There is no arguing about enthusiasm. The National Recovery and Resilience Plan will mark the change of pace in the way Italians produce and consume. But since the Draghi government was born, we have lost count of requests, analyses, scenarios to give more space to this or that clean energy source. To safeguard the environment and consumption, of course, often leaving out, however, the objective elements that bring us back to reality. The Minister of Ecological Transition Roberto Cingolani has clear ideas on how to face the future. It should be remembered that Italy is still largely based on oil and gas. Energy vectors that we will not get rid of easily. For example, 70% of thermoelectric production comes from gas and has a percentage of use almost double that of the world. And the greatest hopes of reducing emissions are concentrated on the electricity sector (cars, buildings), wrote Professor Ennio Macchi, professor emeritus of “Energy and Environmental Systems” at the Milan Polytechnic. We interviewed him.
Professor Macchi, can the resources of the PNRR really change the Italian energy perspective in the medium term?
“Considering that I don't yet know the details of the Plan being examined by Parliament, it will certainly implement a series of important initiatives, aimed at promoting the penetration of the three “clean” energy vectors, electricity, hydrogen and biofuels. For this to lead to a truly positive result, a strong change of gear in the development of renewable energies would be essential, a development that has almost stopped in the last five years. The hope is that this will not penalize the cost of energy for businesses and households, which is essential for our country's competitiveness. In this regard, I have some doubts that the choices indicated (floating photovoltaic systems and off-shore wind farms) are a winning choice. Either because they look like expensive solutions, or because they are based on technologies that I fear are not present in the national industry”.
Moreover, that of technologies is a very open topic in our country.
“I am pleased that initiatives are envisaged in the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide, a fundamental technology for reconciling the use of fossil resources with the reduction of climate-altering gas emissions. In particular, producing “blue” hydrogen is certainly cheaper than producing “green” hydrogen. The availability of affordable hydrogen is essential to create a demand for this energy vector, both in transport and in industry. The short-term abandonment of coal and the recent technological developments in large natural gas combined cycles will ensure a significant reduction in emissions from the Italian generation park. We will continue on the virtuous path, undertaken some time ago, which has brought the specific emissions of the Italian generation park to values much lower than the European and world average, despite the renunciation of nuclear power".
But Europe has included new gas pipelines and liquefied gas terminals among the projects of common interest (Pic). About 30 billion euros are at stake. In your opinion, how do these investments reconcile with the Next Generation EU?
“This choice, in my opinion, fits well with the need to diversify energy supplies and support the energy transition: it will allow the reduction of the use of coal and the decarbonisation of heavy road and sea transport. Decarbonization sees the use of liquefied natural gas as a carrier as the main route, in advanced engines with a high compression ratio”.
Meaning what ?
“In perspective, I don't imagine an “all electric” world, but I find the use of the combination of electricity and gas more rational”.
In perspective, but in closer times?
“In the short-medium term we can think of mixtures of natural gas with gradually increasing percentages of biomethane and hydrogen (green and blue), passing through the existing gas pipelines. Furthermore, it should be remembered that, as the percentage of non-programmable renewable sources fed into the grid increases, the role of modern gas turbines (capable of loading ramps unthinkable until a few years ago) will be fundamental in guaranteeing the reliability of the grid”.
It takes a lot of money to do everything. Who should invest more: companies, distinguishing between those controlled by the state, or the state directly?
“I believe that the contribution of companies is fundamental for the success of the ecological transition. Experience shows that companies collaborate more successfully with universities (my Polytechnic has an enviable record in this regard) than with large state research centers (ENEA, CNR, IIT)”.
However, the state…
“The fundamental task of the State is to create a regulatory, authorization and tariff framework that encourages companies to invest in research aimed at the ecological transition. A fundamental role may also be played by the many innovative start-ups that are emerging: our research doctorates train enthusiastic young researchers, capable of bringing innovative ideas to success".
On traditional sources there are always the controversies of the environmentalist world. How surmountable are the disputes over the use of gas in the mix of the green transition?
“I hope that these disputes, based on ideological convictions often in good faith but far from reality, can be overcome with a work of persuasion based on facts. In many sectors, it makes no sense to focus solely on electricity as an energy vector. To date, the contribution made by natural gas to decarbonisation has been more important than that provided by renewable sources, albeit precious".
Does it also apply to Italy?
“Italy is a virtuous example in this sense. For many years, natural gas, the cleanest fossil resource, will continue to play a key role."
Traditional nuclear power will dominate for three or four years, before completely depleting its availability at the mining level. Meanwhile people will think that the current comes from wind turbines and will feel happy. They will buy hybrids and electric cars, but will quickly discard them because they will realize that they are useless and have no function. Meanwhile Elon Musk will have earned trillions of dollars on the stock market and certainly not by selling his useless cars. The psychosis of climate change and the conviction of being able to intervene on it will fade in about twenty years, when it will be clear to the new generations that it has been a pure narrative marketing mania. Then, what will power civil engines will be the fuel cell, while synthetic diesel and bio-diesel will power the industrial and transport sectors. Cold nuclear fusion, which already exists, will only be used by the military sector, which will slow down its application to civilians. But the military will sell the energy to civilians. That doesn't mean it will be free. We will save nothing, nothing will change, we will always have the problem of waste, the disposal of chemical derivatives and above all inequalities will increase, since the intellectual property around these new energy sources will count for a lot. If you like it, that's it. If you don't like it, that's the same. With all due respect to Greta Thunberg and all the pious saviors of the earth.