ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img

Refining Economics of U.S. Gasoline: Octane Ratings and Ethanol Content

View Author Information
MathPro Inc., P.O. Box 34404, Bethesda, Maryland 20827, United States
Ford Motor Company, MD RIC-2122, P.O. Box 2053, Dearborn, Michigan 48121, United States
General Motors Company, 823 Joslyn Avenue, Pontiac, Michigan 48340, United States
Chrysler Group LLC, CIMS 482-00-71, 800 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326, United States
*Phone: 301-951-9006; e-mail: [email protected]
*Phone: 313-248-6857; e-mail: [email protected]
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 19, 11064–11071
Publication Date (Web):August 21, 2014
https://doi.org/10.1021/es5021668
Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

    Article Views

    1288

    Altmetric

    -

    Citations

    LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
    Other access options
    Supporting Info (1)»

    Abstract

    Abstract Image

    Increasing the octane rating of the U.S. gasoline pool (currently ∼93 Research Octane Number (RON)) would enable higher engine efficiency for light-duty vehicles (e.g., through higher compression ratio), facilitating compliance with federal fuel economy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards. The federal Renewable Fuels Standard calls for increased renewable fuel use in U.S. gasoline, primarily ethanol, a high-octane gasoline component. Linear programming modeling of the U.S. refining sector was used to assess the effects on refining economics, CO2 emissions, and crude oil use of increasing average octane rating by increasing (i) the octane rating of refinery-produced hydrocarbon blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs) and (ii) the volume fraction (Exx) of ethanol in finished gasoline. The analysis indicated the refining sector could produce BOBs yielding finished E20 and E30 gasolines with higher octane ratings at modest additional refining cost, for example, ∼1¢/gal for 95-RON E20 or 97-RON E30, and 3–5¢/gal for 95-RON E10, 98-RON E20, or 100-RON E30. 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).

    Read this article

    To access this article, please review the available access options below.

    Get instant access

    Purchase Access

    Read this article for 48 hours. Check out below using your ACS ID or as a guest.

    Recommended

    Access through Your Institution

    You may have access to this article through your institution.

    Your institution does not have access to this content. You can change your affiliated institution below.

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    Further details on the methodology, detailed regional and national-level results, sensitivity analyses, and discussion. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.

    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

    Cited By

    This article is cited by 30 publications.

    1. David S. Hirshfeld, Jeffrey A. Kolb, James E. Anderson, Asim Iqbal, Michael E. Moore, William M. Studzinski, Ian Sutherland. Refining Economics of Higher Octane Sensitivity, Research Octane Number and Ethanol Content for U.S. Gasoline. Energy & Fuels 2021, 35 (18) , 14816-14827. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c00247
    2. James E. Anderson, Timothy J. Wallington. Novel Method to Estimate the Octane Ratings of Ethanol–Gasoline Mixtures Using Base Fuel Properties. Energy & Fuels 2020, 34 (4) , 4632-4642. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b04204
    3. Thomas G. Leone, James E. Anderson, Richard S. Davis, Asim Iqbal, Ronald A. Reese, II, Michael H. Shelby, and William M. Studzinski . The Effect of Compression Ratio, Fuel Octane Rating, and Ethanol Content on Spark-Ignition Engine Efficiency. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (18) , 10778-10789. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01420
    4. Adriana Estrada León, Leidy Marcela Ulloa-Murillo, Stef Ghysels, Daniel Nowakowski, Wolter Prins, Frederik Ronsse. 2-Methylfuran from pinewood by molten-salt hydropyrolysis and catalytic hydrogenation of the furfural intermediate. Sustainable Energy & Fuels 2024, 48 https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SE00106K
    5. Nursulu Kuzhagaliyeva, Samuel Horváth, John Williams, Andre Nicolle, S. Mani Sarathy. Artificial intelligence-driven design of fuel mixtures. Communications Chemistry 2022, 5 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-022-00722-3
    6. R. Otto, R. Ferraz-Almeida, G.M. Sanches, I.P. Lisboa, M.R. Cherubin. Nitrogen fertilizer consumption and nitrous oxide emissions associated with ethanol production – A national-scale comparison between Brazilian sugarcane and corn in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 350 , 131482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131482
    7. Yuan Jiang, Steven D. Phillips, Avantika Singh, Susanne B. Jones, Daniel J. Gaspar. Potential economic values of low-vapor-pressure gasoline-range bio-blendstocks: Property estimation and blending optimization. Fuel 2021, 297 , 120759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.120759
    8. Tamer M.M. Abdellatief, Mikhail A. Ershov, Vladimir M. Kapustin, Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem, Mohammed Kamil, A.G. Olabi. Recent trends for introducing promising fuel components to enhance the anti-knock quality of gasoline: A systematic review. Fuel 2021, 291 , 120112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.120112
    9. Xiaorong Wang, Ning Wei, Ji Gao, Jun Yan, Genzhu Jiang. Evaporation Characteristics of Ethanol Diesel Droplets Containing Nanoparticles. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Science) 2021, 26 (2) , 201-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12204-021-2280-x
    10. Mikhail A. Ershov, Ekaterina V. Grigorieva, Tamer M.M. Abdellatief, Elena A. Chernysheva, Dmitry Yu Makhin, Vladimir M. Kapustin. A new approach for producing mid-ethanol fuels E30 based on low-octane hydrocarbon surrogate blends. Fuel Processing Technology 2021, 213 , 106688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106688
    11. Marcelo Gonçalves Martins, Tiago da Silva Arouche, Abel Ferreira Gomes Neto, Jorddy Neves da Cruz, Fabio Luiz Paranhos da Costa, Lindemberg Lima Fernandes, Raul Nunes de Carvalho Junior, José Francisco da Silva Costa, Antonio Maia de Jesus Chaves Neto. Density functional theory for the thermodynamic gas-phase investigation of butanol biofuel and its isomers mixed with gasoline and ethanol. Journal of Molecular Modeling 2021, 27 (3) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-021-04681-9
    12. James P. Szybist, Stephen Busch, Robert L. McCormick, Josh A. Pihl, Derek A. Splitter, Matthew A. Ratcliff, Christopher P. Kolodziej, John M.E. Storey, Melanie Moses-DeBusk, David Vuilleumier, Magnus Sjöberg, C. Scott Sluder, Toby Rockstroh, Paul Miles. What fuel properties enable higher thermal efficiency in spark-ignited engines?. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2021, 82 , 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2020.100876
    13. Hao Yuan, Zhongyuan Chen, Zhenbiao Zhou, Yi Yang, Michael J. Brear, James E. Anderson. Formulating gasoline surrogate for emulating octane blending properties with ethanol. Fuel 2020, 261 , 116243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116243
    14. C. Scott Sluder. Estimation of the Fuel Efficiency Potential of Six Gasoline Blendstocks Identified by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Co-Optimization of Fuels and Engines Program. SAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility 2019, 1 (1) , 189-200. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-0017
    15. Justin Lepitzki, Jonn Axsen. The role of a low carbon fuel standard in achieving long-term GHG reduction targets. Energy Policy 2018, 119 , 423-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.067
    16. Muhammad Imran Khan. Comparative Well-to-Tank energy use and greenhouse gas assessment of natural gas as a transportation fuel in Pakistan. Energy for Sustainable Development 2018, 43 , 38-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.12.004
    17. S. Kent Hoekman, Amber Broch. Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A literature review. Part II – Biodiversity, land use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 81 , 3159-3177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.052
    18. S. Kent Hoekman, Amber Broch, Xiaowei (Vivian) Liu. Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A literature review. Part I – Impacts on water, soil, and air quality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 81 , 3140-3158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.050
    19. Kai Morganti, Marwan Al-Abdullah, Abdullah Alzubail, Gautam Kalghatgi, Yoann Viollet, Robert Head, Ahmad Khan, Amir Abdul-Manan. Synergistic engine-fuel technologies for light-duty vehicles: Fuel economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Applied Energy 2017, 208 , 1538-1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.213
    20. Xiaowei Liu, S. Kent Hoekman, Amber Broch. Potential water requirements of increased ethanol fuel in the USA. Energy, Sustainability and Society 2017, 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0121-4
    21. Kai Morganti, Yoann Viollet, Robert Head, Gautam Kalghatgi, Marwan Al-Abdullah, Abdullah Alzubail. Maximizing the benefits of high octane fuels in spark-ignition engines. Fuel 2017, 207 , 470-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.06.066
    22. Robert D. De Kleine, James E. Anderson, Hyung Chul Kim, Timothy J. Wallington. Life cycle assessment is the most relevant framework to evaluate biofuel greenhouse gas burdens. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 2017, 11 (3) , 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1752
    23. Bo Zhang, S. Mani Sarathy. Lifecycle optimized ethanol-gasoline blends for turbocharged engines. Applied Energy 2016, 181 , 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.052
    24. Kai Morganti, Marwan Abdullah, Abdullah Alzubail, Yoann Viollet, Robert Head, Junseok Chang, Gautam Kalghatgi. Improving the Efficiency of Conventional Spark-Ignition Engines Using Octane-on-Demand Combustion. Part I: Engine Studies. 2016https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0679
    25. Derek Splitter, Alexander Pawlowski, Robert Wagner. A Historical Analysis of the Co-evolution of Gasoline Octane Number and Spark-Ignition Engines. Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering 2016, 1 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2015.00016
    26. A.L. Halweg-Edwards, M.C. Bassalo, J.D. Winkler, R.T. Gill. Biotechnological Strategies for Advanced Biofuel Production. 2016, 227-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63475-7.00009-1
    27. Vincent Kwasniewski, John Blieszner, Richard Nelson. Petroleum refinery greenhouse gas emission variations related to higher ethanol blends at different gasoline octane rating and pool volume levels. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 2016, 10 (1) , 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1612
    28. A. F. G. Neto, F. S. Lopes, E. V. Carvalho, M. N. Huda, A. M. J. C. Neto, N. T. Machado. Thermodynamic analysis of fuels in gas phase: ethanol, gasoline and ethanol — gasoline predicted by DFT method. Journal of Molecular Modeling 2015, 21 (10) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00894-015-2815-x
    29. Tak W. Chan. The Impact of Isobutanol and Ethanol on Gasoline Fuel Properties and Black Carbon Emissions from Two Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles. 2015https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1076
    30. Hao Yuan, Tien Mun Foong, Zhongyuan Chen, Yi Yang, Michael Brear, Thomas Leone, James E. Anderson. Modeling of Trace Knock in a Modern SI Engine Fuelled by Ethanol/Gasoline Blends. 2015https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1242

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    Pair your accounts.

    Export articles to Mendeley

    Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

    You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

    STEP 1:
    Click to create an ACS ID

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

    MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
    Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect