28 -...

8/14/2019 28 - 2008_Energy-Policy_Zervas-E._Influence-of-European-passenger-cars-weight-to-exhaust-CO2-emissions.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/28-2008energy-policyzervas-einfluence-of-european-passenger-cars-weight-to-exhaust-co2-emis… 1/10

Energy Policy 36 (2008) 248–257

Influence of European passenger cars weight to exhaust CO2 emissions

Efthimios Zervasa,, Christos Lazaroub,1

aDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12, GR-67100 Xanthi, GreecebInstitut d’Administration des Entreprises, Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 104, Avenue du Peuple Belge, F-59043 Lille Cedex, France

Received 11 May 2007; accepted 6 September 2007

Available online 22 October 2007

Abstract

The increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration influences climate changes. The road transport sector is one of the main anthropogenicsources of CO2 emissions in the European Union (EU). One of the main parameters influencing CO2 emissions from passenger cars (PCs)

is their weight, which increases during last years. For the same driving distance, heavier vehicles need more work than lighter ones,

because they have to move an extra weight, and thus more fuel is consumed and thus increased CO2 emissions. The weight control of new

PCs could be an efficient way to control their CO2 emissions. After an analysis of the EU new PCs market, their segment distribution and

their weight, some estimations for 2020 are presented. Based on this analysis, 13 base scenarios using several ways for the control of the

weight of future European new PCs are used to estimate their CO2 emissions and the benefit of each scenario. The results show that a

significant benefit on CO2 emissions could be achieved if the weight of each PC does not exceed an upper limit, especially if this limit is

quite low. The benefit obtained by limitations of weight is higher than the benefit obtained from the expected decreased future fuel

consumption. Similar results are obtained when the weight of new PCs does not exceed an upper limit within each segment, or when the

weight of each new PC decreases.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Carbon dioxide; Passenger cars; Tax incentives

1. Introduction

It is a known fact that the increase of atmospheric CO2

concentration influences climate changes. The transport

sector is one of the main anthropogenic sources of CO2

emissions. It accounted for 28% of total CO2 emissions in

Europe in 1998 (Internet site of Eurostat), while this

percentage was 23.4% for road transport in the same year.

In the last years, a willingness to control and decrease CO2

emissions can be seen through several internationalinitiatives, such as the Kyoto protocol (United Nations,

1992).

The transport sector is composed of ground, maritime

and air transport. The ground sector comprises rail and

vehicle transport, and the latter can be divided into the

transport of persons using passenger cars (PCs) and the

transport of goods using heavy-duty vehicles. The two

main categories of the current PCs are gasoline PCs and

diesel PCs, according to the type of fuel they consume. All

PCs do not emit the same amount of CO2. For the same

driving distance and power demand, diesel PCs emit less

CO2 compared with gasoline PCs.

Another CO2-influencing factor is weight. As for the

same driving distance higher-weight PCs need more work

than a lighter one, because they have to move an extra

weight, heavier PCs emit more CO2 than lighter PCs(Sullivan et al., 2004; Zervas, 2006, 2007). Other para-

meters also influence CO2 emissions, such as engine

displacement, fuel injection and combustion systems used,

etc. Newer engines have lower CO2 emissions than older

ones, as this parameter is taken into severe consideration

during the last years. However, using the same technology,

a heavier PC will still emit more CO2 than a lighter one.

For this reason, without neglecting technological improve-

ments, the control of PCs weight is one of the most

effective parameters for CO2 control.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

0301-4215/$ - see front matterr 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.009

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2451079383.

E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Zervas).1Present address: Griponissioti 7, GR-32100 Livadia, Ukraine.

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.009

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.009

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol



The European PC market shows several fluctuations

every year in relation to the total number of new PC

registrations, segment distribution and diesel penetration.

Based on the analysis of the past market evolution,

some estimations for the future (2020) European Union

(EU) market were presented in a previous work (Zervas,

2007). PC weight is one of the changing parameters in thelast years. The average weight of both gasoline and diesel

PC has shown a substantial increase (Internet site of

ACEA).

The present work evaluates the CO2 benefits obtained

if such a method is applied in the future. The current

and also the estimated future EU market of new PCs

(internet site of World Resources Institute (WRI)) are

reviewed and a number of estimations for the probable

future market are presented. Several plausible scenarios

for the future PC weight are constructed and the CO2

benefit is calculated for each of them. This control can be

achieved by several methods; some are presented in this

work.

2. Assumptions and methodology used

2.1. Data used

The statistical data used here are a compilation of data

presented in the internet sites of Eurostat, WRI, Interna-

tional Road Federation (IRF), Association of European

Automobile Manufactures (ACEA) and Committee of

French Automobile Manufactures (CCFA). The vehicles’

weight and CO2 emissions on the New European Driving

Cycle come from the German Federal Motoring Authority(KBA, 2003 version).

An analysis of the current passenger car market in the 15

European countries and its evolution since 1970 were

presented in a previous work (Zervas, 2007).The most

probable scenarios for the state of the EU market in 2020

were established and the CO2 emissions changes due to the

use of diesel instead of gasoline PC were calculated at

different percentages of diesel penetration.

2.2. Relationship between vehicle weight and CO 2 emissions

Using the KBA data, CO2 emissions of gasoline anddiesel PC can be presented as a function of vehicle weight

(Sullivan et al., 2004; Zervas, 2006, 2007). The equations

CO2 ¼ 0:1479 Weight 7:9 (1)

and

CO2 ¼ 0:1133 Weight 8:2 (2)

are valid in the case of gasoline and diesel PCs, with a

relative standard deviation of less than 10% (Zervas, 2006,

2007). However, an eventual replacement of gasoline PCs

by diesel versions is more likely to occur within the same

segment than within the same weight class. Accordingly,

two new lines are obtained using the average weight of

each segment:

CO2 ¼ 0:1702 Weightþ 6:7 (3)

and

CO2 ¼ 0:1398 Weight 11:0, (4)

for the gasoline and diesel PCs, respectively (Zervas, 2006,

2007). The average difference between the estimated CO2

emissions using the 2003 KBA file and the average weight

of each segment is very small: less than 1.8% in the case of

gasoline PCs and 2.8% in the case of diesel PCs. Eqs. (3)

and (4) are used in this work for the current fuel

consumption.

However, in the future, more severe emission standards

should require advanced emission control technologies, for

example the diesel particulate filter or DeNOx technolo-

gies, which would increase fuel consumption. On the other

hand, fuel efficiency is likely to be improved in the future

by improved vehicle aerodynamics, improved combustion,

decreased friction, etc. The work of Sullivan et al. (2004,and references therein) provides a list of technologies that

are expected to increase or decrease future fuel consump-

tion. In order to assess future gasoline and diesel fuel

consumption, the assumptions used here are

the diesel optimistic and pessimistic (DO, DP ) assump-

tions presume 0% and +5%, respectively, in diesel fuel

consumption change,

the gasoline optimistic and pessimistic (GO, GP )

assumptions presume 10% and 5%, respectively, in

gasoline fuel consumption change.

It is obvious that, if future diesel fuel consumption

decreases, the CO2 benefits estimated in this study will be

greater.

2.3. Analysis of the current European PCs market

In a previous work (Zervas, 2007), the values of 397.5

million inhabitants (estimated from Eurostat) for the

Western European population and of 18.0 million new

PCs registrations are used for the year 2020, giving a

ratio of 46.8 new PC registrations/1000 inhabitants for

the same year. In this work, the impact of diesel

penetration on CO2 emissions is calculated at different

future diesel penetrations. Two different diesel penetra-

tions are used in the present work: the current (in 2003)

and that estimated from Zervas (2007) if the average

annual increase of diesel penetration since 1980 is applied

to each country, with an upper limit of 80% (which

corresponds to a total diesel penetration of 63.7% in the 15

EU countries).

2.4. EU passenger car’s segment distribution

Another important parameter taken into account is the

PC segment. The European PC fleet is divided into 11

ARTICLE IN PRESS

E. Zervas, C. Lazarou / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 248–257 249



segments (Zervas, 2006, 2007, Fig. 1). Fig. 1 shows the

percentage of new PC registrations as a function of the

average weight of each segment in 2003. The majority of

the EU average gasoline market corresponds to foursegments: Economic, Small Car, Lower Medium and

Upper Medium, while the majority of the diesel market

corresponds to three segments: Small Car, Lower

Medium and Upper Medium (Fig. 1). The most impor-

tant criterion for people to buy a PC of the Economic

segment is price. As Economic diesel PCs have usually a

much higher price than gasoline PCs, the percentage of the

diesel Economic segment is not very large. Also, the

percentages of Superior and Prestige segments are higher

in the case of gasoline PC, as buyers of these expensive

vehicles prefer the advantages of gasoline PC (like better

drivability and lower noise) and are not much concerned

by price. Fig. 1 shows that, in the case of gasoline PC,

the registrations percentage generally decreases with the

average segment weight. In the case of diesel PC, a

maximum value can be observed in the case of Lower

Medium segment.

The percentage of heavier segments is higher in the case

of diesel PCs: 8.4% and 2.9% of diesel PCs belong to the

SUV and 4 4 segments, respectively, versus only 2.2%

and 0.64% of the gasoline PC. The average weight of

gasoline and diesel PCs in the EU was, respectively, 1098

and 1306 kg in 2003. It must be noticed that significant

differences exist between each country: for example, in

2003, new PCs in Sweden and Finland were about 100 kg

heavier than the EU average (Zervas, 2007). The average

PC weight has increased constantly during the past years

(Internet site of ACEA), due to the incorporation of more

auxiliaries (air conditioning, enhanced safety auxiliaries,

more electric and electronic auxiliaries, etc.) and emission

post-treatment devices.

The segment distribution has not remained constant inthe last years. Figs. 2 and 3 show the historical evolution of

gasoline and diesel segment distribution since 1995 and the

estimations for these distributions until 2020.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

800 1200 1600 2000

Weight (Kg)

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

R e g i s t r a t i o n s (

% )

1

10

100

Gasoline

Diesel

ECO

ECO

SC

SC

LM

LM

UM

UM

SUP

SUV1

4x4-1 COMP

PRE

4x4-2

SUV2

SUP

SUV1

COMP

4x4-1

PRE 4x4-2

SUV2

Fig. 1. Segment percentage of new passenger car registrations in EU in

2003 as a function of the average weight of each segment. ECO: economic,

SC: small car, LM: lower medium, UP: upper medium, SUP: superior,

COMP: compact, PRE: prestige, SUV1: sport utility vehicleso4.5 m,

SUV2: sport utility vehicles 44.5m, 44-1: four wheel drive o4.5 m,

44-2: four wheel drive 44.5m.

2000 2010 2020

Year

0

20

40

R e g i s t r a t i o n s ( % )

0

2

4

0

5

10

15

R e g i s t r a t i o n

s ( % )

2000 2010 2020

SC

LM

UM

ECO

SUP

0

1

2PRE

COMP

SUV-1

SUV-2

4x4-1

4x4-2

Fig. 2. Gasoline PCs. Historical evolution of segment percentage of new

passenger car registrations in EU from 1995 to 2003 (blue symbols) and

estimations for the future segment distribution (red symbols).

2000 2010 2020

Year

0

20

40 R e g i s t r a t

i o n s ( % )

0

2

4

6

8

0

5

10 R e g i s t r a t i o n s ( % )

2000 2010 2020

SC

LM

UM

ECO

SUP

0

2

4

6PRE

COMP

SUV-1

SUV-2

4x4-1

4x4-2

Fig. 3. Diesel PCs. Historical evolution of segment percentage of new

passenger car registrations in EU from 1995 to 2003 (blue symbols) and

estimations for the future segment distribution (red symbols).




The future segment distributions are the average value of

two calculations:

the values calculated using the average annual change

from 1995 to 2003,

the values calculated using the extrapolation of the best

linear fit of the 1995–2003 percentages.

In the case of gasoline PCs, the percentage of some

segments should continue to increase: the Small Cars,

Economic and SUV -2 percentages should continue to

increase to reach about 45%, 16% and 1.5%, respectively.

Other segments, as Lower Medium, Upper Medium, Super-

ior and Compact should decrease to about 21%, 7%, 2.1%

and 0.3%, respectively. The percentages of Prestige and the

two 4 4 segments would remain practically unchanged.

This figure shows that the segment distribution of future

gasoline PCs should shift down to smaller vehicles.

In the case of diesel PCs, the Small Cars, Lower Medium,

SUV -1 and SUV -2 segments should continue to increase to

reach 23%, 41%, 6% and 5%, respectively, while the

Economic, Upper Medium, Superior and the two 4 4

segments should decrease to about 0.5%, 14%, 3.1%,

0.7% and 0.3%, respectively. This figure shows that the

diesel segment percentages should increase at the two

extremes (small and big vehicles), and decrease in the case

of intermediate vehicles.

2.5. Weight distribution of the current European new PCs

Fig. 4 shows the weight distribution of new diesel and

gasoline European PCs in 2003, for two weight ranges: 500

and 100 kg. It is clearly shown in this figure that, for

both weight ranges, the diesel weight distribution is

shifted to heavier PCs compared with the gasoline weight

distribution.

The majority (about 55%) of both gasoline and diesel

PC weight is found to be between 1000 and 1500kg;

however, the distribution is quite different in the case of lighter and heavier PCs. A total of 32% of gasoline PCs is

found to be lighter than 1000 kg against only 1.5% of diesel

PCs, while 30% of diesel PCs is found between 1500 and

2000 kg, against only 5% of gasoline PCs. When the weight

range narrows (100 kg), it is more evident that gasoline PCs

are mainly found around 1000 kg (from 900 to 1300 kg),

while diesel PCs present a first peak at the 1300–1700 kg

region and a second peak around 2200 kg. The percentage

of gasoline PCs heavier than 1600 kg is very low (less than

1% for each 100 kg weight range) compared with the diesel

ones.

Fig. 5 shows the weight distribution of each segment

when each segment is divided into four regions: the 0–25%,

the 25–50%, the 50–75% and the 75–100% of each

segment weight range (in 2003). Generally, the majority

of the new PC registrations of each segment occurred in the

25–50% segment weight range. The 0–25% region is

generally higher in the case of the gasoline PC, while the

two upper regions are higher in the case of the diesel PC.

This figure shows that once more, within each segment, the

gasoline PCs are generally shifted to lighter cars, while the

diesel PCs are shifted to heavier ones.

As expected, there is quite a high dispersion between

each segment weight distribution. For example, the SUV

and 44 segments are shifted to heavier PCs, while thedistribution of gasoline Small Cars is shifted to lighter

ones.

2.6. Estimation of the weight of the future European new

PCs

The future weight of a European PC is calculated as the

average value of two estimations (Fig. 6): the first is the

weight calculated using the estimated future segment

distribution shown in Figs. 2 and 3; the second is the

weight calculated after the extrapolation of the ACEA

average PC weight from 1995 to 2003. The extrapolationof ACEA data is rather pessimistic, as it leads to an

increase of 21.4% of the future (in 2020) PC weight. The

estimation of future PC weight from the segment distribu-

tion of Figs. 2 and 3 leads to a moderate increase of 2.2%.

The average value of these two extremes is used in this

work.

2.7. Scenarios for the future EU market of new PCs

Following the previous analysis, 13 base scenarios are

used in order to estimate the future changes of CO2

emissions (Table 1).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Weight (Kg)

0

10

20 P e r c e n t a g e

Gasoline

Diesel

0

40

80

<1000

1000-1500

1500-2000

2000-2500

2500-3000

Gasoline

Diesel

Fig. 4. Weight distribution of new diesel and gasoline PCs in 2003.

Percentage for two weight ranges of 100kg (lower curves) and 500 kg

(upper curves).




These scenarios take into account the following para-

meters:

First, the number of new PC registrations : Two values are

used here: the current registrations (in 2003), named

Current, and the value estimated from Zervas (2007) for

2020, which corresponds to 17 676 209 new PCs, named

Future.

The segment distribution: Two values are used here: the

current segment distribution (in 2003) named Current,

and the segment distribution estimated for 2020 (Figs. 2

and 3), named Future.

The fuel consumption: Five values are used here: current

fuel consumption (CFC ), GO, GP , DO and DP , as

defined previously.

Weight of PCs: Two values are used here: the current

one (in 2003, named Current) and the value estimated

for 2020 using the average curve of Fig. 6, named

Future.

Diesel penetration is an important factor for CO2

emission in the EU (Sullivan et al., 2004; Zervas, 2006,2007). For each base case scenario, the future diesel

percentage for each country is the value used in Zervas

(2007) from the extrapolation of the average annual

increase of diesel penetration from 1980 to 2003 with an

upper limit of 80%. The average future diesel percentage is

estimated to be 63.7% in the 15 member countries of the

EU (from Zervas, 2007).

For each one of the 13 base scenarios, four types of

possible approaches are examined in order to control the

weight of future PCs:

1. the weight of all PCs does not exceed an upper limit (the

values of 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200 and

2400 kg are studied),

2. a portion of a new PC does not exceed the previous

upper limit (the values of 30% and 50% are examined

using the same percentage for all segments),

3. all PCs of each segment do not exceed an upper limit

(the values of 25%, 50% and 75% of the segment weight

range are studied),

4. the weight of each PC decreases by a fixed value (the

values of 25, 50, 75 and 100 kg for each PC are studied).

In the case of the first type of possible approach of

future PC weight control, every PC with a weight higher

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Percentage Percentage

0

20

40

60

80

100

P e r c e n

t a g e

Gasoline

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

P e r c e n

t a g e

ECO

SC

LM

UM

COMP

SUP

PR

SUV-1

SUV-2

4x4-1

4x4-2

ECO

SC

LM

UM

COMP

SUP

PR

SUV-1

SUV-2

4x4-1

4x4-2

Diesel

Fig. 5. Weight distribution of each segment of new gasoline and diesel PCs in 2003. Percentage for a weight range of 0–25%, 25–50%, 50–75% and

75–100% of each segment weight range.

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020

Year

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

W e i g h t ( K g )

Segments

ACEA

Average

Fig. 6. Estimations of the future weight of new European PCs. Segments:

weight estimated using the segment distribution of Figs. 2 and 3 and the

current weight of each segment; ACEA: weight estimated using the

extrapolation of the ACEA average weight of PCs from 1995 to 2003;

Average: average value of the two previous values.




than the upper limit is considered to have a weight equalto this limit; the CO2 emissions of these PCs are calcu-

lated from Eqs. (1) and (2) for current fuel consumption

and using the appropriate coefficients for future fuel

consumption.

2.8. Possible ways for the weight control of new PCs

A major question is how the weight control of new PCs

can be achieved. We believe that there are two possible

routes to this. The first one is a decrease of weight

abandoning some luxury or secondary auxiliaries. Some

auxiliaries, as electrical windows, are considered asnecessary now; however, their weight can be significant.

A rapid calculation can give us some interesting results. Let

us consider that the devices for electrical windows have a

weight of 1 kg per vehicle window and let us consider that

the real windows are manual, so we decrease 2 kg of the

vehicle weight. Using Eqs. (3) and (4), the average decrease

of CO2 is 0.34 and 0.28 g/km for a gasoline and diesel PC of

1500kg. Considering a total mileage of 200,000 and

300,000 km for a gasoline and diesel PC and taking into

account the sales estimated for 2020, we obtain a gain of

about 131,000 ton of CO2 just from the weight reduction

of 1 kg.

The second possible route is the use of smaller andlighter cars, by decreasing the sales of big cars and

increasing the sales of smaller ones. This can be achieved

in several ways; we present only three here:

using tax incentives that decrease the prices of smaller

cars and increase the price of bigger ones. This system

will not have any financial charge because the taxes from

the bigger cars sales will fund the incentives for the

decrease of smaller taxes sales;

the application of taxes for the use of big cars which will

refund the users of smaller cars; and

the application of CO2 regulations.

The economic study of these tax incentives and of all

other parallel economic consequences on the automotive

industry and other linked industries, as refining for fuel

consumption, steel and other metal or plastic industries for

raw materials etc., is out of the scope of this work.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Comparison of CO 2 emissions of each scenario

CO2 emissions present significant changes in the 13 base

scenarios studied (Fig. 7). If the current new PC registrations

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Base scenarios used for the future weight of new PCs

Name New PC

registrations

Segment

distribution

PC weight Diesel

penetration

Fuel

consumption

1 Current-CSD-CW-CFC Current Current Current Current CFC

2 Current-CSD-FW-CFC Current Current Future Current CFC

3 Current-FSD-FW-CFC Current Future Future Current CFC

4 Future-FSD-CW-CFC Future Future Current Future CFC

5 Future-FSD-FW-CFC Future Future Future Future CFC

6 Future-FSD-CW-GODO Future Future Current Future GODO

7 Future-FSD-FW-GODO Future Future Future Future GODO

8 Future-FSD-CW-GODP Future Future Current Future GODP

9 Future-FSD-FW-GODP Future Future Future Future GODP

10 Future-FSD-CW-GPDO Future Future Current Future GPDO

11 Future-FSD-FW-GPDO Future Future Future Future GPDO

12 Future-FSD-CW-GPDP Future Future Current Future GPDP

13 Future-FSD-FW-GPDP Future Future Future Future GPDP

10 111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13

Scenario

80

100

120

140

160

C O 2 e m i s s i o n s ( B a s e = 1 0 0 )

Fig. 7. Estimations of the CO2 emissions change as a function of the

scenario studied, for the 13 base scenarios. Base: 100, for the scenario 1

(Current-CSD-CW-CFC).




are maintained, it can be seen that the change from current

to future weight, while keeping the current segment

distribution (scenario 2), will increase the CO2 emissions

by 8% compared with the current situation (scenario 1),

showing that the future increased PC weight will have a

negative influence on CO2 emissions. If the future segment

distribution is used, as in the case of scenario 3, CO2

emissions present a moderate increase of about 2%,

showing that the future segment distribution will help to

control CO2 emissions.

All scenarios using future new PC registrations show an

increase in CO2 emissions compared with scenario 1, due to

the higher number of new PC registrations. This increase

would be 30% in the case of scenario 4, using future

registrations and segment distribution but keeping the

current weight. If the future weight is used (scenario 5), the

increase reaches 40.6%. These two scenarios (4 and 5) use

current fuel consumption; if future fuel consumption is

used (scenarios 6–13) this increase is generally lower than

the increase in scenarios 4 and 5. The two GODO scenarios

(6 and 7) give a 5% lower increase because of the optimistic

fuel consumption. The two GODP scenarios (8 and 9) give

results similar to the two CFC scenarios (only 0.5–0.7%

lower). As diesel penetration is high in these scenarios, the

increased future diesel fuel consumption counterbalances

the benefits of the decreased gasoline future fuel consump-

tion. The two GPDO scenarios (10 and 11) give values

slightly (about 3%) higher than the two GODO scenarios

(6 and 7). This indicates that the evolution of future

gasoline fuel consumption plays a secondary role with

respect to this of future diesel fuel consumption, because of

the expected high future diesel penetration. Finally, the twoGPDP scenarios (13 and 14) show the highest CO2

emissions (increase of 132% and 142.5%), due to the

pessimistic future fuel consumption for both gasoline and

diesel PCs.

Scenarios 7, 9, 11 and 13 with future weight distribution

show an increase in CO2 emissions about 10% higher than

scenarios 6, 8, 10 and 12 with current weight distribution.

This is due to the increased PC weight in the four former

scenarios and shows the significant influence of this

parameter on future CO2 emissions.

3.2. Comparison of each scenario when the weight of each

PC does not exceed an upper weight limit

The CO2 benefit is estimated for different values of the

upper PC weight limit, in the case where all future new

PCs respect this limit (Fig. 8). Base scenario 1 (Current-

CSD-CW-CFC ) is found practically at the point 0% for

an upper limit of 2400kg, as very few PCs are above

this limit. The CO2 benefit in this scenario increases with

the decrease of the weight limit, more rapidly when the

weight is less than 1600 kg: it reaches 5% when the upper

limit reaches 1600 kg, 9% for a limit of 1400 kg, 16% for

1200 kg and 28% for 1000 kg. The three scenarios with

current new PC registrations (1, 2 and 3) tend to converge

to the same point of CO2 benefit for an upper limit of

1000 kg.

In all 13 scenarios, the CO2 benefit increases when the

upper weight limit decreases. Even the two future-CFC

scenarios (4 and 5), which estimate CO2 increases of about

30% and 40% compared with scenario 1 (Fig. 7), show a

CO2 benefit of about 10% for an upper limit of 1000 kg.

This fact demonstrates the significant CO2 benefit that can

be achieved when the weight of future new PCs decreases.

The middle and right parts of Fig. 8 show the CO2

benefit in the scenarios using future fuel consumption

(scenarios 6, 8, 10 and 12 for the middle part and 7, 9, 11

and 13 for the right part), compared with scenarios 4 and 5with current fuel consumption. In each part, the curves are

almost parallel and the differences on the CO2 benefits are

not higher than 5% for the same weight limit. This value is

very small compared with the benefits that can be obtained

from the upper weight limit decrease, showing once more

the effectiveness of the last method.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

-40

-20

0

20

40

C O 2

b e n e f i t ( % )

C-CSD-CW-CFC

C-CSD-FW-CFC

C-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-CFC

-40

-20

0

20

40

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-40

-20

0

20

40

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-GODO

F-FSD-CW-GODP

F-FSD-CW-GPDO

F-FSD-CW-GPDP

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-GODO

F-FSD-FW-GODP

F-FSD-FW-GPDO

F-FSD-FW-GPDP

Fig. 8. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit for all PCs, for the 13 scenarios used. (Left: scenarios 1–5 with current fuel consumption,

middle: scenarios 4 and 6–9 with current PC weight, right: scenarios 5 and 10–13 with future PC weight).




3.3. Comparison of each scenario when the weight of 50% or

30% of new PC does not exceed an upper weight limit

In the case where only 50% or 30% of all new PCs

respect an upper weight limit, the CO2 benefit is lower and

all the curves become more parallel to the x-axis, those of

30% more than those of 50% (Figs. 9 and 10). In bothcases (50% and 30%), the base scenario (Current-CSD-

CW-CFC ) is again found practically at the point 0% for an

upper limit of 2400 kg, as very few PCs are above this limit.

The CO2 benefit in all scenarios increases when the upper

weight limit decreases, but significantly less than the benefit

shown in Fig. 8.

The CO2 benefit in the first scenario is 2.5% for 50% and

1.5% for 30% of new PCs not exceeding the upper limit of

1600 kg (Fig. 11), against 5% in the case of 100% (Fig. 8).

These values become 14% and 8.5%, respectively, for the

upper limit of 1000 kg, against 28% in the case of 100%

(Fig. 11).

The CO2 benefit in all scenarios becomes lower when the

percentage of new PCs not exceeding an upper weight limit

becomes smaller (Fig. 11). These differences are rather

small when the upper weight limit is high, but increase

significantly when it decreases.

The middle and right parts of Figs. 9 and 10 show the

CO2 benefit in the scenarios using future fuel consumption

(scenarios 6, 8, 10 and 12 for the middle parts and 7, 9, 11

and 13 for the right parts), compared with scenarios 4 and5. The same tendencies as those shown in Fig. 8 can be

observed here. Even in the cases when only 50% or 30% of

new PCs do not exceed the upper weight limits, the

reduction of PC weight can be more effective in order to

decrease future CO2 emissions than the decrease of future

fuel consumption.

3.4. Comparison of each scenario when all PCs of each

segment do not exceed an upper weight

Fig. 12 shows the CO2 benefit when all new PCs of each

segment do not exceed an upper weight limit within this

segment (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the segment weight

range), as a function of this upper weight limit, for all

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

-60

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-60

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-60

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

C-CSD-CW-CFC

C-CSD-FW-CFC

C-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-GODO

F-FSD-CW-GODP

F-FSD-CW-GPDO

F-FSD-CW-GPDP

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-GODO

F-FSD-FW-GODP

F-FSD-FW-GPDO

F-FSD-FW-GPDP

Fig. 9. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit if 50% of the new PC do not exceed this limit, for the 13 scenarios used (left: scenarios 1–5 with

current fuel consumption, middle: scenarios 4 and 6–9 with current PC weight, right: scenarios 5 and 10–13 with future PC weight).

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

-60

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-60

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-60

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

C-CSD-CW-CFC

C-CSD-FW-CFC

C-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-GODO

F-FSD-CW-GODP

F-FSD-CW-GPDO

F-FSD-CW-GPDP

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-GODO

F-FSD-FW-GODP

F-FSD-FW-GPDO

F-FSD-FW-GPDP

Fig. 10. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit if 30% of the new PC do not exceed this limit, for the 13 scenarios used (left: scenarios 1–5 with

current fuel consumption, middle: scenarios 4 and 6–9 with current PC weight, right: scenarios 5 and 10–13 with future PC weight).




scenarios used. The 100% upper limit corresponds to the

values shown in Fig. 7 (without weight limit). In the case of

the first scenario (Current-CSD-CW-CFC ), this figure

shows that the CO2 benefit is very small (0.7%) when the

upper limit is set at 75% of each segment range, because

the majority of PCs in the segment have a weight below this

limit. When the limit is set at 50%, the CO2 benefit is rather

high (4.5%) and reaches even higher values (18%) when it

is set at 25% of each segment weight range. Similar

tendencies are observed in all the other scenarios. The CO2

benefit at 75% limit is small, generally less than 2%, with

respect to no weight limit (100%). The CO2 benefit at 50%

limit is rather high (from 4% to 7%) while this at 25% limit

is significantly higher and reaches 17–24%.

All the different scenarios show the same order in CO2

benefit as shown in Figs. 8–11. The differences between

these scenarios slightly decrease as the weight limit

decreases. The middle and right parts of Fig. 12 show that

the difference between the scenarios using future fuel

consumption and those using current fuel consumption

remains between 1% and 4%.

3.5. Comparison of each scenario when the weight of each

passenger car decreases

Fig. 13 shows the CO2 benefit when the weight of all new

PCs decreases by a certain value, in function of this weight

decrease. The points with 0 kg decrease correspond to the

values shown in Fig. 7.

In the case of the first scenario (Current-CSD-CW-CFC ),

this figure shows that the CO2 benefit is about 2% when

this decrease is 25 kg, and increases linearly to reach 15%

for a weight decrease of 200 kg. Even in the case of a weight

decrease of 50 kg, the CO2 benefit is high enough, about

4%, and reaches 6% for a decrease of 75 kg. Similar linear

CO2 benefit curves are observed for all the other scenarios.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

-10

0

10

20

30C-CSD-CW-CFC 100%

C-CSD-CW-CFC 50%

C-CSD-CW-CFC 30%

C-CSD-FW-CFC 100%

C-CSD-FW-CFC 50%

C-CSD-FW-CFC 30%

C-FSD-FW-CFC 100%C-FSD-FW-CFC 50%

C-FSD-FW-CFC 30%

1200 1600 2000 2400

Upper weight limit

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( %

)

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

F-FSD-CW-CFC 100%

F-FSD-CW-CFC 50%

F-FSD-CW-CFC 30%

F-FSD-FW-CFC 100%

F-FSD-FW-CFC 50%

F-FSD-FW-CFC 30%

Fig. 11. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit if 100%, 50% and 30% of new PC do not exceed this limit, for all scenarios used (only the

scenarios 1–5 using the current fuel consumption are shown).

0 100

Upper limit within each segment (%)

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-40

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-40

-60

-20

0

20

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

C-CSD-CW-CFC

C-CSD-FW-CFC

C-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-GODO

C-FSD-CW-GODP

F-FSD-CW-GPDO

F-FSD-CW-GPDP

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-GODO

C-FSD-FW-GODP

F-FSD-FW-GPDO

F-FSD-FW-GPDP

80604020 0 100


80604020 0 100


80604020

Fig. 12. CO2 benefit if all new PCs of each segment do not exceed an upper weight limit within this segment (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the segment

weight range), as a function of this upper weight limit, for all scenarios used.



http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/28-2008energy-policyzervas-einfluence-of-european-passenger-cars-weight-to-exhaust-co2-em… 10/10

All the different scenarios show the same order in CO2

benefit as shown in Figs. 8–12. The differences between

these scenarios remain constant with the weight decrease,

as all curves are parallel. The middle and right parts of

Fig. 13 show that the difference between the scenarios

using the future FC and those using the current FC

remains between 1% and 4% (as observed in Fig. 12).

4. Conclusions

Considerable reductions in CO2 emissions can be

obtained if the weight of future (2020) new PCs is

controlled. In order to evaluate potential CO2 benefits,

the EU new PC market is analyzed and several parameters,

such as new PC registrations, segment distribution, weightdistribution and fuel consumption, are used to establish 13

base scenarios and, for each scenario, examine four ways of

new PC weight control.

The main results of this study show that the expected

increase in weight of future EU new PCs will have a negative

effect on CO2 emissions. The future number of new PC

registrations, also expected to increase, should also have a

negative effect. The effect of future fuel consumption will

depend on the changes in gasoline and diesel fuel consump-

tion and the future diesel penetration in the EU market.

When the weight of each new PC does not exceed an

upper limit, a significant CO2

benefit is observed, especially

when this limit is low. This benefit is higher when all future

new PCs respect this limit and decreases when only a part

of the fleet respects it. The benefit obtained by limitations

of weight is higher than the benefit obtained from the

expected decreased future fuel consumption. Similar results

are obtained when the weight of new PCs does not exceed

an upper limit within each segment, or when the weight of

each new PC decreases.

References

Internet site of the Association of European Automobile Manufactures

(ACEA) /www.acea.beS.

Internet site of the Comity of French Automobile Manufactures (CCFA)

/www.ccfa.frS.

Internet site of Eurostat /www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/S.Internet site of the German Federal Motoring Authority (KBA), 2003

/www.kba.deS.

Internet site of the International Road Federation /www.irfnet.orgS.

Internet site of the World Resources Institute /www.earthtrends.wri.

orgS.

Sullivan, J.L., Baker, R.E., Boyer, B.A., Hammerle, R.H., Kenney, T.E.,

Muniz, L., Wallington, T.J., 2004. CO2 emission benefit of diesel

(versus gasoline) powered vehicles. Environmental Science and

Technology 38 (12), 3217–3223.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United

Nations, Kyoto, Japan, 1992 /http://unfccc.int/essential_background/

kyoto_protocol/background/items/1351.phpS.

Zervas, E., 2006. CO2 benefit from the increasing percentage of diesel

passenger cars. Case of Ireland. Energy Policy 34 (17), 2848–2857.

Zervas, E., 2007. European CO2 benefit from the increasing percentage of diesel passenger cars, SAE 2007-01-1947.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0 120 160 200

Weight decrease of each vehicle (Kg)

-40

-20

0

20

40

C O 2 b

e n e f i t ( % )

-40

-20

0

20

40

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

-40

-20

0

20

40

C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )

C-CSD-CW-CFC

C-CSD-FW-CFC

C-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-CFC

F-FSD-CW-GODO

C-FSD-CW-GODP

F-FSD-CW-GPDO

F-FSD-CW-GPDP

F-FSD-FW-CFC

F-FSD-FW-GODO

C-FSD-FW-GODP

F-FSD-FW-GPDO

F-FSD-FW-GPDP

8040 0 120 160 200


8040 0 120 160 200


8040

Fig. 13. CO2 benefit if the weight of all new PCs decreases by a certain value as a function of this value, for all scenarios used.


http://www.acea.be/

http://www.ccfa.fr/

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/

http://www.kba.de/

http://www.irfnet.org/

http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/


http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/background/items/1351.php






http://www.irfnet.org/

http://www.kba.de/

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/

http://www.ccfa.fr/

http://www.acea.be/

28 -...

Documents