Search

The construction of pipelines along high-throughput fuel corridors can alleviate demand for rail, barge, and truck transportation. Pipelines have a very different externality profile than other freight transportation modes due to differences in construction, operation, and maintenance requirements; labor, energy, and material input intensity; location and profile of emissions from operations; and frequency and magnitude of environmental and safety incidents. Therefore, public policy makers have a strong justification to influence the economic viability of pipelines. We use data from prior literature and U.S. government statistics to estimate environmental, public health, and safety characterization factors for pipelines and other modes. In 2008, two pipeline companies proposed the construction of an ethanol pipeline from the Midwest to Northeast United States. This proposed project informs our case study of a 2735-km $3.5 billion pipeline (2009 USD), for which we evaluate potential long-term societal impacts including life-cycle costs, greenhouse gas emissions, employment, injuries, fatalities, and public health impacts. Although it may take decades to break even economically, and would result in lower cumulative employment, such a pipeline would likely have fewer safety incidents, pollution emissions, and health damages than the alternative multimodal system in less than ten years; these results stand even if comparing future cleaner ground transport modes to a pipeline that utilizes electricity produced from coal. Monetization of externalities can significantly enhance the value of a pipeline to society. In this study, a pipeline with a construction cost of $1.37 million/km in 2014 USD and a NPV of revenue over 22.2 years of $1.85 million/km would be associated with $0.5–$1.3 million/km in avoided negative externalities—the majority of which are expected from avoided air pollution-related deaths ($0.26–$1.0 million/km) and avoided GHG emissions ($0.12–$0.19 million/km). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the rapid growth of the U.S. biofuels industry over the last two decades, the United States is struggling to meet Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) targets. In addition to the challenge of producing biofuels at cost that is competitive with petroleum gasoline, an additional expense for ethanol emanates from enabling its consumption as the US fuel market encounters the E10 ‘blend wall’—the maximum blend acceptable for use in existing gasoline infrastructure and vehicles. Without 1) rapid technological innovation in drop-in biofuel production, 2) increased tolerance of ethanol blends in existing infrastructure and vehicle standards, or 3) revision of the RFS2 to become production-focused instead of consumption-focused, options for increasing the average blend beyond E10 must come from a) increased consumption of mid- to high- level ethanol-gasoline blends such as E30 or E85, and/or b) increased E15 consumption among operators of vehicles manufactured in 2001 or later. We highlight research, deployment, and policy considerations to improve national and global alternative fuel system energy and GHG efficiency, and evaluate economic and emissions trade-offs associated with technically feasible strategies to increase ethanol consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around 90% of the ethanol produced in Brazil is trucked. Trucking is a fast, reliable, and widely available mode; however, it also stands out as the most polluting, unsafe, and often most costly. As ethanol production is expected to increase in Brazil, optimizing the ethanol freight system, both for export and domestic distribution, provides opportunities for greenhouse gas mitigation, cost savings, reduced congestion along transportation corridors, and short-term job creation. In addition, improvement in logistics also allows a greater storage capacity for ethanol. This paper assesses the economic feasibility and potential greenhouse gas savings of building new ethanol pipelines in Brazil. The calculations are performed in a standard discounted valuation framework and are applied to an actual pipeline project in development by the consortium Logum Logística S.A. The results indicate that the project will yield substantial value for the pipeline operator (approximately US$305 million in present value) and substantial greenhouse gas savings (approximately 17.5 million Mg over 30 years). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Petroleum fuels are predominantly transported domestically by pipelines, whereas biofuels are almost exclusively transported by rail, barge, and truck. As biofuel production increases, new pipelines may become economically attractive. Location-specific variables impacting pipeline viability include construction costs, availability and costs of alternative transportation modes, electricity prices and emissions (if priced), throughput, and subsurface temperature. When transporting alcohol or diesel-like fuels, pipelines have a lower direct energy intensity than rail, barge, and trucks if fluid velocity is under 1 m/s for 4-inch diameter pipelines and 2 m/s for 8-inch or larger pipelines. Across multiple hypothetical state-specific scenarios, profit-maximizing design velocities range from 1.2 to 1.9 m/s. In costs and GHG emissions, optimized pipelines outperform trucks in each state and rail and barge in most states, if projected throughput exceeds four billion liters/year. If emissions are priced, optimum design diameters typically increase to reduce pumping energy demands, increasing the cost-effectiveness of pipeline projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]