US Senators propose ethanol pipeline
Two of the senior senators from mid-western corn producing states, Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), have introduced legislation to investigate an ethanol pipeline. Currently, ethanol is mainly distributed by tankers over road and rail. The two senators are co-sponsors of a bill (S. 4003) that would direct the Department of Energy to conduct a study of the viability of distributing ethanol via pipelines. This would potentially make a lot of sense because the main feedstock for making ethanol in the United States today is corn, grown mainly in the central part of the country. The main markets for ethanol are on the coasts and transporting the fuel by road or rail cuts into the net energy available from the ethanol. If ethanol is to be widely used as a motor fuel, it makes the most sense to produce it from feedstock close to the source and then transport the fuel to market in a manner that uses the least amount of fuel. Of course building pipelines is by no means cheap or easy, but may well turn out to be the best alternative for ethanol.
[Source: harkin.senate.gov via GreenCarNirvana]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jiltedcitizen 8:14PM (10/10/2006)
I thought distribution of ethanol by pipeline was a bad idea because of the water it could pick up. And the corrosion it would do to pipes. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/METRO05/603210328/1148/rss25
Reply
Shaky Barnes 10:16PM (10/10/2006)
I don't think that's a problem for a pipeline BUILT for ethanol in the first place. You just don't want to put ethanol in a pipeline built for gasoline. Same as with the plumbing in flex fuel cars and E85 gas stations.
But maybe this senate investigation will resolve the issue. Probably just take 12 years and $80 billion to figure it out.
Reply
Jimmy 10:48PM (10/10/2006)
The primary concerns with ethanol in existing pipelines are water absorption and corrosion at valves and joints. The pipes themselves will be fine, however any built up sludge in the pipes may dislodge. It may be possible to upgrade existing infrastructure (one API paper suggested coating critical pipeline sections) or it may be cheaper/better to build something new. It is also worth noting that biodiesel is not sent via existing pipelines either (apart from one test of B5).
This is a good issue for the DOE to study. Future biofuels, whether from switchgrass, rapeseed or whatever, will need to move from the agricultural regions to urban areas.
Reply
MikeW 11:11AM (10/11/2006)
Why don't they just use butanol?
Reply
1985 Gripen 12:49PM (10/11/2006)
Hear, hear, MikeW!
I think the reason is that the corn lobby and midwestern politicians haven't put millions of dollars behind the advancement of butanol. The only ones I've publicly heard of working on butanol research are are a partnership between BP and DuPont and is intended to be introduced exclusively to the U.K. market next year.
http://www2.dupont.com/Biofuels/en_US/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biobutanol
Reply
kballs 1:33PM (10/11/2006)
YES! Butanol can be sent through the same pipelines as gasoline and diesel (and burned in the same engines as gasoline without modifications). It would be cheaper and faster to do the research on producing butanol instead of ethanol rather than building all new parallel pipelines for ethanol (and waiting for flex-fuel vehicles to take over the market).
Reply
jiltedcitizen 2:18PM (10/11/2006)
Butanol sounds cool. More energy dense than ethanol, can be made from corn also. Why not do that?
Reply
Jimmy 6:13PM (10/11/2006)
Butanol has been discussed here before. Summary:
* historically low yields versus ethanol
* butanol currently on the market is made from petroleum and not biomass
* current petroleum butanol is more expensive than gasoline, diesel, biodiesel or ethanol
* A company called EEI claims a patented process for making biobutanol with yields about the same as ethanol. EEI is developing a pilot plant. EEI has also trademarked the name "BioButanol".
* BP and Dupont have a butanol project in the UK. They hope to have a high yield butanol production from biomass method by 2010.
Reply
Ernie Engle 11:06AM (12/16/2007)
Too bad it is so difficult for us to get past government and industry gatekeepers. We invented technology 12 years ago that is a compete resolve for the corrosion and SCC caused by Ethenol tranported in pipelines. Our technology is EcoBeam XL MHD. Not only does it prevent internal pipeline corrosion, it also reverses existing corrosion. EcoBeam XL requires no chemicals, no power source, simple to install, no pipeline downtime to install or operate, no maintenance, unlimited use lifetime, and is very cost-effective.
EcoBeam XL effects absolute environmental protenction, and safety for the public and employees. Ethanol industry can use existing pipelines without fear of corrosion or SCC, if EcoBeam XL is applied. Contact me for more informatin at my email address [eccotech@aol.com]
Reply