Electric cars, Abbotto on the Piazza Pulita report: “Formigli ignores scientific data. Here’s why”
A timely and detailed analysis, the one carried out by the professor Alessandro Abbotto, of the Department of Materials Science University of Milan – Bicocca, on the latest episode of A clean sweep on LA7 on 14 March, precisely on service dedicated to electric cars. The signature of the Vaielettrico portal, in fact, writes precisely to the latter by telling that he had “heard with disbelief the report by Corrado Formigli, who begins his speech by anticipating the criticisms of the “ideologists” of the electric car. I don’t know who Formigli was addressing. I am a scientist who relies on the analysis of scientific articles and data to draw conclusions about the superiority, from every point of view, of the electric car compared to the fossil fuel car.
If you choose to ignore scientific data, that’s another matter. There are and always will be “flat earthers”, but there is no point in complaining.
The “real” emissions data: false
The service reaches incredible levels for me when Pier Luigi Del Viscovo, Founder and Director of the Fleet & Mobility Study Center, states that car emissions in the European Union represent “only 0.9% of global emissions”. That 0.9% is absolutely strange to me, considering the information at my disposal which indicates a very different reality.
According to the official EU sources (European Environment Agency), the transport sector is responsible for almost a third of emissions in the EU, and over 70% of these come from road transport (over 60% from cars).
Then, a few moments later, the transmission zooms in on the data on the other party’s screen (see image below) and, surprise (!), it matches exactly what I have. Using exactly the same data as the broadcast (total EU emissions of 2.8 Gt and car emissions of 0.34 Gt), it turns out that the car emissions represent approximately 12% of the total, not 0.9%! It means over 13 times the percentage value declared during transmission!
Cars outside Europe? Disappear
This discrepancy raises, at least, some doubt about a selective interpretation of the data by the broadcast. But where does that 0.9% come from? Then I get suspicious. I run two quick calculations, comparing car emissions in the EU not with total emissions in the EU but in the whole world. And, magic, that 0.9% comes out!
In other words, the broadcast seems to suggest that There are no cars outside the EU! Too bad the reality is a little different. They are esteemed around the world approximately 1.4 billion of cars, while inJust over 250 million are in circulation in the EU.
We continue with another surprising pearl from Formigli (see images alongside taken from the broadcast): a equal cost, you can travel 2.5 times more kilometers with a combustion car than with a battery-powered car. Here too I remain incredulous in front of these statements and, once again, a simple analysis of the numbers highlights the weakness of Formigli’s argument or, alternatively, a data manipulation to support one’s theory, it must be said, at any cost. Even granting that one can find the evidently most expensive charging station in Italy (with a price of €0.9/kWh, which is a record for AC charging), anyone with experience of driving an electric car knows that The energy consumption in the city, in the worst cases, is around 15 – 17 kWh every 100 km (with a Tesla, consumption can drop to 11 kWh every 100 km: I speak from years of direct experience). Not to mention that they exist subscriptions which reduce costs by up to a third or a quarter, not counting home charging. Considering also the worst real consumption, con 20 €therefore, it is possible purchase over 22 kWh of energywhich correspond to 130 – 150 km of autonomy, not at 70 km as erroneously indicated by Formigli. These data are based on real experiences, not theoretical calculations. Formigli’s editorial team, however, prefers to use theoretical, not real, data to evaluate the autonomy of the combustion car, based on the constructor’s declarations. Formigli, perhaps, has never driven (except, I think, for a few hours) an electric car in his life, but it is likely that he has decades of experience with driving a combustion car.
And, therefore, you should know well that the data provided by manufacturers often differ from the real ones. Even just taking the official data from the observatory of the Ministry of Business and Made in Italy (“Observe Fuel Prices”), for a medium segment car in the third quarter of 2023 (latest data available), approximately €12 was spent per 100 km, equivalent to 167 km per €20.
Therefore, even taking into consideration the worst situation for the electric car (and the best for the petrol car), we do not obtain a ratio of 178:70 as erroneously stated by Formigli, but rather a ratio of 167:150, which is very different.
Also considering the losses and taxes (but not the fixed costs of the meter, which should not be calculated because they would still have to be paid even without the electric car), we can estimate a cost, being very broad, of around 15 cents per kWh. So, with €20, you can buy around 130 kWh todaywhich correspond to a real autonomy of over 850 km in the city! Therefore, the correct ratio between thermal and electric car would be 167:850.
I could continue to list further topics touched on by Formigli’s investigation, such as the total cost of ownership which is already lower today (without incentives) for electric cars and the Life Cycle Analysis to demonstrate that emissions linked to electric mobility are lower over the entire cycle of life, from the extraction of minerals to the disposal of batteries.
Formigli and the “pragmatic approach”
However, I realize that persuading everyone of these concepts is like trying to convince a flat earther that the Earth is round. I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated the crucial importance of an accurate and complete evaluation for truly understand the impact of electric cars on modern society. Formigli has insisted several times on his pragmatic approach: I buy the car that costs the least and that I can manage most comfortably (even if those who have been driving an electric car for years, like me, find it extremely comfortable and simple to manage), even if more polluting.
If we start discussing the costs or complexity of a nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, computerized axial tomography or surgery, we may find ourselves forced to review the fundamental values of a modern society, respectful of people and the environment.
Costs, benefits, responsibilities
There are situations in which the politics or local administrations must facilitate the most responsible, even if more expensive, choice.
This is why incentives exist, dear Formigli. Someone didn’t invent them by waking up in the morning with an eccentrically generous soul towards this strange technology, if the fossil fuel-based technology, which exists and works perfectly, had no impact on the planet and human health. In conclusion, it is undeniable that a correct interpretation of the data is fundamental to conduct an informed debate and significant on the transition to low-emission vehicles. Only through an accurate understanding of the facts can we to make decisions informed that they truly reflect our priorities and values.
I am sure that Corrado Formigli is the first to agree with these conclusions. So, why not start using real, scientific data and experiences to evaluate the electric car, and make some calculations correctly? I remain confident that sooner or later this will happen.”