A 2nd Opinion on Ethanol Denaturant：第二对乙醇变性剂.pptVIP

A 2nd Opinion 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 2nd Opinion, Inc. RFA Suggested Fuel Ethanol Specifications (6/15/00) Implied Denaturant Specifications are Worse than CaRFG3 WHY.......? California needs alkylate imports California needs to export light olefinic aromatic stocks Results: No MTBE + ARB Proposal - Imports Results: No MTBE + ARB Proposal - Exports Why Accept Denaturant Worse than CaRFG3? 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 not limit midpoint or, if you must, use the cap limit of 220oF. Proposed Denaturant Specifications Match CaRFG3 Blendstocks that Fit CARFG3 Some desulfurized reformer feeds Raffinate fromaromatics extraction Alkylate 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. 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? A2O A 2nd Opinion, Inc.