How much electricity does an oil refinery use?

^^ Zythryn,
Try burning oil in a CHP Nat gas plant.

This is the exercise: you have 1.22 gallons of oil. You can refine it and burn it in your Prius, or you can turn it into electricity and run your LEAF. Which is the better alternative, if 'better' is car miles ? Or for a slightly different question, which alternative produces the least pollution/mile and by how much ?

 

Happy 4th evnow. It seems patriotic to burn less oil. Even in England. sarcasm intended. Even today EV and PHEV are better, but there are not many choices, and some are expensive without subsides. we will never get to a better future if we kill progress in the present.

We need to at least get the technology developed to declare independence for OPEC. You have helped take one small step.

No its much worse than that drees said Combined cycle, which are 50-60+% efficient and more than 1/3 of new power plants in the united states. So not only has sagebrush re framed the question, but misunderstood power, no one was talking about chp which can be up to 80% efficient and no one wants to generate more electricity with oil. Oil generation is just over 1%, and that is decreasing, the 3% is just generation capacity, in case of a black out. I hope by 2030 oil power generation is less than 1/4%. Thinking that old legacy plants are the future is like investing in buggy whips.

Yes that would be really dumb. How stupid do you think people are. If we move away from oil because it is getting more scarce and expensive, why would we build new plants instead of more plentiful resources like natural gas, wind, and solar. 96% of new power plants were natural gas or wind in the united states in the last 10 years. During the same period more oil generators were taken off line than were built. Why are you trying to pretend if we save oil, we will build oil power plants? If we use less oil, we will import less oil. Period. Stop being so ignorant! CC is not CHP. Read some links, go to a power plant, learn, don't keep trying to spread lies. Stop watching fox and listening to MSNBC and learn to think.

This is an exercise, you decide to use less oil. How many oil power plants will you build! I think hill's solar powered leaf, and dave's hydro powered leaf produces less polution than the imaginary oil generator electricity powered car you are imagining. IIRC neither put a oil generator in the backyard to power their car. My neighbors volt is powered by the wind, and we have lots of hot air in texas. None of these 'cause oil imports, or require farfetched scenarios of using every drop of oil we save in power generation.


Again the question was how many ev's we can power with current electricity used to refine oil, not how to build power plants to use more oil.

 

"Yes that would be really dumb. How stupid do you think people are."

That is a 2-part question. I think you are smarter than the average american, and I think you are fairly stupid. Certainly blinded by ideology.

You assume (you, being the nice person) that I am an oil use advocate just because I do not buy into the kool-aid that an EV powered by fossil fuels is better than a Prius powered by (less) fossil fuels. Your perspective is limited by air pollution concerns in Austin, and sucking from the domestic energy teat. When (or if) you ever get a clue, you might realize that pollution outside of Austin matters too, and climate change is not affected by the political boundary of the source.

 

Happy 4th of July. Do you think we should be taxing tea and sending the revenue to england? Then why do you want to pretend the question was what is the best use of imported oil, instead of how much energy would be saved if the UK or the United States or Canada did not need to refine this oil. Less oil, not the same oil. How complicated can that be? Your post is insulting to both america and me.

The thread was about powering ev's, not if they pollute more. No pissing match between the prius and leaf. You brought that, and ignored the question and flipped it to what your insulting little mind could warp.

The question of the thread was since, the UK is going to get more EVs how much electricity could be used to power them, instead of refining oil. Why do you think they would use the same amount of oil. You are not fooling anyone. I didn't call you an oil advocate, I said you don't even understand basic power generation You tea bagger. More Evs in the UK. Can they use the electricity. Reread the thread, and stop being such an idealistic anti EV person. I was not even the person to mention combined cycle, but you obviously do not understand there are other power sources than oil. There are. Get that straight. I don't want to have a discussion with you. I want you to stop putting forth the same dishonest arguments. OK that might be harsh, you might just be ignorant instead of dishonest. Which do you consider worse? Which are you?

I think globally and act locally AND globally. My family has a negative carbon footprint. I am not telling others to do this, we are fortunate to have the means and influence. Some people can't think beyond next week. This thread mainly was about new power in the UK for electrification, but well its all about you right. Right.

Please stop responding to what I write, if you can't understand even basic things. You obviously do not understand energy or how governments or energy corporations work. One reason for the UK government's policy is it is impossible to reduce CO2 by 80% in 2050 without changing power sources for transportation. If you keep the emissions in the tailpipe you can't get to 80%. Think more. Talk less. Yell at the UK government if you want to stop there policy to pollute less and be less defendant on imported oil. These policies are not coming out of Austin.

I do know if we listen to the OPEC apologists the terrorists win.

 

Here is my page on the subject. Scroll down to how much Electricity is in Gas.

Gasoline and Oil

 

From the OP:

Get it ? Burn the oil to make electricity rather than petrol.

Go yap at GC if you do not like that idea; the fact that it is an inefficient use of resources is evident from the numbers.

Now, unrelated to the OP --
OF COURSE we should not burn the oil at all. Or the coal. Or the NatGas. At least if we want Europe and the US to be something other than desert in a century. You and GC are both AGW denialists, but both are you are concerned with local pollution and OPEC independence. I agree with your concerns more than you realize, but your siren songs of a national nirvana based on EVs running around on fossil fuels is, quite simply, idiocy.

Here is Darell's take on the matter, which I agree with completely

If subsidies were removed, an efficient market would not embrace $35 - 45k EVs, it would embrace efficient ICE cars and conservation strategies. Then it would embrace production of clean energy. The end game will be clean powered public transportation, and much more limited electric personal transport.

Last comment, regarding CO2 dependency: I cannot speak about manufacturing, but a household emits as much CO2 from the house as they do from personal transport. It only makes sense to use the money available in the most efficient manner to cut the combined emissions as much as possible. That is clearly not buying an EV, which not only is expensive, but has negative to minimal CO2 improvements.

EVs are fun and cool (and I want one), but they are also public policy lunacy. The US retail fleet is currently 18 mpg; 60 mpg with small efficient hybrids is just a choice away. The money saved by avoiding EVs can be directed towards home conservation and CO2 mitigation strategies to reduce CO2 by 80%. THAT is a real start to the AGW and pollution problems, cutting total household fossil fuel use by 75% *now*, not this childish obsession with EVs.

Fox news, signing off

 

Fundamentally, oil is found in nature as gasoline and diesel which just needs a little (high tech) dusting and cleaning. Yes some power input (~10%) is needed. But it is a logic error to focus on that fact re the pro-EV argument. The fundamental fact is that oil is ready-made, high energy density, highly practical, liquid fuel. So the pro-EV argument needs a different justification, such as better political choice, many here will say.

 

$15 / Gallon gas (approximate true cost)
=> $0.45 kWh electricity.
With no efficiency factored in.

Anyone think that they can't install Solar PV for less then $0.45 per kWh?

$0.45 / kWh in a Leaf is $0.11 per mile (true cost).
$15 / Gallon in a Prius is $0.30 per mile (true cost).

And no, it doesn't matter that you don't charge during the day, as long as you are in a Net-Metering (or better) state.

 

It's also highly toxic. And why does it need all those subsidies?

 

Chemo Sabe- ...I am not going there in this thread topic.

 

Well, OK, but I was only adding some facts to your fundamentals.

 

Grumpy/DarellDD - Austin's numbers above are correct.
According to eia.doe.gov 46 Billion KWhr per year consumed in USA.
This is external power purchased. Many refineries make elec power.

Somebody check my math:
Refinery Elec Purchase, year: 46,000,000,000 KWh/yr USA
Refinery Elec Purchase, day: 126,000,000 KWhr/day USA
Oil Barrel/day: 19,000,000 Bbl per day USA
Oil Gallons/Day: 800,000,000 Gals per day USA (@42 gal/Bbl)
Elec Purchase KWhr per Gallon Oil to Refinery- 0.16 KWhr/gal

>> This compares to DarrelDD quote of 7.5 KWhr/gal Gasoline produced (heresay is that Nissan originally supplied the 7.5 number, but no longer supports it). I would have to say it appears to me to have been a huge math error, which is my theory why Nissan backed off on it. 7.5 KWhr/gal would equate to an enourmous amount of coal burned per gallon gasoline (about 1:1), and its just not true (thankfully).

PS- It would appear Nissan may have left out the 42 gal/bbl conversion factor

 

Thanks Darelldd. Some of the links are broken, I hope this relevent data is still accurate.

bottom line from this is most non-oil energy used to produce californian gasoline is natural gas, then ethanol, then electricity. If you apply all the energy to gasoline you get

0.5 kwh electricity/gallon
2.1 kwh natural gas/gallon gasoline

If you build a combined cycle gas generation plants and use this energy, you will get another

1 kwh at the users plug. So a total of
1.5 kwh electric/gallon at the plug if the electricity and natural gas used to refine oil was used to supply electricity. Note some of this energy is used to produce other refined products from the oil, so this is a high estimate.

No natural gas or other substance to produce and transport the oil is used in this calculation and these figures are from bellow.

I like some of the reasoning. If someone can produce better figures, I'd like to see them. If natural gas used to produce oil in the oil sands in Canada was instead used to produce electricity, I'm sure we would see around 10kwh.

 

If you're calculating KWhr/gallon of gas you need to factor in that a barrel of oil doesn't give you 42 gallons of gas. From the net:

"The EIA tells us that in 2005, 20.8 billion barrels of oil and 9.16 billion barrels of gasoline (385 billion gallons) were consumed. That gives us a ratio of 18.5 gallons per barrel. The EIA also tells us that 69% of petroleum use is for transportation, and while I found that factoid interesting enough to let you know, it doesn't pertain to the current analysis so we will keep moving."

If your math is correct you need to multiply the .16 by ~2.27 which equals ~.36 KWhr/gallon of gas

 

There is absolutely NO WAY the entire current fleet could be switched to 60 mpg with a simple choice.

Even if you wanted to - you can not buy a vehicle which seats 6+ people and their gear that gets anywhere close to 60 mpg. Close to 30 mpg is attainable if you get a Mazda 5 (28 mpg highway) - but that is the only option on the market right now! Like it or not - a 6 passenger vehicle is a requirement for many people.

Turn that car into a hybrid - we might get 40 mpg using the best technology available right now (See soon to be released Prius V - though we aren't getting the 7 passenger version in the US). And we are still 50% shy of your 60 mpg goal.

Like it or not - there is no silver bullet here. Electrification (whether using EVs, PHEVs or HEVs) of the fleet is the only way we will significantly make a dent in our transportation emissions and energy consumption.

Yes - improving efficiency of our buildings is needed. I'm currently sitting in a very poorly insulated office building whose HVAC load could probably be cut in half by aiming at the low-hanging fruit (double-pane windows, reflective roof, some real insulation above the ceiling tiles instead of the patchwork of fiberglass R19, modern heat-pumps to replace the 15 yo units). But no-one is willing to pay for those improvements.

So in the mean time I've got my Prius, got my LEAF, done all the easy efficiency upgrades to my house and have solar panels which generate enough electricity to cover about 75% of our house and LEAFs usage. And when the PHEV Prius (or equivalent) becomes available we'll look at trading our Prius for that one and reduce our oil consumption some more. And look at adding more solar panels to account for the additional electrical load, too.

There's not much I dislike more than concentrated automobile emissions. When I'm walking/riding along the road or driving down the road, all too often I am forced to breath concentrated hydrocarbon emissions thanks to cold emissions equipment or poorly maintained vehicles. And then I think "what if all cars were electric?". The air would be a much nicer thing to breathe. (And if the plant that generates that electricity pollutes more than a Prius - that plant should be upgraded as well!)

 

San Carlos- Your calc is a little unfair, right? You are taking all the electricity used by the refinery and pro-rating it entirely against gasoline production which is only 44% of the total product mix. In other words, you are adding up the electricity to make diesel/jet/plastics/etc and counting that as electric needed to make gasoline. If that basis is OK wth you, fine. Still a small number per gallon. Its only going to get DarrellDD ~1-2 miles EV not the 30-miles he was hoping. Volume yield output in refinery (Gaso+Diesel+Jet+Lubes+etc) is going to be approx. similar to input Barrels, so that's why I did not prorate elec use to gasoline product only.

 

Here is refinery product data (overall 104% volume yield on crude typically assumed). Had to transcribe this table by hand.

Gaso 46.1 vol% yield on crude
Diesel 26.9
Jet 9.3
LPG 4.1
Other 20.1 (Lubes etc)
Total 106.5 volume % on crude for 2009

So although it does take ~10% energy of the crude to make the products, but there is also a ~5% volume swell. Actual electricity purchase is relatively small, as shown prior post, but other supplies such as nat gas needed. Google "Fuel Consumed at Refineries" to get eia.doe.gov fuel consumption breakdown.

Fuel consumed at Refineries-
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm

 

Don't know if this has been discussed yet, and I'm not really a fan of CARB, but for what it's worth, the current California average electric mix has a "carbon intensity" of 124.1 gCO2e/MJ while gasoline from California refiners has a "carbon intensity" of 95.86 gCO2e/MJ according to CARB as discussed in the California "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" report. Don't know how that would compare to the rest of the U.S (slightly less?).

CARB identified a "California marginal electricity mix of natural gas and renewable energy sources" as having a "carbon intensity" of 104.71 gCO2e/MJ.

 

Yes - it is a one-off opportunity for humanity to gouge on millions of years of sunlight (and geothermal) stored in a concentrated form.

Unfortunately, just like bacteria, humans are outgrowing this resource - even as the resource shows signs of maxing out.

Only a fool would assume, we will have this cheap oil forever.