|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 171
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
5
Distribution
The final stage in supplying any fuel is distribution to users. Gasoline and diesel
fuels benefit from a well-established distribution system that cost-effectively makes them
available for customers to purchase individually at service stations and for vehicle fleets
at refueling stations. In 2008, about 160,000 refueling stations in the United States supply
several grades of gasoline and sometimes diesel. The distribution system meets the
demand for gasoline with varied octane (antiknock) ratings, whose composition varies
seasonally to compensate for changes in ambient temperature and because of fuel
requirements related to air-quality control. Diesel fuel also varies seasonally in
composition because of cold-weather requirements.
The biofuel that is most available and most used today is ethanol, which accounts
for nearly 6 percent of U.S. gasoline use by volume and 4 percent by energy content. The
supply of ethanol is expected to increase steadily over the next decade and beyond as a
result of the Renewable Fuel Standard as amended in the 2007 U.S. Energy Independence
and Security Act (EISA). One of the important challenges to widespread use of ethanol as
a transportation fuel is that it cannot be transported and delivered in existing petroleum-
delivery systems (for example, pipelines), because of the incompatibility of materials and
water absorption by ethanol in the pipelines. Therefore, this chapter focuses on the
transportation and distribution of ethanol. Synthetic gasoline and diesel fuels produced
from biomass and coal and future synthetic biofuels, such as biobutanol, are expected to
be compatible with the existing infrastructure for petroleum products; distribution costs
for these synthetic fuels are expected to be similar to those for petroleum-based fuels.
Although their volume is expected to grow over the next decade or two, the increasing
volume could be accommodated incrementally in the existing infrastructure, so it is not
explicitly discussed here.
In considering ethanol as a transportation fuel, one needs to be aware that ethanol
is not a one-to-one replacement for its petroleum-based counterparts. Ethanol contains
only two-thirds the energy of the same volume of gasoline. The corn grain used and the
cellulosic biomass to be used to produce ethanol also vary in density and other physical
characteristics that affect their costs of transportation from field to conversion plants, as
discussed in Chapter 2. Most of the biomass will be produced in the interior of the United
171
OCR for page 172
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
States (or from wood in the Northwest). The economics of transporting biomass
feedstock vs finished transportation fuel favor biorefineries in the Midwest, but 80
percent of the U.S. population—representing the largest current and future transportation-
fuel markets—lives along the coasts. Figure 5-1 maps existing biorefineries and those
under construction that produce ethanol and biodiesel relative to U.S. state population
densities. As discussed later in this chapter, there is an ethanol-compatible infrastructure
for transporting ethanol to markets today for the relatively small volumes produced.
However, if the ethanol markets increase rapidly over the next decade, the lack of
delivery capacity and the complexity of constructing it will challenge the industry.
As of 2008, most of the ethanol produced is blended in gasoline at up to 10
percent by volume; such ethanol-containing gasoline is designated E10. There are few
outlets for higher ethanol blends, such as E85; close to 15 percent gasoline (by volume) is
blended with pure ethanol for several reasons, for example, to improve vehicle cold-
starting. If E10 fuels were sold at every refueling station in the United States, about 15
billion gallons of ethanol would be consumed each year. If the United States plans to
produce about 40 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol each year to improve energy
security and to reduce carbon emissions, the number of E85 refueling stations will have
to be increased to more than the 1,900 stations that exist in 2008.
ETHANOL TRANSPORTATION
More than two-thirds of the quantity of U.S. petroleum products is shipped via
pipeline, and the rest via barge (27 percent), truck (3 percent), or rail (2 percent) (Booz
Allen Hamilton, 2007). Ethanol is not compatible with existing petroleum pipelines; it
can damage pipeline seals and other equipment and even induce cracking in pipeline steel
(Farrell et al., 2007). The pipeline industry, however, is considering dedicated pipeline
for ethanol as an option (as discussed later in this chapter).
A typical ethanol-distribution system is shown in Figure 5-2. Typical ethanol
transportation fuels are E10 and E85. As shown in the figure, truck transportation is the
critical last step in the system (transportation from blender to fueling station). It is
unlikely that any other mode of transportation will replace trucks at this stage in the
distribution system, because trucks are the most economical mode of short-range
transportation.
If larger volumes are to be carried between biorefineries and blending stations,
however, there could be several competing modes. A next-generation ethanol plant taking
in 4 million tons of biomass per year would produce 30,000 bbl of ethanol per day. One
inland barge would transport about 30,000 bbl (1.3 million gallons) of denatured ethanol,
one railroad car about 750 bbl (33,000 gal), and one truck about 200 bbl (8,000 gal)
(USDA-AMS, 2007). For comparison, a 12-in pipeline could move up to 100,000 bbl
(4.2 million gallons) per day.
The cost of transportation and distribution is a substantial component of the total
cost of ethanol. In the United States, ethanol is carried from biorefineries to staging1 and
1
Terminal where smaller shipments of ethanol are received and held until there is sufficient fuel to
transport.
172
OCR for page 173
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
blending2 terminals and then to fueling stations by trains, trucks, and barges. Table 5-1
lists estimated costs associated with shipping ethanol via truck, rail, or barge (Jenkins et
al., 2008). The cost of transporting petroleum fuels from refineries to fueling stations is
about $0.03-0.05/gal, whereas the combined cost of transporting ethanol from production
plants to fueling stations is estimated to be $0.13-0.18/gal (Morrow et al., 2006; GAO,
2007). However, as discussed later, the costs of ethanol transportation could be
considerably higher if the delivery system is not optimized.
TABLE 5-1 Ethanol-Transportation Costs, by Mode of Transportation
Mode of transportation
Truck Rail Barge
Loading and $0.02/gal $0.015/gal $0.015/gal
unloading
Time-dependent $32/h per truckload Not applicable Not applicable
Fixed cost Not applicable $8.80/100 gal $1.40/100 gal
Distance-dependent $1.3/mile per $0.0075/mile per 100 $0.015/mile per 100
truckload gal gal
Truck capacity 8,000 gal 33,000 gal 1.26 million gallons
SOURCE: Adapted from Jenkins et al. (2008).
Trucks
Trucking of fuel ethanol is the most efficient and cost-effective transportation
mode for distances up to about 300 miles (Reynolds, 2002). Transportation costs are
much higher, $0.20/gal for longer distances. A typical transport truck can carry about
8,000 gal/load (Reynolds, 2002).
Increasing the amount of E10 or E85 fuel distributed would require increases in
the number of transport trucks. Today, for every 10 trucks transporting E10 fuel from a
blending terminal to a fueling station, there is one truck carrying denatured ethanol to a
blending terminal. Expanded E85 distribution would require 8.5 truckloads of fuel
ethanol for every 10 trucks leaving the blending terminal (API, 2008). The most pressing
constraint on increasing ethanol transportation is the industrywide shortage of drivers of
long-haul, heavy-duty trucks, especially drivers with HAZMAT certification. The truck-
transportation industry is already experiencing a shortage of drivers, and the imbalance
between driver demand and working truck drivers is predicted to grow to over 100,000
by 2014 (American Trucking Associations, 2005).
Barges
Ethanol transportation via barge or ship is limited to locations near large
waterways, so only about 10 percent of the ethanol produced in the United States is
transported by barges (USDA-AMS, 2007). Barges can, however, transport a large
volume of ethanol in a single shipment. Inland tank barges, for example, can transport 1
million gallons of ethanol (USDA-AMS, 2007). Larger, ocean-faring ships and barges
2
Terminal where fuel-grade ethanol is blended with gasoline. Typical blends are E10 and E85.
173
OCR for page 174
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
can transport about 1-12 million gallons of ethanol, depending on the size of the vessel
and the final destination. Inland barges transport ethanol down the upper Mississippi to
staging terminals below the river’s navigation locks. Larger barges or ships that transport
ethanol between staging facilities on the lower Mississippi and blending terminals on the
West Coast require passage through the Panama Canal and take about 34 d to make the
trip. Transportation times to East Coast locations take about 24 d (Reynolds, 2002).
Shipments to the densely populated northeast coast add $0.10-0.12/gal3 to the price of
ethanol (Reynolds, 2002).
Funding to increase the size of the 1930s upper Mississippi navigation-lock
system was approved in November 2007. The expansion from 600-ft locks to 1,200-ft
locks will open the upper Mississippi to larger modern barges. Increased barge and ship
transportation will also require more and larger multipurpose staging facilities along
waterways. Such intermodal facilities will be able to accept and quickly unload ethanol
arriving by barge, rail, and truck from the Midwest and then distribute it by the most
economical mode of transportation (truck, train, or barge or ship).
Rail
Trains currently transport most fuel ethanol from biorefineries to blending
terminals throughout the United States. Unit trains4 are the most economical and efficient
mode of transportation (see Table 5-2). Typical unit-train turnaround time for delivery
from the Midwest to coastal blending terminals is about 6 wk. However, if a biorefinery
has insufficient capacity to fill a unit train, a single-commodity train can gather ethanol
from several biorefineries, or it can be shipped in a single car as part of a multicargo
train. In those cases, assembly and disassembly increase the delivery time and cost.
Because the costs and time for transporting ethanol via rail and barge are similar (Table
5-1), the main benefit of marine cargo transport is the ease of unloading at the destination
because of its high volume (Reynolds, 2002).
As of January 1, 2007, 41,000 rail tank cars capable of shipping ethanol were in
use (USDA-AMS, 2007). Existing rail capacity can accommodate current ethanol
transportation demand, but increases in ethanol production will lead to a possible railcar
shortage. Railcar manufacturers have a 1.5-yr backlog of tank-car orders, and shortages
are expected to continue for the next few years because of the steep rise in ethanol
production (Crooks, 2006).
3
$0.02-0.04/gal for ship or ocean barge, $0.08-0.16/gal for inland barge.
4
A single-commodity train shuttling between a sole point of origin and a sole destination.
174
OCR for page 175
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
TABLE 5-2 Costs of Ethanol Transportation Between Southwest Iowa to Illinois and
from Southwest Iowa to California and the Louisiana Basin via Unit Train, Gathered
Train, or Single Car.
Unit Traina
Route Gathered Single car
Trainb
$/car
Southwest 2,100 2,500 2,900
Iowa to
Illinois
Southwest 3,900 4,400 5,300
Iowa to
California or
Louisiana
Basin
$/gal
Southwest 0.07 0.09 0.10
Iowa to
Illinois
Southwest 0.13 0.15 0.18
Iowa to
California or
Louisiana
Basin
a
95-car ethanol train originating at one plant.
b
Ethanol train originating at two or three plants.
SOURCE: BNSF Railway Company, 2007.
Pipelines
Pipelines are the most economical method for transporting large quantities of
liquids over long distances. Shipping fuel through pipelines costs $0.025/gal or less per
1,000 miles (Curley, 2008). Curley estimates gasoline-transportation costs by the various
modes as follows:
• Pipeline: $0.015-0.025/gal per 1,000 miles.
• Barge: $0.04-0.05/gal per 1,000 miles.
• Train: $0.075-0.125/gal per 1,000 miles.
• Truck: $0.30-0.40/gal per 1,000 miles.
Pipelines are not available for commercial biofuel transportation in the United
States, although they might have much lower costs. The combination of increased ethanol
production and demand with the time, volume, and cost benefits associated with pipeline
transportation is spurring interest in overcoming the operational, technical, and economic
issues associated with biofuel pipeline transportation. The primary issues associated with
such pipeline transportation are
175
OCR for page 176
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
• Ethanol has a greater affinity for water than does gasoline.
• Ethanol is a much better solvent than gasoline.
• Ethanol is more corrosive than petroleum products.
• Existing pipelines are not near biorefineries.
• The practical bounds on the “transmix” (a term that the industry uses for a
mixture of immiscible or otherwise incompatible fluids that need to be separated)
have yet to be established.
Because of its affinity for water, ethanol is hydrated by ambient water from other
transported fuels, terminals, and tank roofs as it flows through a multiuse, multipipeline
network. Pipelines for transporting traditional petroleum fuels are not airtight, so
moisture can get into the pipeline; but the small amount of water that enters does not mix
with the gasoline and can be easily drained off. Ethanol, in contrast, has a higher affinity
for water than does gasoline. Water contamination picked up during ethanol
transportation will increase the fraction of water above allowable fuel-ethanol
specifications, and the fuel will not be able to be sold to consumers. In a blended ethanol-
gasoline fuel, once the ethanol absorbs enough water in a pipeline system, the fuel does
not stay blended and separates into an aqueous phase that contains ethanol and water and
a gasoline-rich phase. In both cases, ethanol can be recovered from the aqueous phase
only by distillation. Fuel ethanol is routinely shipped via pipeline in Brazil, where phase
separation is mitigated by first shipping hydrous ethanol and then anhydrous ethanol.
(Hammel-Smith et al., 2002). Nonetheless, pipeline shipment of ethanol in the United
States will require capital investment and involve additional maintenance costs.
Because ethanol is a better solvent than petroleum products, transporting ethanol
through existing multiuse pipelines dissolves many common polymers in the pipelines
and thus contaminates the fuel ethanol. According to ethanol-pipeline testing conducted
by Buckeye and Williams Energy Services, frequent dewatering of pipelines,5 closed
floater storage tanks, dry storage tanks, inline corrosion monitoring, and filtration
systems would be required to transport ethanol through multiuse pipelines on a regular
basis. Ethanol-only pipelines constructed of ethanol-compatible materials would avoid
many contamination issues. However, construction of new pipelines would cost $1-2
million per mile, depending on, for example, right-of-way issues and material and labor
costs (GAO, 2007). Costs could be even higher in a tight construction market as existed
in the middle of 2008.
Another issue associated with the solvent properties of ethanol is an increase in
stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) in pipelines in high-stress locations. Cases of SCC have
been reported in pipelines, storage tanks, and associated handling equipment at
distribution and blending terminals. No cases of SCC have been reported at biorefineries
or after blending or in trucks, railcars, or barges (Kane and Maldonado, 2003). Thus, it
might be possible to design new pipelines that minimize stress to reduce the possibility of
SCC.
The pipeline industry throughout the world is seeking solutions to those issues. As
Curley (2008) observed in his review of the problem,
5
To remove water from pipelines.
176
OCR for page 177
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Since increased ethanol usage is being mandated in autos by the federal
government, cheaper ways to transport ethanol are needed. Using an existing pipeline to
transport ethanol is likely not practical because all the valves, gaskets, and tank seals on
floating roofs would need to be checked to see if the construction materials are
compatible with ethanol. However, a new multi-products pipeline could easily be
designed with ethanol compatible polymers in valves, gaskets, and seals. The steel for the
pipeline could be specified to minimize the possibility of stress corrosion cracking
(SCC).
The main unresolved issue is how to handle the ethanol transmix in a cost-
effective manner. If this issue could be resolved, transporting ethanol in a multi-products
pipeline could occur. Nevertheless, a small diameter dedicated ethanol pipeline may be
the best alternative since there are no transmix or product quality issues with this
alternative. A 4-or 6-inch dedicated pipeline could be placed in the same trench as a new
gasoline/diesel pipeline at a relatively low cost.
The Brazilians are studying running a small diameter (about 12-inch) carbon
steel pipeline from the interior (ethanol production areas) of the country to the east coast
of Brazil.
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners started up a converted 106-mile-long ethanol-
pipeline test in late 2008. The conversion and cleaning of the petroleum-fuel pipeline
included replacing gaskets and rotating element pumps with ones that are compatible
with ethanol. Extra pipe scrubbers were sent to remove excess buildup to prevent ethanol
from picking up contaminants along the way. The pipeline was used to send pure ethanol
that was batched side by side with gasoline going through the pipe. Corrosion inhibitor
was to be injected into the entire batch (Gunter, 2008a). In October 2008, Kinder Morgan
said that the pipeline test was a success and that clients could start shipping ethanol in the
middle of November 2008 (Gunter, 2008b).
Retrofitting all existing multipurpose pipelines is likely not practical; however,
new multipurpose pipelines could be designed with ethanol-compatible polymers in
valves, gaskets, and seals and designed to minimize SCC. Laying ethanol-only pipelines
next to existing multipurpose pipelines would be more cost-effective than purchasing
rights of way for new routes.
Integration of ethanol into the commercial fuel-shipment schedule with other
fuels and fuel grades requires that economical trailback tests6 and transmix-handling
procedures be developed. Transporting a biofuel, such as ethanol, directly before or after
a conventional petroleum fuel will result in a mixture of ethanol and hydrocarbons that is
beyond the acceptable specification for either fuel. The points where the transmix starts
and ends are related to the acceptability of trace amounts of fuel contamination (Curley,
2008). The trailback threshold depends on whether low levels of biofuels affect the
performance of other fuels, such as aviation fuel, and whether the biofuels meet
acceptable specification after shipment.
6
Trailback refers to the contamination of products in a multipurpose pipeline by additives or residues left
on the pipeline walls by ethanol products that were shipped previously. Trailback tests assess the level of
contamination in products shipped.
177
OCR for page 178
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Expansion of the Delivery System
As of 2008, delivery of ethanol from plant to refueling station takes place in an
existing system of trucks, barges, rail, and central blending plants. The system has
expanded incrementally as ethanol production has increased. However, if the large
production volumes envisioned by the EISA occur and the majority of ethanol is
produced in the Midwest and consumed on the coasts, the delivery infrastructure will
have to be expanded considerably. The alternative would be to use ethanol close to where
it is produced.
Although the cost of delivery is a small portion of the overall ethanol-fuel cost,
the logistics and capital requirements for widespread expansion could be substantial
hurdles if they are not planned well. Morrow et al. (2006) provided a thorough analysis of
the complexities and costs of widespread fuel ethanol expansion in the United States. If
planning is suitable and fuel ethanol’s cost is competitive in the fuel market, the panel
believes that the ethanol-delivery infrastructure would be expanded to meet demand.
Brazil, where almost all new vehicles sold are capable of using fuel from E20 to E95,
provides a good example of how a distribution system for ethanol, the retailing of fuel,
and the production of flexible-fuel vehicles could work smoothly without being
expensive.
The panel cautions that biofuel technologies will probably evolve from ethanol to
biofuels that are more compatible with the existing petroleum infrastructure. Thus,
planning for biofuel expansion should consider when biofuels other than ethanol might
come onto the market and ensure that the ethanol-delivery infrastructure is not overbuilt
and underused.
THE MARKET FOR BIOFUELS
Consumer acceptance of biofuels will be determined by a combination of
favorable prices relative to those of conventional petroleum products, subsidies and
mandates for biofuel, the prevalence of E85 and biodiesel fueling stations (Figure 5-3);
and the availability and affordability of flexible-fuel vehicles.
Distribution Infrastructure
Refueling availability is fundamental to the widespread adoption of alternative
fuels. Biofuel-refueling stations must grow beyond niche markets to a density sufficient
for supporting alternative-fuel vehicles. The number of fueling stations required to
service a community adequately is unknown. However, a recent assessment based on
urban population density relative to existing petroleum fueling-station density estimated
that about 50,000 stations would provide sufficient coverage for the general public while
providing retail competition between stations. That translates to about 0.5 station per
square mile in a city with a population of 500,000 and a population density of 2,000 per
178
OCR for page 179
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
square mile. The estimated upper and lower bounds on sufficient urban station coverage
are shown in Figure 5-4 (Melaina and Bremson, 2008).
Retrofitting existing fueling stations with storage and dispensing equipment
compatible with the chemical properties of E85 fuels is often expensive, and some station
owners are averse to carrying these biofuels. To retrofit existing fueling stations,
underground storage-tank systems, pumps, and dispensers must be converted to be
compatible with the higher-ethanol blends. Several issues associated with retrofitting
existing fueling stations are similar to those associated with pipeline transportation of
ethanol and ethanol blends: phase separation as a result of hydration, SCC, and
contamination as a result of incompatible materials commonly found throughout
conventional fueling stations.
Another hurdle in adding E85 capability to fueling stations is the restrictions
placed on branded stations and the ability to obtain insurance (Johnson and Melendez,
2007). Many refining companies that own major gasoline brands do not allow E85
dispensers to be placed under the same canopy as their branded gasoline dispensers. If a
branded fueling station wishes to add E85 capacity, a separate canopy must be added.
That requirement increases the total cost of an E85 retrofitting project (Johnson and
Melendez, 2007).
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted a survey and literature
search on the cost of adding E85-fueling capacity to existing gasoline stations (NREL,
2008). The survey included the costs incurred for 120 E85 stations, of which 84 would
have new tanks installed and the remainder would convert existing tanks. Replacing one
gasoline dispenser and retrofitting existing storage tanks to carry E85 at an older existing
fueling station would cost $1,736-68,000. The installation cost for a new E85-compatible
fueling station would be $7,559-247,000. The generalized costs for retrofitting or
building a new E85-compatible fueling station collected from the literature are listed in
Table 5-4 (NREL, 2008). The installation or retrofitting costs might not be considered
high for some, but they might not be feasible for some individual station owners.
TABLE 5-4 Generalized Costs for Installing New E85 Equipment or Retrofitting
Existing Petroleum Equipment to Be Ethanol-Compatible
Scenario Estimated Cost Description Major Variables
Affecting Cost
Includes new underground Dispenser needs, concrete
$50,000-200,000
New tank, new or storage tank, pump, work, excavation, sell-
dispensers, piping, backs, canopy, tank size,
retrofit
dispensers electric, excavation, location, labor cost,
concrete work permitting requirements
Dispenser needs, number
Converting Tank cleaning,
of incompatible
existing tank, replacement of
$2,500-30,000 components, location,
new or retrofit incompatible components
labor cost, permitting
dispensers in piping and dispensers
requirements
SOURCE: NREL (2008) and references cited therein.
179
OCR for page 180
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Fuel Use by Flexible-Fuel Vehicles
As of 2007, there were about 5 million flexible-fuel cars and light trucks in the
United States—about 2 percent of the total U.S. fleet. Since their introduction, the
number of flex-fuel vehicles7 available has steadily increased. The increase, however, is
largely a result of U.S. corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mileage rating
requirements as opposed to the availability of E85 fuel or consumer demand for
alternative-fuel vehicles.
Building a vehicle capable of running on E85 fuel adds about $100 to its
production cost. Flexible-fuel vehicles have upgraded fuel systems with large fuel pumps
and injectors that enable them to accommodate the greater fuel volume required for the
same energy content as gasoline (Hammel-Smith et al., 2002). The fuel tanks and lines
are composed of ethanol-compatible materials. Operating on E85 involves an increase of
a few percent in horsepower as a result of extra cooling of the in-cylinder air and the
higher fuel octane rating, and maximum vehicle acceleration is higher. Because of the
lower energy of ethanol relative to gasoline, fuel consumption (in gallons per 100 miles)
with ethanol is about 25 percent higher, although overall vehicle efficiency can be up to 5
percent better (West et al., 2007). The attractive antiknock characteristics of ethanol
could be used to improve the efficiency with which engines use gasoline in a dual-fuel
engine setup (Edmunds, 2008).
Encouraging the use of flexible-fuel vehicles and the use of gasoline with a high
proportion of ethanol is a complex issue. As discussed earlier in this chapter, getting large
quantities of those fuels to where the vehicles are can be challenging. In the past, the U.S.
Congress mandated that federal agencies gradually increase the number of flexible-fuel
vehicles in their fleets, but most purchased vehicles are used in places where flexible fuel
is not readily available (Kindy and Keating, 2008). To complicate the issue, many of
those flexible-fuel vehicles are large sedans and sport utility vehicles. Because of their
large flexible-fuel engines and low fuel efficiency, those vehicles used more gasoline
than smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles (Kindy and Keating, 2008). The
simultaneous implementation and market penetration of E85 fuel and flexible-fuel
vehicles is an important practical consideration.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 5-1
The need to expand the delivery infrastructure to meet a high volume of ethanol
deployment could delay and limit the penetration of ethanol into the U.S.
transportation-fuels market. Replacing a substantial proportion of transportation
gasoline with ethanol will require a new infrastructure for its transport and distribution.
Although the cost of delivery is a small fraction of the overall fuel-ethanol cost, the
logistics and capital requirements for widespread expansion could present many hurdles
if they are not planned for well.
7
Vehicles are designed to run on ethanol/gasoline blends from E10 up to E85 fuel
180
OCR for page 181
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Recommendation 5-1
The U.S. Department of Energy and the biofuels industry should conduct a
comprehensive joint study to identify the infrastructure system requirements of,
research and development needs in, and challenges facing the expanding biofuels
industry. Consideration should be given to the long-term potential of truck or barge
delivery vs the potential of pipeline delivery that is needed to accommodate increasing
volumes of ethanol. The timing and role of advanced biofuels that are compatible with
the existing gasoline infrastructure should be factored into the analysis.
Finding 5-2
Expansion of the flexible-fuel vehicle fleet needs to be complemented by presence of
ethanol stations close to where the vehicles are used. Past policy that mandated the
increased use of alternative-fuel vehicles did not result in reduced gasoline consumption,
because ethanol pumps were not readily available in many areas where flexible-fuel
vehicles were used. The close coupling of alternative fuels and alternative-fuel vehicles is
an important practical consideration. Future policy measures need to take into account
implementation of alternative-fuel vehicles, availability of alternative fuels, and
proximity of vehicles to fueling stations to ensure an effective vehicle and fuel transition.
181
OCR for page 182
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
REFERENCES
American Trucking Associations. 2005. The U.S. truck driver shortage: analysis and
forecasts. Accessed on October 19, 2008 at
http://www.truckline.com/StateIndustry/Pages/DriverShortageReport.aspx.
API, American Petroleum Institute. 2008. Shipping ethanol through pipelines. Accessed
on October 19, 2008 at
http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/pipeline/upload/pipelineethanolshipmentfi
nal-3.doc.
BNSF Railway Company. 2007. Pricing update: October 2007 ethanol rate adjustment.
Accessed on October 13, 2008 at
http://www.bnsf.com/markets/agricultural/ag_news/year2007/pricing07/p08-23-
07a.html.
Booz Allen Hamilton. 2007. Rationalizing the regulatory environment for renewable
energy: overcoming constraints for rapid growth in the biofuels industry.
McLean: Booz Allen Hamilton.
Crooks, A. 2006. From Grass to Gas: On the road to energy independence, How soon
will cellulosic ethanol be a factor? Rural Cooperatives (Ethanol Issue), Sep/Oct
2006, 16-18.
Curley, Michael. 2008. Can ethanol be transported in a multi-product pipelines? .
Pipeline and Gas Journal 235:34.
Edmunds, Inc. 2008. Edmunds.com. Accessed on October 19, 2008 at
http://www.edmunds.com.
Farrell, A., D. Sperling, S.M. Arons, A.R. Brandt, M.A. Delucchi, A. Eggert, B.K. Haya,
J. Hughes, B.M. Jenkins, A.D. Jones, D.M. Kammen, S.R. Kaffka, C.R. Knittel,
D.M. Lemoine, E.W. Martin, M.W. Melaina, J. Ogden, R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner,
R.B. Williams, and C. Yang. 2007. A Low-Carbon Fuel Standard for California.
Part 1: Technical Analysis. Davis: University of California, Davis.
Hammel-Smith, C., J. Fang, M. Powders, and J. Aabakken. 2002. Issues Associated with
the Use of Higher Ethanol Blends (E17-E24). Golden: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.
GAO, United States Government Accountability Office. 2007. Biofuels: DOE Lacks a
Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production with Infrastructure
Development and Vehicle Needs. Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Accountability Office
Gunter, F. 2008a. Kinder Morgan makes waves with Florida ethanol line. Houston
Business Journal, March 28, 2008. Accessed on November 11, 2008 at
http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2008/03/31/story4.html.
———. 2008b. Ethanol pipeline test a success, says Kinder Morgan. Houston Business
Journal, October 16, 2008. Accessed on February 11, 2009 at
http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2008/10/13/daily42.html.
Jenkins, B., N. Parker, P. Tittman, Q. Hart, J. Cunningham, and M. Lay. 2008. Strategic
Development of Bioenergy in the Western States. Accessed on October 13, 2008
at
http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/transfuels/reports/Biomass%20.ppt#256,1
,Strategic Development of Bioenergy in the Western States.
182
OCR for page 183
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Johnson, C. and M. Melendez. 2007. E85 Retail Business Case: When and Why to Sell
E85. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Kane, R.D. and J.G. Maldonado. 2003. Stress Corrosion Cracking of Carbon Steel in Fuel
Grade Ethanol: Review and Survey. Washington: American Petroleum Institute.
Kindy, K. and D. Keating. 2008. Problems plague U.S. flex-fuel fleet. Most government-
bought vehicles still use standard gas. The Washington Post, November 23, 2008.
Accessed on at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112200886_pf.html.
Melaina, M. and J. Bremson. 2008. Refueling availability for alternative fuel vehicle
markets: Sufficient urban station coverage. Energy Policy 36:3223-3231.
Morrow, W.R. , W. Michael Griffin, and H. Scott Matthews. 2006. Modeling switchgrass
derived cellulosic ethanol distribution in the United States. Environmental Science
Technology 40:2877-2886.
NBB, National Biodiesel Board. 2007. National Biodiesel Board Annual Report 2007.
Jefferson City: National Biodiesel Board.
NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2008. Cost of adding E85 fueling
capacity to existing gasoline sations: NREL survey and literature search. Golden:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Reynolds, R.E. 2002. Infrastructure Requirements for an Expanded Fuel Ethanol
Industry. South Bend: Downstream Alternatives Inc.
RFA, Renewable Fuels Association. 2008. Changing the Climate: 2008 Ethanol Industry
Outlook. Washington, D.C.: Renewable Fuels Association.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. Population profile of the United States. Accessed on October
10, 2008 at http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-
profile/profiledynamic.html.
USDA-AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Services. 2007.
USDA Ethanol Transportation Backgrounder. Accessed on October 13, 2008 at
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5063605&a
cct=atpub.
West, B.H., A. Lopez, T. Theiss, R. Graves, J. Storey, and Lewis, Sr., S.A. 2007. Fuel
economy and emissions of the ethanol optimized Saab 9-5 biopower. In Society of
Automotive Engineers Powertrain and Fluids Meeting. Chicago.
183
