« Sensata Introduces New Gasoline Direct Injection Sensor | Main | Baard Energy Licenses Shell Technology for Coal-to-Liquids Project »
Report: EU Car Emissions Can Meet the 2012 Target
25 September 2007
Reducing the average CO2 emissions of new cars in the EU to 130g/km by 2012 is achievable, according to a new report by Dr. Paul Nieuwenhuis, Director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University. While European automakers, via the ACEA, support the theoretical feasibility of a 130 g/km goal (120 g/km factoring in non-vehicular mechanisms), they insist that a 2012 deadline is unrealistic. (Earlier post.)
The report—Car CO2 Reduction Feasibility Assessment; is 130 g/km possible?—maps out a strategy for compliance, but highlights that the trend towards heavier and higher performance vehicles at the luxury end of the market is a key stumbling block.
Nieuwenhuis points out that in order to make these vehicles compliant a great deal of expensive re-design would have to take place. Hybrid technology and alternative fuels alone would not be enough; weight reduction would be needed to reduce CO2 emissions to the required levels.
The impact of weight reduction strategies could split the market between vehicles very similar to those available today emitting below 130 g/km, available at price levels similar to today’s, and a new breed of larger vehicles using lightweight technology, which would be more expensive than their equivalents today.
The net result could be a decline in sales of some of these vehicles within EU markets. Alternatively, we could see an emergence of smaller, lighter specialist cars, luxury cars, SUVs and MPVs.
—Paul Nieuwenhuis
The report also highlights clear advantages to such developments.
Reduced running costs due to greater fuel efficiency are an obvious benefit, but there are others. Large luxury cars tend to lose value quickly compared with small hatchbacks, for example. This is due to the fact that used car buyers tend to be less affluent, thus less able to afford the high running costs of heavy cars. If luxury cars were smaller and lighter, their appeal to the used market would rise, thus boosting residual values. This would impact on the overall lifecycle costs of luxury cars, making them generally more economically competitive. Not only would customers benefit, but so would manufacturers as higher residual values would boost their brand image.
Nieuwenhuis recommends that some of the industry’s concerns could be addressed by means of a gradual roll-out of the 130g/km limit, based on the logic that the climate system is affected by total volumes of CO2, not industry averages. He suggests that in the first phase, the limit could apply to vehicles produced in volumes of more than 200,000/year. In the next phases this limit could be reduced to 100,000 a year.
Nieuwenhuis puts the onus on automakers for a shift to lower carbon vehicles, rather than on the consumer.
Traditionally, the car industry has blamed the customer for the nature of the products it makes: “we only make what the customer wants”. It was therefore refreshing a number of years ago during a visit to one car maker when we were told this was nonsense—the customer is not a car designer or automotive engineer we were told. It is significant that that car maker is also in the forefront of CO2 reduction today.
...The consumer of automobility does have a role to play. Ultimately we need to recognize that most motorists – aided and abetted by the car industry—are currently engaged in car abuse – an affliction not unlike drug abuse. As with some such activities, moderate use need not be unduly harmful and needs to become the norm if we do not want to lose our right to automobility, which in truth is a privilege.
We must abandon the automotive excess that has led to many modern cars being more akin to mobile boudoirs or mobile offices than true driving machines or even basic means of ‘getting from A to B’. We probably need a ‘campaign for real motoring’ and responsible car use involving real driving machines with a realistic, useable performance envelope. The issues we need to address go far beyond CO2 and need to be seen within the broader context of sustainability.
The European Parliament begins debate on the CO2 reductions on 16 October.
Separately, Cardiff’s Centre for Automotive Industry Research is working with automotive consultancy Clifford Thames to develop an analysis of the broader environmental impact of passenger cars.
The current focus on tail pipe emissions does not necessarily fully reflect a vehicle’s true carbon footprint. We’re working with the (CAIR) at Cardiff University to develop a better environmental rating indicator which can be simply expressed, rather like the NCAP safety rating system.
—Richard Barber, Clifford Thames Strategy and Business Development Director
According to an early account in the Financial Times, the study finds that conventional gasoline and diesel cars are beginning to outpace Toyota’s Prius on environmental friendliness.
The iconic hybrid car is still the cleanest for its size, but is outranked by nine smaller Peugeot, Citroën, Ford, Smart, and other cars in a new environmental rating system.
Resources:
September 25, 2007 in Climate Change, Europe, Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/21909493
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Report: EU Car Emissions Can Meet the 2012 Target:
Comments
The iconic hybrid car is still the cleanest for its size, but is outranked by nine smaller Peugeot, Citroën, Ford, Smart, and other cars in a new environmental rating system.
The report does not itself include the results of this rating system, correct? I have skimmed the report and don't see anything about the ratings, but it is 2:52 am local time, so my cognitive functions may be lacking.
Posted by: Scott | Sep 25, 2007 11:53:28 PM
Sounds like this guy is speaking *a lot* of sense. I like the idea of a phased rollout. Seems a nice compromise, as long as it maintains strong pressure on the manufacturers.
Posted by: Scatter | Sep 25, 2007 11:55:07 PM
Scott: I've not had a chance to read the report but this website was launched this week:
http://www.whatgreencar.com/
This looks at overall environmental impact rather than simply CO2 emissions.
Posted by: Scatter | Sep 25, 2007 11:57:27 PM
So yes, the targets can be met by 2012 provided that affluent consumers suddenly learn to love small econoboxes and, manufacturers of premium cars completely revamp their business models, brand identities and product lines virtually overnight.
If anything, Nieuwenhuis is articulating the very reasons why the European car industry in fact cannot get there from here in such a short time. Right now, we have politicians who have nailed their reputations to the wall by insisting on numbers (120/130gCO2/km and 2012, resp.), without providing the essential context of how these numbers will be calculated or what the sanctions for non-compliance will be. Backing off these numbers will mean losing face and future bargaining power. Politicians, high-powered bureaucrats and industry CEOs all tend to have big egos.
Deciding on the numbers at the beginning of the process has left the EU with very little room for the complex but necessary trade-offs between energy, environmental and employment policy objectives.
It would have been better if they had mapped out a stable longer-term legal framework for vehicle CO2 emissions, e.g. through 2020, as they have done for fuels. Such a framework should include an update to the by-now hopelessly optimistic NEDC drive cycle. Also, the industry could afford to be far more cooperative if there was a stable, integrated roadmap for safety, recycling, toxic emissions, fuel economy/CO2 and tax changes.
Nieuwenhuis' other points are very valid, there is indeed plenty of scope for improvement in fuel economy and marketing can indeed change consumer preferences to some extent. Premium cars are the spearhead applications for all sorts of new automotive technologies, so it makes sense to position high drivetrain efficiency as a premium attribute for a while. BMW's marketing is already doing that. Mercedes is getting there with its Bluetec and DiesOtto strategy and, others will follow if the notion catches on with consumers. Both companies are also partners in the two-mode hybrid alliance. All of these technologies will eventually command higher resale values, as will radical new concepts like PHEVs iff they make it beyond the concept/prototype stage.
However, the notion that luxury cars will get substantially lighter any time soon may be wishful thinking. Engine, transmission, body and chassis engineers go to great lengths to shave off core weight through the use of high-strength steels, aluminium, magnesium, composites and concepts such as downsizing. And every time they succeed, someone else adds a few inches to the car in every direction, plus some extra NVH damping and more (electronic) luxury gadgets or else, the EU demands even higher crash safety standards.
All this adds value but inevitably, it also shifts the market for new premium cars toward older customers who can afford them. They want a higher seating position for both physical and psychological comfort, leading directly to high sales growth in the SUV/CUV segment.
Only a few companies are really trying to break this spiral of ever-escalating weight. German startup Loremo is arguably the most radical: its linear safety cell structure does not permit any side doors. However, long-time industry mavericks Mazda and Citroen are also swimming against the tide with their Mazda 2 production and Cactus concept vehicles, respectively. In the US, Amory Lovins' Rocky Mountain Institute has long argued for ultra-lightweight construction. Its partner Fiberforge is closing in on composite manufacturing processes to replace sheetmetal in high-volume applications. Note how the focus for total vehicle weight reduction is currently on fairly spartan subcompact to mid-size cars - not on premium luxobarges.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 26, 2007 12:37:28 AM
Some interesting points there Rafael. But the manufacturers have had plenty of time to reduce CO2 emissions through their voluntary target but they didn't even try to achieve it. Now the politicians are playing hardball and rightly so.
I would argue that the prize for the most radical ultra lightweight car goes to the Aptera which is a truly extraordinary design:
http://www.aptera.com/
Posted by: Scatter | Sep 26, 2007 1:43:36 AM
@ Scatter -
it's legitimate to point out that ACEA members are almost certainly not going to achieve the 25% improvement in MY2008 relative to MY1995 that they had promised in 1998. They did, however, achieve about 15%, in spite of tightening safety regs. Much of that is due to rising demand for diesels, but it is still a lot better than the US has managed in the same period.
The industry understands that the regulation it has long sought to avoid will now be coming. The trouble is, customers say they want greenery but are still willing to pay hefty premiums for horsepower, which boosts margins per sale. As long as the competition can offer more bang for buck, no-one is going to make much - or indeed, any - money off high-efficiency models (cp. VW Lupo, Audi A2, smart fortwo). Many European manufacturers either were or still are overstaffed thanks to powerful unions and/or political interference, and they have the small profit margins to prove it. Pulling out all the stops to meet the self-imposed deadline would have meant going into the red.
It's not surprising that EU bureaurats, who have been asking for the right to regulate vehicle CO2 emissions for 15 years, are now chomping at the bit. However, playing hardball (i.e. sticking to a 2012 deadline) just to show the industry who's boss risks blunting the edge of an important European export sector. It's the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
One option to save said face would be to postpone the introduction of legally binding fleet average emissions of 120/130gCO2/km until MY2015, but with the following stipulations:
a) both CO2 and Euro 6 toxic emissions will be based not on the lenient NEDC but the more realistic Common Artemis Drive Cycle (CADC) starting in MY2015.
Between MY2012 and MY2015, certification will still be based on the NEDC but CADC data will also be compiled to iron out any technical issues and, to assist consumers in the transition. This is analogous to the introduction process for the Euro, which required retailers to start displaying Euro amounts alongside the old currency for several years prior to the cutover.
b) manufacturers will be given annual milestones on the road toward this goal. They will have to publicly report on compliance to the Commission. If they miss a milestone, they will have to indicate how they intend to meet those in the future. The industry associations ACEA, JAMA and KAMA will have the right to renegotiate terms if the EU decides to tighten safety or toxic emissions standards for the transition period through MY2014.
As of MY2012, exceeding a milestone will give a manufacturer credits toward future penalties due for MY2015 or later. Conversely, failing to meet one will mean a penalty accrues, leading to a fine when the MY2015 sales data has been compiled unless a credit was earned in the interim. No credits can be earned in or after MY2015, the system is intended only to ease the transition.
c) the Commission will need to publish its version of the sales data no later than 6 months after the model year ends and then leave 3 months for corrections. Currently, it takes as long as 24 months for the Commission to produce its data.
That still leaves open the definition of the fleets across which the EU will average. One reasonably sensible alternative would be to apply these per member state. States that exceed the limit would have to pay penalties to the EU, those that come in below target would receive additional funds for general infrastructure projects. It would then be up to each state to decide if and how to minimize the liability to its finance ministry.
The only fly in the ointment is that certain EU governments (Greece, Hungary) have been known to cook the books in different contexts, so there would need to be some way for the EU Commission and the industry to perform some quality control on new vehicle registration data collection by member states.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 26, 2007 3:06:03 AM
"the prize for the most radical ultra lightweight car goes to the Aptera which is a truly extraordinary design:
http://www.aptera.com/"
it certainly is radical; I love the fact that the designers have gone for the most aerodynamic design possible, with virtually no compromises- a Cd figure of 0.11 is the lowest ever for any roadgoing vehicle, surely? but by the same token, there have been legions of radical concept cars which were utterly impractical, and are now rusting away in some hangar somewhere for abandoned prototypes. So the flipside of radical is impracticality; how many people can the Aptera seat? when will it make it into production (if ever)? It seems like these 100mpg+ concept cars have been doing the rounds for 10 years or more, and still there is nothing one can actually buy in showrooms which is even remotely comparable. It seems like designers are engaged in a cycle of one-upmanship on notional fuel efficiency (230mpg for the Aptera); I would settle for a 100mpg car I could buy now! if that seems impatient, I'm just sick of being tantalised by these cars which only exist in promotional literature and fancy websites, while the reality falls disappointingly short.
Posted by: gavin walsh | Sep 26, 2007 3:09:35 AM
@ Gavin Walsh -
the Loremo is an 2+2 seater, though quite narrow. The rear seats face backwards and are only suitable for children on longer journeys. With four on board, cargo space is very limited. Drivetrain configuration is mid-engined RWD.
Only the model with the base two-cylinder 20hp diesel engine will get over 100mpg. I'd go with the larger one to get adequate performance even if it means getting "only" 80MPG or so. The key to the high fuel economy is extremely low weight and optimized aerodynamics, which is why the engines can be so small. Crash safety at this low weight is supposedly assured by the linear safety cell structure. The price for that is the lack of side doors and the Janus configuration of the seats.
The company claims it will start shipping to European customers in 2009 and is taking deposits orders. Price target is under EUR 15000. There's been interest from the US, but so far there is no commitment to export products there - partly because of the high emissions hurdles that diesels must clear in the US.
http://www.loremo.com
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 26, 2007 6:25:46 AM
Why is it, that every time our elected politicians pass a law to protect our health, we (the very same people who elected them) start criticising them for doing what they should do?
Of course, vehicle can be built with less than 120 or 130 gr/CO2/Km. Many manufacturers don't want to do it because they don't want to change the way they have been doing things for the last 80+ years. New Hybrids can do about 100 gm/CO2/Km and PHEVs will do much much better.
It's about time we rally behind our elected climate conscious politicians and support them with the passing of effective laws to reduce GHG and air pollution.
Posted by: Harvey D | Sep 26, 2007 9:08:21 AM
Has anyone worked out how PHEVs will be measured?
Their "plug" output depends on the country in which their charging (about 120g/vehicle ton in the USA, 60g in the UK and 10g in France).
Their "ICE" output might be 120g / km.
The assumed average would depend on the electric range.
Posted by: Alex | Sep 26, 2007 2:41:17 PM
Boy its hard work writing propaganda and making other people sacrifice.
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Sep 26, 2007 7:20:45 PM
@ Harvey D
You are aware that most of the population actually quite like their BMW X5 and are happy to vote to keep it that way.
Most people I've talked to would happily vote down a govenment the minute they tried to impose genuine restrictions on things like flying on vacation etc.
Most people think that technology will solve the problems at little or no cost. Once they find out that it can't, and swaging increases in costs are on the way and/or restrictions, then expect people to say "the hell with GW, give me cheap energy NOW"
You under estimate (most) people's true desires. And these people all have voting rights.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | Oct 8, 2007 4:38:35 AM
