A number of studies recently have pointed out that increasing the octane rating of the US gasoline pool (currently ∼93 Research Octane Number (RON)) would enable higher engine efficiency for light-duty vehicles through reducing engine knock constraints, thereby enabling the design of new spark-ignition engines with higher compression ratios and boost levels. (Earlier post.) Such a move would also have significant implications for refineries in the US refining sector, whether the higher octane was achieved via more severe refining operations, increased use of ethanol, or both.
A linear programming analysis of US refining sector by a team from MathPro Inc., Ford, GM and Chrysler has found that, by increasing the volume of ethanol, the refining sector could produce hydrocarbon blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs) yielding finished E20 and E30 gasolines with higher octane ratings at modest additional refining cost (ARC): e.g., ∼1¢/gal for 95-RON E20 or 97-RON E30; 3–5¢/gal for 95-RON E10, 98-RON E20, or 100-RON E30; and 96-RON E10, 99-RON E20, or 101-RON E30 gasoline pools at approximately 10¢/gal.
Achieving higher octane ratings for finished gasoline incurs progressively higher investment and ARC. The price of ethanol relative to gasoline and crude oil were key determinants of the relative costs of the various finished fuels.
The study also found that reduced BOB volume (from displacement by ethanol) and lower BOB octane could (i) lower refinery CO2 emissions (e.g., ∼ 3% for 98-RON E20, ∼ 10% for 100-RON E30) and (ii) reduce crude oil use (e.g., ∼ 3% for 98-RON E20, ∼ 8% for 100-RON E30).
ROCKMAN wrote:Just a note for those folks who think "nationalizing" (i.e. stealing) a foreign company's assets is a big win.
Harper’s response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been similar: a maximum of infantile, simplistic sabre rattling rhetoric with an absolute minimum of reflection on the historical context or even the immediate facts of the situation. This is foreign policy for the willingly – if not willfully – ignorant. We are encouraged – or perhaps enlisted is a better word – to treat facts and history with a disdain bordering on contempt. Facts, context, history and thoughtful anticipation of the consequences of our actions – all of this is for sissies and Putin apologists. The nay-sayers are all Neville Chamberlain clones.
...
And the consequences? Just how is driving Russia away from integration with Europe (which it had been seeking throughout Putin’s rein) and into the arms of the imperial Chinese in Canada’s interests? The $400 billion natural gas deal Putin signed with China – accelerated and made a certainty by NATO’s aggression – will likely kill BC’s dream of billions in LNG investment (a silver lining in my view but hardly a smart move for an “energy super-power”).
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/21/ ... l-to-isis/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 99 guests