potential for meeting the eu new passenger car...

1

PotentialforMeetingtheEUNewPassengerCarCO2EmissionsTargets

by

KandarpBhatt

BachelorofTechnology(Honours)inOceanEngineering&NavalArchitectureIndianInstituteofTechnology,Kharagpur,1999

SubmittedtotheSystemDesignandManagementPrograminpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

MasterofScienceinEngineeringandManagement

atthe

MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology

September2010

©2010MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyAllrightsreserved.

Signatureofauthor:

EngineeringSystemsDivisionSystemDesignandManagementProgram

Certifiedby:

JohnB.HeywoodProfessorofMechanicalEngineering

SunJaeProfessor,EmeritusThesisSupervisor

Acceptedby:

PatHaleDirector

SystemDesignandManagementProgram

3

PotentialforMeetingtheEUNewPassengerCarCO2EmissionsTargets

by

KandarpBhatt

SubmittedtotheSystemDesignandManagementPrograminPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfor

theDegreeofMasterofScienceinEngineeringandManagement

Abstract

In 2009, the European Parliament agreed to limit the CO2 emissions from new

passenger cars sold in the European Union to an average of 130g/km by 2015.

Further, a probable longer‐term CO2 emissions target of 95g/km is specified for

2020. This thesis attempts to assess the feasibility of meeting these targets in a

representative European Union by developing and evaluating Optimistic and

Realisticscenariosofvariedpowertrainsalesmix,vehicleweightreduction levels,

and Emphasis on Reduction of Fuel Consumption (ERFC) using a European New

Passenger Cars CO2 Emissions Model. Further, this thesis develops custom fleet

models for select member states to understand the impact of the developed

scenariosonreductionof fueluseandonthediesel togasoline fueluseratio.The

thesisfindsthatwhiletheEuropeanUnionispoisedtomeetthe2015targetinan

Optimisticscenario,itwillfinditdifficulttodosoinaRealisticscenario.Moreover,

the2020targetwouldnotbeachieved ineitherof the twoscenarios.Further, the

diesel to gasoline fuel use ratio will continue to rise through year 2020 for the

studiedcountries,potentiallyreachingashighas3inthecaseofFranceandatleast

ashighas0.71inthecaseofGermany.Finally,anincreaseinERFCandintroduction

of PHEVswouldmosthelp reduce fuel use in all studied countries. In France and

Italy, a reduction of Diesel car sales would additionally be significantly useful in

reducing the fuel use. Whereas, in Germany and UK, a higher number of

TurbochargedGasolinecarswouldbeanothersignificantoptiontoreducefueluse.

5

AcknowledgementsFirstandforemost,IwouldliketoextendmygratitudetomyadvisorProfessorJohn

B.Heywoodforacceptingmeasastudentandgivingmeanopportunitytoexplore

theworldofautomotiveresearch.Ihavelearnedalotthroughmyinteractionswith

himand,aboveall,hehastaughtmehowtobeagoodmentor.

IwouldalsoliketothankCONCAWE,theShellOilCompany,ENI,andMIT‐Portugal

programforfundingthisresearchandsupportingmewithvaluableinputsthrough

myresearch.

I would like to extendmy heartfelt thanks to the brilliant peopleworking at the

SloanAutomotive Lab atMIT. In particular, I am indebted to Lynette Cheah,who

wasalwaystheretodiscussanyissuesIhad,shareherexpertiseandprovideideas

whenever I needed them. I am thankful to Michael Khusid, Emmanuel Kasseris,

Patricia Baptista, Fernando de Sisternes, Donald MacKenzie, Jeff McAulay, Irene

Berry, and Kristian Bodek for their valuable feedback, insights, comments and

companionshipduringthecourseofmyresearch.IthankKarlaStryker‐Currierand

JanetMaslowfortheiruntiringandfriendlyassistance.

I am grateful to the wonderful people of the System Design and Management

programformakingmystayatMITthemostmemorableone.Inparticular,Iwould

like to thankPatrickHale,ChristineBates, JeffShao,HelenTrimble,andBillFoley

forsupportingmeineverywaypossible,asIworkedthroughtheprogram.Ithank

MelissaParrilloandDaveSchultzfortheirfriendshipandhardwork.

Iwouldnothavebeenabletofinishthisthesiswithouttheconstantproddingand

encouragementfromKarthikViswanathan,whosepresenceinmylifeisasourceof

constant happiness. I amgrateful tomy friendsPramod, Sharmita,Rakesh,Rahul,

Kshitij, Sathish, Tia, Prasad, Moji, Salman, Kalpana, Bharat, Uma, Manuj, Nidhi,

6

Prakriti, Dinesh, Akila, Rahul Raman, Shivani, and Rochelle. Each one of them in

theirownwayhashelpedmesurvivemystudentlife.

Finally,Ihavetomentionthosethreepeople,whoarethemostimportanttome,to

whom I dedicate this thesis. Those three people,who have supportedme in all I

have done, never tried tomakeme be something Iwas not, and never asked for

anything in return: My father, my mother and my sister. Thank you for your

unconditionalloveandsupport,andforbeingwhoyouare.

8

TableofContentsABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................3ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................51.INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................91.1THEEUROPEANPARLIAMENTREGULATIONFORSETTINGEMISSIONSSTANDARDSOFNEWPASSENGERCARS.......................................................................................................................................................91.2THECONTEXTOFTHEREGULATION...........................................................................................................101.2.1EuropeanUnion’sCommitmenttoTackleGlobalWarming................................................101.2.2TheEmphasisonPassengerCars.....................................................................................................11

1.3THEEVOLUTIONOFTHEREGULATION.......................................................................................................141.4PURPOSEANDOVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................17

2.THEEUROPEANPASSENGERCARSCO2EMISSIONSMODEL.............................................182.1AREPRESENTATIVEEUROPEANUNION.....................................................................................................182.1.1Large,Higher‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,HighlyMotorizedCountries........................182.1.2Small,Lower‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,LowlyMotorizedCountries..........................202.1.3EclecticMixMiddleLayerCountries...............................................................................................232.1.4AggregateEURepresentation...........................................................................................................25

2.2TIMEFRAMESANALYZED...............................................................................................................................262.3METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................272.3.1FuelConsumption,PerformanceandSizeTrade‐off...............................................................282.3.2RelativeFuelConsumption.................................................................................................................282.3.3NewPassengerCarSalesMix............................................................................................................322.3.4WeightandDragReductionImpact...............................................................................................412.3.5Scenarios.....................................................................................................................................................422.3.6ModelCalibration...................................................................................................................................45

3.CUSTOMIZEDFLEETMODEL.......................................................................................................463.1NEWPASSENGERCARSALES........................................................................................................................523.1.1AdditionOfNewPowertrainsToTheModel...............................................................................523.1.2UpdateOfTheCurrentAndFuturePowertrainSalesMix....................................................52

3.2FUELCONSUMPTIONRATE............................................................................................................................533.2.1MildGasolineHybrid‐electric............................................................................................................533.2.2PHEVAndBEV..........................................................................................................................................53

3.3FUELUSE..........................................................................................................................................................554.RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................584.1FEASIBILITYOFACHIEVINGTHE2015AND2020CO2EMISSIONSTARGETS..................................584.2WHATWOULDITTAKETOMEETTHETARGETS?..................................................................................604.3COUNTRYSPECIFICFEASIBILITY..................................................................................................................624.4FEASIBILITYFORTHEREPRESENTATIVEEUROPE...................................................................................674.5FUELUSEREDUCTIONPOTENTIAL..............................................................................................................684.6DIESELTOGASOLINEFUELRATIO..............................................................................................................77

5.CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................815.1FEASIBILITYOFACHIEVINGTHE2015AND2020CO2EMISSIONSTARGETS..................................815.2FUELUSEREDUCTIONPOTENTIAL..............................................................................................................815.3DIESELTOGASOLINEFUELRATIO...............................................................................................................82

6.REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................84

9

1.Introduction

1.1 The European Parliament Regulation For Setting Emissions Standards ofNewPassengerCarsOnApril23,2009,theEuropeanParliamentpassedaregulation(Regulation)toset

emissionperformancestandardsfornewpassengercarsregisteredintheEuropean

Community [European Commission 2010]. This measure came as a part of the

Community’sapproachtoreduceCO2emissionsfromlight‐dutyvehicles.

SomesalientelementsoftheRegulationincludethefollowing:

• 2015onwards,theaverageCO2emissionsfrom100%ofeachmanufacturer’s

newlyregisteredpassengercarsshouldbe130gramsperkilometre(g/km)

orless.

• Heaviercarswouldbeallowedtoemitmorethanthe lightercars,however

the overall new car fleet average would be preserved at or below 130g

CO2/km.

• From 2012 until 2018, the manufacturers falling behind the specified

average emissions target will be assessed a lower fine for smaller excess

emissions. For example, €5/per car for first gram of excess emissions per

kilometre, €15 for second gram, €25 for third gram and €95 for all

subsequent grams of excess emissions per kilometre. However, 2019

onwards, the fine for the first gramof excess CO2 emissions per kilometre

wouldalreadybe€95.

• TheEUmemberstateswouldmonitortheregulationcomplianceonthebasis

ofcertificateofconformityissuedbycarmanufacturersandreportthesame

totheEuropeanCommission.

• A longer‐term target of 95g CO2/km average emissions is specified for the

new passenger car fleet beginning in year 2020. The details about the

modalitiesofachievingthistargetandtheaspectsofitsimplementationwill

beworkedoutafterareviewnolaterthanthebeginningof2013.

10

Theregulationobservesthatitsaimistoincentivizeinvestmentinnewtechnologies

by the car industry with the belief that such new technologies would lead to

significantlyloweremissionsthanfromtraditionaltechnologycars.

1.2TheContextoftheRegulation

1.2.1EuropeanUnion’sCommitmenttoTackleGlobalWarmingTheEuropeanUnion(EU)hasacknowledgedthephenomenonofGlobalWarming1

since 1993, when it approved the conclusion of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change [European Commission 2007]. The Convention

requiredthememberpartiestoformulateandimplementclimatechangemitigation

programs at national and regional level, as appropriate. The Convention was

followedbytheKyotoProtocolin1997,whichtheEUapprovedin2002[European

Council 2002]. The Kyoto Protocol required the EUmember states to collectively

reducetheirgreenhousegasemissionsby8%below1990levelsbetween2008and

2012.

In parallel to the aforementioned climate change discourse, the EU has been

working on an agenda ofmaking its economy one of themost competitive in the

worldandachievingsustainableeconomicgrowth.TheLisbonStrategyof2000was

a key instrument in this regard that was based on economic, social and

environmental pillars [Lisbon Strategy 2000]. The EU hopes that by leading the

formulation and implementation of stricter climate changemitigationmeasures it

will be able to encourage the development and application of new environmental

technologies. Thiswould promote innovation that should propel EU to become a

leaderincleanandfuelefficienttechnologies.Inturn,suchleadershipshouldleadto

greater exports to emerging markets in the short term, and in the long‐term it

1AdetaileddiscussionofGlobalWarmingandrelatedconceptsisbeyondthescopeofthisdocument.ReadermayfindanexcellentdiscussionofthesameinIPCC2007,asinseveralotheracademicpapersconcerningthetopic.

11

should provide a competitive edge to the EU economy [European Commission

2007b].

In2007, therefore, theEuropeanCommission (EC)proposed, and theCouncil and

European Parliament endorsed, that the EU pursues the objective of a 30%

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below the 1990 levels by the developed

countries by 2020 in international negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto

Protocol.Further,until an international agreementwas reached, theEUagreed to

independentlycommititselftoachievinga20%reductionbelowthe1990levelsin

greenhousegasemissionsby2020[EuropeanCommission2007a].

1.2.2TheEmphasisonPassengerCarsAsof2007,TransportwasthesecondlargestgreenhousegasemittingsectorinEU‐

27(Fig.1.1).

12

Fig.1.1CO2EmissionsbySector:EU‐27(SharesofTotalCO2Emissions:2007)Source:

EuropeanCommission,2010a

GiventheEU’scommitmenttoreducinggreenhousegasemissions,itwasaccepted

andconsideredfairthatalleconomicsectorsmustcontributetothereductioneffort

[European Commission 2007c]. However, while all other sectors had reduced

greenhousegasemissionsbetween1990and2007,Transportsectorhadincreased

emissionsby26%(Fig.1.2).

EnergyIndustries38%

Transport23%

Industry22%

Residential10%

Commercial/Institutional

4%

Agriculture,Forestry,Fisheries

2%

Other1%

CO2EmissionsbySector:EU‐27

13

Fig1.2CO2EmissionsbySector:EU‐27.Source:EuropeanCommission,2010a

Of all the modes of transport, Road Transport was the biggest emission source

accounting for roughly 71% of all transport related emissions (Fig. 1.3), with

passenger cars2 accounting for 2/3 of all road transport emissions [European

Commission2007d].

2PassengerCarsaretheso‐calledcategoryM1vehicles.TheRegulationexemptsspecial‐purposevehicles(MotorCaravans,ArmouredVehicles,thoseaccommodatingwheelchairuse,etc.)fromitsCO2emissionsconsideration.

14

Fig.1.3SharebyModeinTotalTransportCO2Emissions,IncludingInternationalBunkers:

EU‐27(2007).Source:EuropeanCommission,2010b

All in all, passenger cars account for roughly 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions

[European Commission, 2007]. Hence, it can be seen that passenger cars are a

significantsourceofgreenhousegasemissionsintheEU,andassuchtheybecome

animportantcomponentintheoverallEUemissionsreductionstrategy.

1.3TheEvolutionoftheRegulationInordertoreducetheCO2emissionsfrompassengercars,in1995theECadopteda

CommunityStrategy[EuropeanCommission2007]thatwasbasedonthreepoints:

a. Voluntaryreductioncommitmentbycarmanufacturers

b. Improvementinconsumerinformation,and

c. Fiscalmeasurestopromotefuelefficientvehicles

RoadTransportation

71%

TotalCivilAviation12%

Railways1%

TotalNavigation

15%

Other1%

CO2EmissionsByTransportationMode:EU‐27

15

In1998,theEuropeanAutomobileManufacturersAssociation(ACEA)committedto

reducing the averageCO2 emissions from their newpassenger cars fleet to 140 g

CO2/km by 2008. The Japanese (JAMA) and Korean (KAMA) Automobile

ManufacturersAssociationscommittedin1999toreducetheaverageCO2emissions

fromtheirnewpassengercarsfleetto140gCO2/kmby2009.Figure1.4showsthe

performance of some manufacturers by 2005 on the voluntary reduction

commitment.

16

Fig.1.4CarManufacturers’2005CO2EmissionsAgainstVoluntarilyCommittedLevelBy

2008.Source:Spiegel,2007

Upon reviewing theCommunity Strategy in2007, theECdetermined that if there

werenochangeinpolicybywayofadditionalmeasures,theEUobjectiveof1203g

CO2/kmby2012wouldnotbemet. Afterevaluatingvariousoptions,aneedfora

regulation was identified to meet the emissions reduction objective [European

Commission2007c]paving theway for the introductionof theRegulation inApril

2009.Figure1.5summarizestheevolutionoftheregulation.

3Whileimprovementsinvehicletechnologywereexpectedtoreduceaverageemissionstonomorethan130gCO2/km,complementarymeasuresweresupposedtobringaboutanadditional10gCO2/kmemissionsreduction.Theoverallemissionswouldthereforebereducedto120gCO2/km.

17

Fig.1.5TheEvolutionofEUPassengerCarEmissionsRegulation

1.4PurposeandOverviewThepurposeofthisresearchistodevelopvarioussalesmixscenariosforselectEU

member states in 2015 and2020 in order to assess the feasibility ofmeeting the

mandatedCO2emissionstargetsforboththeyears,tounderstandtheimpactofthe

scenariosonthedieseltogasolinefueluseratio,andthefuelusereductionpotential

forspecificcountriesusingcustomizedfleetmodels.Theaimofthisanalysisisnot

topredict the futureemissions levels in theEU.Rather, it attempts tounderstand

the impact of different possible eventualities that include variations in new

technology (Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug‐in Hybrid Vehicles, Gasoline/Diesel

• Regulationinforce• Aim–incentivizeinvestmentinnewtechnologies(propulsion,inparticular)• Phasedapproach• 130gCO2between2012‐2015

• Small/Nichemanufacturerstohaveseparatetargets• MonitoringbyMemberStatesonbasisofcertioicateofconformitybymanufacturers• Manufacturerstopayexcessemissionspremium2012onwards

• 2020onwards:95gCO2/km

2009

• Reviewofstrategy• Progressinreductiondeemednotsufoicienttomeet2012target• Needforregulationidentioiedtomeet130gCO2by2012usingvehicletechnologies• Further10gCO2reductiontocomeusingothertechnologies/”sustainablebiofuels”

2007

• ACEA/JAMA/KAMACommitment• 140gCO2by2008• 120gCO2by2012

1998/99

• CommunityStrategy• Voluntaryreductioncommitmentbymanufacturers• Improvementinconsumerinformation• Fiscalmeasurestopromotefuelefoicientvehicles

1995

18

Hybrids, etc.) penetration, vehicle weight reduction opportunities and fuel

consumptionreductionversusincreasedperformancetradeoff.

2.TheEuropeanPassengerCarsCO2EmissionsModel

2.1ARepresentativeEuropeanUnionSince this research does not intend to predict the future sales mix and instead

focusesonunderstanding thebroader impactof certainpossible scenarios, itwas

decided to select a limited number of member states of the EU for analysis as

opposed to examining allmember states. The selectionof themember stateswas

carriedoutundertheguidingprincipleofattemptingtocreatearepresentativeEU.

With this objective in mind, the EU‐27 countries were compared on the basis of

threeparameters:

• Motorization,

• GrossDomesticProduct(GDP),and

• Population

TheanalysisofInternationalMonetaryFund’s(IMF)[IMF2009]andACEA’s[ACEA

2009]datayieldedthefollowingaveragevaluesoftheseparametersforEU‐27:

• AverageMotorization–426carsperthousandpeople

• AverageGDP‐$36,000percapita,and

• AverageNation’sPopulation–18million

Thisledtoasimple(butsufficientforthepurposesofthisresearch)classificationof

EU‐27countriesinthreegroups,namely:

2.1.1Large,Higher‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,HighlyMotorizedCountriesThisgroupcomprisedof countrieswhoseGDP,PopulationandMotorizationwere

higher than the average GDP, Population and Motorization of EU‐27 countries.

These countries were France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Since this

wasasmallgroupandallcountriesweresignificanttoarepresentativeEurope,all

19

fourwere selected for this research. Figure 2.1 illustrates this group of countries

andtherelevantcriteria.

Fig.2.1ARepresentativeEuropeanUnion:Large,Higher‐Than‐Average

GDP/Capita,HighlyMotorizedCountries

Table2.1liststhecountriesinthisgroupandtheirrespectiveGDP,Populationand

Motorizationdata.

20

Country GDPpercapita($)

Population(Millions)

Motorization(cars/1000inhabitantsinyear2006)

Germany 44,660.41 82.12 566France 46,015.92 62.277 504UK 43,785.34 61.073 471Italy 38,996.17 59.336 597

Table2.1TheLarge,Higher‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,HighlyMotorizedCountries

2.1.2Small,Lower‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,LowlyMotorizedCountriesThisgroupcomprisedof countrieswhoseGDP,PopulationandMotorizationwere

lowerthantheaverageGDP,PopulationandMotorizationofEU‐27countries.These

countries included the Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania,

Bulgaria,Latvia,EstoniaandMalta.Figure2.2illustratesthisgroupofcountries.

21

Fig2.2Small,Lower‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,LowlyMotorizedEuropeanCountries

For the purpose of this research, the CzechRepublic, Portugal andHungarywere

selected on the basis of availability of new passenger car sales data and their

relative size as compared with the other countries in the group. Figure 2.3

illustratestheseselectedcountriesandtherelevantcriteria.

22

Fig2.3ARepresentativeEuropeanUnion:Small,Lower‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,Lowly

MotorizedCountries

Table2.2listsalltheEUcountriesinthisgroupandtheirrespectiveGDP,Population

andMotorizationdata.

23




Romania 9,291.70 21.489 167Portugal 22,997.41 10.631 405CzechRepublic 21,027.48 10.323 399Hungary 15,542.27 10.055 293Bulgaria 6,856.91 7.582 230Slovakia 17,630.12 5.411 247Latvia 14,997.27 2.271 360Estonia 17,299.05 1.343 413Malta 20,202.28 0.413 NA

Tables2.2Small,Lower‐Than‐AverageGDP/Capita,LowlyMotorizedCountries

2.1.3EclecticMixMiddleLayerCountriesThis group comprised of countries, which did not fall into either of the above

classifications.ThesecountrieshaveGDP,PopulationandMotorizationfiguressuch

that they cannot be easily characterized. These countries included Spain, Poland,

Netherlands,Belgium,Luxembourg, Ireland,Denmark, Sweden,Finland,Lithuania,

Austria,Slovenia,GreeceandCyprus.Figure2.4illustratesthisgroupofcountries.

24

Fig.2.4EclecticMixMiddleLayerCountries

Forthepurposeofthisresearch,SpainandNetherlandswerechosenonthebasisof

availabilityofnewpassengercarsalesdataandtheirrelativesizeascomparedwith

theothercountriesinthegroup.

Table2.3listsalltheEUcountriesinthisgroupandtheirrespectiveGDP,Population

andMotorizationdata.

25




Spain 35,331.49 45.618 464Poland 13,798.88 38.1 351Netherlands 52,019.03 16.704 442Greece 32,004.61 11.172 NABelgium 47,107.83 10.75 470Sweden 52,789.61 9.179 461Austria 50,098.43 8.29 507Denmark 62,625.57 5.476 371Finland 51,989.38 5.27 478Ireland 61,809.61 4.422 418Lithuania 14,085.86 3.358 470Slovenia 27,148.64 2.013 488Cyprus 32,772.07 0.761 NALuxembourg 113,043.98 0.486 661

Table2.3EclecticMixMiddleLayerCountries

2.1.4AggregateEURepresentationThe representative European Union, for the purpose of this research, therefore

comprisesofnine countries (Fig.2.5):CzechRepublic, France,Germany,Hungary,

Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Collectively, these

countriesrepresent72%ofthepopulationand86%ofthenewpassengercarsales

oftheEU‐27countries.

26

Fig.2.5ARepresentativeEuropeanUnion

2.2TimeframesAnalyzedThereweretwotimeframesofimportancetothisresearch:

• Short‐term mandate timeframe – Today to year 2015, when the target of

averageemissionsof130gCO2/km is supposed tobemet (on‐average)by

100%ofallmanufacturers’newpassengercarssoldintheEU.

• Medium‐termmandatetimeframe–Todaytoyear2020,whenthetargetof

averageemissionsof95gCO2/kmissupposedtobemetbynewpassenger

carssoldintheEU.

27

Inthecontextofthisresearch,Todayisdefinedasthebeginningof2010.Similarly,

year 2015 and 2020 refer to the first calendar days of the respective years, in

accordancewiththeconventionoftheRegulation.

2.3MethodologyThe methodology of analysis followed for this research builds upon the basic

frameworkdescribedinHeywood(2010).Inaddition,theprocessthatthisresearch

followsdrawsfromandbuildsuponthoseadoptedinBodekandHeywood(2008)

andCheah,etal(2007).Figure2.6givesanoverviewoftheanalysisframeworkand

itsprincipalcomponents.

Fig.2.6NewPassengerCarsCO2EmissionsComputationModelOverview

RelativeFuelConsumption

SalesWeightedFuelConsumption

NetFuel Consumption

Fuelconsumption,performanceandsizetrade‐

off

Powertrain SalesMix

Weight&DragReductionImpact

CO2Emissions

28

Letuslookattheindividualcomponentsinmoredetails.

2.3.1FuelConsumption,PerformanceandSizeTrade‐offAreduction inFuelConsumption(FC)due to improvements inengineandvehicle

technology isoftenoffsetby thenegative impactof increasingvehiclesize,weight

andpower.TheconceptofEmphasisonReducingFuelConsumption(ERFC)helps

uscomparetherealizedFCreductionwiththeFCreductionpossiblewithconstant

performanceandsize[Heywood,2010].

ERFC= FCReductionRealizedonRoad

FCReductionPossiblewithConstantPerformanceandSize

Bodek andHeywood (2008) estimated the traditional ERFC for France, Germany,

ItalyandtheUKatabout50%.SuchhistoricalERFCfiguresfortheothercountries

selected for this research are not available. Given the discussion in Bodek and

Heywood(2008),andtherelativeuniformityofvehiclemodelcharacteristicsacross

Europe, it is appropriate to assume that all the selected countries have the same

recentvaluesofERFC(of50%).

2.3.2RelativeFuelConsumptionThis research considers the following powertrains in its analysis4: Naturally

Aspirated Gasoline (NA‐G), Turbocharged Gasoline (Turbo), Diesel, Full Gasoline

Hybrid‐Electric(HEV),MildGasolineHybrid‐Electric(mHEV),DieselHybrid‐Electric

(DHEV),Plug‐inHybrid(PHEV),BatteryElectric(BEV)andCompressedNaturalGas

(CNG)vehicles.

4OtherpowertrainsthatwereleftoutofanalysisarediscussedinthePowertrainSalesMixsection.

29

Therelativefuelconsumptionsofthesepowertrainsandtheirfutureprojectionsas

showninFigure2.7havebeenusedforthisresearch.

Fig.2.7RelativeFuelConsumptionofFutureCars,ByPowertrainType(at100%ERFC)

[Heywood2010]Sources:KasserisandHeywood(2007),KromerandHeywood(2007)

The relative FC values for year 2010were obtained (seeTable 2.4) by projecting

improvementsfrom2006withanERFCof50%:

1

0.85

0.62

0.9

0.76

0.55

0.84

0.72

0.53

0.7

0.56

0.350.28

0.240.17

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2006 2020 2035

Relativefuelconsumption

NASIgasoline(reference)

TurboSIgasoline

Diesel

Hybrid‐electricgasoline

Plug‐inhybrid

30

Powertrain Rel.FC(2006) Rel.FC(2010)at50%ERFC

Relativeto2010NA‐Gasoline

NA‐G 1.00 0.97 1Turbo 0.90 0.88 0.90Diesel 0.84 0.82 0.84HEV 0.70 0.67 0.68PHEV 0.28 0.27 0.28

Table2.4RelativeFuelConsumptionofPowertrainsin2010

SincetherelativeFCvaluesforMildHybrid,DieselHybrid,CNGandBEVwerenot

computedintheabove‐mentionedstudy,thesewerecomputedasfollows:

MildHybrid

MildHybridwasassumedtohaveafuelconsumptionvaluehalfwaybetweenafull

hybridandaNAGasolinevehicle.

DieselHybrid

The FC value of Diesel Hybrid was computed by taking the average of two

approaches–

i. First approach, modeling the Diesel Hybrid on a gasoline HEV and

providingforthelowerrateofimprovementforadieselengine.

SinceHEVwas30%betterthanNA‐Gin2006,itwasassumedthathalfof

its benefit was due to hybrid and half was due to improvements in

gasolineengine. ItwasassumedthatwhileaDieselHybridwouldenjoy

thecompletebenefitsofhybridization,theimprovementindieselengine

wouldonlybehalfthatofagasolineengine.Thisyieldedabenefitfactor

31

of (0.85 X 0.925) = 0.785. Using this benefit factor, the diesel hybrid

relativeFCvaluewasfoundouttobe0.76.

ii. Second approach, model the Diesel Hybrid on a gasoline HEV and use

completehybridbenefit.Thisapproachyieldedarelativevalueof0.67for

DieselHybrid.

Theaverageofthetwovalueswas0.65,usedastoday’srelativeFCvalueforDiesel

Hybrid.Thediesel hybridbenefit factorof0.768was assumed to remain constant

from2006to2035,forthepurposeofthisanalysis.

CompressedNaturalGas

TherelativeFCofaCNGvehicleisassumedtobethesameasthatofNA‐G[USDOE

2010].

BatteryElectricVehicle

ABEV isassumed tohavea relativeFCof zero, since it ispoweredcompletelyby

electricity.

5Firstterm,0.85,represents15%hybridbenefit.Secondterm,0.925,representshalfof15%benefitduetogasolineengineimprovement.Thisfactoriscloselyinlinewiththereported20%betterfueleconomyofdieselhybridsvis‐à‐visdieselengines[JDPower2008a].6ObtainedbymultiplyingthebenefitfactorwiththerelativeFCofDieselengine,i.e.0.857ObtainedbymultiplyingrelativeFCofDieselengine,i.e.0.85with0.7,i.e.thevaluedenotingfullgasolinehybridbenefit8ObtainedbydividingrelativeFCvalueofdieselhybridwiththatofadieselengine.

32

2.3.3NewPassengerCarSalesMix

Today’sSalesMix

Today’sNewPassengerCarSalesMixwasderivedbyusingthedatafromtheEUCO2

Monitoring Database [European Commission 2010c]. Table 2.5a, b show the raw

NewPassengerCarSalesdatafromtheaforementioneddatabase.

Germany UK France ItalyPetrol 1,687,964 1,177,890 463,194 914,736Diesel 1,330,819 905,811 1,570,899 1,093,681Electric 34 218 108NaturalGas 8,463 74 8,166Petrol‐Bioethanol

8

Petrol‐LPG 13,756 65 2,054 145,572Petrol‐NG 3,317 395 LPG 20 TotalNewCars 3,044,361 2,084,004 2,036,616 2,162,263

Table2.5aNewPassengerCarSalesForSelectedCountries.Source:EuropeanCommission

2010c

33

Spain Netherlands Portugal Czech HungaryPetrol 316,041 357,752 66,429 98,804 115,673Diesel 729,450 123,318 148,357 35,233 47,070Electric NaturalGas 3 Petrol‐Bioethanol

Petrol‐LPG 27 Petrol‐NG 3 27 LPG TotalNewCars 1,045,491 481,070 214,819 134,064 162,743

Table2.5bNewPassengerCarSalesforSelectedCountries.Source:EuropeanCommission

2010c

ThisdatayieldedToday’ssalesmixasshowninTable2.6below.

Germany UK France Italy Spain Netherlands Portugal Czech Hungary

Petrol9 55.45% 56.02% 22.35% 48.54% 29.73% 73.87% 30.44% 73.21% 70.58%

Diesel 43.71% 43.46% 77.13% 50.58% 69.77% 25.63% 69.06% 26.28% 28.92%

FullHybrid10

0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%

Electric11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CNG12 0.332% ‐ ‐ 0.378% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Table2.6Today’sNewPassengerCarSalesMix

9IncludesPetrol,Petrol‐LPG,LPG,Petrol‐Bioethanol,andhalfofPetrol‐NG10Assumingthatthereare0.5%hybridcarsinEurope,allofwhichareFullGasolineHybrids11Electriccarnumbersareinsignificantlysmall,henceignored12CNGsharerepresentsthesumofNaturalGasandhalfthePetrol‐NGshare.CNGsalessignificantonlyinItalyandGermany;restofthecountries’numbersignored.

34

The remainingpart of this sectiondescribes the assumptionsmade forprojecting

thefuturesalesmixofvarioustypesofnewpassengercars.

TurbochargedGasolineCars

AccordingtoABOUTAutomotive,10%ofallnewgasolinepassengercarsinEurope

were turbocharged in2004.Thisnumberwasexpected togoup to22%by2010.

Therefore,thisresearchassumestoday’sshareofturbochargedgasolinevehiclesto

beat20%ofallgasolinevehiclessoldinEurope.

Moving further into the future, other estimates project the total turbocharged

engines sold inEurope in2014at 70%‐75% in2014 [MotorMagazine2009, SAE

Article2010].Thisresearchmakesamodestincreaseinthe2014‐20durationand

assumesthatatotalof80%ofallcarssoldsin2020wouldbeturbocharged.Since

theaveragedieselcarsalesinEuropeisexpectedtobebetween42%and50%by

202013 and all diesel cars are assumed to be turbocharged, this data can be

extrapolatedtoshowthatroughly55%ofallgasolinecarswillbeturbochargedby

2020.

DieselCars

One of the important questions pertaining to Diesel engines in Europe is: going

forward,wouldfurtherdieselizationofEuropehappen?

Between1990and2004,therelativelylowerpriceofdieselfuel(inahighfuelprice

context)hasbeenanimportantfactorinincreasingtheshareofdieselcarsinnew

passenger car sales inEurope.Thepriceofdieselhasbeenbelowgasolinedue to

lowertaxesonitinmostofEurope.Thisleadstoafavorablerelativecostofdiesel

ownership even after considering higher purchase costs of diesel cars and higher

productioncostofdiesel[Pock2009].

13BasedonEUhistoricalsalesdata,ScenariosdevelopedbythisresearchandDieselpenetrationestimatesdiscussedlaterinthethesis.

35

However,over theyears, thepricedifferentialbetween thepre‐taxpriceofdiesel

andgasolinehassteadilyincreased(Fig.2.8).

Fig.2.8Differenceinthepre‐taxpriceofdieselandpetrolinpence–excessofdieselover

petrol(penceperlitre)[UKParliament2010]Source:QuarterlyEnergyPrices,DECC

Thisrelative increase in thepriceofdiesel isattributedtoa long‐termincrease in

demand for diesel coupled with limited diesel refining capacity [UK Parliament

2010]. In January 2008, in 14 out of 27 countries in Europe, diesel was more

expensive than gasoline, although as of June 2010, only UK had diesel more

expensive than gasoline. [Autoblog Green 2008, UK Parliament 2010]. While the

diesel prices in recentmonths have fallen, they still remain subject to the longer

term price increase trend. JD Power (2008) estimates that the growth in diesel

vehicledemand inWesternEuropehaspassed itspeak.Any increase insaleswas

expected to be modest over the 2008‐10 period, followed by declines later.

36

However, in other parts of Europe, diesel share was seen to experience

“considerablegrowth”,movingfrom19%in2002to42%in2007[JDPower2008].

WhileothersmaynotagreewiththeassessmentthatDieselcarshareincreasehas

passed itspeak, theydoconcedethatany futuregrowthwouldbemoremoderate

[AID 2008]. Also, gasoline engine improvements over the next decade (and an

increase in the share of turbo‐gasoline engines) narrows the diesel‐gasoline

efficiencydifferencesignificantly.

Keepingtheaboveinmind,webelievethatdieselcarsalesinEuropewouldmoveto

an average of 50% by 2020. Formodeling purposes, the countries that currently

haveadieselshareofgreaterthan50%willlowertheshareandthecountrieswith

lessthan50%ofcurrentdieselsharewillincreasetheshare.

HybridCars

Like formost new technologies, there arewide ranging estimates for penetration

rateofHybridsinEurope.Theseestimatesrangefromalowof2%in2015to20%

(including electric vehicles) in 2020 (Fig. 2.9a, 2.9b and 2.9c)[Hybrid Cars Article

2008,JDPower2008a,Reuters2010].

This research assumes the total hybrid penetration to be a maximum of 15% in

2020.ThisfigureincludesGasolineHybrids(Full/Mild)andDieselHybrids.Forthe

purposeofthisstudy,the“stopandstart”MicroHybridsareconsideredpartofthe

improvementinconventionalgasolineengine.Thisviewisinlinewiththatofsome

manufacturers,whodistinguish such improvements frombenefits offeredbyMild

orFullHybrids[HybridCarsArticle2007].

MildGasolineHybridsare likely topenetrate fasterandsooner thanFullGasoline

Hybrids owing both to their lower cost and manufacturers’ declared focus

[Autoweek 2007b, Reuters 2010]. Diesel Hybrids are inherently more expensive

than equivalent full Gasoline Hybrids. However, Diesel Hybrids might be better

suited to Europe thanGasolineHybrids [JD Power 2008a, Autoweek 2007a], and,

37

according to Frost & Sullivan, European customersmight bemorewilling to buy

them, provided themanufacturers are able to bring affordablemodels tomarket

[Autoweek2007a,GreenCarCongress2007].

Fig.2.9aEuropeHEVForecast‐OptimisticScenario

Source:JDPower2008a

38

Fig.2.9bEuropeHEVForecast‐PessimisticScenario

Source:JDPower2008a

39

Fig.2.9cEuropeHEVForecast

Source:HybridCarsArticle2008

CNGCars

Currently, the highest CNG sales share exists in Italy – about 0.4%14, a relatively

smallnumber.Forthepurposeofthisstudy,itwasassumedthat,atthemaximum,

theCNGshare innewcarsaleswouldrisetothis level inallselectedcountriesby

2020.Further,itwasassumedthattheCNGshareinItalywouldremainconstantat

0.4%.Allinall,theseassumptionswouldbringthe2020EUaverageofCNGshareto

roughly2.5timesthecurrentEUaverageof0.16%.

140.378%

40

ElectricCars

Figure2.10showsthatsomeestimatespegtheElectricCarmarketsharebetween

6%and8%intheEUinyear2020.

Fig.2.10PHEVsandBEVsSalesProjectionintheEU.Source:BCG,AEA

[deSisternes2010]

OthersbelievethatthecombinedmarketshareofElectricCarsandHybridswould

be15%in2020[Reuters2010].

Keeping theseopinions inmind, this studyassumes thepotentialmarket shareof

Electric Cars to be amaximum of 8% in 2020. This study also expects PHEVs to

outsellBEVsduringthistimeframeowinglargelytotheirrelativelylowercosts[de

Sisternes2010]andtheirlackofanyoveralldrivingrangelimitation.

41

OtherCars

We would like to acknowledge that cars running on several other alternative

technologies/fuelsexisttodayandmightcontinuetoproliferateinfuture.However,

this study chooses to ignore them in order to focus on those types that either

alreadyhaveasignificantmarketshareorareprojectedtoacquireasizeablemarket

share during the timeframe under consideration. Thus, somepowertrain and fuel

types leftoutof this analysis areLPGcars (insignificant currentmarket share;no

widespread adoption in EU foreseen by 2020), Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars

(Insignificant, ifany,marketshareexpectedby2020),anddedicatedBiofuelscars

(relativelymodestmarketshareexpectedby2020).

2.3.4WeightandDragReductionImpactOne important way to reduce fuel consumption is to reduce the weight of the

vehicle, thereby reducing the inertial forces that the engine has to overcome.

Similarly,a reduction in thevehicle’saerodynamicdragand tirerollingresistance

leadstoimprovementinfuelconsumption.Foradetailedintroductiontothistopic,

thereaderisreferredtoHeywood(2010).

A previous study (Cheah, et al 2007) found that for every 10% reduction of a

vehicle’s weight, its fuel consumption decreases by 0.3 L/100km, in the case of

passenger cars. Moreover, the maximum total weight reduction possible going

forwardtoyear2035wasestimatedtobe35%fromtoday’svehicleweight inthe

U.S.context.Theseresultswereadaptedtobeappropriatefortheaverage(smaller

size and lighter) European car. Finally, this researchmaintains the assumption of

KasserisandHeywood(2007)fora20%reductioninvehicleweightby2035forthe

100% ERFC case. Values of weight reduction, when ERFC is below 100%, are

computedbyscalingERFC.[Cheah,etal2008]

42

2.3.5ScenariosInordertoexploretheeaseordifficultyofmeetingtheemissionstargets,thisstudy

creates several possible future scenarios and compares the emissions reductions

achievedineachoneofthem.Sincetheaimofthisstudyistoillustratetherelative

easeordifficultyofachievingthetargets,threescenariosarecreated–

• Realistic: paints a realistic picture of vehicle sales mix, ERFC and vehicle

weightreductionthatweanticipatewouldbeachievedby2020,

• Optimistic:ascenariothat ismoreoptimistic innatureandrequires faster

ratesofchangeintechnology,and

• FixedSalesMix: a scenario thatprovides thebase case for comparisonby

assumingnochangefromtoday’spowertrainsalesmix,anERFCconstantat

today’s levelof50%,andnoadditionalvehicleweightreductionabovethat

achievedduetoERFC.

It is important to note that these scenarios are notmeant to forecast or predict.

Instead, they are used as examples to illustrate the relative ease or difficulty in

achievingtheemissionstargetsandsensitivitytoratesoftechnologychange.

AverageEuropeanScenarios

First a setof averageEuropeanscenarioswasevolved.Table2.7 lists theaverage

Europeanscenariosfortheyear2020.Thesalesmixfor2015ishalfwaybetween

thetodayand2020salesmixes.

43

Scenarios Today Optimistic

2020 Realistic 2020

ERFC 50% 75% 50% Weight Reduction (Total)

10% 5%

New Car Sales Mix Gasoline 46.68% 34% 41%

Non-turbo Gasoline 37.34% 14% 25% Turbo Gasoline 9.34% 20% 16%

Diesel 52.66% 42% 50% Hybrid 0.5% 15% 6%

Mild Hybrid 6% 4% Full Hybrid 0.5% 6% 2% Diesel Hybrid 3%

Electricity 0% 8% 2% PHEV 5% 2% BEV 3%

CNG 0.16% 0.4% 0.4% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Table2.7AverageEuropeanNewVehicleSalesScenariosInYear2020

The values of New Car Sales Mix for “Today” are obtained from the EU CO2

MonitoringDatabase[EuropeanCommission2010c].TheERFCvalueof“Today”is

basedonEurope’straditionalERFCof50%,asstatedelsewhereinthisthesis.

TheRealisticscenarioisbuiltbyassumingthattheERFCwillremainatthecurrent

level and therewill be relatively lower emphasis on vehicle weight reduction. In

terms of new passenger car salesmix, this scenario illustrates a casewhere new

technologies (Hybrid/Electric) have not been able to penetrate significantly by

2020.TurbochargedGasolinecarswillonlybeabletopenetratetoabout30%(i.e.

half themaximumlevelassumedinthis thesis)ofallgasolinecarssold.Dieselcar

sharewouldremainaboutthesameat50%.HybridandElectriccarswillhavealow

penetration rate, withMild Gasoline Hybrids leading theway and Diesel Hybrids

44

andBEVsunabletomakeamark.CNGcarswouldremainat0.4%ofallthenewcars

sold.

TheOptimisticscenarioassumesthat therewillbeahigheremphasisonreducing

fuel consumption (75%) and a greater amount of vehicleweightwill be reduced.

TurbochargedGasolinecarswillreachupto60%ofallgasolinecarssoldby2020.

Inaddition,new technologies likeHybridandElectric carswillbeable toachieve

themaximumpenetrationlevelsassumedinthisthesis.Astheydoso,theywilltake

equally from gasoline and diesel market shares. In this scenario, Full Gasoline

Hybrids will be able to equal the sales of Mild Gasoline Hybrids due to a larger

number of models available and cheaper hybrid technology. Diesel Hybrids will

haveasignificantmarketshareatroughlyhalfoftheFullGasolineHybrids.Finally,

BEVswillachieveamarketshareroughlyequaltohalfthePHEVmarketshare.

CountrySpecificScenarios

The “Today” values for the countries are determined from EU CO2 Monitoring

Database[EuropeanCommission2010c].

For the Optimistic and Realistic scenarios, since all the selected countries have

negligiblecurrentmarketsharesofHybrids,ElectriccarsandCNG,itwasassumed

thatallthesecountrieswouldexhibitsimilaradoptionofthesetechnologies.Hence,

for these technologies, all of the countries would move towards these average

Europeanscenariovalues.

The countries, however, would differ in their Diesel car market share. Those

countries that currently have a lower Diesel car market share than the average

European valuewouldmove half theway up to the average European Diesel car

marketsharevalueby2020.AndthosecountriesthatcurrentlyhaveahigherDiesel

carmarketsharethantheaverageEuropeanvaluewouldmovehalfthewaydown

totheaverageEuropeanDieselcarmarketsharevalueby2020.

45

TherestofthemarketsharewillbethatoftheGasolinecars,ofwhich60%and30%

willbeturbochargedforOptimisticandRealisticscenarios,respectively.

2.3.6ModelCalibrationOnce the model was set, it was calibrated against reported emissions results

obtained from the EU CO2 emissionsmonitoring database [European Commission

2010c]. Figure 2.11 shows that the emissions computed by the model for every

countryfor“Today”areincloseagreementwiththosereportedbythosecountries

totheEuropeanCommission.

Fig.2.11ModelCalibrationAgainstEUReportedCO2Emissions

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00100.00120.00140.00160.00180.00

%Error

Emissions(gCO2/km

)

Emissions"Today"‐Reportedvs.Computed

TodayModel TodayReported %Error

46

3.CustomizedFleetModelThecustomizedfleetmodeldevelopedforthisresearchhasitsoriginsintheworkof

Bodek and Heywood (2008). The original fleet model has been modified to

incorporatenewpowertrainslikeMildHybrid,PHEVandBEV.Further,thenewcar

salesassumptionshavebeensuitablychangedtoyieldapenetrationrateandsales

mix as developed and described in the CO2 Emissions Model summarized in the

previouschapter.Themodelisusedtoprovideprojectionsforthefollowing:

• FuelUseReductionPotentialforbothOptimisticandRealisticscenarios,and

• Diesel to Gasoline Fuel Ratio for Optimistic, Realistic and Fixed Sales Mix

scenarios

Four countries, Germany, UK, Italy, and France,were selected for analysis in this

way given both their large existing fleets and the significant differences in their

historicaland“Today’s”newpassengercarsalesmix.

Table3.1–3.4 list the“Today”,Optimistic,RealisticandFixedSalesMixscenarios

forGermany,France,Italy,andUK,respectively.

47

Scenarios Today/

ReferenceOptimistic2020

Realistic2020

ERFC 50% 75% 50%Weight Reduction(Total)

10% 5%

DuetoERFC 3% 2%Additional 0% 7% 3%

NewCarSalesMixGasoline 55.46% 33.77% 44.77%

Non‐turboGasoline

44.37% 13.51% 31.34%

TurboGasoline

11.09% 20.26% 13.43%

Diesel 43.71% 42.86% 46.86%Hybrid 0.5% 15.00% 6.00%

MildHybrid 0.00% 6.00% 4.00%FullHybrid 0.5% 6.00% 2.00%DieselHybrid 0.00% 3.00% 0.00%

Electricity 0% 8.00% 2.00%PHEV 0.00% 5.00% 2.00%BEV 0.00% 3.00% 0.00%

CNG 0.33% 0.38% 0.38% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Table3.1ScenariosforGermany

48

Scenarios Today/


Realistic2020


10% 5%

DuetoERFC 3% 2%Additional 0% 7% 3%NewCarSalesMixGasoline 22.37% 17.06% 28.06%

Non‐turboGasoline

17.90% 6.82% 19.64%

TurboGasoline

4.47% 10.23% 8.42%

Diesel 77.13% 59.57% 63.57%Hybrid 0.5% 15.00% 6.00%

MildHybrid 0.00% 6.00% 4.00%FullHybrid 0.5% 6.00% 2.00%DieselHybrid 0.00% 3.00% 0.00%

Electricity 0% 8.00% 2.00%PHEV 0.00% 5.00% 2.00%BEV 0.00% 3.00% 0.00%

CNG 0.0% 0.38% 0.38% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Table3.2ScenariosforFrance

49

Scenarios Today/


Realistic2020


10% 5%



Non‐turboGasoline

38.83% 12.13% 28.93%

TurboGasoline

9.71% 18.20% 12.40%

Diesel 50.58% 46% 50%Hybrid 0.50% 15% 6%

MildHybrid 0.00% 6% 4%FullHybrid 0.50% 6% 2%

DieselHybrid 0.00% 3% 0%Electricity 0% 8% 2%

PHEV 0.00% 5% 2%BEV 0.00% 3% 0%

CNG 0.38% 0.38% 0.38% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Table3.3ScenariosforItaly

50

Scenarios Today/


Realistic2020

ERFC 50% 75% 50%WeightReduction(Total)

10% 5%



Non‐turboGasoline

44.83% 13.76% 31.42%

TurboGasoline 11.21% 20.64% 13.47%Diesel 43.46% 42.23% 47%Hybrid 0.50% 15% 6%

MildHybrid 0.00% 6% 4%FullHybrid 0.50% 6% 2%DieselHybrid 0.00% 3% 0%

Electricity 0% 8% 2%PHEV 0.00% 5% 2%BEV 0.00% 3% 0%

CNG 0.00% 0.38% 0.38% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

Table3.4ScenariosforUK

51

Theframeworkofthemodelrelevanttothisresearchisshowninfigure3.1below.

Theorangeblocksoftheframeworkrepresentthepartsthathavebeenmodifiedfor

thisstudy.

Fig.3.1FleetModelFramework

ThereaderisadvisedtoperuseBodekandHeywood(2008)foradetailedsummary

ofthemodelframeworkandthecoreassumptionsbuilttherein.Thefollowingsub‐

section describes the assumptions andmodifications specific and relevant to this

study.

NewPassengerCarSales

KilometersTraveledPerCar

FuelConsumptionRate

VehicleFleet

TotalKilometersTraveled

FuelUse

52

3.1NewPassengerCarSales

Thiscomponentofthefleetmodelframeworkfocusesonmodelingthecurrentand

futurepowertrain‐basedcompositionofthepassengercarmarket.Theoriginalfleet

model provided for NA Gasoline, Turbocharged Gasoline, Diesel, Full Gasoline

Hybrid‐electric,DieselHybrid,andCNGpowertrains.Inordertopreparethemodel

tofittherequirementsofthepowertrain‐mixasusedinthisresearch,thefollowing

twostepswerecarriedoutforGermany,France,ItalyandUK:

a. Additionofnewpowertrainstothemodel,

b. Updateofthecurrentandfuturepowertrainsalesmix

3.1.1AdditionOfNewPowertrainsToTheModel

Mild Gasoline Hybrid‐electric, PHEV and BEV powertrains were added to the

originalmodel.The“Today”,i.e.2010,marketshareofallthethreepowertrainswas

zeropercent.Allthreewereassumedtobeginpenetratingthemarketlinearlyfrom

2010onwardsandachievethe2020targetmarketshare.Consequently,therewas

nomarketshareofanyoneofthesepowertrainspriorto2010.

3.1.2UpdateOfTheCurrentAndFuturePowertrainSalesMix

NA Gasoline, Gasoline Turbocharged, and Diesel powertrains were assumed to

linearly progress (increase or decrease) from their 2005 sales mix values to the

updated 2010, i.e. “Today”, sales mix values. Beginning from 2010, these

powertrainswereassumedtoprogress(increaseordecrease)linearlyfor10years

suchthattheyachievedthe2020targetsalesmixvalues.

53

FullGasolineHybrid,DieselHybridandCNGwerepresumedtobenegligibleprior

to2010,andadjustedaccordingly.Thesepowertrainstoopenetratedlinearlyover

thenext10yearstoultimatelyreachthe2020salesmixvalues.

“Today” sales mix values for all the powertrains were obtained from European

Commission(2010c).2020salesmixvalueswerederived fromtheOptimisticand

Realisticscenariosfortherespectivecountries.

3.2FuelConsumptionRate

3.2.1MildGasolineHybrid‐electric

Both, “Today” and 2020 fuel consumption rate for Mild Gasoline Hybrid‐electric

powertrainwas kept consistentwith the assumption in the CO2 EmissionsModel

discussion; i.e. the relative fuel consumption of a Mild Gasoline Hybrid‐electric

powertrainwasmidway between those ofNAGasoline and Full GasolineHybrid‐

electric powertrains. The fuel consumption rate values varied linearly between

2010and2020.

3.2.2PHEVAndBEV

ThisstudyconsidersthePHEVpowertraintobepoweringa30kmbattery‐electric

range vehiclewith a utility factor of 0.5. Thismeans that these vehicles drive on

averagehalftheirkilometersdriveninchargedepletingmodeandtheotherhalfin

gasolinehybridmode.Therefore,thefuelconsumptionofaPHEVisthesumoftwo

parts:

a. electricityconsumption(ingasolineequivalentterms),plus

b. gasolinehybridconsumption

54

Gasoline consumption is found using the gasoline consumption rates for such a

PHEVshowninTable3.3usingresultsfromDeSisternes(2010):

Year GasolineConsumption(L/100km)

2010 2.512020 2.052035 1.37

Table3.3PHEVGasolineConsumptionRates

Electricityconsumptionisfoundusingtheelectricityconsumptionratesforapure

electric vehicle (i.e. BEV) as shown in Table 3.4 using results from De Sisternes

(2010):

Year ElectricityConsumption(Wh/km)

2010 1602020 1562035 150

Table3.4BEVElectricityConsumptionRates

Theelectricityconsumediskeptseparatefromthetotalpetroleumconsumption.To

determinethecorrespondinggasolineequivalent,standardenergydensityvalueof

gasoline,32MJ/l,isused.

55

3.3FuelUse

InordertocomputethefueluseforMildGasolineHybrid‐electric,PHEVandBEV,it

wasassumed that theVKT (Kilometers traveledpervehicle)of thesepowertrains

was the same as that for a Full GasolineHybrid‐electric vehicle operating in that

country.Similarly,thescrappageratewasassumedtobethesameasthatforaFull

GasolineHybrid‐electricvehicle.Thecountry‐wiseVKTvalues[BodekandHeywood

2008]forthevariouspowertrainsusedinthemodelareshowninTables3.5–3.8

below:

Powertrain VKT(km/year)

NAGasoline,TurboGasoline,FullGasolineHybrid,MildGasolineHybrid,DieselHybrid,PHEV,BEV,CNG

15478

Diesel 22840

Table3.5VKTValuesforGermany

Powertrain VKT(km/year)NAGasoline,TurboGasoline,FullGasolineHybrid,MildGasolineHybrid,DieselHybrid,PHEV,BEV,CNG

15446

Diesel 21038

Table3.6VKTValuesforFrance

56


15533

Diesel 24995

Table3.7VKTValuesforItaly


18732

Diesel 28681

Table3.8VKTValuesforUK

Forthepurposeofthisstudy,itisassumedthattheseVKTvaluesremainconstant

throughtheperiodunderconsideration,i.e.2010‐2020.

TheseVKTvaluesshowthatDieselsarerunabout48%,36%,61%,and53%more

thanthecarswithotherpowertrainsinGermany,France,ItalyandUK,respectively.

Therefore, an increase in Diesels in the given timeframe would lead to a higher

overallVKTandhencehigherFuelUse,whereasadecreaseinDiesels inthegiven

timeframewouldleadtoaloweroverallVKTandlowerFuelUse.

57

The fuel use of individual powertrains over the timeframe under consideration

(2010 – 2020) was integrated to obtain the overall fuel use figures for a given

scenarioforacountry.

58

4.Results

4.1FeasibilityOfAchievingThe2015And2020CO2EmissionsTargets

Figure4.1showstheprojectedemissionscomputedforeachcountryandforeach

scenarioinyear2015.

Fig.4.1Targetvs.ProjectedCO2Emissions‐2015

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00110.00120.00130.00140.00150.00160.00

Emissions(gCO2/km

)

2015Targetvs.ProjectedCO2Emissions

Today 2015FixedSalesMix 2015Optimistic

2015Realistic Target

59

Figure4.2showstheprojectedemissionscomputedforeachcountryandforeach

scenarioinyear2020.

Fig4.2Targetvs.ProjectedCO2Emissions‐2020

Theseresultsshowthatitappearsfeasibletomeetthe2015targetinallcountries

inatleasttheoptimisticscenarioexceptforGermanyand(maybe)theUK.Germany

wouldbeabletoloweritsemissionsbyonlyabout72%oftherequiredamountand

bestrandedat138gCO2/kmintheoptimisticscenario.Itwouldfacea2‐yeardelay

in meeting the 2015 target. UK would perhaps almost be able to meet the 2015

target by lowering its emissions to 133 g CO2/kmby 2015, andwill be poised to

meetthetargetwithinthenextyear.

However, the optimistic scenario assumes a significant penetration of new

technologieslikePHEVsandBEVs,accompaniedwitha75%emphasisonreduction

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00100.00110.00120.00130.00140.00150.00160.00

Emissions(gCO2/km

)

2020Targetvs.ProjectedCO2Emissions

Today 2020FixedSalesMix 2020Optimistic

2020Realistic 2020Target

60

of fuel consumption – 50% more than the historical value. Both of these

assumptions indicate a tough task for the carmanufacturers given that currently

PHEVsandBEVsarevirtuallynon‐existent in theEuropeanconsumermarketand

historically the ERFC in Europe has lingered around 50% for a long time and a

sudden“shiftingears”wouldbechallenging.

Intherealisticscenariofor2015,thetargetswillbemetonlyinPortugalandFrance

by2015.Italywillalmostmakeit,butitwouldtakeanothertwoyearstomeetthe

2015targetundertherealisticscenario.Allothercountriesfaceadelayofseveral

years.Germany,UK,Hungary,CzechandNetherlandswillmeetthetargetlongafter

2020.Spainwouldbedelayedbyfouryearsintherealisticscenario.

The situation looks less promising for the 2020CO2 emissions target. The results

showthatitwouldnotbepossibletomeetthetargetinanyofthecountriesunder

anyofthescenariosanalyzed.Intheoptimisticscenario,Portugal’snewpassenger

carCO2emissionswillcomeclosesttomeetingthe2020targetbyreachingalevelof

about100gCO2/km.

The resultsalso show that the2020emissions target is farmoredemanding than

the2015target.Hence,fromanautomanufacturer’sperspective,arelativelyslower

emission reduction effort up to 2015 could lead to the need for employing a

substantiallyhigherpost‐2015emissionsreductioneffortleadingto2020,iftheEU

decides to keep the 2020 target at its current value after the proposed review in

2013.

4.2WhatWouldItTakeToMeetTheTargets?

Inordertoexplorehowthe2015and2020targetscouldbemetbyusingdifferent

salesmixes,wecreatedadditionalscenariosbyvaryingthesalesfractionofonlyone

powertrainata time.Any increase in thispowertrain’s sharewouldcomeequally

61

fromthegasolineanddieselmarket shares.For thisanalysis,weconsideredHEV,

PHEVandBEVsincethesearethethreebestpowertrainsintermsofreducingfuel

consumption. The Optimistic scenario provided the “base” for developing these

additionalscenarios.

Table4.1showstheapproximaterelativeimprovementachievedbyincreasingthe

marketshareoftheindividualpowertrainsby1percentagepointeach.

Powertrain ImprovementinCO2Emissions

HEV ‐0.17%PHEV ‐0.40%BEV ‐1%

Table4.1RelativeEffectivenessofPowertrainsInImprovingCO2Emissions

In other words, BEV and PHEV would be roughly 6 times and 2.3 times more

effectivethananHEVinreducingvehiclesales‐mixCO2emissionsinEurope.

Applying these results, it is seen that the 2015 target can bemet in Germany by

employinganyofthefollowingoptions:

a. 42%ofnewcarsshouldbeHEVby2020,or

b. 21%ofnewcarsshouldbePHEVby2020,or

c. 9%ofnewcarsshouldbeBEVby2020

Itshouldbenotedherethatthisisjustacomputationtocomparethetanktowheel

effectivenessofonetechnologyovertheothers.Thisisnotmeanttosuggestthat,for

example, a 9%BEV target should be kept for theGermanmarketplace, since that

kindofatargetwouldalsoneedcarefulanalysisofWell‐To‐Wheelemissionsforall

thetechnologies.

62

4.3CountrySpecificFeasibility

Figures 4.3 through 4.11 illustrate the projected new passenger car carbon

emissionsforeachcountryandforeachscenarioforthewholeperiodfromToday

to2020.

Fig4.3ProjectedCO2Emissions‐UK

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐UK

UKFixedSalesMix

UKRealistic

UKOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

63

Fig4.4ProjectedCO2Emissions–Germany

Fig4.5ProjectedCO2Emissions–France

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

Today

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Germany

GermanyFixedSalesMix

GermanyRealistic

GermanyOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

Today

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐France

FranceFixedSalesMix

FranceRealistic

FranceOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

64

Fig4.6ProjectedCO2Emissions‐Italy

Fig.4.7ProjectedCO2Emissions–CzechRepublic

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Italy

ItalyFixedSalesMix

ItalyRealistic

ItalyOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

Today

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Czech

CzechFixedSalesMix

CzechRealistic

ChechOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

65

Fig.4.8ProjectedCO2Emissions‐Hungary

Fig.4.9ProjectedCO2Emissions‐Netherlands

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

Today

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Hungary

HungaryFixedSalesMix

HungaryRealistic

HungaryOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

Today

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Netherlands

NetherlandsFixedSalesMix

NetherlandsRealistic

NetherlandsOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

66

Fig4.10ProjectedCO2Emissions–Portugal

Fig.4.11ProjectedCO2Emissions‐Spain

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

Today

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Portugal

PortugalFixedSalesMix

PortugalRealistic

PortugalOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Spain

SpainFixedSalesMix

SpainRealistic

SpainOptimistic

2015Target

2020Target

67

4.4FeasibilityForTheRepresentativeEurope

Figure4.12illustratestheprojectedCO2emissionsforEuropeasawhole,forallthe

threescenariosandfortheperiodfromTodayto2020.

Fig.4.12ProjectedCO2Emissions–Europe

This result shows that as a whole the representative Europe that we have

considered in this study could meet the 2015 target on time, in the optimistic

scenario. This is important because the emissionswill bemonitored cumulatively

overthewholeEUinordertodeterminewhetherornotthe2015targetismetbya

manufacturer. However, the 2020 target still remains elusive for the combined

region.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

gCO2/km

Year

CO2Emissions‐Europe

FixedSalesMix

Realistic

Optimistic

2015Target

2020Target

68

4.5FuelUseReductionPotentialIntheFuelUseReductionPotentialgraphsbelow,thelinelabeled‘Reference’shows

the Fuel Use trend corresponding to a scenario where the sales mix remains

constant at Today’s levels through the period under consideration. Further, the

ERFCfortheReferencecasestaysat50%andthereisnoadditionalvehicleweight

reductionassumed.

These graphs should be read by considering each wedge as representing the

improvement achieved by introducing an additional option. For example, in Fig.

4.13,thebluewedgereferstotheimprovementachieved–overtheReferencecase‐

by increasing the ERFC from 50% to 75%. And the yellow wedge shows the

improvement achieved –over the impact of the increased ERFC‐ by introducing

gasolineturbochargedvehiclestothefullestextentby2020.Therestofthewedges

canbereadsimilarly.

69

Figure 4.13 and 4.14 show the fuel use reduction potential for Germany in

OptimisticandRealisticscenariosrespectively.15

Fig.4.13FuelUseReductionPotential–OptimisticScenario‐Germany

15Notethattheexpandedverticalaxisdoesnotstartfromzero.

70

Fig4.14FuelUseReductionPotential–RealisticScenario–Germany

ItcanbeseenfromFig4.13thatimprovingtheERFCfrom50%to75%hasthemost

impact on reducing fuel use. Further, in both the scenarios, it can be seen that

PHEVshaveaverysignificantpotentialtoreducefueluse.Theimpactofincreasein

Diesel car share in new passenger car sales in the realistic scenario over the

Reference scenario is visible in Fig 4.14 where the Diesel wedge lies above the

Referenceline.ThisprojectedfueluseincreaseduetohighersalesofDieselcarsis

consistentwiththerelativelyhigherVKTforDieselcarswhencomparedwithPetrol

cars.

71

Figures4.15and4.16showthefuelusereductionpotential forFranceinboththe

scenarios.

Fig.4.15FuelUseReductionPotential–OptimisticScenario–France

72

Fig4.16FuelUseReductionPotential–RealisticScenario–France

While the impactof increase inERFCand introductionofPHEVs is similar to that

seeninthecaseofGermany,asignificantpointtobenotedinthecaseofFranceis

the reduction in fuel use due to Diesel share reduction in both Optimistic and

Realistic scenarios. This makes sense because, as specified in Table 3.6, Diesel

vehicles run longer distances (higher VKT) on average than their petrol

counterparts.Hence,lessdieselssoldperyearleadtolesseroverallVKTandhence

lowerfueluse.

73

Figures4.17and4.18showthefuelusereductionpotentialforItalyinboththe

scenarios.

Fig.4.17FuelUseReductionPotential–OptimisticScenario–Italy

74

Fig.4.18FuelUseReductionPotential–RealisticScenario–Italy

Intheoptimisticscenario,thereductionindieselcarshareinnewcarsalesresults

in an impact that is comparable to the impact of increase in turbocharger share.

Further,increaseinERFChasasignificantimpactinfuelusereduction,aswasseen

inthecaseofothercountries.Finally,introductionofPHEVsisseentohaveastrong

impactinbothscenarios,especiallyinrealistic.

75

Figures4.19and4.20showthefuelusereductionpotentialforUKinboththe

scenarios.

Fig.4.19FuelUseReductionPotential–OptimisticScenario–UK

76

Fig.4.20FuelUseReductionPotential–RealisticScenario‐UK

The fuel use reduction potential graphs for UK are similar in nature to those of

Germany.Intheoptimisticscenario,themostsignificantfuelusereductionhappens

duetoincreasedERFC,introductionofPHEVs,andincreaseinTurbochargershare.

Whereas, in the realistic scenario, a higherDiesel share in new car sales leads to

significantlyhigherfueluseascomparedtotheReferencescenario.

77

4.6DieselToGasolineFuelRatioThe ratio of the demands for diesel and gasoline fuels is an importantmetric for

Europeanfuelrefinersbecausetheyareconcernedaboutthegrowingproportionof

dieseldemand.Figures4.21‐4.24 illustratetheevolutionof this fueluseratio for

Germany,France,Italy,andUK,respectively,inthevariousscenarios.

Fig.4.21DieseltoGasolineFuelRatio‐Germany

Fig.4.21showsthatthedieseltogasolineratioissettoincreasefrom0.54to0.71

(about 30% increase) in the Reference scenario, in Germany. Further, Optimistic

scenario,whichhasthebestchancetoreduceCO2emissions,wouldleadtoaneven

higherdieseltogasolineratio,i.e.0.8.

78

Fig4.22DieseltoGasolineFuelRatio‐France

InthecaseofFrance,theReferencescenariohasthepotentialtoincreasethediesel

togasolineratioby80%overthecurrent1.67toalmost3.TheOptimisticscenario

actually leads to a ratio of 2.58, which is roughly 14% lower than that in the

Referencescenarioand54%higher thancurrentvalue.And theRealistic scenario

leadstoaratioof2.38,whichis20%lowerthanthatintheReferencescenarioand

43% higher than today’s value. Finally, it is important to note the significantly

higher Today value of diesel to gasoline ratio in Francewhen comparedwith the

currentandprojectedratiosintheotherthreecountries.

79

Fig.4.23DieseltoGasolineFuelRatio–Italy

In Italy, the Reference scenariowould lead to a diesel to gasoline ratio of 1.2 by

2020,anincreaseof33%overthecurrentvalueof0.9.TheOptimisticandRealistic

scenarios leadto2020dieseltogasolineratiosthatarebarely6%and2%higher,

respectively,thanthe2020ratiointheReferencescenarioand40%and36%higher

thanToday’sratio.

80

Fig.4.24DieseltoGasolineFuelRatio–UK

In theReferencescenario inUK, thediesel togasoline ratiowould increase to0.9

fromthecurrentvalueof0.57,representinga60%increase.Similarly,therewould

bea76%and80%increaseoverToday’svalueinRealisticandOptimisticscenarios

to yield ratios of 1 and 1.02, respectively. These values would be 10% and 12%

abovethe2020ratioforReferencescenario.

Itisimportanttonotethatforallthecountriesthedieseltogasolineratioincreases

partiallyonaccountofthegasolinetechnologies(NA‐G,TurbchargedGasoline,Mild

and Full Gasoline Hybrids) improving more than the diesel technologies (diesel

engine,dieselhybrid),onaverage.Thisfactorfurtherenhancestheimpactofrising

dieselcarfleetonthedieseltogasolinefueluseratio.

81

5.Conclusions

5.1FeasibilityOfAchievingThe2015And2020CO2EmissionsTargets

ThisstudysuggeststhatEuropeasawholeshouldbeabletomeetthe2015target

under the Optimistic scenario; however the 2020 target would be beyond reach

underboththemoreoptimisticandmorerealisticscenarios.

In the Optimistic scenario, all the nine countries analyzed would meet the 2015

targetwith a two‐yeardelay. In theRealistic scenario, only two countries, France

andPortugal,areabletomeetthe2015target;allothercountrieswouldfacedelays

ofatleast4years.

None of the countries will be able to meet the 2020 target in either of these

scenarios; only Portugal comes close to meeting this target under the Optimistic

scenario.

5.2FuelUseReductionPotential

TheanalysisshowsthatinFrance(ahighdieselsharecountry)thehighestimpact

on fuel use reduction comes from reducing the number of new diesel cars sold

because it is expected to reduce the mileage driven, in both the scenarios. New

lowerfuelusingtechnologieslikeTurbo‐gasoline/PHEV/EVcouldonlycomeupat

the expense of diesel cars, assuming a minimum level of demand for gasoline

vehicles. Further, a lower number of diesel vehicles results in lower overall VKT,

ultimately leading to lower fuel use in France. Moreover, PHEVs and BEVs also

significantlyhelpreducefuelconsumption.

82

Ontheotherhand,inGermanyandtheUK,thebiggestpotentialinreducingfueluse

couldcomefromenhancingERFCandintroducingPHEVs.WhileERFCreducesthe

biggestindividualportionoffuelusedinOptimisticscenario,PHEVshowsthebest

potentialtoreducefueluseinGermanyandtheUKinbothscenarios.

InItaly,themostsignificantfuelusereductionoptionsbeyondincreasedERFCand

introduction of PHEVs would be lowering of Diesel share in new car sales and

increasing the Turbocharged Gasoline vehicles, in the optimistic scenario. In the

realisticscenario,thebiggestimpactinfuelusereductioncomesfromintroduction

ofPHEVsfollowedbytheincreaseinTurbochargedGasolinevehicles.

All inall, an increase inERFCand introductionofPHEVswouldmosthelp reduce

fueluseinallstudiedcountries.InFranceandItaly,areductioninDieselcarsales,

accompanied by proliferation of PHEVs and BEVs, would additionally be

significantlyuseful in reducing the fuelusedue to loweroverallVKT.Whereas, in

GermanyandUK,ahighernumberofTurbochargedGasolinecarswouldbeanother

significantoptiontoreducefueluse.

5.3DieseltoGasolineFuelRatio

ThedieseltogasolineratiowillcontinuetoincreaseforGermany,France,Italyand

UnitedKingdom, in all scenarios.Asdescribed in theprevious section, this is due

partially to the increasing diesel fleet and partially to the relatively greater

improvements on average in gasoline technologies (NA Gasoline, Turbocharged

Gasoline,andMildandFullGasolineHybrids)overthediesel technologies(Diesel,

andDieselHybrids).

In Germany, United Kingdom, and Italy, any move towards reducing carbon

emissionsfromcarswouldleadtoanincreaseintherelativedemandofdieselfuel.

Thisisconsistentwiththefactthatanynewlowemittingtechnologieswilleatinto

83

gasolinesharesincedieselislikelytoremainthefuelofrelativechoicebecausethe

(current)taxsubsidiesmakeitcheapertoowndieselcars.InFrance,however,the

ratio will likely decrease if further attempts to reduce emissions are made. This

makessensesincegasolineisalreadyatalowlevelandanyfurthernewtechnology

penetrationwillhavetoeatintodiesel’sshare,givenacertainminimumdemandof

gasolinevehicles.

Also,itcanbeseenthatforboththecountries,thedieseltogasolineratiodoesnot

differ greatly under both the scenarios. This seems to follow from the relatively

shorter–whencomparedtoin‐usevehiclelifespan‐timespanunderconsideration.

Since themaindifferencebetween the two scenarios comes fromnew technology

penetration,itstandstoreasonthatitwouldtakesometimeforvehicleswiththese

technologies to replace the vehicles with older technologies, leading to lower

divergenceinfueluseratiosintheshortertermunderboththescenarios.

Finally, it is also apparent that attempts to reduce emissions would lead to an

equilibration of Diesel to Gasoline ratio in the countries taken together. Germany

andUnitedKingdomstand to observe a high growth indiesel to gasoline ratio in

bothOptimisticandRealisticscenarios.Italy,whichhasarelativelyhigherdieselto

gasoline ratio currently, seems on course to see relativelymoderate gains in the

ratioinboththescenarios.France,ontheotherendofthespectrum,hasaveryhigh

currentdiesel togasoline ratioand the ratio is likely togodown inbothRealistic

andOptimisticscenarios.

84

6.ReferencesAbout Automotive, 2005: The GlobalMarket for Automotive Turbochargers 2005

Edition. Detailed Information on Company Market Shares, ProductInstallation Forecasts and Trends for Passenger Cars and CommercialVehiclesto2010.ABOUTPublishingGroup.

ACEA, 2009: The Trends in Motorisation. Available at

http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20090529_motorisation.pdfAID, 2008: Schmidt's Diesel Car Prospects to 2013. Available at

http://www.eagleaid.com/dieselcarprospectsstudy.htmAutoweek, 2007a: Plugged‐in Diesels for Europe. January 18, 2007. Available at

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070118/FREE/70117005/1024/LATESTNEWS

Autoweek,2007b:GMSeesOnlySmallPotentialForHybridsInEurope.November

7, 2007. Available athttp://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/FREE/71107002/1530/FREE

Bandivadekar,A.;Bodek,K.;Cheah,L.;Evans,C.;Groode,T.;Heywood, J.;Kasseris,

E.; Kromer, M.; Weiss, M., 2008: On the Road in 2035: ReducingTransportation’s Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions, MITLaboratory for Energy and the Environment Report, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Bodek,K.;Heywood,J.B.,2008:Europe’sEvolvingPassengerVehicleFleet:FuelUse

andGHGEmissionsScenariosthrough2035,MITLaboratoryforEnergyandtheEnvironmentReport,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Cheah,L.;Evans,C.;Bandivadekar,A.;Heywood,J.B.,2007:FactorofTwo:Halving

theFuelConsumptionofNewU.S.Automobilesby2035,MITLaboratoryforEnergyandtheEnvironmentReport,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Cheah,L.W.;Bandivadekar,A.P.,Bodek,K.M.,Kasseris,E.P.,Heywood,J.B.(2008)

The Trade‐off between Automobile Acceleration Performance,Weight, andFuelConsumption,SAEInt.J.FuelsLubr.1(1):771‐777,2008.

deSisternes,F.J.,2010:Plug‐inElectricVehicleIntroductionintheEU,M.S.Thesis,

MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,Cambridge,Massachusetts.

85

EuropeanCommission,2009:Regulation(EC)No443/2009 http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009R0443:EN:NOTEuropeanCommission,2007:ProposalforaRegulationoftheEuropeanParliament

and of the Council setting emission performance standards for newpassengercarsaspartoftheCommunity’sintegratedapproachtoreduceCO2emissions from light‐duty vehicles /* COM/2007/0856 final – COD2007/0297*/

European Commission, 2007a: Communication From The Commission To The

Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic And SocialCommittee And The Committee Of The Regions: Limiting Global ClimateChangeto2degreesCelsius.Thewayaheadfor2020andbeyond{SEC(2007)7}{SEC(2007)8}.COM(2007)2final.Brussels,10.1.2007.

European Commission, 2007b: Commission Staff Working Document:

Accompanying document to the Proposal From The Commission To TheEuropeanParliamentAndCouncil foraregulationtoreduceCO2emissionsfrom passenger cars. Impact Assessment. {COM(2007)856final}{SEC(2007)1724}.SEC(2007)1723.Brussels,19.12.2007.

EuropeanCommission,2007c:CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheCouncil

and the European Parliament 6 Results of the review of the CommunityStrategytoreduceCO2emissionsfrompassengercarsandlight‐commercialvehicles{SEC(2007)60}{SEC(2007)61}/*COM/2007/0019final*/

European Commission, 2007d: Commission Staff Working Document:

Accompanying document to the Communication From The Commission ToThe Council And The European Parliament. Results of the review of theCommunityStrategytoreduceCO2emissionsfrompassengercarsandlight‐commercialvehicles. ImpactAssessment. {COM(2007)19 final} {SEC(2007)61}/*SEC(2007)60*/

EuropeanCommission,2010a:EUEnergyinFigures2010.CO2EmissionsbySector.

Available athttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/statistics/ext_co2_emissions_by_sector.pdf

European Commission, 2010b: EU Energy in Figures 2010. CO2 Emissions from

Transport by Mode. Available athttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/statistics/ext_co2_emissions_from_transport_by_mode.pdf

European Commission, 2010c: Report from the Commission To The European

Parliament and the Council. Monitoring The CO2 Emissions From New

86

Passenger Cars In The EU: Data For The Year 2008. Brussels, 12.1.2010COM(2009)713final.

European Council, 2002: 2002/358/EC: Council Decision of 25 April 2002

concerningtheapproval,onbehalfoftheEuropeanCommunity,oftheKyotoProtocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changeandthejointfulfilmentofcommitmentsthereunder.OJL130,15.5.2002,p.1–3

GreenCarCongress,2007:HybridElectricVehiclesSlowlyButSurelyGainMarket

Share in Europe. March 7, 2007. Available athttp://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/03/hybrid_electric.html

Heywood, J., 2010: Assessing the Fuel Consumption and GHG of Future In‐Use

Vehicles. Paper presented at PEA‐AIT International Conference on EnergyandSustainableDevelopment:IssuesandStrategies(ESD2010).ChiangMai,Thailand.2‐4June2010.

HybridCarsArticle,2007:BMWAndThe“H”Word.February27,2007.Availableat

http://www.hybridcars.com/carmakers/bmw.htmlHybridCarsArticle,2008:NewStudy:HybridCarsOntheRise,EspeciallyinEurope.

November 17, 2008. Available at http://www.hybridcars.com/news/new‐study‐hybrid‐cars‐rise‐especially‐europe‐25267.html

IMF, 2009: World Economic Outlook Database, April 2009. Available at

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/index.aspxIPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working

GroupsI,IIandIIItotheFourthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange[CoreWritingTeam,Pachauri,R.KandReisinger,A.(eds.)].IPCC,Geneva,Switzerland,104pp.

JDPower, 2008: PressRelease, J.D. Power andAssociatesAutomotive Forecasting

Global Diesel Light‐Vehicle Forecast. January 16, 2008. Available athttp://businesscenter.jdpower.com/news/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008010

JD Power, 2008a: Diesel and Hybrid Cars in Europe. AutomotiveWorld Briefing.

January 29, 2008. Available athttp://awbriefing.com/presentations/20080129_al_bedwell.pdf

Kasseris, E. P.; Heywood, J. B., 2007: Comparative Analysis of Automotive

Powertrain Choices for the Next 25 Years. SAE Technical Paper, 2007‐01‐1605;alsoinSP‐2091

87

Lisbon Strategy, 2000: available athttp://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Profiles/Pages/TheLisbonStrategyinshort.aspx

Motor Magazine Article: Eye on Electronics. November 2009. Available at

http://www.motor.com/article.asp?article_ID=1542Pock.GasolinedemandinEurope:Newinsights.EnergyEconomics(2009)pp.1‐9Reuters,2010:LittleRoomforHybrids,EVsinEuropeForADecade.March4,2010.

Availableathttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6222Y520100304SAEArticle:“Honeywellboostsdevelopmentasturbosupplymarketheatsup”,Feb

17,2010.http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/news/7642Spiegel, 2007: SPIEGEL Interview with Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn.

03/06/2007. Available athttp://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,470093,00.html

UKParliament, 2010: StandardNote: SN/SG/4712: Petrol andDiesel Prices. June,

2010.US DOE, 2010: U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels & Advanced VehiclesData Center. CNG and LNG: Alternative Fuels. Available athttp://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/natural_gas_cng_lng.html

potential for meeting the eu new passenger car...

Documents