Energy Policy 36 (2008) 248–257 Influence of European passenger cars weight to exhaust CO 2 emissions Efthimios Zervas a,, Christos Lazarou b,1 a Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12, GR-67100 Xanthi, Greece b Institut d’Administration des Entreprises, Universite ´des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 104, Avenue du Peuple Belge, F-59043 Lille Cedex, France Received 11 May 2007; accepted 6 September 2007 Available online 22 October 2007 Abstract The increase of atmospheric CO 2 concentration influences climate changes. The road transport sector is one of the main anthropogenic sources of CO 2 emissions in the European Union (EU). One of the main parame ters influencing CO 2 emissions from passenger cars (PCs) is their weight, which increases during last years. For the same driving distance, heavier vehicles need more work than lighter ones, because they have to move an extra weight, and thus more fuel is consume d and thus increase d CO 2 emissions. The weight control of new PCs could be an efficie nt way to contro l their CO 2 emissions. After an analysis of the EU new PCs market, their segment distribution and their weight, some estimations for 2020 are presented. Based on this analysis, 13 base scenarios using several ways for the control of the weight of future European new PCs are used to estimate their CO 2 emissions and the benefit of each scenario. The results show that a significant benefit on CO 2 emissions could be achieved if the weight of each PC does not exceed an upper limit, especially if this limit is quite low. The benefit obtained by limitations of weight is higher than the benefit obtained from the expected decreased future fuel consumption. Similar results are obtained when the weight of new PCs does not exceed an upper limit within each segment, or when the weight of each new PC decreases. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Carbon dioxide; Passenger cars; Tax incentives 1. Intro duction It is a known fact that the increase of atmospheric CO 2 concen tratio n influen ces climat e change s. The trans port sector is one of the main anthropogenic sources of CO 2 emissions. It accounted for 28% of total CO 2 emissions in Europe in 1998 (Int ernet site of Eur ostat), whil e this percentage was 23.4% for road transport in the same year. In the last years, a willingness to control and decrease CO 2 emiss ions can be seen through seve ral internat ional initiatives, suc h as the Kyoto pro toc ol (United Nations, 1992). The transport sector is composed of ground, maritime and air transport . The gro und sector compri ses rai l and vehicle trans por t, and the lat ter can be divided into the transport of persons using passenger cars (PCs) and the transport of goods usi ng hea vy- dut y vehicle s. The two main categories of the current PCs are gasoline PCs and diesel PCs, according to the type of fuel they consume. All PCs do not emit the same amount of CO 2 . For the same driving distance and power demand, diesel PCs emit less CO 2 compared with gasoline PCs. Ano the r CO 2 -infl uencing fac tor is weig ht. As for the same driving distance higher-weight PCs need more work than a lighter one, because the y have to move an extra wei ght, heavier PCs emit more CO 2 than lig ht er PCs (Sul liva n et al., 2004; Zervas, 2006, 200 7). Other par a- meter s al so influence CO 2 emiss ions, suc h as engi ne displacement, fuel injection and combustion systems used, etc. Newer engines have lower CO 2 emissions than older ones, as this parameter is taken into severe consideration during the last years. However, using the same technology, a heavier PC will still emit more CO 2 than a lighter one. For this reason, withou t negle cting technologic al improv e- me nts, the control of PCs we ight is one of the most effective parameters for CO 2 control. AR TIC LE IN PR ESS www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol 0301-421 5/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.009 Correspon ding author. Tel.: +30 2451079383. E-mail address: [email protected]th.gr (E. Zervas) . 1 Present address: Griponissioti 7, GR-32100 Livadia, Ukraine.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Influence of European passenger cars weight to exhaust CO2 emissions
Efthimios Zervasa,, Christos Lazaroub,1
aDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12, GR-67100 Xanthi, GreecebInstitut d’Administration des Entreprises, Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, 104, Avenue du Peuple Belge, F-59043 Lille Cedex, France
Received 11 May 2007; accepted 6 September 2007
Available online 22 October 2007
Abstract
The increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration influences climate changes. The road transport sector is one of the main anthropogenicsources of CO2 emissions in the European Union (EU). One of the main parameters influencing CO2 emissions from passenger cars (PCs)
is their weight, which increases during last years. For the same driving distance, heavier vehicles need more work than lighter ones,
because they have to move an extra weight, and thus more fuel is consumed and thus increased CO2 emissions. The weight control of new
PCs could be an efficient way to control their CO2 emissions. After an analysis of the EU new PCs market, their segment distribution and
their weight, some estimations for 2020 are presented. Based on this analysis, 13 base scenarios using several ways for the control of the
weight of future European new PCs are used to estimate their CO2 emissions and the benefit of each scenario. The results show that a
significant benefit on CO2 emissions could be achieved if the weight of each PC does not exceed an upper limit, especially if this limit is
quite low. The benefit obtained by limitations of weight is higher than the benefit obtained from the expected decreased future fuel
consumption. Similar results are obtained when the weight of new PCs does not exceed an upper limit within each segment, or when the
the benefits of the decreased gasoline future fuel consump-
tion. The two GPDO scenarios (10 and 11) give values
slightly (about 3%) higher than the two GODO scenarios
(6 and 7). This indicates that the evolution of future
gasoline fuel consumption plays a secondary role with
respect to this of future diesel fuel consumption, because of
the expected high future diesel penetration. Finally, the twoGPDP scenarios (13 and 14) show the highest CO2
emissions (increase of 132% and 142.5%), due to the
pessimistic future fuel consumption for both gasoline and
diesel PCs.
Scenarios 7, 9, 11 and 13 with future weight distribution
show an increase in CO2 emissions about 10% higher than
scenarios 6, 8, 10 and 12 with current weight distribution.
This is due to the increased PC weight in the four former
scenarios and shows the significant influence of this
parameter on future CO2 emissions.
3.2. Comparison of each scenario when the weight of each
PC does not exceed an upper weight limit
The CO2 benefit is estimated for different values of the
upper PC weight limit, in the case where all future new
PCs respect this limit (Fig. 8). Base scenario 1 (Current-
CSD-CW-CFC ) is found practically at the point 0% for
an upper limit of 2400kg, as very few PCs are above
this limit. The CO2 benefit in this scenario increases with
the decrease of the weight limit, more rapidly when the
weight is less than 1600 kg: it reaches 5% when the upper
limit reaches 1600 kg, 9% for a limit of 1400 kg, 16% for
1200 kg and 28% for 1000 kg. The three scenarios with
current new PC registrations (1, 2 and 3) tend to converge
to the same point of CO2 benefit for an upper limit of
1000 kg.
In all 13 scenarios, the CO2 benefit increases when the
upper weight limit decreases. Even the two future-CFC
scenarios (4 and 5), which estimate CO2 increases of about
30% and 40% compared with scenario 1 (Fig. 7), show a
CO2 benefit of about 10% for an upper limit of 1000 kg.
This fact demonstrates the significant CO2 benefit that can
be achieved when the weight of future new PCs decreases.
The middle and right parts of Fig. 8 show the CO2
benefit in the scenarios using future fuel consumption
(scenarios 6, 8, 10 and 12 for the middle part and 7, 9, 11
and 13 for the right part), compared with scenarios 4 and 5with current fuel consumption. In each part, the curves are
almost parallel and the differences on the CO2 benefits are
not higher than 5% for the same weight limit. This value is
very small compared with the benefits that can be obtained
from the upper weight limit decrease, showing once more
the effectiveness of the last method.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
-40
-20
0
20
40
C O 2
b e n e f i t ( % )
C-CSD-CW-CFC
C-CSD-FW-CFC
C-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-FW-CFC
-40
-20
0
20
40
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
-40
-20
0
20
40
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
F-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-GODO
F-FSD-CW-GODP
F-FSD-CW-GPDO
F-FSD-CW-GPDP
F-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-FW-GODO
F-FSD-FW-GODP
F-FSD-FW-GPDO
F-FSD-FW-GPDP
Fig. 8. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit for all PCs, for the 13 scenarios used. (Left: scenarios 1–5 with current fuel consumption,
middle: scenarios 4 and 6–9 with current PC weight, right: scenarios 5 and 10–13 with future PC weight).
E. Zervas, C. Lazarou / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 248–257 254
3.3. Comparison of each scenario when the weight of 50% or
30% of new PC does not exceed an upper weight limit
In the case where only 50% or 30% of all new PCs
respect an upper weight limit, the CO2 benefit is lower and
all the curves become more parallel to the x-axis, those of
30% more than those of 50% (Figs. 9 and 10). In bothcases (50% and 30%), the base scenario (Current-CSD-
CW-CFC ) is again found practically at the point 0% for an
upper limit of 2400 kg, as very few PCs are above this limit.
The CO2 benefit in all scenarios increases when the upper
weight limit decreases, but significantly less than the benefit
shown in Fig. 8.
The CO2 benefit in the first scenario is 2.5% for 50% and
1.5% for 30% of new PCs not exceeding the upper limit of
1600 kg (Fig. 11), against 5% in the case of 100% (Fig. 8).
These values become 14% and 8.5%, respectively, for the
upper limit of 1000 kg, against 28% in the case of 100%
(Fig. 11).
The CO2 benefit in all scenarios becomes lower when the
percentage of new PCs not exceeding an upper weight limit
becomes smaller (Fig. 11). These differences are rather
small when the upper weight limit is high, but increase
significantly when it decreases.
The middle and right parts of Figs. 9 and 10 show the
CO2 benefit in the scenarios using future fuel consumption
(scenarios 6, 8, 10 and 12 for the middle parts and 7, 9, 11
and 13 for the right parts), compared with scenarios 4 and5. The same tendencies as those shown in Fig. 8 can be
observed here. Even in the cases when only 50% or 30% of
new PCs do not exceed the upper weight limits, the
reduction of PC weight can be more effective in order to
decrease future CO2 emissions than the decrease of future
fuel consumption.
3.4. Comparison of each scenario when all PCs of each
segment do not exceed an upper weight
Fig. 12 shows the CO2 benefit when all new PCs of each
segment do not exceed an upper weight limit within this
segment (25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the segment weight
range), as a function of this upper weight limit, for all
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
-60
-40
-20
0
20
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
-60
-40
-20
0
20
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
-60
-40
-20
0
20
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
C-CSD-CW-CFC
C-CSD-FW-CFC
C-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-GODO
F-FSD-CW-GODP
F-FSD-CW-GPDO
F-FSD-CW-GPDP
F-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-FW-GODO
F-FSD-FW-GODP
F-FSD-FW-GPDO
F-FSD-FW-GPDP
Fig. 9. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit if 50% of the new PC do not exceed this limit, for the 13 scenarios used (left: scenarios 1–5 with
current fuel consumption, middle: scenarios 4 and 6–9 with current PC weight, right: scenarios 5 and 10–13 with future PC weight).
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
1200 1600 2000 2400
Upper weight limit
-60
-40
-20
0
20
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
-60
-40
-20
0
20
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
-60
-40
-20
0
20
C O 2 b e n e f i t ( % )
C-CSD-CW-CFC
C-CSD-FW-CFC
C-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-CFC
F-FSD-CW-GODO
F-FSD-CW-GODP
F-FSD-CW-GPDO
F-FSD-CW-GPDP
F-FSD-FW-CFC
F-FSD-FW-GODO
F-FSD-FW-GODP
F-FSD-FW-GPDO
F-FSD-FW-GPDP
Fig. 10. CO2 benefit as a function of the upper weight limit if 30% of the new PC do not exceed this limit, for the 13 scenarios used (left: scenarios 1–5 with
current fuel consumption, middle: scenarios 4 and 6–9 with current PC weight, right: scenarios 5 and 10–13 with future PC weight).
E. Zervas, C. Lazarou / Energy Policy 36 (2008) 248–257 255