If the West trades all of its gasoline powered cars for EVs, what are we going to do with all of that 'leftover' gasoline? Let's look at Europe's Dieselgate Scandal for clues.
Wonderful piece! Thanks. At the end of the day it seems to me that the political elites are vastly better at virtue signalling than at doing anything with real, net, global impact.
I might argue that given the political elites have demonstrated they have absolutely zero understanding of physics, chemistry or reality, they will never be able to do anything other than virtue signal.
Interesting piece, particularly as regards the overproduction of gasoline due to the incentives/rules and fees on its use. One note, the scandal that ensnared VW, then more quietly Merc and finally Audi is a false narrative that was readily consumed by pop media. The core reason that auto mfrs broke the law is because it was promulgated with an incredibly short window for developing the technology to allow for radically reduced emissions requirements. Europe's NOx mandated emissions rates were nearly cut in half without adequate time for mfrs to meet those numbers. As a consequence of the stupidity of mandating a strict timeline for tech to develop into commercial production, German car companies simply lied. What else were they going to do? The EU, like CAFE in California has no interest AT ALL in rational, scientific approaches to the things they're supposed to be experts on - air and water quality standards. Hence the idiotic goal of pickups needing to get 35 mpg by X date in CA. It's not going to happen. Driving a 2.25 ton brick that is built to carry heavy stuff carries with it some obvious costs, one of which is sacrificed fuel efficiency. In the same way, though laden with incredible energy per unit, Diesel's carbon is a difficult thing to reckon with when burned. Diesel should be neither a scapegoat for the insanity of government rules nor the savior of humanity's need for transporting itself and associated good around the planet.
You do bring up an excellent point: when politics make unaffordable or impossible rules, it’s also no surprise when the rules get bent or fraud occurs to keep the tax credits and make share flowing their way. We will unfortunately see a lot more of this before the energy transition dies, but it is extremely costly for shareholders when those scandals occur.
However, the main point is that as long as we need diesel- and we very much do- we’ll make gasoline, regardless of if we’re all forced to drive EVs.
Great article. The motto of the story? Central planners really have no idea what they’re doing. It boggles the mind that the world still hasn’t learned this central lesson in the human condition.
Great piece as always 👏. Goes to show utility-the iron law of energy-matters more than policy. Displacement is not the same as reduction. All that ever happens is a game of carbon musical chairs
Thanks for this article. It took my somewhat disjointed knowledge of the subject matter and put it together in a way that makes sense. This is something everyone should understand as it affects all of our lives.
Brilliant analysis with useful history. I worked at Engelhard petroleum catalysts in early 1980s. At that time, you could not “manufacture” diesel (like you turn heavier oil to gasoline with FCC units). Has that changed?
Thank you! So if I understand it, you can have some flexibility with FCC. I attached two articles on FCC and diesel but from those articles, adding hydrogen seems to be the way to go.
I thought it might make the next logical leap & speculate on how the EV push might drive the same substitution, with EV "fuel" (electricity) becoming more costly (assuming the unlikely widespread adoption of EVs ever happens), causing gasoline demand (and relative price versus kilowatts, at least short term) to decline.
When the UK government started trumpeting the "greeness" of diesel in the mid 2000s, my first reaction was "Have these guys ever been anywhere near a diesel engine?" Being of the mindset that if the Government tells you to do something which appears ridiculous it's probably wise to do the opposite in 2007 I bought a 2005 plate petrol Skoda Octavia Estate with 3500 miles on the clock. I still have it and it has 218000+ miles on the clock. In 2008 my parents bought a diesel Citroen C4 which when they stopped driving they passed onto my wife. Guess which of these cars can go into the ULEZ zone in London?
These people are completely blind to the stupidity of their pronouncements.
Yes, don't believe a word Sadiq Khan says. I don't live in London so don't have suffer his fiefdom except when I have to travel down that way, but Londoners keep voting for him, so they've made their bed etc etc.
Problems get solved effectively when the free market can operate on the problem with a profit margin in mind.
The issue here is that the "problem" is the suspect notion of manmade climate change. Politicians dictate "solutions" to a questionable problem and then discover that the solutions are actually worse. Government needs to worry about tangible problems in their sphere (public safety, international affairs etc) and let the market deal with the rest of the problems.
I always understood the reason for European preference for diesel was fuel economy. Back in the day diesel was cheaper than gas and since diesel engines are more efficient (higher compression ratio) the lower fuel costs with diesel outweighed the greater upfront cost. Since gas was much cheaper in the US, diesels never caught on here. Increased diesel demand in Europe meant gasoline eventually became cheaper than diesel.
Side note, diesel is not much more energy dense than diesel. Diesel engines are more efficient, that means more work can be produced from a gallon of diesel, as opposed to more energy.
Part of the fuel price in Europe is influenced by taxes. In most of Europe, taxes were set lower on diesel than gasoline. When you add the fact that diesel is 10-20% more energy dense than gasoline, that post-tax price difference starts to add up.
Plus, the EU set co2 emissions standards which pushed automakers towards diesels, etc.
Diesel engines are wondering machines. But the reason the EU pushed for them was an attempt to reduce gasoline consumption. It didn’t work as planned and it should be a real world warning to those that think replacing gasoline cars with EVs will result in wiping out gasoline production.
I think I see what you are getting at with energy density. In terms of energy per unit mass gasoline and diesel are the same (see link). Weight is what counts as far as performance is concerned. But since diesel has a higher mass density, it yields more energy (and more CO2) per unit volume, and since it is sold by volume rather than weight that matter economically. Greenhouse gas emissions would *not* be affected by energy density, though it could be affected by the greater efficiency of high compression ratio diesel engines.
Do you have a source for greenhouse gases being the reason?
You are right. They did think going to diesel was a way to reduce CO2 emissions, though I wonder if they were lying all the time.
I looked up composition data on gas vs. diesel. Assuming that the CO2 emitted comes from the carbon in the fuel, which seems reasonable I get the following figures for energy per kg of CO2 emitted
Diesel: 14.0 MJ/kg CO2
Gas: 13.8 MJ/kg CO2
There is essentially no difference between the two fuels in terms of the amount of CO2 generated per unit of CO2. The only way diesel can be better is if we focus on the useful energy (work) generated in which case the efficient is what matters, it has nothing to do with energy density. But the way this is presented in the article you gave you would think it was something inherent in the fuel and not the kind of engine.
In this case any reduction would be the result of higher efficiency, but this assume people wouldn't be buying diesel for the greater power you can get for the same fuel consumption, in which case, there goes any CO2 reductions.
Since this is bloody obvious to anyone who has had a high school chemistry course, I find it suspicious that the policy makers were actually serious about CO2 reduction and suspect they were simply faking it.
So you’re spot on that diesel isn’t the slam dunk, and in fact, unlikely to have any real impact on CO2 emissions. However, the EU environmental agencies claims it did from power train efficiency, etc. But that whole issue with CO2 emissions is part of the whole scandal and the misrepresentation from both politicians and from many business involved.
Now we are on the same page. But you said it was greater energy density for diesel that was thought to provide the greenhouse benefit. This implies that it is some characteristic of diesel compared to gasoline that provided this potential benefit, rather than what you put the fuel into.
This is critical different. If it was the former, the benefit would be achieved by changing fuels, independently of human behavior. If the later it was all about humans behaving the way you want them to, which is always a dicey thing.
Hence they were kidding themselves or outright lying.
So the scandal was a combination of the standard tests and the way VW attempted to pass the tests. To help understand the question better, 0.24 of what?
Wonderful piece! Thanks. At the end of the day it seems to me that the political elites are vastly better at virtue signalling than at doing anything with real, net, global impact.
Thank you!
I might argue that given the political elites have demonstrated they have absolutely zero understanding of physics, chemistry or reality, they will never be able to do anything other than virtue signal.
Well as they seem to be in support of "Abracadabra! Tracey!" they certainly have no grasp of reality.
Well said.
Heard a truthful one-liner yesterday about EVs:
People who buy an EV should also buy a dog, so that when they run out of power, they'll have someone to walk home with them.
😂😂😂
Interesting piece, particularly as regards the overproduction of gasoline due to the incentives/rules and fees on its use. One note, the scandal that ensnared VW, then more quietly Merc and finally Audi is a false narrative that was readily consumed by pop media. The core reason that auto mfrs broke the law is because it was promulgated with an incredibly short window for developing the technology to allow for radically reduced emissions requirements. Europe's NOx mandated emissions rates were nearly cut in half without adequate time for mfrs to meet those numbers. As a consequence of the stupidity of mandating a strict timeline for tech to develop into commercial production, German car companies simply lied. What else were they going to do? The EU, like CAFE in California has no interest AT ALL in rational, scientific approaches to the things they're supposed to be experts on - air and water quality standards. Hence the idiotic goal of pickups needing to get 35 mpg by X date in CA. It's not going to happen. Driving a 2.25 ton brick that is built to carry heavy stuff carries with it some obvious costs, one of which is sacrificed fuel efficiency. In the same way, though laden with incredible energy per unit, Diesel's carbon is a difficult thing to reckon with when burned. Diesel should be neither a scapegoat for the insanity of government rules nor the savior of humanity's need for transporting itself and associated good around the planet.
You do bring up an excellent point: when politics make unaffordable or impossible rules, it’s also no surprise when the rules get bent or fraud occurs to keep the tax credits and make share flowing their way. We will unfortunately see a lot more of this before the energy transition dies, but it is extremely costly for shareholders when those scandals occur.
However, the main point is that as long as we need diesel- and we very much do- we’ll make gasoline, regardless of if we’re all forced to drive EVs.
Very good and thought provoking point
Great article. The motto of the story? Central planners really have no idea what they’re doing. It boggles the mind that the world still hasn’t learned this central lesson in the human condition.
Thank you and yes, I’m sure we’ll have to relearn that lesson again!
Great piece as always 👏. Goes to show utility-the iron law of energy-matters more than policy. Displacement is not the same as reduction. All that ever happens is a game of carbon musical chairs
thank you!
Love the trail mix analogy
I must have been hungry when I initially wrote it!
Excellent teaching article. A must read.
Thanks for this article. It took my somewhat disjointed knowledge of the subject matter and put it together in a way that makes sense. This is something everyone should understand as it affects all of our lives.
Thank you!
Brilliant analysis with useful history. I worked at Engelhard petroleum catalysts in early 1980s. At that time, you could not “manufacture” diesel (like you turn heavier oil to gasoline with FCC units). Has that changed?
Thank you! So if I understand it, you can have some flexibility with FCC. I attached two articles on FCC and diesel but from those articles, adding hydrogen seems to be the way to go.
https://refiningcommunity.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Diesel-Creation-in-the-FCC-Centered-Refinery-Niccum-KBR-FCCU-Galveston-2013.pdf
This was seriously informative.
I thought it might make the next logical leap & speculate on how the EV push might drive the same substitution, with EV "fuel" (electricity) becoming more costly (assuming the unlikely widespread adoption of EVs ever happens), causing gasoline demand (and relative price versus kilowatts, at least short term) to decline.
Maybe next time.
Yes! That could be interesting!
When the UK government started trumpeting the "greeness" of diesel in the mid 2000s, my first reaction was "Have these guys ever been anywhere near a diesel engine?" Being of the mindset that if the Government tells you to do something which appears ridiculous it's probably wise to do the opposite in 2007 I bought a 2005 plate petrol Skoda Octavia Estate with 3500 miles on the clock. I still have it and it has 218000+ miles on the clock. In 2008 my parents bought a diesel Citroen C4 which when they stopped driving they passed onto my wife. Guess which of these cars can go into the ULEZ zone in London?
These people are completely blind to the stupidity of their pronouncements.
Thoughts on this older sky news article relating to the ULEZ?
https://news.sky.com/story/londons-ultra-low-emission-zone-resulting-in-only-marginal-air-quality-improvements-12469903
Yes, don't believe a word Sadiq Khan says. I don't live in London so don't have suffer his fiefdom except when I have to travel down that way, but Londoners keep voting for him, so they've made their bed etc etc.
It’s amazing how policies flip flop around!
It's what happens when policies are set by fashion rather than facts.
Problems get solved effectively when the free market can operate on the problem with a profit margin in mind.
The issue here is that the "problem" is the suspect notion of manmade climate change. Politicians dictate "solutions" to a questionable problem and then discover that the solutions are actually worse. Government needs to worry about tangible problems in their sphere (public safety, international affairs etc) and let the market deal with the rest of the problems.
Great piece. Important information. If EU needs to rationalize their activities, they just change the taxonomy: Wood plugs become renewable, voila.
Superbly written!
Ain’t it funny when the plans of the Noble Anointed don’t work?!
I always understood the reason for European preference for diesel was fuel economy. Back in the day diesel was cheaper than gas and since diesel engines are more efficient (higher compression ratio) the lower fuel costs with diesel outweighed the greater upfront cost. Since gas was much cheaper in the US, diesels never caught on here. Increased diesel demand in Europe meant gasoline eventually became cheaper than diesel.
Side note, diesel is not much more energy dense than diesel. Diesel engines are more efficient, that means more work can be produced from a gallon of diesel, as opposed to more energy.
So a couple things to answer your points:
Part of the fuel price in Europe is influenced by taxes. In most of Europe, taxes were set lower on diesel than gasoline. When you add the fact that diesel is 10-20% more energy dense than gasoline, that post-tax price difference starts to add up.
Plus, the EU set co2 emissions standards which pushed automakers towards diesels, etc.
Diesel engines are wondering machines. But the reason the EU pushed for them was an attempt to reduce gasoline consumption. It didn’t work as planned and it should be a real world warning to those that think replacing gasoline cars with EVs will result in wiping out gasoline production.
I think I see what you are getting at with energy density. In terms of energy per unit mass gasoline and diesel are the same (see link). Weight is what counts as far as performance is concerned. But since diesel has a higher mass density, it yields more energy (and more CO2) per unit volume, and since it is sold by volume rather than weight that matter economically. Greenhouse gas emissions would *not* be affected by energy density, though it could be affected by the greater efficiency of high compression ratio diesel engines.
Do you have a source for greenhouse gases being the reason?
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fossil-fuels-energy-content-d_1298.html
Here are multiple links on the EUs attempt to reduce CO2 emissions by switching from gasoline to diesel.
Links include a report from the EUs own environmental agency, and multiple news outlets.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X21003322#:~:text=European%20dieselization%2C%20i.e.%20the%20sustained,CO2%20emissions%20from%20passenger%20cars.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-retrospective-trend-analysis-1990-2008/download
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/topic_report_2002_7/download
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-25-15
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/the-rise-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution
You are right. They did think going to diesel was a way to reduce CO2 emissions, though I wonder if they were lying all the time.
I looked up composition data on gas vs. diesel. Assuming that the CO2 emitted comes from the carbon in the fuel, which seems reasonable I get the following figures for energy per kg of CO2 emitted
Diesel: 14.0 MJ/kg CO2
Gas: 13.8 MJ/kg CO2
There is essentially no difference between the two fuels in terms of the amount of CO2 generated per unit of CO2. The only way diesel can be better is if we focus on the useful energy (work) generated in which case the efficient is what matters, it has nothing to do with energy density. But the way this is presented in the article you gave you would think it was something inherent in the fuel and not the kind of engine.
In this case any reduction would be the result of higher efficiency, but this assume people wouldn't be buying diesel for the greater power you can get for the same fuel consumption, in which case, there goes any CO2 reductions.
Since this is bloody obvious to anyone who has had a high school chemistry course, I find it suspicious that the policy makers were actually serious about CO2 reduction and suspect they were simply faking it.
https://www.iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/diesel_gasoline/#:~:text=Gasoline%20and%20diesel%20fuel%20contain,changes%20somewhat%20depending%20on%20composition.
So you’re spot on that diesel isn’t the slam dunk, and in fact, unlikely to have any real impact on CO2 emissions. However, the EU environmental agencies claims it did from power train efficiency, etc. But that whole issue with CO2 emissions is part of the whole scandal and the misrepresentation from both politicians and from many business involved.
It was a scandal on so many levels.
Now we are on the same page. But you said it was greater energy density for diesel that was thought to provide the greenhouse benefit. This implies that it is some characteristic of diesel compared to gasoline that provided this potential benefit, rather than what you put the fuel into.
This is critical different. If it was the former, the benefit would be achieved by changing fuels, independently of human behavior. If the later it was all about humans behaving the way you want them to, which is always a dicey thing.
Hence they were kidding themselves or outright lying.
Was the VW "scandal" over a .24 difference in testing?
So the scandal was a combination of the standard tests and the way VW attempted to pass the tests. To help understand the question better, 0.24 of what?