1

CO2 benefit from the increasing percentage of Diesel passenger cars.

Case of Sweden
E. Zervas
1
, S.G. Poulopoulos
2
, C. Philippopoulos
2

1
Ecole des Mines de Nantes, Present address: Renault,
2
National Technical University of Athens
Abstract
The decrease of CO
2
emissions is one way to minimize climate changes. One efficient way to decrease these
emissions is the replacement of gasoline passenger cars (PC) by Diesel ones, which emit less CO
2
. Most of the member
countries of the European Union have high percentages of Diesel new PC registrations which can reach 40-60%;
however, this percentage is only 7% in Sweden. The benefit of CO
2
emitted from new PC is studied in the case of an
increased penetration of Diesel PC in Sweden, after several scenarios using the current and estimated future PC sales
and fuel consumption. The CO
2
emissions from the German certification data are used in this work. The results show
that, in the case of the new PC, an important CO
2
benefit of more than 5% can be achieved, if a Diesel penetration
higher than 30% occurs in the case of the current fleet. If the penetration reaches 50%, this benefit is higher than 7%.
Future total CO
2
emissions will increase significantly and can be partially controlled by the introduction of Diesel
passenger cars or the replacement of heavy PC by lighter ones. Future fuel consumption (FC) of gasoline and Diesel PC
and the percentage of Diesel penetration are the key factors for this control.
Keywords: CO
2
emissions, passenger cars, gasoline, Diesel, Sweden, European Union
1 Introduction
The transport sector is one important source of CO
2
in many countries [1, 2]. The authorities and policy makers look
for a stabilization or decrease of these emissions following, for example, the Kyoto protocol [3], or other programs.
However, even if the CO
2
emissions of each vehicle decrease, the total CO
2
emissions of the transport sector increases,
mainly due to the increase of passenger car fleet, but also from other fuel consuming factors (air conditioning, increased
vehicle weight, emission control,).
For the same driving distance, Diesel passenger cars emit less CO
2
than gasoline types, due to the greater
thermodynamic efficiency, providing improved fuel economy. An efficient way of controlling or even decreasing the
total CO
2
emissions is the replacement of a number of gasoline passenger cars by Diesel ones. A sales weighed
approach can estimate the future CO
2
emissions, as it takes into account the real conditions of each country.
The percentage of new Diesel passenger cars sales is quite important in all European Union (EU) countries, and can
even reach 60% in the case of France [4, 5]. But, in three countries: Sweden, Finland and Greece, this percentage is less
than 7%, 14% and 1% respectively [5, 6]. This article studies the case of Sweden, which has the more important PC
fleet of the above three countries. The increase of the Diesel PC percentage in Sweden could be a very efficient way to
decrease the CO
2
emissions from the transport sector, which is estimated to correspond to 37% of the total CO
2

emissions in Sweden 1998 [7]. The current passenger car fleet in this country is firstly analysed; some probable
previsions for the future fleet (2010-2015) are then presented. The benefit on the CO
2
emissions using Diesel cars
instead of gasoline types is estimated in several different scenarios, using different percentages of new Diesel PC
registrations in the future and taking into consideration the current or the estimated future fuel consumption.
A particular point is that Diesel PC emits many times more particulate matter (PM) than gasoline ones. However,
Diesel particulate filters (DPF) are already commercially used and will be necessary to fulfil future PM regulations.
Diesel PC equipped with DPF emit similar or even less PM than gasoline ones [8]. NOx emissions is another concern,
as current Diesel PC emit more NOx than the gasoline ones: the European regulatory limits are 0.25 g NOx/km for
Diesel PC while they are only 0.08 g NOx/km for the gasoline ones. But, as emissions regulations become more
stringent, the difference between Diesel and gasoline PC NOx emissions will be less important in the future and null in
the case of the same emissions limits between the two types of cars. From the other side, Diesel PC emit less HC and
CO than the gasoline ones. We estimate that in the future the impact on local atmosphere quality will be independent of
the vehicle type as will be no very little or no difference between regulatory limits between Diesel and gasoline PC.
2
2 Assumptions and methodology used
The statistical data used here is a compilation of data presented in several sources, mainly in internet sites. The
internet sites of Association of European Automobile Manufactures, ACEA, [4], Eurostat [5], Committee of French
Automobile Manufactures, CCFA, [6], World Resources Institute [9], International Road Federation [10], and Swedish
Statistics Net [11] are widely used. The German Federal Motoring Authority, KBA, [12] publishes some data, as inertia,
fuel consumption, CO
2
and regulated pollutants emissions of the passenger cars certified in Germany. These emissions
are obtained according to the official European certification procedure on the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
The 2003 version of the KBA file is used in this work.
The current market of passenger cars in Sweden is firstly analysed and compared with this of the European Union
average. As the statistics of the new countries jointed EU in 2004 are only partially available, only the former 15
member countries are studied here. The evolution of the Swedish and EU markets the last 10-15 years is also compared.
Based on these data, the most probable scenarios for the Swedish market in 2010-1015 are established. These previsions
depend mainly on the situation of the Swedish economy, but, as such a prevision is very difficult in a long term, some
basic assumptions are used in this work.
The CO
2
emissions changes due to the use of Diesel passenger cars instead of gasoline ones are calculated at different
percentages of Diesel penetration in the Swedish market. The comparison of CO
2
emissions is based on the emissions of
the certification data on the NEDC using the KBA file. The same annual mileage is assumed for the current and future
gasoline and Diesel PC. A two stage calculation is used: firstly, the current CO
2
emissions from the KBA file; secondly,
the future CO
2
emissions are estimated by applying factors taking into account the most probable future technologies
[13]. This study is limited only to CO
2
emissions from new registered passenger cars. The introduction of other
technologies, as hybrid or fuel cell vehicles, and the emissions of the other regulated pollutants are also not taken into
account in this study. PC feed with other alternative fuels, as natural gas or LPG (liquefied petrol gas), are not examined
here, due to lack of data of CO
2
emissions of these type of vehicles.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Historical review, current situation and previsions of the Swedish market. Comparison with the EU average.
In 2003, the Swedish population corresponds to 2.32% of the total EU population (figure 1); this percentage remains
particularly constant since 1970. However, the percentage of the passenger car fleet constantly decreases in this
country: from 3.5% at the beginning of the 70s, it reaches 2.5% in 1990 and around 2.1% in 2000, which is lower than
the population percentage. This percentage remains quite stable the last 6-7 years, but Swedish Statistics [14] predicts
an increase in the future.
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year
0
1
2
3
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
50
100
150
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
0
200
400
600
P
C
/
1
0
0
0

i
n
h
a
b
.
% Population S
% PC Fleet S
% of Sweden
PC/1000 hab. EU
PC/1000 hab. S
0
25
50
P
C

s
a
l
e
s
/
1
0
0
0

i
n
h
a
b
.
50
100
150

Figure 1: European Union of 15 countries members. Lower curves:
percentage of Swedish population and passenger cars fleet.
Middle curves: number of PC/1000 inhabitants in EU, Sweden
and percentage of the Swedish number over the EU one. Upper
curves: number of new PC sales per 1000 inhabitants in EU,
Sweden and percentage of the Swedish number over the EU
one (4, 6, 9, 10).
3
Another parameter is the number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants (figure 1, middle curves). The average EU
number in 2001 is 488 PC per 1000 inhabitants, while this of Sweden is 454, corresponding to 93% of the average EU
value. This percentage decreases since 1970, where it was near 140%, but remains quite stable the last 6-7 years.
The Swedish passenger cars fleet increases by two ways: from new cars registrations and from the increase of the
average age of the already registered vehicles. In both parameters, an important difference exists between Swedish and
average EU market. In 2003, 27.3 new PC/1000 inhabitants are registered in Sweden, which is much lower than the 34
PC registered in EU (figure 1, upper curves). The Swedish fleet is older than the average EU age (in 1999, this age is
estimated to 9.2 years in Sweden against 7.6 in UE [15]).
The other significant difference between the Swedish and EU market is the number and percentage of Diesel PC
registrations. In most of the EU countries, this percentage was only around 10% in 1980, but increases sharply to reach
almost 60% in 2002 in several countries, as France and Spain [4, 6]. With an average of about 40% in the 15 countries
of the EU, this percentage is at least 30% in every country, except Sweden, Finland and Greece where it remains less 7,
14 and 1% respectively (figure 2).
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
0
20
40
60
80
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Average EU
Sweden
Finland
Spain
France
Greece
Germany

Figure 2: European Union of 15 countries members. Percentage of new
Diesel PC registrations in Sweden, Finland, France, Spain,
Germany, Greece and EU average.
Another important parameter taken into account in this work is the car segment. For this, the European fleet is
divided in 11 segments. Table 1 presents the main characteristics of each segment, as inertia and CO
2
emissions on the
NEDC and the relative standard deviation (RSD) of these values. The majority of the EU average and Swedish market
corresponds to four classes: economic, small car, lower medium and upper medium. This table shows that the Swedish
market is composed from bigger and heavier PC than the EU average. For example, the Economic and Small Car
gasoline segment is respectively 10.9% and 37.5% in EU, but only 1.2% and 14.3% in Sweden. The percentage of the
Upper medium gasoline segment is 13.7% in the EU and 30.8% in Sweden. This indicates that for the same number
of passenger cars and the same annual mileage, the CO
2
emissions are higher in Sweden because of the heavier PC. The
average inertia of gasoline and Diesel passenger cars in Sweden is respectively 1348 kg and 1607 kg in 2003, against
1126 kg and 1366 kg for the EU average. A significant difference is observed between the Swedish and European
market: the Swedish gasoline and Diesel passenger cars are respectively 242 kg and 301 kg heavier than the
corresponding EU ones.

3.2 Comparison of gasoline versus Diesel current CO
2
emissions
Figure 3 shows the CO
2
emission of gasoline and Diesel PC as a function of vehicle inertia. For every car type
(gasoline or Diesel), no distinction is made between manual and automatic transmission, because the percentage of
manual gearboxes in Sweden is more than 79% in 2003 and this parameter has a relatively small influence [13]. No
differentiation is made in the case of direct or indirect injection of gasoline and diesel engines, even if this parameter
has a strong influence on fuel consumption and consequently on CO
2
emissions, because the percentage of gasoline
direct injection is still very low in Sweden. The advantage of the inclusion of this parameter enhances the benefits of the
use of Diesel passenger cars [13]. This figure shows that CO
2
emissions are correlated with the PC inertia. The
equations: CO
2
=0.1479*Inertia-7.9 and CO
2
=0.1133*Inertia-8.2 are valid in the case of gasoline and Diesel passenger
cars. The relative standard deviation values of CO
2
emissions are generally similar for gasoline and Diesel passenger
cars and they increase with the vehicle inertia to reach a plateau at about 10%. The equations y=0.1696*x-28 and
y=0.1321*x-32 for, respectively, gasoline and Diesel passenger cars are presented in another study [13], but using the
2001 KBA data.

4
Segment GASOLINE DIESEL
Inertia CO
2
emissions Registrations
in 2003 (%)
Inertia CO
2
emissions Registrations
in 2003 (%)
Average
(kg)
RSD
(%)
Average
(g/km)
RSD
(%)
EU SWE Average
(kg)
RSD
(%)
Average
(g/km)
RSD
(%)
EU SWE
Economic 839 9.9 151 16.1 10.9 1.2 900 9.0 121.6 17.2 0.98 0.4
Small car 947 9.6 168.5 15.1 37.5 14.3 1021 8.7 138.5 13.5 18.0 1.0
Lower Medium 1138 9.7 196 14.3 27.9 24.1 1217 8.2 153.6 12.9 36.4 11.3
Upper medium 1340 9.0 222.5 14.1 13.7 30.8 1396 8.2 173.5 14.9 23.5 31.6
SUV(<4m50) 1345 11.7 232.8 12.2 1.6 3.2 1631 11.3 227.5 14.5 6.41 5.7
4x4 (<4m50) 1406 25.1 265.6 25.9 0.58 0.3 1749 21.4 260.2 16.2 2.12 3.1
Superior 1510 8.1 259 15.0 4.4 21.3 1568 6.0 200.9 14.5 4.3 36.8
Compact/People
Carrier
1697 8.0 266.2 12.9 0.78 2.1 1716 8.2 196.2 12.3 1.35 0.15
Prestige 1712 16.9 336.3 27.1 1.09 0.3 1779 8.5 230.4 11.7 0.35 0.15
4x4 (>4m50) 1982 10.2 342.8 11.3 0.08 0.7 1969 8.3 285.6 10.6 0.77 1.20
SUV(>4m50) 2004 7.0 342.7 13.4 0.66 1.6 1970 8.0 256.6 9.42 2.0 8.5
Table 1: The 11 segments of the EU and Swedish PC fleet [4, 6, 11].
We believe that an eventual replacement of gasoline passenger cars by Diesel versions will occur within the same
segment than the same inertia. Upper curves of figure 3 present the same data as the lower ones, but using the average
inertia of each segment. Two new lines are now obtained: CO
2
=0.1521*Inertia-11.1 and CO
2
=0.1167*Inertia-8.9 for
gasoline and Diesel passenger cars respectively. The RSD values are now higher: around 15% instead of 10% in the
previous case. Two gasoline segments (4x4<4m50 and Prestige) present high error bars which can reach 25%.
However, as the registration percentage of these segments is less than 2%, their contribution to the final results remain
very low. The average difference between the estimated CO
2
emissions using the 2003 KBA file and the average inertia
of each segment is quite low: not more than 1.8% in the case of gasoline passenger cars and 2.8% in the case of Diesel
PC. The last two equations are used in this work.
800 1200 1600 2000
Weight (kg)
0
200
400
C
O
2

(
g
/
k
m
)
Gasoline
Diesel
0
200
400

Figure 3: Bottom curves: CO
2
emission (in g/km) on the NEDC of
gasoline and Diesel cars as a function of the vehicle inertia
(data from11). Error bars estimated for a 95% confidence
interval. Upper curves: the RSD of these emissions. Left
curves: CO
2
emissions as a function of each vehicle inertia.
Right curves: CO
2
emissions as a function of segment average
inertia.

3.3 Prediction of the future fuel consumption
After 2005, the European passenger cars will fulfill Euro4 emission standards, But in the future, more severe
standards will require advanced emission control technologies, as for example Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or
DeNOx technologies, which will increase the fuel consumption. This increase depends upon the engine/vehicle used;
lighter vehicles will probably not be equipped with heavy after-treatment devices. On the other hand, fuel efficiency
will be improved by enhanced vehicle aerodynamics, better combustion, decreased frictions, etc. The work of Sullivan
et al [13], provides a list of technologies that are expected to increase or decrease future fuel consumption. According to
5
this work, in 2015, a decrease of about 11% in fuel consumption is expected in the case of gasoline engines and a
decrease of 0-3% in the case of the Diesel ones. Other works estimate some penalties or benefits in fuel consumption
due to future technologies: a 3% penalty from the use of a Diesel Particulate filter [16-18], a 5% penalty for the use of
NOx trap technology [18, 19], and a 1% penalty for the use of urea SCR [19]. Some changes in fuel consumption of
advanced gasoline engines and transmissions are given in CAFE [20].
Taking into account the above estimations, two assumptions are used in this work for gasoline and Diesel passenger
cars:
- the Diesel optimistic assumption (DO) presumes no fuel consumption change, because the FC increase from heavier
after-treatment devices is considered as equal to FC decrease from frictions and engine or vehicle design improvements,
- the Diesel pessimistic assumption (DP) presumes an increase of 5% of fuel consumption, because the FC increase
from heavier after-treatment devices is considered more important than FC decrease from frictions and engine or
vehicle design improvements,
- the gasoline optimistic assumption (GO) presumes a 10% decrease of fuel consumption, because the FC decrease due
to friction and vehicle or engine design improvements is much more important than FC increase from heavier after-
treatment devices,
- the gasoline pessimistic assumption (GP) presumes a 5% decrease of fuel consumption, because the FC decrease due
to friction and vehicle or engine design improvements is slightly more important than FC increase from heavier after-
treatment devices,
After the incorporation of these corrections, the lines linking the CO
2
emissions with the inertia of passenger cars are
now: GO: CO
2
=0.1369*Inertia-11.1, GP: CO
2
=0.1445*Inertia-11.1, DO: CO
2
=0.1167*Inertia-8.9 and DP:
CO
2
=0.1225*Inertia-8.9.

3.4 CO
2
changes from the increased penetration of Diesel passenger cars in Sweden
Several scenarios are constructed to calculate the changes on CO
2
emissions for different percentages of Diesel
penetration. These percentages vary from 7 to 97% total penetration, taking into account the actual new Diesel
passenger sales which correspond to 7% of total PC sales. These scenarios take into account two parameters:
- the differences between the Swedish and EU market and,
- the fuel consumption of gasoline and Diesel passenger cars.
The combination of all these situations gives 20 scenarios, presented in table 2. These scenarios can be divided in
four main groups:
1. The scenarios using the current Swedish new passenger cars sales (scenarios 1-5, named CURRENT).
2. The scenarios using the average number of current Swedish and EU new passenger cars sales (corresponding to 31
new PC per 1000 inhabitants per year). The percentage of each segment corresponds to the average value of the current
Swedish and EU percentages (scenarios 6-10, named AVERAGE).
3. The scenarios using the average number of current Swedish and EU new passenger cars sales, but keeping the current
Swedish segment distribution (scenarios 11-15, named AVERAGE1).
4. The scenarios using the current EU new passenger cars sales in terms of number (corresponding to 34 new PC per
1000 inhabitants per year) and segment distribution (scenarios 16-20, named EU).

3.4.1 CO
2
change as a function of scenario using the actual Diesel penetration The first comparison is made in the
case of actual Diesel penetration (figure 4, lower bars). The first remark is that all scenarios using DO and DP fuel
consumption give quite similar results, because the Diesel penetration is very low: only 7%. The DO and GO scenarios
give always a little lower values than the DP and GP ones, because the fuel consumption is lower in the first case.
Comparison of CURRENT scenarios: Comparing the four CURRENT scenarios, a decrease of the global CO
2
emitted
from new passenger cars will occur in the future. This decrease will be about 5% in the case of a small gasoline fuel
consumption decrease (the two GP assumptions), but will reach about 10% in the case of more important decrease (the
two GO assumptions).
Comparison of CFC scenarios: The global CO
2
emissions will practically remain constant in the case of scenario
AVERAGE-CFC. This statement indicates that even if the total new passenger cars sales increase, the total CO
2

emissions will not change because these sales will correspond to lighter cars. If the new passenger cars sales increase
with the actual Swedish segment distribution (AVERAGE1-CFC), the CO
2
emissions will increase by 8%, indicating the
high importance of vehicle inertia and segment distribution. This increase will be even higher (20%) in the case of the
EU-CFC scenario.
Comparison of GO scenarios: If the future optimistic gasoline fuel consumption is taken into consideration, the total
CO
2
emissions will decrease about 10.5% in the case of the two AVERAGE-GO scenarios, or decrease about 2.5% in
the case the two AVERAGE1-GO ones, or increase 8-9% in the case of the two EU-GO ones.
Comparison of GP scenarios: In the case of the gasoline pessimistic fuel consumption (GP), the CO
2
benefits are
lower. The corresponding values for the CURRENT-GP, AVERAGE-GP, AVERAGE1-GP and EU-GP scenarios are -
4%, -5.5%, 2-3% and 14%, indicating the high importance of future fuel consumption on the total CO
2
emissions from
new passenger cars. Figure 4 shows that the introduction of Diesel passenger cars and the decrease of vehicle inertia
will help to control as much as possible the total CO
2
emitted from new PC.


6
Scenario Name Assumptions for the future PC registrations in
Sweden
Assumptions for the fuel
consumption
Number of PC registrations Segment distribution Gasoline Diesel
1 C-CFC as the current Swedish ones as the current Swedish
ones
Current Current
2 C-GODO GO DO
3 C-GODP GO DP
4 C-GPDO GP DO
5 C-GPDP GP DP
6 AV-CFC average of the current Swedish
and EU ones
average of the current
Swedish and EU
Current Current
7 AV-GODO GO DO
8 AV-GODP GO DP
9 AV-GPDO GP DO
10 AV-GPDP GP DP
11 AV1-CFC average of the current Swedish
and EU ones
as the current Swedish
ones
Current Current
12 AV1-GODO GO DO
13 AV1-GODP GO DP
14 AV1-GPDO GP DO
15 AV1-GPDP GP DP
16 EU-CFC as the current EU as the current EU Current Current
17 EU-GODO GO DO
18 EU-GODP GO DP
19 EU-GPDO GP DO
20 EU-GPDP GP DP
Table 2: The 20 scenarios used.
-10
0
10
20
C
h
a
n
g
e

o
f

C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
%
)
C
-
G
O
D
P
-2
-1
0
C
-
C
F
C
C
-
G
O
D
O
C
-
G
P
D
O
C
-
G
P
D
P
A
V
-
C
F
C
A
V
-
G
O
D
O
A
V
-
G
O
D
P
A
V
-
G
P
D
O
A
V
-
G
P
D
P
E
U
-
C
F
C
E
U
-
G
O
D
O
E
U
-
G
O
D
P
E
U
-
G
P
D
P
E
U
-
G
P
D
P
In the case of no supplementary Diesel PC introduction
In the case of a 10% supplementary Diesel penetration
Current sales
EU sales Average sales
A
V
1
-
C
F
C
A
V
1
-
G
O
D
O
A
V
1
-
G
O
D
P
A
V
1
-
G
P
D
P
A
V
1
-
G
P
D
P
Average sales1

Figure 4: Lower bars: Relative change of total CO
2
emissions emitted
from new PC, in the case of no introduction of Diesel PC in
Sweden, for the different scenarios used. Upper bars:
supplementary change of total CO
2
emissions emitted from
new PC, for a 10% supplementary penetration of Diesel PC.

3.4.2 CO
2
change as a function of Diesel penetration, using the actual fuel consumption Figure 5 presents, for all
scenarios studied, the change on CO
2
emitted from new passenger cars as a function of Diesel penetration. The dashed
area of this figure shows a decrease of the total CO
2
emissions, while the white one shows an increase. For zero Diesel
penetration, the scenarios using the GO or GP assumptions converge to the same point, because the Diesel fuel
consumption is not taken into account in these cases. At 100% Diesel penetration, the scenarios using the DO or DP
assumptions converge to the same point, because gasoline fuel consumption is not taken into account in these cases.
This figure shows that the four scenarios groups form four almost parallel groups of lines. Of course, the total CO
2

7
emissions generally increase with the number of passenger cars sales (scenarios
EU>AVERAGE1>CURRENT>AVERAGE), but the change of segments to lower ones can be benefit of about 0.5%,
even in the case of increased PC sales (scenarios CURRENT>AVERAGE). The scenarios using the AVERAGE1 sales
are about 7 percentage units lower than the current sales scenarios, while the EU sales are even much higher: about 17-
20 percentage units.
30% and 50% Diesel penetration: The percentage of Diesel penetration strongly influences the total CO
2
emissions
change. Two cases will be particularly examined: a 30% and a 50% Diesel penetration. The total CO
2
emitted from new
passenger cars decreases by 4.1% and 7.6% respectively when the 1st scenario is used (CURRENT-CFC). The
corresponding values for the AVERAGE-CFC scenario are quite similar: a 4.9% and 8.4% decrease, indicating again
that even if the number of new passenger cars increases, the use of lighter cars and the higher penetration of Diesel
passenger cars can be benefit for the CO
2
emissions. The AVERAGE1-CFC scenario changes respectively the total CO
2

emissions by +3.5% and -0.3%. This statement indicates that a 50% Diesel penetration can balance the increase of the
number of passenger car sales of this scenario. The values of EU-CFC scenario are even higher: an increase of 15.1%
and 10.9% respectively for a 30% and 50% Diesel penetration. It must be noticed that all the above values are lower
than those obtained in the case of a 0% Diesel penetration: - 0.5%, +8% +20.1% for the AVERAGE-CFC, AVERAGE1-
CFC and EU-CFC scenarios respectively. The EU-CFC scenario reaches the current total CO
2
emissions in the case of
a 100% penetration of Diesel passenger car, while the AVERAGE1-CFC one in the case of a 50% penetration. These
results show that, if the Swedish new passenger cars sales approach the EU average ones, a quite important increase of
total CO
2
emissions will occur, even for very high Diesel penetration.
10% supplementary Diesel penetration: In all cases studied, a supplementary penetration of 10% gives the same
change of the total CO
2
emitted from new PC. Upper bars of figure 4 present the supplementary benefit on CO
2

emissions for a 10% supplementary penetration of Diesel new passenger cars registrations. This benefit can reach 2.1%
in the case of scenario EU-CFC. Comparing the four CFC scenarios (CURRENT, AVERAGE, AVERAGE1 and EU), this
benefit follows the order EU>AVERAGE1>CURRENT >AVERAGE, because of the increased number of future
passenger cars sales. This last remark is not valid in the case of CURRENT and AVERAGE scenarios, because the
replacement of heavy vehicles by lighter ones gives more benefit than the increased number of vehicles.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Diesel PC penetration
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
C
h
a
n
g
e

o
f

C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
%
)
C-CFC
AV-CFC
AV1-CFC
EU-CFC
C-GODO
C-GODP
C-GPDO
C-GPDP
AV-GODO
AV-GODP
AV-GPDO
AV-GPDP
AV1-GODO
AV1-GODP
AV1-GPDO
AV1-GPDP
EU-GODO
EU-GODP
EU-GPDO
EU-GPDP

Figure 5: Change of the total CO
2
emitted from new PC from the
introduction of Diesel PC in Sweden, for the different scenarios
used, as a function of the percentage of total new Diesel PC
penetration.

3.4.3 CO
2
change as a function of scenario, using the future fuel consumption Comparing the future fuel
consumption scenarios, the order GPDO>GPDP>GODO>GODP is observed in all cases. The reasons are that the two
first scenarios consider a pessimistic gasoline fuel consumption which increases the difference between gasoline and
Diesel CO
2
emissions, while the last two scenarios consider an optimistic gasoline fuel consumption, which reduces this
difference. The cases GPDO and GODO are respectively more benefit that the GPDP and GODP, because they take
into consideration an optimistic Diesel fuel consumption, which increases the difference between gasoline and Diesel
CO
2
emissions, contrary to the last two ones which decrease it.
Comparison of actual and future FC in the case of DO scenarios: The comparison between the scenarios using the
current and future fuel consumption shows that, for each group of sales (CURRENT, AVERAGE, AVERAGE1 and EU),
the total CO
2
emissions are lower than the CFC scenarios in the case of the DO assumption (figure 5). This difference is
higher in the case of actual Diesel penetration: 10 and 5 percentage units lower for the scenarios CURRENT-GODO and
CURRENT-GPDO comparing to CURRENT-CFC one. About the same differences are observed in the case of
8
AVERAGE-GODO and AVERAGE-GPDO scenarios compared to the AVERAGE-CFC one, but they reach 10-11 units
lower in the case of AVERAGE1-GODO and AVERAGE1-GPDO, compared to the AVERAGE1-CFC one. The decrease
in the EU-GODO and EU-GPDO scenarios compared to the EU-CFC one is a little lower: 11 and 6 percentage units.
The AV1-GODO and AV1-GPDO scenarios decrease the CO
2
emissions by 10-11 percentage units comparing to the
AV1-CFC one. These differences are slightly more important at increased sales, showing the relative importance of the
future fuel consumption on the future CO
2
emissions control. The GO scenarios give higher differences than the GP
ones, due to the higher relative difference of gasoline/Diesel fuel consumption.
Comparison of actual and future FC in the case of DO scenarios: The previous remarks are not always valuable in
the case of DP scenarios. These last scenarios give lower CO
2
emissions than the four CFC ones (CURRENT-CFC,
AVERAGE-CFC, AVERAGE1-CFC and EU-CFC), only for a Diesel penetration lower than about 60% and 75%
respectively for the GP and GO assumptions. For higher Diesel penetrations, the total CO
2
emissions are higher than
those of the CFC scenarios. This last result indicates that Diesel PC fuel consumption control is an important factor for
future total CO
2
emissions in the case of an increased Diesel penetration and can even be negative in the case of a
pessimistic future Diesel fuel consumption.
4 Conclusions
The aim of this work is to determine the CO
2
benefit from the increasing percentage of Diesel passenger cars
in Sweden. The current Swedish new PC market is first compared with the EU average. The number of new PC
registrations in Sweden generally increases for the most recent years, but less than the EU average. The Swedish market
is composed from heavier cars than the EU average, and the percentage of new Diesel registrations is only 7% against
more than 40% of the EU average.
Four assumptions are used for the future fuel consumption: Diesel optimistic assumption (DO) with no FC change,
Diesel pessimistic assumption (DP) with an increase of 5% in FC, gasoline optimistic assumption (GO) with a decrease
of 10% in FC, gasoline pessimistic assumption (GP) with a decrease of 5% in FC. Twenty scenarios are constructed to
predict the CO
2
benefit from the increased percentage of Diesel passenger cars, taking into account the new PC
registrations, their segment and the fuel consumption.
The main conclusions of this work are the following:
- On NEDC, there are two quite good relationships between CO
2
emissions and PC inertia, one for gasoline and one
for Diesel PC. Two other quite similar relationships are found between CO
2
emissions and the average inertia of each
segment.
- There are quite important differences concerning the CO
2
emissions for the different scenarios used.
- The global CO
2
emissions in Sweden from new passenger cars will decrease 5-10% in the future, if the future PC
registrations remain as the current ones and the fuel consumption of future gasoline passenger cars decreases.
- The total CO
2
emissions increase with the number of passenger cars sales, but the change of segments to lower ones
can be benefit, even in the case of increased PC sales. If the new registrations become the same as the average current
Swedish and the average EU ones (in terms of new passenger cars number and segment distribution), the total global
CO
2
emissions will practically remain constant, because the increase of passenger cars number is balanced by the PC
lower inertia. If the new PC registrations increase with the current Swedish segment distribution, the CO
2
emissions will
increase by 8%, indicating the high importance of vehicle segment distribution.
- A 30% or 50% Diesel penetration decreases the total CO
2
emissions from new passenger cars by 4-5% and 7-8%
respectively in the case of the CURRENT-CFC and AVERAGE-CFC scenarios, while the AVERAGE1-CFC one gives
respectively an increase of 3.5% and a decrease of 0.3%, and the EU-CFC 15.1% and 10.9% respectively. These values
are lower than those of the actual Diesel penetration.
- A supplementary penetration of Diesel passenger cars of 10% gives a CO
2
benefit which can reach 2.1%.
- The introduction of Diesel passenger cars and the decrease of vehicle inertia will help to reduce the total CO
2

emitted from new PC. The future fuel consumption is the other key parameter for this control. If fuel consumption of
future Diesel passenger cars increases, a increased Diesel penetration can be negative for the total CO
2
emissions
control.
REFERENCES
[1] Ellis J ., Tranton K., Energy Policy, 1998, 26, 3, 159-166
[2] Kram T., Morita T., Riahi K., Roehrl R.A., Van Rooijen S., Sankovski A., De Vries B., Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 2000, 63, 2-3, 335-371.
[3] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, 1992.
[4] Internet site of the Association of European Automobile Manufactures (ACEA, www.acea.be).
[5] Internet site of Eurostat (europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/)
[6] Internet site of the Comity of French Automobile Manufactures (CCFA, www.ccfa.fr)
[7] Baltic 21 Series - Transport Sector Report, No 8/1998, www.baltic21.org
[8] Zervas E., Dorlhne P., Daviau R., Dionnet B. (2004), SAE Technical Paper Series 2004-01-1983.
[9] Internet site of the World Resources Institute (earthtrends.wri.org)
9
[10] Internet site of the International Road Federation (www.irfnet.org)
[11] Internet site of Swedish Statistics Net, www.svenskstatistik.net
[12] Internet site of the German Federal Motoring Authority (KBA, www.kba.de)
[13] Sullivan J .L., Baker R.E., Boyer B.A., Hammerle R.H., Kenney T.E., Muniz L., Wallington T.J ., Environ. Sci.
Technol., 2004, 38(12), 3217-3223.
[14] Internet site of Statistics Sweden, www.scb.se
[15] Panorama of Transport. Statistical Overview of Transport in European Union, 2003, europa.eu.int
[16] Stamatelos, A.M. Energy Conversion Mgmt, 1997, 38, 83.
[17] J ohnson, T. V. Soc. Automot. Eng. Paper Ser. 2003, 2003-01-0039.
[18] Lambert, C.; Hammerle, R.; McGill, R.; Khair, M.; Sharp, C. Soc. Automot. Eng. Paper Ser. 2004, 2004-01-1292.
[19] USEPA report Highway Diesel Progress Review. www.epa.gov/air/caaac/clean_diesel.html, J une 2002.
[20] National Research Council. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards;
National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2002.

10