Vincent Kwasniewski: Stationary Source GHG Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Operations: Implications for Higher Level Ethanol Blends

Vincent Kwasniewski: Stationary Source GHG Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Operations: Implications for Higher Level Ethanol Blends

• 1.
  Stationary Source GHGEmissions from Petroleum Refinery Operations: Implications for Higher Level Ethanol Blends February 17, 2016 National Ethanol Conference New Orleans, LA Dr. Vincent Kwasniewski President Confluence Consulting LLC
• 2.
  Objective 2 Moving to higherlevel ethanol blends: what would be the impact on stationary source emissions of greenhouse gases from oil refineries?
• 3.
  The Broader Context 3DataSource: M. Wang, et. al. (2014) 12% of the GHG emissions “LCA Stack” -13 4 31 4 14 10 9 Bio-refining Transportation Combustion Farming Fertilizer N2O Fertilizer Production Land Use Change 60 gCO2eq/MJ 73.3 11.2 5.5 Combustion Refining Crude Recovery Transportation 93 gCO2eq/MJ Refinery BOB Fuel Ethanol (from corn starch) N E T
• 4.
  Natural Gas & Utilities Reformer Isomerizatio nUnit Alkylation Unit BOB Blending Catalytic Cracking Unit Model PADD 2 Refinery 4 D I S T I L L A T I O N Crude Distillate Hydrotreater Gas Oil Hydrotreater Coker Naphtha Hydrotreater Distillate Blending Other Products
• 5.
  Petroleum Refinery Planning 5 Profit VariableB Variable A Optimum • “Linear Programming” (LP) tools & methodology • Many physical, market, & regulatory constraints Optimum constrained by A Min A Constraint Optimum constrained by A & B Min B Constraint
• 6.
  Refinery BOB versusFuel Ethanol 6 Ethanol: • Single component • Fixed blending properties Refinery BOB: • Many components • Many refinery streams • Variable blending properties which vary with refinery, season, and market factors Composition by component Fuel Ethanol Refinery A Summer Refinery B Winter Broad Distribution of Hydro- carbons Broad Distribution of Hydro- carbons
• 7.
  Gasoline Blending 7 Refinery BOB Ethanol Refinery Stream A Refinery StreamB Purchases
• 8.
  Refinery Emissions StudyMethodology • Hypothetical end state where all gasoline contains high levels of ethanol – no transition analysis: 8  E10 base case plus eight “corners” of an octane × ethanol content × gasoline pool volume space  Survey study only - ethanol blend levels and the minimum octane specifications are not to be taken as recommended values Ethanol Content Octane Rating Gasoline Pool E20 88 AKI Equal Volume E30 97 AKI Equal Energy Base Case E10 88 AKI • 2011 Energy Information Agency projections for 2017 with Oil & Gas Journal published unit capacities • Modeled with detailed PADD 2 refinery operational planning tools and methodology from Jacobs Consultancy
• 9.
  Refinery Unit OperationsResults • Cat cracker throughput  (make less gasoline) • Reformer throughput  (make less octane) 9 Max octane: Current octane: • Cat cracker throughput , but less so (make less gasoline) • Reformer throughput  (make more octane)
• 10.
  Gasoline Blending Results Lowoctane requirements  Reformate  / naphtha  High octane requirements  Reformate  / naphtha  10
• 11.
  Refinery Greenhouse GasEmissions Increased levels of ethanol in finished gasoline resulted in significantly lower GHG emissions in refining 11
• 12.
  Refinery Greenhouse GasEmissions 12 Decreased GHG emissions in refining due to both extensive effects (lower crude run) AND intensive effects (lower emissions per barrel of crude)
• 13.
  Conclusions and Implications •GHG emissions caused by the refining process vary significantly with ethanol content and minimum octane specifications in finished gasoline • Using a fixed GHG emissions intensity for BOB is incorrect  ethanol content and minimum octane specifications should also be factors in determining the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with higher level blends of ethanol • Changes in refinery operations could also have implications for other environmental policies: • CAFE standards compliance • Tier 3 compliance (sulfur) • regulation of stationary source and vehicular toxic air emissions • possible future stationary source GHG emissions regulations 13
• 14.
  Thank You! Key referenceson refinery greenhouse gas emissions: • Kwasniewski, V., Blieszner, J. and Nelson, R. (2015), Petroleum refinery greenhouse gas emission variations related to higher ethanol blends at different gasoline octane rating and pool volume levels. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref.. doi: 10.1002/bbb.1612 • Han, Jeongwoo, Elgowainy, Amgad, Michael Wang and Vincent Divita (2015), Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of High-Octane Fuels with Various Market Shares and Ethanol Blend Levels. United States. doi:10.2172/1212715. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/1212715 • Hirshfeld, D.S., Kobl, J.A., Anderson, J.E., Studzinski, W. and Frusti, J. (2014), Refining Economics of U.S. Gasoline: Octane Ratings and Ethanol Content. Environmental Science & Technology 48, 11064-11071. doi: 10.1021/es5021668 • Speth, R.L., Chow, E.W., Malina, R., Barrett, S.R.H., Heywood, J.B., Green, W.H. (2014), Economic and Environmental Benefits of Higher-Octane Gasoline. Environmental Science & Technology 48, 6561-6568. doi: 10.1021/es405557p 14