On the latest issue of "In Fonderia" magazine, dedicated to the future of the automotive industry, we hosted an interview with Carlo Mapelli, who took stock of the green transition and the (realistic) prospects for the industry

The European Parliament has voted in favour of the European Commission proposal for a total stop from 2035 of sales of new cars and new light commercial vehicles that run on endothermic fuel (petrol, diesel, and also LPG, methane and mild-hybrid), allowing manufacturers to continue producing vans and light commercial transport vehicles until 2040.  
Europe's decision immediately fuelled strong doubts and concerns with the worlds of politics and industry and also with the general public. While on the one hand the main objective of the measure—more rapid achievement of the goals of the 'Fit for 55' programme, which envisages a 55% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels)—is widely shared, on the other hand it is clear that such a drastic decision would jeopardise the Italian and European automotive and components sector, with the risk of generating a major crisis for the sector and the consequent loss of numerous jobs. 
Notwithstanding the risks for the entire automotive supply chain, the EU legislation as it stands today does not envisage electrification as the only way forward: taking on board requests by some countries, including Germany and Italy, the door to alternative technologies has not been definitively shut. In 2026, the Commission will assess whether to review the targets taking into account technological developments, considering the possibility of giving the green light to the use of biofuels, synthetic fuels or plug-in hybrid engines, if they can achieve the complete elimination of greenhouse gas emissions.
There is still room for manoeuvre, therefore, to ensure that this transition does not coincide with the total replacement of electric engines by endothermic ones, which would lead to a drastic downsizing of the entire European car industry. "Also because it is, in practice, impossible," says Carlo Mapelli, professor at the Politecnico di Milano, reflecting on the future of mobility—and with it of foundries—in terms of ecological transition and decarbonisation. “Political choices made in the energy field determine a country’s future. Thanks to the technologies and skills we have, we can still be competitive.”

Professor, the ecological transition as envisaged by Europe is rather simplistic. This is a real revolution in mobility. We know that it will also bring about epochal changes for foundries. To what extent do you think?
If this EU legislation were to be confirmed as it stands today, it is clear that the production of electric motors and the development of a related industrial chain would have a major impact on foundries, especially those most specialised in the production of components for heat engines. There would be a reduction of about 70% in castings for traction and power generation. This would be lower for the braking system. Certainly there would be a major downsizing of the current strategic position of foundries in the automotive sector.

These are important figures. Should we be concerned?
There are still many unknowns to be resolved before this scenario actually happens. The availability of electricity must be clarified, both in terms of production and distribution. Today, the grid is not adequate enough to withstand the high electricity transport capacities that would be required to completely convert a vehicle fleet from endothermic to electric engines. Suffice to think how much the size of a cable would need to be adjusted in an apartment block to recharge cars in individual garages. It would involve a significant increase in the use of copper and aluminium alloys, the supply of which is both a geopolitical problem and a balancing act between the sudden demand for so much raw material and a supply to which only a few producers can respond. Even more ambiguous is the picture of electricity production. Here the only way forward is nuclear power. Because it is clean and safe. But beyond the 'ideological' problems, which are more of a front than anything else, the real problem concerns the investment needed to build new reactors. As France, forced to nationalise Edf, has shown, to date no electricity company can afford to invest in nuclear power and make it a truly profitable source. All these are more than just trivial problems, which the ecological automotive transition certainly still has to address.

So does a third option exist besides endothermic and electric? Can we envisage a gradual phasing in instead of an abrupt switch to electric? 
I still believe that the most effective energy mix is hybrid, which in any case involves fossil fuel consumption, or a switch to biofuels as an alternative to traditional fuels. This, however, requires planning the management of forest resources, their regeneration and biomasses. 

What implications would this have on the foundry sector? 
The hybrid platform is actually a great opportunity for the sector, as it combines a heat engine with an electric one. Hybrid configurations include not only the components typical of endothermic engines (crankcase, oil sump, water pump casing, oil pump casing, engine head, gearbox, pistons, crankshaft, cylinder crankcase, clutch housing, etc.) but also those typical of electric systems (stator, rotor, fuse holder, battery housing, gearbox, power electronics housing, and engine case components). The EU legislation, it is true, says that endothermic engines must no longer be produced. However, the often ignored specification is that endothermic engines fuelled entirely by fossil fuels are no longer to be manufactured. The difference is huge. The battle to be waged at this point is to understand what fraction of fossil fuel is to be tolerated within the fuel. Being clear on how much and when will be crucial for foundries as well as for the related manufacturing industry.  

So, a politically incorrect question: is there still hope for fossil fuel?
Look, the only energy source that is not a problem is geothermal. But since not all countries are like Iceland, I think we need to reach some compromises here. First, it has to be said that using fossil fuel is not necessarily an obstacle in the process of decarbonisation. There are offsets for CO2 emissions, which must be exploited, as must the funding for biorefineries. For example, if I have enough forest to absorb the CO2 emitted, I can decarbonise even without completely changing the existing platform. Then there is the biofuel alternative. In technical terms, it has to be said that we are doing the same thing that nature has been doing for millions of years by providing us with fossil deposits. We are simply speeding up the process. I am also thinking of the partnership possibilities that could open up with neighbouring African countries: potential biofuel suppliers, to whom we would reciprocate with new technological solutions. There remains the not insignificant problem of whether the ecosystem is capable of regenerating itself as quickly as we would like to obtain biofuel. It is clear that we must absolutely avoid deforestation and for this calls for new policies for the management of forest resources and an understanding of how much of the emissions produced by fossil fuels we are able to reabsorb with forest resources. If I produce biofuels without deforestation, the CO2 that is generated is reabsorbed by the ecosystem, so we have energy circularity, as long as the number of active trees remains unchanged or increases.

Back to the foundries...
Foundries, just like the whole of the components sector, have to strive to make sure that the transition does not exclusively mean replacement with electrification, as that would be the worst case scenario for them. But, as I said, in my view there are too many obstacles for this to happen so quickly. In addition to what has already been said on the electricity production front, in fact, this path must also tackle the risks associated with the difficulties of supplying metals for batteries (lithium, cobalt, nickel, palladium), which are very expensive and for which there are very few suppliers. Indonesia, the Philippines and Russia are the only countries with substantial nickel resources. Hence the decision not to include nickel in the sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation after its invasion of Ukraine. Europe and the United States are well aware that such a move would bring a large part of the metal industry in the West to a standstill. The same applies to palladium, which is also predominantly of Russian origin. The danger is that we would, in general, increase our dependence on countries that do not guarantee us supply, and today, with the case of natural gas, we are seeing how painful this can be.

So, in the light of these and other critical issues, can we imagine a transition that sets a straight course towards the ultimate goal, decarbonisation, but at the same time leaves the option of technological neutrality valid?
Given the current external difficulties, starting with the ongoing energy crisis, we are forced to say that if we want this to end well, we must enhance our technological skills. We cannot jettison all the work and achievements of European industry in endothermic components, in terms of technological efficiency.

So is it plausible to say that the EU has bitten off more than it can chew?
The way our industry is structured, we have to study a gradual path that does not overexpose us to geopolitical risk. We can source natural gas from other sources, fine. But without being tied to a single supplier. That is why regasification plants are also crucial at this stage. For our production levels we should have at least twice as many. Because while it is true that producing energy with gas means emitting CO2, it is still 66% less than that emitted to produce the same energy using coal. We must then understand what spaces we have for the production of biofuels, also coupled with projects for the production of hydrogen, which must definitely not be overlooked, and perhaps electricity from nuclear sources, although, as already mentioned, the latter has some by no means trivial problems regarding profitability. We must make so many contributions intersect. We cannot focus only on electricity or only on hydrogen or only on biofuel. We must exploit the technological capacity we have and feed it with multiple sources, without fooling ourselves that there is only one way to achieve energy sustainability and decarbonisation. 

I would say that we are then faced with an even greater ambition than the one set by Europe.
We have to become more efficient. And in the automotive sector, the best, most sustainable combination to achieve this is hybrid, especially for urban mobility. We have to get away from the approach that Chinese pressure has brought to European regulation, with a strong bias towards the electric platform. 

How much 'consensus hunting' is there in the directions followed by Brussels which, we are noticing, do not appear to be very logical?
They are all political choices. After the taxation system, the energy market is probably the most delicate terrain for a political class, and consequently a state. In post-war Italy, we took paths that turned out to be virtuous. We introduced gas in homes, when the French were relying on less efficient electric heating. Our engineers were farsighted in equipping the country with a fleet of combined cycle power stations, some of the best in the world in terms of production costs. Political choices, precisely. Which turned out to be successful and which we remember positively today. Who knows if those who have to decide today share the same competence and shrewdness as their predecessors. 

An interview by Antonio Picasso & Andrea Bianchi