Consortium to assess feasibility of dedicated ethanol pipeline in the U.S.
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. and Buckeye Partners, L.P. today announced they have begun a joint assessment to determine the feasibility of constructing a dedicated ethanol pipeline. The proposed ethanol pipeline system would safely and efficiently deliver renewable biofuel from the Midwest to distribution terminals in the northeastern United States (New York and Pennsylvania).
The proposed pipeline would have the capacity to supply more than 10 million gallons (37.85 million liters) of ethanol per day - roughly around 165,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day - , enough to meet the needs of millions of northeastern motorists who purchase 10% ethanol blended gasoline or higher ethanol blends such as E85.
The pipeline would gather ethanol from production facilities in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and South Dakota to serve terminals in major markets such as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the New York harbor (map, click to enlarge). The project, which preliminarily has been estimated to cost in excess of $3 billion, would span approximately 1,700 miles (2,730km) and would take several years to complete.
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: pipeline :: fuel infrastructure :: Midwest :: United States ::
In addition to assessing governmental support, financing and technical issues, Magellan and Buckeye stated that the feasibility study would also review construction requirements, construction costs, project economics, regulatory issues and other matters. The technical and feasibility studies could be complete in the latter half of 2008. However, the necessary governmental support, the timing of which is unknown at this time, is critical for the partnerships to make a decision on proceeding with construction of the proposed ethanol pipeline. Pursuit of the proposed project also is conditioned on changes to federal tax laws to ensure that transportation of ethanol by pipeline will be treated the same as the transportation of natural resources, such as refined petroleum products, by pipeline.
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. and Buckeye Partners, L.P. are unaffiliated publicly traded partnerships formed to own, operate and acquire a diversified portfolio of energy assets. The partnerships primarily transport, store and distribute refined petroleum products in their respective service areas.
Brazil has already begun building a dedicated ethanol pipeline to connect its sugarcane growing areas in the Center South (Sao Paulo state) to coastal cities. The 950 km pipeline network is a $800 million project managed by Japan's Mitsui & Co Ltd and state-owned oil company Petrobras.
References:
Magellan Midstream Partners: Magellan Midstream Partners and Buckeye Partners Announce Joint Assessment of Dedicated Ethanol Pipeline - February 19, 2008.
Biopact: Brazil planning $500 million ethanol pipeline network by 2008 - April 14, 2006
Biopact: Sao Martinho announces 30 year ethanol export contract with the Mitsubishi Corporation - March 26, 2007
Article continues
The proposed pipeline would have the capacity to supply more than 10 million gallons (37.85 million liters) of ethanol per day - roughly around 165,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day - , enough to meet the needs of millions of northeastern motorists who purchase 10% ethanol blended gasoline or higher ethanol blends such as E85.
The pipeline would gather ethanol from production facilities in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and South Dakota to serve terminals in major markets such as Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the New York harbor (map, click to enlarge). The project, which preliminarily has been estimated to cost in excess of $3 billion, would span approximately 1,700 miles (2,730km) and would take several years to complete.
The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline today is ethanol. But without an efficient means to transport ethanol from the Midwest to other markets, its benefits are limited. Having a dedicated ethanol pipeline running from the Midwest to the eastern markets will help bridge the gap between the Midwest and the East, aiding America's energy security. So I applaud these two companies' efforts and I look forward to working in Congress to support the development of such pipelines. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, an advocate of ethanol pipelinesThe feasibility of this project is dependent upon the successful outcome of ongoing studies addressing technical and economic issues associated with the transportation of ethanol via pipeline. Congressional support and assistance is necessary for a project of this nature given the changing federal policies associated with renewable fuels:
energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: ethanol :: pipeline :: fuel infrastructure :: Midwest :: United States ::
In addition to assessing governmental support, financing and technical issues, Magellan and Buckeye stated that the feasibility study would also review construction requirements, construction costs, project economics, regulatory issues and other matters. The technical and feasibility studies could be complete in the latter half of 2008. However, the necessary governmental support, the timing of which is unknown at this time, is critical for the partnerships to make a decision on proceeding with construction of the proposed ethanol pipeline. Pursuit of the proposed project also is conditioned on changes to federal tax laws to ensure that transportation of ethanol by pipeline will be treated the same as the transportation of natural resources, such as refined petroleum products, by pipeline.
We believe the proposed pipeline is a unique and innovative solution to meeting the growing need for renewable fuels in the Northeast. Pipelines have consistently been chosen over the years as the safest, most reliable and cost effective method for moving liquid fuels. The potential project would be a major step in bringing ethanol into the traditional petroleum infrastructure system. - Don Wellendorf, Magellan's President and Chief Executive OfficerAlthough there are many hurdles to overcome to make this ethanol pipeline project a reality, the two partnerships are hopeful that the obvious need for a pipeline to deliver ethanol from the Midwest to distribution terminals in the northeastern United States will lead to a viable and successful project.
This feasibility study will evaluate the possible use of existing right-of-ways and workforces as well as other synergies and resources that our companies have. Our goal is to develop a cost effective project that could deliver ethanol from the production hubs in the Midwest to the high demand areas in the Northeast. - Eric Gustafson, Buckeye's Senior Vice President and Chief Operating OfficerBoth companies have extensive experience handling ethanol at their respective terminal locations. Magellan already blends ethanol at 36 of its petroleum products terminals and is currently investing in six new ethanol blending systems at its terminals in the Midwest and southeastern states. Buckeye currently has 24 terminals with ethanol blending capabilities and is in the process of investing in two new ethanol blending systems at its terminals in the Northeast.
Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. and Buckeye Partners, L.P. are unaffiliated publicly traded partnerships formed to own, operate and acquire a diversified portfolio of energy assets. The partnerships primarily transport, store and distribute refined petroleum products in their respective service areas.
Brazil has already begun building a dedicated ethanol pipeline to connect its sugarcane growing areas in the Center South (Sao Paulo state) to coastal cities. The 950 km pipeline network is a $800 million project managed by Japan's Mitsui & Co Ltd and state-owned oil company Petrobras.
References:
Magellan Midstream Partners: Magellan Midstream Partners and Buckeye Partners Announce Joint Assessment of Dedicated Ethanol Pipeline - February 19, 2008.
Biopact: Brazil planning $500 million ethanol pipeline network by 2008 - April 14, 2006
Biopact: Sao Martinho announces 30 year ethanol export contract with the Mitsubishi Corporation - March 26, 2007
Article continues
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Norway and Saudi Arabia want carbon storage into the CDM; focus on biomass would end controversy
The antagonistic debate over CCS is unnecessary because when the technology is applied to bioenergy instead of fossil fuels, the most radically green energy system emerges, namely one that actively removes CO2 from the atmosphere and thus fights climate change like no other technology.
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECS) results in "negative emissions", that is, it goes beyond being merely "carbon-neutral" (as are ordinary renewables), but becomes carbon-negative instead: it takes emissions from the past out of the atmosphere.
In short, a focus on coupling biomass to CCS, would suddenly change the entire debate about the importance of CCS in the CDM. CCS + bioenergy offers the best of both worlds: it puts our historic CO2 emissions back into the ground and utilises existing infrastructures to do so. The carbon capture and storage technologies being developed in the fossil fuel industry, can be readily applied to existing biomass power plants; more feasible is for coal plants to co-fire biomass and then make a full switch, and for gas plants to increasingly utilize biomethane. Especially in the rapidly developing world - China, India - coupling biomass to CCS would be a highly elegant way to lower emissions there - and inclusion in the CDM would speed up the implementation of the technology.
Environmentalists who take climate change serious should be interested in this future option, because it can help cool the planet like no other technology. Researchers from the Abrupt Climate Change Strategy group have calculated that, if implemented on a global scale, BECS systems can take us back in time and reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels by mid-century. In short, we can whipe out our dirty past while generating energy in the process... In this sense, bio-energy with carbon storage is the strongest weapon in the climate battle.
The difference between ordinary renewables and BECS is radical: whereas solar PV, wind, nuclear, non-CCS biomass, or hydropower all yield lifecycle emissions of plus 10 to 100 tons of CO2eq per GWh, biomass coupled to CCS yields up to minus 1000 tons (see references below). The more carbon-negative bioenergy we were to use, the faster we solve the climate crisis. What's more, only biomass based systems can become carbon-negative, all other energy concepts perpetually remain carbon neutral at best, slightly carbon positive in practise.
Now consider the difference between CCS coupled to fossil fuels versus biomass, and what it would mean for carbon credits if the concept were to be included under the CDM. A coal plant can reduce its CO2 emissions by up to 650 tons per GWh (from +850 tons to around 200 tons). The plant would receive carbon credits from the reduction. But a biomass power plant, generating energy from renewable fuel that is carbon neutral from the start, would cash in twice: it not only reduces emissions by replacing fossil fuels, it also actively removes up to 1000 tons of CO2 per GWh from the atmosphere. Clearly, biomass + CCS would be highly attractive as a way to obtain carbon credits.
For this reason, Biopact tracks and supports developments in CCS, including attempts to get the concept under the CDM, which is what Norway and Saudi Arabia seem to be pushing for. Our motto in this respect is: everything the fossil fuel industry does, can and will be used against it in the most radical way, by biomass.
According to Dagens Naeringsliv, Norwegian Oil and Energy Minister Aaslaug Haga has asked for Saudi Arabia's support for CCS in meetings in Riyadh on Sunday with Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi.
"Both Saudi Arabia and Norway are concerned about the environment and want to reduce emissions with all possible means. CO2 capture and storage is an excellent way to reduce emissions," al-Naimi said. Haga told the newspaper: "We had very, very useful discussions. I am delighted about the effort that Saudi Arabia will make in this area."
How CCS can be included under the CDM remains up for discussion, but as long as stakeholders do not see the opportunity to couple CCS to biomass, the debate will remain antagonistic - unnecessarily so:
energy :: sustainability :: biofuels :: biomass :: bioenergy :: carbon capture and storage :: carbon negative :: bio-energy with carbon storage :: climate change :: clean development mechanism :: Saudi Arabia :: Norway ::
A U.N. climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December postponed a decision on inclusion in the CDM scheme pending further talks this year to clarify safety, legal and commercial viability issues.
An often heard critique against CCS - also expressed in Bali - is the issue of leakage and safety. Well, again, biomass offers a way out. If CO2 obtained from fossil fuels were to leak from its storage site, a serious problem would emerge since the CO2 gets added to the atmosphere. But in the case of biomass the CO2 would be biogenic in nature, and so in case of leakage there would be no new emissions (because the fuel from which the CO2 comes is carbon neutral).
Norway's Deputy Oil Minister Liv Monica said that in any case Norway wants "to get as many countries as possible with us to lobby for this. One part of the cooperation on climate is that Saudi Arabia and Norway want carbon capture and storage to be approved for carbon credits."
The Norwegian government is promoting CCS projects at gas-fired power plants at the Mongstad refinery and the Kaarstoe gas-processing and export plant on Norway's west coast.
Norway's oil and gas company StatoilHydro has been burying carbon dioxide from the natural gas stream below the seabed at its Sleipner field in the North Sea since 1996.
If CCS were accepted within the CDM, it would help create a global market for the technology, although offset schemes on their own would be unlikely to provide sufficient incentives.
Norwegian companies developing CCS, including industrial group Aker ASA and engineering group Aker Kvaerner, have pinned hopes on the emergence of a market. Aker Kvaerner has already developed a carbon capturing technique specially designed for implementation in biogenic CO2 streams (more here).
Aker predicted in January that building CCS plants could become a $1.5 trillion to $2.0 trillion per year business as important globally as the construction of oil platforms (previous post).
References:
Reuters: Saudi, Norway back carbon capture for CDM: paper - February 18, 2008.
Biopact: Carbon-negative bioenergy recognized as Norwegian CO2 actors join forces to develop carbon capture technologies - October 24, 2007
Scientific literature on negative emissions from biomass:
H. Audus and P. Freund, "Climate Change Mitigation by Biomass Gasificiation Combined with CO2 Capture and Storage", IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme.
James S. Rhodesa and David W. Keithb, "Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage", Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 29, Issue 6, December 2005, Pages 440-450.
Noim Uddin and Leonardo Barreto, "Biomass-fired cogeneration systems with CO2 capture and storage", Renewable Energy, Volume 32, Issue 6, May 2007, Pages 1006-1019, doi:10.1016/j.renene.2006.04.009
Christian Azar, Kristian Lindgren, Eric Larson and Kenneth Möllersten, "Carbon Capture and Storage From Fossil Fuels and Biomass – Costs and Potential Role in Stabilizing the Atmosphere", Climatic Change, Volume 74, Numbers 1-3 / January, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7
Further reading on negative emissions bioenergy and biofuels:
Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit, "Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage (BECS): a Sequential Decision Approach to the threat of Abrupt Climate Change", Energy, Volume 30, Issue 14, November 2005, Pages 2654-2671.
Stefan Grönkvist, Kenneth Möllersten, Kim Pingoud, "Equal Opportunity for Biomass in Greenhouse Gas Accounting of CO2 Capture and Storage: A Step Towards More Cost-Effective Climate Change Mitigation Regimes", Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 11, Numbers 5-6 / September, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s11027-006-9034-9
Biopact: Commission supports carbon capture & storage - negative emissions from bioenergy on the horizon - January 23, 2008
Biopact: The strange world of carbon-negative bioenergy: the more you drive your car, the more you tackle climate change - October 29, 2007
Biopact: "A closer look at the revolutionary coal+biomass-to-liquids with carbon storage project" - September 13, 2007
Biopact: New plastic-based, nano-engineered CO2 capturing membrane developed - September 19, 2007
Biopact: Plastic membrane to bring down cost of carbon capture - August 15, 2007
Biopact: Pre-combustion CO2 capture from biogas - the way forward? - March 31, 2007
Biopact: Towards carbon-negative biofuels: US DOE awards $66.7 million for large-scale CO2 capture and storage from ethanol plant - December 19, 2007
Biopact: EU launches DECARBit project to research advanced pre-combustion CO2 capture from power plants - November 21, 2007
Article continues
posted by Biopact team at 6:25 PM 0 comments links to this post