1. Com 2007(18) - Stakeholders meeting
Kees Hettinga
Sabic Europe
Walter Mirabella
Lyondell Chemical Europe
Com 2007(18) - Stakeholders meeting
Brussels, Belgium
29th May 2007

2. BioFuels Evaluated on CO2
Fuel Quality Directive Review Proposal Requiring Accurate CO2 Evaluation of Fuels
EU MSs Targeting BioComponents CO2 Performance:
GERMANY (meo/IFEU)
NETHERLANDS (Cramer Committee)
UNITED KINGDOM (Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership)

3. Why a new evaluation for EtOH/EtBE?
ETBE Currently Key to EU ETOH Blending
Address CO2 Impact Triggered by Refinery Optimisation after Adding EtOH and/or EtBE
Focus on Comparing the two Ethanol “forms” within the refinery
Addressing “middle-man” Misconception:
“Extra processing step costs energy, therefore CO2 emissions expected to be larger with ETBE than for ethanol direct blending”
Demonstrate Reality:
ETBE allows lower Carbon intensive blend stock, saving CO2

4. “Bio-Petrol”: Etherification Central in the Supply Chain
Bio-Mass
(Agriculture)
Ethanol
(Distillation)
ETBE
(Etherification)
Refinery
(Formulation)
Distribution
(Consumption)

5. >3/4th of EU Bio-Ethanol Blended Today as ETBE
“Forms” of Ethanol:
>3/4th of EU Bio-Ethanol Blended Today as ETBE

6. CO2–Related Factors Affected by Refining
Gasoline composition
H/C ratio (Aromatics, olefins, lights)
Processing fuel consumption
Octane-production/energy-use correlation
Indirect effects
Changed refinery output due to other optimization

7. Octane/Refinery Fuel Use Correlation:
Long Known Factor
Source: CONCAWE’s “RUFIT” report N° 6/78 (dec 1978)

8. Study Basis
Refinery modeling performed by consultant
Main refinery products constant on energy basis
Time base-line 2010
Base petrol summer grade with no bio-components
Compare ethanol directly blended vs. ETBE
Ethanol is “smart” blended

9. Different ETOH Blending Options

10. Theoretical ETOH CO2 Performance Basis
CH3-CH2-OH + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O
50%

11. CO2 Scenarios Comparison: Detailed Relative Contribution
A = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE export,
B = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE to iC8=,
C = Existing MTBE converted to ETBE + ETOH-DB to %5v/v
D = Existing MTBE + Available iC4 converted to ETBE + ethanol to 5%v/v
E = As above + Incl nC4= isomerisation then to ETBE

12. CO2 Scenarios Comparison: Overall Relative Contribution
A = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE export,
B = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE to iC8=,
C = Existing MTBE converted to ETBE + ETOH-DB to %5v/v
D = Existing MTBE + Available iC4 converted to ETBE + ethanol to 5%v/v
E = As above + Incl nC4= isomerisation then to ETBE

13. CO2 Scenarios Comparison: Refinery Impact in Perspective with Hypothetical Overall Saving
A = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE export,
B = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE to iC8=,
C = Existing MTBE converted to ETBE + ETOH-DB to %5v/v
D = Existing MTBE + Available iC4 converted to ETBE + ethanol to 5%v/v
E = As above + Incl nC4= isomerisation then to ETBE

14. CO2 Scenarios Comparison: Net Refinery Impact in Perspective with Hypothetical Overall Saving
A = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE export,
B = Ethanol 5%v/v & MTBE to iC8=,
C = Existing MTBE converted to ETBE + ETOH-DB to %5v/v
D = Existing MTBE + Available iC4 converted to ETBE + ethanol to 5%v/v
E = As above + Incl nC4= isomerisation then to ETBE

15. Economics Drive the Choice Between Scenarios Unwise Regulations Backfiring on CO2
IMPACT
REGULATIONS
ECONOMICS
FQDR
BFDR
ETS ….

16. CO2 Evaluation Key in the EU Bio-Fuels Agenda
Conclusions
CO2 Evaluation Key in the EU Bio-Fuels Agenda
Impact within Refinery Significant
ETS doesn’t Cover all CO2 Savings from Refinery
Bio-ethers Greatly Enhance Ethanol CO2 Performance
Etherification Beyond Current Capacity Good for CO2
Regulations Penalising ETBE Counterproductive for CO2