The new directive kills heat: who is right?
Also in this article I take my cue from an editorial I found on the net, written by Romano Prodi.
It's probably never too late to admit your mistakes, or at least that's how it seems to read this editorial written by whoever brought Italy into the EU.
However, some passages seem to me to be the result of hearsay, like many social news, without any scientific / objective data to support, at least this is what I note.
I add my considerations in italics, whether they can be shared or not, it will be up to the reader to decide, but which start from a basic concept: we must stop being social spin doctors and understand that training is the basis of everything, especially if at stake there it's an epochal revolution like this.
The reference is without distinction addressed to all those who give credit to everything the web discloses without doing a minimum of fact checks.
Everyone can be wrong, me first, but in my small way I try to inform myself as much as possible before saying something, possibly from qualified sources.
The post in question is the following, which I report in quotation marks, while my considerations are in red italics:
“Guarding the planet is a task and primary duty of all human society. On this priority, our Europe was absolutely prescient. Not only did the alarms on the health of the planet come from the club of Rome as far back as 1972, but the first document that extended the commitment to protect the planet to a global level was born from a European initiative."
And so far, at least for those who believe in too much pollution and therefore in the need to act, I agree.
“I remember in fact when, at the beginning of this century, as President of the European Commission, I went around the world to get the Kyoto Protocol signed by a number of countries needed to render binding commitments contained therein, despite the fierce opposition of the United States and China.”
However, I would like to say that, after the signing of the protocol, the only state not to give massive incentives to renewable energies and not to give incentives to study and research on alternative mobility (whether it be hydrogen, alternative fuels or batteries, it doesn't matter much) was precisely the forward-looking Europe.
“Twenty years after those events, I am somewhat surprised to note that, precisely to make the noble objectives proposed at the time concrete, the European Parliament has sided with the future of the automobile in favor of the only choice production in which China and the United States are located heavily ahead compared to Europe.”
See previous comment. But regardless of China, the USA, etc., the deployment of Europe, at least reading the final text, is not ONLY BUY BATTERY-POWERED CARS but seems oriented towards vehicles that can be classified as zero-emissions. With the term emission, meaning what is currently coming out of the exhaust pipe. All the rest of the pollution, civil and industrial, even more important than automotive if you like, is addressed with other amendments and other resolutions. It is within anyone's reach to understand that, at least in terms of direct local emissions, battery-powered cars (because fuel cells are battery-powered cars to all intents and purposes, only more complex) are the most efficient solution in terms of energy and emissions. Maybe not the cheapest, but a BEV is definitely a lot a lot more energy efficient than any other power supply right now. Hydrogen itself, which is an energy vector not present as a separate element in nature, throughout the supply chain, from production to use, does not exceed 30% efficiency in the face of costs currently too high for cars at least. However, this technology is also constantly evolving, so the future will tell us which will be the most logical and convenient choice, as long as it has zero emissions. And, like all things revolutionary, it can never be a switch off overnight.
“The decision to abandon the production of any type of automobile powered by a diesel or petrol engine, in order to switch to a purely electric traction system in such a short time frame (by 2035), in fact obliges us to to overshadow ongoing progress in the field of biofuels, hydrogen and other technologies that see Europe fighting on equal terms.”
Perhaps we should have thought first of encouraging renewables and investing in alternative fields. However, in the standard issued Biofuels, synthetic fuels and above all hydrogen are included among the possibilities useful for achieving the purpose. They are expressly mentioned and if that is the road that Italy wants to pursue, no one is stopping it, quite the contrary! Instead of investing resources for euro 7 endothermic engines, a rule that will put every designer in serious crisis, invest in engines running on synthetic fuels, HVO, biofuels, etc. The important thing is that there is no emission of pollutants, if one wants to be consistent with Kyoto. To be clear, the rule is against air pollution, not against motors or pro electric. And this is the point to fight.
“Yet there are substantial doubts that the choice made is the most convenient way to tackle the problem of planet degradation, given the quantity and quality of raw materials needed to produce the batteries that make up the electric car engine and given the high cost of scrapping the batteries themselves.”
I mention this only because I don't feel like writing so much 🙂
For those who don't want to translate it https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danieleinvernizzi_cathie-wood-lithium-will-be-in-excess-supply-activity-7033306747641421824-slCE?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
And then, again with this scrapping! Car batteries are not like remote control styluses that everyone throws away (for consistency, of course), but they have second lives, (second lives) and, listen, listen, they can also be recycled instead of burying them and, another amazing thing , are not expiring, as many claim!
"The whole without taking energy into account necessary to move their weight, much greater than that of a traditional internal combustion engine.”
So energy becomes important for moving battery-powered cars, but we don't care (in terms of efficiency, that is) for heat engines, FCEVs or alternative power supplies. Fox and grapes? Incidentally, in terms of energy, i.e. with the same unit of measurement, a liter of petrol is equivalent to 9,6 kWh and a liter of diesel is approximately 10,7 kWh. A 2500 kg diesel vehicle, an off-road vehicle or an SUV, consumes around 8-10 litres/100 km, which means that it uses the equivalent of 100/85,6 kWh to travel 107 km. A modern electric SUV of the same weight and size travels 100 km with an exaggerated 22/24 kWh, therefore about 4 and a half times less.
“You also have to add to all this the cost of the infrastructure needed to recharge the batteries,”
Costs significantly lower than the construction of a capillary hydrogen distribution infrastructure, plus electric energy savings given that renewable energy could be used directly for cars rather than having to invest in it and then use it to produce green hydrogen, store it, transport it (with vehicles probably still diesel) restocking and distributing it….to generate electricity to put into a battery that powers an electric motor. I trust in research and technological development of less impactful and less energy-intensive methodologies, but this is the situation today.
"the pollution caused by the production of electricity (only partially generated from renewable sources) and, although gradually being resolved, the limited autonomy of electric cars and their long recharging times.”
Energy production in some cases pollutes but, as Prodi himself said, the renewables issue is fortunately expanding, and already today, with the current energy mix, this issue is clearly to the advantage of BEVs. On the question of autonomy and recharge times it is clear that there is some training gap. If one thinks as thermal users driving an electric then it's fine, but an electric user should first be properly trained and above all helped and accompanied in the change of vision and mentality that inevitably serves with electrics. And mind you, I'm not saying that you necessarily have to switch to BEV, but that you can't face such a new world without preparation, as naive, as instead you continually pass by highlighting only the difficulties that any naive would have. Unfortunately, Italy is the country where you can find the most unopened instruction booklets in the world. So far, with more than 70k km/year on electric, I've never found myself in difficult situations due to timing, procurement or range, whether in Italy or abroad. However, it is clear that the right approach and the correct training/information are needed.
“It should therefore not be surprised if, unlike other studies that reach opposite conclusions, one recent research of the University of Munich argues that, taking all these aspects into account, an electric car ends up producing, together with a substantial fall in jobs, a quantity of CO2 higher than that of a latest generation internal combustion engine .”
We are in 2023 and we are talking about a 2019 research that has been denied over and over again by more recent studies as well as contemporary studies. For jobs, this text was recently published, which goes against the tide of what has been stated: https://www.motus-e.org/studi_e_ricerche/rapporto-sulle-trasformazioni-dellecosistema-automotive-italiano/
“Especially since, given the high cost of electric cars, it will become convenient to use even the most polluting cars on the market for as long as possible.”
Costs are bound to go down, but if it were also true that they grow, there is also something alternative to buying cars, especially if they are the "most polluting ones on the market today". However, the coherence of the desire to reduce the impact on the climate with this statement should be underlined.
I return to the considerations made above: if we (Italy) are convinced that batteries are the devil, we have had (but lost) and still have time to invent the zero-emission solution that best suits us, as long as it reaches the goal. I recall, but the author knows it best of all, that the Kyoto protocol also speaks of reducing methane emissions, used for the reforming of hydrogen, for example, and that the famous latest generation nuclear power plants are not built in 10 years. We await the rabbit from the cylinder anyway, with zero emissions, of course.
“Despite the technological advances of China and the United States in the production of batteries, the costs of electric cars still remain much higher than those of the technologies that have been dominant until now.”
Even horses and carriages at the time cost less than thermal propulsion cars.
“For a long number of years we will therefore have to incentivize buyers of the electric car with heavy subsidies, dedicated to buying products that, almost entirely, are manufactured in China or in the gigantic battery plants under construction in the United States, under the pressure of the incentives provided by the government.”
I think it answered itself. Instead of encouraging useless subsidies or other amenities seen so far, it would be enough to direct funds and energies in the right direction as others have done. If the blanket is now short, let's at least keep the vital parts warm.
“Finally, in the absence of an industrial policy at the European level, the large companies of the Union are gearing up for meet this challenge with new major projects, naturally subsidized by the nation states both in the form of a conspicuous investment incentive, and through a contribution to buyers which, according to the affirmation of the European Commissioner for Industry Thierry Breton, is in the order of 6.000 Euros for each car purchased.
In Italy the problem takes on a very particular aspect in that, although it is by now marginal in production of finished cars, we are a country of extraordinary importance in the production of components, most of which do not exist in electric cars, which are much simpler and move propelled solely by very expensive batteries.”
New technologies are already bringing costs down, but trivializing the electric car by reducing it to just a battery seems simplistic to me. Many companies surrounding the automotive sector will probably have to change their production, it may well be so, but other industries will also have to be born for all the new BEVs entail. See previous report cited.
“In fact, electric cars do not need filters, valves, cylinder heads, injectors, cylinder blocks, pumps, tanks and the many other gadgets that make up a car powered by a diesel or petrol engine.”
If the goal is to reduce the polluting elements, many of these "devils" are in contrast with the same. To pollute in the car there is not only the exhaust, but also a whole series of ancillary elements such as the oil and the fuel itself for example. There will certainly be an epochal change, but, I repeat, see the previous report.
“As a result, in our country, there will be a reduction of more than fifty thousand jobs and a considerable damage to our trade balance, given that we are major exporters to European car companies.”
See reports
"Other resources will therefore be necessary to remedy this further consequence, common to all of Europe but which, in Italy, takes on weight quite particular.
Faced with all these considerations, I wonder if such drastic choices and such a short time frame are the best decision for protect the future of our planet. Perhaps the European legislators themselves had some doubts on the subject when they proposed a possible review in 2025."
If we talk about extending the deadline, I can also partially agree, but up until now the problem has never been addressed in these terms. So in the end, what do we want to achieve as a goal?
“As they say in these cases, however, it is a “worst patch than the hole” because, meanwhile, all the big decisions will have already been implemented, with their consequences, including that of block all searches to improve the functioning of the endothermic engine.”
Point 11 of the standard: (11) After consulting stakeholders, the Commission will present a proposal for the post-2035 registration of vehicles running exclusively on COXNUMX-neutral fuels2 in accordance with Union law, outside the emission performance standards of the vehicle fleet, and in accordance with the Union's climate neutrality objective.
13 is also interesting, but I assume the content is known to the author.
There is so much more to say, but I have wrote a book about it!
I invite you to browse through it and, if you wish, I am at your disposal for a constructive comparison, as long as it is based on more reliable sources and data than social media
