“It has become somewhat of a habit for the European Commission to set unrealistic objectives, in scope and deadlines, which risk hindering, rather than helping, the achievement of very just objectives such as that of decarbonisation. It happened in the past and it risks happening again with the Regulation on electric cars that has just been definitively approved by the European Parliament”. Joseph Zollino he is a professor of energy technology and economics at the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Padua, he has a deep knowledge of the sector with various experiences also in Europe. Last year in view of the elections he wrote the energy and environment chapter of the Action program and is still responsible for that sector.
We asked him a few questions to clarify what is happening in terms of ecological transition where it seems that every authority moves in a disorderly manner and not on the basis of precise and scientifically validated calculations, but on the spur of emotion, or worse, to seek political visibility. The result is that there is a risk of taking roads that do not lead to the foreseen goals, that a lot of money is spent risking compromising the well-being achieved by our citizens, that rules are fixed without an adequate assessment of their impact.
The case of the Regulation on the ban on internal combustion engines for cars starting from 2035 seems to me to be one of these cases. Are we sure that electric cars are really the cleanest solution from an ecological point of view?
“Effectively this concerns the entire Green Deal: decisions taken on any basis - political, ideological, etc. - that are not in-depth technical-economic analyzes of their impact, risk not achieving the desired objectives. Decarbonization must be sustainable from an economic and social point of view, therefore the European production system must not be disrupted, but accompanied in a reasonable technological evolution. Let's take the case of the car. The new regulation measures tailpipe emissions, effectively allowing only electric cars to be sold. But to correctly evaluate the effects of electrification it is necessary to consider the entire life cycle of the vehicle. Let's take two polar opposite examples: suppose we build a car and its battery in France or Sweden, and then that car is used in the same two countries, then that car really has almost zero emissions, because in France and Sweden the energy electricity is almost entirely produced by nuclear power (between 50 and 70%) and renewables. The same thing cannot be said for a car produced in China and perhaps sold in Poland or Germany, where electricity is largely produced with fossil fuels, among which a prominent place still belongs to coal”.
So the impression that emotional or ideological decisions are made on all this matter without relying on science is confirmed.
“As I said, to support the rapid transition to electric cars, the regulation only considers emissions at the tailpipe where obviously the electric has zero emissions, without assessing the entire life cycle of the car. An irrational and even hypocritical decision, because it does not take reality into account. Moreover, if the electric car instead of batteries had a hydrogen tank and fuel cells, things would not change much, because the origin of that hydrogen would have to be considered again. On the other hand, a combustion car powered by biomethane, an excellent supply chain in Italy, violates the regulation but today has real emissions that are far lower than those of an electric car. That said, it is essential and urgent that decarbonisation involve the entire transport sector, which contributes significantly to CO2 emissions. After all, extraordinary technological transitions have already taken place in the past (think of the transition from animal to mechanical traction at the beginning of the last century) but always guided by the affirmation of the greater efficacy and efficiency of the new which has ended up replacing the old , without anyone having thought of fixing the date of the handover at the table".
Even in Europe they seem to have realized that too rigid targets are not sustainable. In three years there will be a revision of this Regulation while in some way a passage has been opened to maintain heat engines with synthetic gasoline or biomethane.
“In fact the art. 15 of the recently approved regulation provides for a profound revision in 2026 with many points of verification of the situation in order to understand whether it is not the case to revise the times and objectives envisaged in art. 1. And also in the premises of the text of the compromise approved by the Council of Heads of State in the autumn, there is mention of the possibility of keeping the heat engine powered by clean fuels. And this becomes fundamental above all for heavy vehicles which, based on the technologies available today, will hardly run on batteries".
Certainly in this whole affair of climate change it seems that we are proceeding erratically. There are huge industrial policy problems tackled in a nationalistic way with serious risks for international trade, and then there are fluctuations in the behavior of both politicians and citizens. For example, it really struck me that it was only at the beginning of last year, after a long battle, that gas and nuclear were included in the European taxonomy, just as everyone in the world was running wild in search of gas whose prices have shot up to unprecedented levels. seen before. In short, on the one hand investments are being held back by saying that gas will no longer be needed in a few years and on the other one is looking for it everywhere, even wanting to make our country a gas hub.
“Nuclear energy has indeed been included in the taxonomy with a political decision, however taken on the basis of a powerful study by the Commission's Joint Research Center which clearly states that it does not constitute a risk for citizens and that therefore it is, together with the renewables, technology suitable for decarbonisation. Transient use is envisaged for gas; as if to say: better gas than coal. However, I think it would be appropriate to allow its use from a certain point on together with the capture and storage or reuse of CO2. After all, if we want to guarantee the availability of natural gas, enough to think of making our country a gas hub, the infrastructures we have to build and the contracts signed with suppliers will have to have a much longer life than the ten years envisaged by the EU for gas use. And to use natural gas for longer in a sustainable way, it is necessary to encourage the development of CO2 capture systems”.
To reduce the consumption of fossil energy sources, we must switch to greater consumption of electricity, however, made with sources that do not emit greenhouse gases.
“All long-term scenarios, with zero CO2 emissions, foresee a strong electrification of consumption. In Italy, for example, the electricity requirement, including the quota for the production of hydrogen, is estimated to be 650-700 terawatt hours (billions of kilowatt hours). All to be generated without CO2 emissions. To achieve this result it is necessary to use all available technologies from renewables, to nuclear power, to gas with CO2 capture, in the right mix, taking into account the situation in our country. It will be necessary to accelerate investments in renewables right away, in order to then start the construction of some nuclear power plants in 3-4 years. From the accounts of my research group, by 2050 we will need about 35 GW of nuclear power and 380 GW of photovoltaic, wind (mainly offshore) and short-term and seasonal storage plants. An enormous challenge that must be faced and won. And the nuclear share, although minor in terms of installed power, will nonetheless supply about 40% of electricity needs, at stable and competitive costs, so as to lower the total cost of the system, as well as reducing land occupation and use of materials. Moreover, in the long run, it is unthinkable to continue to count on the import of electricity from abroad. Even our neighbors will have to decarbonise and therefore will see their electricity needs grow: we can therefore expect in the future that trade will continue, but net imports to Italy will cease”.
But it is said that building a nuclear power plant is too expensive and takes too long so it's not worth it.
“These are statements that tell only part of the situation. To build a nuclear reactor of the current generation, the third evolved, safe and reliable, 7-8 years are technically sufficient, as demonstrated by the 4 reactors built in sequence, one year apart from each other, in the Emirates. There, the South Korean Kepco built a 11 GW plant in 5,6 years, which will generate 45 TWh continuously and cleanly for 60 years, at a stable cost of around €60/MWh. The 3 (only 3) European examples, artfully cited by the anti-nuclear activists, are the result of the drastic reduction in orders from European industry and the substantial disengagement of the utilities, caused by the ideological choice to set increasingly ambitious obligatory European objectives of renewable share in electricity generation. Where nuclear reactors are built on a regular basis, the numbers are as I said. Now is the time to reverse course in Europe as well, because the goal of decarbonisation is too important to tackle it in an ideological way.
After all, it also takes time to build renewable plants. In Switzerland, a hydroelectric plant with 20 Gigawatt hour storage basins was recently inaugurated and it took 14 years. And a hypothetical 100% renewable Italian scenario of plants like this would require 50.
In short, to make a real energy transition it takes a lot of investment and a lot of time and you have to follow the dictates of numbers and technology. Italy should urgently redo its energy plan, involving real experts in the field, who should propose alternative scenarios, indicating the implications and costs of each. Then the Government and above all the entire Parliament should evaluate and choose. It would be important to aim for broad participation by all political forces because it is a long-term plan, well beyond the duration of a legislature, which will involve the whole country for at least half a century".
