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

2. Our Recent Experiences Project AcronymFunding CallFundingTime Period POREENEU Marie-Curie€38,0002012-2016 NPP SuLaEU Interreg£150,0002012-2014 MERITSEU FP7€250,0002012-2016 EINSTEINEU FP7€500,0002011-2015 NPP OCTESEU Interreg£150,0002011-2013 CESAREU FP7€355,0002011-2013 BiomaraEU Interreg£181,1892009-2013 DecarbitEU FP7£160,0002007-2012 ENCAPEU FP6€200,0002004-2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. The project structure

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

13. Lesson # 4 – Read the Finer Print! EU Project Assessment CriteriaEINSTEIN Response Collaborative Project 4 M Euro17 Partners 6.61 M Euro project New technologies & methodsSTES, Heat Pumps, etc Residential building stockPoland & Spain trials Not readily available/acceptable?Development of design tools Technology integration to reduce costs and improve comfort STES, Heat Pumps, etc Supply chain & end user involvementR&D, manufacturers, installers, specifiers, end-users Decision support systems and assessment tools Development of design tools Increase the overall efficiency by at least 30% Energy efficiency increase of 300% and primary energy reduction up to 70%

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

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