US EPA Finalizes Low Sulfur Gasoline

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
There will be a certain market power, that provides a critical mass of consumers to help share the increased costs of producing lower-sulfur gasoline.


This isnt about market power. Hydrodesulfurization requires high pressure hydrogen, forced to react with vaporized fuel at high temperatures over catalysts.

That hydrogen comes from steam reforming cat cracker offgas and/or natural gas.

So more process streams get consumed. They have to be consumed because HDS is not selective, and thus they open every aromatic ring and double bond before they actually access the sulfur in the benzothiophene type groups.

So you need multiple extra unit operations, working in more harsh regimes, which drive capital and operational cost.
My point was about the economics of the price increase associated with low-sulfur gasoline, not the chemistry of fuel. In this case, consumers are those who buy fuel.

What I mean by market power is the more consumers you have of a product, the lower the price of a good can be. There are other obvious economic forces at play, but in general the larger the market, the more competition is available amongst sellers which can control costs.

 

[shDK]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
I'm sure people will be up in arms over the 6c increase in the cost of gas, even though this will be very beneficial in the long run.


Your kidding your self on the 6 cents. 30-40 cents is the real world prediction. Then factor that cost into EVERYTHING that ius related to gasoline fuel and you will notice it. Please remember that they sold California on a similar 3-5 cent increase with all of the different blends. Lots of really gullible people out there. sheesh. It will not be beneficial to your state. You have cheap fuel now. Get ready for $4- 4.50/gal.


IF you only Pay 4 dollars a gallon now.. dry your eyes mate. We pay 8.5 dollars a gallon.

 

[NHHEMI]

6-9 cents. Yeah, ok, right. Anyone want to buy a bridge I own in Brooklyn? I doubt it would be that low. More like the 50-60 cents another said most likely.

Anyone associated with gas and the profits from it are already licking their chops at yet another thing they can use to justify raising the price and raking in billions more in profits. Gas company CEO's to the stock market will love this.

As another member pointed out it is not JUST the cost of fuel you pay for at the pump that will go up either. Everything else goes up too as companies pass on their costs to the consumer. It will be far, FAR, more expensive than the rise at the pump when filling for the individual. And anytime the conversation includes California and how they do something you know it isn't going to be good for the rest of us.

Another EPA screw job on the way. Pass the vaseline please.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: shDK
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
I'm sure people will be up in arms over the 6c increase in the cost of gas, even though this will be very beneficial in the long run.


Your kidding your self on the 6 cents. 30-40 cents is the real world prediction. Then factor that cost into EVERYTHING that ius related to gasoline fuel and you will notice it. Please remember that they sold California on a similar 3-5 cent increase with all of the different blends. Lots of really gullible people out there. sheesh. It will not be beneficial to your state. You have cheap fuel now. Get ready for $4- 4.50/gal.


IF you only Pay 4 dollars a gallon now.. dry your eyes mate. We pay 8.5 dollars a gallon.


I sympathize with you on the $8.50/gal. But we remember when fuel cost $2/gal. Nobody likes to see prices go up that fast when their pay is barely keeping up with inflation.

 

[Coprolite]

From one of the articles linked:
EPA Paper
"To comply with the Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners will take a range of actions depending on
the current configuration of their refineries and their other market investment plans. Based on
EPA’s peer-reviewed refinery-by-refinery analysis, of the 108 gasoline refineries impacted by Tier
3, 40 are either already meeting the 10 ppm standard, or are expected to purchase credits to
show compliance. Another 67 are able to comply with modifications to their existing equipment
which can occur in 2 years’ time. Only 1 is projected to require the installation of a new gasoline
hydrotreater which can be installed in 3 years. We anticipate that even those refineries that
comply through the use of credits will make a variety of operating changes and/or low capital
cost changes to lower their sulfur levels below their current Tier 2 levels to minimize their need
for credits."

 

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
6-9 cents. Yeah, ok, right. Anyone want to buy a bridge I own in Brooklyn? I doubt it would be that low. More like the 50-60 cents another said most likely.

Anyone associated with gas and the profits from it are already licking their chops at yet another thing they can use to justify raising the price and raking in billions more in profits. Gas company CEO's to the stock market will love this.

As another member pointed out it is not JUST the cost of fuel you pay for at the pump that will go up either. Everything else goes up too as companies pass on their costs to the consumer. It will be far, FAR, more expensive than the rise at the pump when filling for the individual. And anytime the conversation includes California and how they do something you know it isn't going to be good for the rest of us.

Another EPA screw job on the way. Pass the vaseline please.
I encourage you to actually read the article.

The 6-9 cent price increase estimation actually comes from the API, which is a known opponent of Tier 3 gasoline.

Quoted from the article: "The API, for example, said it would hike gas prices by 6-9 cents per gallon, while EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said it would add only a penny per gallon of gas."

So yes, the harshest projection is actually around 9 cents more per gallon.

 

[apwillard1986]

Fuel costs effect every portion of the economy. We should be focusing on stabilizing or lowering fuel costs not continually raising them with subsidies guised as environmentalism.

This is not happening for the benefit of the environment, DI engines, or extended OCIs. This is happening because it pads someone’s bank account. If it didn’t make money it wouldn’t be happening. It is no different from the ethanol mandate. It became clear fairly quickly that ethanol was almost completely without benefit except as a farm subsidy. I will concede that there are benefits to lower sulfur fuels but not at a 10% increase (real world costs) in fuel prices. As someone else mentioned, European environmentalism is not always practical in a country with people spread over 2.5 times the landmass.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
I'm sure people will be up in arms over the 6c increase in the cost of gas, even though this will be very beneficial in the long run.


Your kidding your self on the 6 cents. 30-40 cents is the real world prediction. Then factor that cost into EVERYTHING that ius related to gasoline fuel and you will notice it. Please remember that they sold California on a similar 3-5 cent increase with all of the different blends. Lots of really gullible people out there. sheesh. It will not be beneficial to your state. You have cheap fuel now. Get ready for $4- 4.50/gal.

Back when CARB forced new formula to Californian drivers they said the additional cost was 10-12 cents, but the oil companies said it was 20-25 cents.

Don't expect only 6-9 cents increases over current formula, expect more than 10-15 cents increase ! Their estimate is always with rosy glass, actual cost is almost always higher.


Well it's naive to think refiners would not use a new reg as a excuse to increase prices. It's impossible to prove however

 

[hatt]

ULSD was suppose to be a slight price increase too. Went from always being cheaper than regular gas to $.60 more. A good deal for the consumer.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: shDK
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
I'm sure people will be up in arms over the 6c increase in the cost of gas, even though this will be very beneficial in the long run.


Your kidding your self on the 6 cents. 30-40 cents is the real world prediction. Then factor that cost into EVERYTHING that ius related to gasoline fuel and you will notice it. Please remember that they sold California on a similar 3-5 cent increase with all of the different blends. Lots of really gullible people out there. sheesh. It will not be beneficial to your state. You have cheap fuel now. Get ready for $4- 4.50/gal.


IF you only Pay 4 dollars a gallon now.. dry your eyes mate. We pay 8.5 dollars a gallon.


You are in Denmark. How far is it from one side of your country to the other?

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Guess the Energy Secretary is going to get his wish of $9/gal gas.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: shDK
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
I'm sure people will be up in arms over the 6c increase in the cost of gas, even though this will be very beneficial in the long run.


Your kidding your self on the 6 cents. 30-40 cents is the real world prediction. Then factor that cost into EVERYTHING that ius related to gasoline fuel and you will notice it. Please remember that they sold California on a similar 3-5 cent increase with all of the different blends. Lots of really gullible people out there. sheesh. It will not be beneficial to your state. You have cheap fuel now. Get ready for $4- 4.50/gal.


IF you only Pay 4 dollars a gallon now.. dry your eyes mate. We pay 8.5 dollars a gallon.


You are in Denmark. How far is it from one side of your country to the other?

Most of the price of fuel in those expensive countries is taxes. Denmark is like $5.40/gal tax. Can't feel sorry for them.

 

[Hyde244]

Originally Posted By: apwillard1986
Fuel costs effect every portion of the economy. We should be focusing on stabilizing or lowering fuel costs not continually raising them with subsidies guised as environmentalism.

This is not happening for the benefit of the environment, DI engines, or extended OCIs. This is happening because it pads someone’s bank account. If it didn’t make money it wouldn’t be happening. It is no different from the ethanol mandate. It became clear fairly quickly that ethanol was almost completely without benefit except as a farm subsidy. I will concede that there are benefits to lower sulfur fuels but not at a 10% increase (real world costs) in fuel prices. As someone else mentioned, European environmentalism is not always practical in a country with people spread over 2.5 times the landmass.
Not really.

The EPA is given explicit authority to regulate GHG and other tailpipe emissions through the Clean Air Act in the interest of public health. The rationale behind this new standard is actually public health, as you would learn after reading the article.

Yes there is an environmental benefit from leaner tailpipe emissions, but as we had learned from the hype of ethanol, it is very difficult to realistically calculate that impact.

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Guess the Energy Secretary is going to get his wish of $9/gal gas.
The Department of Energy is not involved whatsoever with this decision. This all falls underneath the jurisdiction of the EPA.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244

The EPA is given explicit authority to regulate GHG and other tailpipe emissions through the Clean Air Act in the interest of public health. The rationale behind this new standard is actually public health, as you would learn after reading the article.


The EPA is not given explicit authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions by the Clean Air Act. The only gases they are explicitly permitted to regulate are carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen. Having failed to get Congress to pass Global Warming legislation, the Obama Administration has decided to make an end run around Congress by expansively interpreting the CAA. There is now a case pending before the Supreme Court to determine whether or not the EPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Hyde244]

^ You are right - the Clean Air Act addresses air pollutants, as the initial legislation was crafted in the 70s before the concept has really sunk in of GHG's role in climate change and air quality.

Specifically, the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to "set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." Pulling that from section 202.

However, the 2007 Supreme Court case of EPA vs. Massachusetts ruled that Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission. This case was addressing states concerns for tailpipe emissions, and that the US EPA was declining to issue emissions standards for vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

The current pending Supreme Court case is actually linked to EPA vs. Mass. EPA vs. Mass only addressed vehicle emissions. However, the EPA has used that ruling to create a pollution permitting program for factories, power plants, and other stationary sources of pollution. The question of the current case (I believe they are going with Texas vs. EPA as the headline name) is whether the EPA is able to use the EPA vs. Mass ruling on regulating GHG and CO2 for stationary sources. So this case is addressing regulation of CO2 emissions, but only for stationary sources.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-24...high-court.html

 

[surfstar]

If you don't like it you can either stop buying gas or maybe invest in the oil companies as all of you guys are stating with 100% authority that this will be a way for them to increase profits. Why not share in that if you're so sure?

 

[shDK]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: shDK
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: jmsjags
I'm sure people will be up in arms over the 6c increase in the cost of gas, even though this will be very beneficial in the long run.


Your kidding your self on the 6 cents. 30-40 cents is the real world prediction. Then factor that cost into EVERYTHING that ius related to gasoline fuel and you will notice it. Please remember that they sold California on a similar 3-5 cent increase with all of the different blends. Lots of really gullible people out there. sheesh. It will not be beneficial to your state. You have cheap fuel now. Get ready for $4- 4.50/gal.


IF you only Pay 4 dollars a gallon now.. dry your eyes mate. We pay 8.5 dollars a gallon.


You are in Denmark. How far is it from one side of your country to the other?


About 600 km. But unless you drive from cost to cost every time you go to work. I don,t think it counts as an argument.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: Hyde244
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
A preview of things to come.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/199706-epa-finalizes-stricter-sulfur-emissions-rule

The EPA has announced finalized rulings that will require a "low sulfur" gasoline throughout the U.S. by 2017, known as Tier 3. Similar to the California blend of gasoline (known as LEV 3), this gasoline will reduce sulfur content from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. This will help reduce particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other GHG emissions. The reduction in emissions is estimated to offset 33 million cars by 2030. The API projects that it will add an approximate 6 - 9 cents per gallon to the cost of fuel. (and with a larger market, the cost of Californian gasoline could very well decrease compared to the rest of the nation)

Ultimately, this will mean a cleaner fuel for use in our engines, which will be a nice perk to engine/fuel system life spans.

Here is the official Tier 3 gasoline EPA webpage: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm



6-9 cents? Not in Ohio. Ohio is one of 4 states that have no state fuel regulations. It will add 10% to the retail cost here.
The 6-9 cent price increase estimation actually comes from the API, which is a known opponent of Tier 3 gasoline.

Quoted from the article: "The API, for example, said it would hike gas prices by 6-9 cents per gallon, while EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said it would add only a penny per gallon of gas."

So yes, the harshest projection is actually around 9 cents more a gallon.

It's important to bear in mind market size. Yes California gasoline costs more, but that is in part because its market is one state. ULSD is also costly, but is not the most consumed motor fuel on the U.S. market. There will be a certain market power, that provides a critical mass of consumers to help share the increased costs of producing lower-sulfur gasoline.


Poor CA.IIRC only 2 companies own the refining capacity in that stat.

 

[Ken2]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
My question is simple can this regulation be stopped?

Why? I was in Salt Lake City last week. The brown gunk in the air wasn't as bad as some days, but it certainly was there. Less is better. Life requires pure air, pure water, pure food. Cheap gasoline is a want, not a need.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Ken2
Originally Posted By: dave1251
My question is simple can this regulation be stopped?

Why? I was in Salt Lake City last week. The brown gunk in the air wasn't as bad as some days, but it certainly was there. Less is better. Life requires pure air, pure water, pure food. Cheap gasoline is a want, not a need.


Same opinion here. I just do not understand why would you stop this? I wanna live where air i clean, water is clean etc. We know what happens in states where corporations write regulations in the name of "freedom" (Texas and West Virginia). Why always some stupid, preventable accident happens in those states, that by the way always have lower quality of life, life expectancy etc, then states like CA? If you extend OCI, we will have less used oil outside to recycle, we will spend less energy on recycling oil, cars will get better MPG etc, etc. But nooooo, regulation is bad lol. Yes if you ask Shell, Exxon etc.