) and bioenergy (e.g. EU
biofuels TP) are not displayed here.
23
The European Research Area Networks (ERA-NETs) aim at coordinating national and
regional research activities of EU Member States. In the field of transport, ERA-Net
transport (ENT)14 is the network/platform in charge of national transport research programmes in Europe with the aim of structuring the European Research Area (ERA) for
transport. Several studies have been carried out that provide, among others, a mapping of the different R&D actors and national transport research programmes in EU
countries. Note that within ENT, research funding cooperation is organised in 19 action
groups (such as electric mobility, freight transport, alternative fuels, etc.).
In this study, two ERANET projects have been of particular relevance for collecting
data on national R&D programmes and funds, namely Air Transport Net (AirTN) for
aeronautical research and MARTEC (Maritime Technologies) for the maritime transport
(see annex).
The European Technology Platforms (ETPs) aim at providing 'a framework for stakeholders, led by industry, to define research and development priorities, timeframes and
action plans on a number of strategically important issues where achieving Europe's
future growth, competitiveness and sustainability objectives is dependent upon major
research and technological advances in the medium to long term'15. In other words, the
core activity of an ETP is to bring together private and public stakeholders to develop a
medium to long term RD&D strategy and action plan in the field concerned. The main
outcome of an ETP is the elaboration of a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) that identifies the key R&D needs for the next decades in order to achieve the objectives defined in a 'Vision' (2020 or 2030) document. As far as the transport sector is concerned,
there are mainly five transport-related ETPs. Four of them concern directly one specific
transport mode namely ERTRAC for road, ERRAC for rail, ACARE for air and
WATERBORNE-TP for maritime transport, while the other is the technology platform
on biofuels (BIOFUEL-TP). They are described in more detail in annex.
With regard to FP projects (excluding ERANETs), EAGAR16 (European Assessment of
Global Publicly Funded Automotive Research, FP7) has been used as a relevant
source of information with regard to the public automotive research activities at EU and
Member State level (note that the scope of EAGAR goes beyond EU countries). The
objective is to identify the 'national road transport visions and roadmaps, research priorities, supported key topics, technology pathway, as well as the level of investment', in
14 http://www.transport-era.net/
15 http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/
16 http://www.eagar.eu/
24
GHG-TransPoRD D1
order to provide a 'direct comparison of national automotive R&D policies relating to the
environment (energy, CO2, pollution, recycling, noise), safety and congestion.'
Furthermore, the outcomes of the Transport Research Knowledge Centre (TRKC, FP6
project)17 have been widely used to get a comprehensive overview of transport-related
research activities carried out at European and national level in all transport modes. Its
web portal provides valuable information and data about the different organisations,
research programmes and projects in the transport sector across the European Research Area (ERA). In 2009, the TRKC released an updated review of the different
transport research programmes and projects undertaken at EU and national level
(TRKC, 2009).
The estimates of the public Member States funding through the different transport
modes thus result from a combination of all available data (that have been also crosschecked) provided by these EU projects and platforms (see Table 2-3).
Table 2-3:
Key sources providing qualitative and quantitative information on national transport R&D activities
Sector
ETPs/Projects
Road
ERTRAC - European Road Transport Research Advisory
Council
EUCAR - The European Council for Automotive R&D
ERA-NET Road
EAGAR project (FP7)
Air
AirTN – Air Transport Net
ACARE - Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in
Europe
Clean Sky JTI
SESAR JU
AirTN, 2009
Rail
ERRAC - European Rail Research Advisory Council
ERRAC, 2008
Maritime
WATERBORNE TP - European Technology Platform
Waterborne
MARTEC ERA-NET – Maritime Technologies
MARTEC,
2007
Biofuels
European Biofuels Technology Platform (Biofuels TP)
H2/FC
European Fuel Cells and Hydrogen JTI
General information
TRKC - Transport Research Knowledge Centre (FP6)
ERA-NET Transport
NETWATCH (JRC-IPTS)
ERAWATCH (JRC IPTS)
17 http://www.transport-research.info/
Key reference
TRKC, 2009
2.3
25
EU FP7 public transport R&D investments
European funds complement the Member States' public R&D support. The Research
Framework Programme is a key source of R&D financing on new transport technologies. Launched in 2007, the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) has a total budget
of €50 billion (2007-2013) in support to the Lisbon Strategy.
The assessment of the FP7 R&D investments undertaken here relies on a combination
of different approaches. To the extent possible, the official budgets – also including the
recent European Green Cars Initiative from 2010 onwards – have been used, and then
annualised (see below).
When going at a higher level of detail, e.g. for obtaining a breakdown of the R&D investments by transport mode or some technologies (biofuels), information on budgets
does not provide the required level of detail. In these cases, FP7 commitments during
the first two years of its duration to single projects have been analysed. This track of
assessment systematically includes all projects funded within of the core budget line
used for transport-R&D projects ('Transport' thematic priority); to the extent possible it
has been complemented by other transport-relevant projects that are funded through
other budget lines (e.g. 'Energy' or 'Environment').
As the EU Research Framework Programmes are of multiannual nature, while the present report aims at presenting the EU R&D investments for the most recent year available, they had to be broken down further in order to determine the specific budgets
available for one single year. In order to level out annual fluctuations in the budget that
are due to the project cycles, it was decided to assume an even allocation of the total
expenses to every year of the FP7 duration (the financially effective duration of FP7
was six years).
More concretely, the following approach has been used for assessing the various FP7
R&D support (see Figure 3-16 for a summary):
•
For road, the European Green Cars Initiative has been used as one basis, assuming an annual spread of the budget over the period 2007-2013, even
though it has been launched at a latter stage only. On top of this, projects
launched under TPT-SST that relate to road transport R&D other than EGCI are
taken into account.
•
For rail and waterborne as well as multimodal research, an analysis of the projects launched during the first two years has been used as estimate. The same
applies to the analysis of biofuels-related R&D.
26
GHG-TransPoRD D1
•
For hydrogen and fuel cells, the budget of FP7 to FCH JTI has been annualised.
•
In the case of aviation, the annualised budget of the Clean Sky JTI and the
SESAR Joint Undertaking is taken as a basis. This is complemented by the
commitments to aviation-related projects under Collaborative Research TPTAAT.
To the extent possible, the figures obtained here are consistent with official figures at
the more aggregated level.
Other EU funding schemes such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme
with its pillar Intelligent Energy Europe, the Cohesion funds, Trans-European Networks,
etc. could either not be assessed quantitatively on the level of detail needed for this
report, or were considered less relevant for research as they mainly focus on deployment.
2.4
Search of patent applications
Patent statistics, though an imperfect measure, are an established tool in the assessment of the technological capabilities of countries or companies. In order to better understand the current stand of technological development related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector, the patent activity in four selected technology areas is examined (conventional engines; electric vehicles; fuel cell vehicles;
biofuels).
The outcome is used for two different purposes in the present report. Firstly, it serves
as a rough indicator when estimating corporate R&D investments by technology
(group). To this end, the share of a company's number of patents on a certain technology in their overall patenting activity is assumed to be related to their share of R&D
investments dedicated to this technology in total R&D investments, despite all the
drawbacks related with linking R&D investments and patents (see discussion in section
2.1). Secondly, as it has not been possible to assess the R&D investments into certain
technologies over time, the results of the patent search are used as an indication of the
time dynamics of attention given to certain technologies. The results of this analysis are
described in chapter 5.
Two different approaches on analysing patent (applications) have been used in parallel
so as to overcome the specific shortcomings of each of them. On the one hand, a keyword-based research of the European Patent Office's database Espacenet, on the
other a search by category of the PATSTAT database.
27
The (straightforward) keyword-based research builds on literature and follows the
methodology developed by Oltra and Saint Jean (2009a). The yearly number of patent
applications delivered worldwide to different technologies can be obtained from the
patent database hosted by the European Patent Office (EPO)18. The searching process consists of using the three search fields: 'keywords in title or abstract', 'publication
date' and 'applicant'. However, this keyword-based approach is subject to several
drawbacks, as underlined by Oltra and Saint Jean (2009a).
The more in-detail search using the IPC19 method with the October 2009 snapshot of
PATSTAT, the Worldwide Patent Statistical Database maintained by the European
Patent Office (EPO). We consider here “international patent applications”, defined as
those applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT, “world patents”)
and those filed directly at the EPO20. The technologies fields investigated were:
1. Hybrid and electric vehicles: this includes electric motors used for traction in vehicles (i.e. small electric motors included for comfort are excluded), their integration into the vehicle, energy recovery from braking, and the pertinent control
structures.
2. Mobile fuel cells: this includes all aspects of fuel-cell manufacture as well as their
integration into vehicles.
3. Biofuels: this includes technologies which allow the industrial scale preparation of
gaseous or liquid fuels from biomass (all origins).
The IPC method has been used successfully in a number of past studies. Nevertheless, a brief look at its strengths and weaknesses is warranted. The principal strength
compared to the keyword method lies in the assessment of relevant technology fields,
regardless of whether the patents contain the selected keywords or not. Furthermore,
this type of search profits from the expertise of the patent offices when assigning each
patent to the relevant field of technology. However, the selection on the basis of IPC
still cannot guarantee that all relevant patents are captured in the search (false negatives). On the other hand, it is not possible to exclude the possibility of counting patents
that are not directly relevant and that for one reason or another are included in the IPC
codes deemed as adequate for the search (false positives).
18 http://ep.espacenet.com/
19 IPC stands for International Patent Classification. It provides a hierarchical system of language independent symbols for the classification of patents and utility models according to the different areas of
technology to which they pertain. The search is thus performed by specifying relevant IPC codes.
20 To avoid double counting of patent applications, those patents at the EPO resulting from applications
under the PCT are excluded.
28
GHG-TransPoRD D1
In order to minimize the error in the search based on IPC codes, the search strategies
are extensively tested by performing limited searches (e.g. to a single year, depending
on the absolute number of patents) and examining the titles and abstracts of the patents matched by the search. In general, search strategies are initially designed to be
broad and are then trimmed according to the detailed information in the patent applications. In the case that a given IPC code contains significant numbers of false positives,
this particular IPC code is constrained by using keywords. Despite these precautions,
we are compelled to point to the inherent uncertainties in the results presented in this
chapter, which make it impossible to provide absolute numbers of relevant patent applications. Moreover, because the respective margins of error are unknown, it is not
possible to apply significance testing (in the statistical sense) to small differences between observations. Despite the difficulties outlined above, it is possible to use the data
to identify patenting trends and as an indicator of the technological performance of
companies, countries or regions in comparison to each other, as shown in chapter 5.
3.
29
RESULTS I – Overall R&D investments in transport
3.1
Corporate R&D investments
In this section, we assess the overall corporate R&D investment in the transport sector
as defined by the ICB (Industry Classification Benchmark). This means that we assess
each ICB class as such, using the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard as a
starting point. The objective of this chapter is to provide an overview of the R&D investments allocated to 'transport' as a whole at world and European level. Moreover, it
will look into the investments by mode and sub-sectors. In order to make our results
comparable with other studies, we will carefully define what the 'transport' sector and
various sub-selections refer to where necessary. Eventually, this approach is complemented by relevant figures from the BERD database and compared to the extent possible.
Unlike in chapter 4, we do not modify the figures from the scoreboard – i.e. we neither
remove the non-transport-related R&D investments of multi-business companies that
are allocated to transport-related ICB sectors, nor complement the sectors with other
relevant companies that are allocated to non-transport ICB sector.
A summary of the main pros and cons associated with this overall assessment is given
in Table 3-4 below:
Table 3-4:
Pros and Cons of the overall assessment
Pros
R&D investments, turnover and
number of employees are provided
A comparison is possible with other
ICB sectors
Geographical coverage: World,
Europe and Member States level
Time series 2002-2008 are available
A comparison is possible with other
supranational sources
Cons
Restricted number of companies
Due to ICB classification, not all transport-related firms
are included
Due to ICB classification, not all the companies included
invest 100% of their R&D in transport-related activities
Due to ICB classification, no clear distinction between all
transport modes is made possible
No R&D investments provided at the level of detail required for the present analysis
30
GHG-TransPoRD D1
3.1.1 Overall analysis based on the EU Industrial R&D Investment
Scoreboard
The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard is based on the ICB classification. With
regard to transport R&D, the most relevant ICB categories are basically 'Automobiles &
parts', 'Commercial vehicles & trucks' and 'Aerospace & defence' which are the categories analysed in the present chapter21. For a more thorough analysis, we have split the
'Automobiles & parts' category into the two subsectors 'Automotive manufacturers' and
'Automotive suppliers'22. Hence, the 'transport' sector as defined in this chapter consists of the following subsectors:
• 'Automotive manufacturers' (part of 'Automobiles & parts')
• 'Automotive suppliers' (part of 'Automobiles & parts')
• 'Commercial vehicles and trucks'
• 'Aerospace and defence'
In the following, note that the figures provided are the sum of a limited number of companies only. The 'transport sector' as defined here contains 92 EU-based companies
and 101 non-EU-based companies. Even though these are the largest R&D investors,
the limited number of actors considered means that the actual figure would be even
higher.
3.1.1.1
Transport R&D worldwide
Table 3-5 shows the R&D investments, net sales and number of employees in transport-related sectors worldwide for the year 2008. Based on the figures derived from the
EU Scoreboard 2009 (DG RTD-IPTS, 2009), it is estimated that the R&D expenditures
relative to the transport sector accounted for around €95 billion in 2008 i.e. 22% of the
21 Even if these ICB categories cover a wide number of EU companies active in transport-related research, other ICB categories can include important firms playing a key innovation role into one or
several transport modes. It is the case for instance of Alstom (cat. 'Industrial machinery'), Siemens
(cat. 'Electric components & equipment') and all energy suppliers (e.g. biofuels, hydrogen, battery
producers).
22 Note that in the ICB classification 'Automobiles & parts' is generally divided into 'Automobiles', 'Auto
parts' and 'Tires'. In this chapter, tyre manufacturers are assumed to be part of 'Auto parts'. This is
mainly motivated by the fact that key companies in 2008 (e.g. Continental) cannot be simply classified as 'tyre manufacturers' since their R&D efforts go well beyond tyre manufacturing.
31
total corporate R&D investment worldwide. It means that this sector represents one of
the largest R&D investor worldwide, other important R&D investments come from the
'Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology' and 'Technology Hardware and Equipment' industries (DG RTD-IPTS, 2009).
Table 3-5:
Automotive
manufacturers
Automotive
suppliers
Commercial
vehicles
and
trucks
Aerospace &
defence
'Transport'
sector
All industries
R&D investments, sales and total number of employees related to the
'Transport' sector (2008)
R&D investment (€bn)
Sales (€bn)
World
World
EU27
Number of employees
(million)
EU27
World
EU27
53
20.9
1,213
423
2.76
1.26
19.6
9.5
437
156
2.33
0.98
6.9
2.4
233
66
0.62
0.22
15.6
7.5
379
129
1.74
0.55
95.1
40.3
2,262
774
7.5
3
431
130
13,897
5,712
45.1
21
Data source: EU Scoreboard 2009 (DG RTD-IPTS, 2009) (rounded numbers)
As depicted in Figure 3-5, this huge R&D effort is mainly driven by the automotive
manufacturers which account for 56% of the total R&D investment, followed by the
automotive suppliers with 21%. A similar distribution is found when considering the
total sales picture, for which the transport sector weights 16% of the total industry turnover in 2008. Regarding the number of employees, 16% of the total employees worked
in the 'transport' sector in 2008 (i.e. around €7.5 million). It becomes obvious that the
transport industry holds a larger share in the total industrial R&D investments than its
share in employees and sales. This is a first indication of a relatively elevated R&D
intensity of this sector relative to other sectors.
32
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Commercial vehicles
and trucks
7%
Aerospace & defence
16%
~ €95bn
Automotive
manufacturers
56%
21%
R&D of ‘transport’ = 22% of worldwide corporate R&D
Commercial vehicles
and trucks
10%
Aerospace & defence
17%
~ €2262bn
Automotive
manufacturers
54%
19%
Sales of ‘transport’ = 16.3% of worldwide corporate sales
Commercial vehicles
and trucks
8%
Aerospace & defence
23%
~ 7.5m employees
Automotive
manufacturers
38%
31%
Nb of employees of ‘transport’ = 16.5% of worldwide corporate employees
Figure 3-5:
Weight of transport-related sectors with regard to R&D investments,
sales and number of employees – World level (2008)
Data source: EU Scoreboard 2009 (DG RTD-IPTS, 2009)
Figure 3-6 shows the geographical R&D investments repartition from the transportrelated sectors analysed. Out of the €95 billion invested worldwide in transport in 2008,
EU-based industries accounted for around €40 billion (i.e. 42% of the total investment),
followed by Japan with €26 billion (28%) and the U.S. with €25 billion (26%). Only 3%
of the total R&D investment in transport was realised by other countries.
33
RoW
3%
45
USA
26%
40
EU-27
43%
~ €95bn
R&D investment (€ billion)
35
Commercial vehicles and trucks
30
Japan
28%
Aerospace & defence
25
20
15
10
5
0
EU-27
Figure 3-6:
Japan
USA
RoW
Distribution of R&D investments from transport-related companies
worldwide (2008)
Figure 3-7 below shows the evolution of the above-mentioned R&D investments in
transport over the period 2002-2008. Even if these investments have globally increased
between 2002 and 2007 (note however a slight decrease in 2006), a sharp increase
has been observed in 2008 compared to the previous year (around €10 billion more i.e.
11% increase between 2007 and 2008)23. Globally, the R&D intensity of the sector has
remained constant with around 5% for EU-based industries and less than 4% for nonEU industries.
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the weight of the EU-based companies relative to
the total R&D investment in transport in the world has ranged between 43% (minimum
reached in 2008) and 47% (maximum reached in 2006) over the period 2002-2008.
Note that this geographical allocation bears some methodological problems as there
are various ways of allocated R&D investments of a company to a certain country (see
box 3). Moreover, it is questionable whether a geographical breakdown makes much
sense, considering the truly global nature of the main industrial players involved in
transport-related research.
23 Note that our analysis of 2009 figures (see chapter 4.1.1) indicates that R&D investments have somewhat decreased in 2009 (back to 2007 level approximately for automotive manufacturers) while the
R&D intensity has globally increased, depending on the sectors.
34
GHG-TransPoRD D1
100
6.0%
90
R&D investment (€2005 bn)
70
4.0%
60
50
3.0%
40
2.0%
30
20
Non EU-based companies
1.0%
EU-based companies
10
R&D intensity (%)
5.0%
80
R&D intensity (non EU-based companies)
R&D intensity (EU-based companies)
0
0.0%
2002
Figure 3-7:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU and nonEU based transport-related companies over the period 2002-2008
Data source: EU Scoreboard
Note: data in real terms €2005
With regard to the four modal subsectors, the main findings are the following:
Automotive manufacturers invested €53 billion in R&D in 2008, derived from the assessment of around 30 companies worldwide. Almost 40% (€21 billion) were due to
companies with their headquarters in the EU (mainly Germany; France and Italy), 36%
from Japan and 21% from US-based firms. It is worth mentioning that at world level,
twelve groups namely Toyota, Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford, Honda, Daimler,
Nissan, BMW, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault, Fiat and Hyundai accounted for 90% of
the total R&D investment. In the EU, six car manufacturers accounted for 95% of the
total R&D expenses, namely Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW, PSA, Renault and Fiat.
Over the period 2002-2008, the R&D expenditures of this sector worldwide have significantly increased from €42 billion in 2002 to €53 billion in 2008 (26% increase). Since
2002, EU-based companies have always accounted for an important share of the R&D
investment, between 38% (in 2002) and 43% (maximum reached in 2007) of the total.
Note that the overall R&D intensity of EU-based automotive manufacturers has significantly grown between 2007 and 2008 to reach around 5% in 2008, while non-EU companies present a rather constant R&D intensity over the same period.
35
60
6.0%
50
5.0%
40
4.0%
30
3.0%
20
2.0%
10
R&D intensity (%)
1.0%
EU-based companies
0
0.0%
2002
Figure 3-8:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU and nonEU based automotive manufacturers over the period 2002-2008
Box 2: R&D investments in two-wheelers
As a rough estimate, around €1.5-2 billion out of the €53 billion was spent in R&D activities on twowheelers in 2008. This estimate results from the analysis of a dozen companies worldwide, the vast majority of them belonging to Japanese manufacturers (e.g. Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki and Suzuki). The aggregated level of R&D investment from EU-based companies (e.g. BMW Motorcycles, Peugeot Scooters,
IMMSI, KTM, Ducati Motor) was found to be at least €250 million in 2008.
Even if the contribution of two-wheelers to the GHG emissions of the road transport is quite marginal (see
e.g. ACEM, 2010), important research efforts are being undertaken in key areas such as hybrid and electric technologies, fuel cells, biofuels, etc. with the aim to reduce the energy consumption, pollutant emissions and noise.
For instance, the R&D intensity of the KTM company has reached some 7.6% in 2008, with around 245
employees working in R&D. As an example of innovation, KTM has recently developed two prototypes of
100% electric off-road and on-road bikes that have been presented at the Tokyo motorcycle show in
201024 (to be commercialised in 2011).
In 2008, worldwide automotive suppliers invested almost €20 billion, stemming from
the R&D efforts of more than 80 companies (as listed in the EU Scoreboard). At world
level, the largest investors in 2008 were Robert Bosch, Denso, Continental, Delphi,
Aisin Selki, Valeo, Bridgestone, ZF, Michelin, Hella, Visteon, Johnson Controls, etc. In
Europe, Robert Bosch, Continental, Valeo, ZF, Michelin and Hella are key actors, with
Robert Bosch accounting for 41% of the total EU R&D investment in 2008.
24 See KTM press release of 26/03/2010, available at http://www.ktm.com/
36
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Over the period 2002-2008, the R&D investments of the sector have been steadily increasing with a sharp increase between 2007 and 200825. The R&D intensity of European automotive suppliers has remained in the order of 5.5-6%, well above the R&D
intensity of non-EU companies. The share of EU-based suppliers out of the total R&D
investment has ranged from 43% (minimum in 2004) to 53% (maximum in 2007) and
reached 49% in 2008.
20
7.0%
18
6.0%
5.0%
14
12
4.0%
10
3.0%
8
6
R&D intensity (%)
16
2.0%
4
1.0%
EU-based companies
2
0
0.0%
2002
Figure 3-9:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU and nonEU based automotive suppliers over the period 2002-2008
The ICB category 'Commercial vehicles and trucks' showed a total R&D investment
of around €7 billion in 2008, calculated from the R&D expenditures of 32 firms worldwide amongst which Volvo, Caterpillar, Deere, Isuzu Motors, MAN and Komatso were
the largest investors in 2008. In Europe, Volvo, MAN, Wartsila and Claas accounted for
90% of the total R&D spending for the same year.
25 This can be partly explained by the almost doubling of Continental's R&D expenditures in 2008 due to
the purchase of Siemens VDO.
37
During the period 2002-2008, the total R&D investment of this sector has more than
doubled (e.g. 80% increase in R&D expenditures from Volvo). Between 35% (in 2008)
and 41% (in 2006) of the total R&D investments was due to EU-based companies with
an overall R&D intensity ranging between 3.5% and 4%, on average.
7
4.5%
4.0%
6
3.0%
4
2.5%
2.0%
3
1.5%
R&D intensity (%)
3.5%
5
2
1.0%
1
EU-based companies
0.5%
0
0.0%
2002
Figure 3-10:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU and nonEU based industry of the 'Commercial vehicles and trucks' category
over the period 2002-2008
The 'Aerospace and defence' sector spent €15.6 billion in R&D in 2008, based on the
assessment of 53 world firms whose 8 of them accounted for more than 70% of the
total R&D investment (EADS, Boeing, Finmeccanica, United Technologies, Lockheed
Martin, Safran, Thales and Rolls-Royce). In 2008 in Europe, 82% of the R&D investment was due to EADS, Finmeccanica, SAFRAN, Thales and Rolls-Royce.
During the period 2002-2008, the R&D investments have globally increased except for
the last three years for which it has remained somewhat constant. Between 48% (in
2008) and 60% (in 2004) of the total R&D investments was due to EU-based companies with an overall R&D intensity that has significantly decreased from 2004 to reach
6% in 2008 (but still 3% above non-EU companies).
18
9.0%
16
8.0%
14
7.0%
12
6.0%
10
5.0%
8
4.0%
6
3.0%
4
2.0%
EU-based companies
2
R&D intensity (%)
GHG-TransPoRD D1
38
1.0%
0
0.0%
2002
Figure 3-11:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Evolution of R&D investments and R&D intensity from EU and nonEU based industry of the 'Aerospace and defence' category over
the period 2002-2008
3.1.1.2
Transport R&D in Europe
As seen before, the companies with their headquarters in the EU spent more than €40
billion out of the €95 billion invested worldwide in transport R&D activities. However, it
is worth mentioning that this €40 billion of investment represents 31% of the total corporate R&D of the EU, meaning that the weight of 'transport' in Europe is much above
its weight estimated at world level (22%).
Figure 3-12 displays the R&D breakdown for each transport subsector in the EU27. As
expected, three quarters of the R&D investment stemmed from the ICB category
'Automobiles & parts' where car manufacturers accounted for more than half of the total
(51%), followed by automotive suppliers (24%), aerospace & defence (19%) and commercial vehicles and trucks (6%). For both the net sales and number of employees, the
'transport' sector in the EU accounts for around 14% of the total.
The observation of the higher share in R&D investments than in sales or employees
made at the global level becomes even more obvious for EU-based companies. This
suggests on the one hand that transport has an elevated R&D intensity, which seems
to apply in particular for EU-based companies.
39
Commercial vehicles
and trucks
6%
Aerospace & defence
19%
~ €40bn
Automotive
manufacturers
51%
24%
R&D of ‘transport’ = 31% of EU corporate R&D
Commercial vehicles
and trucks
9%
Aerospace & defence
17%
~ €775bn
Automotive
manufacturers
54%
20%
Sales of ‘transport’ = 13.6% of EU corporate sales
Commercial vehicles
and trucks
7%
Aerospace & defence
18%
~ 3m employees
Automotive
manufacturers
42%
33%
Nb of employees of ‘transport’ = 14.4% of EU corporate employees
Figure 3-12:
Weight of the 'transport' sector on R&D investments, sales and
number of employees – EU27
The database underlying the above figures indicates that much of transport-related
research is financed by a rather limited number of companies. This has been further
analysed as it provides an important piece of information when considering the innovation system transport later-on. Furthermore, it will allow concentrating on a manageable
number of companies in the further assumption based on the breakdown of R&D investments by technology in chapter 4.
Figure 3-13 below displays the cumulative R&D investments realised by the 92 EU
companies that are part of the 'transport' sector category as defined earlier. It appears
that only twelve EU companies accounted for 80% of the total of R&D investment related to the transport sector for the year 2008.
40
GHG-TransPoRD D1
When expanding this list to about 28 companies, it would cover 95% of the total transport R&D investment of EU-based companies. It should be noted that around 56% of
the total R&D investment stemmed from German-based companies (e.g. Volkswagen,
Daimler, Bosch, BMW, Continental), followed by French (19%) and Italian-based industries (10%).
100%
Share in total R&D investment
90%
80%
Volkswagen
Daimler
Robert Bosch
BMW Group
EADS
PSA Peugeot Citroen
Renault
Fiat
Finmeccanica
Continental
Volvo
Porsche
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Number of companies
Figure 3-13:
Cumulated corporate R&D expenditures from EU-based companies
investing in transport R&D (2008)
Note: companies refer to parent companies as shown in annex
3.1.1.3
Focus on the EU automotive industry
As defined previously, the so-called 'EU Automotive industry' is made of the ICB categories 'Automobiles & parts' (incl. the subsectors 'Automotive manufacturers' and
'Automotive suppliers') and 'Commercial vehicles and trucks'. The R&D investments,
net sales and staff number of this sector for the year 2008 are summarised in Table 3-6
below.
Table 3-6:
Automotive
manufacturers
Automotive
suppliers
Commercial
vehicles
and
trucks
Automotive
industry
All industries
41
R&D investments, sales and total number of employees of the EU
automotive industry (2008)
Sales (€bn)
EU27
EU27
Germany
France
20.9
14.1
4.6
423
9.5
7.7
1.4
2.4
0.6
32.8
130
Nb of employees
(million)
Germany
France
EU27
Germany
France
270
91
1.26
0.72
0.33
156
109
29
0.98
0.65
0.19
0.04
66
22.2
2.4
0.22
0.07
0.01
22.4
6
645
401
122
2.5
1.44
0.52
45.1
25.7
5,712
1,574
1,122
21
5.9
4.7
Data source: EU Scoreboard 2009 (DG RTD-IPTS, 2009) (rounded numbers)
According to the figures derived from the EU Scoreboard, one can estimate that the
R&D investment of the EU automotive industry accounts for one quarter of the total
industrial research in the EU, which makes it the largest R&D investor26. Based on
the number of companies assessed in the EU Scoreboard, the EU automotive industry
spent almost €33 billion in R&D in 2008, 87% of this stemming from industries with
their headquarters in Germany and France. Automotive manufacturers represented the
highest contributor, mainly due to the high R&D expenditures of German (e.g. Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW) and French manufacturers (PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault).
Robert Bosch, Continental and Valeo are the automotive suppliers which invested the
most in 200827. The German car industry invests more than €22 billion in R&D weighting almost half of the total German corporate R&D (far ahead from the chemicals industry with only €5 billion). In France, the car industry is also the largest R&D investor
with €6 billion (followed closely by the pharmaceuticals sector with €5 billion), which
corresponds to almost one quarter of the total R&D spent by the French industries in
2008.
With regard to the category 'commercial vehicles and trucks', Volvo (Sweden) is by far
the largest EU investor accounting for 62% of the total R&D investment of this segment
in 2008.
26 Note that at world level, the 'Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology' sector is the top R&D investor (18.9%),
followed by the 'Technology Hardware & Equipment' sector (17.4%) and the 'Automobile & Parts'
sector with 17.1% (but excluding 'commercial vehicles and trucks', DG RTD-IPTS, 2009).
27 Note that R&D expenses of Faurecia and Magneti Marelli (major automotive suppliers, part of the PSA
Group and Fiat Group respectively) are included within the 'Automotive manufacturers' category.
42
GHG-TransPoRD D1
35
Commercial
vehicles &
trucks
7%
R&D investment (€ billion)
30
25
Automotive
suppliers
29%
Automotive
manufacturers
64%
~ €32.8 billion
20
15
Other MS
10
France
Germany
5
0
Automotive
manufacturers
Figure 3-14:
Automotive suppliers Commercial vehicles
& trucks
Automotive industry
R&D investment of the EU automotive industry in 2008
Source: based on the EU Scoreboard 2009 (DG RTD-IPTS, 2009)
Several European organisations have reported similar figures for the automotive sector. For instance, the European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC)
reported that 'The European road transport industry spends over 30 billion on research
and development (R&D) every year' (ERTRAC, 2009). Also, the German Association of
the Automotive Industry (VDA) stated that 'With a total investment volume of almost 19
bn Euro, the German automotive industry invested more in research and technology in
2008 than any other branch of industry. The automotive industry therefore accounts for
one third of the R&D expenditure of German industry' (VDA, 2009)28.
The European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) reported that 'the
€20bn29 or so spent every year on R&D is a measure of the European automobile industry’s commitment to competitiveness, innovation, employment and social responsibility. The investment amounts to 4% of the industry’s annual turnover, and covers
around one fifth of Europe’s total private R&D expenditure' (ACEA, 2009). The same
figures were also reported by the European Council for Automotive R&D (EUCAR) stating that the European vehicle manufacturers is the largest private investor in R&D in
28 The VDA website lately reported €20.042 billion of R&D expenditures for the German Automotive industry: http://www.vda.de/en/zahlen/jahreszahlen/allgemeines
29 Figure based on the ACEA members i.e. including automotive manufacturers with headquarters outside
the EU.
43
Europe, investing around €20 billion each year, or 4% of their turnover (EUCAR, 2009,
2008).
More recently, both the ACEA and EUCAR quoted that 'the fifteen ACEA members
together spend over €26 billion every year on R&D, or about 5% of their turnover'30.
Considering that this figure includes additional R&D investments from non-EU based
companies, this is well in line with the results found in the present study.
Furthermore, the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) reported that
automotive suppliers in Europe present an annual R&D spending of €12 billion
(CLEPA, 2010), which is also in the same order of magnitude of the present analysis
(taking into account that not all EU automotive suppliers are included in the EU Scoreboard).
3.1.2 BERD (Business enterprise sector's R&D expenditures)
As mentioned earlier, the BERD database is used to complement the bottom-up analysis based on the EU Scoreboard figures. Note however, that as mentioned before and
illustrated further in box 3 and section 3.1.3, fundamental differences (e.g. in the geographical allocation) make it difficult to directly compare the two databases.
Table 3-7 shows the sectors that are considered as relevant in the context of transportrelated R&D as assessed in this report31. In the present assessment, the 'transport'
sector will be defined as the sum of the categories NACE 34 'Manufacture of motor
vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers' and NACE 35 'Manufacture of other transport
equipment', which cover most of the EU corporate R&D efforts of this sector. Overall,
the R&D expenditures allocated to 'Transport' accounted for more than 20% of the total
EU27 business and Enterprise R&D expenditures in 2008, regardless the source of
funds (total BERD or BES funds only). Even if we cannot directly compare these figures with those stemming from the EU Scoreboard at EU level, it comes as no surprise
that the automotive industry (basically NACE 34) represents the most important R&D
investor with almost 80% of the total BES funds allocated to 'transport' R&D.
30 See ACEA website and EUCAR (2010).
31 As for the ICB classification used by the EU Scoreboard, further investments stemming from other
NACE sectors can exist. However, one can assume that most of the R&D investment in 'transport' is
captured.
44
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Table 3-7:
Business and enterprise R&D expenditures in transport-related fields
in 2008 aggregated for EU Member States
Sector/subsector
NACE
Funds from all
sectors (€m)
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and
semi-trailers
Manufacture of other transport equipment
Building and repairing of ships and boats
Manufacture of railway, tramway locomotives,
rolling stock
Manufacture of aircraft and spacecraft
Manufacture of motorcycles and bicycles, other
transport equipment n.e.c.
Total transport-related R&D
Total EU27 Business and Enterprise R&D expenditure
Share of transport-related over total BERD
34
22,291
BES funds
only
(€m)
21,391
35
351
352
10,081
405
493
5,349
214
393
353
354,
355
8,871
182
4,392
160
32,372
151,448
26,740
124,216
21.4%
21.5%
Source: Eurostat BERD database (data retrieved in January 2010)
Note: Data gaps for 2008 have been filled with entries from 2003-2007 where necessary:
BERD: 2008 data for CZ and SK; 2007 data for AU, EE, FI (NACE 35), FR, DE, HU, NL (NACE 34), PL,
PT, RO, SL, ES, UK; 2006 data for DK, IT and NL (NACE 35); 2005 data for GR, IE; 2004 data for LV and
LT; 2003 data for BE and SE (NACE 34). No data for LU and no R&D expenditures for BG, CY, MT.
BES: No data available for BE, DK, IE, LV, LT, LU, NL and no R&D expenditures for BG, CY and MT. Data
for DE and IT have been updated to be consistent with global BERD figures (same years).
3.1.3 Comparison between EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard and BERD
Differences in methodologies prevent a direct comparison between the BERD database and the figures provided by the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard. A deep analysis
of the differences between these two data series has been undertaken by Azagra Caro
and Grablowitz (2008). Among other things, main differences relate to i) the geographical allocation of R&D investments to either the site of registered office (Scoreboard) or
the country in which R&D is being carried out (BERD; see box 3); ii) the sectoral
breakdowns used with the Scoreboard following the ICB classification and the BERD
database using the NACE breakdown.
At the same time it needs to be noted that the EU Scoreboard looks into the R&D investments by EU companies net of any potential contributions from public funds, while
BERD focuses on the business and enterprise R&D expenditures independently from
the source of the funds.
45
Box 3: Importance of geographical allocation
The Scoreboard allocates R&D investments to the site of a company’s headquarter, while the BERD databases refers to R&D activities within a particular sector and territory, regardless of the business headquarters. Indeed, these R&D expenditures are intramural expenditures which are defined as 'all expenditures
for R&D performed within a statistical unit or sector of the economy during a specific period, whatever the
source of funds' (OECD, 2002). Besides data gaps, this may explain some differences when comparing
R&D figures for the NACE classes DM34 and DM35 from the Scoreboard with BERD data for individual
countries.
Major differences between BERD and Scoreboard data in the transport field are likely to be influenced by
the regional allocation. For the Netherlands BERD provides 17 times lower R&D expenditures than the
Scoreboard. This can to some extent be explained by EADS, for which the Scoreboard allocates all R&D
investments to the Netherlands as it is registered there. The opposite phenomenon can be observed for
e.g. Spain, which BERD figures are well above those of the Scoreboard. This becomes understandable by
the fact that Spain is an important production country for many brands with headquarters abroad. Furthermore, the important Spanish automotive company Seat is allocated to the Volkswagen AG with headquarters in Germany following the reporting rules. Another counter-intuitive example is Magna-Steyr. Due to
Magna Steyr being subsidiary of the Canadian company Magna International, its R&D investments are
allocated to Canada instead of Austria.
Despite these fundamental discrepancies, a rough comparison can be undertaken under the following conditions:
• Comparison at world level prevents differences in geographical allocations.
• Eurostat converted the Scoreboard classification to the NACE classes32. Unfortunately, this has been done only until the year 2005 at the time of this study. Hence,
the same allocation has been done by the project team for the latest EU Scoreboard
dataset (from 2006 to 2008). Such an exercise has required to carefully manipulating the data, especially with regard to the conversion process from ICB to NACE
group. For instance, companies belonging to the 'Tyres' (DH2511) and 'Defence'
(L7522) sectors are not part of the NACE 34 and 35 groups and were therefore removed from the EU Scoreboard so that it matches with the NACE classification.
• In some cases, there are obvious data gaps in the Eurostat BERD database, which
have been filled by the consortium.
• Restricting BERD data to those funded by the Business and Enterprise sector BES.
The final result of a comparison that follows the above-mentioned preconditions is presented in Table 3-8. Although gap-filled, the lack of data for different transport subsec32 Relevant NACE groups covered by the EU Scoreboard:
NACE 341: Manufacture of motor vehicles
NACE 343: Manufacture of parts, accessories for motor vehicles
NACE 353: Manufacture of aircraft and spacecraft
NACE 355: Manufacture of other transport equipment n.e.c.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/science_technology_innovation/introduction
46
GHG-TransPoRD D1
tors and countries can explain why the analysis based on the Eurostat BERD database
tends to be below the result of a Scoreboard-based approach.
Table 3-8:
Aggregated corporate R&D support to selected transport sectors at
world level (2008)
NACE group
34 'Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers'
341 'Manufacture of motor vehicles'
343 'Manufacture of parts, accessories for motor vehicles'
Automotive manufacturers and
suppliers
35 'Manufacture of other transport equipment'
351 'Building and repairing of
ships and boats'
352 'Manufacture of railway,
tramway locomotives, rolling
stock'
353 'Manufacture of aircraft and
spacecraft'
354 and 355 'Manufacture of
motorcycles and bicycles, other
transport equipment n.e.c.'
Other transport
TOTAL TRANSPORT
EU Scoreboard 2009
ICB classification used
in the EU Scoreboard
2008 R&D
budget (€bn)
Eurostat BERD
(BES funds only)
2008 R&D budget
(€bn) - Gap-filling
2002-2007
59.9
ICB 335 'Automobiles
&
parts'
(Cat.
'Automobiles' 3353)
ICB 335 'Automobiles
& parts' (Cat. 'Auto
Parts' 3355)
53.0
n.a.
16
(excl. 'Tyres'
DH2511)
69
n.a.
59.9
11.1
ICB 271 'Aerospace &
defence'
ICB 2753 'Commercial
vehicles & trucks'
n.a.
0.7
n.a.
0.4
11.5
(excl. 'Defence'
L7522)
6.8
8.7
18.3
87.3
11.1
71
1.0
Data sources: EU Scoreboard 2009 and Eurostat BERD database; all data retrieved on January 2010
Note: Data from Eurostat BERD database are somewhat incomplete. No data available for BE, DK, IE, LV,
LT, LU, NL as well as for several non-EU countries (e.g. Taiwan, Russia, China, Australia, Canada). Data
for DE and IT have been updated based on BERD figures (all sectors) or, in some cases, from the OECD
33
statistics . BES data for the U.S. are only available for the year 2000.
In order to better assess their differences, Figure 3-15 displays the total R&D investment in transport-related categories (NACE 34 and 35) derived from both databases
over the period 2002-2008. Overall, the results show that both databases provide simi-
33 STAN R&D Expenditure in Industry, ANBERD Ed. 2009 (see http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx)
47
lar figures, with a similar dynamic, too. Data from Eurostat BERD are considered as
underestimates due to the lack of data for several countries worldwide.
If we put the emphasis on the NACE 34 subsector (i.e. automotive manufacturers and
suppliers), both sources provide results with the same order of magnitude, even if the
Eurostat BERD database still underestimates the total R&D spending. Even if such a
comparison should be carefully interpreted (see Azagra Caro and Grablowitz, 2008),
there is rather consensus between both data sources when considering the worldwide
R&D expenditures allocated to the 'transport' sector.
Total R&D investment in 'transport'
90
80
EU Scoreboard
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total R&D investment in NACE 34 category
80
70
EU Scoreboard
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2002
Figure 3-15:
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Comparison of worldwide R&D investments between the two databases over the period 2002-2008 (total transport and NACE 34
category; data in real terms €2005)
Data sources: Eurostat BERD (BES funds only) and EU Scoreboard
Note: for comparison, tyre manufacturers have been removed from the EU Scoreboard (DH 2511) as well
as companies classified within the 'Defence' sector (L7522). In 2008, world tyre manufacturers invested
around €3.6bn in R&D while 'defence' related companies accounted for around €4.1bn.
Every year of the Eurostat BERD database has been gap-filled with figures from previous years (up to 5-6
years backwards).
48
GHG-TransPoRD D1
3.2
Public R&D investments from Member States
Table 3-9 shows the R&D appropriations provided by the GBAORD database. The figures are incomplete and therefore hardly be in the present analysis for anything but for
comparison with other findings. Data are only provided for seven Member States and
are only available until the year 2007. This means that for some of the major transport
R&D funding Member States (e.g. France and Italy) no data is available, inhibiting an
aggregated figure on the EU-27 Member States' public R&D investment of the transport sector.
Table 3-9:
Aggregated public R&D budget of selected transport subsectors in
selected EU countries
GBAORD classification
R&D appropriations for the EU (€m) in
2007 (gap-filling with 2006 data)
NABS 07 05 'Manufacture of motor vehicle and
other means of transport'
657
* NABS 07 051 'Aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing'
376
* NABS 07 052 'Manufacture of motor vehicles
and parts (including agricultural tractors)'
19
* NABS 07 053 'Manufacture of all other transport equipment'
45
Data source: Eurostat (retrieved on February 2010)
No data available for the year 2008
Data available for only seven Member States (2007 data for the UK, Spain, Germany and Czech Republic;
2006 data for Romania, the Netherlands and Greece). No data for the U.S. and Japan. Note that some
data are only available for the category NABS 07 05.
As for the GBAORD, also the RD&D budgets provided by the IEA database are somewhat incomplete to provide accurate figures about the R&D investments going to the
different transport modes and technologies. However it enables to get an estimate of
the R&D investments allocated to transport biofuels and hydrogen and fuel cells. The
RD&D budgets of the transport-related categories provided by the IEA are summarised
in Table 3-10. The RD&D budgets for the U.S. and Japan are given for comparison.
Table 3-10:
49
Public RD&D budgets allocated to transport-related R&D activities
IEA category
I.3 Transportation
III.4 Total bioenergy
III.4.1 Production of
transport biofuels including from wastes
V. Hydrogen and Fuel
Cells
VI.3 Energy Storage
RD&D
budget
in
2008
(€m,
gap-filled)
EU19
122
201
64
Out of which demonstration in MS national
budgets (€m)
RD&D
budget in
2008 (€m)
U.S.
RD&D
budget in
2008 (€m)
Japan
17
44
16
146
136
n.a.
54
13
3
177
17
182
147
32
0
5
59
Data source: IEA RD&D statistics; data downloaded in February 2010
Note: for the EU19, data were gap-filled as follows:
2007 data for AT, BE, CZ, FI and FR; 2006 data for NL and 2004 data for SK. RD&D for biofuels in Spain
was estimated based on 2006 figures
Alongside RD&D budgets allocated to alternative fuels (biofuels and H2/FC), the IEA
database can be used to approximate the RD&D spending on 'advanced vehicle technologies'. In a recent study, the IEA assessed the 2009 public RD&D expenditures going to 'advanced vehicle technologies', building on the RD&D budgets from the categories 'Transportation', 'Energy Storage' and 'Hydrogen and Fuel Cells', and completing
this information by questionnaires (IEA, 2009a). They estimated that around $1.5 billion
was spent by the public sector on advanced vehicles worldwide. However, this figure
mainly refers to light duty vehicles (LDVs) and cannot be used to distinguish between
the different technologies independently e.g. conventional technologies (e.g. new internal combustion engines and drive trains) and electric vehicles (HEV, PHEV, BEV).
3.3
Transport-related R&D investments under FP7
FP7 is running from 2007 to 2013 with the objective to support the aims of the Lisbon
Agenda. The total EU FP7 budget is about €50.5 billion34, broken down into four main
programmes (Cooperation, Ideas, Capacities, People) as well as JRC contribution.
Under the Cooperation Programme (€32.4 billion), the ‘Transport’ theme has been allocated around €4.2 billion and the 'Energy' theme some €2.3 billion (Figure 3-16).
Transport research under FP7 aims at developing 'safer, greener and smarter transport
systems for Europe that will benefit citizens, respect the environment, and increase the
34 Plus €2.75 billion for nuclear research through Euratom.
50
GHG-TransPoRD D1
competitiveness of European industries in the global market'35. As mentioned earlier,
the total budget allocated to the 'Transport' thematic priority is around €4.2 billion (including all transport modes and aeronautics) over the period 2007-2013. This budget
accounts for around 13% of the total FP7 budget going to the Cooperation programme
(€32.4 billion).
EU FP7 (2007-2013)
~ €50.5bn
Ideas
People
COOPERATION
Capacities
JRC
€32.4bn
Health
…
TRANSPORT
…
…
ENERGY
€2.35bn
€4.16bn
Renewable fuel
production
H2/FC
…
FCH JTI
€470m
Road, rail, waterborne,
multimodal
Horizontal activities
TPT-Galileo
€350m
Aeronautics (civil only)
€2.3bn
€1.51bn
PPP - European Green
Cars Initiative
€500m
Figure 3-16:
Collaborative research
(TPT-SST; 5 areas)
~ €1bn
Collaborative research
(TPT-AAT; 6 areas)
Clean Sky JTI
€800m
SESAR JU
€350m
€960m
Transport-related research under FP7 (indicative budget)
Source: IPTS, based on several sources (see e.g. decision 1982/2006/EC)
Note: figures are indicative and are not necessarily spread over the period 2007-2013
Research in transport covers all modes of transport (people and goods), divided into
the following categories (European Commission, 2006):
• Aeronautics and air transport: emissions reduction, new engines and alternative
fuels, air traffic management, safety and environmentally efficient aviation.
• Sustainable surface transport i.e. rail, road and waterborne: clean and efficient engines and power trains, reducing the impact of transport on climate change, inter-
35 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/transport
51
modal regional and national transport, clean and safe vehicles, infrastructure construction and maintenance, integrative architectures.
• Support to the European global satellite navigation system Galileo and EGNOS.
• Horizontal activities
Furthermore, alongside the transport thematic priority, other transport-related R&D projects are funded under the thematic 'Energy' (including research projects on biofuels
and hydrogen and fuel cells) - with a budget of €2.35 billion and, to a lesser extent,
under 'Environment', 'Information and Communication Technologies'36 and 'Nanoproduction' thematics.
Under FP7, research on road, rail and maritime transport is mostly funded under the
category 'Sustainable Surface Transport' (SST, also including the 'European Green
Cars Initiative', see below) through the following five research areas:
• Rail, road and waterborne development of clean and efficient engines and power
trains;
• Reducing the impact of transport on climate change;
• Inter-modal regional and national transport;
• Clean and safe vehicles;
• Infrastructure construction and maintenance, and integrative architectures
The relevant stakeholders of the SST (SST platforms) are ERTRAC for road, ERRAC
for rail and WATERBORNE TP for maritime transport (see annex for more details).
The six sub-themes of the transport thematic 'TPT-SST' are:
• TPT-SST-1: The greening of surface transport
• TPT-SST-2: Encouraging modal shift and decongesting transport corridors
• TPT-SST-3: Ensuring sustainable urban mobility
• TPT-SST-4: Improving safety and security
• TPT-SST-5: Strengthening competitiveness
• TPT-SST-6: Cross-cutting activities for implementation of the sub-theme programme
With the focus on road transport, the European Green Cars Initiative (EGCI) is one of
the three Public Private Partnerships (PPP) of the European Economic Recovery Plan
launched in 2008. The objective of this initiative is to 'facilitate research on a broad
36 Note that ICT-based technologies can help in significantly reducing GHG emissions of the road transport (see e.g. TNO, 2009).
52
GHG-TransPoRD D1
range of technologies to achieve a breakthrough in the use of renewable and nonpolluting energy sources for road transport'.
The main actions of the EGCI37 refer to:
• R&D activities through FP7 grants for research on greening road transport, with a
budget of €1 billion (€500 million from the Commission38 and €500 million from industry and Member States)
• Support to industrial innovation through EIB (European Investment Bank) loans with
a budget of €4 billion (in addition to existing loans)
• Demand side measures & public procurement, such as reduction of circulation and
registration taxes for low-CO2 cars
The main research focus of the EGCI is on the electrification of mobility and road
transport. It should be noted that research efforts not only focus on passenger cars but
also on trucks, internal combustion engines, logistics, ITS, both at vehicle and system
level. The R&D areas are listed below:
• Research for trucks;
• Research on greening internal combustion engines;
• Research on bio methane use;
• Logistics, transport system optimisation; and
• Research on electric and hybrid vehicles, notably research on:
- High density batteries;
- Electric engines;
- Smart electricity grids and their interfaces with vehicles.
The first calls for the EGCI was launched in July 2009 with a total budget of €108 million for the year 2010, out of which €68 million from the 'transport' theme39. Note also
that €25 million are allocated to the joint call on electric batteries. The work programme
2011 (2011 calls, published in July 2010) covers three major R&D themes: Research
37 http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/lists/green-cars_en.html
38 The EU funding of €500 million will be spent over four years (2010 to 2013) with the following indicative
breakdown (€95m in 2010; €115m in 2011; €145m in 2012 and 2013).
39 Themes covered by the EGCI and their indicative research budget for the period 2010-2013:
- Transport (€220 million i.e. 44% of the total budget)
- Energy (€50 million)
- Environment (€50 million)
- ICT (€120 million)
- NMP (€60 million)
53
for heavy duty vehicles based on internal combustion engines; Research on electric
and hybrid vehicles; Logistics and co-modality combined with intelligent transport system technologies40.
The Aeronautics and Air Transport theme (AAT) is part of the 'Transport' thematic
priority described previously. The first priority under the ATT is the ‘Greening of Air
Transport' in order to reduce GHG emissions and environmental impact of civil aviation
(note that FP7 does not allocate funds to military aeronautics research). The AAT Work
Programme is divided into six activities (European Commission, 2010):
• The Greening of Air Transport
• Increasing Time Efficiency
• Ensuring Customer Satisfaction and Safety
• Improving Cost Efficiency
• Protection of Aircraft and Passengers
• Pioneering the Air Transport of the Future
Under FP7, a total of €960 million (2007-2013) is allocated to 'Collaborative Research'
in order to reduce the environmental impact of aviation and improve the efficiency,
competitiveness and safety of this transport mode.
In addition, €800 million has been dedicated to the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (see below) focusing also on environmental aspects. Note that another €350 million has been contributed by the EU towards financing the SESAR Joint Undertaking
on new air traffic management system (see below).
As shown in Figure 3-17, the FP7 budget has considerably increased with respect to
the previous FP6, with an overall budget of €293 million per year.
40 2011 calls (20 July 2010) http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/open-fp7-calls/calls-for-proposals
54
Figure 3-17:
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Overall FP budget allocated to the aviation sector
Source: European Commission, 2010
As mentioned earlier, the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (Clean Sky JTI)41 is
a pillar for EU research in civil aviation. The Clean Sky JTI was launched beginning of
2008 with the clear objectives to turn the ACARE environmental goals into reality (see
annex). It is one of the largest European research initiatives with a budget estimated at
€1.6 billion over seven years, of which half is funded by the European Commission and
half by the EU Aeronautics industry. It means that the Clean Sky programme accounts
for more than 45% of the total public FP7 budget for the aviation sector. This publicprivate partnership brings together European R&D stakeholders to develop ‘green’ air
vehicle design, engines and systems aimed at minimising the environmental impact of
future air transport systems. Members of the Clean Sky JTI are the European Commission, ITD (Integrated Technology Demonstrators) leaders and associates. The total
budget of €1.6 billion will be spent on the following research programmes:
• Smart Fixed Wing: €372m (24%)
• Green rotorcraft: €155m (10%)
• Green regional aircraft: €177m (11%)
• Green engines: €419m (27%)
• Systems for green operation: €295 (19%)
• Eco-Design: €109m (7%)
• Technology evaluator: €31m (2%)
• Running costs: €48m (3%)
41 http://www.cleansky.eu/
55
The first six programmes have set different targets for reducing CO2 emissions, NOx
emissions and noise (see e.g. Denos, 2009).
Since November 2009, Clean Sky has become a legal autonomous entity (no longer
steering by the EC) with its own executive board.
Furthermore, the SESAR Joint Undertaking42 initiative (Single European Sky ATM
Research) was created in 2007 as a legal entity to coordinate the development phase
(2008-2013) of the SESAR programme (2004-2020). This major programme is the
technological pillar of the Single European Sky (SES) initiative that aims at developing
a new, more efficient air traffic control systems. The objective is to ensure 'the safety
and fluidity of air transport over the next thirty years, will make flying more environmentally friendly and reduce the costs of air traffic management.' The SESAR programme
consists of three phases namely the definition phase (2004-2008), the development
phase (2008-2013, coordinated by the SESAR JU) and the deployment phase (20142020).
With the focus on environment, two main objectives for 2020 have been set43:
• 10% reduction in fuel consumption/CO2 emissions per flight as a result of ATM improvements alone (see ACARE goals for CO2 emissions reduction)
• Minimise noise emissions for each flight to the greatest extent possible
Transport-related R&D is also funded through the thematic 'Energy' under the subthemes 'Renewable fuel production' and 'Hydrogen and fuel cells'. The first category
includes a wide number of research projects in bioenergy (e.g. on advanced biofuels),
while research in hydrogen and fuel cells is funded through the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative (FCH JTI, see annex). In the framework of this publicprivate partnership, the Commission will fund €470 million from the FP7 programme
over six years (i.e. an average of €78 million per year) with at least the same amount
coming from the private sector
42 http://www.sesarju.eu/
43 For more details, see the European ATM Master Plan Portal https://www.atmmasterplan.eu/
56
GHG-TransPoRD D1
3.4
Key outcomes from the overall analysis
Corporate R&D at world level
•
Around €95 billion was invested in transport R&D worldwide for the sole year
2008, which represents a 11% increase compared to 2007. Automotive manufacturers spent €53 billion in R&D, which makes them the most important player
followed by automotive suppliers with almost €20 billion.
•
The total R&D investment mainly stemmed from industries with headquarters
based in three regions of the world: Europe (43%), Japan (28%) and the U.S.
(26%).
•
Both the Eurostat BERD and the EU Scoreboard data sources converge (at
global level) towards similar expenditures when considering the corporate R&D
allocated to transport-related NACE categories.
Corporate R&D at European level
•
Automotive manufacturers invested more than half of the €40 billion spent in
transport in the EU during the year 2008, followed by investments realised from
automotive suppliers and 'aerospace and defence' companies.
•
Around 80% of the €40 billion only came from a dozen companies, most of
them having their headquarters in Germany, France and Italy.
Overall
•
Both at the global and EU level, the transport sector is the largest industrial
R&D investor.
•
Industrial R&D intensities are relatively elevated in the order of 4-8%, which indicates that the sector is comparably research-intensive.
•
Much of the R&D investments stems from relatively few industrial players.
•
EU databases such as GBAORD (or IEA for RD&D budgets) do not provide
comprehensive aggregated figures of the public R&D investments in transport
from EU Member States, in particular not at a high level detail. This makes a
comparison between corporate and public R&D investments at this aggregated
level difficult – such a comparison will therefore be undertaken in the following
chapter.
4.
57
RESULTS II – R&D investment for reducing GHG
emissions by mode and technology. Results from a
bottom-up analysis.
In the previous chapter, the results showed an overall picture of the R&D efforts in the
transport sector but on the ICB classification. This chapter now presents the corporate
and public R&D investments resulting from our bottom-up analysis as described in the
methodology. The objective is to go further in the analysis by 1) estimating how much
R&D is spent in each transport mode (road, rail, maritime and aviation) exclusively; 2)
estimating how much of this amount is allocated to reduce GHG emissions and 3) estimating the R&D spending flows towards key technologies (for the automotive sector
only). As already mentioned in the methodology, such an exercise is subject to significant uncertainty levels increasing with the level of detail required.
At the most aggregated level, the results of our bottom-up analysis shows that the
transport sector as a whole invested at least €40 billion in R&D in 2008, most of this
amount (94%) being financed by industry (EU-based companies only), although this
share varies across the different modes of transport. We estimate that at least one third
(32-35% approximately) of this total is targeted at reducing the fuel consumption/GHG
emissions of this sector. Furthermore, several indicators reveal that this share has increased over the last years and is going to increase in 2009. A more thorough analysis
of R&D investments towards the different transport modes (road, air, rail and maritime)
is provided in the following.
4.1
Road transport
According to our bottom-up analysis, the aggregated research investment in road
transport is estimated to have reached almost €32 billion in 200844, out of which only
2.5% was financed by the public sector. More than €13 billion (43%) of this amount
was invested into R&D activities for developing 'greener' technologies i.e. including air
quality and GHG emissions reduction, the latter contribution being estimated to lie between €10 billion and €11 billion (32-35% of the total).
44 Note that this total would reach some €33 billion if biofuels and fuel cells are included.
58
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Table 4-11:
Approximate R&D investments in the EU automotive sector (2008)
Corporate R&D investment (€m)
Automotive sector
R&D in technologies
for reducing GHG &
air pollutant emissions
R&D in technologies
for reducing GHG
emissions
31,000
Turnover: €594bn
R&D intensity: 5.2%
13,400
Public EU FP7
(€m, avg per
year)
150
Public MS
R&D (€m)
n.a.
n.a.
Total R&D
investment
(€m)
31,800
(2.5% from
public funds)
n.a.
60
210
10,300-11,300
10,000-11,000
650
Source: IPTS (rounded numbers)
Note: Research investments in road alternative fuels are not fully included in the total R&D. Corporate
figures are based on the analysis of 50 EU-based companies; Public MS figures are derived from a wide
variety of sources (EAGAR project, ERTRAC studies, own country-based analysis, expert judgment, etc.)
and rely on the analysis of 14 Member States.
4.1.1 Total corporate R&D
R&D investments in 2008
The present figure is derived from the analysis of 50 EU-based companies that are key
player of the EU automotive industry. The assessment shows that road research is
highly driven by the private sector with €31 billion spent in 2008 out of a total of around
€32 billion when public funds are included. The aggregated revenue of this sector was
found to be almost €600 billion in 2008 thus leading to a R&D intensity of around 5.2%.
These figures are very well in line with the top-down analysis of the sector made in
section 3.1.1.3.
It does not come as a surprise that the EU automotive manufacturers are by far the
most important investors with around €21.7 billion spent in 2008 associated with a
turnover of €456 billion. These figures indicate that the R&D intensity of the EU automotive manufacturers has been around 4.8% in 2008.
In order to account for the systematic differences between road freight and road passenger transport, we further disaggregated the research efforts of EU manufacturers
into those related to passenger cars45 and to commercial vehicles (trucks, buses and
vans). This distinction required to examine the R&D investments allocated to the differ-
45 Note that R&D investments on two-wheelers are included in this category (we estimated this contribution to be in the order of €250 million in 2008, see box 2).
59
ent divisions of a parent company (e.g. Iveco for Fiat, Scania and vans for Volkswagen,
Daimler trucks, etc.). The following results have been found:
•
Out of the almost €22 billion spent in 2008, we estimated that €3.8 billion (i.e.
17% of the total) was invested in R&D in commercial vehicles with a turnover
of around €107 billion46 in 2008. The R&D intensity of this segment has then
reached 3.6% in 2008.
•
The R&D investments directed to the passenger cars segment represent the
highest share with almost €18 billion spent in 2008, along with a turnover of
€349 billion (R&D intensity of 5.1%).
The substantially higher levels of R&D investment volumes together with the higher
R&D intensity of car manufacturers compared to manufacturers of commercial vehicles
can be explained by the very distinct nature of road passenger and road freight transport. In road freight transport, the high competition and the consequently high price
pressures means that transport companies focus largely on reducing their costs. Given
that the share of fuel costs out of the total operating cost for commercial vehicles is
typically around 30% (see e.g. Durelli, 2007; Faber Maunsell, 2008) and that the other
major cost component – wages – cannot be reduced much further, the fuel efficiency of
new trucks is an important purchase criterion. Nevertheless, transport companies will
follow a strict economic calculus when buying new equipment and are not ready to pay
for 'innovative technologies' as such. This situation is different in passenger cars,
where consumers' choice is influenced by a variety of factors. Cars are more exposed
to a 'differentiation and branding pressure', and innovative technologies can be one
selling factor.
The EU automotive suppliers invested at least €9.3 billion in 2008 with a turnover of
almost €140 billion. It should be noted that this figure is an underestimate since not all
EU automotive suppliers have been included in the present analysis47. This sector presents the higher R&D intensity with around 6.7%, i.e. around 2% greater than for the
EU automotive manufacturers industry as a whole.
46 Analysis based on annual figures from Daimler Trucks (Mercedes), Daimler vans and buses, Fiat
(Iveco), Volvo (Volvo Trucks and Buses, incl. Renault Trucks), Volkswagen (Scania and VW commercial vehicles) and MAN (commercial vehicles).
47 Note however that R&D investments of Faurecia (PSA Group) and Magneti Marelli (Fiat group) have
been assigned to the automotive suppliers segment here.
60
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Going beyond 2008
As already mentioned the present analysis focuses on the R&D investments for the
year 2008 and thus prevents to take into account the impact of the recent economic
crisis on this sector. However, in order to get an overall picture of the latest changes,
an analysis of the R&D investments (and R&D intensity) of the main EU-based automotive manufacturers over the period 2007-2009 has been undertaken. Based on the
company's annual reports48 (including the latest for the year 2009), the following outcomes have been found when focusing on the EU automotive manufacturers:
•
The economic crisis has sharply reduced the overall net sales in 2009, by
around 16% compared to the year 2008. The commercial vehicles segment has
been the most affected (-33% of net sales), compared to -10% for passenger
cars.
•
The overall R&D investment has been reduced by 10% in 2009, which yet
represents a slower decrease relative to the overall turnover. The highest decrease has been observed for the passenger cars segment (-11% of R&D investments) while the commercial vehicles segment shows a more limited reduction with 7%.
Following from the slower decrease of R&D investments compared to the turnover, the
overall R&D intensity of EU-based automotive manufacturers has globally increased,
from 4.4% in 2007 to 4.8% in 2008 and 5.1% in 2009. For passenger cars, the R&D
intensity has been found to be constant between 2008 and 2009 (5.1%) while it has
significantly grown for commercial vehicles, ranging from 3.1% in 2007, to 3.5% in
2008 and 4.9% in 2008. It is worth mentioning that this global increase has been observed for all the companies (or subsidiaries) analysed in the commercial vehicles
segment, which is not systematically the case for passenger cars where differences
can occur between car manufacturers. As an example, the R&D intensity of Volvo
(trucks and buses) has increased from 3.8% in 2007 to 5% in 2008 and to 6.6% in
2009. Volvo (trucks and buses) shows the largest R&D intensity of the commercial vehicles segment in 2009 with 6.6% (6.3% for the Volvo group). As a result, the R&D intensity of both segments has been found to be relatively similar in 2009 contrary to the
previous years (see Figure 4-18).
48 In the assessment of 2008 figures, we use company data as reported in the EU Industrial R&D investment scoreboard to the extent possible, as this already treats some information provided in the companies' annual reports (i.e. subtracting the parts of publicly financed research etc.). As by the time of
writing of the present report, the update of the Scoreboard including 2009 figures has not been available, the 2009 figures refer directly to information extracted from companies' annual report. In any
cases, differences are of very minor nature.
61
Furthermore, there is indication that the share of R&D investments going to 'green'
technologies has been increasing, even though the total R&D expenditures have decreased (see box 4). This means that companies have directed their investments into
specific technologies that are considered to have a lower risk and a return on investment in a shorter timeframe, such as electric vehicles compared to e.g. fuel cell vehicles. This trend is also confirmed by the results of two distinct patent analyses shown in
section 5.1.
To some extent these findings may indicate that companies consider investments in
R&D as a strategy for overcoming the times of crisis being well positioned compared to
their competitors in the expected uptake after the crisis. Experience from the effect of
liberalisation on R&D in the energy sector also suggests that a higher price pressure
favours incremental innovations with lower risks (Markard et al., 2006), which would
confirm our findings. Process innovations and the pursuing of technologies that are
close to the markets would be preferred to radical innovations that lead to the invention
of innovative technologies or systemic innovations that require deeper changes to the
entire system.
One nevertheless needs to take into account that a one-year change can also be influenced by a number of other factors, such as inertia in adapting R&D budgets on a short
term, and should therefore not be over-interpreted.
Similar trends have been observed for some key EU automotive suppliers (e.g. Bosch,
Continental, Valeo, ZF) showing an increase of R&D intensity in spite of important reduction of revenues. Nevertheless, available data has not allowed for a systematic update of all major supplier companies at the time of writing of this report.
For comparison, note however that an assessment of the main EU aeronautic companies indicates that the net sales of this sector have globally increased between 2008
and 2009. But except for some companies (e.g. EADS), the R&D intensity has slightly
been reduced between 2008 and 2009.
62
GHG-TransPoRD D1
EU Automotive manufacturers
1.6
1.5
1.4
Sales
R&D investment
R&D intensity
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
2007
1.4
2009
Passenger cars
Commercial vehicles
1.6
1.6
1.5
2008
Sales
1.5
R&D investment
1.4
R&D intensity
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
Sales
R&D investment
R&D intensity
0.6
2007
Figure 4-18:
2008
2009
2007
2008
2009
Recent trends in net sales, R&D investments and R&D intensity of
the EU automotive industry (2007-2009; normalised data 2007=1)
Source: IPTS
Note: analysis based on Daimler, Volkswagen, BMW, Fiat, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault, Porsche, Volvo
and MAN into the segments 'commercial vehicles' and 'passenger cars' exclusively (a list of divisions is
given in annex 1)
63
4.1.2 Corporate R&D investments for reducing GHG emissions
The automotive industry devotes a large share of its R&D investments on R&D activities directly or indirectly targeted at reducing the energy consumption/GHG emissions
of road vehicles49. In the present study, this share has been assessed for the major
EU-based companies of this sector, based on information or indication from a wide
range of sources (companies' annual and sustainability reports, speeches, direct contacts, reports, etc.). Unfortunately, although there is consensus among the actors to
claim that 'most' of their R&D investments is dedicated to reduce the 'environmental
impact' or to develop 'green' or 'environmentally-friendly' technologies, there is very
limited available information about a precise level of investments in this domain (see
box 4 for an overview of recent press releases).
According to our research, it has been estimated (as a proxy) that around 43% of the
total R&D investment of the private sector in 2008 was spent to reduce the environmental impact of this sector, i.e. including research on GHG emissions reduction and
air quality. When differentiated between automotive manufacturers and suppliers, it
was found that this share reached 45% and 38% respectively.
In a second step, it was assessed that R&D efforts for reducing GHG emissions
amounted to some €10-11 billion, i.e. approximately 32-35% of the total R&D investments in 2008 (split into 36% for automotive manufacturers and 29% for automotive
suppliers).
The above results are summarised in Figure 4-19 below, differentiated between automotive manufacturers and suppliers.
49 Some research efforts that results in enhanced fuel efficiency or decreased weight etc. may have been
motivated by other than environmental considerations, e.g. to increase the 'joy of driving', and may be
(partly) outweighed by more performant cars etc. Nevertheless, the technology can save GHG emissions
and is therefore allocated to this group for the purpose of the present exercise.
64
GHG-TransPoRD D1
25
7%
6%
7.9
15
R&D for reducing GHG emissions
5%
Other R&D (safety, comfort, etc. but also air
pollutant emissions)
4%
R&D intensity (%) (right scale)
3%
10
14.3
2.6
R&D intensity
20
2%
5
6.2
0
0%
Figure 4-19:
1%
Approximate R&D breakdown and intensity of the EU automotive
industry in 2008
Source: IPTS
The different 'low-carbon' technology areas in which these investments are directed to,
will be analysed in more detail in the following. It concerns essentially the optimisation
of power trains (engines and transmissions), the development of alternative drives (e.g.
electric and hybrid technologies), the use of alternative fuels (e.g. biofuels), as well as
improvements related to the car body (reducing aerodynamic resistances, weight) and
auxiliaries (e.g. air conditioning).
65
Box 4: What can be found from a web-based research?
As shown previously, the automotive industry is the largest investor in R&D in Europe with more than €30
billion spent in 2008. This huge investment is essentially targeted to develop safer, more intelligent, more
comfortable and of course 'greener' vehicles. The last objective is doubtless the most important challenge
the automotive industry is currently facing. Most of the actors in this area, namely automotive manufacturers and suppliers, agree to say that a 'large share' or 'most of' the corporate R&D investment is allocated
for improving the vehicle energy efficiency and then reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, the
ACEA50 reported that 'A large part of the R&D investments is spent on technologies to reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2)'. But how much exactly? What about the evolution of
this share in the near future?
Except in a few cases, no accurate figure is disclosed about the real share of R&D investment going to
GHG emissions reduction and its (supposedly) growth over the last years. Assessing the precise share of
the total R&D allocated to GHG emissions reduction is very difficult; instead, only rough estimates can be
obtained. In those cases where we obtained more precise information, this shall be shown in the following.
Thomas Weber (Daimler) reported that Daimler spent €4 billion in R&D of which half going to green technologies, CO2 emission reduction and Euro 6 standard51. In September 2008, a similar press release
confirmed this information saying that 'Daimler has raised the share of its investments in more economical
vehicles from 25 percent to 60 percent. At Volkswagen and BMW, one in every two euros goes into environmentally friendly technologies'52. At the same date, C. Ghosn (Renault) claimed that the Alliance Renault-Nissan allocated one third of its R&D expenditures to clean vehicles, with the priority going to zero
emission vehicles53. In November 2009, G. Faury (PSA Peugeot Citroën) declared that the PSA group will
allocate more than half of its R&D expenses over the period 2010-2012 towards new technologies for
reducing CO2 emissions and pollutants54. In its last annual report (2009), PSA Peugeot Citroën indeed
reported that half of its R&D efforts is devoted to 'clean technologies' aiming at reducing the carbon footprint of vehicles. On their website, Bosch reports that 'in 2009, some 45 percent of Bosch’s research and
development budget again went into products that conserve resources and protect the environment' (see
Bosch's annual report 2009).
At global level, a recent study from the consulting group Oliver Wyman reported that 'today, automakers
are already investing about one-third of their worldwide research and development expenditure of some
Euro 75 billion on this goal on these efforts, which include both further optimizing traditional combustion
drives and developing alternative drive technologies for serial production. In the next ten years, investments in reducing carbon dioxide worldwide will total around Euro 300 billion – of which Euro 50 billion will
be spent on alternative drive systems like hybrid or electric.'55
With regard to patent applications of the automotive sector, the German Association of the Automotive
Industry (VDA) stated that 'On average, the German automotive industry applies for ten patents daily, a
good half of which are in the field of environmental engineering'56.
Based on all these various 'official' announcements, there is evidence that the share of R&D spending
allocated to GHG emission reduction is high, probably ranging from one third to more than half of the total
R&D budget depending on the car manufacturer and the year considered. This gives an indication about
the order of magnitude where our results should range.
50 European Automobile Manufacturers' Association
51 Interview of T. Weber (07/10/2008) available at: http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/l-interviewthomas-weber-responsable-rd-daimler-et-mercedes-benz.148420
52 http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=1460
53 Interview of C. Ghosn, Le Parisien (02/10/2008) http://www.leparisien.fr/automobile/mondial-auto2008/voiture-propre/renault-presente-sa-voiture-electrique-02-10-2008-263108.php
54 Interview of G. Faury (27/11/2009) about the PSA vision about CO2 emissions reduction, originally
released by the Financial Times. http://www.ccfa.fr/article87729,87729.html
55Oliver
Wyman
study
'E-Mobility
2025'
(September
2009)
http://www.oliverwyman.com/ow/pdf_files/ManSum_E-Mobility_2025_e.pdf
56 VDA, Annual Report 2009 available at http://www.vda.de
66
GHG-TransPoRD D1
4.1.3 Public research
Public funds originated from the EU countries in road transport reached €650 million in
2008. This figure cannot be compared to available EU databases such as GBAORD or
the IEA due to their incompleteness (see chapter 2.2) but it can be seen as an underestimate since it results from an analysis based on only 13 Member States57.
Out of the €650 million, €210 million has been estimated to be invested for reducing
GHG emissions. Despite the high uncertainties associated with this figure (mainly due
to the fact that R&D activities focusing exclusively on GHG emissions reduction are not
easily identifiable within national research programmes), this amount represents 32%
of the public MS funding in road transport, supported by important research programmes launched in France (e.g. PREDIT programme), Germany, UK, Italy and Austria (see annex).
The EU public research support to road transport through FP7 funds as assessed in
the present study reached some €142 million on an annual average. This amount
mainly stems from the budget allocated to the collaborative research on road transport
under the thematic priority TPT-SST (including the European Green Cars Initiative). It
has been estimated that around 40% (€60 million per year on average) of the €142
million was directly devoted to reduce GHG emissions, in partly due to the funds from
the EU Green Cars Initiative (started in 2010).
4.1.4 R&D investment in road vehicle technologies
The assessment carried out so far revealed that the EU automotive sector invested
more than €30 billion in R&D in 2008, out of which more than 40% was targeted to reduce the environmental impact of vehicles (and one third for reducing GHG emissions).
To go further in the analysis, a question then arises as to know how much of this
amount is directed towards low-carbon technologies.
Figure 4-20 presents a global picture of technological fields in which R&D efforts are
generally undertaken by the automotive sector to reduce the energy consumption and
the environmental impact of vehicles. Typically, five key research areas can be distinguished:
57 Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Spain,
Italy and Romania.
•
67
Optimising conventional drive technologies: it refers to the improvement of
powertrains (engine and transmission) and still represents one of the best
means (at least in the short-to-medium term) to reduce GHG and air emissions
in order to fulfil the EU regulations.
•
Developing alternative drive technologies: it generally includes R&D in electric
vehicles (i.e. battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs)
and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)) and fuel cell technologies. Both
technologies have not reached the same level of maturity and require different
strategies.
•
Alternative fuels: the use of alternative fuels in road transport such as biofuels
or CNG is an important part of the R&D strategy for this sector, whatever
funded by the industry or through public funds. However, the scope of this research topic goes well beyond the automotive sector and should include R&D
investments from e.g. energy suppliers.
•
Optimising vehicle design: this 'category' focuses on R&D activities related to
the car body i.e. for reducing the vehicle weight as well as drag resistances
(aerodynamic and rolling resistances).
- Reducing the vehicle weight by using lightweight materials (e.g. through the
displacement of conventional ferrous metals with e.g. high strength steel
(HSS), aluminium, magnesium, composites) can lead to significant fuel consumption reduction (as well as improving air quality). However, the equation
is quite complex since weight reduction is directly connected to safety and
comfort issues meaning that a trade-off is necessary between all these constraints.
- Drag resistances: important R&D efforts are regularly undertaken by the
automotive industry to reduce the aerodynamic drag (depending on the
speed, vehicle shape, air density, etc.) and rolling resistance (caused by the
tyre deformation, depending on the vehicle speed and weight). For aerodynamics, experimental (wind tunnel testing) and simulation tools (e.g. CFD
software) are widely used to optimise the car shape and then reduce, as
much as possible depending on the constraints (safety, comfort), the aerodynamic drag coefficient. Regarding the rolling resistance, important fuel
savings can be obtained by systematically using low rolling resistance tyres
(LRRT) and tyre pressure monitoring systems (TPMS).
68
GHG-TransPoRD D1
•
Auxiliaries: R&D efforts are permanently carried out to optimise auxiliaries such
as the mobile air conditioning system (MAC).
TOTAL R&D INVESTMENT
(~ €30bn)
Safety
(braking systems, stability,
speed control, etc.).
Optimising conventional
drive technologies
Energy consumption &
emissions
Developing alternative
drive technologies
New transmissions
(manual/automatic
gearboxes, dual-clutch,
CVT, etc.)
Optimising internal combustion
engines (architecture, components,
injection systems, valve control,
thermal management, reduce
friction losses, downsizing, etc.). But
also exhaust after-treatment
technologies, etc.
Comfort
(e.g. thermal, acoustics,
vibrations)
Use alternative fuels
(e.g. biofuels, CNG)
Optimising vehicle
design
Auxiliaries (e.g.
MAC)
Reducing weight (use of
lightweight materials)
Fuel cell vehicles
(Long term)
Pure electric, hybrid (micro,
mild, full) and plug-in hybrid
technologies
(Short-to-medium term)
Other
(e.g. communication
technologies, ITS)
Reducing drag resistances
(aerodynamic and rolling
resistance)
Main objective: improve cost-effectiveness
Objectives: improve fuel efficiency, reduce GHG and pollutant emissions in order to comply with the future
emission regulation (Euro VI norms in 2014) and CO2 emissions limit (130g/km for 2015 and 95 g/km for 2020)
Figure 4-20:
R&D investment flows in road vehicle technologies for reducing
GHG emissions (overall picture only, R&D topics coloured in grey
are those for which the R&D investment will be estimated).
Source: IPTS
Due to the wide number of road vehicle technologies available for reducing CO2 emissions in the automotive sector, our assessment will focus on the R&D investments in
new engine technologies, electric and fuel cell vehicles as well as biofuels. Obviously,
such an assessment is subject to important uncertainties, especially for the private sector since (except in a few cases) the automotive industry does not provide figures at
this level of details.
The potential CO2 emissions reduction (along with costs when available) related to
several low-carbon vehicle technologies have been analysed in detail by recent literature (see e.g. IEA, 2009c; EPA, 2008; King, 2007; AEA, 2009; Kobayashi et al., 2009;
IFP, 2009b; Fontaras and Samaras, 2009).
69
Table 4-12 shows the order of magnitude of the R&D investments towards conventional engines, electric vehicles, fuel cells and biofuels. These ranges are the result of a
combination of different sources and analyses (patents analysis, annual reports, expert
judgments, etc.) and thus present significant uncertainties.
Table 4-12:
Approximate R&D investments in road vehicle technologies (2008)
Corporate R&D
investment (€m)
Conventional engines
Electric vehicles (incl.
BEV, HEV, PHEV)
Fuel cells (and H2
production)
Transport biofuels
5000-6000
1300-1600
Public EU
FP7 (€m, avg
per year)
No estimates
20
300-400 (100)
270
Public MS
R&D (€m)
80-125
60-100
Total R&D
investment
(€m)
5080-6125
1380-1720
65 (15)
135 (45)
500-600 (160)
55
65
(200 for bioenergy)
390
Note: Data for public MS R&D investments are derived from the IEA RD&D statistics (with gap-filling applied). Data for FP7 are annualised over the duration of the programme; including funding of the HFC JTI
and the European Green Cars Initiative. Corporate R&D investments are derived from a patent-based
analysis of the major EU companies of this sector and completed by further sources.
Despite the fact that the figures on public R&D investments on road vehicle technologies are an underestimation, the very limited role of public R&D spending becomes
obvious. This certainly applies to the overall investments where the share of public
spending remains below 3% of the total, but also to the parts of investments that support research into technologies aiming at reducing the GHG emissions of vehicles
(Wiesenthal et al., 2010).
R&D investments in conventional engines
According to the present analysis, R&D investment for optimising/developing ICE technologies ranged in the order of €5-6 billion in 2008, thus accounting for around half of
the total R&D spending for reducing GHG emissions of the sector. This figure is mainly
based on corporate R&D investment that is by far the largest contributor (only 2% were
found to come from public funds although no figures have been estimated for EU FP7related funding in this area). Despite important (but unavoidable) uncertainties associated to this figure58, such a huge investment does not come as a surprise since automotive manufacturers and suppliers have been massively investing in the optimisation
58 There are two main sources of uncertainties. Firstly, it is very complex to systematically isolate R&D
investments on conventional engines from R&D investments on transmission. Secondly, it was not
feasible to systematically isolate R&D activities targeted at reducing GHG emissions from R&D activities for improving air quality (e.g. exhaust after-treatment technologies).
70
GHG-TransPoRD D1
of conventional engines (diesel and gasoline, depending on the firm's strategy). As
highlighted in Figure 4-20, there exist several domains of research, all of them having
the potential to reduce, at different degree, the vehicle emissions (GHG and air pollutants).
R&D investments in electric vehicles
In 2008, the R&D investment into electric vehicle technologies (BEV, HEV, PHEV) was
estimated to reach some €1.4-1.7 billion, most of this amount stemming from the private sector. This important investment is the result of a growing interest of the EU
automotive industry sector in this field. Today, most of the automotive manufacturers
are involved in the 'electrification' race and have set up partnerships (e.g. Joint ventures) with battery manufacturers59, automotive suppliers and also energy suppliers to
develop electric vehicles worldwide (see Part II, in particular Figure 6-40). The results
of the patent search (section 5.1) also clearly underline the importance given to research in electric vehicles in more recent years, therefore supporting the figures found
here.
We estimated that between 5% and 8.5% of the total R&D invested in electric vehicles
stems from public funds. Yet note that since 2008, the year of the present assessment,
several Member States have launched important research programmes in this area
(see annex) and have set up ambitious targets for 2020 and 2030 as it is the case for
Germany and France. Under FP7, an annual average of around €20 million was estimated to be allocated for electric vehicles60.
R&D investments in fuel cells
R&D investments in fuel cell technologies attracted some €500-600 million by 2008.
This elevated investment may be explained by the fact that R&D in fuel cells for transportation could not be systematically isolated from stationary and portable applications,
thus leading to an overestimation. The total public R&D spending (i.e. from EU Member
States and annualised EU funds under FP7) amounted to around €200 million, with the
EU funding under FP7 having accounted for one third of this.
The assessment of the corporate R&D investment is based on the analysis carried out
by Wiesenthal et al. (2009) for the year 2007, which resulted from an analysis of
around 70 companies active in this area. The results show that the corporate R&D in59 Most of the battery manufacturers have their headquarters outside the EU (e.g. Japan and the U.S.).
Evonik (DE), Saft (FR), BASF (DE) are key EU industries involving in R&D activities in this area.
60 See e.g. the calls for proposals on the electrification of road transport launched in the frame of the EU
Green Cars Initiative in 2009.
71
vestments in fuel cells are relatively high (€300-400 million) which is mainly due to the
large number of companies active in this research area and their high interest in this
technology that is considered as a strategic research field for many of them61. A more
thorough analysis of the R&D investments in fuel cells (incl. also hydrogen) and the
source of discrepancies with other references is provided by Wiesenthal et al. (2009).
R&D investments in biofuels
The research budget dedicated to transport biofuels amounted to €390 million in 2008,
which reflects the fact that biofuels is a key research area. This figure is not restricted
to research into second generation biofuel production pathways but comprises all
transport biofuel technologies.
The corporate contribution to this investment amounted to €270 million based on the
analysis carried out by Wiesenthal et al. (2009). The public share of R&D investments
has been greater than 30% in 2008 with EU funds through FP7 amounted to around
€55 million on an annual average. The limited share of public R&D investments may
not only be due to the relatively elevated maturity of biofuels, but may also be explained by data restrictions (Wiesenthal et al., 2009).
Furthermore, the data suggest that some Member States may not explicitly disclose
R&D on biofuels, but rather allocate it under the category bioenergy-related research.
In 2008, the total R&D investment in bioenergy for the EU Member States reaches
some €200 million out of which only €65 million was allocated to transport biofuels.
4.1.5 Synthesis
The results of our bottom-up analysis show that the total R&D investment of the European automotive sector in 2008 has reached some €32 billion, out of which 42% (€13.4
billion) was dedicated to reduce the environmental impact of road vehicles. R&D efforts
for reducing GHG emissions were estimated to account for €10-11 billion of this total
(Figure 4-21).
A more thorough analysis of the R&D flows into GHG emissions reduction technologies
reveals that the largest share of this investment is due to R&D efforts in optimising
conventional engines, although R&D efforts for developing electric vehicle technologies
have represented a significant share with around €1.4-1.7 billion spent in 2008. Fur-
61 For instance Daimler (as well as non-EU based companies such as Ford and Toyota) have confirmed
their commitment to this technology and foresee that the technology will be for sale around 2015
(Hybridcars.com, 2009).
72
GHG-TransPoRD D1
thermore, R&D investments in biofuels and fuel cell technologies have been assessed
to be both in the order of €0.4-0.6 billion during the same year.
Electric
vehicles
(€1.4-1.7bn)
Conventional
engines
(€5-6bn)
R&D - Other R&D
activities (safety, comfort,
etc.)
Biofuels
(ca. €0.4bn)
R&D - GHG emissions
reduction
~€32bn
€10-11bn
s
R&D - Air pollutant
emissions reduction
Figure 4-21:
Fuel cells
(€0.5-0.6bn)
Other GHG
emission
reduction
technologies
~€13.5bn
Overall public and private R&D investment flows in the automotive
sector in 2008
Source: IPTS
Note: Parts of the R&D investments dedicated to biofuels and fuel cells are funded by companies that lie
outside of the scope of the main assessment (such as energy suppliers and specialised fuel cell companies). In theory, they would add to the total 'R&D GHG emission reduction' of the automotive sector but
their contribution remains limited relative to the total and lies within the uncertainty provided in the figure of
€10-11 billion.
At global level, there is evidence that the major part of these investments is conducted
by the EU automotive industry, the public funds (incl. national Member States and EU
FP7 funding) only accounting for 2.5% of the total in 200862. However, at the level of
GHG reduction technologies, the corporate/public distribution of R&D investments presents a different picture. As shown in Figure 4-23 below, the share of public investments (from Member States and EU FP7) can vary from less than 3% for conventional
engines to more than 35% for fuel cell technologies. This can be explained by industrial
research efforts generally preferring relatively mature technologies, and public efforts
concentrating on less mature technologies and research of more basic nature. This fact
underlines the more elevated importance of public research in fuel-cell related research
compared to e.g. electric vehicles.
62 It is important to keep in mind that considering only 2008 data means that major public support programmes taken in the context of the economic crisis have not been included in the present assessment.
Share of public R&D investment (MS + FP7)
Figure 4-22:
73
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Conventional
engines
Electric vehicles
(incl. hybrids)
Biofuels
Fuel cells
Share of public R&D investment into different road technologies
(2008)
A more detailed analysis of the source of R&D investments for these four technologies
is given in the following Figure 4-23.
Approximate R&D - Conventional engines
Approximate R&D - Electric vehicles
2%
1% 5%
94%
98%
Approximate R&D - Biofuels
17%
Approximate R&D - Fuel cells
Corporate R&D investment (2008)
24%
Public EU (FP7, annual average)
Public R&D spending of EU MS (2008)
14%
12%
69%
Figure 4-23:
64%
R&D investment into GHG emissions reduction technologies by
source of funds (2008)
Source: IPTS
Note: No estimates for EU FP7 funding into conventional engines
74
GHG-TransPoRD D1
4.2
Air transport
The overall R&D investments in air transport in 2008 (civil aeronautics only) have been
estimated to reach some €5.7 billion, out of which around €1.9 billion (i.e. 33%) have
been allocated for reducing GHG emissions.
Table 4-13:
Approximate R&D investments in civil aeronautics (2008)
Corporate R&D
investment (€m)
Civil aeronautics
Out of which for reducing GHG emissions
4,750
Turnover: €62.5bn
R&D intensity: 7.6%
1,500
Public EU FP7
(€m, avg per
year)
350
160
Public MS
R&D (€m)
620
~250
Total R&D investment (€m)
5,700
(17% from public funds)
~1,900
Note: Corporate R&D investments refer to own-funded research
Corporate figures are based on the analysis of 20 key EU companies; Public MS figures are mainly derived from the AirTN project (AirTN, 2009) and completed by our country-based analysis and further
sources. Due to a lack of data, no figures have been estimated for the share of public Member States R&D
going to GHG emissions reduction. Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency, we roughly assumed a 40%
share i.e. ranging between corporate and EU FP7 figures.
Corporate research
In chapter 3, the R&D investments were related to the broad ICB category 'Aerospace
and defence' that includes research activities into aerospace (aeronautics and space)
and defence segments. In this section, the assessment focuses to the extent possible
on the R&D investments allocated to civil aeronautics i.e. by excluding military and
space-related R&D activities for the EU companies analysed. Nevertheless, note that
there are important knowledge spillovers between civil and military aviation, often involving the same actors; hence, the actual innovation capacities of civil aviation are
likely to be higher than indicated by the amounts of R&D investments that are allocated
to this (sub-)sector. Furthermore, note that this investment is relative to companyfunded sources i.e. it does not take into account the government funding, which typically corresponds to one third of the total R&D expenditure (ASD, 2009).
Resulting from the analysis of 20 EU-based companies that are key players of this sector, it has been found that the R&D spending into civil aeronautics reached around €4.7
billion in 2008, with an aggregated turnover of €62.5 billion. Despite inherent methodological differences, the latter figure is quite in line with the €58.5 billion reported by ASD
(2009) for the same year (Figure 4-24). According to the same source, 5.8% of the total
75
turnover of civil aeronautics was spent on R&D (company-funded) i.e. around €5.6 billion, which is of the same order of magnitude of the €4.7 billion found in the present
analysis. Overall, one can estimate that the self-funded R&D investments of the EU
civil aeronautics industry ranged between €5-6 billion in 2008.
Aerospace & Defence
Turnover: €137bn
Aerospace
Defence (land and naval)
Turnover: €32.3bn
Turnover: €104.7bn
Space
Aeronautics
Turnover: €7.4bn
Turnover: €97.3bn
R&D spending*: €8bn
Civil
Turnover: €58.5bn
R&D spending*: €5.6bn
Figure 4-24:
Military
Turnover: €38.8bn
R&D spending*: €2.4bn
Overall turnover and R&D spending flows of the aerospace and
defence sector in 2008
Source: derived from ASD, 2009
* Company-funded R&D
About one third of this €4.7 billion has been directly invested for reducing GHG emissions. This significant amount highlights the increasing R&D efforts of the aeronautic
industry into 'green' technologies, mainly driven by important R&D programmes of the
main actors of the EU aviation industry (EADS, Finmeccanica, Rolls-Royce, Safran,
etc.), which have committed to achieving the ambitious ACARE target of a 50% CO2
reduction per passenger-kilometre in 2020 compared to a benchmark large civil aircraft
from 2000 (with sub-targets assigned to different technology areas, see annex). To
meet this objective, and alongside safety improvements, the aeronautic industry has
been constantly developing more fuel efficient technologies through R&D activities related to:
•
Advanced engines: engine manufacturers have been developing more fuel efficient and low-emission propulsion technologies. It is the case for instance of
Rolls-Royce with the TRENT 1000 and future TRENT XWB, as well as Safran
with the LEAP-X63. An important objective in this area is to achieve the ACARE
63 The LEAP-X is actually developed by CFM International (50% Safran and 50% General Electric owned
company).
76
GHG-TransPoRD D1
engine target consisting of a 15-20% reduction in engine fuel burn by 2020
compared to 2000 levels.
•
Improved aerodynamics, weight reduction (e.g. composite materials), increased
use of electrical energy, etc.
•
Increased use of alternative jet fuels: second generation biofuels suited to the
aviation sector (especially Hydrotreated Vegetable Oils and Biomass-ToLiquids) are likely to play a role in the reduction of CO2 emissions of this sector
in the medium term64. According to Airbus, aviation biofuels could power 30%
of commercial aviation by 203065.
•
Increased air traffic management efficiency (see the SESAR programme)
The combination of these different measures will therefore help the aeronautic industry
meet the ACARE's goals for 2020. There is no doubt that significant fuel consumption
reduction will be achieved by new commercial aircrafts (e.g. A380 and A350 XWB), as
well as in other areas (see e.g. the Bluecopter technology developed by Eurocopter
(EADS) that can significantly reduce the environmental impact66).
Public research
We estimated that EU Member States spent around €620 million in civil aeronautic
research programmes in 2008. This figure is based on data collected from national
aeronautical research programmes of eleven Member States and may represent an
underestimation, although the most important national programmes have been included (see e.g. AirTN, 2009 that provides a survey of national research programmes
on aeronautics). Unfortunately, the share of this investment going specifically to GHG
emissions reduction could not be assessed due to a lack of information.
The annual average EU FP7 funds allocated to air transport (civil aeronautics) are in
the order of €350 million, resulting from the aggregated funds assigned to collaborative
research (TPT-AAT), the Clean Sky JTI and the SESAR JU (see chapter 2).
Out of this, around €160 million (44%) has been estimated to be spent for improving
fuel efficiency and reducing GHG emissions of this sector. This significant investment is
due notably to the launch in 2008 of the largest ever EU aeronautic research programme Clean Sky, which strives at fulfilling the objectives fixed by the ACARE Strate64 This is analysed in detail in the WP2 of the GHG-TransPoRD project.
65 http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/ethics/environment/alternative-fuels/
66 www.bluecopter.com
77
gic Research Agenda (SRA) (see annex). The associated research projects are targeted to reduce GHG emissions (new engines, airframe, etc.) and the environmental
impacts of aircrafts and helicopters (eco-design, noise, etc.). Moreover, GHG and pollutant emissions reduction are also addressed through the SESAR programme on Air
Traffic Management (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research).
The on-going FP7 project DREAM67 is an example of key EU research programme
aiming at reducing the CO2 emissions (among others) of the aviation sector. It brings
together the main EU engine manufacturers and public research institutes. More details
on the EU FP7 initiatives on aeronautics research are given in chapter 3.3 and in annex.
4.3
Maritime transport
The aggregated R&D investment of the maritime transport in 2008 has been found to
be in the order of at least €870 million, of which 35% were funded by public research.
Table 4-14:
Approximate R&D investments in maritime transport (2008)
Corporate R&D
investment (€m)
Maritime transport
570
Turnover: €16.5bn
R&D intensity: 3.4%
300
Public EU FP7
(€m, avg per
year)
45
20
Public MS
R&D (€m)
260
~100
870
~420
Note: Corporate funding based on the analysis of 14 key EU companies; Public MS R&D investment is
taken from the Waterborne TP Strategic Research Agenda Implementation Plan (WATERBORNE TP,
2007; see also the MARTEC survey on national research programmes). Due to a lack of data, no figures
have been estimated for the share of public Member States R&D going to GHG emissions reduction. Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency, we roughly assumed a 40% share.
Corporate research
The level of the EU-based maritime industry R&D investment in 2008 was around €570
million, mainly driven by R&D activities undertaken by companies such as MAN (MAN
Diesel & Turbo), Wartsila and Rolls-Royce (Rolls-Royce Marine). This figure is probably an underestimation of the real picture, essentially due to the limited number of
companies covered in the present assessment. This is supported by the indication provided by the Waterborne TP implementation plan (Waterborne TP, 2007), according to
67 valiDation of Radical Engine Architecture systems http://www.dream-project.eu/
78
GHG-TransPoRD D1
which €1.5 billion are spent on basic and industrial research in this transport mode
(note however that R&D investments from maritime universities and research institutes
are also included).
Our analysis shows that more than half of the total R&D spending in 2008 has been
allocated to improve the energy efficiency of ships and then reduce their GHG emissions (CO2 emissions but also important reduction in NOx and SOx emissions have
been achieved, notably for meeting future regulation on ship emissions). This elevated
amount stems from the increasing R&D activities of the EU marine industry in key research areas such as:
•
Improvement of the energy efficiency of conventional diesel engines for commercial marine propulsion, which still power most of the fleet (i.e. two-stroke
and four-stroke diesel engines). European manufacturers such MAN Diesel &
Turbo (e.g. for large-bore diesel engines) and Wartsila (e.g. for common-rail
technology) are examples in this domain.
•
The use of gas turbines (running on LPG) is a promising option to significantly
reduce CO2 and air pollutant emissions in the longer term (e.g. with combined
cycle gas turbine systems), compared to conventional diesel engines. For instance, according to Rolls-Royce, the Bergen K gas engine running on LPG
produces up to 90% less NOx and 20% less CO2 than an equivalent diesel engine (it also offers weight and space advantages).
•
Further significant CO2 emissions reduction can also be achieved through the
development of biofuels (bio-oil), multifuel engines (gas/bio-oil), waste heat recovery, electrification, fuel cells (see e.g. Wartsila), etc.
Public research
The total public R&D funding is relatively elevated and accounted for 35% of the total
R&D investment of this sector in 2008.
Due to the very limited number of data available, the public funding from Member
States in the maritime sector (€260 million per year, on average) is taken from the Waterborne TP Implementation Plan (Waterborne, 2007), which is partly derived from national R&D programmes analysed in the frame of the MARTEC project (MARTEC,
2007). Unfortunately, the contribution of this amount towards GHG emissions reduction
could not be estimated.
79
Public EU funds through FP7 have been estimated to reach some €43 million68 (average per year) out of which €18 million are directed to reduce GHG emissions. As an
example of key FP7 project, the HERCULES ß project (FP7, €26 million over 3 years
duration) was launched in 2008 as a follow-up of the former HERCULES (High Efficiency Engine R&D on Combustion with Ultra Low Emissions for Ships)69 project
ended in 2007. It is steered by the two major EU engine manufacturers, namely Wärtsilä and MAN Diesel and brings together 32 partners across Europe. One of the main
objectives of this project is to reduce fuel consumption of marine diesel engines by
10% by the year 2020 and move towards ultra low exhaust emissions (70% NOx and
50% PM emissions reduction) from marine engines by the year 2020 (compared to
2000 level).
As an example of a key national initiative in this domain, the 'Green Ship of the Future'70 programme was launched in 2008 in Denmark (25 Danish companies are involved) with the aim to significantly reduce the environmental impact of shipping
through innovation.
68 Waterborne TP (2007) estimated an annual average of around €70 million.
69 http://www.ip-hercules.com/
70 http://www.greenship.org/
80
GHG-TransPoRD D1
4.4
Rail transport
The overall R&D investment in rail transport has been found to be at least €1.1 billion in
2008, out of which roughly €220 million were spent to improve the fuel efficiency of
railways vehicles and reduce GHG emissions.
Table 4-15:
Approximate R&D investments in rail transport (2008)
Corporate R&D
investment (€m)
Total rail research
845
Turnover: €20bn
R&D intensity: 4.3%
170
Public EU FP7
(€m, avg per
year)
20
Public MS
R&D (€m)
5
240
~50
1,100
~220
Note: Corporate funding based on the analysis of 15 key EU companies; Public MS figures are mainly
derived from ERRAC surveys (see e.g. ERRAC, 2008) and completed by further sources. Due to a lack of
data, no figures have been estimated for the share of public Member States R&D going to GHG emissions
reduction. Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency, we roughly assumed a 20% share i.e. ranging between corporate and EU FP7 figures.
Corporate research
Around €850 million has been spent in R&D by the rail industry in 2008. The level of
corporate R&D investment presented here is derived from the analysis of 15 EU-based
companies undertaking significant R&D activities in this sector (note that rail-related
research activities carried out by Siemens and Alstom represents by far the largest
R&D contribution, followed by several EU rail suppliers). Due to the low number of EU
companies analysed, this R&D investment is an underestimation.
Out of this €850 million, it was roughly estimated that €170 million (20%) were targeted
at reducing GHG emissions, mainly resulting from important R&D programmes undertaken by Alstom and Siemens, which are the largest EU investors of this sector. Despite the fact that rail transport is already a very efficient mode, the improvement of
energy efficiency (electric or diesel trains) is a key issue for this sector.
For instance, R&D activities on new generation of very high speed trains (e.g. AGV for
Alstom based on articulated carriages and a distributed drive system; Velaro for Siemens) are becoming more environmentally performant. R&D programmes are also
related to new generation of tramways (e.g. Citadis for Alstom), regional trains (e.g.
Coradia diesel or electric from Alstom), locomotives, signalling, etc.
81
More generally, the main research domains in which the EU rail industry has been investing for reducing the GHG emissions are:
• Improve the energy efficiency of diesel locomotives (passenger and freight services)
and diesel railcars (passenger service only). Research is often derived from R&D in
other areas that can be transferred to the rail sector such as truck engine R&D (see
e.g. the GREEN project71).
• Energy regeneration braking systems: regenerative brake-related technologies can
save important amount of energy (see e.g. the HESOP project with Alstom)
• Development of hybrid or dual mode (ability to function on both electrified and nonelectrified rail tracks) technologies.
• Weight reduction, improved aerodynamics (e.g. shape optimisation by CFD72 and
wind tunnel).
• Improve the energy efficiency of auxiliaries e.g. heating, air conditioning, lighting.
Public research
Overall, the assessment of the total level of public funding in 2008 in rail research suffers from a lack of available data at the time of the present analysis.
According to our estimates, the level of public MS R&D investments has reached some
€260 million in 2008. This amount is mainly derived from the survey carried out by the
ERRAC platform on national rail research programmes (ERRAC, 2008) and complemented by further sources. It is based on the analysis of only eleven Member States,
thus leading to an underestimation of the actual situation. The R&D investments going
specifically to reducing GHG emissions could not be estimated due to a lack of data.
EU public funding under the FP7 programme has been estimated to reach at least €20
million per year (on average), out of which around 20% is dedicated to GHG emissions
reduction.
EU FP projects such as Railenergy73 (under FP6) or the recently launched CleanER-D
project74 (FP7) are examples of key research programmes aiming at reducing the environmental impact of the rail sector.
71 GREen heavy duty ENgine http://green.uic.asso.fr/
72 Computational Fluid Dynamics
73 http://www.railenergy.org/
74 http://www.cleaner-d.eu/
82
GHG-TransPoRD D1
4.5
Key outcomes from the bottom-up analysis
Even though the bottom-up approach applied in this chapter leads to uncertainties in
the quantification of R&D efforts, its results have been confirmed by other studies to the
extent possible and allow drawing a number of conclusions:
• All modes dedicate an important part of their R&D efforts to technologies that reduce
emissions of GHG, taking into account investments both from industrial and public
funders. For the road sector, this part has been estimated to be around one third
(increasing to more than 40% if including also technologies to reduce the emissions
of air pollutants). It is also around one third in aviation, but this figure may include
some R&D focusing on other environmental issues, such as reduction of noise or air
pollutant emissions. For rail, the part is more limited (20%), whereas it is higher for
maritime transport (48%). Yet, the different nature of R&D efforts in the various
modes, with e.g. aviation by definition having a high need to focus on security, and
the differences in the level of spillovers from other (sub-)sectors, e.g. between civil
and military aviation; road freight and rail transport etc., do not allow for a direct
comparison of the results between modes.
• For the automotive sector, a further breakdown of research efforts into three technology groups has been performed. From this it becomes obvious that within the
GHG emission reduction R&D efforts, and herewithin focusing on engine technologies, the largest focus of industrial research lies on the optimisation of conventional
internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles (including hybrids) are the most relevant field of developing non-conventional engine technologies. Fuel cell vehicles
and biofuels show comparably lower industrial R&D investment.
• An extension of the analysis of the automotive industry's innovation efforts to the
year 2009 indicates that both turnover and R&D investments have been detrimentally influenced by the economic downturn, yet with R&D investments decreasing at a
slower pace. This may indicate that car and truck manufacturers perceive R&D as
strategically important area. At the same time, however, the increasing price pressure implies a concentration on fewer technologies with a shorter expected returnon-investment. There are also indications of green technologies becoming relatively
more important in the industrial R&D portfolio.
83
• The role of public R&D investments (both from Member States and EU FP7 funds) is
very heterogeneous between the different transport modes. While it is comparably
low in the automotive sector (2.5% of the total) as a whole, which is also due to the
fact that the total investments of this sector are the by far most elevated of all modes, its role is much more pronounced in other modes. Public funds account for 17%
for aviation, 23% for rail and 35% for maritime.
• The weight of public R&D funding (EU FP7 and Member States) also seems to depend on the maturity of the technology; this would be supported by the finding that
public support account to some 2% of the overall R&D investments dedicated to
conventional engines and 6% for electric vehicles, but 31% for biofuels and up to
36% for fuel cells, with the latter being considered as the technology that will take
most time until its wide-spread market uptake.
84
GHG-TransPoRD D1
5.
RESULTS III – Outcome of the patents analysis
Although there is an established literature on the analysis of patents as one of the few
quantitative indicators of R&D activity and technology development, there have been
few applications to transport. For the EU, Oltra and Saint Jean (2009b), and INPI
(2006) have studied patent activity in French car manufacturers, showing that most
patenting activity still addresses conventional vehicles with petrol or diesel engines.
The patent analysis was undertaken using the PATSTAT patent database. Search
strategies by category were defined by relevant technology category for fuel cells, hybrid and electric vehicles and biofuels. Data is available for the years 1990 to 2007. The
analysis was undertaken for European firms, defined as firms with their headquarters in the EU. The automobile industry is however a global industry, with the
major firms selling their vehicles across the world. However, product development
tends to be concentrated in the country of origin of the multinationals. Therefore, this
analysis presents a good assessment of the patenting activity of European based firms.
The relative competitive position of European firms versus other international firms is
not addressed.
5.1
Dynamics of patent applications
First, the dynamics of patent applications for each technology was examined for international patent applications in the period 1990-2007, the last year for which reliable
data are available. While an increase in the number of patent applications can be observed for all three technology fields, there are large differences in the relative change
(dynamics) for each field. Inspection of Figure 5-25 reveals that the largest relative increase was seen for fuel cells, followed by hybrid and electric vehicles and biofuels.
There were more than 28 times more patent applications in fuel cells in the year 2007
compared to 1990. This same ratio was slightly above 6 for hybrid and electric vehicles
and slightly below 2 for biofuels.
The timeline in Figure 5-25 also reveals that the increase in fuel cell patent applications
occurred mostly in the 1990s and has largely stagnated since then. By comparison,
patent applications in technologies pertaining to hybrid and electric vehicles largely
stagnated in the first half of the 1990s but have increased strongly for most of the current decade. I.e. using an index with the base year 2000, would reveal these shorter
term dynamics that differ from the long-term dynamics since 1990. The patent activity
for biofuels followed a generally upwards trend over the period of investigation, even if
this trend was not as steep as the other two.
International patent applications (indexed, 1990 = 100)
85
10000
1000
fuel cells
hybrid‐electric
100
biofuels
10
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Figure 5-25: International patent applications (PCT+EPO, overlap excluded) pertaining
to the three selected technology fields. For comparison, the number of international patent applications was indexed for all technology fields, with
the number of patent applications in the year 1990 corresponding to an
index of 100. Note the logarithmic scale for the vertical axis.
Source: ISI, resulting from technology specific search strategy of international patents, excluding overlaps
Because the absolute number of patents pertaining to hybrid and electric vehicles is
more than a factor of two larger than that for fuel cells (with biofuels ranging between
them), we may summarily assess the dynamics of patent applications as follows:
• The largest field and currently most dynamic technology field in the sample is hybrid
and electric vehicles. Not only is the absolute number of patent applications the
largest of the three but the indexed and absolute increase in patents in the very recent years is considerably larger than that in the other two technologies. This reflects a focusing of the efforts of technology developers in electromobility.
• Mobile fuel cells have seen the largest relative increase in patent applications in the
timeframe considered, but the number of patent applications has stagnated or decreased in recent years. Furthermore, the absolute number of patent applications is
the smallest of the sample. However, the number of new applications has remained
fairly stable at a level significantly higher than at the beginning of the timeframe, indicating ongoing efforts to bring this technology into the market.
• Technologies pertinent to biofuels have experienced a slow but steady increase in
patent activity.
86
GHG-TransPoRD D1
These findings are underlined by the keyword-based patent research undertaken. Figure 5-26 shows the yearly aggregated number of patent applications on electric vehicles of the main EU actors over the period 1990-2009. The steep increase in patent
applications from the principal EU-based automotive manufacturers and suppliers on
electric vehicles (including hybrids) becomes obvious. This hints at the rapidly growing
importance paid by industry to the development of these technologies in recent years,
supporting the conclusion of the technology's importance that was drawn from the assessment of R&D investments above. It indicates that the number of patent applications has been multiplied by 4 between 2006 and 2009, meaning that research in electric vehicles has become a higher priority for EU-based companies today.
500
Number of patent applications
450
Electric vehicles (incl. hybrids)
400
Fuel cell vehicles
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1990
Figure 5-26:
1995
2000
2005
2010
Annual number of patent applications related to electric vehicles and
fuel cell vehicles from the EU automotive industry over the period
1990-2009
Source: IPTS, resulting from a keyword-based search, following the methodology of Oltra and Saint Jean
(2009a)
5.2
Patenting activity by country
As a second step, the number of international patent applications (in each of the technologies considered) coming from the EU was broken down into the individual Member
States. Because of possible large fluctuations in the year-to-year patent applications,
the patent numbers were aggregated into four four-year periods spanning from 1992 to
2007. This breakdown is shown in Figure 5-27, Figure 5-28, and Figure 5-29 for hybrid
and electric vehicles, mobile fuel cells and biofuels, respectively.
87
5.2.1 Hybrid and electric vehicles
In the case of hybrid and electric vehicles (Figure 5-27), a clear and sustained dominance of German patents was observed, starting at 50% of pertinent European patenting activity in the period 1992-1995 and increasing to slightly over 60% in the period
2000-2007. At the same time, France saw a slight increase in its share of pertinent
European patent applications from 14% in the period 1992-1995 to 18% in 2004-2007.
In contrast, the number of pertinent patent applications from Italy, Great Britain and
Sweden increased only half as much (on a percent basis) compared to France and
Germany in the same period. This, combined to growth in the rest of the EU27 (comparable to the overall growth in pertinent European patents) led to the share of Italy,
Great Britain and Sweden to decline from a collective 28% in the period 1992-1995 to a
collective 12% in the period 2004-2007. The share of the other EU27 countries has
remained essentially stable.
DE
2004‐2007
FR
IT
2000‐2003
GB
SE
1996‐1999
AT
NL
1992‐1995
FI
0%
Figure 5-27:
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
RoEU27
Breakdown of European patents pertaining to hybrid and electric
vehicles, differentiated by country
5.2.2 Mobile fuel cells
In the case of mobile fuel cells (Figure 5-28), European patenting activity is also dominated by German patents, but with a different trend: an overall decrease in the German
share in pertinent European patents from 65% in the period 1992-1995 to slightly over
50% in the period 2004-2007. The trajectory of this change, however, was not linear. In
the period 1996-1999, Germany accounted for over 70% of European mobile fuel cell
patents. Since then, this share went down to 65% in 2000-2003 (same level as 19921995) and finally to slightly over 50% for 2004-2007.
88
GHG-TransPoRD D1
2004‐2007
DE
FR
2000‐2003
GB
IT
1996‐1999
DK
NL
1992‐1995
SE
RoEU27
0%
Figure 5-28:
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Breakdown of European patents pertaining to mobile fuel cells, differentiated by country
A similar decrease, though at a lower absolute level, can be observed for Great Britain:
its share in relevant patents decreased from 16% in the period 1992-1995 to 10% in
the period 2004-2007. In contrast, France steadily and significantly increased its share
from 2% in the period 1992-1995 to 13% in the period 2004-2007. Similarly, Italy and
Denmark have increased their share, though both remain under 10% of pertinent European patents each. The share of the other European countries remained essentially
unchanged (~10%) when comparing 1992-1995 to 2004-2007, with lower shares in
1996-2003.
It is worth mentioning that the number of patent applications in this technology field
decreased by approximately 15% when comparing the periods 2004-2007 and 20002003. Behind this absolute decrease is the large decrease (> -30%) in patent applications coming from Germany. Great Britain and the Netherlands also had negative
growth in patent applications. At the same time, there were more patents coming from
all other EU countries in the same period of comparison.
5.2.3 Biofuels
In the case of biofuels (Figure 5-29), the dominance of German patent applications is
less marked than it was for hybrid and electric vehicles and mobile fuel cells, and has
decreased considerably since 1992-1999. Whereas Germany submitted over 40% of
European patents in this technology field between 1992 and 1999, this share decreased to slightly below 40% in 2000-2003 and approximately 30% in 2004-2007. In
89
this same period, the share of patent applications coming from France also decreased,
albeit at a lower absolute level.
In contrast, both Great Britain and the Netherlands have moderately increased their
share in European patent applications on biofuels, from 14% to 18% and from 10% to
14%, respectively, considering the periods 1992-1995 and 2004-2007. The share of the
rest of Europe has increased considerably from the period 1992-1995 to 2004-2007,
with most of that increase taking place in the last four-year period.
DE
2004‐2007
GB
NL
2000‐2003
FR
IT
1996‐1999
BE
ES
1992‐1995
FI
0%
Figure 5-29:
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
RoEU27
Breakdown of European patents pertaining to biofuels, differentiated
by country
5.3
Snapshot of patenting activity by company
The previous section revealed the dominant or at least prominent position of Germany
in all three technology fields. France, Great Britain and Italy were also identified as very
important patenting countries in all three technology fields, while the Netherlands has a
strong position in the technology field of biofuels. In this section, we investigate the
positioning of companies and organizations as patent applicants, regardless of where
in the EU the patents were produced. Furthermore, we compare the patenting activity
of each company to its overall patenting activity in order to approach the question of
specialization. To do this, a multistep procedure is needed as outlined in Figure 5-30.
This procedure was applied to all three selected technology fields for the year 2007.
90
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Figure 5-30:
Workflow for identifying applicants in each technology field and for
ascertaining the share of relevant patent applications compared to
the total patent applications for each applicant.
5.3.1 Hybrid and electric vehicles
A total of 91 companies were identified to have applied for a patent in the last year of
data (2007) in the relevant IPC classes. The distribution of patents by applicant is
shown in Figure 5-31, and shows that six companies account for more than half of all
patent applications. Of these six, the by far largest applicants were Bosch (19%) and
ZF (13%), both large German suppliers of car components. The second group of large
applicants in this technology fields is composed of three car manufacturers and one
supplier of components: Renault (7%), Daimler (6%), Peugeot and Siemens (4% each).
In addition to these large applicants, 85 companies/institutions contributed each 3% or
less to patent applications relevant to hybrid and electric vehicles. Their combined patent applications account for slightly less than half of relevant patent applications.
74 Companies < 1% each
28%
91
Bosch
19%
ZF
13%
19%
Peugeot
4%
Figure 5-31:
Renault
7%
SIEMENS
4%
Daimler
6%
Share of the different applicants in the year 2007 for hybrid and
electric vehicles
Comparing the number of relevant patents each company filed to the total number of
patents filed by the same company (or group of companies) in the same year provides
a snapshot of the relative importance of this technology in the technology portfolio of
the patent applicants. This is shown on the left side of Figure 5-32.
For more than half of the companies filing relevant patents, patent applications relevant
for hybrid and electric vehicles represented 10% or less of their patent application portfolio in 2007. Nevertheless, there was a significant minority of companies/institutions
(17 out of 91) that filed patents only in this technology field in the year 2007. Thus,
there is a divide between two “types” of applicants: those who come into the field of
hybrid and electric vehicles using their expertise in related technologies (notably car
makers and component suppliers), and those who are specialised in technologies relating to hybrid and electric vehicles. Figure 5-31 shows that all “large” applicants belong
to the first type of established companies. Therefore, the second type of applicant must
individually have shares of 3% or less. A comparison of the degree of specialization of
the companies and their share in relevant patents for this technology is shown on the
right side of Figure 5-32. Here it is possible to identify a third type of applicant as companies that have a low to moderate degree of specialization and very low to low shares
in the patenting in this technology field. It becomes evident by combining both sides of
Figure 5-32 that most applicants in 2007 belong to this type of company. These are
presumably companies with specialist technology in other sectors that are moving into
the electric vehicle technology market.
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Number of companies
60
50
40
30
20
10
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
Share of relevant patents in total patents by a company
92
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Share of relevant patents in company's portfolio
Figure 5-32:
0%
10%
20%
Share of a company in relevant patents
(left) Specialization of applicants in the field of hybrid and electric
vehicles expressed as the share of relevant patents in the overall
portfolio of a company/institution. (right) Specialization of patent applicants in the field of hybrid and electric vehicles expressed as a
function of their relative contribution to patents in this field for the
year 2007.
5.3.2 Mobile fuel cells
A total of 81 companies were identified to have applied for a patent with priority year
2007 in the relevant IPC classes. Although this is a smaller number of applicants than
in the case of hybrid and electric vehicles (91),
23%
42%
Figure 5-33:
Daimler
14%
Commissariat a l'Energie Atom.
6%
Siemens
4%
Enerday
4%
Fraunhofer‐
Gesellschaft
STAXERA
4%
3%
Share of the different applicants in the year 2007 for mobile fuel
cells
93
Figure 5-33 shows that only 35% of relevant patent applications were filed by applicants with a contribution greater or equal to 3% of total patent applications. Of these,
only one (Daimler with 14%) is a car manufacturer. Almost two thirds of patent applications in the field of mobile fuel cells came from “small” applicants (contributing 3% or
less to total patent applications in 2007).
As for the case of hybrid and electric vehicles, we compared the number of relevant
patent applications each company filed to the total number of patents filed by the same
company (or group of companies) in the same year and use this as a measure of the
relative importance of this technology in the technology portfolio of the patent applicants. This is shown on the left side of Figure 5-34. Comparing this to the left side of
Figure 5-32 reveals that the distributions are very similar: for close to half of the companies filing relevant patents, these patents represented 10% or less of their patent
application portfolio in 2007. There is a significant minority of companies (20), however,
that filed patents only in this technology field in the year 2007. None of these compa-
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Number of companies
nies accounted for more than 3% of patent applications.
Figure 5-34:
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
(left) Specialization of applicants in the field of mobile fuel cells expressed as the share of relevant patents in the overall portfolio of a
company/institution. (right) Specialization of patent applicants in the field
of mobile fuel cells expressed as a function of their relative contribution
to patents in this field for the year 2007.
94
GHG-TransPoRD D1
The right side of Figure 5-34 reveals that Daimler (14%), in its dominant position, is
relatively non-specialised (cf. Bosch for hybrid and electric vehicles). It also reveals that
patents in this field represented more than 10% of patent applications for two of the six
top applicants: Enerday (14%) and Staxera (75%). Extending this to the top 10 patent
applicants, we find that for five of them patents in this field represent more than 10% of
their portfolio. In fact, the mean specialization of the top 10 applicants was 20% by this
measure. This same measure was < 5% in the case of hybrid and electric vehicles.
Further extending this to include all companies/institutions, we find an average specialization of 36% for mobile fuel cells compared to 28% for hybrid and electric vehicles.
Thus, we may conclude that, in sum, companies filing for patents in the field of mobile
fuel cells are more specialised than companies filing patents for hybrid and electric
vehicles. Moreover, the dominance of large companies/institutions filing many patent
applications in this field is considerably smaller. This suggests that the industrial structure of fuel cell development and manufacturing is somewhat different to electric technology applied to vehicles: fuel cell development is very much a specialist activity, undertaken by specialist firms.
5.3.3 Biofuels
A total of 110 companies/institutions were identified to have applied for a patent with
priority year 2007 in the relevant IPC classes. This is the largest number of applicants
in the three technologies examined. From these 110 companies/institutions, the top six
(contributing each 3% or more to the total patent applications in this year) account for
less than 40% of all patent applications, as shown in Figure 5-35. The remaining patent
applications came from companies and institutions contributing each less than 3% of
total patent applications. This is similar to the case of mobile fuel cells.
41%
Shell
12%
BP
8%
BASF
8% IFP
4%
Evonik Degussa
3%
21%
Figure 5-35:
DSM IP ASSETS
3%
Share of the different applicants in the year 2007 for biofuels
95
A striking feature of Figure 5-35 is the identity of the patent applicants: none of the top
applicants is a car manufacturer or component supplier. Instead, they are mostly chemical and petrochemical companies. The likely reason behind this is that, from the point
of view of car manufacturers and component suppliers, the use of biofuels does not
require (significant) modification to cars. Therefore, the largest patent applicants are
those who today already provide fuel or the technology to produce it.
Plotting the number of relevant patents each company filed compared to the total number of patents filed by the same company (or group of companies) in the same year
(Figure 5-36, left) reveals a different picture for biofuels as for fuel cells and hybrid and
electric vehicles. In the case of biofuels, companies that are completely specialised are
most numerous. For slightly more than one quarter of the companies filing relevant
patents, these patents represented 10% or less of their patent application portfolio in
2007. In contrast, almost half of the filing companies applied for patents only in this
technology field in the year 2007.
Taking the mean of this measure of specialization over the top 6 companies and institutions yields 8%, more than for hybrid and electric vehicles but less than for mobile fuel
cells. However, extending this to include all companies we find a mean specialization of
52%, compared to 36% for mobile fuel cells and 28% for hybrid and electric vehicles.
Thus, companies filing patents in the field of biofuels are, on average, more specialised
Figure 5-36:
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Number of companies
than those filing in the other two technology fields considered.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
(left) Specialization of applicants in the field of biofuels expressed as the
share of relevant patents in the overall portfolio of a company/institution.
(right) Specialization of patent applicants in the field of biofuels expressed as a function of their relative contribution to patents in this field
for the year 2007.
96
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Nevertheless, the companies holding the largest share of patent applications only had
a low to moderate specialization (≤ 20%). In contrast, fully specialised companies contributed each 2% or less to total patent applications.
5.4
Key outcomes from the patents analysis
The patent search confirms the importance given very recently to electric vehicles,
compared to e.g. biofuels and fuel cell vehicles. German companies roughly account
for 60% of European based patents in mobile fuel cells and hybrid electric vehicles
between 1990 and 2007 and for about 40% in biofuels. Out of the EU large car manufacturers only Daimler appears within the top group of patenting companies for these
new technologies.
An important consideration when looking at patenting activity, or indeed overall R&D
activity, in this area is that electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles is fundamentally a more
general category than fuel cells or biofuels. For fuel cells, this is because fuel cells
generate electricity and therefore use electric power trains and systems that are similar
to battery or hybrid electric vehicles. Biofuels are solely an alternative fuel, not requiring
major changes to the vehicle engine or power train, in contrast to the new electric power trains required by both fuel cell and electric vehicles.
However, the analysis still indicates that electric technology has received overproportional attention in more recent years by technology developers, whereas fuel cell
patenting activity experienced stagnation or even a slight decrease in the past years.
The latter might be either an outcome of strategic decisions of manufacturers, or
largely driven by the economic crisis and reduced R&D budgets requiring selective cuts
in R&D investment.
The results show an interesting dichotomic composition of a few large companies
dominating a large part of the total patenting activity in a given technology, but at the
same time, the role of small specialised companies becomes obvious. The role of specialised companies is more pronounced for biofuels and fuel cells than for electric vehicles. This outcome is in line with the assessment of R&D investments – also here, the
list of companies considered includes a much larger number of small specialised companies for hydrogen and fuel cells than for other technologies. In the context of the
overall transport research as such being concentrated on very few large players (see
Figure 3-13), the more important role of newcomers in innovative technologies is notable, and will also be looked at further in chapter 6.
97
PART II – Qualitative analysis of the innovation systems
transport
The following sections are first providing a detailed analysis of the innovation system
for the automobile sector. This is followed by a scoping analysis for the other modes
air, rail and shipping. The four analyses of the innovation system follow the same approach that is rooted in the theory of technological innovation systems.
However, we adapt this approach to elaborate what we would call the Innovation System of Transport (ISyT). This report is still not providing a full analysis of ISyT. Thus
the final section outlines the next steps to undertake and complete the analysis of ISyT.
98
GHG-TransPoRD D1
6.
6.1
Technology Innovation System analysis of low carbon cars
Introduction and scope of the analysis
The automobile industry is facing a period of transition. On the one hand, the car makers are not profitable, because they embody a mature technology in a globally competitive and mature market dominated by a few producers (Köhler et al., 2008; Orsato and
Wells, 2007). On the other hand, they face increasing pressure from society to reduce
the emissions from road vehicles, especially to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuels burnt in engines (Köhler, 2006). While the automobile industry spends a
great deal of money and resources (see chapter 3) on R&D, this is strongly oriented to
maintaining shares of the current and near term market. Environmental innovation has
only happened through policy and regulatory pressure (Köhler et al., 2008). Furthermore, the automobile industry is a large manufacturing sector75. Therefore, the industry
has a very strong political voice.
The pressure of competition has led to mergers and takeovers among the manufacturers (Orsato & Wells, 2007), while the drive to low carbon innovation has led to opportunities for new entrants, both in the manufacture of low carbon cars (e.g. Tesla in the US
(WSJ, 2009), Loremo in Germany76), and in particular in battery, fuel cell and energy
storage technologies such as the application of Carbon Nanotubes to enable ultracapacitors to be practicable for vehicle power systems (PopularMechanics, 2008).
The poor profitability and the pressure to introduce new technologies to reduce the
environmental impact of road transport has pushed the industry into an unstable state
(Köhler, 2006; Orsato & Wells, 2007). This suggests the possibility of a radical transformation of the sector, a transition to a different technology. Köhler (2006) argues that
this is necessary in order to dramatically improve the environmental performance of the
sector and suggests that transition theory can provide an analytical framework to investigate the possibilities for such a transition. In particular, transition theory identifies
niches as arenas in which radical new technologies may develop. If the surrounding
conditions (the ‘landscape’) are favourable, they may develop and either force the current established industry and networks (the ‘regime’) to adopt the new technologies, or
75 In 2007 there were 834,000 jobs in Germany, 258,000 in France and over 100,000 in Italy, Spain, UK,
the Czech Republic and Poland, a total of 2.3 Million in the EU 27 in 2007 (ACEA, 2010 quoting
EUROSTAT data).
76 http://www.loremo.com/ (accessed 24 February 2010)
99
the new firms and their markets and networks representing the new technologies may
expand such as to overcome and replace the current regime and established firms.
Because of the large employment in the industry, the future structure of the industry
and R&D policy is an important topic. For policymaking, the main questions are: which
technological developments should be supported and how? Which firms should be
supported to maintain employment in the EU car industry, both in the short term and
long term?
To look at these questions, an analysis of innovation in the automobile industry in the
EU has been undertaken. Since the policy questions identified above concern the introduction of new low carbon technologies, a transition analysis is appropriate to determine the niches where new technologies are developing. In fact, there has been
considerable activity in the development of low carbon vehicles as an alternative to
petrol and diesel powered vehicles. Köhler et al. (2009), consider the main current alternatives to ICE vehicles. These are: electric and internal combustion engine
(ICE)/electric hybrids, fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) and biofuels in ICE vehicles. There are
also a few high efficiency ICE vehicles under development such as the Tata Nano77
and the Loremo76.
This paper uses the Technology Innovation System (TIS) approach to assess the current state of the innovation system for low carbon cars. The next section briefly reviews
the recent history of innovation in this sector. Then, the method of TIS analysis is described. The components of the low carbon car TIS: actors, networks and institutions
are identified and then the innovation functions of the TIS are assessed. The overall
assessment of the current effectiveness of the TIS and policy recommendations for the
most effective ways to support innovation in this sector are discussed.
6.2
Low carbon innovations in cars
Environmental innovation within the automotive industry has largely been in response
to government regulation of industry (for example, Gerard and Lave, 2005; Dyerson
and Pilkington, 2000; Weber and Hoogma, 1998). This has grown from concerns over
local air quality to concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and now encompasses a
broader sustainability agenda with attention given to production methods, material use
and disposal (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2004; also van den Hoed, 2004). The Annex 11 outlines the different firms’ strategies in respect of environmental innovation up to 2008.
We can see that different firms adopt different strategies with respect to different fuel
77 http://tatanano.inservices.tatamotors.com/tatamotors/ (accessed 24 February 2010)
100
GHG-TransPoRD D1
and vehicle technologies (hybrids, electric, biofuels, hydrogen and fuel cells, gasoline
efficiency and exhaust emissions, lightweight chassis and components), and so no one
firm can be readily categorized as a ‘leader’ or ‘laggard’ with respect to environmental
innovation.
6.2.1 The rush to electric vehicles
Most recently, there has however been a change. Firms are now concentrating on developing ICE-battery electric hybrids and are pushing for the development of electricity
charging infrastructures to enable the widespread use of ICE-plug in electric hybrids.
Toyota, through its Prius model is now the manufacturer with the most established
product, the Prius medium sized ICE-Battery hybrid. Toyota had cumulated sales of
2.01 million vehicles in September 2009 (Toyota, 2009). However, all the major manufacturers have plans to introduce hybrids to the market in the next few years. Ford are
producing a hybrid version of their Focus small-medium car, GM plans to introduce the
Chevrolet Volt in 2010 (WSJ, 2009), Nissan-Renault will launch the Leaf in the US and
Japan in 2010 and in the EU in 2011 (Auto Motor und Sport, 2009). Daimler are planning to start series production of their electric SMART in 201278. BMW and VW are
also following this trend; BMW are testing a battery electric Mini, with series production
planned for 201578 and VW are developing a hybrid version of the Golf, with fleet trials
planned for 2010 and series production planned for 2014 (Spiegel, 2010). Mitsubishi
and Peugeot-Citroën are planning to launch the iMiEV under both brand names in 2010
or 2011 (Automobilsport.com, 2009). There are also battery electric vehicles in production, most notably the Tesla Battery Sports car (WSJ, 2009).
The reason for this consensus to develop ICE-battery hybrids is the prospect of binding
legislation in the near future. The Californian ZEV legislation has been updated in 2009
to support battery electric hybrids (CEPA-ARB, 2010) and the European Commission
has published legislation imposing required CO2 emissions standards, with the average
of all new cars required to be 130g CO2/km by 2015 (Regulation 443/2009). This legislative pressure combined with improved battery technology. In 2007, a critical new development was the introduction of Li-ion batteries, which significantly improved the performance of car batteries. Hence impending legislation combined with recent improvements in battery technology could give hybrids a strong advantage over fuel cell vehicles. Fuel cells vehicles are much more expensive than battery vehicles and hydrogen
infrastructure is still at the demonstration stage, with new standards and legislation
78 RP online: CAR-Symposium in Bochum - Jährlich 10.000 Elektro-Smarts ab 2012 http://www.rponline.de/auto/news/Jaehrlich-10000-Elektro-Smarts-ab-2012_aid_815641.html
101
required. In contrast to fuel cell vehicles, electric hybrids have already been sold in the
market in large enough numbers to bring the costs down towards those of conventional
cars.
The problem with electric vehicles is the very limited performance of batteries, giving
reduced range compared to ICE cars. A further possibility is the development of high
efficiency conventional cars. It is possible to produce a very low consumption ICE car.
The new Loremo sports car claims a consumption of 2.3 l/100 km from a 2 cylinder
20kw diesel, while the Tata Nano small 4 seat vehicle has a consumption of 3.8l/100km
in the 624cc 20kw diesel version. These are both very small and light cars, the Loremo
weighs around 450kg using plastics and lightweight design, while the Tata Nano
weighs 700kg using a conventional steel body. However, these cars are very limited in
size and comfort compared to the mass market cars of the major manufacturers.
Therefore, their sales potential is limited.
The scientific literature still considers hydrogen to be an important option for low carbon
vehicles: Thomas (2009), Campanari et al. (2009) and Offer et al. (2010) all find Fuel
Cells better for longer range vehicles, due to the limitations of current battery technologies. However, they are still a long way from market introduction and this is only expected in the long run, probably after 2020 (Wietschel et al., 2009, p.268; Edwards et
al., 2008; Köhler et al., 2009, Schade et al. 2010). The main challenges are identified
by Edwards et al. (2008) to be: cost of hydrogen production, development of carbon
neutral hydrogen production, development of a safe infrastructure for mass distribution
of hydrogen, development of safe hydrogen storage systems for cars and a major reduction in the costs of fuel cells.
ICE-Battery hybrids have the decisive advantage that the technology is already developed enough for series production. Also, the range limitations imposed by batteries can
be partly overcome if a recharging infrastructure is made available. This infrastructure
will impose investment requirements for recharging stations and new demands on the
electrical power generation system, but these issues are much simpler to deal with
than the safety and costs issues of developing a hydrogen production, distribution and
storage system for cars on a large scale. This has been clearly expressed by Honda
(Autobloggreen, 2009). They are developing a plug-in hybrid to meet the California
ZEV legislation, but still believe that “people will become more aware of the limits of
BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicles)” and resume interest in hydrogen.
102
GHG-TransPoRD D1
6.2.2 The decisive impact of policy
Environmental innovation within the automotive industry has largely been in response
to government regulation of industry (see e.g. Gerard and Lave, 2005; Dyerson and
Pilkington, 2000; Weber and Hoogma, 1998). The impact of government intervention
for environmental purposes was first evident in the US when California initiated legislation for automobile emissions in 1960, and subsequently the 1970 federal Clean Air Act
was introduced. This demanded 90 per cent emissions reductions from new automobiles over a four- to five-year period (Gerard and Lave, 2005). In response, GM and
Ford invested heavily in R&D and equipment installation for technologies to reduce
emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, eventually leading
to production of the automotive catalytic converter in 1975 and the three-way catalyst in
1981. Important in this respect, however, is regulator credibility, without which environmental legislation is unlikely to be effective. For example, Gerard and Lave (2005)
suggest that Chrysler may not have responded to the Clean Air Act by investing in R&D
due to their belief that regulators would not enforce the Act (since Congress had constrained the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrative options). On the other
hand, the company’s financial distress was also a probable factor in its lack of investment in emissions control technologies.
More recently, in 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) announced its Zero
Emission Vehicle (ZEV) programme which would require automobile manufacturers to
produce and sell an increasing proportion of zero emission vehicles from their new car
sales − 3 per cent in 1998, rising to 10 per cent by 2003. After fierce lobbying from auto
firms, this legislation was postponed to 2005 and revised to include a new category
(the partial-ZEV) which would include fuel-efficient internal combustion engines (ICEs),
for example, hybrids, methanol/gasoline fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), and natural gas vehicles (Hekkert and van den Hoed, 2006). Similar mandates are in force elsewhere
(e.g. Switzerland). This has prompted major public and private investment in electric
and subsequently hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, not only amongst US car producers but
also by Japanese and European firms (Dyerson and Pilkington, 2000). Other US policies, such as the 1992 Energy Policy Act and the current Bioenergy Program, which
promote bio-ethanol production and use have encouraged major manufacturers, such
as Toyota, to invest in flexible-fuel vehicles (Toyota, 2006).
In Japan, government policy has similarly stimulated environmental innovation within
the automotive sector. In response to the US Clean Air Act, Japanese authorities set
identical emissions standards, to ensure their vehicle producers would not be excluded
from US markets (Gerard and Lave, 2005). Since the 1970s, the Japanese Ministry of
International Trade and Industry (MITI, now METI) - the body responsible for adminis-
103
tering major programmes for research, development and diffusion of new vehicles and
fuels - has focused on battery-powered vehicles as the main option to reduce oil dependence and local emissions, but this has been expanded to include hybrid, compressed natural gas (CNG), methanol and fuel cell (FC) vehicles since 1997. As part of
its programme to develop and promote clean vehicle technologies, the MITI has created technological ‘visions’ through collective foresight exercises, established intercompany knowledge networks, sponsored R&D, leasing and purchasing incentive programmes, subsidies for electric vehicle manufacturers, public procurement (e.g. electric
Toyota ‘Rav4’s sold to some Japanese authorities) and facilitated market entry through
legislation and standards (Åhman, 2006). This programme, along with the CARB zeroemission vehicles mandate, has been a key determinant of Toyota’s investment in, and
ultimate commercial success with, hybrid electric-ICE vehicles (Åhman, 2006).
The main policies that have been applied in the EU on the automotive supply side are
summarised in Table 6-16. A comprehensive listing of policies to address CO2 emissions from transport is ECMT (2007). The main measure implemented so far is the
Regulation (EC) No 443/200979 which aims to reduce CO2 emissions for new cars sold
in the EU to 130g CO2/km by 2015, with an additional 10g reduction coming from ‘complementary measures’ including a greater use of biofuels. These measures are supported by a range of policies differentiated between member states, including standards, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) subsidies, as well as cross-sector R&D networks
(e.g. for hydrogen and fuel cells). Köhler (2009) finds that the impact of the preceding
voluntary ACEA agreement has been considerable – of the order of 135 Mt CO2 for the
EU 27 between 1996 and 2007. Based on calculations with the ASTRA model
(Schade, 2004), in the year 2005 alone, the savings were around 18 Mt CO2 for the
EU15 and 21 Mt CO2 for the EU27. TNO (2006) found that the ACEA agreement has
made no observable difference to the long-run trend in specific CO2 emissions. This
implies that the historical rate of technical progress has been maintained through the
voluntary agreement. Other policies are assessed by Köhler (2009) to have had little
impact.
79 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/co2/co2_home.htm
104
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Table 6-16:
Summary of EU emissions reduction policies for automobiles
EU Measures
ACEA agreement (signed in 1998 and replaced in 2009 by mandatory CO2 emission regulation,
see below): target of 140g CO2/km for new cars sold by 2008
Regulation (EC) No 443/2009: mandatory CO2 emissions reductions to reach 130g CO2/km for
the average new car fleet by 2015 (phased in between 2012 and 2015). This Regulation sets a
target of 95g CO2/km by 2020.
Car labelling Directive (energy efficiency)
Complementary to ECCP1 (European Climate Change Programme I)
Directive 2009/28/EC on promotion of energy from renewables including biofuels for vehicles
CAP EU subsidy €45/ha for energy crops since 2003 up to 1.5 Mha for whole of EU
Vehicles in EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)
Technology promotion measures
R&D networks (e.g. hydrogen)
Subsidies for technology development
Biofuel production subsidies
Biofuels quotas for 2010 and 2020
Biofuels fuel quality standards (Directive 2009/30/EC)
Technical standards
Voluntary agreements
LNG directive
LNG policies - as for biofuels
Measures for Vehicle Components – Tyres, lubricants, air conditioning systems
Standards
Sources: adapted from ECMT (2007), WEO Policy Database (IEA, 2008)
6.3
Methodology
The analysis is based on the idea of a sectoral system of innovation. A general structure is shown in Figure 6-37. This approach views innovation as arising from a system
structure i.e. from components that interact. Demand for a new or improved product is
assumed to be met by innovations from industrial firms. However, there is a set of further actors and relationships. The research system may inform both demand and production, while the political system may influence both R&D activity through subsidies or
agenda setting and determination of the environment or framework conditions within
the innovation system operates. Furthermore, there may be a series of intermediaries:
financial, but also knowledge sharing such as research institutes, research parks associated with universities generating spin-off companies in technologies developed in the
universities or professional associations or business support for start-ups in new technologies.
105
Demand
Framework Conditions
Consumers (final demand)
Producers (intermediate demand)
Financial environment; taxation and incentives; propensity to innovation and entrepreneurship; mobility ...
Education and Research System
Industrial System
Large companies
Intermediaries
Research
institutes
Brokers
Mature SMEs
New, technology‐
based firms
Political
System
Professional education and training
Government
Higher education and research
R&I policies
Public sector research
Governance
Infrastructure
Banking, venture capital
Figure 6-37:
IPR and information
Innovation and business support
Standards and norms
A sectoral system of innovation
Source: Arnold et al., 2001
This sectoral innovation system approach has been adapted as a Technological Innovation System (TIS). The idea of a TIS has been used to analyse the dynamics of systems of innovation in particular technology areas, with the objective of understanding
the processes which influence the diffusion of a new technology. A TIS has been defined as (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991, p. 111): ‘network(s) of agents interacting in a
specific technology area under a particular institutional infrastructure to generate, diffuse, and utilize technology’. Hence there are three elements: actors, networks and
institutions (Figure 6-38). Actors are mainly organisations: firms, government departments, universities, financial institutions, etc. Bergek et al. (2008) identify two types of
network. Learning networks are where knowledge, both explicit and tacit is developed
and shared and expectations about the technology are formed. Political networks, or
advocacy coalitions, form lobbies to influence policy and regulation in favour of the new
technology, for example in the modification of standards to permit the new technology
to be employed in public applications. The institutions are the laws, regulations and
standards, social norms of behaviour between actors and general structures that make
up the social context for the TIS.
106
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Figure 6-38:
Application of the Sectoral System of Innovation and TIS approaches
Source: adapted from Bergek et al. (2008)
The dynamics of a TIS are analysed through looking at ‘functions’ performed by the
TIS. Bergek et al. (2008) identify seven functions (see Figure 6-38). An assessment of
the levels of activity in each of the functions is combined with the identification of the
actors to develop a description of the innovation system. The system can then be assessed with respect to its ability to generate new innovations and bring them to the
markets (further see section 8.1).
6.4
Analysis
As mentioned above, environmental policy has a decisive role in directing the direction
of innovation in automobiles, with both the EU and the national governments playing
important roles. Since the industry is so mature, investment and retail systems for conventional (ICE) cars are well established and can easily be used for the alternative
power trains being proposed. Since the manufacturers sell similar vehicles (with local
adaptations) all around the world, policy in countries outside the EU also has an effect
on technological developments inside the EU. This is in particular true of the California
ZEV legislation, where hybrids developed to meet these standards will subsequently be
brought into the EU market. The Japanese Top Runner programme also has an impact, since the developments in Japanese cars are also then offered in the EU market.
107
The automobile industry also has active political lobby networks. In particular, the
manufacturer’s associations such as ACEA take a leading role in lobbying against
stronger legislation in the EU, while individual manufacturers and strong national associations (e.g. the German VDA) are more visibly active at the national level.
In terms of market formation, government policy also has an important role in supporting demonstration projects, e.g. in the case of plug-in hybrids, local governments such
as London Authority and national governments such as Germany have funded the provision of charging point for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Also on the demand side, preferences may be changing. There is now evidence that the car does not play such a central role in the culture of material consumption as for the last two generations (Bratzel,
2010). Young people care less about the car and are more willing to adopt new forms
of service provision such as car sharing. The implication is that a shared or leased car
is regarded more as a utility, similar to white goods. This then opens up the market for
cars with lower performance in terms of range or maximum speed.
Adapting the concept of systems of innovation (see Figure 6-37) to the automobile sector generates Figure 6-39 in which the green boxes highlight the modifications that are
specific to the innovation system of the automobile sector.
Energy industries: power generation, oil producers
International trade of vehicles
Transport
Infrastructure
Industrial System
Vehicle producers
Auto majors
Framework conditions
Values
Old / young
Service operators
Financial environment; taxation and
incentives; propensity to innovation
and entrepreneurship; mobility ...
Lobby Network
Education and
Research System
Political
System
Professional
education and
training
EU
Government
Higher education
and research
National
Government
Public sector
research
R&I policies
Logistics / Services
R&D Departments
OEMs
Knowledge Networks (e.g. Joint ventures)
Niche companies (not small companies)
Governance
Innovation Infrastructure
Standards
and norms
Subsidies
R&D support
IPR and
information
Banking,
venture capital
Political impacts
Figure 6-39:
The innovation system for automobiles
Climate and
environment policy
International policies (quotas, CDM, GATT)
Demand
Consumers (final demand)
Producers (intermediate demand)
108
GHG-TransPoRD D1
6.4.1 Actors
6.4.1.1
Industry
Figure 6-39 shows the application of this structure to innovation for low-carbon vehicles
in the automobile industry. There are several important features of the automobile industry that may differentiate the innovation characteristics from other sectors. The industry has a mature structure in manufacture, characterised by competition between a
few main manufacturers with low profits.
Major car manufacturers
Although the auto majors are in financial difficulties, EU and world production is dominated by a few large firms. Firms based in the EU are: VW-Audi, PSA Peugeot Citroën,
Renault, Fiat, Daimler, BMW. Smaller brands are owned by other international companies, with the US and Japan dominating, but Tata of India now own Land-Rover and
Jaguar, and the new Southeast Asian manufacturers are also becoming important international players. Chinese manufacturers are still not active at the global level, but
are entering into cooperation agreements with the main manufacturers. Technological
development in the industry has been mainly driven by suppliers’ perceptions of consumers’ requirements – required size, performance, safety, with fuel consumption having a relatively low priority for many consumers. The very extensive network of retail
outlets does not have much influence on innovation.
The major manufacturers are listed in the Appendix. The auto majors also dominate
R&D spending and patent activity, as is shown in sections 1.1.1 and 5.3, indicating that
most of the new developments come from the established manufacturers.
All the major manufacturers are now developing ICE-battery hybrids. Some are also
developing battery based micro-vehicles such as the iReal (Toyota).
There are some niche manufacturers, such as Tesla in the US and Loremo in Germany, but these cannot be regarded as start-ups – if they are to produce vehicles, they
already have considerable financial and human resources. These new entrants are
based on non-Budd steel bodyshells. The traditional Budd bodyshell requires mass
production for low cost, but GRP/composites do not currently have much cost reduction
for mass production. However, they do enable low weight construction, which then reduces power requirement. Composites can reduce bodyshell weight by 60% (Cousins,
2003). This then reduces power requirement, enabling a small ICE for low consumption
as with the Loremo, or a lower battery requirement for electric vehicles e.g. Tesla.
Tesla produces battery electric sports cars. Loremo produces small, light 2 and 4
109
seater cars, with fuel consumption down to 1.5l/100 km through very light weight construction. In India, Tata produce the Tata Nano 4 seater, with a consumption of
3.85l/100km from a 624cc petrol engine. This uses conventional technology and is
simply a small, cheap, car. Further new companies are: Smile, Reva, CitySax, Think.
There are also some still not established or even failed small companies that introduced small electric vehicles in the 1990s, such as Hotzenblitz and Twike.
Smaller than these small cars, new companies such as Segway are now producing and
demonstrating electric micro vehicles (either called personal transporters or people
movers), which are equivalent to scooters with battery power.
R&D departments
We listed the R&D departments as a separate entity of the industry as on the one hand
they would be the units to develop new technologies and innovations, but on the other
hand it seems that they somehow are locked-in to continue on their preferred historic
path always developing faster and more powerful cars based on internal combustion
engines (ICE). With such a behaviour they would not contribute on their own to bringing
the automobile industry on a low carbon path.
This means, such a stimulus to shift to low carbon technologies and alternatives to
ICEs must come from the policy side, the change of values in particular of the younger
generations and the management of the auto majors, who take these external stimulus
into account. All these entities thus constitute specific green boxes of the innovation
system of automobiles.
Other companies
The auto majors also have close links to their supplier chain or OEMs, with some
OEMs such as Bosch or the tyre manufacturers, Continental, Pirelli, Michelin, Goodyear etc. being large companies also.
The industry is composed not only of vehicle and component manufacturers. Service
operators – logistics companies and hire companies play a significant role in forming
market demand. Also energy companies play a fundamental role in the industry. Traditionally these have been the oil companies, who have been vertically integrated corporations controlling oil extraction, refining, distribution and retail sales through petrol stations. Some of these companies, e.g. BP, are now actively pursuing renewable electricity technologies. The power generation companies, such as E.on and RWE, are also
110
GHG-TransPoRD D1
getting actively involved in providing charging infrastructure for plug-in hybrids. Battery
and fuel cell companies are also becoming more important. These are either entering
into strategic partnerships with car manufacturers or are being purchased (see e.g. the
Li-Tec joint venture between Evonik and Daimler for Li-ion battery production).
6.4.1.2
Research
Universities and independent research institutes play a significant role in the development of new automobile technologies. Independent research institutes carry out applied research under contract to automobile companies in areas such as aerodynamics, control and driver support systems, design support software and systems, materials etc. In low carbon innovation, research into fuel cell materials and technologies including the application of nanotechnologies is mainly undertaken as university research, since this is still remote from market application. Specialist firms such as Ballard in fuel cells then develop the products for market application.
6.4.1.3
Policy and governance
ECMT (2007) and the associated database is a recent list of climate policies for transport. National Governments play an important role through fiscal policy, climate policy,
R&D support and industry support. Countries including France and Italy have scrapping
subsidies to increase the turnover of the car fleet, with the objective of accelerating the
uptake of modern, more fuel efficient vehicles. The recent Konjunkturpaket in Germany, a subsidy on new car purchases which ran in 2008-9, had a similar effect. Such
policies have acted as a subsidy for the current production structure, rather than encouraging new entrants with radical new technologies, because they do not penalise
ICE cars in general compared to electric or hydrogen vehicles. The UK has had a small
subsidy programme for hybrids and other low carbon vehicles.
The EU has played a decisive role in technology legislation in Europe. This was initially
through the voluntary agreements for average CO2 emissions with European (ACEA
including Ford and General Motors), Japanese (JAMA) and Korean (KAMA) manufacturers. The slow progress has resulted in legislation being adopted in the EU (Regulation 443/2009).
Regional governments have at times provided incentives for low carbon vehicles by tax
relief or exemptions in congestion charging schemes e.g. the London Congestion
charge removed for low carbon vehicles (GLA, 2009). Cities such as London and Berlin
are also supporting the installation of demonstration networks of charging points for
electric vehicles.
111
6.4.2 Networks
6.4.2.1
Knowledge sharing
Technology knowledge for conventional vehicles is widely spread, through training in
colleges and universities, as well as within the industry. Also, electric drive trains are
common in other industries, so the basic knowledge for the construction of vehicles
with electric power trains is also common. In contrast, advanced Li-ion battery and fuel
cell technologies are specialised activities. Therefore, it has been necessary for car
manufacturers to enter into agreements with battery and fuel cell specialists. Because
of the concentration of car manufacturing and the consequent strong competition between established companies, knowledge sharing happens mainly through limited, explicit alliances – e.g. Daimler-Ballard, Renault-Nissan-NEC, Toyota-Matsushita. Figure
6-40 illustrates the structure of alliances for electric vehicles. Several small scale networks combining car manufacturers, battery producers and energy firms can be seen.
Schneider et al. (2004) assessed strategic alliances for fuel cells. They identified the
California Fuel Cell Partnership, the agreement of DaimlerChrysler with Ford as both
having a strategy of technology leaders in Fuel Cell Vehicle development with the
Daimler NECAR and Ford Focus platforms. There was also a partnership of Toyota
with GM.
EU funded networks e.g. HyWays have also played an important role in supporting the
sharing of knowledge about the new technologies and developing plans/roadmaps for
technology development that contribute to developing common expectations for the
new technologies. Furthermore, the EU also has ERTRAC, the European Road Transport Research Advisory Council, which has organised many activities around these
technologies.
112
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Automotive supplier
Automotive manufacturer
Battery manufacturer
Electricity supplier
Valeo
JV ‘HL Green Power Co.’
Hyundai
LG Chem
Hitachi
Michelin
Dong
Energy
General Motors
JV
Honda
Tesla Motors
JV ‘Blue Energy’
Renault
‘Better Place
Denmark’
F.S.I.
Toyota
A123 Systems
CEA
Nissan
SAIC Motor
Panasonic
NEC TOKIN Corp.
GS Yuasa
JV ‘Lithium
Energy Japan’
PSA
Mitsubishi
Suzuki
JV AESC
Sanyo
JV
Magna Int.
Vattenfall
EDF
JV ‘Panasonic Electric
Vehicle Energy’
JV
(Volvo,
Sweden)
Toshiba
VARTA
Microbattery
FORD
BYD
Volkswagen
JV
Saft
JV
Continental
Enax
Johnson
Controls
(e.g. Berlin)
E.ON
Figure 6-40:
(e.g. Munich)
BMW
JV ‘Li-Tec’
JV
Daimler
‘e-mobility Italy’
Enel
Evonik
‘e-mobility Berlin’
RWE
JV ‘LIB 2015’
BASF
Bosch
Samsung SDI
Cobasys
JV ‘SB LiMotive’
Examples of partnerships worldwide for developing electric vehicles
(PHEVs, HEVs, BEVs)
Source: IPTS, based on recent announcements (subject to change), JV stands for Joint Venture
6.4.2.2
Lobby
The Automobile industry exercises a powerful influence on policy processes. It has
very large resources and is one of the largest industrial sectors in terms of employment
(see footnote in chapter 6.1). The manufacturers’ associations ACEA (EU), KAMA (Korea), JAMA (Japan) and VDA (Germany) play an important role by engaging in the policy debate to resist what they see as too stringent legislation e.g. VDA (2010) carries
articles arguing against the adoption of speed limits on motorways. Motoring organisations such as the AA and RAC in the UK, ADAC in Germany also play a role in arguing
for the car drivers’ point of view – e.g. for lower taxes on all cars rather than increased
taxes on high polluting vehicles.
There are also active political lobbies supporting low carbon transport and strong policies for its adoption e.g. Transport and Environment, Greenpeace and Friends of the
Earth.
113
6.4.3 Institutions
6.4.3.1
Regulations and Standards
As discussed in above, government legislation, or the possibility of legislation, specifying emissions standards for vehicles has been the main driver of improvements in environmental performance. In Europe, the most important direct influence has been at the
EU level with the voluntary agreements of ACEA, JAMA and KAMA with the EU. This
effect is now being strengthened through legislation at the EU level specifying required
average emissions levels for the EU new car fleet (Regulation 443/2009). There are
also a range of taxation and subsidy policies on vehicles and fuels (see ECMT, 2007
for a list of policies by country), but these have been assessed not to have had a major
impact on purchase decisions or the rate of improvement in emissions (Köhler, 2009).
An indirect effect has come through legislation and policies in other markets, since
products are internationalised in the automotive industry. Japanese government support for electric vehicles led to the development of the Japanese manufacturers’ battery
hybrid vehicles, in particular the Toyota Prius, which has demonstrated that these cars
can be produced and sold in a mass market, with relatively low levels of subsidy vs.
conventional vehicles. The US CAFÉ standards and in particular the Californian ZEV
standards, have forced the development of low emissions vehicles.
Safety requirements are also closely specified. These require testing of new vehicles,
which adds to development costs of new vehicles.
6.4.3.2
Social norms and social environment
The strongest social norm in the auto industry is that the driver of a vehicle should have
complete direct control of the vehicle. Control systems such as where to drive, lanes,
speed limits, priorities at junctions, parking etc. are all exercised through information
only, with enforcement through penalties for disregarding the signs. This autonomy is
only very slowly being eroded through automatic braking systems and driver information systems such as navigation systems. The effect of this is to ensure that vehicles
act individually, coordination of routes, speeds and travel times is very limited.
The other main social norm is that the car has been one of the defining elements of
social status (Sheller, 2004) although this seems to be weakening (Bratzel, 2010).
Therefore, innovation has tended to be in the direction of better performance and more
features in all size categories, rather than cost reduction.
114
GHG-TransPoRD D1
6.5
Levels of activity in the functions of the innovation system
6.5.1 Knowledge creation
An overview of manufacturers’ R&D activities is provided in chapter 11 in the annex
taken from Köhler et al. (2008). This shows that the auto majors have a range of active
R&D programmes and strategies for developing low carbon vehicles. Knowledge creation comes through R&D programmes in industry, universities and research institutes.
Patent statistics and records of R&D expenditures can provide evidence of the levels of
activity, while publications in scientific journals also provide evidence of activity. For
fuel cells and electric vehicle technologies, there is an extensive scientific and engineering literature. The R&D expenditure analysis (chapters 3 and 4) shows that R&D
expenditure in the auto industry is very large. This analysis also suggests that the car
manufacturers have spent considerable resources on low carbon technologies. The
patents analysis (chapter 5) shows that there is also considerable patent activity in the
EU. Between the years 2004 and 2007, there was a rapid increase in patents for electric and electric hybrid vehicles in particular, indicating a concentration on R&D for
bringing electric and hybrid vehicles to the market. Therefore, R&D activity in low carbon vehicles is currently intensifying in the direction of electric vehicles. The combination of large R&D resources in the industry and extensive knowledge sharing networks
including contract research at outside institutes and in universities results in a high
level of innovation and knowledge creation in the automobile industry. These knowledge creation resources are now being directed towards low carbon cars.
6.5.2 Guidance on the direction of search
Innovation in low carbon emissions cars has been strongly influenced by government
policy and policy towards emissions from road vehicles in particular. Onoda (2009)
provides a summary of policy internationally (especially the EU, Japan and the US) in
addition to ECMT (2007). Two main technological directions are evident: hydrogen
based power using hydrogen fuel cells and electric power trains and battery electric
vehicles. The Japanese MITI programme supported the development of batteries and
electric power trains, resulting in the early introduction to the market of Japanese battery electric hybrid vehicles to the market, the Toyota Prius in 1997 and the Honda Insight in 1999 (Åhman, 2006).
There have also been extensive programmes of EU supported research into hydrogen
vehicles, with a series of EU funded research projects (Wietschel et al., 2009). The
development of hydrogen fuel cell technology has also been supported by funding in
115
the US. The California Fuel Cell Partnership has received California government R&D
funding and there has been a US Federal Hydrogen R&D programme from the US
DoE. Hydrogen vehicle research has also included issues of infrastructure provision,
especially for hydrogen production and distribution, which requires a new infrastructure.
Electricity recharging infrastructure requires relatively slight modifications to current
electricity distribution networks and is being developed by electricity supply companies,
reacting to a possible new market, rather than being a planned programme.
California ZEV legislation is another main policy driver in a large market. New EU legislation (Regulation (EC) No 443/2009) setting CO2 emissions limits on cars from 2012
130g CO2/km requires rapid action from manufacturers and together with the California
ZEV standards, adapted in 2009 to allow for hybrids (CEP-ARPA, 2010) has provided a
decisive push towards the development of battery electric hybrids by all the auto majors. Furthermore, US policy has now cut hydrogen development funding in favour of
electric vehicles. New (2010) US subsidies for electric vehicle R&D (Nissan Leaf introduction in the US; see Auto Motor und Sport, 2009) have e.g. convinced RenaultNissan-NEC to introduce their hybrid in the US before the EU.
A significant counter-example of the influence of policy is the mistake in the design of
the original CAFÉ standards in the US. The standards were limited to gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, which encouraged the sale
of large SUVs over this weight. These relatively fuel inefficient vehicles then took a
large proportion of new sales in the US.
6.5.3 Entrepreneurial experimentation
Since the automobile industry is very concentrated in its manufacturing structure, experimentation is mostly determined by the decisions and strategies of the few auto majors. This has two consequences. Firstly, the auto majors are aware of the R&D strategies of their competition, since there are a small number of large players and there is
an imperative to advertise technical progress, since this is an important part of competitive advantage in an oligopoly market. This means that all the auto majors develop a
similar small set of future technologies, although the details of the applications differ.
Second, there is relatively strong feedback between governments and industry, because the auto lobby is influential. This means that the solutions proposed by the auto
majors are reflected in government policy, further reinforcing the tendency to explore a
limited set of technological options.
However, the niche manufacturers do provide some examples of alternative technological directions to the main developments of standard current cars being adapted for
116
GHG-TransPoRD D1
battery hybrid or hydrogen power. The main developments are lightweight construction
using GRP and other materials and the development of micro electric vehicles.
Battery and fuel cell technologies are also being developed using a wide range of
methods and by a wide range of firms and research labs. Since these are specialist
technologies which are a precursor to whole vehicle development, they are undertaken
by a wider range of actors – research institutes, universities and small firms as well as
the auto industry.
6.5.4 Market formation
Apart from the new micro vehicles, these new technologies are intended to provide a
similar functionality to current cars for consumers. Therefore, it is not necessary to
generate new markets. Rather, it is a question of competition in existing markets, which
requires a competitive combination of performance and price. What is changing is the
aspect of ownership. New forms of car use, where the driver does not own their own
vehicle, such as car sharing and long term leasing agreements are being developed.
Car sharing is filling a niche in urban markets, where people who live in town centres
use a car relatively infrequently and are therefore unwilling to spend the large amount
of money required to purchase and maintain a car. Long term leasing agreements have
the advantage that there is no requirement for a large initial investment by the consumer and also that a leasing agreement can include provision for maintenance, so
that the consumer does not have to organise this.
The new electric and hydrogen technologies require new delivery infrastructure. This
will limit diffusion until these infrastructures are provided. This is a significant disadvantage for hydrogen, as there is almost no infrastructure in place, although the costs of
infrastructure are small in comparison to the costs of developing a competitive vehicle
(Köhler et al., 2010).
6.5.5 Resource mobilization
The automobile industry has access to very extensive resources. Due to the position of
the car in modern culture, many people choose to study and take up careers in the
industry. Its maturity in the basic technologies has led to the development of an extensive research and education infrastructure. Also, the very large size of the industry
gives it access to extensive financial resources. Hence the automobile industry is
strong in human and financial resources. Given that the industry has now chosen to
develop low carbon vehicles for mass production, these resources are now available
for low carbon cars. The position is also strong in terms of complementary assets.
117
Apart from power trains and fuels, low carbon cars can use the assets for current conventional cars: maintenance infrastructure, road infrastructure, legal systems, accessory products, etc. New infrastructure is required for the new fuels as discussed above.
6.5.6 Legitimation
Electric or hydrogen vehicles are not yet considered necessary or desirable by most
consumers. While the policy process in Japan and the US as well as the EU is supporting the development of these technologies, most consumers are not willing to pay more
for an equivalent car to the conventional cars available and are not willing to accept a
reduction in performance. Experience with plug-in electric vehicles shows that consumers are very concerned about the possibility of running out of power, so that they
are risk averse when assessing the effective range of their vehicles unless they know
exactly where the refuelling points are. However, the automobile industry has very
powerful advertising, through an extensive press, motor shows and news coverage.
Therefore, the industry has capacity to persuade consumers to buy these new products. The main problems are that if the new products have lower performance or cost
more, then they may fail, as was the case with most electric cars introduced to the
market in the 1990s e.g. the GM EV1 (Earth2tech, 2009), the Honda Insight (AllAboutHybridCars, 2010) and the VW 3l car (USAToday, 1999).
6.5.7 Development of positive externalities or ‘free utilities’:
knowledge diffusion through networks
Given the already extensive history of development of low carbon cars since the 1990s,
there is already extensive knowledge about battery and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Diffusion of the general principles and applications to electric power trains is widespread, in particular because it builds on mature electrical technologies. There is also a
large labour pool, because of the size of the industry. There is also an extensive structure of intermediate suppliers, of which battery producers are now particularly important. The diffusion of knowledge is however limited by the formation of strategic partnerships by the main actors, as described above. The structure of the TIS is not that of
an open network, with many firms competing with a wide range of technical solutions.
Rather, there are a few car manufacturers, the auto majors and a few niche firms. This
means that knowledge is restricted to a few companies, rather than being widely dispersed. The new Li-ion battery technology is also being developed by a limited number
of firms. These are either medium sized specialist firms such as Saft or large firms from
the electronics/electric products sector (e.g. Toshiba, NEC). Since the auto industry is
only one of their markets, they are not dependent on the auto majors (in contrast to the
118
GHG-TransPoRD D1
OEMs) and therefore have the freedom to enter into agreements with smaller companies. Tesla has been successful in gaining access to state of the art Li-ion battery
technology.
A very strong positive externality is now the common expectation in the industry that
hybrid electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are the technology which will find a significant market in the near future. It is this common expectation that has forced manufacturers such as Volkswagen, originally reluctant to develop electric vehicles to start their
own programme (der Spiegel, 2010). The uncertainty about which low carbon technology to adopt which could be seen in the different strategies adopted by different manufacturers as shown in chapter 11 in the annex has now, for the short term at least, been
resolved in favour of battery electric vehicles and against hydrogen fuel cells. The introduction of electric vehicles into the market by all the auto majors will certainly be
accompanied by extensive advertising and a strengthening of the legitimacy of electric
vehicles.
6.6
Conclusions: Environmental innovation in the Automobile Industry
The automobile industry has been developing cars for reduced GHG emissions for
some time. This fundamental change away from conventional ICE vehicle has been
induced both by policy on emissions standards in both the EU and California in particular and R&D programmes such as the Top Runner programme in Japan and programmes on hydrogen power trains in the EU. A review of recent announcements by
the auto majors shows that they are all now introducing hybrid battery-ICE cars in the
near future. Also, new niche manufacturers are developing electric and high efficiency
ICE cars. Toyota has now sold more than 2 million hybrid vehicles in total, bringing
hybrid cars into mass production. Therefore, policy support for has been strong enough
to establish them as a significant market segment, although this is still a relatively small
part of the automobile market.
The dominance of battery electric technology for low carbon automobiles is new. Hydrogen fuel cells have also been extensively developed and it is only in the last 2-3
years that a consensus has emerged in the industry that battery electric power trains
are the technology of choice for the immediate future to establish mass markets in low
GHG emissions automobiles. This is due to two factors. Firstly, legislation in California
and the EU requires the introduction of low carbon technologies in the next few years.
Hydrogen fuel cells and their associated infrastructure are still much more expensive
119
than conventional vehicles or battery electric vehicles. The infrastructure for battery
recharging is a simple extension of the current electricity supply system and is cheap.
In contrast, hydrogen distribution as a consumer product, while not requiring an extensive network until a mass market is created and therefore not being very expensive
compared to the hydrogen vehicles themselves (Köhler et al., 2010), would require a
new delivery system. Therefore battery electric technology is much closer to being
competitive with conventional ICE vehicles. Secondly, this has been made possible by
a major recent improvement in battery technology. The limited energy density of conventional batteries reduces the practicable range of a vehicle compared to ICE vehicles. The introduction of Li-ion battery technology in 2007 enabled electric vehicles to
improve their power and range, reducing their disadvantage in overall performance.
An analysis of environmental innovation in the automobile sector has been undertaken
using the ‘Technology Innovation System’ approach. The sector is global, dominated
by a few major automobile manufacturers. It is one of the largest industries, with the
large companies such as General Motors, VW-Audi and Toyota being major multinationals. Therefore, the industry has very considerable resources for innovation. The
sector has very high R&D spending (see chapter 4) and this is now being concentrated
on electric vehicle development. There has been extensive government support for low
carbon innovation in Europe, mainly through EU programmes, but this is a relatively
small proportion of R&D spending (see chapter 4). Instead of an open, competitive
market in new technologies, the oligopolistic structure of the industry has meant that
companies have formed a series of strategic alliances to gain access to the latest fuel
cell and battery technologies. This has brought new players into the industry, who are
rather more independent from the auto majors than the OEMs, the component suppliers for conventional vehicles. It is possible for new entrants to enter the industry with
the latest battery technology, although the standards of production, safety and performance required make this difficult. There are only a few niche manufacturers of electric vehicles, with Tesla in the high performance high cost segment and others promoting small, cheap vehicles for city use. Companies from the electric power sector are
also investing in demonstration programmes of electric vehicles; this is a new market
opportunity for them with considerable potential.
It is by no means certain that the future of land transport will be dominated by electric
automobiles. Some automobile manufacturers still consider hydrogen fuel cells to be
the better technology in principle, because of the higher energy density of on-board
storage. This means that hydrogen powered vehicles do not face the range limitations
of current battery technology. This raises the question of whether policy should support
battery technology to maximise learning effects, reducing the cost of battery vehicles
and making them more competitive with ICE vehicles. This would accelerate market
120
GHG-TransPoRD D1
uptake. Or should policy be directed towards keeping the hydrogen option open? The
large size of the main manufacturers has two effects here. Firstly, when the auto majors are spending a large proportion of their R&D spending on a particular technology,
government R&D support can only be a small proportion of overall R&D expenditure.
Secondly, once a manufacturer makes the decision to introduce electric vehicles in the
market (as opposed to running a small demonstration programme) they will inevitably
devote their energies to making the introduction a success. Hydrogen vehicle development will become a low priority in comparison. There is therefore a strong possibility
of lock-in to electric vehicles.
A further area which is still not being fully developed is that of lightweight construction
with fibre reinforced plastics or polymers. This is an area where lock-in is a major effect. The automobile majors have very cost effective production of steel car bodies, but
the new materials have the potential for large weight savings. This could then dramatically improve the performance of all power technologies and reduce the problems of
range of current battery technologies. Recycling of plastics is not as well established as
for steel, but techniques are being developed.
Battery electric automobiles are still more expensive than conventional ICE technology.
This means that policy support for low emissions vehicles is still necessary to establish
the market. However, this does not have to be explicitly directed to electric vehicles.
Emissions performance standards have the advantage that they are technology neutral, while directly addressing the policy goal of GHG emissions reduction.
A further consideration is the poor financial performance of the industry. In terms of the
introduction of new technologies to improve environmental performance, the question
is whether the industry is so weak that it cannot itself bring develop such technologies
and bring them to the market. Since this is not the case, there is not a strong argument
for direct government financial support for the industry.
In summary, the automobile industry is in the process of bringing battery electric vehicles to the market in response to policy for reductions in GHG emissions from automobiles. The large scale diffusion of these vehicles will continue to be dependent on policy
support for some time, currently applied through emissions standards and (limited) purchase subsidies. There has been a large amount of R&D on hydrogen cars. It is therefore possible to assess the potential of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles compared to battery
electric vehicles. If hydrogen fuel cells can be demonstrated to have potential advantages over batteries, there is then a case for continuing support for hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle development. Since there is considerable potential for energy saving through
lighter weight construction with alternative structural materials to steel (in particular
121
fibre reinforced polymers), support for materials and production technologies for light
weight structural materials is justified.
122
GHG-TransPoRD D1
7.
7.1
Innovation systems of aviation, railways and maritime
The aviation sector innovation system
The sectoral innovation system for the aviation industry is shown in Figure 7-41. The
aviation is traditionally a high technology industry in which many of the major developments have come from military applications. The turbojet is a good example. Engines
form the most significant sub-system, with separate manufacturers who sell their engines for use on competing airframes. There is also an exceptionally strong emphasis
on safety, with regulation of testing for new aircraft and components, operation of aircraft and maintenance of aircraft and engines. Since aviation is an international industry, an international regulatory authority – the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) agrees standards of operation and international policy.
The industry is dominated by a very few airframe and engine manufacturers, who all
compete in a gobal market. EADS (including Airbus), Boeing, Dassault, Finmeccanica
(Alenia), Bombardier and Embraer are the main airframe manufacturers, with Russian
and Chinese manufacturers mainly active in their internal markets. Rolls-Royce,
General Electric and Pratt & Whitney are the main manufacturers of turbofan engines
for large civilian aircraft. Thus the industry is highly concentrated in a few large firms,
who usually have both civilian and military products. There is therefore a strong link
between military and civilan technological developments. There are also a few major
helicopter manufacturers, with both Boeing (Hughes) and EADS (Eurocopter) being
major manufacturers together with Finmeccanica (Agusta-Westland) in the EU. These
are all large companies. In 2009, the EADS Group - comprising Airbus, Eurocopter,
EADS Astrium and EADS Defence & Security – generated revenues of €42.8 billion
and employed a workforce of more than 119,00080. The industry has high R&D
spending, but EU funding is a higher proportion of overall expenditure than for the
automobile industry in the EU (see section 3). In particular, the EU SESAR programme
for a new air traffic control system and the EU Cleansky Joint Technology Initiative
together with EU collaborative research projects (all part of FP7, see chapter 3.3) form
a significant part of R&D expenditures in the EU.
Aircraft are expensive vehicles and have a long life: the average life of aircraft is
around 22 years (Bächle, 2009). Fuel costs are already a large part of operating costs
and the conventional jet airliner configuration has been continuously developed, with
80 See the EADS Annual Report 2009 available at http://www.eads.com/
123
increasing energy efficiency since the Comet (in service 1952). The last major changes
were the adoption of turbofans instead of turbojets in the 1970s and the adoption of flyby-wire controls from e.g. the A320 onwards. Current new developments are composite
materials for airframes and electrical actuation rather than hydraulic for control surfaces
and landing gear etc. Current airliners including the New Airbus A380 and the Boeing
are direct technological descendents of the Comet. There are well known alternative
technologies that could improve energy efficiency, in particular open rotor engines and
blended wing airframes. These have been produced and studied extensively as concepts, so the fundamental knowledge of these technologies is already available. However, the application to a next generation airliner will be difficult and expensive to develop.
The aviation industry therefore has a strong innovation system which is continuing to
deliver improvements in energy efficiency and therefore emissions. It is however locked
in to the current airframe configuration with kerosene powered turbofans for large aircraft and turboprops for regional aircraft. Major changes to produce a major reduction
in emissions will only happen under strong external pressure or support. They will also
take a long time. If the average lifetime of an aircraft is of the order of 20 years, new
technologies will only have a significant impact 10 years or more after the first introduction into revenue earning service. Major reductions can therefore not be expected before around 2030 at the earliest.
124
Figure 7-41:
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Innovation system Aviation
7.2
125
The innovation system in railways
The rail innovation system is also part of a mature industry. In contrast to road or aviation transport, it has a relatively small share of transport volumes, except in some particular markets – medium distance high speed passenger and bulk freight. Therefore,
the industry is smaller than aviation or road transport. It has a long history, to the extent
that most of the main rail infrastructure is based on routes constructed in the 19th century. In terms of the industrial structure, there is a particularly strong link between infrastructure and train operations, because train control comes from the infrastructure operator. Infrastructure and operations are often part of the same firm, usually in the EU a
national railway.
R&D is mostly undertaken by locomotive/rolling stock and control systems manufacturers or the national railways. Basic research is still undertaken by universities, while the
history of national railways has meant that research institutes are usually part of the
national railway. Manufacture is highly concentrated, the main manufacturers in Europe
being Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens, with GE from the US and now Hitachi from
Japan also competing. These large firms have access to a strong innovation structure
in terms of available finance and expertise in innovation. There is also a strong consultancy sector for technical and business support.
Railway vehicles have a typical lifetime of 30-35 years (Competition Commission,
2007; Bombardier, 2010), while signalling and control systems have a similar lifetime.
Safety standards are particularly high in the rail industry. To achieve this, there is a
very complex process of acceptance – homologation - of both new trains and control
systems. These factors make the market for new locomotives and rolling stock small
and the development of major technological changes very difficult. There are therefore
high barriers to entry in this market. Competition to the EU industry comes from firms
established in other global markets.
The main direct influence of government comes through decisions on new infrastructure investment, since they require extensive planning procedures. Emissions legislation, for noise and engine emissions, may have a significant impact on the development of rolling stock and diesel engines in the future. EU research programmes are
important for innovation; in particular the EU has supported the development of the
ECTS control system, designed to provide a common modern control system across
the EU. Since rail freight is competitive over longer distances and high speed rail often
crosses national boundaries within the EU, common operating systems are vital for the
future competitiveness of rail.
126
GHG-TransPoRD D1
The most important recent innovation has been the construction of new high speed rail
links. These have high investment costs and are dependent on government decisions.
Therefore, the construction of these new links takes a long time. They do not yet form a
comprehensive EU wide network.
A major weakness of the rail innovation system is in organisation. Because the technology is suitable for long distances, many services cross national boundaries. Since
the ownership structure, in particular infrastructure control and operations is almost
always national, coordination of long distance services is difficult. The weakness of the
infrastructure system here lies in the national control of a strongly centralised control
system, in contrast to road, where there is little central control.
Privatisation has been another important organisational innovation in several EU countries. The adoption of privatisation is one of the most important parts of EU policy on
rail transport, but the application is dependent on national legislation. The separation of
infrastructure and control systems from train operation is a part of these proposals.
This enables new entrants in train operations from other transport sectors e.g. logistics
companies and bus operators. There are some international consortia, for international
freight operations and for the operation of the Eurotunnel and BrusselsCologne/Amsterdam high speed rail links.
Another important influence on innovation is intermodal freight transport. Innovations
here can be required through changes in the external system. The adoption of higher
containers has required the development of new container wagons. The pattern of traffic also then changes through events external to the railway industry. New or extended
container terminals require new patterns of trains services and potentially infrastructure
developments for new capacity. Government legislation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland has required the development of trains for HGV transport on certain corridors.
Figure 7-42:
Passenger transport
Goods transport : intermodal terminals
Demand
Innovation system Railways
Innovation
Infrastructure
Banking,
Internal f inance
Track and Signalling
Stations and terminals
Transport analysis,
Engineering
UIC, CER
International
organisations
Education and
Research System
Standards
homologation – certificates to operate
Signalling and train control
Infrastructure
Innovation Infrastructure
Infrastructure
National Railways/alliances
Private Operators/
franchisees
Logistics companies
Operators
Consultancies
Civil engineering
Signalling and control
systems
Locomotive and
rolling stock producers
Manufacturers
Industrial System
Market
Noise and GHG
emissions policy
R&I policy
Infrastructure
policy
Privatisation
policy
Service
requirements/
subsidies
Political
System
EU, National
Regional
Regulation
127
International policies (transport, climate, trade)
International trade of vehicles, infrastructure + transport services
128
GHG-TransPoRD D1
7.3
The maritime innovation system
The shipbuilding industry has four main sectors: commercial (bulk cargo, container,
ferry and cruise), military, offshore energy and leisure (sail and motor yachts). The leisure market is not considered here. Since knowledge of shipbuilding technology is
widely diffused, EU shipyards have concentrated on either military or specialist ships
and marine systems. The industry can be divided into shipyards, engines and systems
suppliers with an extensive range of engineering consultancies for design. The industry
is very mature and concentrated for large ship construction. The large shipbuilders
have access to an extensive and effective innovation infrastructure, mostly within the
companies themselves or through established industry consultancies.
A particular feature of shipping is the complex pattern of ownership and insurance.
Ships are often not built for a shipping line, but for leasing intermediaries. All ships
have to be insured for each voyage and the risk is aggregated through the Lloyds insurance market. This has had a major historical influence on innovation, because
Lloyds developed the classification society system, under which classification societies
in the major shipbuilding countries specify standards of construction and maintenance.
Ships are required to be classified to be insured. A further important feature of standards setting is the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Since shipping is an
international activity, the IMO agrees on standards for operation and also applies international environmental policy. In the maritime sector therefore, there is a regulatory
(sub) system which forms an important and distinct part of the innovation system.
The infrastructure in shipping consists of ports, waterways and coastal navigation aids.
Navigation requirements and the ‘rules of the road’ for ship operations at sea are
agreed through the IMO. Ports and waterways, in particular the Panama and Suez canals but also e.g. the Elbe river for access to the port of Hamburg determine overall
dimensions for some ships. However, this infrastructure does not impose complex
technological standards on ship construction.
The research system consists of national research institutes and universities, which
undertake applied research in areas such as hull forms and propeller development.
Engines and ship systems are mainly developed within the industry. Professional societies, in particular RINA (Royal Institution of Naval Architects) in the UK and SNAME
(Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers) in the US play an important intermediary role in R&D and standards setting, providing fora for discussion on both standards and engineering innovation.
129
National governments in the EU play a role in innovation in shipping through two main
links. They form the membership of the IMO and therefore determine international
standards and policy. Many governments in the EU also have extensive national procurement programmes for their navies and this supports a considerable part of the remaining shipbuilding industry in Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands.
Figure 7-43:
Innovation system Shipping
130
GHG-TransPoRD D1
7.4
Common aspects of the innovation systems in aviation,
railways and shipping
Though the three industry sectors aviation, railways and shipping are facing different
physical-technical environments, their innovation systems do have much in common:
• Manufacturing of vehicles in these transport industries is dominated by large or very
large firms. Therefore, new technologies come from inside the industries, which
have a long tradition of technological innovation.
• Vehicles and infrastructure have long lives, making diffusion of new technologies
slow.
• Technical standards are very extensive, with complex systems in all three industries
to develop standards and then manufacture and operate vehicles and infrastructure
to these standards.
In summary, this makes innovation complex, with high costs of development of radically different technologies. And development of such new technologies possibly being
slower than it could be with more players and a larger base of small supplier companies and niche companies related to the sector.
8.
8.1
Innovation system of transport (ISyT)
Further analysis of ISyT – functions of ISyT
In the previous sections, and in more detail in the Annexes, the components of the
ISyT have been described qualitatively as well as the functions of the ISyT. However
the literature also provides approaches by which the functions of a technical innovation
system can be quantified. Looking at the overview on components and functions of
ISyT in Figure 8-44 it should be noted that this presented report in particular engaged
in quantification of indicators related to the knowledge creation i.e. R&D investment,
patents and research projects to draw conclusions for part I and II of the report.
131
Blocking or inducing
feedback mechanisms
Policy measures
Components
of ISyT
Functions of ISyT
Knowledge
creation
Resource
mobilisation
Actors
Market
formation
Guidance of
search
Networks
Legitimation
Entrepreneurial
experimentation
Knowledge diffusion
through networks
Institutions
Relations between
components
Figure 8-44:
Pattern of
innovation systems
Level of activity
of function
Functions of ISyT
Source: GHG-TransPoRD adapted from Bergek et al. 2008
Such an analysis of ISyT can be brought forward by quantifying further elements of the
functions of a technical innovation system (TIS). Table 8-17 presents a broad list of
indicators for the seven functions, most of which can be directly operationalized to describe the situation of ISyT.
GHG-TransPoRD is not aiming to analyse all the remaining indicators of the table as
the main purpose of GHG-TransPoRD will be to develop GHG reductions targets and
suggest a suitable, integrated R&D and transport policy strategy for Europe. However,
in the next steps of the project several further indicators relevant for ISyT will be quantified and thus will support future projects on innovation in the transport sector.
Among these indicators will be the learning curves for important technologies as well
as the government or industry use targets and the estimates of growth potentials e.g.
taken from roadmaps of the European research platforms.
132
Table 8-17:
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Indicators to deepen the analysis of ISyT for the different functions
Function
Indicator
Knowledge development
R&D projects
Patents
Bibliometrics
Investment in R&D
Learning curves
No of workshops or conferences
Size/intensity of learning networks
Direction of search
Factor/product prices (taxes)
Regulatory pressure
Governmental or industry use targets
Estimates of growth potential
Expressions of interested lead customer
Entrepreneurial experimentation
No. of new entrants
No. diversification activities of incumbents
No. of experiments with next technology
Degree of variety of experiments
Market formation
No., size and type of markets formed
Timing of market formation
Drivers of market formation (e.g. support)
Resource mobilisation
Volume of capital and venture capital
Volume and quality of human resources
Volume and quality of complementary assets
Legitimation
Attitude towards technology of different stakeholders
Rise and growth of interest group
Extent of lobbying activities
Political debate in parliament and media
Development of positive
externalities
Development of clear division of labour and/or specialised intermediates
Activities aiming at uncertainty resolution
Strength of political power of ISyT actors
Information and knowledge flows
Source: Bergek et al. 2008
133
It should also be pointed out that to bring GHG reduction innovations successfully onto
the market it is required that all functions of ISyT can be activated such that they are
forming a reinforcing feedback loop (see Figure 8-45) that will make the new technologies take-off in the market.
Guidance
of search
Knowledge
creation
Knowledge
diffusion through
networks
Entrepreneurial
experimentation
Market
formation
Resource
mobilisation
Legitimation
Figure 8-45:
The reinforcing feedback between functions of the ISyT
Source: GHG-TransPoRD
8.2
Conclusions
The innovation system of transport (ISyT) is a complex structure. Though our analysis
was separated into analyses for the four different modes (road/car, air, rail, maritime)
these four systems are actually connected. E.g. innovations in rail transport will not be
independent from innovations in road transport. To describe the full picture of ISyT, in
particular the innovation system of one additional particular technology field has to be
researched, which would be the field of logistics technologies.
Further, it seems important to take into account the different specifics from the demand
side, which is either passenger transport or goods transport. Passenger transport
largely satisfies private transport needs, while goods transport always is part of economic processes, such that both follow different drivers of demand shaping the ISyT in
a different way.
134
GHG-TransPoRD D1
References
PART I
ACEA (2009): Automobile & Society. States of affairs, Priorities for the future. Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA).
ACEM
(2010):
The
Motorcycle
Industry
in
Europe,
ACEM
Report
http://www.acem.eu/publiq/ACEM_REPORT.pdf
AEA (2009): Assessment with respect to long term CO2 emission targets for passenger
cars and vans, Deliverable D2, Final Report to European Commission, DG ENV, July
2009.
AirTN (2009): Aeronautics Research Funding in the Partner Countries, ERA-NET AirTN
project WP3, June 2009.
ASD (2009): ASD Facts and Figures 2008, Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. http://www.asd-europe.org/
Avadikyan, A., Llerena, P. (2009): A real options reasoning approach to hybrid vehicle
investments, Technological Forecasting & Social Change.
Azagra Caro, J.M., Grablowitz, A. (2008): Data on Business R&D: Comparing BERD
and the Scoreboard, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23364.
BIOFRAC (2006): Biofuels in the European Union - A vision for 2030 and beyond, Final
report of the Biofuels Research Advisory Council, DG RTD, EUR 22066, 2006.
BMU (2008): Erneuerbare Energien in Zahlen. Nationale und internationale Entwicklungen. German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Internet Update, Dec. 2008.
BMWA (2005): Innovation und Energietechnologien. Das 5. Energieforschungsrahmenprogramm der Bundesregierung. Bundeswirtschaftsministerium für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit, Berlin.
BMWi (2008): Mobilität und Verkehrstechnologie. Das 3. Verkehrsforschungsrahmenprogramm der Bundesregierung. Bundeswirtschaftsministerium für Wirtschaft und
Technologie, Berlin.
CLEPA (2009): Presentation of W. Lange at the Seminar of the “Automotive Crisis”
Intergroup - Automotive Industry Crisis: responding to the urgency and anticipating
change, Brussels, June 2009.
135
Denos, R. (2010): Clean Sky, Presentation at the 'Journée d'Information Nationale Programme de Travail 2010 Transport', Sept. 2009, Paris.
http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/documents/1253191099_6ce_clean_sky_info_days_pa
ris.pdf
DfT (2009): Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future. A Carbon Reduction Strategy for
Transport. UK Department for Transport.
DG RTD (2009): The 2009 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, European
Commission, JRC/DG RTD.
http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/research/scoreboard_2009.htm
DG TREN (2010): Statistical Pocketbook 2010, European Commission, DG TREN.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/statistics/statistics_en.htm
Durelli, E. (2007): 'Iveco transport concept', presentation at the IEA/International
Transport Forum Workshop - Fuel Efficiency for HDVs, Standards and Other Policy
Instruments, Paris, June 21-22.
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2010): Towards a resource-efficient transport
system. TERM. EEA Report 2/2010.
ENR (2010): Analysis of Strategic Research Agendas of Technology Platforms, Deliverable 4.1 of the ERA-NET ROAD II project (FP7), May 2010.
EPA (2008): EPA Staff Technical Report: Cost and Effectiveness Estimates of Technologies Used to Reduce Light-Duty Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emissions, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ERRAC (2008): Rail Research in the EU - A comparison of European public research
programmes with the ERRAC SRRA 2020, the European Rail Research Advisory
Council, March 2008.
ERTRAC (2010): ERTRAC Strategic Research Agenda 2010 - Towards a 50% more
efficient road transport system by 2030, Executive Summary, May 2010.
ERTRAC (2009): ERTRAC Road Transport Scenario 2030+ “Road to Implementation”
Executive Summary), European Road Transport Research Advisory Council.
EUCAR (2010): FP8 – Priorities for Transport: The European Automotive Industry outlines its Priorities for Sustainable Transport in the Eighth Framework Programme,
Brussels, 22 April 2010.
136
GHG-TransPoRD D1
EUCAR (2009): The Automotive Industry - Focus on future R&D Challenges, European
Council for Automotive R&D.
EUCAR (2008): The Automotive Industry R&D Challenges of the Future. Collaborative
automotive R&D for safe, energy-efficient and affordable mobility of people and goods
on European roads. European Council for Automotive R&D.
Euraxess (2010): Verband der Automobilindustrie
http://www.euraxess.pl/index.php/research-landscape
Eurofound (2009): Recent restructuring trends and policies in the automotive sector.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
European Commission (2010): Aeronautics and Air Transport Research 7th Framework
Programme 2007-2013, Project Synopses – Volume 1 Calls 2007 & 2008, DR RTD.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/pdf/project_synopses_en.pdf
European Commission (2006): FP7 - Tomorrow's answers start today, European
Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/fp7-factsheets_en.pdf
Faber Maunsell (2008): Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles, The Role of the European Commission, Interim Report 1, Initial Review of Measures and Policies, Faber Maunsell, March 2008.
Fontaras, G., Samaras, Z. (2009): On the way to 130 gCO2/km - Estimating the future
characteristics of the average European passenger cars, Energy Policy 38, pp. 18261833.
Frenken, K., Hekkert, M., Godfroij, P. (2004): R&D portfolios in environmentally friendly
automotive propulsion: Variety, competition and policy implications, Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 71, pp. 485-507.
Hybridcars.com (2009): 2015 is New Magic Date for Fuel Cell Vehicles. Published June
30, 2009.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/2015-new-magic-date-fuel-cell-vehicles-25890.html
IATA (2009): Report on Alternative Fuels, International Air Transport Association.
IEA (2009a): Global Gaps in Clean Energy Research, Development and Demonstration, prepared in Support of the Major Economics Forum (MEF) Global Partnership by
the International Energy Agency, IEA.
IEA (2009b): Energy Technology RD&D budgets – Documentation for beyond 2020
files, International Energy Agency, Edition 2009.
137
IEA (2009c): Transport Energy and CO2 - Moving Toward Sustainability, International
Energy Agency.
IEA (2008a): Questionnaire for country submissions for the 2008/2009 SLT/CERT annual review of energy policies. Annex II. IEA/SLT/CERT (2008)5.
IEA (2008b): Energy Policies of IEA countries. Sweden 2008 Review.
IFP (2010): The Transport Industry, Institut Français du Pétrole, IFP Panorama 2010.
IFP (2009a): Aviation and alternative fuels, Institut Français du Pétrole, IFP Panorama
2009.
IFP (2009b): Low-CO2 technologies for road vehicles, Institut Français du Pétrole, IFP
Panorama 2009.
INPI-OPI (2006): Automobile et environnement, Etude du département des brevets de
l'INPI, INPI.
Kemp, R., Pearson, P. (2007): Final report MEI project about measuring ecoinnovation, Deliverable 15 of the MEI (Measuring eco-innovation) FP6 project.
http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEI/
King, J. (2007): The King Review of low-carbon cars Part I: the potential for CO2 reduction http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/2008_King_I.pdf
Kobayashi, S., Plotkin, S., Ribeiro, S.K. (2009): Energy efficiency technologies for road
vehicles, Energy Efficiency, 2 (2), pp. 125–137.
Markard, J., Truffer, B. (2006): Innovation processes in large technical systems: Market
liberalization as a driver for radical change, Research Policy, 2006.
MARTEC (2007): State of the art report (National Programmes, Funding Organisations,
National Priority Areas, National Policies), Deliverable 1.1 of the MARTEC ERA-Net
Maritime Technologies FP6 project, Research Center Julich GmbH, 2007.
MEEDDM (2010): Repères - Chiffres clés du transport Edition 2010, Ministère de
l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement durable et de la Mer.
MRD (2006): National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 in support of growth
and jobs. Ministry of Regional Development, Warsaw.
NAIGT (2009): An Independent Report on the Future of the Automotive Industry in the
UK. New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team (NAIGT).
138
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Nicolas, J.P. (2002): Transport et environnement, organisation de la R&D en France en
2002, Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports.
OECD (2002): Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental
Development: Frascati Manual 2002, OECD, Paris.
OICA
(2010):
International
Organization
of
Motor
Vehicle
Manufacturers
http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/all-vehicles.pdf
Oltra, V., Saint-Jean, M. (2009a): Variety of technological trajectories in low emission
vehicles (LEVs): a patent data analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.17, pp.201213.
Oltra, V., Saint-Jean, M. (2009b): Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: An
application to the French automotive industry, Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, Vol.76, pp.567-583.
Oltra, V., Kemp, R., de Vries, F. (2008): Patents as a measure for eco-innovation, Deliverable 9 of the MEI (Measuring eco-innovation) FP6 project.
http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEI/
Popp, D. (2005): Lessons from patents: using patents to measure technological change
in environmental models, Ecological Economics 54, pp. 209-226.
PREDIT (2009): 2008-2012 Programme de travail du PREDIT 4, PREDIT, Mai 2009.
Prado, P. (2009): Situacion y Proyectos Nacionales de I+D+i en el Area de Transporte,
Presentation at the 1st ERTRAC Espana Meeting, Madrid, December 2009.
http://www.plataformasertec.es/documentosertrac.htm
Schade W., Krail M., Fiorello D., Helfrich N., Köhler J., Kraft M., Maurer H., Meijeren J.,
Newton S., Purwanto J., Schade B., Szimba E. (2010): The iTREN-2030 Integrated
Scenario until 2030. Deliverable 5 of iTREN-2030 (Integrated transport and energy
baseline until 2030). Project co-funded by European Commission 6th RTD Programme.
Fraunhofer-ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany. http://cms.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-de/projects/itren2030/deliverables.php.
SEA (2009): Swedish Energy Research 2009, Swedish Energy Agency.
Stifterverband (2010): http://www.stifterverband.org/statistik_und_analysen/index.html
Stifterverband (2009): FuE Datenreport 2009. Wissenschaftsstatistik GmbH, Essen.
Swedish Government (2009): Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Enterprise,
Energy and Communications. An integrated climate and energy policy.
139
http://www.sweden.gov.se/
TNO (2009): Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Energy Efficiency in Road Transport- Final Report, TNO report for the European Commission,
September 2009.
TRKC (2009): Transport Research in the European Research Area - A guide to European, international and national programmes and projects, report produced for the
European Commission (DG TREN), June 2009.
UK HM Government (2009): The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. National Strategy for
climate and energy.
van den Hoed (2007): Sources of radiacal technological innovation: the emergence of
fuel cell technology in the automotive industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 15,
pp.1014-1021.
VDA (2009): Annual Report 2009, German Association of the Automotive Industry.
http://www.vda.de/
WATERBORNE TP (2007): Strategic Research Agenda – Implementation, Waterborne
Transport & Operations Key for Europe’s Development and Future, Route Map 2007.
Wiesenthal, T., Leduc, G., Köhler, J., Schade, W., Schade, B. (2010): Research on the
EU automotive industry into low-carbon vehicles and the role of public intervention,
JRC Technical Notes, JRC 58727.
Wiesenthal, T., Leduc, G., Schwarz, H-G., Haegeman, K. (2009): R&D Investment in
the Priority Technologies of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan, JRC
Reference Reports, EUR 23944.
PART II
ACEA (2010): EUROSTAT employment statistics for motor vehicle manufacture
http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/employment/ (accessed 24 Feb 2010)
Åhman, M. (2006): Government policy and the development of electric vehicles in Japan, Energy Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 433–443.
AllAboutHybridCars (2010): http://www.allabouthybridcars.com/hybrid-car-history.htm
(accessed 7 April 2010)
Arnold, E., Kuhlmann, S., van der Meulen, B. (2001): Technopolis. A singular council:
Evaluation of the Research Council of Norway, December 2001.
140
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Autobloggreen (2009): Honda CEO: People will embrace fuel cells when they realize
battery limits Autobloggreen, 22nd Oct. 2009.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/honda-ceo-people-will-embrace-fuel-cells-whenthey-realize-batt/ (accessed 24 Feb. 2010).
Auto Motor und Sport (2009): Großserien-Elektroauto feiert Weltpremiere, 3rd August
2009 http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/eco/nissan-leaf-elektroauto-1361434.html
Automobilsport.com (2009): Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and PSA Peugeot Citroën:
one step further towards electric vehicles for Europe, March 2009.
http://www.automobilsport.com/finance-mitsubishi-motors-corporation-psa-peugeotcitroen-step-towards-electric-vehicles-europe---56308.html (accessed 24 Feb 2010)
Bächle, P. (2009): Der Beitrag des Luftverkehrs zur CO2 Minderung im Rahmen des
europäischen Emissionshandelssystems, Diplomarbeit, KIT & Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe.
Bergek, A.; Hekkert, M.; Jacobsson, S. (2008): Functions in innovation systems: a framework for analysing energy system dynamics and identifying system building activities by entrepreneurs and policy makers, in: Foxon, T.; Köhler, J.; Oughton, C. (eds.):
Innovations in Low-Carbon Economy, Edward Elgar, 2008, pp. 79-111.
Bombardier (2010): TRAXX 4 Environment - Environmental Product Declaration:
TRAXX F140 MS, Bombardier.
http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/TRAXX_MS_EMAS.pdf
Bratzel, S. (2010): Jugend und Automobil 2010, FHDV Centre of Automotive, Bergisch
Gladbach, Germany.
Campanari, S., Manzolini, G., de la Iglesia, F. (2009): Energy analysis of electric vehicles using batteries or fuel cells through well-to-wheel driving cycle simulations, Journal
of Power Sources, Vol. 186, 2, pp. 464-477.
Carlsson, B., Stankiewicz, R. (1991): On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1 (2), pp. 93-118.
CEPA-ARB (2010): Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program, California Environmental
Protection Agency Air Resources Board.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm
Competition Commission (2007): Summary of Competition Commission hearing with
HSBC Rail in September 2007.
141
http://www.competitioncommission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2007/roscos/pdf/hearing_summary_hsbc_rail.pdf
Cousins, S. (2003): Aerocarbon Car, Cranfield University, presentation at EU Commission Torino Light Car Workshop 2003.
Der Spiegel (2010): VW Golf Twin Drive: Jetzt hat's gefunkt Spiegel online Auto 4th
Feb 2010
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/fahrberichte/0,1518,576180,00.html (accessed Feb 2010)
Derwesten (2010): Autobauer unter Strom 3rd Feb 2010
http://www.derwesten.de/nachrichten/wirtschaft-und-finanzen/Autobauer-unter-Stromid2482859.html (accessed 15 Feb 2010)
Dyerson, R., Pilkington, A. (2000): Innovation in complex systems: regulation and technology towards the electric vehicle, International Journal of Innovation Management,
4(1), pp. 33-49.
Earth2tech (2009): Electric Car Infrastructure Trials: Some Progress, Long Road
Ahead.
http://earth2tech.com/2009/05/24/electric-car-infrastructure-trials-some-progress-longroad-ahead/
ECMT (2007): Cutting Transport CO2 Emissions: What Progress? Paris, OECD.
Edwards, P., P., Kuznetsov, V., L., David, W.I.F., Brandon, N., P. (2008): Hydrogen
and fuel cells: Towards a sustainable energy future, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, 12, pp.
4356–4362.
Gerard, D., Lave, L., B. (2005): Implementing technology-forcing policies: The 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments and the introduction of advanced automotive emissions
controls in the United States, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, pp.
761–778.
GLA (2009): Greater London Authority Electric Vehicles
http://www.london.gov.uk/electricvehicles/benefits/london/ (accessed 31 March 2010)
Gow, D. (2006): Ten years down the road: car giant foresees the non-polluting, accident-proof saloon, The Guardian, 31 March 2006.
Hekkert, M., van den Hoed, R. (2006): Competing technologies and the struggle towards a new dominant design: the emergence of the hybrid vehicle at the expense of
the fuel cell vehicle? The Business of Sustainable Mobility: from vision to reality (eds.
Nieuwenhuis, P., Vergragt, P., Wells, P.).
142
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Hoffman, P. (2001): Tomorrow's Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and the Prospects for a
Cleaner Planet, Boston, MIT Press.
IEA (2008): WEO Policy Database http://www.iea.org/Textbase/pm/?mode=weo
Köhler J., Wietschel, M., Whitmarsh, L., Keles D., Schade W. (2010): Infrastructure
investment for a transition to hydrogen automobiles, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change (forthcoming).
Köhler, J. (2009): Case Study ACEA Agreement, Report for EU GHG-PAM project,
Karlsruhe, Fraunhofer ISI.
Köhler J., Whitmarsh, L., Nykvist, B., Schilperoord, M., Bergman, N., Haxeltine A.
(2009): A transitions model for sustainable mobility, Ecological Economics, 68, pp.
2985–2995.
Köhler, J., Whitmarsh, L., Michie J., Oughton, C. (2008): Can the car makers save the
planet? In: Foxon, T., Köhler J., Oughton C. (eds.) Innovation for a low carbon economy: Economic, institutional and management approaches. Edward Elgar Cheltenham,
UK, Northampton, MA, USA, 230-65.
Köhler J. (2006): Transport and the environment: the need for policy for long term radical change: A literature review for the DTI FORESIGHT project on Intelligent Infrastructure Systems, IEE Proc. Intelligent Transport Systems, 153(4), pp. 292-301.
Miyazaki, K., Kijima, K. (2000): Complexity in Technology Management: Theoretical
Analysis and Case Study of Automobile Sector in Japan, Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 64, pp. 39–54.
Nieuwenhuis, P., Wells, P. (1997): The Death of Motoring? Car Making and Automobility in the 21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Offer, G.J., Howey, D., Contestabile, M., Clague, R., Brandon, N., P. (2010): Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system, Energy Policy, Vol. 38, 1, pp. 24-29.
Onoda (2009): IEA Policies – G8 recommendations and an afterwards, Energy Policy,
Vol. 37, 10, pp. 3823-3831.
Orsato, R., J., Wells, P. (2007): U-turn: the rise and demise of the automobile industry,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, pp. 994-1006.
Popular Mechanics (2008): MIT Builds Efficient Nanowire Storage to Replace Car Batteries http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4252623.html
143
Schade, W. (2004): Strategic Sustainability Analysis: Concept and application for the
assessment of European transport policy, Karlsruhe Papers in Economic Policy Research No. 17, University of Karlsruhe, Germany, NOMOS Publicher, Baden-Baden.
Schade W., Krail M., Fiorello D., Helfrich N., Köhler J., Kraft M., Maurer H., Meijeren J.,
Newton S., Purwanto J., Schade B., Szimba E. (2010): The iTREN-2030 Integrated
Scenario until 2030. Deliverable 5 of iTREN-2030 (Integrated transport and energy
baseline until 2030). Project co-funded by European Commission 6th RTD Programme.
Fraunhofer-ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany. http://cms.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-de/projects/itren2030/deliverables.php.
Service, R., F. (2004): The hydrogen backlash: Toward a hydrogen economy, Science,
Vol. 305, 5686, pp. 958-961.
Sheller, M. (2004): Automotive emotions - Feeling the car, Theory Culture & Society,
Vol. 21 (4-5), 221-242, October 2004.
Schneider, M., T., Schade, B., Grupp, H. (2004): Innovation process 'fuel cell vehicle':
What strategy promises to be most successful? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 16, 2, pp. 147-172.
Thomas, C.E. (2009): Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles Compared, International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 34, pp. 6005-6020.
TNO (2006): Review and Analysis of the reduction potential and Costs of Technological
and Other Measures to Reduce CO2-emissions from Passenger Cars, Final report,
Delft, TNO.
Toyota (2009): Press release of Sept. 4th http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/04/toyotatops-2-million-hybrid-sales-worldwide/ (accessed 24 Feb 2010).
Toyota (2006): Press release: June 13th, Toyota Reinforces Efforts for Environmental
Technologies
and
Environmentally
Friendly
Vehicles.
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/06/0613.html
USAToday (1999): VW Lupo: Rough road to fuel economy.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm
7 April 2010)
VDA (2010): Verband der Deutsche Automobilindustrie.
http://www.vda.de/de/arbeitsgebiete/index.html (accessed 31 March 2010)
(accessed
144
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Weber, M., Hoogma, R. (1998): Beyond national and technological styles of innovation
diffusion: a dynamic perspective on cases from the energy and transport sectors,
Technological Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(4), pp. 545-566.
Wells P & P Nieuwenhuis (2001): The Automotive Industry – A Guide, Cardiff, CAIR &
BT.
Wietschel M., Ball. M., Seydel, P. (2009): Hydrogen Today in: Wietschel M. & Ball. M.
(eds.) The Hydrogen Economy: opportunities and challenges, Cambridge CUP pp.
254-270.
WSJ (2009): The Surge in Electric Cars, Wall Street Journal, 16 Dec. 2009 (accessed
24 Feb 2010).
145
Abbreviations and Acronyms
APU
Auxiliary Power Unit
BERD
Business Expenditures on R&D
BES
Business Enterprise Sector
BEV
Battery Electric Vehicle
bn
billion
EGCI
European Green Cars Initiative
ERA-NET
European Research Area Networks
ETP
European Technology Platform
EU (or EU-27)
European Union
FCV
Fuel Cell Vehicle
FP7
Seventh Research Framework Programme
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GRP
Glass-reinforced plastic
HEV
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HGV
Heavy Goods Vehicle
ICB
Industry Classification Benchmark
ICE
Internal Combustion Engine
IEA
International Energy Agency
IPC
International Patent Classification
IPTS
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (of the JRC)
JRC
Joint Research Centre (of the European Commission)
JTI
Joint Technology Initiative
JU
Joint Undertaking
MEEDDM
Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, du Développement durable et
de la Mer
NACE
European statistical classification of economic sectors
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PHEV
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
R&D
Research and Development
RD&D
Research, Development and Demonstration
SRA
Strategic Research Agenda
146
GHG-TransPoRD D1
ANNEX I: KEY EU-BASED COMPANIES AND DIVISIONS
Parent company Brands/Divisions
Volkswagen
VW Passenger Cars
Audi (incl. Lamborghini)
Skoda
Seat
Bentley
VW Commercial Vehicles
Scania
Daimler
Mercedes-Benz Cars (Mercedes-Benz, Smart, Maybach)
Daimler Trucks (Mercedes-Benz, Freightliner, Western Star and Fuso)
Mercedes-Benz Vans
Daimler Buses (Mercedes-Benz, Setra and Orion)
BMW
BMW
Mini
Rolls-Royce
Renault
Renault
Dacia
Renault Samsung Motors
Fiat
Fiat Group Automobiles (Fiat, Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Fiat Professional)
Maserati
Ferrari
CNH – Case New Holland (Agricultural and Construction Equipment)
Iveco (Trucks and Commercial Vehicles)
FPT Powertrain Technologies
Magneti Marelli (Components)
Teksid (Metallurgical Products)
Comau (Production Systems)
Note that in 2009, Fiat held 20% of Chrysler
PSA Peugeot Citroën
Automobile Division (Peugeot and Citroën)
Faurecia (Automobile Equipment)
Gefco (Transport and Logistics)
Peugeot Scooters
Volvo
Volvo Trucks
Renault Trucks
Mack Trucks
Nissan Diesel
Volvo Buses
Volvo Constrution Equipment
Volvo Penta
Volvo Aero
147
MAN
MAN Nutzfahrzeuge - Commercial vehicles
MAN Latin America - Commercial Vehicles
MAN Diesel - Power Engineering
MAN Turbo - Power Engineering
Renk - Power Engineering
EADS
Airbus (commercial aircraft)
Airbus Military
Eurocopter
Astrium
Defence & Security
Other (incl. ATR, EADS EFW, EADS Sogerma, Socata, EADS North America)
Finmeccanica
Aeronautics (Alenia Aeronautica, Alenia Aermacchi, Alenia Aeronavali)
Helicopters (AgustaWestland)
Space
Defence Electronics and Security
Defence Systems
Energy (Ansaldo Energia incl. Ansaldo Nucleare, Ansaldo Ricerche, Ansaldo
Fuel Cells, Asia Power Projects Private Ltd, Ansaldo ESG AG and Ansaldo
Thomassen BV group)
Transportation (Ansaldo STS, AnsaldoBreda)
Bosch
Automotive Technology
- Gasoline Systems
- Diesel Systems
- Chassis Systems Brakes
- Chassis Control
- Electrical Drives
- Starter Motors and Generators
- Car Multimedia
- Automotive Electronics
- Automotive Aftermarket
- Steering Systems (ZF Lenksysteme GmbH; 50% Bosch-owned)
Industrial Technology
- Drive and Control Technology (Bosch Rexroth AG)
- Packaging Technology
- Solar Energy (Bosch Solar Energy AG)
Consumer Goods and Building Technology
- Power Tools
- Thermotechnology (Bosch Thermotechnik)
- Household Appliances (BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH; 50%
Bosch-owned)
- Security Systems (Bosch Sicherheitssysteme GmbH)
Continental
Automotive Group
Rubber Group
Alstom
Power Systems
Power Service
Transport
Source: company's annual reports
148
GHG-TransPoRD D1
ANNEX II: QUALITITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF EUROPEAN
R&D ACTORS AND PROGRAMMES
9.
9.1
149
European R&D actors and programmes
Road transport
European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC)
ERTRAC81 is a Technology Platform for the road transport that was launched in 2003.
It brings together the European Commission, Member States and all major road transport stakeholders (automotive industry, energy suppliers, research providers, associations, etc.) with the main objective to identify key R&D priorities for this sector and set
up a Strategic Research Agenda for the next decades.
The main outputs from ERTRAC refer to the publication of the 'Vision 2020 and Challenges' in June 2004 followed by the first 'Strategic Research Agenda' in October 2004.
In April 2006, ERTRAC published the 'Research Framework' that was followed by the
'Research Framework Implementation' in March 2008. In 2009, they published the
'Road Transport Scenario 2030+' and developed a European electrification roadmap
with EPoSS (European Technology Platform on Smart Systems Integration) through
the document 'Electrification of Road Transport'.
The deployment of efficient R&D strategies for reducing GHG emissions of the transport sector has always been considered a priority by ERTRAC. The 2008 Research
Framework identified four Strategic Research Priorities amongst which the research
theme 'Energy, Resources and Climate Change', along with road safety, urban mobility
and long distance freight. The adoption in 2009 of the 'Road Transport Scenario 2030+'
has paved the way to the review of the 2004 SRA.
In the recently published SRA 2010 (ERTRAC, 2010), the three main research needs
are decarbonisation, reliability, and safety. The 2030 guiding objectives are presented
in Table 9-18 below.
81 All the documents quoted in this section are available on the ERTRAC website at www.ertrac.org
150
Table 9-18:
Decarbonisation
Reliability
Safety
GHG-TransPoRD D1
2030 guiding objectives (2010 baseline)
Indicator
Guiding objective
Energy efficiency: urban passenger transport
+80%
Energy efficiency: long-distance freight transport
+40%
Renewables in the energy pool
Biofuels: 25%
Electricity: 5%
Reliability of transport schedules
+50%
Urban accessibility
Preserve
Improve where possible
Fatalities and severe injuries
-60%
Cargo lost to theft and damage
-70%
Source: ERTRAC, 2010
The means for achieving these ambitious (guiding) targets are based on the different
EU and national research programmes towards advanced vehicle technologies (e.g.
new engines, drive trains, etc.) but there is no doubt that it will also depend on the progress made on electric vehicles (HEVs, BEVs PHEVs). In this context, ERTRAC has
set up the Electrification Task Force with the aim to develop an implement plan for the
electrification of European road transport for the European Green Cars Initiative
(EGCI), which is part of the FP7 programme (see chapter 3.3). The objective is to
achieve 5 million of BEVs and PHEVs in the EU by 2020, with annual sales of 1.5 million vehicles (see the EU roadmap 'Electrification of Road Transport' available on the
ERTRAC website).
As for ERTRAC, other ETPs can be of relevance to the road transport sector. It is the
case for instance of the European Inter-modal Research Advisory Council (EIRAC) as
well as the European Construction Technology Platform (ECTP). An analysis and a
comparison of the Strategic Research Agendas presenting by these platforms have
been carried out recently in the framework of the project ERA-NET ROAD II (ENR,
2010).
The European Council for Automotive Research and Development (EUCAR)
EUCAR82 was created in 1994 by the automotive industry. Its central objective is to
identify the future R&D needs for improving the competitiveness of this sector through
e.g. strategic collaborative R&D. It plays the role of an interface between the European
Commission and the EU automotive manufacturers (also providing guidance to
ERTRAC, etc.).
82 http://www.eucar.be/
151
EUCAR regroups the major EU automotive manufacturers namely Daimler, Volkswagen, BMW, Porsche, Scania (subsidiary of Volkswagen), Volvo, Fiat, PSA Peugeot
Citroën and Renault, as well as non-EU based companies such as DAF (Paccar Company), Ford and General Motors.
EUCAR addresses common R&D needs through three working groups: 'Fuels and
Power train'; 'Integrated Safety and Mobility'; and 'Materials, Processes and Manufacturing'. As an example of projects in which EUCAR is involved in, one can mention the
joint evaluation with CONCAWE and the JRC dealing with the well-to-wheels energy
use and GHG emissions for a wide range of potential future fuel and power train options.
Furthermore, the interests of the EU automotive suppliers are defended through the
European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA)83. It plays a similar role as
EUCAR but for the EU automotive supplier industry.
ERA-NET ROAD
The objective of ERA-NET ROAD II84 (under FP7) is to develop road research conducted by the European Research Area by coordinating national and regional road
research programmes and policies. The ERA-NET ROAD II consortium regroups several national and regional road administrations (responsible for the development and
management of the strategic road research programmes in their countries) and programme managers (for implementing national road research programmes under the
supervision of the national road administrations) with the aim to promote, develop and
facilitate collaborative trans-national programming, financing and procurement of road
research. ERA-NET ROAD II is built on the success of ERA-NET ROAD (funded under
FP6) that made considerable progress towards the networking of road research programmes across Europe.
The European Green Cars Initiative (see chapter 3.3)
Other bodies with relevance to road transport research
Table 9-19 below presents a (non-exhaustive) list of organisations playing a role in
road transport research in the EU and beyond.
83 http://www.clepa.be/
84 For more details, see http://www.eranetroad.org/
152
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Table 9-19:
Key EU and world bodies of the road transport sector
Organisation name
European Association of Automotive Suppliers
European Automotive Research Partners Association
European Automobile Manufacturers Association
European Conference of Transport Research Institutes
Association for European Transport
European Union Road Federation
The Motorcycle Industry in Europe
European public/private partnership for the implementation of Intelligent Transport
Systems and Services
Oil companies' European organisation
International Federation of Automotive Engineering Societies
International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
European Intermodal Research Advisory Council
9.2
Acronym
CLEPA
EARPA
ACEA
ECTRI
AET
ERF
ACEM
ERTICO
CONCAWE
FISITA
OICA
EIRAC
Air transport
Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE)
ACARE85 is the European Technology Platform for aeronautics. It was launched in
2001 based on the Vision 2020 strategy with the aim to develop and maintain a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for aeronautics in Europe. It comprises about 40 members
from the Commission, Member States and stakeholders (e.g. manufacturing industry,
airlines, airports, service providers, research centres). The goal of the SRA is to define
EU and national research programmes into new technologies for achieving challenging
objectives of the Vision 2020 document.
The first edition of the SRA was produced in 2002 and constituted a key input for the
design of the aeronautics research programme in FP6. This first SRA was then improved and completed through a second edition published in 2004. It also formed an
important input to the work programme of FP7. More recently, an Addendum to the
SRA was published in 2008 to pave the way towards a next full review of the aviation
sector (a third edition of the SRA is expected by 2012, looking beyond the 2020 targets).
When focusing on the environment86, the main targets for the year 2020 as defined in
the SRA are the following (note that the reference is a year-2000 aircraft):
85 All the documents quoted in this section are available at http://www.acare4europe.com/
86 We focus here on environmental issues. Other challenges concern safety, security, air transport system
efficiency, etc.
•
153
50% reduction in CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre (i.e. 50% reduction in
fuel consumption in the new 2020 aircraft compared to 2000)
•
80% reduction in NOx emissions
•
50% reduction of perceived aircraft noise
Furthermore, reducing the environmental impact of the manufacture, maintenance and
disposal of aircraft and related products is also part of the ACARE goals.
With regard to CO2 emissions, the 50% reduction is expected to be achieved by means
of significant progress in the following areas:
•
25% reduction due to airframe improvements (e.g. aerodynamics improvements, weight reduction, fuel cell APUs)
•
15 -20% reduction due to engine improvements (e.g. advanced engines)
•
5 -10% reduction due to operational improvements (see SESAR programme)
Moreover, it should be noted that huge R&D efforts have been undertaken to develop
alternative aviation fuels. Several synthetic fuels that meet the specific properties for
being used as jet fuel (e.g. in terms of energy content, density, thermal stability, see
IFP, 2009a) have been successfully tested in real condition by different motorists and
airline companies throughout the world (IATA, 2009).
Alongside the FP7 collaborative research projects in aeronautics (TPT-AAT, see chapter 3.3 ), and in order to achieve these ambitious targets, two major EU initiatives have
been launched since the last SRA. There are the Clean Sky JTI aiming at reducing the
environmental impact of aviation and the SESAR Joint Undertaking whose goal is to
develop the future Air Traffic Management system. The ACARE provided important
support and advice for the implementation of these two initiatives.
The recently launched EU FP7 project AGAPE (2008-2010) will evaluate the progress
towards ACARE 2020 goals.
The Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (see chapter 3.3)
The SESAR Joint Undertaking (see chapter 3.3)
154
GHG-TransPoRD D1
AirTN – Air Transport Net
The FP6 (and continued FP7) project ERA-NET AirTN87 is a relevant source of information and data on air transport research (incl. aeronautics and air traffic management). This project coordinates aeronautics research in Europe through a consortium
of 26 public/private stakeholders from 17 European States as well as Eurocontrol. A
recent report provides an overview of the key aeronautics research funding mechanisms for 17 Member States (AirTN, 2009).
Other bodies with relevance to air transport research
Table 9-20:
Key EU and world bodies of the air transport sector
Organisation name
Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe
Association of European Research Establishments in Aeronautics
International Air Transport Association
International Civil Aviation Organization
9.3
Acronym
ASD
EREA
IATA
ICAO
Rail and maritime
European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC)
ERRAC88 is the Technology Platform for the rail transport. It was launched in 2001 with
the aim to define research priorities and set up roadmaps for the implementation of the
ERRAC Vision 2020 'Towards a single European railway system'. ERRAC brings together the European Commission, Member States and all the stakeholders from this
sector (operators, manufacturers, infrastructure companies, etc.). Based on the
ERRAC Vision 2020, the Strategic Rail Research Agenda 2020 was published in 2002
and updated in 2007. The SRRA set up the rail research strategy and needs for this
sector and played a key role in the definition of EU and national rail research programmes (e.g. inputs to FP7).
With regard to energy-related issues, the thematic 'Energy and Environment' is one of
the seven strategic research priorities defined by the SRRA 2020. Alongside all research efforts needed to reduce the environmental impacts, key research areas also
refer to the deployment of new technologies, weight reduction, noise reduction, etc.
Recently, the ERRAC-ROADMAP project (FP7) was launched to deliver roadmaps to
'guide the rail research in order to provide a rail option that is reliable, environmentally
87 http://www.airtn.eu/
88 All the documents quoted in this section are available at: http://www.errac.org/
155
friendly, efficient and economic to customers'. Energy and environmental issues are
covered in the first Work Package 'Greening of surface transport'.
European Technology Platform Waterborne (WATERBORNE-TP)
WATERBORNE-TP89 is the EU Technology Platform for the waterborne sector (sea &
inland) that was launched in 2005. Similar to the other ETPs, a Vision 2020 document
was published in 2005 followed by the Waterborne Strategic Research Agenda
(WSRA) in 2006 and an Implementation Plan in 2007. The goal is to clearly define long
term R&D programmes (2020) of this sector.
MARTEC ERA-NET – Maritime Technologies
In the maritime sector, information about national research programmes (and their related funding when available) is made available in the frame of the ERA-NET coordination action MARTEC90 whose goal is to provide information and support for Europe’s
maritime industry and its research activities (e.g. strategy for future research funding,
development of transnational programmes). MARTEC II is expected to start beginning
of 2011.
Other bodies with relevance to rail/maritime transport research
Table 9-21:
Key EU and world bodies of the rail/maritime transport sector
Organisation name
Community of European Shipyards' Associations
(see Working Group on R&D – COREDES)
European Marine Equipment Council
International Union of Railways
Union of European Railway Industries
Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies
European Rail Infrastructure Managers
European Network of Excellence for Railway Research
89 All the documents quoted in this section are available at: http://www.waterborne-tp.org/
90 http://www.martec-era.net/
Acronym
CESA
EMEC
UIC
UNIFE
CER
EIM
EURNEX
156
GHG-TransPoRD D1
9.4
Alternative motor fuels
The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative (HFC JTI)
The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative91 is a public-private partnership launched in 2008 with the goal to accelerate the market entry of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies for applications in transport, stationary and portable power.
To summarise, the set up of the HFC JTI mainly results from a three-step process initiated in 2002:
•
The High Level Group on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells (HLG) was asked in 2002 by
the EU to formulate an integrated vision of the EU's strategy on hydrogen and
fuel cells and their role on sustainable policy. This was undertaken through the
HLG vision report produced in 2003 presenting the required actions to boost the
introduction of hydrogen and fuel cells. The vision report recommended the
creation of a technology partnership between the different public and private
stakeholders of the sector.
•
Based on these recommendations, the European Commission launched (under
FP6) the European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform in January 2004,
with the objective to set up a research strategy to develop and deploy fuel cell
and hydrogen technologies in the EU. The key outputs of the platform were the
Strategic Research Agenda (July 2005), the Deployment Strategy (August
2005) and the Implementation Plan (March 2007). The latter report aimed at
implementing the RD&D activities defined by the Strategic Research Agenda
and Deployment Strategy.
•
Finally, based on the abovementioned documents produced by the HFC platform, the HFC JTI was established in May 2008 to speed-up the development
of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies so that to bring them on the market by
2020. The HFC JTI will run until 2017 with a minimum budget of €940 million
(€470 million from both the European Community and the private sector).
91 All the documents quoted in this section are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/
157
European Biofuels Technology Platform/European Industrial Initiative Bioenergy
The European Biofuels Technology Platform (EBTP)92 is a public-private partnership
that was initiated in 2006. One of its main objectives was to elaborate and implement a
Strategic Research Agenda (published in January 2008) based on the recommendations of the BIOFRAC 2030 vision report (BIOFRAC, 2006). The SRA identified key
RD&D needs for the next decades that are required to achieve the Vision 2030 objectives (25% substitution of road transport fossil fuels by biofuels in 2030).
The European Biofuels Technology Platform has contributed to formulate industrial
objectives on bioenergy in the context of the implementation of the European Strategic
Energy Technology Plan93. On this basis, the European Industrial Initiative on Bioenergy is currently being shaped. It shall address 'the technical and economic barriers
to the further development and accelerated commercial deployment of bioenergy technologies for widespread sustainable exploitation of biomass resources, aiming to ensure at least 14% bioenergy in the EU energy mix by 2020, and at the same time to
guarantee greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings of 60% for bio-fuels and bioliquids under the sustainability criteria of the new RES Directive.'
92 http://www.biofuelstp.eu/
93 SEC(2009)1295
158
GHG-TransPoRD D1
10. National R&D actors and programmes
10.1 Germany
The automotive industry in Germany is by far the largest in EU27. In 2008 car manufacturers produced 5.5 million cars and 260 000 trucks in Germany, which represents
one third of the total vehicle production in EU27 (OICA, 2010). Worldwide German car
manufacturers produce more than 12 million cars (VDA, 2010).
The vehicle production sector directly employs some 415 000 people (only vehicle production). On top, around 330 000 people are employed in supplier companies (vehicle
parts, trailers).
The automotive industry is considered as a very important sector for the German economy. It generated sales of €330 billion in 2008. In the same year €20 billion were invested in R&D, which is almost one third of the total R&D investment (Stifterverband,
2010).
Furthermore, around 110 000 people work in other vehicle production sector (train,
ship, aircraft) among them 70 000 in the aircraft production in 2007. The aircraft sector
generated sales of around €19 billion and invested €2.5 billion in R&D (Stifterverband,
2009). The production of trains and ships led to sales of around €10 billion, but investments in R&D are with €0.2 billion very low (Stifterverband, 2009).
R&D strategy and programmes
National research priorities in transport currently include Mobility and Transport, Space,
Aeronautics, and Maritime Technology (TRKC, 2009):
•
The largest research activity is the programme Research and Technology for
Mobility and Transport which includes several sub-programmes with a broad
coverage of transport. Sub-themes are e-mobility, mobility for people in the 21st
century, intelligent logistics and intelligent infrastructure (BMWi, 2008).
•
The single largest sector programme is Space Research and Technology,
which reflects important national and European contributions (ESA), e.g. to the
development of the Galileo satellite navigation system.
•
A third major chunk of public expenditure is related to Aeronautics Research,
which focuses on the socio-economic aspects of air transport expansion, safety,
user friendliness, environmental aspects, and general economic efficiency.
•
159
The programmes in Maritime Technology focus on ship technology, shifting
transport to coastal waters and inland waterways, and marine technology.
The energy research programme considers among other topics renewable energy and
energy from biomass (BMWA, 2005).
Transport R&D funders & actors
The majority of transport research in Germany is co-funded and organised by four national ministries:
•
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS)
•
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
•
Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi)
•
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
(BMU)
The specific programmes are managed by their associated research centres like:
•
German Aerospace Centre DLR
•
German Research Community DFG
Non-governmental, industry financed transport research plays a considerable role in
the road, rail, air and maritime sectors. Car manufacturers, the national railway operator DB and several private regional railway companies, air framers and suppliers, and
major shipyards undertake a lot of specific research.
The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
(BMU) is responsible for renewable energy with the exception of energy of biomass.
The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMVEL) organises research on energy of biomass.
10.2 France
In France, the transport sector is responsible for more than 26%94 of the total national
GHG emissions (MEEDDM, 2010). Both the public sector and the industry are very
active in research activities aiming at reducing GHG emissions and pollutants of this
sector. The French automotive industry is the largest R&D investor with around €6 bil94 26.5% for the year 2007 compared to 21.1% in 1990.
160
GHG-TransPoRD D1
lion spent in 2008 accounting for almost one quarter of the total R&D expenditures of
the private sector in France (see chapter 3.1). It is very active in R&D in all transport
modes (e.g. Renault, PSA Peugeot Citroën (incl. Faurecia), Valeo for the road sector,
Alstom for the rail sector, Safran, Dassault for the aviation sector, etc.) and play a key
role at world level.
Concerning the public sector, the overall public R&D budget allocated to transport research is around €300 million per year (TRKC, 2009; Nicolas, 2002). Public transport
research in France is undertaken by dedicated research institutes (e.g. INRETS,
LCPC, CNES) and by other research bodies with R&D activities going much beyond
the transport sector (e.g. CEA, CNRS, IFP, INRIA) as well as universities and engineering schools.
R&D actors
The INRETS (National Institute for Transport and Safety Research) is a Scientific and
Technical Research Public Establishment (EPST) placed under the joint supervision of
the Ministry in charge of transport and the Ministry of research. The INRETS is a key
research body of the transport sector undertaking a wide range of research activities in
the domain of road safety (road accidents, road safety policies, new safety technologies e.g. driving aids, etc.), sustainable mobility (e.g. traffic management, regional
planning) and environmental impacts (e.g. GHG and pollutant emissions reduction,
noise). The main focus is on land transport although they carry out cross research activities with other transport modes (air and waterborne).
Almost 70% of the permanent staff (458 employees) are researchers or engineers,
divided up into 17 research units. Their total expenditure for the year 2008 was €55
million out of which €32.5 million were allocated to research activities95.
The LCPC (National Research Laboratory for Roads and Bridges) focuses on research
on transport infrastructure. As for the INRETS, the LCPC is an EPST supervised by the
Ministry of research and the Ministry in charge of transport. LCPC is active in research
on civil engineering, urban engineering and the environment. Main research topics on
transport concern road infrastructure such as road pavement, acoustics, etc. In 2007,
the LCPC employed a total of around 650 people (537 permanent staff and 300 researchers) with a total budget of €51.5 million.
The IFP (French Institute of Petroleum) is a key research actor in the area of energy,
transport and environment. In the field of transport, research areas cover most of the
95 INRETS Activity Report 2008 at: http://www.inrets.fr/fileadmin/institut/rapact/rapact08-en.pdf
161
technologies targeted at reducing GHG emissions and pollutants of vehicles e.g.
through the development of more efficient ICEs (e.g. HCCI, CAI), alternative motor
fuels (e.g. biofuels, natural gas) and electric vehicles (HEVs, PHEVs and EVs). IFP is
participating in several national and EU projects and platforms (e.g. the Mov’eo-DEGE
innovation platform project dedicated to hybrid and electric vehicles in the Paris area).
IFP had a total staff of 1710 employees in 2008 (out of which 1166 researchers) based
in Rueil-Malmaison and Lyon, with a total R&D budget of around €240 million (around
35% on direct energy and vehicle transport area and 25% on refining technology). Note
that IFP has applied for 183 patents in 2008 which demonstrates its major innovation
role.
Alongside its research activities in the nuclear field, the CEA (French Atomic Energy
and Alternative Energies Commission) is doing important fundamental research with
key applications in the field of transport. They refer for instance to research on alternative fuels (e.g. hydrogen production, second generation biofuels), storage of electrical
energy96, as well as research on fuel cells.
ONERA97 (French Aerospace Lab), with a budget of €202 million, is a key actor for
aeronautic and aerospace R&D development. They undertake R&D activities dealing
with enhancing air safety, environmental protection, cost reduction and growing air traffic modelling and management.
Transport-related research is also carried out by the CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research) which is the major R&D body in France. It is obvious that new and more
efficient transport technologies have been developed based on the fundamental research undertaken by the CNRS through its wide number of specific and mixed research units. As an example of transport-specific research laboratory, the LET (Transport Economics Laboratory) is a mixed research unit (i.e. sponsored by the CNRS and
the University of Lyon) specialised in transport economics and land use analysis.
96 See e.g. the Joint Venture with the Alliance Renault-Nissan and the F.S.I. (Fonds Stratégique d'Investissement) to develop and produce batteries for electric vehicles in France.
97 http://www.onera.fr/onera/mission.php
162
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Table 10-22:
Acronym
INRETS
Key French public organisms undertaking transport-related R&D
Name
National Institute for Transport and Safety
Research
National Research Laboratory for Roads
and Bridges
National Centre
for Scientific
Research
French National
Institute for
Agricultural
Research
Research area
Road sector
(mainly)
Comments
Key actor in transport R&D
Classification
EPST
Supervised by
MEEDDM
Ministry of
Research
Road infrastructure,
safety, etc.
Key actor in transport R&D
EPST
MEEDDM
Ministry of
Research
Applications to
all modes
EPST
Ministry of
Research
EPST
Ministry of
Research
Ministry of
agriculture and
fisheries
IFP
Institut Français
du Pétrole
ONERA
French Aerospace Lab
French Atomic
Energy and
Alternative
Energies
Commission
Alternative
fuels (e.g.
biofuels, NG)
Research on
ICEs, hybrid
and EVs
Air transport
Basic research in a
wide number of
domains
Research on e.g.
animal genetics,
animal health, plant
biology, environment and agronomy, etc.
R&D in energy,
transport, environment
R&D in aeronautics,
space, defence
Wide number of
R&D activities e.g.
energy, transport,
environment, defence, health, etc.
EPIC
Space
EPIC
LCPC
CNRS
INRA
CEA
Alternative
fuels (biofuels)
Alternative
fuels (biofuels,
hydrogen)
R&D on energy
storage (electric vehicles)
Fuel cells
EPIC
EPIC
CNES
Centre National
d’Etudes Spatiales
Air transport
SNCF
Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer
français
Régie Autonome des
Transports
Parisiens
Engineering
services of the
MEEDDM
Rail
EPIC
Rail
EPIC
RATP
Ministry of
Defence
MEEDDM
Ministry of
Research
Ministry of
Defence
Ministry for the
Economy,
Industry and
Employment
Ministry of
Research
Ministry of
Defence
CERTU
All modes
MEEDDM
CETMEF
SETRA
STAC
EPIC stands for 'Etablissement public à caractère industriel et commercial'
EPST stands for 'Etablissement public à caractère scientifique et technologique'
CETMEF - Centre d'Études Techniques Maritimes et Fluviales
CERTU - Centre d'Études sur les Réseaux, les Transports, l'Urbanisme et les Constructions Publiques
SETRA – Services d'Etudes sur les Transports, les Routes et leurs Aménagements
STAC – Service Technique de l'Aviation Civile
163
The PREDIT Programme
Since 1990, the most important French research programme in transport is the Land
Transport Research Programme PREDIT (Programme de Recherche et de Développement pour l’Innovation et la Technologie dans les Transports Terrestres). This programme focuses on freight and passenger transport and aims at coordinating the support to research and innovation in land transport (road and rail). It has been initiated
and coordinated by three Ministries: the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Sea (MEEDDM), the Ministry of Research (MESR) and the Ministry for
the Economy, Industry and Employment (MinEIE), along with three government agencies: the ADEME (French Environment and Energy Management Agency), the ANR
(National Research Agency) and Oseo innovation (Supporting growth and innovation
for SMEs).
The current PREDIT 4 is the fourth programme since its inception in 1990 with a total
budget of €400 million for the period 2008-2012. Note that €300 million of public funds
were allocated to the PREDIT 3 over the period 2002-2007.
The PREDIT 4 research activities are split into six priority themes with the following
budgets:
Table 10-23:
PREDIT 4 programme
Themes
Funding (€m)
% total budget
Energy and environment
145
36.25
Quality and safety of transport systems
70
17.5
Mobility in urban areas
65
16.25
Logistics and freight transport
45
11.25
Competitiveness of the transport industry
65
16.25
Transport policy
10
2.5
Total PREDIT 4 (5 years)
400
100
Source: (PREDIT, 2009)
Indicative budget breakdown: MEEDDM (€40m); Fonds Unique Interministériel (€100m); ADEME (€75m);
ANR (€100m); Oseo (€85m)
Other national research programmes
Hydrogen and fuel cells
In 2005, the PAN-H (National Action Plan on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells) network replaced the former network PACo that was set up to coordinate R&D activities between
public and private stakeholders on hydrogen and fuel cells. Research projects undertaken under the network PAN-H are funded by the ANR over the period 2005-2008. In
164
GHG-TransPoRD D1
2009, the ANR launched the network Hpac (2009-2011) that focuses on hydrogen production through water electrolysis, hydrogen storage and its applications in fuel cells.
Transport infrastructures
The RGC&U is a research network on civil and urban engineering that was created in
1999. It focuses on the design and maintenance of public/private infrastructures for all
transport modes (land, air, waterborne) as well as underground construction. Research
activities are large and focus on the reduction of the environmental impact (pollutants,
wastes, noise), new materials, construction processes, recycling issues, etc.
Bioenergy
The national research programme on bioenergy was launched in 2005 and focuses on
four main areas:
• Lignocellulosic resources
• Thermochemical conversion routes
• Biochemical conversion routes
• Techno-economic assessment and environmental issues
For the next four years, the objective of this programme is to set up a technological
platform and to validate the different conversion routes (thermochemical and biochemical) through different R&D and demonstration activities.
French national aeronautical research programme
R&D programmes in the aeronautics sector are driven by the DGAC (French Civil Aviation Authority, part of the MEEDDM) and focus on the following areas:
• Civil aeronautical construction
• Communications
• Navigation
• Radar monitoring
• Air traffic management
In the aeronautics construction area, the objectives are to improve safety, performances, comfort and efficiency of civil aircrafts and helicopters. The research efforts
mainly focus on aerodynamics, acoustics, thermodynamics, combustion and on-board
electronic and computing systems. As shown previously, the French Aerospace Lab
(ONERA) is the key R&D actor in this area.
165
Competitiveness Clusters
A Competitiveness Cluster (Pôles de compétitivité) is defined as an association of
companies, research centres and educational institutions working in partnership (under
a common development strategy). The objective is to create synergies in the execution
of innovative projects in the interest of one or more given markets.
Out of the 71 competitiveness clusters, the following 12 are relevant to transport98:
•
Aerospace Valley,
•
Automobile Haut de Gamme
•
Industries & Agro-Ressources
•
I-Trans
•
Logistique Seine-Normandie
•
Mov'eo (mobility solutions, road safety, low CO2 vehicles, vehicle environmental
impact, energy storage systems, mechatronics systems, ICE power train)
•
Advancity
•
Véhicule du futur
•
Lyon Urban Trucks and bus (LUTB 2015)
•
SYSTEM@TIC Paris Region
•
Mobilité et transports avancés.
•
Ville Mobilite Durable
The RT3 network
RT3 (Inter-regional Network for Technological research and Land Transport) is a platform regrouping seven regional scientific poles active in land transport research. The
most important regional pole is the Regional Group for Research in Transport in NordPas-de-Calais99 (GRRT). It was created in 1983 and federates more than 250 people
in around twenty laboratories.
98 http://www.competitivite.gouv.fr/
99 http://www.grrt.fr/
166
GHG-TransPoRD D1
10.3 UK
The automotive industry is considered an important sector of the UK economy with an
added value of around £9.5bn. It directly employs some 180 000 people (in vehicle and
engine manufacturing and the automotive supply chain). On top, around 200 000 people are employed in the wider supply chain100 (Ultra Low Carbon Vehicles in the UK,
2009). In 2008, 1.65 million vehicles were produced in the UK, a 4th position within the
EU after Germany, France and Italy (NAIGT, 2009).
R&D strategy & programme
The future development of the UK transport sector and related research efforts are
largely determined by the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan that describes on how the
UK will reduce its GHG emissions by 18% compared to 2008 levels by 2020, equivalent to a 34% cut in emissions on 1990 levels (UK HM Government, 2009). For transport, the plan envisages a decrease in the carbon dioxide emissions from new cars
across the EU by 40% on 2007 levels. Moreover, it supports a large demonstration
project for new electric cars and strives for 10% of the UK transport energy to be derived from renewable sources by 2020.
The Department for Transport has further specified the carbon reduction strategy for
transport (DfT, 2009). In June 2009, it officially launched the UK's strategy for Ultra Low
Carbon Vehicles together with the department for business innovation and skills. Within
this strategy, research is allocated an important role, taking into account the roadmap
on automotive technology that has been developed by the New Automotive Innovation
and Growth Team (NAIGT, 2009). Besides the research, development and demonstration of low carbon vehicles, this also includes research on new biofuels and sustainability of aircrafts.
To this end, the UK government with its Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) may
spend up to £400 million to encourage development and uptake of ultra-low carbon
vehicles. This includes funding of RD&D activities under the Low Carbon Vehicle Innovation Platform under the Technology Strategy Board101. This Platform brings together
funding of over £120m from the Technology Strategy Board, Department for Transport,
Advantage West Midlands, One North East and the EPSRC. In this context, a £25 million Ultra Low Carbon Vehicle Demonstrator was launched in June 2009, aiming at
demonstrating new and emerging low carbon vehicle technology in real world situa100 The New Automotive Innovation and Growth Team estimates that UK automotive industry could account for almost half a million jobs directly and indirectly (NAIGT, 2009).
101 Another relevant innovation platform is on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services.
167
tions. This complements the Integrated Delivery Programme, an investment programme, jointly funded by Government and business that will help to speed up the
market introduction of low carbon vehicles.
In March 2010, the Energy Technologies Institute launched major research projects
worth £4.5 million within its £11 million pioneering plan to support the roll-out of plug-in
vehicles in the UK.
Transport R&D funders and actors
A major funder of transport research is the Department for Transport (DfT), including a
number of its executive agencies (e.g. Highways Agency; Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency), with most of them having an own research programmes. Network Rail also
supports some relevant research.
Also associated with DfT is the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT), an independent body advising the Government on integrated transport policy.
The central UK Low Carbon Vehicle Strategy is being implemented by the Office for
Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), a cross government team.
Other government departments that fund transport-related R&D include:
• Department of Energy and Climate Change
• Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• Department for Communities and Local Government
• Department for International Development
• Office of National Statistics
• Department for Business Innovation and Skills
Local government (including Transport for London), the Devolved Administrations for
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the passenger transport authorities undertake and commission research also support research in this area.
In addition, the UK has 7 research councils that lead on basic research. Their funding
is allocated by BIS (Department for Business Innovation and Skills). Relevant for transport are the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC); and the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) with links to NERC (Natural Environment Research Council). Also the EPSRC funded UK Energy Research Centre, a focal
point for UK research on sustainable energy, conducts some transport-related research. Other relevant centres include the Centre for Spatial Economics and the Climate Change Research Centre.
168
GHG-TransPoRD D1
The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) is a UK based company from public and private partners, the latter of which constitute of BP, Caterpillar, EDF Energy, E.ON,
Rolls-Royce and Shell. The ETI’s public funds are received from the Department for
Business Innovation and Skills through the Technology Strategy Board and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). In the transport sector, it is
aiming at contributing to research on low carbon vehicles in its heavy duty and light
vehicles programmes, including major research on plug-in electric vehicles.
The Technology Strategy Board aims to promote and support research into and development and exploitation of science, technology and new ideas for the benefit of business, in order to increase sustainable economic growth and improve the quality of life.
It is sponsored and funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. With
its innovation platforms, it brings together key players from industry, academia and
government, innovation platforms to identify barriers to meeting the challenge, map
possible routes to overcoming the barriers and align activities to support innovative
solutions. For the transport sector, the innovation platforms on Low Carbon Vehicles
and on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services are most relevant.
It is also worth mentioning that transport firms in the logistics industry and the passenger transport industry (air, road and rail) do engage in and commission research, as
well as some independent charities such as the RAC Foundation, the Rees Jeffreys
Road Fund and the Independent Transport Commission.
10.4 Sweden
Maritime transport as well as the automotive sector plays an important role in Sweden,
the latter including the manufacturers of cars and heavy vehicles Volvo, Saab and
Scania. According to Eurostat figures, the value added of the sector 'Manufacture of
motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers' accounted for 1.9% of the Swedish GDP in
2007. At the same time, around 86000 people were (directly) employed in the automotive sector (European Labour Force Survey quoted in Eurofound, 2009). The current
economic crisis, however, hit Volvo hard.
Context
In 2009, the Swedish Government presented its integrated climate and energy policy
(Swedish Government, 2009a). By 2020, the strategy aims at reducing GHG emissions
by 40%, at achieving at least 50% renewable energy, at improving energy efficiency by
20% and at supplying at least 10% of the transport energy use from renewables. As
part of this strategy, an action plan for a fossil-fuel independent vehicle fleet by 2030
169
has been launched. The use of sustainable biofuels and strict emission standards are
considered key for its implementation.
Policies and measures aiming at achieving this target comprise R&D alongside a set of
consumer incentives such as a bonus for buying an eco-friendly car or an exemption
from the vehicle tax for green cars, an obligation for filling stations to provide biofuels
and public procurement for environmental-friendly cars.
R&D strategy & programmes
Within the Swedish Energy RD&D Strategy (SEA, 2009), the transport sector has been
pointed out as one of the six thematic areas. Other relevant thematic R&D areas are
bioenergy and system studies. In line with the objectives set for the transport sector,
research on (second generation) sustainable biofuels incl. biogas and hybrid vehicles
and energy-efficient combustion engines are considered crucial (Energy Strategy).
There are two national research programmes dealing with issues related to vehicle
development: Firstly, the Strategic Vehicle Research and Innovation Initiative (FFI),
which started in 2009 with an annual budget of USD 100 million, half of which is funded
by government. The initiative aims at establishing an internationally competitive centre
of excellence for hybrid electrical vehicle technology. Secondly, the research programme Energy Systems in Road Vehicles, which concentrates on R&D into batteries
and fuel cells. It runs until the end of 2010 with a budget of USD 12 million.
R&D funders & actors
The Swedish Energy Agency is the most important player in R&D funding as it manages the national energy research programme and is responsible for all funding of nonnuclear energy activities (IEA, 2008b). This is being done in cooperation with the
Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA), the Swedish Research Council
and the Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning.
Besides, the Swedish National Road Administration (Vegverket) and the Swedish National Rail Administration (Banverket) both fund applied RD&D activities related to their
sectors. The merging of the Road Administration (Vägverket) and Rail Administration
(Banverket) and parts of the Maritime Administration and Civil Aviation to one infrastructure agency in early 2010 will certainly also have some impacts on the organisation of transport research.
The largest transport research organisation in Sweden is the Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI). Besides VTI, a number of university departments and industrial
research in the automotive sector carry out substantial transport research activities.
170
GHG-TransPoRD D1
With the aim of bringing together industry and academia, competence centres for research cooperation are supported by the Swedish Energy Agency. Sweden also set up
the Swedish Hybrid Vehicle Centre, brining together the Swedish energy agency and
university with the car and heavy vehicle industry.
With regard to international cooperation, Sweden participates in European research
activities (funded e.g. under FP7), the IEA and takes part in the Nordic Energy Research Programme together with Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway.
10.5 Spain
Context
Research activities in the transport sector are mainly addressed through the National
Plan of Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation (Plan Nacional
de I+D+I 2008-2011)102. The total budget of this multi-sectoral plan is around €47.7
billion over the period 2008-2011 (€9.4 billion for the year 2008). It follows the NP
2000-2003 (€14.3 billion) and NP 2004-2007 (€24.1 billion). It is structured in four research areas:
1- Area for knowledge generation and scientific and technological capacities
2- Area of promotion of the co-operation in R&D
3- Area of development and technological innovation, divided into ten key sectors:
•
Food, Agriculture and Fishing
•
Environment and Eco-innovation
•
Energy
•
Security and Defence
•
Construction, Land Planning and Cultural Patrimony
•
Tourism
•
Aerospace
•
Infrastructures and Transport
•
Industrial sectors
102 http://www.plannacionalidi.es/
•
171
Pharmaceutical sector
4- Area of strategic actions:
•
Health
•
Biotechnology
•
Energy and Climate Change
•
Telecommunications and Information Society
•
Nano-science and nanotechnology, new materials and new industrial processes
R&D funders and programmes
As shown in Figure 10-46, there are several Ministries that are responsible, at different
level, of the implementation of transport research programmes (Prado, 2009).
Figure 10-46:
Overview of Spanish transport research actors and programmes
Source: Prado (2009)
Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación - MICINN).
The Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) was created in 2008. Before this
date, transport research activities were managed by the different Ministries with their
own budget. Since 2008, transport R&D resources are handled by the MICINN. Note
that from 2009, the Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (Centro para
el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial - CDTI) is a government agency of the Ministry of
Science and Innovation, whose objective is to promote innovation and technological
development of Spanish companies.
172
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Alongside the NP 2008-2011, the MICINNT finances several sub-programmes such as
the PSE (Proyectos Singulares Estratégicos); the PTEs103 (Plataformas Tecnológicas);
the CENIT (Consorcios Estrategicos Nacionales de Investigación Tecnológica) and the
CIT and PPT (Programa Nacional de Investigación Aplicada).
Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Ministerio de Fomento - MF). This Ministry
is responsible for transport policy implementation through the Strategic Infrastructures
and Transport Plan (Plan Estratégico de Infraestructuras y Transportes, PEIT), which
covers the period 2005-2020. The Plan aims at setting up a wide range of actions with
regard to infrastructures and transport policy over a medium and long term horizon.
The Centre for Study & Experimentation in Public Works (Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas – CEDEX) is a government agency of the Ministry of
Public Works and Transport.
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio - MITC). The MITC is responsible for two key initiatives in the transport sector which
are the Competitiveness Plan of the Automotive Sector (e.g. Hybrid and battery electric
vehicles) and the MOVELE project104 (Electric Mobility Pilot Project).
The Interior Ministry (Ministerio de Interior - MI) is in charge of plans, programmes
and policy related to road safety. For instance, a wide range of raw traffic data is collected by the DGT (Dirección General de Tráfico) that are used to provide relevant
analyses and statistics. This information is afterwards used by many research studies
(inputs to models, etc.).
Ministry of Environment (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rura y Marino MARM). With regard to the transport sector, the MARM elaborated a document about
the Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Mobility (Estrategia Española para la movilidad
sostenible).
10.6 Italy
The automotive sector is Italian manufacturing's star performer not least because of the
important contributions it makes to R&D at the national level and to its role in the introduction of new technologies on the international scene. Automakers and automotive
103 See e.g. the SERtec platform (automotive industry) http://www.plataformasertec.es/
The rail TP http://www.ptferroviaria.es/
The aerospace TP http://plataforma-aeroespacial.org/
The maritime TP http://www.ptmaritima.org/
104 http://www.idae.es/index.php/mod.pags/mem.detalle/id.407
173
related industries can profit from the research activities of "Centro Ricerche FIAT"
(CRF) which is specialised in R&D activities on engines, vehicles, electronic systems,
productive processes and technical/managerial methodologies. The CRF is unique
within the Italian R&D community being entirely financed by private capital and wholly
dedicated to transferring its R&D results to industry.
The shipbuilding industry in Italy is a diverse sector that includes the production of
large cargo vessels and cruise liners, essentially by the largest companies in the sector, and the construction of sports and leisure. In the large cargo and cruise ships sector, Fincantieri is one of the world’s most prominent and diversified realities in marine
engineering, the world leader in cruise shipbuilding and the reference operator for large
ferries and the military sector.
R&D strategy & actors
Ministerial Decree published on the 20th May 2008 official journal represents the legal
framework of reference for state aid for research, development and innovation, which
includes also calls “Industria 2015”105 on the new industrial policy.
Within the draft bill “Industria 2015”, Ministry of Economic Development is financing 25
R&D projects for sustainable mobility; the total amount of investments is around €450
million, which corresponds to the total funding of €180 million.
In 2009, Ministry for Environment and Territory launched a call for co-financing actions
aimed at improving air quality in urban areas and strengthening of public transport. This
call was addressed to municipalities with less than 30000 inhabitants and not included
in metropolitan areas. This is one of the measures promoted by the Sustainable Mobility Fund for 2007-2009 of the Ministry and for which they were provided €34.9 million106.
In line with the experience of European Technology Platforms, Italy created the Italian
‘Mare’ Technology Platform – PTNM107, involving all stakeholders related to the sea
(either economic, scientific or institutional), aimed at reaching a consolidated networking among actors, a shared vision in terms of technological growth, and developing
initiatives of national relevance.
105 http://www.industria2015.ipi.it/?id=13
106http://www.minambiente.it/opencms/opencms/home_it/menu.html?mp=/menu/menu_attivita/&m=Mobili
ta.html
107 http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/site.php?o=vh&id_cat=172
174
GHG-TransPoRD D1
The PTNM has developed the Italian Strategic Research Agenda – SRA-IT, which
identifies the research and innovation topics interesting for the national cluster as well
as the opportunity for their development at the Italian or European/International level.
As a first step in implementing the SRA-IT, the PTNM has already proposed:
•
A national research programme: RITMARE programme – Italian Research for
the sea.
•
A consistent set of actions on Marine Technologies, with reference to the Industria 2015 programme.
The PTNM considers the High-Technology Regional Districts as the priority tools to
develop its initiatives, and is involved in their networking. At present the reference Districts are as follows:
•
Distretto tecnologico siciliano sui trasporti navali commerciali e da diporto (Maritime Commercial and Leisure Transport Technologies)
•
Distretto tecnologico navale e nautico del Friuli Venezia Giulia (Shipbuilding
and Boatbuilding Technologies)
•
Distretto tecnologico del mare delle Marche (Maritime Technologies)
•
Distretto ligure delle tecnologie marine (Marine Technologies)
•
Distretto tecnologico campano sui materiali compositi e polimerici (Composite
and Polymeric Materials Technologies)
•
Distretto tecnologico ligure sui sistemi intelligenti integrati (Integrated Intelligent
Systems Technologies)
In January 2010, the Ministry of Education, University and Research has published a
call for submission of projects of industrial research and not dominating experimental
development activities, and related training projects of researchers and/or research
technicians108. Applicants are eligible if they have a permanent establishment located
in one of regions under the Convergence objective or undertake to set it in such areas.
One of the area of intervention is “transport and advanced logistics”, which means design and development of systems and technologies for the realization of transport systems and improvement of land and naval transport logistics and mobility of people and
goods.
108http://www.istruzione.it/web/ricerca/dettaglio-news/dettaglioNews/viewDettaglio/12804/11213
175
10.7 Poland
The automotive industry in Poland is considered as important economic sector. In 2008
car manufacturers produced 840 000 cars and 90000 light commercial vehicles (OICA,
2010).
R&D Strategy and Programmes
In October 2008 the National Programme for Scientific Research and Development
Activities was published by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Its main aim
is to intensify the role of the research society in shaping modern and long-term circumstances for society and economy development. The current National Programme encompasses five interdisciplinary priority research areas (Euraxess, 2010), which are:
society, health, energy and infrastructure, modern technology for economy and agriculture, and environment.
The National Strategic Reference Framework in support of growth and jobs (NSRF) is
the document defining development measures that are to be undertaken by the Polish
government in the period of 2007-2013 in terms of promoting the sustainable economic
growth, the competitiveness increase and the employment growth (MRD, 2006). At the
same time the NSRF serve to ensure an effective assistance for regions and vulnerable social groups, and assistance in restructuring sectors and regions with problems.
With respect to transport the focus is set on the infrastructure. Linking Europe by
means of the European networks is one of the fundamental political objectives of the
EU foreseen for 2007-2013. Highly efficient trans-European networks (TEN) are the
necessary catalysts for the constant flow of goods, citizens and energy in the enlarged
Union. Measures supporting the creation of an efficient and stable transport system are
the issues which are absolutely necessary to achieve better performance of the economy. The co-ordination and participation of the European Union in the financing, with
particular emphasis on the cross-border measures should ensure cohesion in the scale
of the whole continent and a long-term stability.
Transport R&D funders
The majority of transport research in Poland is co-funded and organised by the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education (TRKC, 2009). The National Strategic Reference
Framework is developed by the Ministry of Regional Development. Furthermore, the
Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Infrastructure are involved as well.
176
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Ministries (or other set- Agencies and Intermediary Public Research Organiting transport R&D priori- organizations (Implemenzations
ties or funding transport
tation)
R&D)
Belgium
Federal level:
• FOD/SPF (Federale
Overheidsdienst/Service
Public Federal) – Mobility
and Transports
• FOD/SPF – Economy,
S.M.E.s, Self-employed
IWT-Flanders: Institute for
the promotion of innovation
by science and technology in
Flanders
FWO Flanders: Fund for
scientific research in Flanders
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
Austrian Institute for
Technology (AIT)
Joanneum Research
(energy and transport unit)
Austrian Transport and
Mobility Research Centre
A3PS – Austrian
Agency for Alternative Propulsion
Systems
IV2Splus - Intelligent
The Länder have
individual programmes Transport Systems
and Services plus
(2007-2012); (Strategy Programme on
Mobility and Transport Technologies for
Austria) including the
following four programmes:
• A3plus: Alternative propulsion
systems and fuels
• i2V: Intermodality and interoperability of transport
systems
• ways2go: Technologies for evolving mobility needs
• impuls: Basic
research for innovations in transport
Austrian Aeronautics Research and
Technology Programme (TAKE
OFF)
Belgian Road Safety
Institute (IBSR)
Flanders Institute for
Logistics (VIL)
Institut Scientifique de
Service Public (ISSeP)
Belgian Road
Research Centre
(BRRC)
Flemish Region:
• Flanders Mobility
(Mobiel Vlaanderen)
• Flemish Foundation for Traffic knowledge (FFT)
Walloon Region:
Austria
Ministry for Transport,
Research Promotion Fund
Innovation and Technology (Forschungsförderungs(BMVIT)
gesellschaft)
Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and
Water management
Ministry for Science and
Research
Research Councils
PPP / private
institutes
Science for a Sustainable Development
Programme (20052009)
Policy Research
Centre Mobility &
Public Works, track
Agencies and Intermediary Public Research Organiorganizations (Implemenzations
tation)
VITO (Flemish Government)
Road Executive Agency
(REA) (from MRDPW)
Environment Protection
Agency (EPA)
National Innovation Fund
Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences
Agricultural Academy
(formely National Centre
of Agrarian Sciences)
National Council for Scientific Research (NCSR)
Technical University of
Sofia (TU-Sofia)
Bulgaria
Technology Stimulation
Agency (AST) – (Walloon
Region)
Ministry of Education and
Science (MES)
Ministry of Transport and
Communications (MOTC
Ministry of Environment
and Water (MEW)
Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works
(MRDPW)
National Science Council
Cyprus
Ministries (or other setting transport R&D priorities or funding transport
R&D)
and Energy
• FOD/SPF – Health,
Food chain safety and
Environment
Flemish Government
• Policy domain Environment, Nature and
Energy
• Policy domain Mobility
and Public Works
Walloon Public Service
(from 2008)
• Policy domain Environment and Natural
Resources
• Policy domain Transport and Mobility
177
Ministry of Communications The planning bureau defines
and Works
and co-ordinates all government interventions in favour
Ministry of Finance
of research
The Research Promotion
Foundation (RPF) is a non
Agricultural Research
Institute (ARI)
Cyprus International Institute (CII) for the environment and public health (in
association with the Har-
PPP / private
institutes
Central Roads
and Bridges
Laboratory
(CRBL)
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
• Walloon Public
Service
• Standing Conference on Territorial
Development
(CPDT)
Traffic Safety (20072011)
Prospective research
in Brussels programme (PRIB)
National innovation
strategy
Operational Programme Sustainable
Development and
Competitiveness
(2007-2013)
178
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Denmark
Czech Republic
Ministries (or other set- Agencies and Intermediary
ting transport R&D priori- organizations (Implementies or funding transport
tation)
R&D)
profit independent institution
used as an interface with the
scientific community.
Public Research Organizations
PPP / private
institutes
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
vard School of Public
health).
Cyprus Institute of Technology
Ministry of Transport
Technology Agency CR
(MDCR)
Ministry for Regional Development
Ministry of the Environment
of the Czech Republic
Council for Research,
Development and Innovation (CRDI)
Czech Science Foundation
Academy of Sciences
(with more than 50 institutes)
Transport Research Centre (CDV)
Aeronautic Research and
Test Institute (VZLU)
National Research
Programme of the
Sustainable Transport Development
Implementation
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
Danish Road Institute
(Ministry of Transport)
Denmark
• DTU Transport
• Risø DTU – National
Laboratory for Sustainable Energy
Strategic Transport
Research
Danish Agency for Science,
Technology and Innovation
Danish Road Directorate
Rail Net Denmark
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
Danish Board of technology
Danish Council for Independent Research (DFF)
Danish National Advanced
Technology Foundation
Danish Civil Aviation Administration (CAA-DK)
179
Finland
Estonia
tation)
R&D)
PPP / private
institutes
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Transportation
Ministry of Education
Research and Development Council (TAN)
Estonian Road Administration
Estonian Research Foundation (ETF)
Estonian Technology Agency
(ESTAG)
Estonian Regional Development Agency
Estonian Road Administration
Estonian Academy of
Sciences
Tallinn University of Technology
Estonian National
Programme for Road
Safety (2003-2010)
Long Term Programme for Road
Management (20022010)
Communications
Ministry of Trade and
Industry
Science and Technology
Policy Council
Tekes – Finnish Funding
Agency for Technology and
Innovation
Finnish Road Administration
(FINNRA)
Finnish Rail Administration
Finnish Maritime Administration
Finnish Vehicle Administration
The Academy of Finland
finances fundamental academic research
VTT Technical Research
Centre of Finland
Helsinki
Tampere
University of Turku
Research programme
on road transport
energy efficiency
(TRANSECO, 20092013)
and Communications
Research Programme
Transport Administration Research Programme (2010-2014)
LINTU – Long-term
Research and Development Programme
for Road Safety
(2002-2010)
Intelligent Transport
(ALLI, 2007-2010)
BioRefine 2007-2012
- New Biomass
Products
Safe Traffic 2025
180
GHG-TransPoRD D1
tation)
R&D)
ANR – National Research
Agency
ADEME - French Environment and Energy ManageMinistry of National Educa- ment Agency
tion, Advanced Instruction, OSEO Innovation
and Research
DGAC - French Civil Aviation
Ministry of Defence
Authority
Ministry for the Economy,
Industry and Employment
France
Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Sea
(MEEDDM)
Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries
PPP / private
institutes
INRETS – National Institute Pôles de compétifor Transport and Safety
tivité
Research
OSEO Innovation
LCPC - National Laboratory
for Road Research
IFP – French Institute of
Petroleum
CNRS - National Centre for
Scientific Research
CEA - French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission
INRA - French National
Institute for Agricultural
Research
ONERA – French Aerospace Laboratory
CETMEF (Centre d'Études
Techniques Maritimes et
Fluviales)
CERTU (Centre d'Études
sur les Réseaux, les Transports, l'Urbanisme et les
Constructions Publiques)
SETRA (Services d'Etudes
sur les Transports, les
Routes et leurs Aménagements)
STAC (Service Technique
de l'Aviation Civile)
Regional research
RT3 network (Interregional Network for
Technological research and Land
Transport)
GRRT – Regional
Group for Research in
Transport in NordPas-de-Calais (part of
RT3 network)
Transport R&D
programmes
PREDIT 4 - Land
Transport Research
Programme (20082012)
Hpac – Hydrogen
and fuel cells (funded
by ANR, 2009-2011)
RGC&U - Research
network on civil and
urban engineering
Regional Research
and Technology Dele- National Research
Programme on Biogations DRRT
energy
Regional Consultative
Committees on Tech- Aeronautics Research Programme
nological Research
(DGAC, MEEDDM)
and Development
CCRRDT
Regional Innovation
and Technology
Transfer Centre
CRITT
181
tation)
R&D)
Ministry for Economy and
Technology (BMWi)
and Nuclear Safety BMU
Research (BMBF)
Ministry of Transport,
Building and Urban Affairs
(BMVBS)
Germany
Ministry of Consumer
Protection, Food and Agriculture (BMELV)
DFG – German Research
Foundation (project funding
at universities)
Project Agency Jülich (part
of Helmholtz Society)
PPP / private
institutes
Helmholtz Society, out of German Federawhich in transport retion of Industrial
search are DLR; FZ Jülich Cooperative
Research assoFraunhofer Society, out of ciations AIF
which in transport research are ISI; IBP; IAO,
A number of
institutionalised
FVV
cooperations, e.g.
Leibniz-society, out of
Innovation Alliwhich special and urban
ance Lithium Ion
planning are ARL; ILS
Battery (LIB 2015)
Max-Planck Society
Innovation AlliSeveral so called “Forance Electronics
schungsverbände” or
for Motor Vehicles
research-networks aim to (EENOVA)
coordinate the activities of
non-university research
centres in specific fields
(see also under PPP).
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
Within the federalist
setting of the German
research system,
funding of R&D is
organised both on the
national and the federal level, with (basic)
university funding
mainly in the competence of Länder and
more applied funding
under shared competence of the federal
government and the
Länder.
3rd Transport Research Programme
"Mobility and Transport Technology"
including LIB 2015,
BIP, EENOVA
(BMWi, BMU, BMBF,
BMVBS)
2nd Recovery Package " including LIB
2015, BIP, EENOVA
(BMWi, BMU, BMBF,
BMVBS)
4th Research Programme Aviation
Funding of regional
research centres such (BMWi)
as ZSW, ZAE, ISFH,
Research ProDEWI, ISET
gramme 2005-2010
(BMWi)
Climate protection
through innovation in
materials for the
automotive sector
(BMBF)
Meseberg Programme (BMWi,
BMU, BMBF,
BMVBS, BMELV)
5th Energy Programme "Innovation
and Energy Technology" (BMWi, BMU,
182
GHG-TransPoRD D1
tation)
R&D)
PPP / private
institutes
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
Hungary
Greece
BMELV, BMBF)
Ministry of Transportation
and Communications
Ministry of Development
Ministry of Economy and
Finance
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Mercantile
Marine
Hellenic Ministry for the
Environment, Physical
Planning and Public Works
National Council for Research and Technology
General Secretariat for
Research and Technology
(GSRT, from the Ministry of
Development)
National Foundation for
Agricultural Research
(NAGREF)
Centre for Research and
Technology Hellas
(CERTH), including:
• Hellenic Institute of
Transport (HIT)
• Institute of Agrobiotechnology (INA)
• Informatics and
Telematics Institute (ITI)
National Centre for Scientific Research (Demokritos)
Centre for Renewable
Energy Sources (CRES)
Telecommunication and
Energy (KHEM)
and Water (KVVM)
Culture (OM)
Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development
National Transport Authority
National Transport Authority
Institute for Transport
Sciences (KTI)
Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
GSRT also aims
to encourage
partnerships
between research
organisations and
industry
National Engineering Research
Institute of Greece
(NERIG)
Operational Programme Competitiveness and Innovation 2007-2013
Hungarian mediumterm road research
programme
Hungarian Scientific
Research Fund
(OTKA)
National Technology
Programme (NKFPJEDLIK)
Transportation Operative Program
2007-2013 (rail)
183
Ireland
Department of Transport
Department of Education
and Science
Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Employment
Department of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government
National Roads Authority
(NRA)
Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (DAFF)
Irish Energy Research
Council
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Enterprise Ireland
Irish Research Council for
Science, Engineering and
Technology (IRCSET)
Sustainable Energy Authority
of Ireland
Agriculture and Food Development Authority
(TEAGASC)
Italy
tation)
R&D)
Ministry of Education,
University and Research
(MIUR)
Ministry of Infrastructure
and Transport (MIT)
Ministry for Public Administration and Innovation
Ministry of Economic Development
Ministry for Environment
and Territory
National Research Council
(CNR)
Ministries are directly funding Italian National Agency for
research
New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development
(ENEA)
National Institute for Statistics (ISTAT)
Italian Aerospace Research Centre (CIRA,
mainly public)
Combustion Research
Institute (biomass)
Centre for Transportation
Research and Innovation
for People (TRIP)
Marine Institute (MI)
PPP / private
institutes
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
Dublin Transportation
Office
National Development Plan (NDP)
2007-2013
Science Foundation
Ireland (SFI)
Programme for Research in Third Level
Institutions (19982012)
Research in the
National Roads
Authority
CETENA (Ship
Regional agency for
Research Centre) innovation (VENNInn)
CIRA (Italian
Aerospace Research Centre)
ELASIS, CRF
(Fiat Group)
National Operation
Programme (NOP)
Scientific Research,
Technological Development, Higher
Training (PON
Ricerca e Competitività 2007-2013)
Industria 2015 programme
National Space Plan
(NSP)
Aerospace Research
Programme
184
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Latvia
Transport R&D
programmes
The Ministry of Education
Latvian Council of Science
and Science
Latvian Council of Sciences
Ministry of Economics
Investment and Development Agency
Transport and Telecommunication Institute (TTI)
Riga Technical University
Telematics and Logistics
Institute
University of Agriculture of
Latvia
Lithuania
Regional research
Communications
Science
Science Council of Lithuania
Agency for International
Science and Technology
Development Programmes in
Lithuania
Lithuanian Road Administration (LRA)
Lithuanian State Science
and Studies Foundation
Transport and Road ReDevelopment
search Institute
Agency for SMEs
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Kaunas University of
Technology
Klaipeda University
Lithuanian Road
Research Programme
Luxembourg
PPP / private
institutes
Ministry of Culture, Higher
Education and Research
- The Luxembourg Portal
for Innovation and Research
Ministry of Sustainable
Development and Infrastructure
- Department of Transport
Luxinnovation
Highways Directorate
National Research Fund
(Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg)
Henri Tudor Public Research Centre (CRPHT)
Gabriel Lippmann Public
Research Centre
INTER programme:
Promotion of International Collaboration
Ministry for Infrastructure,
Malta Environment and
Transport and Communica- Planning Authority (MEPA)
tions (MITC)
Ministry of Health
Malta Council for Science
and Technology (MCST)
University of Malta
Malta
tation)
R&D)
National Research
and Innovation (R&I)
programme
Latvian Transport Interreg IIIB proDevelopment and grammes
Education Association (LatDEA)
National Transport
Development Programme (1996-2010)
185
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
tation)
R&D)
Senter Novem
Public Works and Water
NWO (Netherlands foundaManagement (VenW)
tion for scientific research)
Culture and Science
Ministry of Economic Affairs
Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment
Institute for Road Safety
Research (SWOV)
Energy Research Centre
of the Netherlands (ECN)
TNO (Research organisation for Applied Natural
Sciences)
Wageningen UR institute
for agro technology and
food innovation
Ministry of Science and
Higher education
Ministry of Economy
Ministry of Infrastructure
National Energy Conservation Agency
Technical University Warsaw
Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN)
Technical Research Centre for Railways
Institute for Road and
Bridge Research (IBDiM)
National Centre for Research and Development
(NCBiR)
Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education
Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Development
Ministry of Agriculture,
Rural Development and
Fisheries
Innovation Agency (ADI)
National Institute for Engineering and Industrial Technology (INETI)
Science and Higher Education Observatory (OCES)
Foundation for Science and
Technology (FCT)
CEEETA - Centro de
Estudos em Economia da
Energia, dos Transportes
e do Ambiente
National Laboratory for
Civil Engineering (LNEC)
PPP / private
institutes
Connekt
Information and
Technology Centre for transport
and Infrastructure
(CROW)
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
High Tech Automotive Systems (HTAS)
innovation programme
Energy Research
Strategy of the Netherlands
National Programme
for Scientific Research and Development Activities
National programme
of road traffic safety
Innovation Agency
(ADI)
National Programmes
for Scientific Research and Development Activities
186
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
Romanian Agency for Energy Conservation
Polytechnic University of
Bucharest
Transport Research Institute (INCERTRANS)
National Plan II for
R&D (2007-2013)
Communications
Ministry of Economy
Slovak Innovation and Energy Agency
Slovak Research and Development Agency
Slovak Academy of Science
(SAS)
VEGA grant agency
Transport Research Institute (TRI)
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava
University of Žilina
Research Programme of Ministry of
Transport and Communications 20052015
Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology
Council for Science and
Technology
Slovenian Research Agency
(ARRS)
Public Agency for Technology of the Republic of Slovenia (TIA)
University of Ljubljana
Jožef Stefan Institute
National Institute of Chemistry
National Research
and Development
Programme 20062010
Competitiveness of
Slovenia 2006-2013
Ministry of Science and
Innovation (MICINN)
Ministry of Public Works
and Transport (MF)
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade (MITC)
(MARM)
Interior Ministry (MI)
Inter-ministerial Commission for Science and Technology (CICYT)
Centre for the Development
of Industrial Technology
(CDTI)
CIDAUT (Research and
Development Centre in
Transport & Energy)
High Council for Scientific
Research (CSIC)
Republic
Slovak
Romania
Research and Innovation
Infrastructure
National Authority for Scientific Research
Slovenia
PPP / private
institutes
Spain
tation)
R&D)
Science, Technology
and Innovation Plan
2010 (Basque Country)
Inter-ministerial Council for Research and
Technological Innovation (Government of
Catalonia)
National Plan of
Research, Development and Technological Innovation
2008-2011
Aeronautic National
Plan
187
tation)
R&D)
Swedish Energy Agency
(STEM)
Swedish Research Council
(VR)
Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems (VINNOVA)
Swedish Research Council
for Environment, Agricultural
Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas)
Swedish Road Administration
Swedish National Rail Administration
Swedish Maritime Administration
Swedish Civil Aviation Administration
Department for Transport
Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA)
Department of Energy and
Climate Change
Department for Communities and Local Government
Technology Strategy Board
UK energy research centre
Energy Research Partnerships
Commission for Integrated
Transport
Office for Low Emission
Vehicles (under Dft)
Highway Agency
Maritime and Coastguard
Agency
Civil Aviation Authority
There are 6 grant-awarding
Research advisory councils;
most relevant for transport
R&D are the Engineering
UK
Sweden
Ministry of Enterprise,
Energy and Communications
Research
PPP / private
institutes
Regional research
Foundation for Strategic
Environmental Research
Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental
Engineering
Technical Research Institute of Sweden
Transport R&D
programmes
VINNOVA Transport
Research Programmes
Aeronautical Development and Demonstration Programme
Biomass Programme
Energy System
Programme
Swedish Energy
Agency Research
Programmes
Swedish National
Rail Administration
Research innovation
strategy (2006-2011)
Swedish Road Administration Research
and Development
Programme
Energy Research Regional Development
Agency
Partnerships
Energy Technologies Institute: The
ETI’s six private
members are BP,
Caterpillar, EDF
Energy, E.ON,
Rolls-Royce and
Shell.
Innovation Platforms on Intelligent Transport
Ultra low carbon
vehicle programme
Electric plug-in programme
188
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Ministries (or other set- Agencies and Intermediary Public Research OrganiPPP / private
ting transport R&D priori- organizations (Implemenzations
institutes
tation)
R&D)
and Physical Sciences
Systems and
Research Council and the
Services and Low
Economic and Social ReCarbon Vehicles
search Council
Energy Technologies Institute
Carbon Trust
Energy Saving Trust
Regional research
Transport R&D
programmes
189
11. Overview of product-related environmental innovations by automotive manufacturers
Group
Brands*
Vehicle
sales
2005
General Motors
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet,
GMC,
GM,
Pontiac, Saturn, Holden,
Saab,
Opel,
Vauxhall,
Hummer,
(Isuzu), (Fiat), (Daewoo)
9.2 million
Toyota
Motor
Corp. (TMC)
Toyota, Lexus,
hatsu, (Hino)
8 million
Dai-
Vehicle/fuel innovations for the environment
• GM took a lead in researching catalytic
technology in the 1970s; since 2004,
launched Active Fuel Management technology within Vortec V-8 engine family, which
turns off unused cylinders improving energy
efficiency by up to 8 per cent.
• Leader in flexible-fuel vehicle production
and sales, with more than 1.5 million flexfuel vehicles already on the road. Nine
models (incl. Saab BioPower) are E85capable, which allows these vehicles to run
on ethanol fuel as well as petrol.
• First to launch battery-electric vehicle (BEV)
in the US, with market introduction of EV1 in
1996; launch of hybrid bus in 2003; due to
launch hybrid truck and SUV in 2006; developing two-mode hybrid system in partnership with DaimlerChrysler and BMW.
• Investment in fuel cell R&D since 1964;
launched fuel cell Zafira minivan in 1998
and Precept fuel cell-electric concept car in
2000; between 2001 and 2004, entered alliances with Quantum, General Hydrogen,
Hydrogenics Corporation, ChevronTexaco,
Suzuki, BMW, US Army, Dow Chemical,
Federal Express, Shell Hydrogen and
Shanghai Automotive to further develop hydrogen technologies, markets and infrastructure and launched AUTOnomy and
Hywire x-by-wire FC cars; in 2004, announced plans to be the first company to
sell 1 million hydrogen FC cars by 2015.
• Since 1988, GM diversified its business
model to include vehicle leasing and financial services.
• First to produce commercial hybrid car, the
Prius, in 1997; formed alliance with battery
manufacturers Matsushita; electric Rav4
sold to several Japanese authorities; luxury
SUV hybrid, Lexus RX 400h, launched in
2005; sales of hybrids reached 300,000 in
2005 and company plans to sell more than 1
million by 2010; currently investing in R&D
for plug-in hybrid vehicles and nextgeneration hybrids with improved battery
190
Group
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Brands*
Vehicle
sales
2005
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ford Motor Co.
Ford, Lincoln Mercury,
Jaguar, Volvo, Aston
Martin, Th!nk (until
2003), Land Rover
(Mazda)
6.8 million
•
•
•
•
range; aims to double the number of hybrid
models by early 2010s.
In 2006, completed technology development
to allow all TMC gasoline engines to run reliably on gasoline with 10 percent bioethanol content; plans to introduce to the
Brazilian market (where bio-ethanol fuel is
widely used) flex-fuel vehicles that can run
on 100 percent ethanol in spring 2007.
Experimental fuel cell RAV4 launched in
1996; Fine-X concept car launched in 2006;
fuel cell development has focused on reducing the time required for sub-zero fuel-cellsystem start-up.
Other R&D focused on achieving cleaner
exhaust emissions, improving fuel efficiency
(e.g., through Dual Variable Valve Timing),
and reducing size and weight.
Moving into provision of mobility services as
well as manufacturing, e.g. Aygo model
launched in Sweden only for personal rental
in 2006.
Daihatsu - as a small-size car manufacturer
- pioneered BEV technology between 1971
and 1995; Toyota also developed BEVs for
Japanese pilot schemes in 1990s.
Hino/TMC fuel cell buses adopted in 2003
by Tokyo metropolitan government; since
2006, they serve Central Japan International
Airport as part of METI’s Japan Hydrogen
and Fuel Cell Demonstration Project.
Fast follower (after GM) in catalytic converter technology development in 1970s;
currently active in clean-diesel technologies.
Recent investment in hydrogen and fuel
cells R&D; Ford launched fuel cell P2000 in
1999 and Th!nk FC5 prototype in 2000; in
2004, Ford launched demonstration hydrogen-powered hydrogen ICE shuttle bus described as transition technology to encourage hydrogen supply infrastructure
build-up - with first sales announced in
2006; in 2006, producing a demonstration
fleet of 30 Focus Fuel Cell Vehicles in collaboration with its alliance with Ballard
Power Systems.
Pioneer in ethanol-gasoline flexi-fuel technology, Ford has sold more than 2m ethanol-capable vehicles since 1996.
In 1999, Ford bought the Norwegian envi-
Group
Brands*
191
Vehicle
sales
2005
•
•
Volkswagen
Group
VW, Skoda, Bentley,
Bugatti
5.2 million
Audi, Seat, Lamborghini
0.9 million
•
•
•
•
•
ronmental car company, Th!nk, but announced in 2002, that it was selling it to focus on hybrid and fuel cell technologies instead of Th!nk’s electric powered Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs).
In 2004, Ford launched the first hybrid ICEelectric SUV, the Escape; two more hybrid
SUV models are due to launch in 2007.
Pioneer in vehicle financing, with establishment of Ford Credit in 1959; after acquiring
US’s largest car hire firm, Hertz, in 1994
Ford sold it in 2005 in order to reduce its
mounting debts.
Pioneer in vehicle fuel efficiency: launch in
July 1999 of Lupo ‘3 Litre’ TDI, first production car to offer fuel consumption of just 3
litres per 100km; model discontinued in
2005 due to lack of demand (production of
the Audi A2 1.2 TDI had already been discontinued); from 2006, particulate filters
available on all new Volkswagen, SEAT and
Skoda vehicles; currently developing clean
diesel technologies and working on a dieselpetrol combined combustion system.
Volkswagen has invested in hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D for several decades; in 2006,
Volkswagen joined the Clean Energy Partnership (CEP), the global hydrogen demonstration project offering its VW Touran HyMotion to the CEP passenger car fleet; also
in 2006, VW announces it has developed
novel high temperature fuel cell (HTFC) after 7-years R&D.
In 1997, Audi became the first manufacturer
in Europe to mass produce a hybrid vehicle
(A4 Duo); Volkswagen plans to launch a hybrid version of the Touran for 2008 Olympic
Games; also in 2008, Audi will launch hybrid
version of its Q7.
From 2006, the Group will offer LPG vehicles in China, especially for taxi fleets, and
extend number of natural gas models available; it is also developing next generation of
biofuels (‘SunFuel’).
Since 2002, Volkswagen Group have significantly expanded its service sector business, which includes financing, insurance
and leasing products.
192
Group
Renault-Nissan
Alliance
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Brands*
Renault, Dacia, Samsung, Alpine, Nissan,
Infiniti, RVI, Mack,
Nissan Diesel
Vehicle
sales
2005
6.1 million
• Nissan - Developed BEV prototypes in
1990s and launched Prairie EV in US in
1998, following launches of GM and Toyota
BEVs. Laggard in hybrid technology; formed
alliance in 1999 with Sony for battery production, and later Shin-Kobe Electric, after
Sony discontinued Li-ion battery development; entered 10-year alliance with Toyota
in 2002 to produce hybrid vehicles using
Toyota-supplied system components; in
2006, announced plans to sell a plug-in hybrid vehicle developed in-house (without
Toyota) by 2010.
• Engaged in fuel cell R&D activities since
2002; began leasing its X-TRAIL fuel cell
vehicle to a limited number of customers in
March 2004; in 2005, announced development of its first in-house fuel cell stack, as
well as a new high-pressure hydrogen storage system.
• First introduced CVT (continuously variable
transmission), to increase fuel efficiency, to
its passenger vehicle range in 1992; in
2005, announced fourfold increase in vehicles fitted with CVT.
• Renault - collaborating with Peugeot on fuel
cell technologies (see below); also working
with Nuvera on hydrocarbon reformer, and
with BMW on the use of solid oxide fuel cells
for auxiliary power; only developed prototype fuel cell vehicles to date, with plans to
produce first commercial FC vehicles by
2015.
• Involved in vehicle and infrastructure R&D
for BEVs since 1970s, in response to government initiative and led by French electricity utility.
• In 2003, Renault launched the first production plug-in hybrid model (Kangoo van).
In 2006, Renault announced that by 2009 all
its diesel engines will be able to run on a 30
per cent biodiesel blend, and that about half of
its cars will be able to run on an ethanol blend;
the firm also started marketing flex-fuel vehicles in Brazil.
Group
Brands*
193
Vehicle
sales
2005
DaimlerChrysler
Maybach,
Mercedes
Benz,
Chrysler,
Dodge, Jeep, Smart,
Freightliner,
Setra,
Mitsubishi Fuso, Sterling, Western Star,
Orion, Thomas Built
Buses
4.9 million
PSA
Citroën
Peugeot, Citroën
3.4 million
Peugeot
• Daimler-Benz began investing in hydrogen
vehicles in 1973, launching minivan in 1975.
Ford has a partnership with DaimlerChrysler
and Ballard to develop hydrogen ICE cars.
DaimlerChrysler asserted itself as industry
leader in development of fuel cell vehicles,
with launch of NECAR4 in 1999; in 2001,
CUTE and ECTOS projects launched to test
Mercedes-Benz fuel cell buses in ten European cities; 60 Mercedes-Benz A-Class FCell passenger cars are being operated by
customers in Singapore, Japan, Germany
and the U.S; current development focuses
on increasing the range of FC vehicles from
100 miles to 250 miles by 2010, and customer tests of the second generation of FC
vehicles.
• During the 1990s, DaimlerBenz collaborate
with AEG to develop advanced BEVs. DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses teamed up
with BAE Systems in 1997 to become the
first to introduce clean diesel hybrid-electric
technology to North America; several US cities now run DaimlerChrysler diesel hybrid
buses within its fleets. In 2006, DaimlerChrysler launches hybrid electric commercial vehicle for the Japanese market. The
new Canter Eco Hybrid truck is claimed to
have the best environmental performance of
any commercially-available light truck in the
world.
• Developed and sold BEVs during 1990s,
including Tulip BEV and converted Peugeot
106 and Citroën AX models.
• Laggards in hybrid technology: commenced
HDi (diesel) hybrid programme in 2003; in
2006, unveil two Hybrid HDi demonstration
vehicles (the 307 and C4) that consume 3.4
l/100 km. The Group plans to launch the vehicles in 2008.
• In 1996, an alliance formed between Renault and Peugeot, Italian company De Nora,
French environment agency, to develop fuel
cell vehicle; in 2006, PSA presents its
GENEPAC fuel cell, developed in partnership with the CEA (French Atomic Energy
and Alternative Energies Commission). The
Group also opens a fuel cell research unit in
its Carrières sous Poissy research centre.
• Started using biofuels in its engines in 1998;
194
Group
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Brands*
Vehicle
sales
2005
•
Hyundai
Hyundai,
Motors
Kia,
Suzuki Motor Co.
Suzuki, (Daewoo)
Asia
2.5 million
2.2 million
•
•
•
Fiat Auto SpA
Fiat,
Alfa
Romeo,
Lancia, Ferrari, Maserati, IVECO, Fiat Veicoli Commerciali
1.9 million
•
•
•
•
currently all diesel and petrol vehicles can
use vegetable oil/ethanol blends of fuels; 80
per cent of sales in Brazil are flexi-fuel bioethanol engines.
CNG R&D started in 1994; commercial
launch of C3 CNG in 2005.
Developing hybrid and fuel cell technologies: first hybrid vehicle developed in 2004
with plans to market two hybrid models by
2007; in December 2004, it launched its
second generation of FC vehicle with a
range of 187 miles and sub-zero temperature start.
Developing natural gas, hybrid and fuel cell
technologies: Wagon R natural gas model
introduced (first NG vehicle in mini car
class) in 1997, and updated in 2004; Suzuki’s first hybrid car (the mini 2-seater Twin
Hybrid) introduced in 2003; since 2001, Suzuki has worked with GM in development of
FC electric technologies.
Suzuki has advanced lightweight vehicle
design since launch of Alto in 1979, then
Wagon R in 1993.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Fiat began
developing electric and methane-powered
vehicles: it produced electric versions of the
Panda and Cinquecento in the 1990s; in
2005, Fiat flex-fuel (alcohol and gasoline)
versions of the Palio and Mille models introduced to Brazilian market; launched natural
gas Doblò and Doblò Cargo in 2005, and
Panda Natural Power (CNG) in 2006.
Fuel cell development commenced in the
1990s; in 2001, Fiat debuted the Seicento
Elettra H2 Fuel Cell (co-developed with Italian Ministry for Environmental Affairs) and
the Seicento Hydrogen; the CityClass Fuel
Cell bus received type-approval and was
used at the Torino 2006 Winter Olympics;
demonstration Panda Hydrogen launched in
2005 with a range of over 125 miles, to be
commercially marketed within 15–20 years.
Fiat’s fuel efficiency development includes
the launch in 2005 of the Fire 1.4 8v engine
in the new Grande Punto, which uses a
phasing transformer to deliver increased fuel
efficiency.
Provides financial and rental services.
Group
Brands*
195
Vehicle
sales
2005
Honda Motor Co.
Honda, Acura
1.5 million
Mitsubishi
tors Corp.
Mitsubishi
1.4 million
Mo-
• Started to develop technologies for electric
vehicles in latter half of the 1980s and released the Honda EV Plus in 1996, although
development has since been ceased.
• Launch of natural gas-powered CIVIC GX in
1997.
• Unveiled fuel cell prototype vehicle FCX in
1999; in 2000, Honda released the FCX-V3
that installed a stack manufactured by Ballard and used high-pressure hydrogen as
fuel; July 2002, Honda’s fuel cell vehicle became the first in the world to obtain US government approval for commercialization; limited sales commenced in 2006 in Japan and
the US.
• Fast follower in hybrid technologies: in 1999,
it launched the Honda Insight - the first
mass-produced hybrid car sold in the US,
seven months ahead of the Prius but with
less sophisticated technology and no back
seat; it has since had commercial success
with the Civic IMA hybrid.
• Also investing R&D in lowering exhaust
emissions and improving fuel efficiency of
ICE engines, launching i-VTEC and i-DSI
engines in 1999.
• R&D focus on development of electric and
hybrid technologies: first Mitsubishi electric
cars sold in 1994 and first hybrid trialled in
1996; Aero hybrid bus entered service in
2002; prototype electric vehicle, Eclipse,
demonstrated and entered in several events
since 2001; since 2004, MMC have been
developing and testing the Colt EV to improve high-performance lithium ion battery
technology which powers in-wheel motors
(these will also be used in FC vehicles).
• Also developing natural gas and FC technologies: since 1990s, MMC has marketed a
light truck in Japan that is CNG-powered; in
2003, MMC received Japanese government
certification for its FC minivan and in 2004
began testing this vehicle (current range is
only 93 miles) as part of the Japan Hydrogen Fuel Cell (JHFC) Demonstration Project
sponsored by METI.
• MMC developed the GDI engine, the word’s
first mass produced direct-injection petrol
engine.
• 80 per cent of MMC’s gasoline vehicles sold
196
GHG-TransPoRD D1
Group
Brands*
Vehicle
sales
2005
•
BMW AG
BMW,
MINI
Rolls
Royce,
1.3 million
•
•
•
Mazda
Corp.
Motor
Mazda
0.9 million
•
•
•
in 2002 were classed as Low-Emission Vehicles by the Japanese government; in
2005, three models were classed as Super
Ultra Low Emission (SULEV), having exhaust emissions that are 75% lower than the
2005 Japanese emission standards.
MMC expanded its automotive finance business in Europe in 2006.
Fast follower (after Daimler-Benz) in hydrogen R&D; focus on H2-ICEs rather than fuel
cells, arguing that cost, weight, inexperience
in production, platinum requirements, and
unsuitable for dual-fuel use (favoured by
BMW) preclude FC use; BMW has built five
generations of liquid hydrogen cars since
1979.
During 1990s, BMW exhibited purposedesigned BEV prototypes: E1 and E2.
Other environmental R&D is focussed on
lightweight components and High Precision
Injection technology to improve fuel efficiency.
Also offers leasing and financing services.
Mazda was third manufacturer (after Daimler-Benz and BMW) to invest in H2 R&D,
launching a hydrogen hybrid 1l concept car
in 1991 powered by Wankel-type rotary engine (dropped by other manufacturers because of sealing and other technical problems) but argued to be more appropriate for
hydrogen; in 1993 launched next version of
1 litre car, and a H2 sports car; launched two
station wagons in 1994 and used by Nippon
Steel works which generates H2 as byproduct. In 1997 shifted to FC technology
from ICE technology; in 2006, delivered its
RX-8 Hydrogen RE to its first two corporate
customers. These vehicles, equipped with a
rotary engine, feature a dual-fuel system
that allows the driver to select either hydrogen or gasoline.
Mazda has been at the forefront of lowemission technologies since the 1970s,
when it introduced the cleanest vehicles in
the world: the Luce AP (Anti-Pollution) and
Savanna AP, in advance of US clean air
regulations. Recent advances in fuel efficiency include development of an exhaust
gas recirculation (EGR) cooler, electrical
charge/discharge control and direct-
Group
Brands*
197
Vehicle
sales
2005
injection-based Smart Idling Stop System. In
2003, Mazda started introducing diesel particulate filters on new vehicles. In 2005, the
new Demio (Mazda 2) model achieved
SULEV status.
• In collaboration with Ford, Mazda is developing the Tribute Hybrid; in 2006, it delivered ten of these vehicles to the Orange
County Fire Authority in California; Mazda
developed BEVs for Japanese pilot
schemes in 1990s, and in 2003 an electric
4WD model was added to the Demio series.
• Also development of biofuel vehicles: sales
of B5 (95 per cent diesel - 5 per cent biomass) vehicles in Europe have already
commenced.
Note: *Parentheses signify part-owned
Sources: Wells and Nieuwenhuis (2001); Ahman (2006); Gerard and Lave (2005); Hoffman (2001); Dyerson and Pilkington (2000); Miyazaki and Kijima (2000); Service (2004); Hekkert and van den Hoed (2006);
Gow (2006); automotive company websites and press releases.

Deliverable D1 (PDF / 1,7 MB) - GHG

Transcription

Similar documents

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards

borco.de secure the future!

tankers - Carmor

CACC CACC - Automobilismo

JUL-SEP 2013 Newsletter

“Philippine Automotive Manufacturers: Meeting the Challenges of

N A B D C E F G H

RHS AND CRYROP - Redlands High School

high pressure gss pumps

2014 valkyrie - Honda Powersports