Have you ever wondered why are there so
many cars with diesel engines in Europe, and why did diesel
cars experience a sales boom that lasted for almost 20 years
in Europe, and why this phenomenon didn't occur in pretty much any
other major car market in the world. The usual explanation behind
this is that it's a combination of consumer preference and tax
benefits. Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't tell even a
fraction of the story, so that's why today I'll tell you the full
story of how and why diesel cars became so popular in Europe. I will
present evidence of how, in this case, consumer preference is just a construct. And how the mass dieselization
of Europe is a result of government actions. And we will
also learn about the long-term consequences of these actions for
European citizens. And finally, we will talk about some truly
frightening and eye-opening lessons we can learn from Europe's
experience with diesel cars. Our story begins way back in 1973 with
the first oil crisis which occurred when the organization of Arab petroleum
exporting countries or OPEC initiated a total oil embargo against countries
that had supported Israel during the fourth Arab-Israeli war.
"The oil-producing countries of the Arab world decided to use
their oil as a political weapon. The result was a shock and dramatic
shortage of crude oil that caused the price of a barrel of oil and derived
products to increase by 300% shortly after the embargo was put into place
The 1973 oil crisis has been a pivotal moment for the
global automotive industry but also global energy markets, as
well as politics and economy. The shock and sheer inconvenience
of the crisis made many countries around the world completely change
their approach toward energy France is perhaps one of the most
illustrative examples. At the time of the oil crisis most of
France's electricity came from foreign oil. Oil was also widely used
for heating. When the oil shock struck, France realized just how
dependent they are on foreign oil and so as a direct result of this
on the 6th of March of 1974, French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer
announced what became known as the 'Messmer Plan'. A hugely ambitious nuclear
power program aimed at generating most of France's electricity
from nuclear power. Nuclear power allowed France to compensate
for its lack of energy resources by applying its strengths in engineering. The
situation was summarized in a slogan "In France, we do not have
oil but we have ideas". Germany too realized their dependence
on foreign energy sources but attempts at nuclear power plant
construction were met with great public resistance
One of the best-remembered demonstrations managed to prevent the
construction of a nuclear power plant in Wyhl in 1975. The police
were accused of using unnecessarily violent means against the
protesters, but these protests ultimately managed to inspire strong
nuclear opposition throughout Germany which prevented the construction
of new plants. Faced with such opposition, Germany decided
to substitute one substance addiction with another
They switched from crude oil to natural gas, most of which came from Russia
But this transition from crude oil to alternative sources of energy
created a problem for European oil companies and their refineries.
An oil refinery like the one you can see here, behind me, is
essentially a big distillery. What it does, is that it boils crude
oil and collects vapors in a tall column. Different oil-derived products
have different boiling points and so they liquify at different
heights in the column. The result of this process is that a
typical barrel of crude oil inevitably creates a range of different
products. In other words, it is impossible to obtain only gasoline, or
only diesel, or only any other single product from a barrel of crude oil
If we did that, we would be left with a very large quantity of unused crude oil, and of course, no nobody wants that. So instead, what we
do is that we create a range of different products from a barrel and then each of these products has its own market and its own application. The problem with the European oil processing industry in the
years after the 1973 oil crisis was that they no
longer had buyers for their heavy distillates, because
the energy generation and the heating industries
had transitioned to different sources. Now, German oil processing
giant Aral was actually very transparent and public about the situation
and they stated the following: "Combined production requires the sale of certain
amounts of gasoline and middle distillates. Since heavy oil sales are declining,
this share has to be marketed as diesel after appropriate conversion"
So to sum it up, diesel was around 40% of the output of the European oil giants,
but they didn't have a market for it But oil refineries weren't the only
ones impacted by the oil crisis Vehicle manufacturers also suffered
because the dramatic increase in fuel prices led to a dramatic decrease
in car sales. So manufacturers sought to offer buyers more
fuel-efficient alternatives in the form of vehicles with diesel engines which are
naturally more fuel-efficient than their gasoline counterparts. The main reason
behind this being that diesel engines naturally operate at noticeably higher compression ratios.
They don't need a homogeneous air-fuel mixture and don't require a throttle body to function,
which means that they can run at very lean air fuel ratios and don't suffer
from pumping losses. Some manufacturers like Peugeot
were fortunate to already have a diesel option in their
model range in 1973. But others like Volkswagen had no diesel offerings, so to
save time and money, Volkswagen converted an existing EA827 Audi gasoline
engine into a diesel version. To withstand the higher stresses
present in a diesel engine, the crankshaft, connecting rods,
pistons and piston pins, as well as the cylinder head, and timing
belt were reinforced or redesigned. Swirl chambers were added to the
cylinder head and in the place previously occupied by the ignition distributor,
now was a vacuum pump for the brake booster The Volkswagen Golf diesel
entered the market in 1976. The diesel engine was heavier, noisier
and less powerful than its gasoline counterpart, but it was also more fuel-efficient
Most early diesel cars were in general met with mixed reviews, but oil companies
were quick to see the potential because with a little work, this could be
the ideal market for their diesel fuels Car manufacturers also saw a potentially
profitable arrangement because the improved fuel economy of
diesel cars allowed manufacturers to charge a premium for them. Because in
the long run the improved fuel economy would offset the increased vehicle
cost and allow savings for consumers But car manufacturers were not ready to
undertake such a massive risk so easily. They were not ready to invest enormous
amounts of research and development without knowing that there
would be sufficient demand for their products. They wanted
governments to create incentives which would guarantee this demand
They wanted governments to create the kind of incentives that would make dieselvehicles attractive and sensible not just to taxi drivers or delivery vehicles, but to the
average car buyer as well. So, oil refineries and car manufacturers
started to lobby the governments But the governments could not
respond to the demands of these key players in the economic and
political stage of Europe without some sort of justification for
the privileged tax treatment of diesel fuel and diesel vehicles. So
the governments proceeded to create the justification for the kind
of incentives that the oil industry and automobile industry had in mind.
Enter the 1996 Auto Oil program. This was essentially a joint effort of the European
Commission, the European oil industry, and European automobile industry, with the goal
of creating an assessment of future trends in CO2 emissions, and air pollution,
as well as vehicle technology. And then creating a framework for
policies and regulations based on this combination of research,
estimates, and predictions If you take the time to read through
this seemingly incredibly boring and repetitive document, you will find how
it sets the stage for presenting diesel vehicles as a key tool in reducing
CO2 emissions in the future This is justified by the fact
that diesel engines and diesel vehicles are more fuel-efficient, and
thus offer reduced CO2 emissions. At the same time, the document is very
optimistic about how easy it will be to reduce nitrogen
oxide and particulate matter emissions from diesel engines in the future
The auto oil program was followed up in 1998 by a voluntary agreement between European
Commission and European Automobile Manufacturers Association or ACEA. This
new agreement sought to achieve an average of 140 g/km of CO2 by 2008
from new passenger vehicles manufactured by members of ACEA. This reduction in CO2
was presented as an equivalent fuel economy of 5.8 L/100 km for petrol and 5.2 L/100 km for
diesel engines. Upon signing the agreement many manufacturers were quick to admit how they plan to
achieve the target fuel economies, these new averages by expanding their offer
of vehicles with diesel engines and developing new diesel engines,
and/or further technologically advancing their existing diesel
engines. Because achieving these fuel economies were simply easier
and more cost-effective with diesel engines. Some manufacturers
even went so far as to advocate a switch to diesels as an essential component
of any strategy to cut CO2 emissions In the year 2000, we got the Auto Oil
2 program, which builds upon the conclusions of Auto Oil 1 with more
optimism about the ease of reducing nitrogen oxide and particulate
matter emissions, and about the CO2 reduction benefits of diesels
Based on these reports and agreements, governments of most countries in the
European Union started modifying their legislation. Initially, it was
just reduced taxes on diesel fuel, but soon many countries like France and Spain followed up with reduced taxes on diesel vehicles
as well. On top of this, emission standards for nitrogen oxide were made less
stringent for diesel engines. Euro 1 standards which came in force
in 1992 set the same hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide limits for petrol
and diesel engines, as it was with most other emission standards
around the world. But subsequent Euro 2, Euro 3, and Euro 4,
all allowed noticeably higher nitrogen oxide limits for diesel
engines. This made emissions control requirements less demanding and
less expensive for diesels. Most other countries around the world kept
nitrogen oxide limits equal or nearly equal for gasoline and diesel engines
And so legislation made it cheaper for manufacturers to develop diesel-engined
cars, while at the same time they could charge more for such cars, due
to the fact that they offered better fuel economy. And on top
of everything, manufacturers could claim that they are green and
saving the world because allegedly diesel engines were reducing our carbon footprint.
And thus the stage was set for manufacturers to pour most of their R&D
efforts into diesel engines Early diesel engines for passenger cars
weren't that impressive. They were slow, rough, and noisy, but after a lot of research
and development, manufacturers started churning out engines like this one.
You could still tell it's a diesel But they were infinitely more refined,
and more importantly, much more powerful Turbocharging a technology
which is especially suitable for diesel engines was one of the key reasons
behind the improved performance. I remember back in the early 2000s when turbo diesels
became more common, naturally aspirated petrol engines of equivalent
displacement, which were previously the norm for passenger cars, all of a
sudden started looking kind of silly, because not only did the turbo diesels
have noticeably improved fuel economy, in the real world, they
were also actually faster. Because with a turbo diesel, you never have to strain the
engine to make progress, there is always ample torque available on
to even from the lowest of RPM. So overtaking, merging onto
highways, long-distance travel, all of that becomes a breeze
Faced with reduced taxation, improved fuel economy, and better performance, and
drivability in the real world, many buyers started switching to diesel
engined cars. But if we look at the data, it becomes obvious how
dieselization was never a matter of user preference or different
tastes in Europe and the US, or other countries. If we compare Europe
and Japan as an example, we can observe very similar low rates of diesel share in
the market. The markets only start diverging when European legislation started
strongly favoring diesels and creating incentives for buyers
If we observe Europe on a country by country basis, we can
see that diesel adoption is highest in countries like France,
for example, where legislation and taxation was very favorable
for diesels. Diesel vehicle percentages remained noticeably lower
where incentives were lower too But initially, it appeared
that the mass dieselisation of Europe was a win for everyone, because oil
companies, they got a market for their diesel, car manufacturers got higher profits, consumers
got better cars, CO2 emissions got reduced. Almost sounds too good to be
true. Well unfortunately it soon became obvious that it was too good to be
true, because as time moved on, and emission standards got more stringent,
it became evident that getting diesels to meet these new nitrogen
oxide and particulate matter emission standards despite favorable Euro
emission standards was much harder than originally envisaged by
the Auto Oil 1 and 2 programs And so, manufacturers started reducing
the compression ratio of diesel engines in order to reduce nitrogen oxide
emissions, which sort of defeats the purpose of a diesel engine, because reducing the compression
ratio also reduces efficiency and power output. To restore power, manufacturers then increased
the boost pressure from the turbocharger which led to increased CO2 emissions which ultimately
resulted in equivalent diesel and petrol engines, having pretty much the same power
output and the same CO2 emissions To combat particulate matter
emissions, manufacturers installed DPFs or diesel
particulate filters. A device that captured particulate matter and
burned it off, but also got clogged if the vehicle was mostly driven in
the city, leading to noticeably increased maintenance costs
On paper, reduced compression ratios and DPFs allow diesel engines to
meet newest Euro emission standards. On paper
In real world conditions, things were very different. But
the diesel deal was simply too good to let go. So governments
around Europe kept weak and inadequate emissions testing in place
to make it seem like diesel engines were passing emissions. The NEDC or
New European Driving Cycle was a testing methodology last updated in 1997.
It is a largely based on laboratory testing in a very controlled and unrealistic environment,
where the vehicle is ran on a rolling road This methodology failed to simulate
real driving, real-world driving conditions, leading to emissions and
fuel economy figures which were noticeably lower than those in the real world
Despite repeated criticism from both, journalists and scientists,
this testing methodology was kept in force, and not
updated for more than a decade. Because it allowed manufacturers to
keep manufacturing and selling diesel engines. But in 2015, it became
evident just how far manufacturers were stretching the
truth with diesel engines, when it was discovered that Volkswagen had
to cheat to pass US emissions testing They had reprogrammed their vehicles, to be
able to detect when they are being emissions tested and then run their engines
in a reduced performance mode, in order to generate reduced
emissions, and pass the testing. When being driven in normal, everyday
conditions, these diesel engines were actually emitting 14
times more nitrogen oxides than the allowable US limit, and three
times more than the Euro 5 emission standard. When this was discovered, the
dieselgate scandal ensued Volkswagen was fined billions, and millions of
vehicles were recalled. Most owners decided to sell their vehicle, as
performance, fuel economy, and responsiveness after the recall was
noticeably reduced. Investigations into other manufacturers also
followed, and it was discovered that the majority of diesel-engined
cars on the market displayed massive emission differences
between real-world and laboratory testing. As one of the consequences
of dieselgate NEDC testing was finally abandoned in Europe, and
replaced with the Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedures or WLTP
Another laboratory test, but one that was actually based on a global
statistical survey of real human driving profiles. And not made up
artificial and unrealistic ones Euro 6 emission standards finally
implemented nearly identical nitrogen oxide and particulate
matter limits for diesel and gasoline engines. To meet them, diesel
engines needed to inject diesel exhaust fluid into the exhaust
stream which was yet another complex and expensive system added
to diesel vehicles, which also created an added maintenance cost
for owners, because diesel exhaust fluid is stored in a separate tank,
and must be topped up by the owner. But the most depressing fact is that the mass
dieselisation of Europe failed to reduce CO2 emissions. If we compare Europe
and Japan once again, we can see how Japan in the long run was more
successful in reducing its CO2 emissions, because its legislation
favored hybrid vehicles, which are, of course, made in great numbers
by Japan's largest automaker: Toyota New research has clearly
demonstrated that Europe's carbon footprint from its passenger transport would have
remained the same, if the market share of diesels remained on the level from
the early '90s. So we could have had the same carbon footprint but
without the extra nitrogen oxides and particulate matter
And so after dieselgate shed a light on reality,
that which was once heralded as a savior of the environment was now demonized
Diesels were dirty once again. Legislation was reverted in
many countries, sales of diesel vehicles started
falling off while sales of hybrids and electrical vehicles started increasing.
The reign of diesel in Europe was over But what remained in its wake were
millions upon millions of vehicles with failure prone and expensive to
maintain emissions equipment. Many owners chose to not turn in their
vehicle for a recall because they heard how this will negatively impact their performance
and fuel economy. Many owners also deleted their exhaust gas recirculation,
diesel particulate filters, and other emissions control systems, when they
were faced with the extremely high cost of servicing and/or replacing these devices. This is,
of course, especially true in countries where emissions controls and technical inspections are
less stringent and/or easier to bypass The end result is that the dieselization
of Europe not only failed to reduce CO2 emissions, but it exposed
European citizens to dramatically increased levels of nitrogen oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter emissions. Nitrogen
oxides negatively impact the environment because they react
with other elements and form smog and acid rains. But their impact
isn't limited to the environment They also dangerous to humans. In
the past 5 years, a great amount of scientific research and evidence
has surfaced, which has presented undeniable evidence of the
chronic health effects from long-term exposure to elevated
levels of nitrogen dioxide. A chemical compound that is produced in higher percentage by more modern diesel engines. Nitrogen dioxide has been associated with both low birth weights and small head circumferences. It has also been associated
with increased mental illness in children, autism spectrum disorders,
and slow overall development in children The European Environmental Agency
calculated that in 2016, nitrogen dioxide pollution was responsible for
an estimated 71,000 premature deaths across wider Europe. This pollution is
largely attributable to road traffic One of the main consequences of
the mass dieselisation of Europe is that concentrations
of NO2 are above a World Health Organization guidelines across
much of Europe, with 7% of citizens living in areas where
NO2 pollution is so high that it is rapidly deteriorating their health
The picture is equally bleak when it comes to particulate matter which has been linked with
illnesses and deaths from heart and lung disease. The World Health Organization
has collected enough scientific evidence to state that the
most harmful exposure to particulate matter is long-term exposure to
fine particles (PM2.5) and diesel engines are the main sources of
fine particles and increased air pollution in densely populated areas.
The European Environmental Agency estimates that air pollution
is responsible for over 450,000 premature deaths in Europe each year
So the price for Europe's love affair with the diesel engine was not paid
by the governments that started it It was ultimately paid by the
citizens and environment. But as one chapter closes, another one opens
Today the governments of Europe are again modifying legislation and taxation to
favor a different kind of vehicle This time it's the battery-electric
vehicle. With everything that we have experienced with diesel
cars in mind, I truly hope that we have learned some very important
lessons from our diesel episode I hope that this time around the
governments are motivated by the interests of their citizens and
environment, and not the demands of energy companies and car manufacturers
I hope that this time around the reports and estimates are not overly optimistic to
justify a predetermined course of action I hope that this time around they have considered
every possible scenario and side effect I hope that in 20 years time, I can look back on this video and say how there was no
reason for me to be this skeptical So yeah, thanks a lot for
watching, and have a nice day
