4 ms·

This topic feels to me like a moonshot attempt [0]. Institutions like this, live on the EU handouts [1] (in fact I applied with my company together with Fraunho

This topic feels to me like a moonshot attempt [0]. Institutions like this, live on the EU handouts [1] (in fact I applied with my company together with Fraunhofer a few years back on a EU subsidy). Meaning, the fact it is subject of investigation does not imply this will proof to be a valid path to follow. How I see it the following has happened. EU bans f-gases. The industry had objections and EU sets up a program of subsidies to search for alternatives. And there you have another political argument to ban f-gases in the first place. A mostly foreign industry (China, Japan, US) is suddenly a massive transition market where we (the EU) are engaging in massive investments and subsidies. It does not hurt the EU to stir this up a bit giving EU industry a better position. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocaloric_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocaloric_effect [1] BTW I agree with these 'handouts' and the existence of institutions like Fraunhofer. As said I also cooperated with them on a similar package and with all fundamental innovations, it is highly uncertain if it will become a success.

riedel 3y ago
This seems like a Fraunhofer internal project so it seems to be from the base budget they can freely invest into research (still tax payers money and with a political edge to it) The general criticism to the European subsidiaries applies though to all the 'competity' research funding that not necessarily leads to go to market approaches . But this IMHO is a bad example.
- hef19898 3y ago
  It puzzles me how people can ignore stuff like DARPA while simultaniously argue against stuff like publicly funded Fraunhofer research.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    Yes, the US military industry complex along with DARPA funding etc., seems like a huge subsidy exercise. There are also these weird rules in these grants as well, i.e. you have to fly US airlines (the irony obviously is that the US often strongarms smaller economies into abolishing these rules as being "anti-competitive/free-trade".
atoav 3y ago
To be honest the way I read it the funding on this sounds like it is mostly about material science. I think this is well spent money as it expands the possibilities of what we can do beyond the intended target application of electrocaloric heat pumps. A big fraction of what we do better today than say, 4 decades ago, is due to improvements in material science, not because we are more intelligent or better planers (although, some of the software aided planning that happens on big projects nowadays would not have been possible back then).
Certhas 3y ago
The EU is a tiny part of Fraunhofer funding: General Finances: https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-structure/facts-and-figures/finances.html https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-struct... Research Funding Figure: <https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-structure/facts-and-figures/finances/jcr:content/contentPar/sectioncomponent/sectionParsys/textblockwithpics_79/imageComponent1/image.img.4col.large.jpg/1656944708727/Revenue-from-contract-research-2021.jpg https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-struct...> EU is 93 Million Euro out of a total of 2,518 Million Euro. That vast majority comes from German governments and ministries, both in the base funding and through project grants. Then the next major block is R&D done at Fraunhofer funded by industry (723 Million Euro). EU Funding is often as much about the prestige as it is about the projects.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  IIRC correctly Fraunhofer can not apply for the majority of EU funding as the main party, but instead they are a partner on somebody else's grant.
  - Certhas 3y ago
    Unless they are partners as subcontractors, this would still show up as EU-based funding here. And they can definitely participate in normal grants as partners. Not sure what exact rule you have in mind.
    - thsksbd 3y ago
      "Unless they are partners as subcontractors," Well that's the loophole, isnt it?
      - _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
        A loophole for what? Fraunhofer has no incentive to hide that they get EU grants.
varjag 3y ago
Oh come on we owe Fraunhofer at least psychoacoustic compression, the basis of MP3 and most current audio formats. It was also a moonshot project at the time. It's like complaining DARPA lives on the govt handouts: of many things that to it's among the least problematic.
- anjel 3y ago
  The real handout here is who benefit$ from the publicly funded moonshot tech that makes it into real world applications eg smart phone components
  - varjag 3y ago
    I was able to download and listen to sound tracks over my 33.6kbps link back in the 1990s, so I definitely benefited.
- usrusr 3y ago
  If memory serves me right they had a project to set up digital radio in Africa so low-bandwidth that the spectrum would have room for stations in even the most niche languages. Languages on the edge of extinction, to help those languages survive. No idea if they ever helped a single language, but they sure weren't without impact. (I suppose the project was one of many related to audio compression, but it was the one I heard a presentation of, to highschool-age youth in the style of "this is what a career in science might look like")
- moralestapia 3y ago
  ??? Wasn't MP3 patent encumbered for decades? T-thanks Fraunhofer ...
  - varjag 3y ago
    I blame all the people who didn't invent psychoacoustic compression so that FHI couldn't patent it.
    - 3y ago
_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
This doesn’t appear to be funded by the EU. The EU usually makes it a requirement to indicate if a project is funded by them. The Fraunhofer society itself gets its funding primarily from the German federal government. Of course they also often apply for EU grants. I have hard time understanding how this comment about EU funding is in any way relevant to this submission.
fulafel 3y ago
Accusing public research institutes of "living on government handouts" seems odd. I think a better address for critique for funding (if you think the idea is flawed) would be whatever instrument granted it. The major thing I see wrong with Fraunhofer is the patents side, but that's another kettle of fish. (It's just as much the fault of the policymaking that use patent grinding as a benchmark for "innovation")
- j-a-a-p 3y ago
  I don't accuse them of living on gov handouts - I am just pointing to that fact to set the correct expectations. This funding is particularly necessary as the research is too fundamental for commercial parties.
Gasp0de 3y ago
Who else would fund basic research that will likely not yield any profits in the near future? Obviously most basic research is funded by governments.
nologic01 3y ago
Bizarre criticism and some vague geopolitical arguments that are hard to parse. This is publicly funded research in an (at least nominally) valid and important technological direction. While tech is unlikely to solve the sustainability problem by waving a magic wand, it wont hurt to create as much room as possible. Fundamental research is always a "moonshot". Practical, implementable, commercializable technologies don't grow on trees.

riedel 3y ago

This seems like a Fraunhofer internal project so it seems to be from the base budget they can freely invest into research (still tax payers money and with a political edge to it) The general criticism to the European subsidiaries applies though to all the 'competity' research funding that not necessarily leads to go to market approaches . But this IMHO is a bad example.

hef19898 3y ago
It puzzles me how people can ignore stuff like DARPA while simultaniously argue against stuff like publicly funded Fraunhofer research.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  Yes, the US military industry complex along with DARPA funding etc., seems like a huge subsidy exercise. There are also these weird rules in these grants as well, i.e. you have to fly US airlines (the irony obviously is that the US often strongarms smaller economies into abolishing these rules as being "anti-competitive/free-trade".

atoav 3y ago

To be honest the way I read it the funding on this sounds like it is mostly about material science. I think this is well spent money as it expands the possibilities of what we can do beyond the intended target application of electrocaloric heat pumps. A big fraction of what we do better today than say, 4 decades ago, is due to improvements in material science, not because we are more intelligent or better planers (although, some of the software aided planning that happens on big projects nowadays would not have been possible back then).

Certhas 3y ago

The EU is a tiny part of Fraunhofer funding: General Finances: https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-structure/facts-and-figures/finances.html https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-struct... Research Funding Figure: <https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-structure/facts-and-figures/finances/jcr:content/contentPar/sectioncomponent/sectionParsys/textblockwithpics_79/imageComponent1/image.img.4col.large.jpg/1656944708727/Revenue-from-contract-research-2021.jpg https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/about-fraunhofer/profile-struct...> EU is 93 Million Euro out of a total of 2,518 Million Euro. That vast majority comes from German governments and ministries, both in the base funding and through project grants. Then the next major block is R&D done at Fraunhofer funded by industry (723 Million Euro). EU Funding is often as much about the prestige as it is about the projects.

cycomanic 3y ago
IIRC correctly Fraunhofer can not apply for the majority of EU funding as the main party, but instead they are a partner on somebody else's grant.
- Certhas 3y ago
  Unless they are partners as subcontractors, this would still show up as EU-based funding here. And they can definitely participate in normal grants as partners. Not sure what exact rule you have in mind.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    "Unless they are partners as subcontractors," Well that's the loophole, isnt it?
    - _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
      A loophole for what? Fraunhofer has no incentive to hide that they get EU grants.

varjag 3y ago

Oh come on we owe Fraunhofer at least psychoacoustic compression, the basis of MP3 and most current audio formats. It was also a moonshot project at the time. It's like complaining DARPA lives on the govt handouts: of many things that to it's among the least problematic.

anjel 3y ago
The real handout here is who benefit$ from the publicly funded moonshot tech that makes it into real world applications eg smart phone components
- varjag 3y ago
  I was able to download and listen to sound tracks over my 33.6kbps link back in the 1990s, so I definitely benefited.
usrusr 3y ago
If memory serves me right they had a project to set up digital radio in Africa so low-bandwidth that the spectrum would have room for stations in even the most niche languages. Languages on the edge of extinction, to help those languages survive. No idea if they ever helped a single language, but they sure weren't without impact. (I suppose the project was one of many related to audio compression, but it was the one I heard a presentation of, to highschool-age youth in the style of "this is what a career in science might look like")
moralestapia 3y ago
??? Wasn't MP3 patent encumbered for decades? T-thanks Fraunhofer ...
- varjag 3y ago
  I blame all the people who didn't invent psychoacoustic compression so that FHI couldn't patent it.
  - 3y ago

_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago

This doesn’t appear to be funded by the EU. The EU usually makes it a requirement to indicate if a project is funded by them. The Fraunhofer society itself gets its funding primarily from the German federal government. Of course they also often apply for EU grants. I have hard time understanding how this comment about EU funding is in any way relevant to this submission.

fulafel 3y ago

Accusing public research institutes of "living on government handouts" seems odd. I think a better address for critique for funding (if you think the idea is flawed) would be whatever instrument granted it. The major thing I see wrong with Fraunhofer is the patents side, but that's another kettle of fish. (It's just as much the fault of the policymaking that use patent grinding as a benchmark for "innovation")

j-a-a-p 3y ago
I don't accuse them of living on gov handouts - I am just pointing to that fact to set the correct expectations. This funding is particularly necessary as the research is too fundamental for commercial parties.

Gasp0de 3y ago

Who else would fund basic research that will likely not yield any profits in the near future? Obviously most basic research is funded by governments.

nologic01 3y ago

Bizarre criticism and some vague geopolitical arguments that are hard to parse. This is publicly funded research in an (at least nominally) valid and important technological direction. While tech is unlikely to solve the sustainability problem by waving a magic wand, it wont hurt to create as much room as possible. Fundamental research is always a "moonshot". Practical, implementable, commercializable technologies don't grow on trees.