We are getting used to new words and acronyms, which until recently seemed difficult to put into reality.
Starting with resilience, which entered the daily lexicon practically with the pandemic up to giving the name to the 200 billion plan to get out of the crisis: the Pnrr, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. And technological neutrality, requested by many to give each resource the opportunity to deploy its potential resources without preconceptions. We often hear it spoken in the mobility sector, to stigmatize and highlight the tendency to accelerate the path of electric propulsion before technologies and infrastructures are up to the situation, to the detriment of the current market structure (and of the production world), as well as of the other alternative propulsion. Then circular economy, a production and consumption model that involves sharing, lending, reusing, repairing, reconditioning and recycling of the existing materials and products for as long as possible. It extends the life cycle of products, helping to reduce waste to a minimum. When the product ends its function, the materials it is made of are in fact reintroduced into the economic cycle. Reuse in the production process generates additional value. Speaking of energy, this is the case with bio gas and bio methane, the perfect examples. Another concept is the life cycle assessment. We often talk about vehicles gas emission, or of the well-to-wheel method. Instead, it is advisable to rely on the calculation of the overall emissions of greenhouse gases during the various stages of production, use and disposal of the cars and their components, as well as the fuels and propulsion used. This is way more realistic when we wish to assess the real environmental impact of a vehicle. Fundamental to not discriminate the car as we know it, in the transition path that will lead us to zero emissions, which is still a long one.
BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS