Can ethanol be transported through the existing pipeline? ... was [Biofuel] Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy
Hello, I was perusing the Energy Commission report (URL below) and it cites that a drawback of ethanol is that it cannot be transported by pipeline. That seems odd to me, after all it is a liquid just like petrol, no? What part of our liquid fuel pipeline infrastructure would need to be changed (when switching from petrol to ethanol and/or biodiesel)? Here's what the report states on p. 71, Table 4-1: [Regarding Corn and cellulosic ethanol] Compatible with existing infrastructure: It Depends . . . Can be blended with gasoline at varying levels, but cannot now be transported by pipeline and must be moved by barge or truck. It doesn't state that this is a problem with biodiesel however. From: http://www.energycommission.org/ewebeditpro/items/O82F4682.pdf Thanks folks. Be Well, - Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phillip Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy Dear BioFuel Readers, Regarding the recent US Energy Strategy, I read the executive summary which is as follows: 1. ENHANCING OIL SECURITY 2. REDUCING RISKS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE 3. INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY 4. ENSURING AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLIES 5. STRENGTHENING ESSENTIAL ENERGY SYSTEMS 6. DEVELOPING ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FUTURE As it relates to US activity in biofuels/ethanol/non-petroleum fuels, it appears the bipartisan panel strategy provides much opportunity for entrepreneurs and biofuel advocates. I wish there was more wording and attention by the commissioners on the actual ream activities of the distribution of new fuels, the refineries themselves and the pipeline distribution of non-petroleum fuels (soy, canola, rapeseed, WVO, SVO, ethanol, CNG) and more wording on the conversion of existing refineries into biodiesel refineries. Thanks Keith for the notification. --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DieselNet December 2004 http://www.dieselnet.com/ Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy The National Commission on Energy Policy--a bipartisan group of energy experts from industry, government, labor, academia, and environmental and consumer groups--released a consensus strategy to address major long-term US energy challenges. The report, Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges, contains policy recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural gas supply, the future of nuclear energy, and other long-term challenges. The report calls for incentives to increase global oil production, recommends to increase domestic vehicle fuel economy, and to increase investment in alternative fuels. The climate change plan would limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but a cost cap for doing so would be established. Incentives should be also provided for low- and non- carbon sources like natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestration. Among many detailed recommendations, the report supports domestic production of advanced diesel and hybrid vehicles. The Commission concluded that a combination of improved conventional gasoline technologies and advanced hybrid-electric and diesel technologies can significantly increase fuel economy without sacrificing size, power, or safety. The report gives little prominence to fuel cells and hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen was not deemed as potentially competitive with gasoline by 2020. The Commission supports continued research and development into hydrogen as a long-term (2050) solution. The Commission also concludes, however, that hydrogen offers little to no potential to improve oil security and reduce climate change risks in the next twenty years, said the report. To enhance US oil security, the Commission recommends increasing and diversifying world oil production, strengthening federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks beginning no later than 2010 and reforming the 30-year-old Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Furthermore, production of hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles would be encouraged by $3 billion over ten years in manufacturer and consumer incentives. Incentives would be also provided for the development of non-petroleum transportation fuel alternatives, particularly ethanol and biodiesel from waste products and biomass. These steps could reduce US oil consumption in 2025 by an estimated 10-15% or 3-5 million barrels per day. To reduce risks from climate change, the report suggests (1) mandatory GHG emission reductions, and (2) international cooperation in GHG reduction programs--both approaches traditionally opposed by the US administration. The Commission recommends implementing in 2010 a mandatory,
Re: Can ethanol be transported through the existing pipeline? ... was [Biofuel] Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy
Best Keith Hello, I was perusing the Energy Commission report (URL below) and it cites that a drawback of ethanol is that it cannot be transported by pipeline. That seems odd to me, after all it is a liquid just like petrol, no? What part of our liquid fuel pipeline infrastructure would need to be changed (when switching from petrol to ethanol and/or biodiesel)? Here's what the report states on p. 71, Table 4-1: [Regarding Corn and cellulosic ethanol] Compatible with existing infrastructure: It Depends . . . Can be blended with gasoline at varying levels, but cannot now be transported by pipeline and must be moved by barge or truck. It doesn't state that this is a problem with biodiesel however. From: http://www.energycommission.org/ewebeditpro/items/O82F4682.pdf Thanks folks. Be Well, - Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phillip Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy Dear BioFuel Readers, Regarding the recent US Energy Strategy, I read the executive summary which is as follows: 1. ENHANCING OIL SECURITY 2. REDUCING RISKS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE 3. INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY 4. ENSURING AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLIES 5. STRENGTHENING ESSENTIAL ENERGY SYSTEMS 6. DEVELOPING ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FUTURE As it relates to US activity in biofuels/ethanol/non-petroleum fuels, it appears the bipartisan panel strategy provides much opportunity for entrepreneurs and biofuel advocates. I wish there was more wording and attention by the commissioners on the actual ream activities of the distribution of new fuels, the refineries themselves and the pipeline distribution of non-petroleum fuels (soy, canola, rapeseed, WVO, SVO, ethanol, CNG) and more wording on the conversion of existing refineries into biodiesel refineries. Thanks Keith for the notification. --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DieselNet December 2004 http://www.dieselnet.com/ Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy The National Commission on Energy Policy--a bipartisan group of energy experts from industry, government, labor, academia, and environmental and consumer groups--released a consensus strategy to address major long-term US energy challenges. The report, Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges, contains policy recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural gas supply, the future of nuclear energy, and other long-term challenges. The report calls for incentives to increase global oil production, recommends to increase domestic vehicle fuel economy, and to increase investment in alternative fuels. The climate change plan would limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but a cost cap for doing so would be established. Incentives should be also provided for low- and non- carbon sources like natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestration. Among many detailed recommendations, the report supports domestic production of advanced diesel and hybrid vehicles. The Commission concluded that a combination of improved conventional gasoline technologies and advanced hybrid-electric and diesel technologies can significantly increase fuel economy without sacrificing size, power, or safety. The report gives little prominence to fuel cells and hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen was not deemed as potentially competitive with gasoline by 2020. The Commission supports continued research and development into hydrogen as a long-term (2050) solution. The Commission also concludes, however, that hydrogen offers little to no potential to improve oil security and reduce climate change risks in the next twenty years, said the report. To enhance US oil security, the Commission recommends increasing and diversifying world oil production, strengthening federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks beginning no later than 2010 and reforming the 30-year-old Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Furthermore, production of hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles would be encouraged by $3 billion over ten years in manufacturer and consumer incentives. Incentives would be also provided for the development of non-petroleum transportation fuel alternatives, particularly ethanol and biodiesel from waste products and biomass. These steps could reduce US oil consumption in 2025 by an estimated 10-15% or 3-5 million barrels per day. To reduce risks from climate change, the report suggests (1) mandatory GHG emission reductions, and (2) international cooperation in GHG reduction programs--both approaches traditionally opposed by the US administration. The Commission recommends implementing in 2010 a mandatory, economy-wide tradable-permits
Re: Can ethanol be transported through the existing pipeline? ... was [Biofuel] Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy
First things first: Happy new Year for us all Brazilian National Oil Co. and Alcohol distillers do move ethanol through pipeline through out the country ( pls remember in continuous land Brazil is among the six biggies) in so called multiple pipeline ( crude, derivatives and ethanol). Keith indicated one big restriction others do exist. Some of them are vanished via refining technology. But there are big differences in nature between ethanol and gasoline; *viscosity and lubricity *and they do affect pumps and pipe lifetime and they must be adjusted to this different reality. Also remember alcohol loves water so is not simple to keep it anhydrous. In short : yes it is possible and it is being done. The technology is there however significant investments must be made and this reduces the returns in short run ( roe and also reduces crude prices as demands is shortened ). As of now ethanol is as competitive as gasoline. Hope it helps. Very best for all of us and everybody else Chico Keith Addison wrote: Isn't the need to keep it anhydrous the reason Dave? Best Keith Hello, I was perusing the Energy Commission report (URL below) and it cites that a drawback of ethanol is that it cannot be transported by pipeline. That seems odd to me, after all it is a liquid just like petrol, no? What part of our liquid fuel pipeline infrastructure would need to be changed (when switching from petrol to ethanol and/or biodiesel)? Here's what the report states on p. 71, Table 4-1: [Regarding Corn and cellulosic ethanol] Compatible with existing infrastructure: It Depends . . . Can be blended with gasoline at varying levels, but cannot now be transported by pipeline and must be moved by barge or truck. It doesn't state that this is a problem with biodiesel however. From: http://www.energycommission.org/ewebeditpro/items/O82F4682.pdf Thanks folks. Be Well, - Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phillip Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 2:17 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy Dear BioFuel Readers, Regarding the recent US Energy Strategy, I read the executive summary which is as follows: 1. ENHANCING OIL SECURITY 2. REDUCING RISKS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE 3. INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY 4. ENSURING AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLIES 5. STRENGTHENING ESSENTIAL ENERGY SYSTEMS 6. DEVELOPING ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FUTURE As it relates to US activity in biofuels/ethanol/non-petroleum fuels, it appears the bipartisan panel strategy provides much opportunity for entrepreneurs and biofuel advocates. I wish there was more wording and attention by the commissioners on the actual ream activities of the distribution of new fuels, the refineries themselves and the pipeline distribution of non-petroleum fuels (soy, canola, rapeseed, WVO, SVO, ethanol, CNG) and more wording on the conversion of existing refineries into biodiesel refineries. Thanks Keith for the notification. --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DieselNet December 2004 http://www.dieselnet.com/ Bipartisan panel recommends US energy strategy The National Commission on Energy Policy--a bipartisan group of energy experts from industry, government, labor, academia, and environmental and consumer groups--released a consensus strategy to address major long-term US energy challenges. The report, Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America's Energy Challenges, contains policy recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural gas supply, the future of nuclear energy, and other long-term challenges. The report calls for incentives to increase global oil production, recommends to increase domestic vehicle fuel economy, and to increase investment in alternative fuels. The climate change plan would limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but a cost cap for doing so would be established. Incentives should be also provided for low- and non- carbon sources like natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and sequestration. Among many detailed recommendations, the report supports domestic production of advanced diesel and hybrid vehicles. The Commission concluded that a combination of improved conventional gasoline technologies and advanced hybrid-electric and diesel technologies can significantly increase fuel economy without sacrificing size, power, or safety. The report gives little prominence to fuel cells and hydrogen technologies. Hydrogen was not deemed as potentially competitive with gasoline by 2020. The Commission supports continued research and development into hydrogen as a long-term (2050) solution. The Commission also concludes, however, that hydrogen offers little to no potential to improve oil security and reduce climate change risks in the next
