Does the EU Court of Auditors reject the electric car and the 2035 “trap”? Reading some of the Italian newspapers it would seem so. The occasion for the new anti-electricity broadside was the hearing in Parliament of three members of the supervisory body, who, summarizing the contents of three reports published in the last two years, took stock of the European strategy for the decarbonisation of transport.
EU Court of Auditors on electric cars: “It is the only possible alternative”
And the conclusion of the head of delegation Nikolaos Milionis – silent in the aforementioned journalistic reports – was: «Battery-powered vehicles appear to be the only viable alternative».
Everyone can check from official website of the Court which yesterday published a detailed position statement.
In summary, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) examines i three key chapters of the European climate strategy regarding car emissions:
– limit carbon emissions from cars with combustion engines
-explore alternative fuel options
-promote the mass diffusion of electric vehicles.
It concludes that the first point has not yet materialised, the second appears not to be sustainable on a large scale and the third risks being costly for both industry and consumers in the EU.
In 12 years the emissions produced in real driving conditions by conventional cars they have not decreased because on average cars weigh about 10% more and need engines that are about 25% more powerful. And the hybrid pluginswhich are still classified as “low emission” in real-world use on the road emit on average the 250% more than declared (laws).
The heat engine is doomed: there is no alternative fuel
Alternative fuels (biofuels, electrofuels and hydrogen) they cannot be substituted of petrol and diesel. The European Court of Auditors’ report on biofuels highlighted that: not available in the quantity needed because the EU does not produce enough biomass; import it means give up strategic autonomyto; they’re still not as competitive as costs; environmental sustainability is dubious.
Therefore, since CO emissions2 of combustion engines cannot be reduced, «the battery-powered vehicles they seem to be the only possible alternative». However, our auditors found more than one critical issue. For example that the European battery industry is late compared to Asian competitors.
The risks: European industry is lagging behind, either prices fall or we will have to import them
Relies on less than 10% of global production, it does not have secure supplies of raw materialThe production cost in Europe it remains «significantly higher than expected». This still makes «the prices of electric vehicles are prohibitive Europeans for a large part of the population». Sales of new electric cars «have increased sharply» (one new registration in seven) but «if the EU’s capacity and competitiveness do not increase significantly, the “electric car revolution” in Europe risks being based on imports». Damaging the European automotive industry and its over 3 million workers.
Finally, the number of charging infrastructures in the EU is still far from the target of one million by 2025. Therefore «travel in Europe in an electric car it’s still far from a walk in the park».
In conclusion, the EU Court of Auditors highlights i well-known problems to face and overcome, but it makes no mention of the 2035 deadline. Much less does it mention rejecting it. We therefore ask ourselves why we have to read titles like: “Electric car, the EU Court of Auditors rejects Europe“, “Electric car, goodbye to the European Court of Auditors“, “Stop combustion engines from 2035, not even the EU Court of Auditors believes it?“.
Or rather, we understand it very well: we’ll vote in two months…
.){kind=link}