Europe's labs are full of answers to questions industry is already asking

This is article 2 in the Studio 2050 series. Here is article 1.

Europe’s research system has an odd habit of producing answers before anyone has asked the question. In a 2020 survey of 241 universities and public research organisations, the European Patent Office (EPO) found that only 36% of the inventions they had patented were in commercial use. Nearly two in three were not, including 42% for which commercialisation was planned but had yet to happen.

The reasons the institutions gave are the revealing part. For 55% of the stalled inventions, nobody had identified a commercial opportunity, despite only one in ten being judged to lack commercial potential. A large share of Europe’s patented research is waiting for someone to work out who needs it.

That job usually falls to a technology transfer office, and most are thinly staffed. In about half of those surveyed, between one and three people handle patent commercialisation. They find partners mainly through personal networks (92%) and past collaborators (71%), so deals stay close to home: 74% of successful commercialisation partnerships were with a partner in the same country. As a result, a control algorithm developed in Turin is far more likely to end up with an Italian licensee than with a grid operator in Rotterdam who might need it more.

The first article in this series argued that the energy transition is held back far more by adoption than by invention. Europe’s shelf of unused research is the same problem showing up one step earlier, and it points to where part of the fix lies: in how new ventures are sourced in the first place.

Asking labs the wrong question

Most climate venture scouting still runs from the lab outwards. Scouts tour universities and transfer offices, ask what has been invented, shortlist the most impressive results and then go looking for a customer. The customer comes last, which is precisely where the EPO’s figures show academic inventions getting stuck.

The method also tends to find what it is looking for. Researchers are judged on novelty, so novelty is what a lab-first search turns up. The buyer’s questions, about whether a technology will fit the plant already running, how long integration will take and when it will pay back, surface only after a venture has been built around something that struggles to answer them.

Starting with the buyer

A rising number of pioneering European ventures, spearheaded by Studio 2050 Ventures, have set out to adopt a thesis-first sourcing method. By reversing the sequence, they start with a buyer’s problem: a proven technology that customers want but struggle to deploy, the specific bottleneck stopping them, and only then does the search for the science begin.

Electricity grids show what that looks like. The IEA counts more than 2,500 GW of renewable, storage and large-load projects stalled in grid connection queues worldwide, and estimates that more flexible connection agreements and grid-enhancing technologies such as dynamic line rating could free capacity for 1,200–1,600 GW of them.

For these projects the constraint is the connection, and the research that eases it lies in forecasting, constrained dispatch and power-flow control, the everyday work of university power-systems groups.

The question put to researchers changes with it. “What new energy technology have you invented?” becomes “What have you developed that makes existing assets work better together?” The second question leads into control engineering, operations research and digital twins, fields where university work can often become a product for far less capital than a new battery chemistry.

Industrial heat illustrates the same point: Heat pumps already on the market could technically supply around a fifth of global industrial heat demand, according to the IEA, yet in light industry they met less than 1% of it in 2025.

A lab-first scout reads that gap as a case for a better heat pump. A thesis-first scout sees a plant operator who would install today’s model if fitting it into a process that cannot stop were cheaper and less risky, and goes looking for the integration research that would make it so.

The discipline of saying no

Two habits make the approach work. The first is sharing theses with researchers. A lab that knows which deployment problem a studio is trying to solve can steer promising work towards it, so the next result arrives closer to something a customer will pay for.

The second is strict selectivity. Corporates join the search from the start, reaching out to Studio 2050 with the integration and deployment challenges they face, so that weak ideas are screened out before capital is committed and the startups that remain have a customer’s problem behind them. Studio 2050 Ventures, one of a small number of venture studios built around deployment, launches ventures from roughly 2% of the opportunities it scouts, about one in fifty.

A continent-sized search

A filter that tight only produces companies if the pool feeding it is large and varied, and Europe’s research rarely pools by itself. Only 27% of the successful commercialisation partnerships in the EPO survey crossed a European border, and institutions in southern and eastern Europe reported more difficulty finding interested partners at all.

Reach therefore becomes the scarce asset. To overcome that, Studio 2050 works with more than 30 universities, laboratories and technology transfer offices across France, Italy, the UK, Belgium and beyond, which lets a result in one country meet a buyer’s problem in another.

The network also improves with use. Each shared thesis shapes the projects a lab takes on next, each venture tests which theses hold up in front of customers, and partners who see their work reach a market have every reason to bring the next result forward sooner. A sourcing method can be copied. The relationships that feed it take years to build.

Finding the question

Europe has already paid for much of the research this decade of the transition needs. Getting it used depends on someone asking the buyer’s question early, before a venture is built around the wrong answer, and asking it in more than one country at a time. That approach also changes the kind of risk these ventures carry, and who is best placed to fund them, a subject for a later article in this series.

Many of the answers are already sitting in Europe’s labs. The harder work lies in finding the questions they belong to.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.