CO2 Emissions Up As Europeans Switch From Diesel To Gasoline Cars

From Politico Eu

Switching fuels is endangering efforts to reach EU emissions targets.

By Kalina Oroschakoff

5/4/19, 5:07 PM CET

Updated 4/5/19, 4:15 PM CET

The aftermath of the Dieselgate scandal is pushing drivers to switch from diesel to gasoline cars, undermining efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions from road transport.

Average CO2 emissions from new cars rose in 2017 for the first time since 2010 — largely due to the fuel change, according to final data released by the European Environment Agency (EEA) on Thursday.

That’s bad news for the EU’s efforts to cut emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030. Cars are responsible for around 12 percent of total EU CO2 emissions, according to the European Commission.

The EEA said that average CO2 emissions from new cars sold in 2017 increased by 0.4 grams of CO2 per kilometer to 118.5 grams, up from 118.1 grams in 2016. Under EU rules, carmakers need to meet a fleet-wide target of 95 grams by 2021.

Since 2010, emissions from new cars have fallen by 15.5 percent, or almost 22 grams of CO2 per kilometer; but emission reductions slowed between 2015 and 2016.

The lobby group European Automotive Manufacturers’ Association said only 2 percent of all new cars registered last year were electrically chargeable.

The rise in car pollution in 2017 is “stark confirmation that car makers need to achieve further and faster improvements in manufacturing and promoting more efficient cars,” the EEA said.

EU carmakers — with the support of national and EU officials — decided more than a decade ago that the best way of meeting emissions targets was promoting diesel, which emits less CO2 than petrol.

However, that strategy has collapsed in the wake of Volkswagen’s 2015 admission that it cheated on emissions tests. There is also growing concern about urban pollution — diesel emissions are a key driver of smog — and cities across the Continent are moving to ban older and more polluting diesel cars from their streets.

Diesel’s sudden unpopularity has sent buyers back to gasoline, as carmakers still aren’t producing enough attractive (and affordable) no- and low-emission vehicles to make up the slack.

The data tells the story.

For the first time since 2009, gasoline overtook diesel — accounting for 53 percent of registrations. The two conventional technologies together accounted for 97.1 percent of new registrations.

Read the full story here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doug Huffman
April 6, 2019 2:07 am

Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer: there is nobility in preserving it coolly and proudly through long youth, until at last, in the ripeness of instinct and discretion, it can be safely exchanged for fidelity and happiness.
The Works of George Santayana

Vacationing, on the road with my 6000# diesel BMW SAV, hauls lots of stuff, cruises at 100 in luxurious safety.

Curious George
Reply to  Doug Huffman
April 6, 2019 8:32 am

Bad you. Spewing NOx instead of CO2.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Doug Huffman
April 11, 2019 6:06 am

Neither NOx nor CO2 is the enemy say studies in the wake of city diesel bans. It’s particulate matter.

So if you change to electromobility powered by 350-600 kg batteries instead of 60 kg fossil fuels, e.g. Diesel, you’re not that furthering “health”.

But in some, mysterious ways you’re good to the environment.

When will we ever learn.

April 6, 2019 2:09 am

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Reply to  meltemian
April 6, 2019 4:44 am

The law of unintended ignorance. How many times have greens promoted something, only to find out it’s not doing what they hoped and have to do a U-turn ten or 20 years later?

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 5:14 am

Based on that observation, your prediction of the mandated switch to EVs would be?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Spetzer86
April 6, 2019 8:41 am

Increased degradation of the environment and living conditions in the regions where the rare earths for the batteries are mined. Most countries where these activities occur don’t have an EPA-like regulator to control air, water, and land protection around mining facilities. A lack of OSHA-like regulations means the miners could be underage and their safety will not be a concern.

But hey, as long it’s NIMBY, the virtue-signaling greens won’t care.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 5:35 am

How many times have greens promoted something, only to find out it’s not doing what they hoped and have to do a U-turn ten or 20 years later?

Every time. Refrigerants, catalytic converters, diesel/biodiesel subsidies that turn into pollution/PM2.5 taxes and fees etc.

It’s a never ending revolving door to make money for Big Guv and your country’s inherent wealth being sucked into the coffers of Washington DC’s Federal Reserve (and Rothschild) through trade of worthless Fiat currency and fraudulent legal claims/documents run by the BAR and Vatican. The sooner they get Socialism the sooner they get Communism in order to control it all.

It’s completely unlawful, but legal. Are we learning yet that the legal system (BAR guild) isn’t actually lawful?

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 9:44 am

Given that gas engines are around 30% efficient and diesels in the high 40’s europe is burning MORE fossil fuels per mile as well efficiency be dammed is the green mantra .

Reply to  Daz
April 8, 2019 4:15 am

It is not as straightforward as it seems. Same make same power diesel car weights 15% more than gasoline. When used in urban environment with lots of start/stop increased weight of diesel is canceling better thermal efficiency of engine.
Better efficiency of diesel is present on long rural or highway trips. And it is exactly there where diesels belong.
Moreover half of better diesel mileage comes from higher energy density of diesel vs. gasoline.
Diesel has 15% more energy per volume than gasoline.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 9:56 am

OK I give up…
Greg: ” How many times have greens promoted something, only to find out it’s not doing what they hoped and have to do a U-turn ten or 20 years later?

Although many acknowledge ethanol is not doing what they hoped, I don’t see a U-turn: ethanol is still getting government support.
Although many acknowledge getting rid of nuclear power is not doing what they hoped, I don’t see a U-turn: nuclear power plants are still being decommissioned.
Although many acknowledge bio-mass energy is not doing what they hoped, I don’t see a U-turn: US wood pellets are still being shipped to England for energy.
Although many acknowledge vegan is not doing what they hoped, I don’t see a U-turn. There are more not fewer meatless burgers.
Same with solar and wind.
Am I missing the silver lining?

Reply to  PmhinSC
April 6, 2019 10:15 am

One thing they had to do a u-turn on was MTBE with its groundwater problems. The replacement was ethanol which many do not see as a good solution either and as you said it is still subsidized. Ethanol is practically energy neutral as the energy required to produce is nearly equal to the energy returned with combustion so no benefit there. MTBE is still used in the asian countries.

Reply to  Vince
April 6, 2019 10:36 am

Thanks for the reply; I did not know that.

ferd berple
Reply to  meltemian
April 6, 2019 10:26 am

The Law of Unintended Consequences
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Karma. Why goes around comes around.

The problem is that the Paris Agreement fails to take nature into account.

Every living thing emits waste. Released into the environment this waste becomes pollution. How does nature clean this up?

Nature does not try to solve the problem by reducing emissions. Rather nature increases the species able to use the pollution as food.

And this is why the Paris Agreement will fail. It is unnatural. It is trying to solve a problem in a bass backward fashion, ignoring a billion plus years of evolution.

We didn’t learn to fly by limiting the number of roads on the earth. Why? Because we need roads.

We cannot solve CO2 by limiting emmissions. Why? Because we need the things that produce CO2 to survive. As such, limiting CO2 is an existential threat. More so than increasing CO2, because we have no viable alternative. We have lead free fuels at the pump, but we have no carbon free.

Reply to  ferd berple
April 6, 2019 5:36 pm

I call it the law of predictable consequences.

old white guy
Reply to  meltemian
April 7, 2019 5:23 am

not to worry, CO2 is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas.

April 6, 2019 2:24 am

Like many counter-CO2 regulations ‘Dieselification’ in Europe actually increased the real pollution of cities and endangered people’s health. Other counter-CO2 activities like wind-turbines endanger birds and bats and drive neighbours mad with thumping, solar furnaces fry flying birds in the air, solar generators unstabilize electrical grids at night and require extra diesel, hydro or other back-up increasing costs noticeably. Higher electricity costs endanger the health of people by restricting heating and cooling. There is a clear pattern emerging here.
All this, in contrast to the above evident detriments, has been done in the absence of any sound proof that CO2 is causing any part of Global Warming, or that Global Warming is other than beneficial to plants and people.
The present CAGW hysteria makes the Dutch Tulip Bubble look like small beer.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 6, 2019 9:07 am

RE: “small beer”
Older US folks likely remember Near Beer.

Roger Knights
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 6, 2019 9:24 am

Don’t forget high-insulation, low-cost foam cladding for high-rises.
And ethanol fuel.
And palm oil.
And don’t-touch-the-forest regulations.

April 6, 2019 2:54 am

Have they ever mentioned there could be no link between CO2 emissions and global CO2?

Take a bottle of mineral water, open the cap and let the CO2 escape.
Close the cap and wait i.e. one hour. Open the cap again and listen to the fizzzzzz…
You can repeat the game until all CO2 solved in the water is gone.

On a global basis, this means there will always be a pressure balance in our atmosphere, no matter what you do to reduce CO2 emissions. Each gram of CO2 you save/dig will be refilled from oceans or landmass.

All so called “CO2 savings” are only big profiteering with absolutely no effect on the worlds environment and global CO2.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  petermue
April 6, 2019 4:04 am

On a global basis, this means there will always be a pressure balance in our atmosphere, no matter what you do to reduce CO2 emissions.

Yup, ….. Henry dictated a Law stipulating the above …. and people ae compelled to obey/accept it whether they want to or not.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  petermue
April 6, 2019 9:17 am

There is the claim that some years ago (3 M ?) there was about 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Further, at the beginning of industrial society CO2 was lower than that, and biotic things were “starved” for the chemical.
What, other than a progressively colder ocean would account for this?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
April 7, 2019 3:25 am

Sorry bout that, John, ….. but it appears none of the avowed “warminists” have an answer for you

April 6, 2019 3:22 am

The accusations against diesel cars were mostly made up.

Reply to  Stonyground
April 6, 2019 4:24 am

Id love to get one of the diesel vdubs the idiots sold off in a hissyfit over their emissions debacle
who cares if they met some insane regs diesels more economical per litre
of course diesel repairs are a right pain…
and if emissions are an issue invent a better exhaust/filter or stick a second one on.
it cant be that hard

R Shearer
Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 6, 2019 5:54 am

Market efficiency is buggered up by the government and cheating by companies to get around government regulations. Unfortunately, the government will not hold off on making up new challenges and allow sanity to return.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 6, 2019 8:40 pm

Modern diesels from VW already have an exhaust filter system called a DPF. However, the whole system needs to get to operating temperature to start doing it’s job. I am talking about 30 minutes at highway speeds. Easy to simulate in a lab when you can dynamically control engine management systems. This does not happen in reality under normal usage, so the system is a waste of time. Which lead to “Dieselgate”. Putting on a second system won’t work either.

Jean Demesure
April 6, 2019 3:26 am

“Like many counter-CO2 regulations ‘Dieselification’ in Europe actually increased the real pollution of cities and endangered people’s health.”
Fact is in Europe, as in any rich country, air pollution has continually decreased for decades. And its people’s life expectancy has continually increased. So your claims are so wrong!
BTW, most of what “Pollutico” says are either nonsense, or utter lies. For example, the trope that “the Dieselgate scandal is pushing drivers to switch from diesel to gasoline cars” is laughable. The reason of the “switch” is simply because politicians have used the pretext of the manufactured scandal to rake up taxes on diesel. Just look up the price increase of diesel in France over the last year and see for yourself. That was the first reason of the creation of the Yellow Vest movement.
All ignored by the Pollutico’s propagandists.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Jean Demesure
April 6, 2019 5:45 am


Reply to  Jean Demesure
April 6, 2019 7:39 am

So your claims are so wrong!

What? Yes, diesel emissions have gone down in the last few decades, but gasoline emissions have gone down even more. What’s more, Gasoline engines don’t need to spray overpriced cow piss (aka Diesel Exhaust Fluid) into the tailpipe just to squeak under the limits.

As for Dieselgate being a ‘manufactured scandal’, I’d likever to see some proof of this other then your arm waving. Especially since the last time I looked Volkswagen had come clean and admit it all.


Reply to  Schitzree
April 6, 2019 9:13 am

Well carmakers needed direct injection for better fuel economy aka CO2 emissions without sacrificing performance because it give them better/quicker control over engine mixture for varying conditions and loads. However the upshot was higher NOx emissions particularly with diesels and hence the Adblue to counteract that.

Now whilst EGR had already caused problems with EGR valve and inlet manifold clogging with high comp diesels and concomitant blowby oil plus soot (think a tube out your backside into your mouth along with normal food) Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) would incur valve carboning without the continual petrol washing as with port injection. That now requires Gasoline Particulate Filters (GPFs) similar to DPFs although they’re a lot cheaper due to less soot to begin with. Oh and walnut blasting to clean intakes and valves although now they’re also adding a port injector to manage that problem.

Yeah I know carmakers are struggling to meet ever higher emissions Regs designed ostensibly to drive them off the road by stealth and why VW took the risk they did.

Roger Knights
Reply to  observa
April 6, 2019 9:32 am

“Oh and walnut blasting to clean intakes and valves”

Clogging of injectors and valves can be accomplished by adding a bottle of a fuel system cleaner to the gas tank. Doing so increases milage and pep. The brand I got is Red line, $14 on Amazon at

Reply to  Schitzree
April 6, 2019 10:50 am

Here in the UK there is a government dept with the abbreviation DEFRA. It publishes air pollution data in a statistical release that covers the period 1970 to 2017 (latest report).

The report is worth studying. The big picture is presented in Fig 1, which shows a whole host of air pollutants, indexed from 1970 (100%). The message is that air pollutants today are a small fraction of what they were in 1970 – UK air has never been cleaner.

What Fig 1 does not show is the change in the number of vehicles on UK roads between 1970 and 2017. You have to extend the ordinate to 200 and 300. The total number of vehicles on UK roads has doubled in this timespan and, following the promotion of diesel powered cars and vans by the government, the number of diesel vehicles has probably trebled. So draw lines from 100 to 200 and from 100 to 300 and consider that as the number of vehicles increase air quality improves. Perhaps there is an argument to be made that road vehicles are cleaning up the air.

In the detail of the report it can be seen that PM10s and PM2.5s (soot) produced by wood burning stoves and fires are three times that produced by vehicles. Wood-burning stoves are ‘green’ and were also promoted by the government.

But what about ammonia I hear someone ask. Well again in the detail of the report it can be seen that agriculture produces 87% of ammonia pollution and road transport a whopping 2%.

So, I’ll go along with the contention that the demonisation of diesel is not supported by the data and is probably a non-existent crisis made up for political purposes to cover up some of the idiotic green policies.

Reply to  Jean Demesure
April 6, 2019 8:17 am

It was Angela Merkel that set impossible Diesel limits in 1998 as Env. Minister, a fact that the largest tabloid Bild found out by accident only a few months ago. These limits were based on a US particle study done in the 1970’s on 6000+ subjects most of whom were chain smokers!
The Auto firms didn’t put up a fight, tried to muddle through, and now look at them.
There is blow-back, but almost too late. As Germany is Auto AG, this has serious economic impact, and political ramifications.
The joke is, diesel exhaust is now cleaner than the air intake.

Politico is just junk, and obviously never heard of the Gilets Jaunes , a movement against a globalist EU financial elite whose intent is to basically eliminate them.

Rod Evans
April 6, 2019 3:30 am

Diesel and Petrol vehicles accounted for 97.1% of all sales , maybe we should start a new meme? 97% of all drivers believe in fossil fuels…. Science by consensus means its settled, who could possible argue with that?

April 6, 2019 4:11 am

“London is preparing to enforce “world-leading” vehicle pollution restrictions from Monday as the capital attempts to clean up the toxic air blamed for thousands of premature deaths.
The ultra-low emission zone, or Ulez, will launch at one minute past midnight (Sat/Sun), imposing a £12.50-a-day charge to drive into central London in all but the cleanest cars and vans.”

Reply to  vukcevic
April 6, 2019 4:39 am

So if you can afford £12.50-a-day ( on top of the congestion charge ) or a brand new EU6 rated diesel, you have the right to enter London.

The poor can take the bus.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 6:14 am

I wonder if the delivery drivers can fit all of their parcels and goods on the bus? Or perhaps they will just increase their delivery charges to London addresses and businesses will just pass that on to their customers. Or you could invest in a classic diesel from 1972 or earlier and be exempt.

And to raise a smile, Google with all their green pontification have a bus in London that goes to places to provide a mobile service. I watched this big while double decker bus leaving a site in a big cloud of diesel smoke as the bus is an old Routemaster. I guess it was cheaper and more popular than one of the new eco buses used in London.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 8:18 am

IMO, that is the true, ultimate goal. Imagine the savings if you had adequate roads for many decades into the future, fewer accidents, the need for fewer police, ambulances, EMTs, and less congested ERs. The more vehicles government gets off the roads, the more they will save. Vehicle and fuel taxes? Watch what happens to the cost of mass transit fares. Government will tout that it’s cheaper than owning a vehicle, but it won’t be by much, and you won’t own anything. The government will be getting the profits of the manufacturers and petrol companies.

Best of all, our self-annointed ruling class will not suffer the ignobility of sitting in traffic jams. They will still have their limos, paid for by the taxpayer.

Ending private ownership of vehicles is the only thing that makes sense of the UK’s edict to go all EV, but not bother to do anything wrt power generation, the grid, or establishing public charging points.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2019 8:46 am

Would that be a diesel powered bus by any chance?

Flight Level
April 6, 2019 4:26 am

This is not quite correct. We still love TDI’s. However.

The adaptive firmware that caused all the mess across the pond is actually perceived as positive feature to the drivability of such models. I mean, TDI’s could become incredibly peppy and reach speeds in excess of 200 km/h (124 mph) even for the basic family models. Just use that throttle and the car changes quite some.

Higher displacement diesels were very prized speedy zippers with moderate consumption. Almost all high-end diesels were also “tuned”, this option being more or less officially suggested at the dealership.

Then came the mandatory firmware update. Which ruined all that made TDI’s so prized, turning from a day to the other peppy rides in, well, diesels.

Now those are now cheap second hand buys and no one trusts VW for peppy diesels anymore. It’s like if all of a sudden Tesla decided to castrate the acceleration of it’s cars and lock them down to city-bus like performances.

However it still happens that, when you have your cruise-control locked at 240 km/h, an otherwise unobtrusive VW TDI van blinks and takes over with ease.

For those who know how the tricks, TDI’s are still a great value while the general public feels betrayed for no reason.

R Shearer
Reply to  Flight Level
April 6, 2019 6:12 am

I look at Tesla drivers as having more money than brains. A close inspection of almost every Telsa auto will reveal poor quality design and workmanship compared to other luxury brands. The other day from quite a distance away, I could see that the rear edge of a driver’s door was out of alignment by probably 1 cm or so.

Then there are issues with faulty lane recognition, doors failing to open, spontaneous combustion, etc.

Reply to  R Shearer
April 6, 2019 6:36 am

R Shearer: […] spontaneous combustion, etc.”

For increasing sales, planned obsolescence is OUT. Spontaneous combustion is IN.

Musk is brilliant! Instead of the bother of rearranging the headlights and taillights and the stitching on the seats every year to entice owners to decide to trade in for a newer version, he just has the car go up in flames and there’s no decision to be made at all. Pure genius!

kent beuchert
Reply to  R Shearer
April 6, 2019 6:45 am

Don’t forget those automatic disappearing door handles which rescue people cannot opemn to pull burning occupants from the car. Tesla’s response was that the failed door handles can be opened from the inside. And they are fragile – $1000 plus labor to replace one of them and one used car buyer found tht all four of the door handles on the Model She was considering had been replaced. Tesla owners put up with anything.

Roger Knights
Reply to  R Shearer
April 6, 2019 9:37 am

To follow the Tesla soap opera, check our its page on the Seeking Alpha site at

April 6, 2019 4:29 am

An increase of 0.4 grams per kilometer?And they think this makes any measurable difference in the climate, seriously? The scientific illiteracy of climate alarmists is beyond parody.

April 6, 2019 4:31 am

They’ll just double the cost per litre to offset the transition.

Worked a treat in France.

April 6, 2019 4:32 am

Unless forced to by working or living inside the congestion zone, no-one should go there, driving into London just to get inside the congestion zone is usually an unpleasant driving experience anyway.

Reply to  Pumpsump
April 6, 2019 9:17 am

I’ve generally found Central London a much more pleasant place to drive than many, many other cities (e.g., Brussles, Munich, Boston, LA, SF). What have I missed?

Rod Evans
April 6, 2019 5:38 am

For those not wanting to pay the £12.50 to drive into central London (why would you even want to do that these days?) in a normal vehicle just do what thousands of people already do. Run foreign number plates on your vehicle. The soft ware can not trace your address. Romanian ones are favourite apparently.

Peta of Newark
April 6, 2019 5:46 am

What gets me is the inflexibility of ‘these people’ = our elders, betters, scientists, advisors etc etc

But no, it’s actually flat out greed.
Because they want as many folks as possible to pay their inflated taxes, congestion charges and not least, to buy New Cars.

The simple solution would simply be to clean up the diesel.
To a great extent already happens (certainly used to happen) here in the UK every winter.
To prevent diesel from ‘freezing’ in cold winter weather, it was automatic for refineries to supply, between certain dates, so-called Winter Diesel.
This was simply ordinary ‘Summer Diesel’ mixed with Kerosene. In a 3 to 1 ratio.
The kerosene kept the heavy fraction of the diesel, waxes basically, dissolves and in suspension so they didn’t freeze and block the filters of the engine’s fuel system.

I’d make a strong case to say that it was/is these long chain wax molecules that are causing most of the particulate mess coming out of diesel engines.

So why not just filter them out at the refinery. Cool the stuff to minus 10degC and filter it.
Or, put Kerosene into the fuel ALL the time. Or petrol even

Then you got a lighter and easier burning fuel that won’t smoke as much.
Ah but ah but ah but say The Aficionados – it’ll wreck my engine.

But how, nobody notices Winter Diesel and any Common Rail diesel will burn almost anything, even neat petrol which was always and classically a complete wrecker. For mechanically injected engines certainly.

But Common Rails are so close to Rudolph von Diesel’s heart it would probably burst with joy should he be around to see them. He actually intended and invented the diesel engine exactly so that it would burn *anything*

Even now there is stuff called 2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate (£30 for 5 litres from ebay) especially aimed as a Cetane Improver = an attempt to make sh1t diesel look like Real Diesel -i.e. Pure C16 cetane.
Typically used as an additive at 1ml per litre
(PS: If you have a small petrol engine like a lawnmower, brush cutter, snow plow, chainsaw etc that is a Pig To Start – add a little (1ml per litre) 2-EHN to its fuel. It’ll start, go and run like new. Trust me)

Why not add more of that or any number of things that get some oxygen into the fuel?
Nitrates are good
And ain’t The Most Delicious Ironing you ever saw?
That Dirty Diesels produce NOx and the addition of NOx to their air/fuel supply would clean them up.
Luv it luv luv it. Hasn’t Ma Nature got One Epic Sense Of Humour?

But no. Won’t happen will it.
We live in a time of sugar induced Zombies, mind blowingly sh1t science, unbelievably dumb politicians (with only one notable exception) and they’re all trapped inside Magical Thinking, paralysed by their own self importance & good intentions allied with greed and self interest.

Bye the bye…
a little something to help Dry January along its merry way
Also to aid with clarity of thought, self confidence, personal life expectancy, health insurance costs, sense of humour, baby production, lower divorce rates and something to slow the rate at which London schoolkids knife each other to death on the way home. From school.

R Shearer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 6, 2019 6:03 am

Good comment. Those longer chain hydrocarbons have high cetane value and require little chemical transformation within the refinery to be good fuels at a much lower price than say those needing 2-EHN addition.

From a diesel performance perspective, it would be better if we could warm the climate so that the amount of winter diesel needed is lowered.

HD Hoese
Reply to  R Shearer
April 6, 2019 8:42 am

Reality always intrudes despite the claims and we need to shame the politicians and others about what they are doing to us. From the manual of a 2012 Ford Expedition– “For exclusive use of E85 (Flex Fuel Vehicles Only) at every oil change, if run exclusively on E85, fill the fuel tank with regular unleaded fuel.” Got to handle it someway. Engineering can only go so far.

kent beuchert
April 6, 2019 6:46 am

So are the EU guys as dumb as California, which claimes electrc cars are “zero emission vehicles.”

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  kent beuchert
April 6, 2019 9:25 am

It is complicated. We drive PZEVs, partial zero emission vehicles. I had to look it up!

Michael in Dublin
April 6, 2019 7:11 am

I wondered when the diesel scandals broke if much of this was misleading. I remember the terrible emissions from diesel cars fifty years ago and by comparison today’s diesels are so much cleaner. Would maturing technology not allow us to have a diesel in the next fifty years – without huge added costs – that only produces a small fraction of today’s pollution? Will banning diesel not actually set us back in the long term? Has anyone got a good link that discusses these issues as I would like to read up more?

April 6, 2019 8:21 am

On a website about old cars, there has been a thread about “Do you believe in global warming”.
Recently a true believer was making his case with a number of links to “authority”.
I tried to explain about the solubility of a gas, temperature and outgasing.
He had not run into any of this and demanded I post the peer-review:
On Henry’s Law.
Every time this disciple of nonsense gets blasted, he stops posting for a while.
Then in succumbing to agitation, he will roar in with more idiotic posts–all backed by “peer review”.

John the Econ
April 6, 2019 8:37 am

The last times I was in Europe, I found the air in the cities literally unbreathable due to diesel exhaust. And I grew up in the LA of the ’60s and ’70s. This whole sad episode was just another example of the climate change religion against CO2 making the environment worse.

Flight Level
Reply to  John the Econ
April 6, 2019 10:07 am

Could you please locate the mountains of dead bodies from that unbreathable air ?

Could save lives, we risk on approach to collide with one of them killing all onboard.

Reply to  Flight Level
April 8, 2019 12:05 pm

They’re buried right next to the late policy decision on smoking/public health and late policy on unleaded gasoline and over near the huge cemeteries from the late policy move to confront extremism. It’s not far from those dating from the late policy shift away from colonialism over near the Dien Bien Phu section.

Smart Rock
April 6, 2019 9:14 am

……….the best way of meeting emissions targets was promoting diesel, which emits less CO2 than petrol

The sad thing is, this level of ignorance (both of basic science and of the topic under discussion) is what we now expect from scientific/technical journalism.

Roger Knights
April 6, 2019 9:43 am

At 26 April 2018 (short version):

From the Bosch paper presented at the Vienna Motor Symposium this year (in April 2018).

Bosch says it has solved diesel NOx problem; as low as 13 mg NOx/km even under RDE; refining existing technologies

Bosch says that its engineers have refined existing diesel technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) so significantly that they already comply with future limits. Even in RDE (real driving emissions) testing, emissions from vehicles equipped with the newly premiered Bosch diesel technology are not only significantly below current limits but also those scheduled to come into force from 2020 (Euro 6d).

Because the solution leverages existing technology, there is no need for additional components, which would drive up costs.
A dynamic driving style demands an equally dynamic recirculation of exhaust gases. This can be achieved with the use of a RDE-optimized turbocharger that reacts more quickly than conventional turbochargers. … This means drivers can drive off at speed without a spike in emissions.

To ensure optimum NOx conversion, the exhaust gases must be hotter than 200 degrees Celsius. In urban driving, vehicles frequently fail to reach this temperature. Bosch has therefore opted for a sophisticated thermal management system for the diesel engine.

At a press event in Stuttgart Bosch had dozens of journalists, from both Germany and abroad, drive test vehicles equipped with mobile measuring equipment in heavy city traffic, under especially challenging conditions.

AI can further boost performance.

This will mark another step toward a major landmark: the development of a combustion engine that—with the exception of CO2—has virtually no impact on the ambient air.

Denner also called for a renewed focus on CO2 emissions. Denner said that consumption tests should no longer be conducted in the lab but rather under real driving conditions.

Moreover, he added, any assessment of CO2 emissions should extend significantly further than the fuel tank or the battery—a full well-to-wheels lifecycle approach.

Dennis Sandberg
April 6, 2019 12:20 pm

EROEI of 8 is the threshold of viability for a technological civilization. You can argue about where that threshold actually lies, but I think it’s beyond argument that such a threshold exists, and is substantially greater than 2:1. And it’s probably located in roughly the range the author indicates, somewhere between 5:1 and 10 (building green).

Ethanol is about as worthless as a “wind & solar blend”. If these liberal frauds were 5 times more efficient they would still be a poor investment. Once these phony “business enterprise’s” becomes part of the community (jobs& tax base) even conservative republicans need to support them if they want to get elected (i.e Donald Trump-Iowa). Amazing what willfully uninformed voters and corrupt politicians can come up with isn’t it?

Dennis Sandberg
April 6, 2019 2:01 pm

Addendum to the above RE: Ethanol, wind & solar unsustainable financial investment

EROI analyses … compare “energy available to society” as the result of a given process to “energy required for extraction” (all in units of energy). While this comparison can be helpful for some purposes, it seems to me that we should also be looking at whether the dollars collected at the end-product level are sufficient to provide an adequate financial return to meet the financial needs….(

Amazingly small amount of information on the only energy use comparison that matters. it’s not the energy conversion efficiency that matters it’s the $dollar efficiency.
When big agriculture claims 1/1.5 efficiency for ethanol they’re giving full credit to the by-product “cattle feed”. Wrong. Same lie is applied with wind & solar: Time of day, time of year, variable wind, temperature and cloud cover effect electric prices several orders of magnitude. But, these variables don’t appear in EROEI calculations making them meaningless.
Anyone have some good links or sources for energy return on money invested?

April 6, 2019 5:03 pm

Environmental activists take Shell to court on Friday to try to stop the Anglo Dutch oil giant drilling for gas and oil, and to ensure it meets climate change targets. Some 17,000 people and six organisations have signed up to Milieudefensie’s call for co-defendants in the case, which the green group hopes will lead to a judge ‘forcing Shell to stop being a major cause of climate change.’

April 6, 2019 5:58 pm


Funny as it is, this article’s statistic quote is swampgas.

CO (not CO₂) at 0.4 g/km was being compared to CO₂ (not CO) per kilometer. The thermodynamics is clear on that: Carnot efficiency of ICE gasoline and ICE diesel engines cannot be radically different, since the thermal energy per kg of fuel is more-or-less the same. Diesel engines are of course quite-a-bit more thermally efficient than gasoline “sub-dieseling”‘ engines, from compression ratios, and higher burn-expansion temperature. But the best I’ve ever seen for diesel is 46% brake horse for diesel, versus 39% for gasoline.

That would not be 118 ÷ 0.4 = 300× the difference.
Maybe 35% or so.

Just saying,
GoatGuy ✓

April 8, 2019 11:57 am

Note that the mandated switch to EVs will place them in direct market competition with the rapidly rising market to add utility scale solar PV with lithium storage while putting peaker plants out of business or out of new entry.

Good luck with that next policy unintended consequence also.

Johann Wundersamer
April 11, 2019 6:19 am

EU carmakers — with the support of national and EU officials — decided more than a decade ago that the best way of meeting emissions targets was promoting diesel, which emits less CO2 than petrol.

However, that strategy has collapsed in the wake of Volkswagen’s 2015 admission that it cheated on emissions tests.”

What cheating – from first minute it was evident that in in the starting routine that emessions from the cold machine are potentially higher then in driving routine.

In towns like Wladiwostok the SUV’s parked in front of the house ( yes, in Wladiwostok there’s SUV drivers too ), the diesel engines are running in standby mode – other one needs hours to get that thing running.

Electromobility wouldn’t help – either the batteries are emptied or they burn city lanes.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights