1 / 12

A 2 nd O pinion on Ethanol Denaturant

A 2 nd O pinion on Ethanol Denaturant. Presented to: Air Resources Board Meeting to Discuss Issues Relating to the California Phase 3 RFG Regulations July 25, 2000 by Cal Hodge, President A 2 nd O pinion, Inc. RFA Suggested Fuel Ethanol Specifications (6/15/00).

colton-stanley
Download Presentation

A 2 nd O pinion on Ethanol Denaturant

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A2nd Opinion onEthanol Denaturant Presented to: Air Resources Board Meeting to Discuss Issues Relating to the California Phase 3 RFG Regulations July 25, 2000 by Cal Hodge, President A 2nd Opinion, Inc.

  2. RFA Suggested Fuel Ethanol Specifications (6/15/00)

  3. Implied Denaturant Specifications are Worse than CaRFG3

  4. WHY.......? • California needs alkylate imports • California needs to export light olefinic aromatic stocks

  5. Results: No MTBE + ARB Proposal - Imports

  6. Results: No MTBE + ARB Proposal - Exports

  7. Why Accept Denaturant Worse than CaRFG3?

  8. Additional Specifications • To do no harm, the denaturant’s RVP specification needs to be a maximum of 7.0 psi. • Because California needs to import alkylate with a midpoint above the CaRFG3 specifications, I recommendyou notlimit midpoint or, if you must, use the cap limit of 220oF.

  9. Proposed Denaturant Specifications Match CaRFG3

  10. Blendstocks that Fit • CARFG3 • Some desulfurized reformer feeds • Raffinate fromaromatics extraction • Alkylate

  11. Economics • If the clean denaturant costs 20¢/gal. more than the current witch’s brew, it adds one pennyto the delivered ethanol cost. • Most of this comes back as California refiners fine tunethe base stock.

  12. Conclusion Why denature ethanol with undesirable blendstocks when ethanol producers only have to find one tank car of clean denaturant for every 20 tank cars of ethanol shipped to California? Why import a blendstock you would not import if it were not commingled with ethanol?

More Related