High Octane Fuels: Benefits
and Challenges
Presenter: Robert L. McCormick
March 17, 2016
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Increasing Biofuel Deployment through use of High Octane Fuels
Multi-Lab Team (NREL/ANL/ORNL)
Explore Benefits/Challenges of New High-Octane Mid Level Blend
(USDOE - Bioenergy Technologies Office)
• Quantification of knock resistance properties
and low-cost blendstocks (NREL)
• Fuel economy potential in dedicated vehicle
(ORNL)
• Infrastructure compatibility (NREL & ORNL)
• Market analysis (NREL & ORNL)
• Well-to-wheels analysis (ANL)
2
What is Engine Knock?
• Fuel with adequate octane number is required to
prevent engine knock
• Knock occurs when unburned fuel/air mixture auto-
ignites – essentially a small explosion in the engine
– Higher octane fuel is more resistant to auto-ignition
• Knock can cause engine
Spark damage
Plug
• Modern cars have knock
Flame
Front sensors
Unburned ‒ Reduce engine power and
Burned Gas
Fuel/Air efficiency at knock onset
‒ Drivers rarely experience
Piston
knock
3
What is Octane Number?
REGULAR PLUS PREMIUM HIGH OCTANE FUEL
MINIMUM OCTANE RATING MINIMUM OCTANE RATING MINIMUM OCTANE RATING MINIMUM OCTANE RATING
(R+M)/2 METHOD (R+M)/2 METHOD (R+M)/2 METHOD (R+M)/2 METHOD
95
RON 91 RON 93 RON 95 RON 100
• Pump octane is the average of research octane (RON)
and motor octane (MON) – also known as (R + M)/2
– Two tests to cover the full range of engine operating conditions
80 years ago when this was introduced
• For modern technology engines, RON is the better
measure of performance (knock prevention)
• There is no nationwide (ASTM) standard for minimum
octane number in the United States
4
High Octane Fuel: Key to High Efficiency Engines
Strategies to Increase Engine Efficiency (Lower GHG Emissions):
1. Increased compression ratio
• Greater thermodynamic efficiency
2. Engine downsizing/downspeeding
• Smaller engines operating at low-speed/higher load are more efficient
• Optimized with 6 to 9 speed transmission
3. Turbocharging
• Recovering energy from the engine exhaust
• Increase specific power allowing smaller engine
4. Direct injection
• Fuel evaporates in the combustion cylinder, cooling the air-fuel mixture
All of these strategies can take advantage of ethanol’s
high knock resistance:
• Higher octane (1, 2, and 3)
• Higher heat of vaporization (4)
5
Ethanol’s Impact on Octane Number
• Ethanol is an octane
booster
• Non-linear influence
of ethanol content
most benefit at lower
Low-Octane BOB
levels Regular Gasoline
Premium Gasoline
• Optimum blend likely
20-40% ethanol
6
Ethanol and Charge Cooling
• Ethanol almost 3x higher heat
of vaporization than gasoline
• MIT study suggests 1 RON unit
increase for every 3˚C
additional cooling
800
wCBOB
CARBOB
Heat of Vaporization, kJ/kg
sCBOB
NG
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ethanol Content, vol%
7
What is needed for a high efficiency engine?
High Octane Fuel (HOF) will likely be:
RON of 98 to 100 (note some premium gasoline
today has a RON of 98)
25-40% ethanol for charge cooling, fossil carbon
displacement
Goal is Volumetric Fuel Economy Parity:
E25 vs E10 is ~ 5% efficiency gain
E40 vs E10 is ~10% efficiency gain
Energy density penalty is linear with ethanol
concentration, power and efficiency gains are non-
linear
8
Low-Cost Blendstocks (Natural Gasoline)
• Because of high octane number of ethanol a lower cost blendstock may be used
• Natural gasoline, a byproduct of natural gas production:
o Dramatic recent increase in production – roughly 1.5 billion gal 2014
o Cost significantly less than conventional gasoline ($0.70/gal recently)
o High vapor pressure – advantage for blending with high levels of ethanol
• RON of 100 nearly achieved in NG at E40
• Vapor pressure acceptable for
winter blend
• For summer HOF a mixture of
conventional gasoline and NG
likely required
• Care must be taken to meet
finished fuel sulfur and benzene
limits
• D8011 - 16 Standard Specification for
Natural Gasoline as a Blendstock in Ethanol
Fuel Blends or as a Denaturant for Fuel
Ethanol – soon to be published
9
Vehicle Fuel Economy Benefits
Proof of Concept
Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
10
Fuel Economy Goals are Feasible
• Goal: Volumetric Fuel Economy Parity:
o E25 vs E10 requires ~ 5% efficiency gain • Fuel Economy
normalized to E0
o E40 vs E10 requires ~10% efficiency gain
equivalent basis
• Sedan with 2.0 liter turbocharged, direct- • Factory
injection engine compression ratio
o Stock: 101 RON E30 demonstrated 5% gain • Rear axle and drive
o Downspeed: 101 RON E30 demonstrated 10% gain wheel change
reduces engine
• Requires high RON fuel, modern engine capable speed ~20%
of adjusting phasing, and downspeeded vehicle
46.0 30.0
HFET Regular E10 Premium E0 HOF E30 US06 Regular E10 Premium E0 HOF E30
E0 Equivalent mpg E0 Equivalent mpg
29.0
44.0
28.0 28.3 28.7
Fuel Economy (E0 MPGeq)
Fuel Economy (E0 MPGeq)
43.9 44.3
42.9 10% 27.6
10.5% 27.0 27.3
42.0 42.1
5.7% 27.3
5.0%
26.0
101 RON
101 RON
41.9
95 AKI
95 AKI
40.0 25.0 26.1
24.0
97 RON
97 RON
40.1
93 AKI
93 AKI
38.0
23.0
91 RON
91 RON
88 AKI
88 AKI
22.0
36.0
21.0
34.0 20.0
Stock Downsped Stock Downsped
11
Bottom Line: Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse
Gas Emission Benefits
Courtesy of Argonne National Laboratory
12
HOF Reduces Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
(Only for HOF E40)
30% reduction
• Reductions by HOFVs fueled by HOF relative to regular gasoline (E10) baseline vehicles on
per-mile basis
• GHG reductions due to efficiency gains: 5-8% respectively
• Minimal refinery Impact: <1%
• Additional GHG reductions for ethanol depends on ethanol source and blending level
Efficiency-ethanol combined GHG reductions ~ 30% for cellulosic ethanol with E40!
13
Summary
• Ethanol blended at 25 to 40% provides high
octane number and fuel/air charge cooling
• HOF enables design of more efficient engines
• WTW GHG emission reductions range from 9-
19% for corn ethanol HOF and 15-33% for
cellulosic ethanol HOF
14
High Octane Fuels:
Infrastructure Assessment
Kristi Moriarty
Senior Analyst
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
March 17, 2016
Clean Cities Webinar
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Retail Stations
16
Retail Stations
• Opportunities
o UL E25 and E85 equipment available
o Letters stating compatibility with existing
equipment with E10+ available from many
manufacturers per federal UST code (updated
July 2015)
o USDA BIP program will result in $210 million
more in infrastructure in 2016-these station
could potentially offer an E25 or E40 fuel
o Many dispensers being replaced between now
and 2017 to allow chip and pin credit cards; an
opportunity to deploy more E25 and E85
equipment
17
Retail Stations
• Barriers:
o Stations may not have equipment records
necessary to meet federal compatibility
requirements
o Some equipment upgrades are necessary
and station profits are small
– E25 equipment is less expensive than E85
o Stations with existing compatible tanks
would need to decide which fuel to stop
storing to accommodate an ethanol fuel
18
Fuel Terminals
19
Fuel Terminals
20
Terminals-Ability to Store More Ethanol
• No technical issues
• Several significant practical issues
o Nearly all tanks are in-use
o Pipeline companies own majority of capacity and
their tanks are leased to customers
o Land availability for additional unloading facilities
and tanks if needed
o Lengthy process to change EPA operating permit to
add more tanks
o Ability for location to handle increased truck traffic
for ethanol deliveries
21
High Octane Fuels:
Market Assessment
Caley Johnson
Transportation Market Analyst
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
March 17, 2016
Clean Cities Webinar
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Market Assessment Methodology
Purpose: Assess the feasibility, economics, and logistics of adopting HOF
(E25-40) by drivers, vehicle makers, fuel retailers, and fuel producers
Strategy:
1. Identified potential benefits of High Octane Fuel (HOF) to key participants
2. Defined barriers to HOF adoption
3. Proposed strategies to curtail barriers
4. Grouped compatible/synergistic strategies into 8 adoption scenarios
5. Modeled vehicle adoption rates for various scenarios
6. Modeled biofuel production and supply chain
23
Potential Benefits of HOF Adoption
• Drivers
o Fuel cost savings: 8¢/gal (for E25) and 16¢/gal (E40) past decade
– EIA AEO 2014 projects savings of 18¢/gal (E25) and 36¢/gal (E40) in 2030
o Reduced price volatility
o Increased torque in performance applications
o Energy security and environmental attributes
• Vehicle
manufacturers
o Greenhouse gas
(GHG) reductions
o Increased torque in
performance
applications
Source: Calculated from Clean Cities Price Reports by
proportionally mixing E10 and E74
24
Potential Benefits of HOF, continued
• Fuel Retailers
o HOF could fetch higher margins in less price-competitive market
o HOF could differentiate stations in a uniform market
o Cheaper fuel could result in 3% increase in trips to convenience
store*
• Fuel Producers
o Renewable Fuel Standard compliance
o Economies of scale for cellulosic
ethanol
o Enable less expensive blendstocks
o Facilitate additional gasoline export
Source: [Link]
*Based on elasticity of demand of -0.31 and projected 9% discount in fuel price. Elasticity taken from Havranek,
T., Irsova, Z., & Janda, K. (2012). Demand for gasoline is more price-inelastic than commonly thought. Energy
Economics, 34(1), 201-207.
† Higgins, T. (2014). “Octane Number Outlook.” Presentation to the 2014 SAE High Octane Fuels Symposium.
25
Barriers and Curtailment Strategies to HOF Adoption
30 barriers and 94 potential curtailment strategies
identified, categorized, and discussed
Fuel Producers
Fuel Retailers
Vehicle Mfrs.
Tracking #
Barrier
Drivers
Type
1 Level 1 hurdles (most formidable hurdles—show-stoppers if not properly addressed)
1.1 Coordinated growth of supply and demand Logistical X X X X
1.2 RFS: unpredictability leads to investment uncertainty Regulatory X X X
1.3 Misfueling legacy vehicles on HOF Behavioral X X X
1.4 Emissions certification: HOF is not currently a certification fuel Regulatory X
Fuel volatility regulations: volatility of E25 (with current blendstock)
1.5 Regulatory X
would be too high, and therefore illegal
1.6 Fuel registration requirements: HOF is not an EPA-registered fuel Regulatory X X
1.7 CAFE Credits: Current calculation may not adequately reward HOFVs Regulatory X
Retailer investment requirements: cost of upgrading a retail station to
1.8 Economic X
offer HOF
1.9 HOF pricing: problem if HOF price exceeds the price of regular gasoline Economic X X X X
26
HOF Introduction Scenarios
1. Replace Mid-Grade with HOF and Market Performance Attributes. Stations offer
regular E10, premium E15, and HOF from just two underground storage tanks.
HOF introduced to high-performance vehicle models first.
2. HOF-Tolerant, Premium-Optimized Intermediary. These vehicles can use HOF and
capture much of HOF’s high-octane benefits.
3. Price-Driven Adoption. HOF vehicles are marketed to minimize the total cost of
vehicle ownership. The first HOF vehicles introduced are the most efficient
models, fuel retailers and vehicle purchasers are incentivized, and the lower price
of ethanol relative to gasoline leads to a lower price for HOF compared to E10.
4. Accelerated Deployment. An aggressive bookend scenario. All new vehicles are
optimized for HOF beginning in 2018 and all dispensing equipment sold is HOF
compatible.
5. E51 Intermediary. HOFVs are optimized to E40 but use E51 sold through the
current flex fuel infrastructure until the HOF market is large enough to support
dedicated refueling.
6. Blender Pumps. E10, E15, HOF, and flex fuel are blended from two tanks
containing E0 (or E10) and flex fuel (E51-83).
7. Regional Deployment. Resources for achieving critical mass of both supply and
demand for HOF are focused on the Midwest market.
8. Expensive. A slow bookend with expensive vehicles and retail dispensing
equipment, HOF is E40.
Figure 9. One strategy to offer HOF from a station with only two gasoline USTs 27
Vehicle Adoption Modeling
Total Vehicles
Economy Cars E40
2018 Mandated Production E40
2018 Mandated Production E25
Economy Cars E25
Performance Vehs, E25 replaces midgrade
Consumer determined E25 + $2,500 incentive
Consumer determined E40
Expensive Vehs (E40 only)
Consumer determined E25
• All scenarios achieved a substantial percentage (43%−79%) of the light-duty
vehicle stock by 2035
• More HOFVs are adopted if HOF is E40 (vs. E25) if they offer greater fuel cost
savings and GHG benefit
• $2,500 purchase incentive boosted 2035 penetration 32% in consumer
determined scenarios
• Designating certain vehicle models to be HOF-dedicated leads to higher
adoption rates but early adoption speed depends on model production volumes
28
Market Assessment Conclusions
Results show potential for significant HOF consumption in 2035 under the
scenarios modeled
• 30 billion gallons of ethanol (75 billion gallons of E40)
• Over 60% of 2035 LDV fuel market
Figure 31. Comparison of the simulated HOF ethanol demand in 2035, given vehicle
fleet, by scenario for the BSM and BioTrans models
The differences between the HOF ethanol demand in the two models illustrates the impact of
assumptions of a short term NPV-focus (BSM) and a long term social welfare focus (BioTrans)
29
Conclusions, continued
Where are the bottlenecks?
1. Current regulations that have not yet addressed HOF
o Unless government enables HOF registration, HOF certification fuel,
continues RFS, and adjusts future GHG/CAFE regulations to reward HOF
2. Fuel retailers’ investment in HOF equipment is limiting
factor in most scenarios
o Unless incentivized to invest, equipment cost is reduced, or if only
compatible equipment is sold in advance. In which case:
3. Construction rate of new biorefineries is limiting factor
o Unless enough time passes to allow construction to catch up (circa 2025)
or rate surpasses historical levels. In which case:
4. HOF vehicle adoption is limiting factor
o Only in scenarios where adequate retailer investment has been made
and biorefinery construction has caught up with demand (post 2025)
5. Feedstock availability and cost are not the limiting factors
in any scenarios
30
DOE’s Optima Project
• Current fuels have evolved somewhat independently
from their vehicles
• There are better fuel/vehicle combinations available
o Many of them are biofuels
• Incremental changes are expensive and imperfect
• DOE is searching for ideal fuel/vehicle combination
for three main combustion strategies
Spark Ignition Kinetically Controlled Compression Ignition
31
Research supported by the United States
Department of Energy – Bioenergy
Technologies Office
All reports and project summary can be
found at [Link]
Contacts: [Link]@[Link].
[Link]@[Link], [Link]@[Link]
32
