Technical sessions

The 4th Forum will alternate political and more technical panels.
The technical session is organized on the basis of a call for papers and publication of articles selected by a Scientific Committee chaired by IFPEN and a jury of European experts on these topics.

Jury members

Florence DELPRAT-JANNAUD (Chair of the Scientific Committee)
Director of the IFPEN Académie des technologies Energy Products Results Center / President of Club CO2
Raphaël Boroumand
Professor of Economics, Paris School of Business
Anne Bouter
Scientific Project Officer. European Commission Joint Research Center
David Chiaramonti
Professor of Energy Economics, and Bioeconomy for MED and Third Countries, Politecnico di Torino
Maria Georgiadou
Senior Expert Senior Expert – Renewable energy R&I policy, renewable fuels, biofuels and bioenergy, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission

The 3 themes of the Call for contributions:

Availability of resources for sustainable mobility:
Availability of resources for sustainable mobility: what is the reality? Issues related to electromobility and metals, biomass, H2, biogenic CO2, NGV, etc.
Comparative life cycle analyses: where do we stand?
Estimated decarbonization of vehicle fleets in 2050.
Health impacts of different technologies.
Europe’s economic model and competitiveness:
Diagnosis of the industrial situation of all players in the value chain.
What are the challenges? What are the impact factors?

Call for contributions

Contributors were invited to submit abstracts for an oral presentation on one of the Forum’s technical themes.

Authors whose presentations are accepted will have the opportunity to publish a scientific article in a special issue of the journal Science and Technology for Energy Transition (STET)
https://www.stet-review.org/fr/

This article, as well as the presentation pitch, will also be distributed on our official media and in particular via 2 digital communities developed on LINKEDIN and DAILYMOTION

Abstract evaluation grid
Abstracts were evaluated according to the following criteria:

Relevance of the topic
Originality of results/methodology
Clarity / Quality of the summary

With the following notation

1 = High quality abstract recommended as oral presentation
2 = Abstract of average quality, may give rise to an exchange with the scientific committee for revision
3 = Abstract of insufficient quality with regard to the conference, not retained

Submit a reaction to a summary