Home
hamburger menu icon

Transportation of Energy

In comparing several methods of transporting oil and natural gas, we find that pipelines generally perform better than trucking, shipping, or train transportation.

Transportion of Oil

For overland transportation of oil, pipelines are generally the safest, cleanest, and cheapest 1 mode of transportation available.

The image: "oil_transport_externality.svg" cannot be found!

Source: Clay et al. 2.

The image: "oil_spill.svg" cannot be found!

Source: Frittelli et al. 1.

Transportation of Natural Gas

The two main methods of transporting natural gas are by pipeline and by shipping in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG). These methods consume energy, as a share of the gas being transported, as follows.

The image: "gas_transport_efficiency.svg" cannot be found!

Energy lost in transporting natural gas. Sources: Interstate Natural Gas Association

of America 3 for pipelines, Nagi et al. 4 for LNG.

Concerns are raised that leakage of methane from natural gas pipelines could reduce or negate the greenhouse gas reduction benefit over coal. The International Energy Agency 5 estimates that natural gas is responsible for 36.7 million tons of methane emissions annually as of 2022. Based on a 100 year global warming potential of methane from 28-36 6, methane emissions are the equivalent of 1.0 to 1.3 billion tons of CO2, or about 2.5-3% of world emissions.

Following, we report several estimates of the portion of natural gas that leaks from pipelines. Alverez et al. 7 estimate that at a leakage rate above 3.2%, natural gas power plants will exhibit greater lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal power plants over at least some period of time.

Sources: Alverez et al. (2018) 8, Alvarez et al. (2012) 7, Howarth et al. 9, Mitchell et al. 10, Chen et al. 11.

A difficulty in producing a reliable estimate of methane leakage is that leakage rates vary widely by pipeline, with a small number showing vastly greater leakage than most others 12. For this reason, a large sample is needed to produce a reliable estimate, and the need is underscored to control leakage on outlying infrastructure. Events, such as the 2022 explosions at the Nordstream gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, are also drivers of methane emissions 13.

Transportation of Hydrogen

As with oil and natural gas, pipelines are the most efficient method to transport hydrogen overland over long distances, and so an expansion of the hydrogen pipeline network may be necessary under an expansion of the hydrogen economy. However, hydrogen pipelines present several technical challenges over natural gas pipelines 14. Among these are embrittlement of certain steels, particularly strong, high-carbon steels, which poses higher maintenance costs and eventual safety hazards 15. As an exceptionally light molecule, hydrogen (H₂) requires thick pipeline material for containment. Measured leakage rates from pipelines range from 0.3% to 1.0% for distribution pipelines and 0.3% to 2.0% for transmission pipelines, less than leakage from truck transport and comparable to shipping leakage 16.

Transportation of hydrogen by truck has been estimated to cost $1.00 to $3.50 per kilogram of hydrogen transported, depending on distance, whereas comparable costs for pipelines with a transport rate of 30,000 kilograms per day have been estimated at $0.40 to $4.60 per kilogram 17. Higher per-kilogram costs are estimated for smaller volumes, underscoring the need for high volume for the economic feasibility of a hydrogen pipeline network. Pipelines are generally most cost-efficient for high volumes of transportation, while high-pressure trucking is most efficient for smaller volumes and large distances.

Transportation of Carbon Dioxide

Under a scenario widespread carbon capture, whether from industrial point sources or from the atmosphere, it will be necessary to transport large volumes of carbon dioxide, and this is most likely to be done by pipeline 18. As of 2023, the United States CO2 pipeline network extended 5385 miles and was sufficient to carry 80 million tons of CO2 annually 19, or a bit over 1% of U.S. total emissions. The total length of the American CO2 pipeline network surpassed 5000 miles in 2013 and has remained mostly flat since then 20. For carbon capture and use or sequestration to play a major role in decarbonizing the U.S. economy, the network must expand considerably.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy 21.

On February 22, 2020, a CO2 pipeline burst near the town of Satartia, Mississippi, causing 200 evaculations, 45 hospitalizations, and 0 fatalities 22. The prevailing trend in the years before 2023 has been around 5-6 incidents per year on average, or just over one incident per thousand miles of pipeline per year 23. From 2004 to 2021, there were $5.87 million of damages from CO2 pipeline accidents, over half of which occured in the Satartia incident 23.

The leakage rate, including both unintentional and intentional releases, is about 0.003% of the CO2 transported 20.

The difficulty in permitting CO2 pipelines has prompted proposals for the federal government to take control over the permitting process 24. The difficulty has also spurred interest in rail as an alternative means of transportation, especially for smaller volumes over a shorter distance 25.

References

  1. Frittelli, J., Andrews, A., Parfomak, P., Pirog, R., Ramseur, J., Ratner, M. "U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress". Congressional Research Service R43390. December 2014. ↩ ↩2

  2. Clay, K., Jha, A., Muller, N., Walsh, R. "The External Costs of Transporting Petroleum Products by Pipelines and Rail: Evidence From Shipments of Crude Oil from North Dakota". NBER Working Paper No. 23852. September 2017. ↩

  3. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. "Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Efficiency". October 2010. ↩

  4. Nagi, C., Appah, D., Chukwu, G. "Comparative Economic Analysis of Gas to Liquid and Liquefied Natural Gas Technologies". International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 7(6). June 2016. ↩

  5. International Energy Agency. "Global Methane Tracker 2023". 2023. ↩

  6. International Energy Agency. "Methane Tracker 2021". 2021. ↩

  7. Alvarez, R.A., Pacala, S.W., Winebrake, J.J., Chameides, W.L., Hamburg, S.P. "Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(17), pp. 6435-6440. April 2012. ↩ ↩2

  8. Alvarez, R.A., Zavala-Araiza, D., Lyon, D.R., Allen, D.T., Barkley, Z.R., Brandt, A.R., Davis, K.J., Herndon, S.C., Jacob, D.J., Karion, A., Kort, E.A. "Assessment of methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain". Science 361(6398), pp. 186-188. July 2018. ↩

  9. Howarth, R.W., Santoro, R., Ingraffea, A. "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations: A letter". Climatic change 106, pp. 679-690. June 2011. ↩

  10. Mitchell, C., Sweet, J., Jackson, T. "A study of leakage from the UK natural gas distribution system". Energy policy 18(9), pp. 809-818. November 1990. ↩

  11. Chen, Y., Sherwin, E.D., Berman, E.S., Jones, B.B., Gordon, M.P., Wetherley, E.B., Kort, E.A., Brandt, A.R. "Quantifying regional methane emissions in the New Mexico Permian Basin with a comprehensive aerial survey". Environmental science & technology 56(7), pp. 4317-4323. March 2022. ↩

  12. Brandt, A.R., Heath, G.A., Cooley, D. "Methane leaks from natural gas systems follow extreme distributions". Environmental Science & Technology 50(22), pp. 12512-12520. November 2016. ↩

  13. Poursanidis, K., Sharanik, J., Hadjistassou, C. "World's largest natural gas leak from nord stream pipeline estimated at 478,000 tonnes". iScience 27(1). January 2024. ↩

  14. Khan, M. A., Young, C., Layzell, D. B. "The TechnoEconomics of Hydrogen Pipelines". Transition Accelerator Technical Briefs 1(2). November 2021. ↩

  15. Giannini, L., Razavi, N., Alvaro, A., Paltrinieri, N. "Embrittlement, degradation, and loss prevention of hydrogen pipelines". MRS Bulletin 49(5), pp. 464-477. May 2024. ↩

  16. Esquivel-Elizondo, S., Hormaza Mejia, A., Sun, T., Shrestha, E., Hamburg, S.P., Ocko, I.B. "Wide range in estimates of hydrogen emissions from infrastructure". Frontiers in Energy Research 11, 1207208. August 2023. ↩

  17. Solomon, M.D., Heineken, W., Scheffler, M., Birth‐Reichert, T. "Cost optimization of compressed hydrogen gas transport via trucks and pipelines". Energy Technology 12(1): 2300785. January 2024. ↩

  18. Leung, D.Y., Caramanna, G., Maroto-Valer, M.M. "An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies". Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 39, pp. 426-443. November 2014. ↩

  19. Doucette, P., Vedala, M., Krishnamoorti, R., Radhakrishnan, S., Kever, J., Rossiter, A., Datta, A. "Carbon Dioxide Pipelines: Role in Responding to Carbon Emissions". University of Houston, UH Energy. 2023. ↩

  20. Krammer, R. "A Review of the Safety Record of CO2 Pipelines in the United States". Great Plains Institute. August 2024. ↩ ↩2

  21. Fahs, R., Jacobson, R., Gilbert, A., Yawitz, D., Clark, C., Capotosto, J., Cunliff, C., McMurtry, B., Lee, U. "Carbon Management Commercial LiftOff". United States Department of Energy. April 2023. ↩

  22. Mathews, W. "Failure Investigation Report - Denbury Gulf Cost Pipeline" Office of Pipeline Safety – Accident Investigation Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. May 2022. ↩

  23. Xi, D., Lu, H., Fu, Y., Dong, S., Jiang, X., Matthews, J. "Carbon dioxide pipelines: A statistical analysis of historical accidents". Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 84: 105129. September 2023. ↩ ↩2

  24. Moniz, E.J., Brown, J.D., Comello, S.D., Jeong, M., Downey, M., Cohen, M.I., Hezir, J.S., Kenderdine, M.A., Schomburg, M.G., Ellis, D., Moulton, A. "Turning CCS projects in heavy industry & power into blue chip financial investments". Energy Futures Initiative. February 2023. ↩

  25. Ho, A. "The Right Track: Advancing CO2 Transport by Rail". Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. April 2024. ↩