Mapping of European and International Activities

From Roads2HyCom Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Wiki - A Reliable Source of Information - Edited by Technology Experts Only

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Geographical Distribution of Questionnaire Entrants 3.2 Organisation Profiles of Questionnaire Entrants 3.3 Primary Focus 3.4 Technology Tree 3.4.1 Hydrogen or Energy Vector Production System 3.4.2 Hydrogen or Energy Vector Distribution System 3.4.3 Hydrogen or Fuel Cell Application 3.5 Financial Resources for H2&FC Research and Development 4 Conclusion 5 Appendices 6 References 7 Notes

Introduction

One of the tasks of the European Integrated Project Roads2HyCom has been to create a map of hydrogen and fuel cell related research and technology development (RTD) activity in Europe. This map represents all energy applications (e.g. stationary power, land transport, aerospace, etc.) and encompasses different energy chains (e.g. fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass, renewable resources, etc.).

In order to collect data for this "map", the project Roads2HyCom launched a questionnaire aimed at organisations engaged in hydrogen and fuel cell (H2&FC) RTD. The Researchers Questionnaire was available to complete on-line at www.roads2hy.com. Data on H2&FC RTD was collected through this questionnaire between May 2006 and February 2008. Over 350 organisations completed the questionnaire.

This report summarises the results for analysing the Questionnaire entries and compliments the interactive version of the H2&FC RTD map, which is also available here (Flash plugin required).

Methodology

The methodology for mapping H2&FC research and technology development in Europe revolves around the Roads2HyCom Technology Tree, the on-line Researchers Questionnaire and the development of a H2&FC contacts list, which are described below.

Hydrogen related research encompasses all aspects of the hydrogen energy chain from production, through distribution and storage to hydrogen-powered vehicles, stationary power plants and portable power packs. An example of a hydrogen energy chain is presented in Figure 3.

In order to categorise hydrogen related RTD activity, Roads2HyCom built a Technology Tree. This Tree represents the potential layers of hydrogen and fuel cell technology from primary energy sources through to the end user applications. The three main branches of the Tree are:

• Hydrogen Production System
• Hydrogen / Energy Vector Storage and Distribution
• Hydrogen Application

These branches divide into further sub-branches to represent the different stages along the Hydrogen energy chain (see Appendix Section 6.1).

Since fuel cells are closely associated with hydrogen technologies, the Technology Tree has a branch specifically on fuel cell technology. This branch includes fuel cells that can run on energy vectors other than hydrogen, such as natural gas or methanol.

To collect information from organisations engaged in H2&FC RTD, Roads2HyCom launched a Questionnaire for Researchers on [1] in May 2006 (see Figure 4 and Appendix Section 6.2). The Questionnaire was based around the Technology Tree. Researchers were encouraged to complete the Questionnaire on behalf of their organisation, selecting the parts of the Technology Tree that were relevant for their organisation. The Questionnaire also included a section on Financial Resources, to help build a picture of how H2&FC RTD is funded.

In order to know which organisations should be complete the Researchers Questionnaire, Roads2HyCom partners compiled a list of organisations thought to be active in H2&FC research.

In addition to Roads2HyCom members contacting organisations directly, other means of publicity were used to let the hydrogen industry know about the Roads2HyCom Researchers Questionnaire. These publicity methods included:

• Contacting international, national and regional Hydrogen and Fuel Cell associations and asking these associations to forward a Roads2HyCom press release to all their members
• Asking various hydrogen and fuel cell newsletters to publish articles about Roads2HyCom
• Distributing a press release at conferences, such as WHEC 2006 and the HFP General Assembly 2006

This report presents results from analysing the data collected through the Researchers Questionnaire between May 2006 and February 2008. This data has been used to build a map of hydrogen and fuel cell RTD activity in Europe.

An interactive version of the H2&FC RTD map has been published on the Roads2HyCom project website [2].

Results and Discussion

Over 400 questionnaire entries were received between 12 May 2006 and 8 February 2008. Of these entries 352 were considered valid for analysis. Four entries were considered invalid and were not included in the analysis. These invalid entries were from individuals interested in hydrogen, rather than organisations active in H2&FC RTD.

Fifty-nine organisations completed the Questionnaire more than once. For four of these organisations, two entries were included because they referred to separate departments or centres within a university or research centre. For 55 of these organisations, only one entry was considered in the data analysis.

The analysis has been split in the following sections, Geographical Distribution, Organisation Profiles, primary H2&FC focus, Technology Tree and Financial Resources.

Geographical Distribution of Questionnaire Entrants

Questionnaire entries were received from organisations across Europe, both from within the EU-27 ^[1] and from countries outside of the European Union.^[2] An overview of the geographical spread is shown in figure, while a more detailed breakdown is contained in figure.

From these figures it can be seen that the greatest portion of entries were from Germany (23%), followed by UK (20%). 10% of entries were from organisations based outside the European Union.

Five entries were received from organisations located outside of Europe. Two of these organisations were based in USA. One entry was from Canada, another from China and one from India. These five entries have not been included in the detailed analysis of European entries.

Distribution of Researchers Questionnaire entries by European country (%)

Distribution of Researchers Questionnaire entries by European country (count)

This data set consists of 348 questionnaire entries from Europe – 312 entries from within the EU-27 and 36 from outside the EU-27.

Organisation Profiles of Questionnaire Entrants

Questionnaire entrants were asked to provide information about their organisation, such as the type of organisation and the number of employees.

A list of organisation types was supplied. The options were:

• Academic Institution or University (Academic)
• National / Government Research Institute or Laboratory (Research)
• Corporate Private Company
• Independent Private Company
• Corporate Quoted (Stock Market) Company
• Independent Quoted (Stock Market) Company
• Other

For the purposes of this questionnaire, "Independent" was defined as a company whose main business is hydrogen or fuel cell technology; while "Corporate" was defined as a company whose main business is not hydrogen or fuel cell technology. "Private" means that the company is not floated on the stock market; while "Quoted" means the company has been floated on the stock market.

An overview of the answers to the Organisation Type question is provided in Figure 8, while Figure 9 shows the distribution of Organisation Type by Country.

Entries have been received for a variety of organisations. No specific type dominates within the survey data set. Academic and research organisations form the largest group (38%). There is an even split between independent companies and corporate players (28% each).

As expected, the number of independent companies floated on the stock market is relatively small. Of the six independent quoted entries, three are floated on the London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market (AIM).

The mix of organisation types from German entrants is quite different to the rest of Europe. The portion of corporate organisations is much greater (40%), while universities and research centres account for only 23%.

The UK entries have a greater portion of independent companies (38%). The UK has less national research centres than other European countries, which is why the portion of research organisations in the UK is small.

Entries that selected organisation type “other” consisted of government offices, regional development agencies, public private partnerships, hydrogen promoters and H2&FC associations. Since these organisations tend to channel funding rather than conducting research themselves, entries that selected organisation type “other” have not been considered in the later analysis.

345 European questionnaire entrants supplied Organisation Type data

In order to give an indication of the size of the organisation, questionnaire entrants were asked to provide information about the number of employees in their organisation. Figure 10 provides an overview of the answers to this question. Figure 11 shows the distribution of the organisation size by country. Figure 12 illustrates the distribution of organisation size and type.

These results show that the organisations engaged in hydrogen related activity are generally either small (< 50 employees) or large (>1000 employees).

The small organisations are usually independents whose main business is hydrogen or fuel cells. These independent companies could be small start-up or spin-offs from a university. The large organisations are either universities or corporate companies. For these organisations, it is likely that the hydrogen and/or fuel cell RTD is conducted by smaller teams within the large organisation as part of a broader research agenda.

This pattern is repeated in most European countries, although Germany appears to have a greater portion of medium size organisations active in H2&FC RTD than the rest of Europe.

296 out of 324 European questionnaire entries supplied Organisation Size data. Note: Organisations classed as Type “Other” were not included in this analysis.

297 out of 325 entries provided information on Organisation Size and Organisation Type. Note: Organisations classed as Type “Other” were not included in this analysis.

Primary Focus

European research in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells is diverse. It ranges from universities conducting fundamental research into new materials or processes, through to corporations engaged in running large-scale demonstration projects. It encompasses new start-ups aiming to produce the next must-have hydrogen product; end-users seeking to proof that hydrogen technology can meet their needs; consultants eager to gain new knowledge; financial experts willing to provide advice and academics investigating the socio-economic aspects of moving to a hydrogen economy.

In order to capture this variety of research, questionnaire entrants were asked to supply information about their organisation’s primary H2&FC focus. The options for this question were:

• Technology Developer
• Consultancy / Service Provider
• End User
• Other

An overview of the answers to this question is provided in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows the distribution of H2&FC focus options by European Country. Figure 15 shows the distribution by Organisation Type. Figure 16 shows the distribution of answers by Organisation Size.

316 out of 325 entries provided information on their Organisation H2&FC RTD focus

Distribution of Researchers Questionnaire entries by European Country and Organisation H2&FC Focus (count)

315 out of 324 European questionnaire entries answered the primary H2&FC focus question

315 out of 324 European questionnaire entries answered the primary H2&FC focus question

294 out of 324 entries provided information on Organisation Size and H2&FC Focus.

Over two-thirds of entrants classed themselves as Technology Developers. This includes organisations engaged in fundamental research through to organisations building an end-product. This trend is the same for all countries, implying that all countries that participated in the Researchers Questionnaire have an interest in H2&FC RTD. The Technology Developer tread also carries across all types and size of organisation.

Interestingly nine of the 23 entries that selected Focus option “Other” described their themselves as hydrogen producers or suppliers. Other answers included socio-economics, policy analysis, education and hydrogen safety standards. Some of the Consultancy / Service Provides also stated that their focus was on the socio-economics or policy analysis related to introducing hydrogen technology to the market place.

Technology Tree

As discussed in the Methodology Section, hydrogen technology covers all aspects of the hydrogen energy chain, not just end-user applications. To help categorise organisations by technology area, questionnaire entrants were asked to select the main areas of research for their organisation from a list of technology options. The technology options supplied were based on the Roads2HyCom Technology Tree and were grouped by stage along the energy chain (see Figure 17 and Appendix Sections 6.1 and 6.2). Entrants could select multiple options.

For this section of analysis, only the entrants who selected “Technology Developer” from the H2&FC Focus question were considered in the data set. This is because entrants who selected “Consultancy / Service Provider”, “End User” or “Other” from the H2&FC Focus options are unlikely to be directly developing their own hydrogen technology product.

Figure 18 presents an overview of H2&FC RTD activity based on the portion of “Technology Developer” entrants who selected at least one option from each area of the Technology Tree. This shows that the majority of Questionnaire entrants selected options from the “Production System” and “Application” branches of the Technology Tree. A smaller portion of entrants showed an interest in the “Storage and Distribution” section.

The green segments refer to the percentage of Technology Developer entrants who selected at least one option from that area of the Technology Tree.

Questionnaire entrants were allowed to select multiple options from each research area. As a consequence many entrants selected options from more than one research area. Analysis of the results shows that 65% of entrants selected options from more than one of the main branches of the Technology Tree (Production System and Storage & Distribution, or Production System and Application, or Storage & Distribution and Application), while over 40% of entrants selected options from all three of the main branches (see Figure 19).

It is difficult to determine if the entries that lie in this overlap region are genuinely interested in all areas of the hydrogen energy chain, or if it is the “wishful thinking” of the researcher who completed the Questionnaire. For example, a university researching novel methods for producing hydrogen may be a partner in a regional demonstration project that plans to use the hydrogen to power a vehicle or stationary fuel cell. In this case the entrant may have selected options from the “Application” section in addition to the options selected from the “Production System” section, even though their main area of research is in hydrogen production systems. Another example might be a fuel cell developer who as an on-site electrolyser to produce the hydrogen used to test the fuel cell. Their main area of research is fuel cells, but the entrant may also have selected options from the “Production System” section.

Based on the 218 Questionnaire entries from “Technology Developers”

The following sub-sections present the results from counting the number of entrants to select each option in the Technology Tree part of the Researchers Questionnaire. The bar charts give an indication of the main areas that are of interest to H2&FC researchers in Europe today. However when viewing these results it should be remembered that some entrants have selected options to show what technologies they are using across the energy chain in addition to the areas they are actually researching.

Hydrogen or Energy Vector Production System

Hydrogen is an energy vector, because, like electricity, it is made from another source of energy. There are a number of methods for converting energy to hydrogen, depending of the primary energy source available. The Researchers Questionnaire included options for primary energy sources and conversion methods. Information on the various methods for producing hydrogen can be found on the Roads2HyCom WIKI site.

The most common method used to produce hydrogen for industrial use is steam methane reforming (SMR) of natural gas. Therefore it is not surprising that the results from the Researchers Question show natural gas as the most popular primary energy source and steam reformer as the most popular conversion method (see Figure 20 and Figure 21). This suggests that many researchers buy hydrogen from existing industrial sources.

Another popular method for producing hydrogen is through the electrolysis of water. For this to be a “green” method for producing hydrogen, the electricity needs to come from a renewable source. Since wind energy and solar energy are two of the most commonly referred to renewable energy sources in Europe, these energy sources proved popular with the Questionnaire entrants. Although it is difficult to determine actual research from “wishful thinking”, other answers given to Questionnaire questions do suggest that there are a number of researchers investigating an energy chain that uses a wind turbine or solar panels to produce electricity, which is coupled to an electrolyser to make hydrogen. This hydrogen is then used in an application such as a stationary fuel cell.

There are numerous methods for making hydrogen from biological material. The process selected depends on the feed-stock. Although a smaller number of entrants selected the biological conversion method options (Photobiological systems and Biological systems), it is likely that all of these organisations are actively researching in these areas. Universities dominate in these novel methods for producing hydrogen, which shows that these processes are still in the laboratory stage of technology development.

Answers supplied to the option “Other” for primary energy source included:

• Biomass (10 entries)
• Wave and / or tidal energy (3 entries)
• Ethanol and Methanol (2 entries)

Answers supplied to the option “Other” for conversion method included:

• Internal reforming within the fuel cell stack (e.g. SOFC) (6 entries)
• Autothermal reformer (2 entries)
• Chemical process (2 entries)
• Plasma reformer (1 entry)
• Photocatalysis (1 entry)
• Supercritical water reforming (1 entry)

Hydrogen or Energy Vector Distribution System

The Distribution System section of the Researchers Questionnaire covered the technology required to transport hydrogen (pipelines), storing the hydrogen in a depot or refuelling station and storing the hydrogen on-board the application.

Pipelines are methods for transporting the hydrogen (or other energy vector) from its production site to a depot, refuelling station or direct to the stationary user. The distribution system may be an actual pipeline, or the method may be to transport the hydrogen by truck. Results from this section of the Technology Tree are provided in Figure 22.

Fewer entrants showed an interest in the distribution section of the hydrogen energy chain. The results are fairly evenly spread across the options provided. This implies that there are currently no clear preferences regarding transportation of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature and pressure. It is the smallest molecule and is lighter than air. This means that in order to store a significant quantity of hydrogen in a confined volume at a depot or refuelling station the hydrogen needs to be compressed, cooled until it is in a liquid state or stored in a suitable material. An alternative option is to produce the hydrogen directly on-site, as required.

Results from the Roads2HyCom Researchers Questionnaire show that materials based storage and compressed storage are the most popular storage options for hydrogen depot and refuelling stations (see Figure 23).

Over 40 “Technology Developer” entrants selected on-site production, which may be a reflection on the present lack of hydrogen infrastructure throughout most of Europe (for a thorough assessment of hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, please read the Roads2HyCom European Hydrogen Infrastructure Atlas, which is available to download as a set of reports from [3].)

Methods for storing hydrogen locally or on-board an application are similar to those used for depot storage, although, understandably, on a smaller scale. Results from the Researchers Questionnaire show that compressed storage is the most popular option for on-board storage (see Figure 24).

Hydrogen or Fuel Cell Application

Technologies for converting hydrogen into the desired energy (referred to as Applications in the Questionnaire) can be grouped into three categories:

• Transport: These technologies are used in vehicles, boats or aircraft. The H2&FC technology may be used as the vehicle prime mover or to power an ancillary system on-board the vehicle.
• Stationary: These H2&FC technologies are used to supply power to stationary objects, such as buildings. Stationary applications can be relatively small, such as a fuel cell domestic CHP unit, or large-scale, such as an industrial generator.
• Portable / Mobile: In this case, the H2&FC technology is used to power smaller, portable products, often as a replacement to conventional batteries.

Usually the energy converter technology is a fuel cell, but some applications convert the hydrogen by other means, such as an internal combustion engine. The fuel cell technology remains similar across the categories. Therefore it is not unsurprising that there is a relatively large overlap between the categories with researchers and technology developers investing in more than one type of application (see Figure 25).

When fuel cells are discussed in the media, it is usually transport applications such as cars and buses that are mentioned. However the results from the Roads2HyCom survey show that there are nearly as many organisations investing in stationary applications (57.8%) and those investing in transport (64.7%).

The results from counting the entries for each Transport Application option are shown in Figure 26. The larger European H2&FC demonstration projects have tended to focus on buses and cars. Therefore it is not surprising that these were the most popular options. However it is difficult to distinguish between entrants who are genuinely working on H2&FC cars or buses and those who hope that their fuel cell will be used in a car or bus.

It is interesting to note the number of entrants that selected transport applications such as scooters, light trucks, forklifts, military and marine (> 30% of entrants who selected a Transport option selected at least one of these more novel options). In all of these areas it is the independent companies that dominate.

Answers supplied to the option “Other” for transport application included:

• Spacecraft
• Small utility vehicles
• Industrial Tow Tractors

As discussed above, a H2&FC technology may be used to provide the transport power for a vehicle, or it may be used to supply ancillary power. Therefore entrants were asked additional questions regarding transportation options. The results from these questions are displayed in Figure 27. Overwhelmingly fuel cells were the selected energy converter, both for the prime mover and for ancillary power. However, it should be noted the Roads2HyCom Questionnaire was specifically targeted at organisations thought to be active in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells. Therefore the results of this Questionnaire do not reflect the overall research agenda of the automotive industry.

The results from the Stationary Application section of the Questionnaire are displayed in Figure 28. Domestic CHP, back up power, distributed power, cogeneration and remote power were the most popular options. Since the technology used in these products is similar, it is not unsurprising that there is a large overlap between these options, with entrants selecting more that one stationary product type.

The mix of organisation types across the stationary options is fairly similar to the overall organisation mix of Questionnaire entrants.

Fewer entrants expressed an interest in portable applications. The results are displayed in Figure 29. Recreational / Scientific Remote Portable Power and Portable Electronic Devices were the two most popular options.

Fuel Cells encompass a family of technologies that produce electricity from a fuel by an electro-chemical reaction. Fuel cells consist of an anode, a cathode and an electrolyte. The materials used in the electrolyte define the type of fuel cell. Some fuel cells will only run on very pure hydrogen, such as Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells. Other types of fuel cell will run on hydrocarbon fuels, such Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC).

Some types of fuel cell are suitable for transportation, while others are more practical for stationary or portable applications. Figure 30 aims to illustrate which application sectors will use which type of fuel cell technology.

The Roads2HyCom Researchers Questionnaire contains a specific section related to Fuel Cells. This section included options for different types of fuel cell. It also contains options related to making a fuel cell product. These options were:

• Stack – which relates to building an array of fuel cells to make a fuel cell unit with the required power density
• Control Systems – which means designing and building the electronic controls for managing the fuel cell unit
• Balance of Plant

The results from the Fuel Cell section of the Questionnaire are displayed in Figure 31.

From the Roads2HyCom survey, PEM fuel cells were the most popular, followed by SOFC. The mix of organisation types is similar to the organisation type distribution of all the entrants. This suggests that fuel cell research is on-going at all levels from laboratory to marketable products.

Answers supplied to the option “Other” for Fuel Cells included:

• Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC) (6 entries)
• High temperature PEM fuel cells (4 entries)
• Components for fuel cells (3 entries)

Financial Resources for H2&FC Research and Development

Questionnaire entrants were asked about how much their organisation spends annually on H2&FC RTD and where their RTD funding comes from. Understandably, not all of the questionnaire entrants answered these questions. As shown below only 270 out of the 324 entries supplied information on Annual H2&FC RTD Spend. Note: entries that selected Organisation Type “Other” have not been included in the analysis of the Financial Resources questions.

For Annual H2&FC RTD Spend, entrants were asked to select the appropriate spend band for their organisation. The options were:

• < €100 000
• € 100 000 - € 1 000 000
• € 1 000 000 - € 10 000 000
• > € 10 000 000

Figure 32 is a pie chart showing the distribution of answers to the question on Annual H2&FC RTD Spend.

270 out of 324 entries supplied data on their organisation’s Annual H2&FC RTD Spend

The majority of organisations to complete the Researchers Questionnaire spend less than €1 million per year on H2&FC RTD. Typical production-programme investment for a mass-produced device (e.g. Automotive Powertrain, Domestic CHP unit) is € 100m - € 1000m over 5 years. With this as a benchmark, the results from the Researchers Questionnaire imply that most hydrogen and/or fuel cell organisations are at the basic and applied stage of research rather than at the point of true commercialisation.

Figure 33, Figure 34 and Figure 35 show the annual spend split by country, organisation type and organisation size. Germany appears to have the largest number of organisations spending annually more than € 1 million on H2&FC RTD. 21% of entrants annually spend more than € 1 million on H2&FC RTD, and nearly 40% of these are located in Germany.

As expected small organisations spend limited amounts on H2&FC RTD. However the larger organisations spend across the financial range (see Figure 35).

270 out of 324 European questionnaire entries supplied information on their organisation’s Annual H2&FC RTD Spend

270 out of 324 entries provided information on Annual Spend and Organisation Type.

246 out of 324 entries supplied data on Annual Spend and Organisation Size

The financial resources for funding H2&FC RTD activity can come from a variety of sources. Types of funding include external and internal funding as well as grants and subsidies. The Researchers Questionnaire considered the following funding options:

• External Funding – obtained from outside of the organisation
  • Bank Loans
  • Other
• Internal Funding – provided from within the organisation
  • Company Budget
  • Academic Funding
  • Venture Capital
  • Third-Party Private Investor
  • Personal
  • Other
• Grants & Subsidies
  • Regional R&D
  • National R&D
  • EU (Framework) R&D
  • Other

Entrants were asked to select, in steps of 10%, the contribution their organisation receives from each funding source for H2&FC RTD.

Figure 36 summarises the percentage of entrants receiving some funding from each financial source (note: organisations can receive funding from more than one source and many be involved in several project). Figure 37 presents more information by showing the percentage of entries to receive funding from each source.

225 of out 324 entries provided information about their financial resources for H2&FC RTD activity.

Half of the entrants receive funding for H2&FC RTD activity from their company budget. The percent contribution from company budget varies from small to large, with 8% of entrants funding their H2&FC RTD solely for their company budget.

However, national R&D was the most popular source of funding with 55% of entrants receiving some national R&D funding. However the contribution from national R&D tends to be less than 50% of the total H2&FC RTD spend (see Figure 37, which shows the funding from each source distributed by the amount of funding received, where the amount received is given as a percentage of their annual H2&FC RTD spend).

46% of organisations receive funding from the European Union, probably through Framework Programmes.

Overall, there is a strong role for Framework, National or Regional grant funding (83% of entrants claimed a grant or subsidy contribution to their H2&FC RTD spend). This indicates, perhaps, that a large portion of ongoing research remains pre-competitive.

225 of out 324 entrants provided information about their Financial Resources for H2&FC RTD activity. Note: Only considered European entries that did not select Organisation Type “Other”.
In this figure, the y-axis represents the various funding sources and the x-axis represents the portion of financial contribution that the organisation receives from this source. The values in the blue boxes represent the percentage of entrants that claimed to have received that portion of financial contribution from that source.

Conclusion

The EU project Roads2HyCom has constructed a map of hydrogen and fuel cell related research and development in Europe. This map is based on data supplied through an on-line questionnaire by organisations active in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells.

The main conclusions for analysing the questionnaire data set are listed below:

• Most countries in Europe have active research programmes in the field of hydrogen and fuel cells. However Germany and UK dominate with the greatest number of organisations (44% of the questionnaire entries were from Germany or UK)
• There is a good mix of organisations active in hydrogen and fuel cell related research. This mix ranges from universities and research laboratories to small independent companies and large corporate organisations. However most of these organisations tend to be small (< 50 employees) or very large (> 1000 employees).
• Hydrogen and Fuel Cell research is diverse. Although most is focused on producing marketable products, there are also researchers investigating other aspects of using H2&FC technology, such as socio-economics, government policy, health and safety, regulations and standards.
• Most questionnaire entrants are working towards application technologies that use hydrogen to power the product. Within this application sector, stationary applications are nearly as popular as transport applications.
• Financially most entrants spend annually less than € 1 million on H2&FC related research. 83% of entrants that supplied information about their financial resources claimed at least one grant or subsidy to support their H2&FC RTD activity. This financial data suggests that the industry still pre-commercialisation and depended on support from European, national and regional governments.

Appendices

• Roads2HyCom Technology tree:

• Researchers Questionnaire: [4]

• How data has changed:

Since launching the Researchers Questionnaire in May 2006, three reports on the survey results have been published. The first interim report (Document Reference R2H1005PU) was published in January 2007, based on 288 valid entries. The second interim report (Document Reference R2H1010PU) was published in June 2007, based on 343 valid entries. This document is the third and final report on the results from the Researchers Questionnaire, based on 352 valid entries.

Since the first interim report, the geographical distribution of the entries has changed to be less biased towards Germany and UK (see Figure 40 and Figure 41). However the distribution of Organisation Type, Technology Tree Overview and Annual Spend has not changed significantly (see Figure 43 to Figure 47). This provides a level of confidence in assuming that the Researchers Questionnaire data set is representative of the hydrogen and fuel cell industry in Europe.

Data set consists of 288 questionnaire entries. 247 within the EU-25; 36 within Europe, but outside of the EU-25; 5 outside of Europe.

This data set consists of 348 questionnaire entries from Europe – 312 entries from within the EU-27 and 36 from outside the EU-27.

Data set consists of 281 questionnaire entries supplied data on Organisation Type.

345 European questionnaire entrants supplied Organisation Type data

254 of 264 data entries selected at least one Technology Tree option. Considered all valid entries from Europe, except those that selected Organisation Type “Other”.

215 of 218 “Technology Developer” data entries selected at least one Technology Tree option.

222 of 263 data entries provided information on Annual Spend.

270 out of 324 entries provided information on Annual Spend and Organisation Type.

References

• Roads2HyCom document reference R2H1010PU
• Roads2HyCom document reference R2H8018PU

Notes

1. ↑ The EU-27 consists of the 27 countries within the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK).
2. ↑ For the analysis reported in this document, Russia and Turkey have been included as countries within Europe but outside of the EU-27.