On 21 and 22 April the
SPIRE consortium and the European Commission organised a workshop on the impact
of the SPIRE PPP and associated FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects. The workshop
took place at Committee of the Regions offices in Brussels. This event was billed
as the first in a series of annual impact workshops and saw some 40 process-related
projects represented: 12 from Horizon 2020 and 28 from FP7. SusChem News will be looking to follow up on some of these projects and investigate their outcomes and potential impact in more detail.
Chairing the opening session José Lorenzo Vallés from the European
Commission said that PPPs offer a framework to encourage projects to work
together and supports transfer of results to the market. But key issues remain:
What impact is actually achieved? How can impact be improved? And specifically
for SPIRE how is it adding value?
Søren
Bøwadt of the European Commission outlined the current status of SPIRE projects
in Horizon 2020. “SPIRE is an integral part of the circular economy,” he
stated. “As development of the circular economy requires significant RTD and
Innovation investments.”
Project presentations
The first
day of the workshop saw presentations on project clusters with the aim of
assessing the impact achieved, the potential uptake and exploitation, the
benefits of clustering and identifying good practise to maximise impact.
Prof Gorak highlighted a range of technical
impacts from the development of highly selective hydrogenation catalysts
through new synthesis methodologies, and novel modularised processes, process
intensification and advanced design of integrated technologies, to combined
reaction and separation processes. Cost reduction, better safety
characteristics and improved resource and energy efficiency were also targeted.
Adaptable
processes
Denilson da Silva Perez of Institut Technologique Foret Cellulose
Bois-construction Ameublement (FCBA) based in Bordeaux presented a
cluster of projects looking to enable the use of renewable resources, such as biomass
and residues from different EU regions, and increase the efficiency and
economic viability of the transport of pre-treated biomass from decentralised rural locations.
Five projects in the domain of modelling and
elements of process control were described by Sebastian Engell of TU Dortmund. All
were of high industrial relevance and covered process control and resource
efficiency monitoring. Projects COOPOL and OPTICO focus on control: OPTICO examining multi-scale,
multi-phase phenomena to enable new technology and processes with process
improvements of ~17%, while COOPOL worked on control and real-time optimisation
providing a framework for intensification of chemical processes within a
limited timeframe.
MORE looked at near real time
monitoring of resource efficiency indicators (REIs) producing novel analytics,
and a new process dashboard including visualisation of multi-dimensional REIs.
Similarly TOP-REF looked to develop
homogeneous audit and diagnosis tools based on thermo-economics techniques.
Finally REFFIBRE modelled the impact of innovations on the circular
economy for improved resource efficiency.
Integrated
process control
Peter Singstad of Norwegian company Cybernetica
AS described four SPIRE projects covering control, instrumentation and mathematical
modelling with potential to transfer technology and knowledge between sectors.
RECOBA covered real time sensing, advanced control
and optimisation of batch processes that could save energy and raw materials.
From an economic standpoint the project could lead to material savings of typically
to 1-5% and up to 25%. The DISIRE project also used
integrated process control based on distributed in-situ sensors to optimise belt
conveyor transportation schemes used in minerals, mining and industrial
combustion processes. Similarly CONSENS (website under
construction) used integrated control and sensing for sustainable operation of
flexible intensified processes. The ProPAT project was also developing
an integrated process control platform able to utilise individual sensors and
methods for multi-sensory inputs leading to more efficient control of
processes.
Sebastian Engell noted that for control
solutions there was a huge gap between proven technology and what is actually applied
broadly in industry. Technical innovation was slow to permeate through to the
factory floor despite the relatively low investment required and low risk. This
needed to be improved to maximise impact.
Sustainability
and Circular Economy
The first domain discussed in the field of
sustainability and the circular economy was integrated management of resources.
Anna Sagar of SP Technical Research in Sweden described four projects E4WATER (developing and
implementing more efficient and sustainable water management in the chemical
industry), R4R (improving research
and cooperation between chemical regions in Europe), MefO2 (using waste CO2 to make methanol) and TASIO (demonstrating a modular approach to waste heat recovery
in the cement industry).
Jan Meneve of VITO then described projects
involved in waste recovery. He defined three waves of waste management: first remediation
driven by health and safety concepts; then commodity recycling driven by volume
issues; and now specifity recycling driven by value considerations. This last
wave was the focus of nine projects: RECLAIM, REMANENCE, HydroWEEE, RECYVAL-NANO, REEcover, RecycAl, ReFraSort, C2CA, and BIOMETALdemo. Jan stated that recycling by definition
represented the use of smart green technologies that reduced waste generation
while improving resource efficiency.
Life
cycle Management
The final set of three projects on day one were
presented by Amy Peace of BRITEST Limited and concerned lifecycle management. All
focused on developing recommendations on the current use of sustainability
indicators, tools and methodologies. There was close cooperation between the
three projects: SAMT was gathering
industrial best practise; STYLE was a pragmatic project
looking to see what can be achieved on a day-to-day basis; and MEASURE had the most academic focus to develop an
in-depth cross-sectorial Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) methodology. The joint aim is
to ensure that the sustainability impact of new SPIRE technologies can be
evaluated on a consistent basis.
Plenary
and panel discussion
The second day of the workshop was opened by Clara
de la Torre, Director ‘Key Enabling Technologies’ (KETs) at DG Research and
Innovation (below, right). She noted that SPIRE was now the second largest PPP in Horizon 2020
after the Factories of the Future initiative and she
stressed the importance of financial leverage in PPPs. “PPPs follow the same
processes as the normal Horizon 2020 programme, but represent a long-term commitment
by the Commission to support, and by industry to invest,” said Ms de la Torre.
But she emphasised that “Impact is the name of the game!”
This theme was taken up by Dr Klaus Sommer, Chairman
of A. SPIRE (above, left). “[SPIRE] must focus on the ‘wow’ factor,” he said. “Finding good
stories to promote in terms of impact and outcomes.” The integrated character
of SPIRE allowed for a systematic approach to impact from raw materials to end
user industries and R&D to the market.
He summarised the expected impacts of SPIRE: to
integrate and demonstrate at least 40 innovative systems and technologies. This
meant every SPIRE member needed to contribute. He also emphasised the need to
make it easier for SMEs to get involved. “The advantage of being in SPIRE is
that you can contribute to shaping the future,” concluded Dr Sommer. “Rather
than just experience it.”
The instruments available from the European
Investment Bank (EIB) for financing investments in KETs were outlined by Piermario
Di Pietro with a specific focus on the InnovFin scheme. He also sought
views on access-to-finance experiences, current or past, from established larger
SMEs or small mid-caps firms (minimum € 5 million annual turnover).
The next session highlighted four projects that
have made high impact: SYNFLOW (looking at innovative
synthesis in continuous flow operations in particular to reduce waste in the
production of pharmaceuticals and other fine chemicals); COOPOL (looking at control of
emulsion polymerisation; specifically intensifying this 100 year-old process); E4Water (looking at increasing
eco-efficiency in industrial water management); and R4R, (involving analysis of innovation systems and
research agendas in six regional clusters).
The workshop’s formal sessions concluded with a
wide ranging panel discussion on maximising impact and successful innovation strategy.
Concluding
remarks
The meeting rapporteur, Keith Simons (below), remarked
that the FP7 projects presented had clearly developed new technology and
methodologies. But he also noted that there was a need to communicate success
in terms of hard economic figures. He knew that some excellent process
technology success stories were out there that could be used to promote SPIRE. He
thought that SPIRE as a concept had been a political masterstroke and that European
process community has taken up the challenge. He believed that SPIRE had
already had an impact, but needed to better recognise and exploit success.
Loredana Ghinea, chief executive of the A.SPIRE
consortium, outlined the objectives for SPIRE in the coming 12 months. These
included preparing for the Horizon 2020 work programmes in 2016-17. There will be
a SPIRE brokerage event on 29-30 June and a SPIRE knowledge and dissemination
platform was planned to be available by January 2016. This would help to forge connections
between businesses and connect the work programmes with actual projects to
enable a continuing discussion on future programme development.
A thematic workshop will be held later in 2015 bringing
together the different SPIRE sectors to identify and tackle common challenges.
The PPP also aims to follow up with all SPIRE projects and provide support for communication
and dissemination activities.
.png){kind=logo}
