• Energy Research
• 2021-2025close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• 2. Zero hunger close
• DE close

This data publication offers updated data about low-carbon energy technology (LCET) patents and citations links to the scientific literature. Compared to a [previous version](https://doi.org/10.4119/unibi/2941555), it also contains data on biofuels and fuels from waste technologies. The updated version also contains the code (R-scripts) that have been used to (1) compile the data and (2) to reproduce the statistical analysis including figures and tables presented in the final paper Hötte, Pichler, Lafond (2021): "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies", RSER. DOI: [10.1016/j.rser.2020.110654](10.1016/j.rser.2020.110654). This data publication contains different data sets (in .RData and (long-term archivable) .tsv format). Further information about each data set is provided in more detail below. - "all_papers.RData" : Data on scientific papers from Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), 3 columns: Paper ID, Paper year, cited (binary 0-1, indicates whether the paper is cited by a patent). - "all_patents.RData" : Data on USPTO utility patents, 6 columns: Patent number, Patent year (grant year), CPC class, Patent date, Patent title, citing_to_science (binary 0-1, indicates whether the patent is citing to science). - "LCET_patents.RData" : Subset of LCET patents, 6 columns: Patent number, Patent year (grant year), Technology type, CPC class, Patent date, Patent title. - "LCET_patent_citations.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to other patents, 2 columns: citing, cited (Patent numbers). - "LCET_subset_with_metainfo_final.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to scientific papers from MAG, complemented by meta-information on patents and papers, 18 columns: Patent number, Paper ID, Patent year, Paper year, Technology type, WoS field, Patent title, Paper title, DOI, Confidence Score, Citation type, Reference type, Journal/ Conf. name, Journal ID, Conference ID, CPC class, Patent date, US patent. - "patent:citations.RData": Patent citations among all patents (not only LCET), 2 columns: citing, cited (Patent numbers). Moreover, this data publication contains a folder "code" with 2 subfolders: - "R_code_create_data" contains the R-scripts used to create the data sample. - "R_code_plots_and_figures" contains all R-scripts used to make the statistical analyses presented in the text (including figures and tables). Please check the read-me documents in the code folder for further detail. ### License and terms of use ### This data is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Please find the full license text below. If you want to use the data, do not forget to give appropriate credit by citing this article: Kerstin Hötte, Anton Pichler, François Lafond, The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 139, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110654 ### LCET definition and concepts ### LCET are defined by Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes. CPC offers "tags" that are assigned to patents that are useful for the adaptation and mitigation of climate chagen. LCET are identified by YO2E codes, i.e. that are assigned to technologies that contribute to the "REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS [GHG] EMISSIONS, RELATED TO ENERGY GENERATION, TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION". Only the subset of Y02E01 ("Energy generation through renewable energy sources"), Y02E03 ("Energy generation of nuclear origin") and Y02E5 ("Technologies for the production of fuel of non-fossil origin") technologies are used. 10 different LCET are distinguished: Solar PV, Wind, Solar thermal, Ocean power, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Biofuels, Fuels from waste, Nuclear fission and Nuclear fusion. More information about the Y02-tags can be found in: Veefkind, Victor, et al. "A new EPO classification scheme for climate change mitigation technologies." World Patent Information 34.2 (2012): 106-111. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2011.12.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2011.12.004) ### Data sources and compilation ### The data was generated by the merge of different data sets. 1.) Patent data from USPTO was downloaded here: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/ 2.) Complementary data on grant year and patent title was taken from: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data 3.) Citations to science come from the Reliance on Science (RoS) data set https://zenodo.org/record/3685972 (v23, Feb. 24, 2020) DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3685972 The directory ("code") offers the R-scripts that were used to process MAG data and to link it to patent data. The header of the R-scripts offer additional technical information about the subsetting procedures and data retrieval. For more information about the patent data, see: Pichler, A., Lafond, F. & J, F. D. (2020), Technological interdependencies predict innovation dynamics, Working paper pp. 1–33. URL: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00580](https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00580) For more information about MAG data, see: Marx, Matt, and Aaron Fuegi. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles." Strategic Management Journal 41.9 (2020): 1572-1594. DOI: [https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3145](https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3145) Marx, Matt and Fuegi, Aaron, Reliance on Science: Worldwide Front-Page Patent Citations to Scientific Articles. Boston University Questrom School of Business Research Paper No. 3331686. DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331686 ](http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3331686 ) ### Detailed information about the data ### - "all_papers.RData" : Data on scientific papers from Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), 3 columns: Paper ID: Unique paper-identifier used by MAG Paper year: Year of publication cited: binary 0-1, indicates whether the paper is cited by a patent, citation links are made in the text body and front-page of the patent, and added by examiners and applicants. - "all_patents.RData" : Data on USPTO utility patents, 6 columns: Patent number: Number given by USPTO. Can be used for manual patent search in http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm (numeric) Patent year: Year when the patent was granted (numeric) CPC class: Detailed 8-digit CPC code (numeric) Patent date: Exact date of patent granting (numeric) Patent title: Short title (character) citing_to_science: binary 0-1, indicates whether the patent is citing to science as identified by citation links in RoS. (numeric) - "LCET_patents.RData" : Subset of LCET patents, 6 columns: Patent number: (numeric) Patent year: (numeric) Technology type: Short code used to tag 10 different types of LCET (pv, (nuclear) fission, (solar) thermal, (nuclear) fusion, wind, geo(termal), sea (ocean power), hydro, biofuels, (fuels from) waste) (character) CPC class: Detailed 8-digit CPC code (character) Patent date: (numeric) Patent title: (numeric) - "LCET_patent_citations.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to other patents, 2 columns: citing: Number of citing patent (numeric) cited: Number of cited patent (numeric) - "LCET_subset_with_metainfo_final.RData" : Citations from LCET patents to scientific papers from MAG, complemented by meta-information on patents and papers, 18 columns: Patent number: see above (numeric) Paper ID: see above (numeric) Patent year: see above (numeric) Paper year: see above (numeric) Technology type: see above (character) WoS field: Web of Science field of research, WoS fields were probabilistically assigned to papers and are used as given by RoS (character) Patent title: see above (character) Paper title: Title of scientific article (character) DOI: Paper DOI if available (character) Confidence Score: Reliability score of citation link (numeric). Links were probabilistically assigned. See Marx and Fuegi 2019 for further detail. Citation type: Indicates whether citation made in text body of patent document or its front page (character) Reference type: Examiner or applicant added citation link (or unknown). (character) Journal/ Conf. name: Name of journal or conference proceeding where the cited paper was published (character) Journal ID: Journal identifier in MAG (numeric) Conference ID: Conference identifier in MAG (numeric) CPC class: see above (character) Patent date: see above (numeric) US patent: binary US-patent indicator as provided by RoS (numeric) - "patent:citations.RData": Patent citations among all patents (not only LCET), 2 columns: citing: Number of citing patent (numeric) cited: Number of cited patent (numeric) **Note:** The citation links were probabilistically retrieved. During the analysis, we identified manually some false-positives are removed them from the "LCET_subset_with_metainfo_final.RData" data set. The list is available, too: "list_of_false_positives.tsv" We do not claim to have a perfect coverage, but expect a precision of >98% as described by Marx and Fuegi 2019. ### Statistics about the data ### Full data set: - #papers in MAG: 179,083,029 - #all patents: 10,160,667 - #citing patents: 2,058,233 - #cited papers: 4,404,088 - #citation links from patents to papers: 34,959,193 LCET subset: - #LCET patents: 65,305 - #citing LCET patents: 22,017 - #cited papers: 103,645 - #citation links from LCET patents to papers: 396,504 Meta-information: Papers: - Publication year, 251 Web-of-Science (WoS) categories, Journal/ conference proceedings name, DOI, Paper title Patents: - Grant year, >240,000 hierarchical CPC classes, 10 LCET types Citation links: - Reference type, citation type, reliability score If you have further questions about the data or suggestions, please contact: **kerstin.hotte@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk** ### Acknowledgements ### The authors want to thank the Center for Research Data Management of Bielefeld University and in particular Cord Wiljes for excellent support. ### License issues ### Terms of use of the source data: - Reliance on Science data [https://zenodo.org/record/3685972](https://zenodo.org/record/3685972), Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) v1.0, https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ - "Google Patents Public Data” by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services and Google (https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/gcp/google-patents-public-datasets-connecting-public-paid-and-private-patent-data), Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), https://console.cloud.google.com/marketplace/details/google_patents_public_datasets/google-patents-public-data - USPTO patent data (https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/), see: https://bulkdata.uspto.gov/data/2020TermsConditions.docx

Comprehensive and reliable information on anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions is required to track progress towards keeping warming well below 2°C as agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. Here we provide a dataset on anthropogenic GHG emissions 1970-2019 with a broad country and sector coverage. We build the dataset from recent releases from the “Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research” (EDGAR) for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industry (FFI), CH4 emissions, N2O emissions, and fluorinated gases and use a well-established fast-track method to extend this dataset from 2018 to 2019. We complement this with information on net CO2 emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) from three available bookkeeping models.

QTDIAN - Quantification of Technological DIffusion and sociAl constraiNts - is a toolbox of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of socio-technical and political aspects of the energy transition that influence the overall potential, the rate of energy-related technology and service diffusion and the design of the future energy system. The output of QTIDIAN is empirically founded datasets of social and political drivers and barriers of the transition, both in the form of raw data describing past and current developments and manipulated to constitute consistent quantifications of the storylines. Here you can download the data for six QTDIAN themes: Socially feasible scaling of energy technologies Policy preferences & dynamics Barriers to infrastructural development (wind energy, grid development) Citizen energy Private energy demand Further information on the QTDIAN modelling toolbox and the data can be found in the SENTINEL Deliverable 2.3 and Deliverable 2.4: S��sser, D., al Rakouki, H., & Lilliestam, J.(2021). The QTDIAN modelling toolbox���Quantification of social drivers and constraints of the diffusion of energy technologies. Deliverable 2.3. Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS). S��sser, D., Pickering, B., Chatterjee, S., Oreggioni, G., Stavrakas, V., & Lilliestam, J.(2021). Integration of socio-technological transition constraints into energy demand and systems models. Deliverable 2.5. Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS).

Bioplastics are alternatives of conventional petroleum-based plastics. Bioplastics are polymers processed from renewable sources and are biodegradable. This study aims at conducting an environmental impact assessment of the bioprocessing of agricultural wastes into bioplastics compared to petro-plastics using an LCA approach. Bioplastics were produced from potato peels in laboratory. In a biochemical reaction under heating, starch was extracted from peels and glycerin, vinegar and water were added with a range of different ratios, which resulted in producing different samples of bio-based plastics. Nevertheless, the environmental impact of the bioplastics production process was evaluated and compared to petro-plastics. A life cycle analysis of bioplastics produced in laboratory and petro-plastics was conducted. The results are presented in the form of global warming potential, and other environmental impacts including acidification potential, eutrophication potential, freshwater ecotoxicity potential, human toxicity potential, and ozone layer depletion of producing bioplastics are compared to petro-plastics. The results show that the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, through the different experiments to produce bioplastics, range between 0.354 and 0.623 kg CO2 eq. per kg bioplastic compared to 2.37 kg CO2 eq. per kg polypropylene as a petro-plastic. The results also showed that there are no significant potential effects for the bioplastics produced from potato peels on different environmental impacts in comparison with poly-β-hydroxybutyric acid and polypropylene. Thus, the bioplastics produced from agricultural wastes can be manufactured in industrial scale to reduce the dependence on petroleum-based plastics. This in turn will mitigate GHG emissions and reduce the negative environmental impacts on climate change.

Household Surveys performed in four villages selected from Oromia, Amhara and Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR) following from the ‘Ethiopian Rural Household Survey’ (ERHS) conducted in 2004.It contains detailed data on household consumption and expenditures, assets, income, agricultural activities, land allocation, demographic characteristics, and other variables. From September 2011 to January 2012 another survey of 221 households was conducted in three major regions of central and southern Ethiopia. At the time of this latest survey effort the most recent ERHS survey data available was from 2004. The selection of respondents, determination of sample size, and apportionment of the sample were based on a proportional sampling technique.In addition to addressing important questions from the ERHS survey data, the field survey was designed to generate detailed information on household biomass energy production and consumption practices; as well as farming activities; labour and land allocation; economic and demographic characteristics; and expenditures on food, non-food items, and energy. The 2011 survey effort collected detailed household biomass energy use data. The measurement of household biomass energy use was obtained in traditional units and later converted into kilograms. The conversion factors for each of the biomass were collected from the closest urban centre of each of the study areas. Information obtained on household biomass energy use was collected for a time period of one week before the survey was conducted. It was then aggregated into annual figures, although household biomass energy use may vary seasonally. Quality/Lineage: The data was collected by qualified enumerators who had participated in previous ERHS survey. In addition to myself I recruited assistant supervisor to check the accuracy and quality of data on daily basis and followup interview process closely. Before the survey commenced a pilot survey was conducted in each of the study areas to identify the different types of energy households are using and other critical variables of interest for the research. This information was used to revise and improve questionnaire. Moreover, a one day in-depth training was given to enumerators and assistant supervisor to enrich their deeper understanding of each the question in the survey and to further improve questionnaire from their earlier experiences in those villages. Purpose: Over 90% of Ethiopian rural population rely on biomass energy. However, biomass energy utilization is linked to household livelihood as in rural households produce and consume biomass energy simultaneously with other (on and off-farm)activities. With the rampant rate of deforestation that Ethiopia is facing it is important to investigate the effect of deforestation or fuelwood scarcity which is assumed affect household welfare through influence on wage and price. In light of this, the survey effort collected information on household use of biomass energy sources, expenditure and labour allocation choices and amount of labour time used for each activities.This helped me to investigate the effect of fuelwood scarcity on household welfare from three aspects: labour allocation decision, energy expenditure and fuel choice and biomass energy consumption behavior to better understand the related linkage of household production and utilization of biomass with livelihoods or food security. This dataset was first published on the institutional Repository "Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung: ZEF Data Portal" with ID={c08e08aa-3055-4651-801b-0383610c1987}.

The yield gap for maize across the Ethiopia has been estimated using crop model LINTUL5 embedded into the modeling framework SIMPLACE (Scientific Impact Assessment and Modelling Platform for Advanced Crop and Ecosystem Management. The yield gap of a crop grown in a certain location and cropping system is defined as the difference between the yield and biomass under optimum management and the average yield achieved by farmers. Yield under optimum management is labeled as potential yield (Yp) under irrigated conditions or water-limited potential yield (Yw) under rain-fed conditions.Yp is location specific because of the climate, and not dependent on soil properties assuming that the required water and nutrients are non-limiting and can be added through management. Thus, in areas without major soil constraints, Yp is the most relevant benchmark for irrigated systems. Whereas, for rain-fed crops, Yw, equivalent to water-limited potential yield, is the most relevant benchmark. Both Yp and Yw are calculated for optimum planting dates, planting density and region-specific crop variety which is critical in determining the feasible growth duration, particularly in tropical climatic conditions where two or even three crops are produced each year on the same field. Purpose: To increase food production, identifying the regions with untapped production capacity is of prime importance and can be achieved by quantitative and spatially explicit estimates of Yield gaps, thus considering the spatial variation in environment and the production system. This dataset was first published on the institutional Repository "Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung: ZEF Data Portal" with ID={c2bbd5ed-fd4c-4a3f-b0b1-113a5d4f3ddf}. The yield gaps plotted in the map were calculated as the average values of 7 years (the year 2004 -2010). The unit is Megagram per hectare (Mg ha-1) which is equivalent to tons ha-1. The climate data at the national scale was made available from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Institute of Space Studies(https://data.giss.nasa.gov/impacts/agmipcf/agmerra/), AgMERRA.The dataset is stored at 0.25°×0.25° horizontal resolution (~25km). Soil parameter values were extracted from the soil property maps of Africa at 1 km x 1 km resolution (http://www.isric.org/data/soil-property-maps-africa-1-km). Maize yields (Mg ha-1) and fertilizer application (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) rates over seven years (2004 - 2010) at administrative zone level have been collected from the Central Statistical Agency, Ethiopia.

1. Aphids are abundant in natural and managed vegetation, supporting a diverse community of organisms and causing damage to agricultural crops. Due to a changing climate, periods of drought are anticipated to increase, and the potential consequences of this for aphid-plant interactions are unclear. 2. Using a meta-analysis and synthesis approach, we aimed to advance understanding of how increased drought incidence will affect this ecologically and economically important insect group, and to characterise any potential underlying mechanisms. We used qualitative and quantitative synthesis techniques to determine whether drought stress has a negative, positive, or null effect on aphid fitness and examined these effects in relation to 1) aphid biology, 2) geographical region, 3) host plant biology. 3. Across all studies, aphid fitness is typically reduced under drought. Subgroup analysis detected no difference in relation to aphid biology, geographical region, or the aphid-plant combination, indicating the negative effect of drought on aphids is potentially universal. Furthermore, drought stress had a negative impact on plant vigour and increased plant concentrations of defensive chemicals, suggesting the observed response of aphids is associated with reduced plant vigour and increased chemical defence in drought-stressed plants. 4. We propose a conceptual model to predict drought effects on aphid fitness in relation to plant vigour and defence to stimulate further research. Please check the ReadMe for an explanation of the values included in the dataset. Please note that n/a values are included in the Global_Dataset tab for plant meta-analysis data (_Plant_Vigour, _Plant_Defence, and _Plant_Nutrition), these indicate studies that did not report these parameters. Data was collected and curated using standard systematic literature synthesis approaches. The effect size (Hedges' g) reported in the dataset was calculated from extracted means and standard deviations.

The aim of this study was to quantify direct and indirect relationships between soil microbial community properties (potential basal respiration, microbial biomass) and abiotic factors (soil, climate) in three major land-cover types. Location: Europe Time period: 2018 Major taxa studied: Microbial community (fungi and bacteria) We collected 881 soil samples from across Europe in the framework of the Land Use/Land Cover Area Frame Survey (LUCAS). We measured potential soil basal respiration at 20ºC and microbial biomass (substrate-induced respiration) using an O2-microcompensation apparatus. Climate and soil data were obtained from previous LUCAS surveys and online databases. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to quantify relationships between variables, and equations extracted from SEMs were used to create predictive maps. Fatty acid methyl esters were measured in a subset of samples to distinguish fungal from bacterial biomass. Soil microbial properties in croplands were more heavily affected by climate variables than those in forests. Potential soil basal respiration and microbial biomass were correlated in forests but decoupled in grasslands and croplands, where microbial biomass depended on soil carbon. Forests had a higher ratio of fungi to bacteria than grasslands or croplands. Soil microbial communities in grasslands and croplands are likely carbon-limited in comparison with those in forests, and forests have a higher dominance of fungi indicating differences in microbial community composition. Notably, the often already-degraded soils of croplands could be more vulnerable to climate change than more natural soils. The provided maps show potentially vulnerable areas that should be explicitly accounted for in coming management plans to protect soil carbon and slow the increasing vulnerability of European soils to climate change. [Methods] Soil samples were collected during the 2018 LUCAS soil sampling campaign. Soil chemical and physical properties were measured at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy (Orgiazzi et al., 2018). Soil microbial respiration and biomass, as well as water content and water holding capacity, were measured in the Eisenhauer lab of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research. Fungi/Bacteria was measured by fatty acid analysis by Felipe Bastida at CEBAS CSIC. Climate and geographical data were harvested from various databases, which are listed in Appendix 1 (data sources) of the associated paper. For more details on the soil sampling and physical and chemical properties, see: Orgiazzi, A., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Jones, A., & Fernández-Ugalde, O. (2018). LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: a review. European Journal of Soil Science, 69(1), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499 For more details on the measurements of soil microbial respiration and biomass, fatty acids, and water holding capacity, see the supplementary methods of the associated paper (Appendix 2). [Usage Notes] Fatty acid analysis was performed for a subset of 267 samples. Water holding capacity and associated measurements of basal respiration was analyzed in a subset of 100 samples. The samples that were not in these subsets have NA values for the columns associated with these measurements. In order to protect the precise locations of the LUCAS sampling sites, latitude and longitude values could not be given. The approximate location of each sampling site is instead described by the NUTS3 region. If you wish to replicate the structural equation modeling described in the paper, for which latitude is required, please get in touch. A description of each column is available in the associated metadata file. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Award: FZT 118-202548816. European Research Council, Award: 694368. European Commission. Directorate-General for the Environment. Direction Générale Opérationnelle Agriculture, Ressources Naturelles et Environnement du Service Public de Wallonie. Eurostat. Peer reviewed