European CO2 Emissions Rise as Diesels Fade

rjmaype · **Posted:** Thu Mar 21, 2019 3:52 pm

European CO2 Emissions Rise as Diesels Fade
Alan Harman | Mar 21, 2019

Europe’s campaign against automotive diesel engines backfires as the shift to gasoline in 2018 pushes average carbon-dioxide emissions to their highest levels in four years.

An analysis by JATO Dynamics covering 23 markets in Europe found a direct correlation between diesel car sales and average CO2 emissions.

Year-on-year CO2 emissions increased in 20 of the 23 markets analyzed, rising 2.4 g/km to 120.5 g/km in 2018.

Amid increased negative public perception, combined with new government regulations such as the worldwide harmonized light-vehicles test procedure (WLTP) and scrutiny of the fuel type, demand for diesel fell 18% last year.

JATO global analyst Felipe Munoz says the introduction of WLTP last September has been a challenge for the market, as a large number of available vehicles had not been homologated.

“The increase in CO2 is certainly worrying and bad news for governments and most carmakers,” Munoz says in a statement. “Instead of moving forwards, the industry is regressing at a time when emissions targets are getting tougher.”

JATO says the total value of CO2 emissions had been declining steadily since 2007, but started to slow in 2016 as the fall went from 4.1 g/km in 2015 to 1.4 g/km.

At the same time, diesel-car sales fell from 7% to 1%. This trend was confirmed in 2017 with the first average CO2 emission increase in years of 0.3 g/km, and an 8% drop in demand for diesel cars.

Munoz says last year’s emissions increase can be attributed mainly to the downturn in demand for diesel. The average emissions for diesel cars continued to be lower than their gasoline counterparts (3.2 g/km).

“The positive effect of diesel cars on emissions has faded away as their demand has dropped dramatically during the last year,” Munoz says.

“If this trend continues and the adoption of alternative-fueled vehicles (AFVs) doesn’t accelerate, the industry will need to take more drastic measures in order to meet the short- term targets.”

Although the decline of diesel has had an impact on emissions, it wasn’t the sole cause.

JATO says the arrival of new SUVs last year, including the launch of 16 new models, paired with an increase in demand for the vehicle type also contributed to the overall increase of average CO2 emissions in Europe.

The emissions averages for SUVs worsened by 1.4 g/km, and the SUV segment accounted for 35% of passenger-vehicle registrations last year – the only segment to post a positive change in 2018.

The SUV average was the fourth-highest and was surpassed only by small segments in terms of volume: sports cars, luxury sedans and vans.

In contrast, the lowest-emission segments – city cars and subcompacts – posted a 1.5% sales decline.

“In other words, consumers in Europe are opting for the vehicles with the highest emissions, so the industry’s growth is taking place at the expense of higher emissions,” JATO says.

The correlation between the decline in demand for diesel cars and the increase in CO2 emissions was most evident when analyzing the data by country.

Only three countries saw improvements in CO2 emissions in 2018: Norway, Netherlands and Finland.

In Norway, the growing popularity of electric and hybrid cars with a 57% market share was large enough to absorb the 28% drop posted by diesel cars.

In the Netherlands, the improvement was due to a 74% increase in demand for AFVs, which accounted for 11% of the total market. This market also is still strongly dependent on gasoline cars that make up 76% of the market.

The worst performance was seen in the U.K., which has carried out one of Europe’s most aggressive campaigns against diesel.

Toyota was the leader among the top-selling brands, posting an average below 100 g/km for the first time since tracking of average CO2 emissions began.

Last year, 60% of Toyota’s sales were within the hybrid range and it was one of only five brands to see an improvement in comparison to 2017, with emissions falling 1.4 g/km.

Nissan saw the most improvement thanks to the strong performance of the Leaf, which became Europe’s top-selling electric car in 2018

mass-hole · **Posted:** Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:55 pm

rjmaype wrote:

European CO2 Emissions Rise as Diesels Fade
Alan Harman | Mar 21, 2019

Europe’s campaign against automotive diesel engines backfires as the shift to gasoline in 2018 pushes average carbon-dioxide emissions to their highest levels in four years.

An analysis by JATO Dynamics covering 23 markets in Europe found a direct correlation between diesel car sales and average CO2 emissions.

Year-on-year CO2 emissions increased in 20 of the 23 markets analyzed, rising 2.4 g/km to 120.5 g/km in 2018.

Amid increased negative public perception, combined with new government regulations such as the worldwide harmonized light-vehicles test procedure (WLTP) and scrutiny of the fuel type, demand for diesel fell 18% last year.

JATO global analyst Felipe Munoz says the introduction of WLTP last September has been a challenge for the market, as a large number of available vehicles had not been homologated.

“The increase in CO2 is certainly worrying and bad news for governments and most carmakers,” Munoz says in a statement. “Instead of moving forwards, the industry is regressing at a time when emissions targets are getting tougher.”

JATO says the total value of CO2 emissions had been declining steadily since 2007, but started to slow in 2016 as the fall went from 4.1 g/km in 2015 to 1.4 g/km.

At the same time, diesel-car sales fell from 7% to 1%. This trend was confirmed in 2017 with the first average CO2 emission increase in years of 0.3 g/km, and an 8% drop in demand for diesel cars.

Munoz says last year’s emissions increase can be attributed mainly to the downturn in demand for diesel. The average emissions for diesel cars continued to be lower than their gasoline counterparts (3.2 g/km).

“The positive effect of diesel cars on emissions has faded away as their demand has dropped dramatically during the last year,” Munoz says.

“If this trend continues and the adoption of alternative-fueled vehicles (AFVs) doesn’t accelerate, the industry will need to take more drastic measures in order to meet the short- term targets.”

Although the decline of diesel has had an impact on emissions, it wasn’t the sole cause.

JATO says the arrival of new SUVs last year, including the launch of 16 new models, paired with an increase in demand for the vehicle type also contributed to the overall increase of average CO2 emissions in Europe.

The emissions averages for SUVs worsened by 1.4 g/km, and the SUV segment accounted for 35% of passenger-vehicle registrations last year – the only segment to post a positive change in 2018.

The SUV average was the fourth-highest and was surpassed only by small segments in terms of volume: sports cars, luxury sedans and vans.

In contrast, the lowest-emission segments – city cars and subcompacts – posted a 1.5% sales decline.

“In other words, consumers in Europe are opting for the vehicles with the highest emissions, so the industry’s growth is taking place at the expense of higher emissions,” JATO says.

The correlation between the decline in demand for diesel cars and the increase in CO2 emissions was most evident when analyzing the data by country.

Only three countries saw improvements in CO2 emissions in 2018: Norway, Netherlands and Finland.

In Norway, the growing popularity of electric and hybrid cars with a 57% market share was large enough to absorb the 28% drop posted by diesel cars.

In the Netherlands, the improvement was due to a 74% increase in demand for AFVs, which accounted for 11% of the total market. This market also is still strongly dependent on gasoline cars that make up 76% of the market.

The worst performance was seen in the U.K., which has carried out one of Europe’s most aggressive campaigns against diesel.

Toyota was the leader among the top-selling brands, posting an average below 100 g/km for the first time since tracking of average CO2 emissions began.

Last year, 60% of Toyota’s sales were within the hybrid range and it was one of only five brands to see an improvement in comparison to 2017, with emissions falling 1.4 g/km.

Nissan saw the most improvement thanks to the strong performance of the Leaf, which became Europe’s top-selling electric car in 2018

Isn't this the entire goal? The whole diesel emissions thing was about reducing NOX at the expense of CO2. By eliminating diesels they are further reducing NOX I would imagine but CO2 increases. I think this is probably exactly what they were expecting and is not considered a fail by all people.

Whether NOX or CO2 is worse, I don't know.

geordi · **Posted:** Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:26 pm

Nox breaks down in the atmosphere into Nitrogen and Oxygen after a short time (even in extreme temperatures it is only a matter of days) where CO2 is a stable molecule and must be converted or captured to be removed from the atmosphere.

Nox can cause "acid" rain... But only under very specific circumstances and only with additional components. This hasn't happened in many years, I suspect largely b/c the sulfur has been removed from fuel but it may be another reason.

CO2 pollution is absolutely contributing to global climate change however.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:12 am

^x2

CO2 increases atmospheric carbon, but, in the case of autos, only at low altitudes. (heavy molecule)

NOx is carbon neutral, and a short life in most instances. The nitric acid problem exists within the exhaust system when it (exhaust system) is cold and emitting condensed H2O. (and heavy steam.)

geordi · **Posted:** Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:32 pm

This "cold exhaust" problem is also why hybrid cars have programming in them that when you start the gas engine, it MUST be forced to run at increased RPM (if not directly driving the wheels in some applications) for a minimum of 10 minutes to heat up the catalyst... And then and ONLY then can the engine be shut down and battery power be used. But once the cat cools off - back to wasting fuel again. Since something ridiculous like 80%-90% of car trips are less than 10 minutes in duration, you get extra emissions and NONE of the environmental or mileage benefits of a hybrid! All of the costs and none of the good stuff!

Isn't this just SO energy efficient? Spending fuel to turn 100% of it into heat and emissions, instead of offering a battery-only startup mode.

The Chevy Volt is no better. If the car detects the ambient temperature is lower than about 45 degrees, it FORCES the gas engine on from the moment you start off, whether you have a full battery or not. ALL for making "less emissions" by sending all that fuel emission power into heating up the exhaust that your short trip might not even need!

I have NO issues with people making the modding decisions they make, everything other than "rolling coal" is likely resulting in LESS overall emissions b/c people are looking for more economy which means burning less fuel in the first place. Still can't understand how the EPA hasn't figured this out yet. Burn less fuel, it makes LESS emissions of everything.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:20 pm

geordi wrote:

This "cold exhaust" problem is also why hybrid cars have programming in them that when you start the gas engine, it MUST be forced to run at increased RPM (if not directly driving the wheels in some applications) for a minimum of 10 minutes to heat up the catalyst... And then and ONLY then can the engine be shut down and battery power be used. But once the cat cools off - back to wasting fuel again. Since something ridiculous like 80%-90% of car trips are less than 10 minutes in duration, you get extra emissions and NONE of the environmental or mileage benefits of a hybrid! All of the costs and none of the good stuff!

Isn't this just SO energy efficient? Spending fuel to turn 100% of it into heat and emissions, instead of offering a battery-only startup mode.

The Chevy Volt is no better. If the car detects the ambient temperature is lower than about 45 degrees, it FORCES the gas engine on from the moment you start off, whether you have a full battery or not. ALL for making "less emissions" by sending all that fuel emission power into heating up the exhaust that your short trip might not even need!

I have NO issues with people making the modding decisions they make, everything other than "rolling coal" is likely resulting in LESS overall emissions b/c people are looking for more economy which means burning less fuel in the first place. Still can't understand how the EPA hasn't figured this out yet. Burn less fuel, it makes LESS emissions of everything.

They knew this from the start. From the instant they required Catalytic Converters on vehicles, they instituted a fuel tax PER GALLON.

They were informed beforehand that Cat Converters would require completely different camshaft timing and profiles, as Catalytic Converters require raw hydrocarbons (unburned fuel) to maintain operating temperatures. Lower fuel economy= more tax revenue. Since then, uncountable numbers of confirmed (patented and unpatented) inventions that legitimately lower fuel consumption have been made to disappear and prevented from any successful commercial endeavor.

Conspiracy? Heck no. This has been done in "broad daylight" and proof is there for all to see. But it's bigger than just NEPA or CARB or the EPA. People just need to open their eyes. See what the DOE has been up to in the last 50ish years.

geordi · **Posted:** Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:01 pm

Your tinfoil is showing.....

I've heard things like that before about the fabled inventions, such as the water carburetor... Never a scrap of evidence about the actual devices even existing though. Then there is the scientific plausibility of devices like that. When you look at the raw energy needed to be input and how much you might get back out, even assuming pure conversion rates (which is impossible) there just isn't the available energy. Conversion splitting of water to hydrogen and oxygen can be done with an electrical field. Doesn't take a lot of amperage, but it takes very VERY high voltages. Generation of that can be done by an alternator in theory, but then there is the amount you get out - it isn't huge.

The conversion of energy is where devices like that fall apart, even in theory.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:15 am

geordi wrote:

Your tinfoil is showing.....

I've heard things like that before about the fabled inventions, such as the water carburetor... Never a scrap of evidence about the actual devices even existing though. Then there is the scientific plausibility of devices like that. When you look at the raw energy needed to be input and how much you might get back out, even assuming pure conversion rates (which is impossible) there just isn't the available energy. Conversion splitting of water to hydrogen and oxygen can be done with an electrical field. Doesn't take a lot of amperage, but it takes very VERY high voltages. Generation of that can be done by an alternator in theory, but then there is the amount you get out - it isn't huge.

The conversion of energy is where devices like that fall apart, even in theory.

I would still be in your court had it not happened some years ago to my brother.
No, he wasn't made to disappear, but brought all kinds of misery on his (and his family's) head that one would NEVER imagine when he decided to fight for his right to market something he invented. What you say is true, IF for example, you are expecting to run a car on hydrogen. However, using Brown's Gas as a combustion catalyst for gasoline powered engines works extremely well, until you get enough of a following that the "gummint" hears about it. They have a lot more departments and a lot more lawyers than any of us can compete with, and 3 different administrations yielded no change in outcome.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:46 pm

I’ve recently discovered the benefits of E85.
The key is building and tuning a engine specifically for E85.

Benefits:
1. Higher compression ratio.
Up to 15:1 compression for a naturally aspirated engine.
11-12:1 compression for turbo/supercharger applications.
2. The evaporative effect of alcohol cools the intake air.
3. More horsepower than an equivalent engine running 110 octane race fuel.
4. Consumer grade “pump” E85 is a lot cheaper than 110 race fuel.

Disadvantages:
1. Poor fuel economy. Roughly 9:1 air-fuel ratio.
2. Consumer “pump” E85 blends are not always consistently 85% ethanol. Which might require you to adjust tuning accordingly.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:50 pm

how does it stack up in $ per mile?

flash7210 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:46 am

GordnadoCRD wrote:

how does it stack up in $ per mile?

NFC.
Too many factors to consider.
I was only considering HP gains vs race fuel in high compression/boosted gasoline engines.
Engines built and tuned specifically for E85. Not “flex fuel”

MPG is gonna take a significant hit.
But you get a lotta “bang” for your buck.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:28 am

flash7210 wrote:

I’ve recently discovered the benefits of E85.
The key is building and tuning a engine specifically for E85.

Benefits:
1. Higher compression ratio.
Up to 15:1 compression for a naturally aspirated engine.
11-12:1 compression for turbo/supercharger applications.
2. The evaporative effect of alcohol cools the intake air.
3. More horsepower than an equivalent engine running 110 octane race fuel.
4. Consumer grade “pump” E85 is a lot cheaper than 110 race fuel.

Disadvantages:
1. Poor fuel economy. Roughly 9:1 air-fuel ratio.
2. Consumer “pump” E85 blends are not always consistently 85% ethanol. Which might require you to adjust tuning accordingly.

Ford is running nearly 11:1 in the ecoboosts already on 87 octane and running 15+ psi of boost. With my 87 octane performance tune i can hit 20psi. I bet you could get higher than 12:1 on e85.

Only problem with the ecoboosts is they cannot supply enough fuel to run e85, at least on the stock fuel system. There are some guys running e50 blends and making serious power on otherwise stock trucks. Enough to get a 5000+ lb truck to do the 1/4 in 11’s.

GordnadoCRD · **Posted:** Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:10 am

flash7210 wrote:

GordnadoCRD wrote:

how does it stack up in $ per mile?

NFC.
Too many factors to consider.
I was only considering HP gains vs race fuel in high compression/boosted gasoline engines.
Engines built and tuned specifically for E85. Not “flex fuel”

MPG is gonna take a significant hit.
But you get a lotta “bang” for your buck.

True, but it depends on how much of the energy available is being converted. Most daily driver gassers have so much wasted energy, it's sickening.
Couple things come to mind..

I have a friend that runs HOMEBREW E85 in his "street rod" racer. He blends the ethenol with 117 octane race gas, and runs 14.7:1 compression. He claims the octane bump gives him better mid-range pull, and the E85 allows him to run with a drained cooling system for an edge with both overall weight and weight transfer. Not practical for street or offroad, but it's all in what you've tuned it for.

Decades back, I had a Dodge chassis motorhome with a hot-running 440. got 5mpg-ish on regular and HATED to lug. It had the power, but would overheat and ping like hell unless I downshifted and wound it out. I discovered that if I filled it with premium rather than regular (150gallons :dizzy:

) that:
1) mileage went up to 7.5. Doesn't sound like much until you figure it's a 50% increase, and how much farther 2.5 miles more goes, against 150 gallons!
2) It would pull it's own teeth out without overheating or pinging.
3) The cost per vacation went way down! :CAMPING:

The gas didn't have any more energy, it just converted more to power rather than shooting it into the cooling system or out the tailpipe.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:18 am

Quote:

Only problem with the ecoboosts is they cannot supply enough fuel to run e85, at least on the stock fuel system.

Yup.
You’d need injectors with a higher flow rate and remap the ECU accordingly.

European CO2 Emissions Rise as Diesels Fade

Who is online