Life Cycle Analysis of Ethyl Lactate Production and Controlled Flow

Life Cycle Analysis of Ethyl Lactate Production and Controlled
Flow Cavitation at Corn Ethanol Plants
Prepared by:
Steffen Mueller, PhD
University of Illinois at Chicago
Energy Resources Center
[email protected]
Modeling Support Provided By:
Brent Riffel, Life Cycle Associates
June 16, 2010
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
1) Ethyl Lactate Co-Production .......................................................................................... 1
Process Parameters...................................................................................................... 1
Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Modeling........................................................................ 3
2) Controlled Flow Cavitation ............................................................................................ 6
Process Parameters...................................................................................................... 6
Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Modeling........................................................................ 7
Appendix A: GREET Modeling Inputs for Ethyl Lactate Production................................ 9
Appendix B: GREET Modeling Inputs for Controlled Flow Cavitation.......................... 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Ethyl Lactate Production at Corn Ethanol Plant................................................... 2
Table 2: Ethanol Plant Co-Producing Ethyl Lactate; Yields and Energy Consumption .... 3
Table 3: Lactic Acid Fuel Cycle Emissions........................................................................ 4
Table 4: Ethyl Lactate Fuel Cycle Emissions ..................................................................... 5
Table 5: Ethyl Lactate Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison ....................................... 5
Table 6: Ethanol Plant with CFC; Yields and Energy Consumption.................................. 7
Table 7: CFC Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison..................................................... 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Ethyl Lactate Production at Corn Ethanol Plant ................................................. 2
Figure 2: Ethyl Lactate Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison...................................... 5
Figure 3: Controlled Cavitation Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison ........................ 8
ii
Introduction
The present study examines the life cycle greenhouse gas implications from a) ethyl
lactate co-production and b) the adoption of controlled flow cavitation at dry grind corn
ethanol plants. Co-producing ethyl lactate at dry grind ethanol plants has been pilot tested
at Michigan State University and controlled flow cavitation is commercially deployed at
two plants.
1) Ethyl Lactate Co-Production
Process Parameters
Researchers at Michigan State University are currently commercializing technologies that
co-produce ethyl lactate at dry mill corn ethanol plants by esterification of lactic acid
with ethanol. Biobased ethyl lactate holds particular promise as an organic solvent. A
biobased chemical can be identical to the petrochemical product (such as biobased PTT
and petrochemical PTT) in which case the technical substitution potential is 100%.
Alternatively, a biobased chemical can be similar as is the he case, for example, for ethyl
lactate replacement of ethyl acetate, often resulting in substitution rates close to 100%.
The BREW report presents fuel cycle results for several petrochemicals that are
molecularly different from ethyl lactate, but chemically similar, suggesting close to 100%
displacement ratios.1
The data in Figure 1 and Table 1 below were provided by Dennis Miller from Michigan
State University for this analysis. The data details the ethyl lactate mass and energy
balance.2 As can be seen, co-producing 25 million pounds of ethyl lactate at a 30 million
gallon per year corn ethanol plant would decrease corn ethanol yield by 1.5 million
gallon per year and consume 20 million pounds of lactic acid. This process would
consume 166.3 MWh and 53,728 MMBtu.
Table 2 provides a comparison of an average corn ethanol plant (the base case) and a corn
ethanol plant co-producing ethyl lactate using the energy and mass balances detailed
above. Data for the standard corn ethanol plant are taken from Mueller (2010).3 An
average natural gas fired corn ethanol plant (normally consuming 26,206 Btu/gal, 0.73
kWh/gal, and yielding 2.78 gal/bu) equipped to produce ethyl lactate would consume
29,599 Btu/gal, 0.78 kWh/gal and yield 2.64 gal/bu of corn ethanol. This plant would
also consume 0.702 lbs/gal lactic acid but produce 0.877 lbs/gal ethyl lactate (or 0.8
pounds of lactic acid per pound of ethyl lactate). Due to the lower ethanol yield of the
ethyl lactate co-producing plant, the DDGS production on a per gallon basis increases to
5.98 lbs/gal.
1
Medium and Long-term Opportunities and Risks of the Biotechnological Production of Bulk Chemicals
from Renewable Resources – The Potential of White Biotechnology. The BREW Project; Final Report;
Prepared under the European Commission’s GROWTH Programme; Utrecht University, September 2006.
2
“Reactive Distillation: Utilizing Ethanol for the Production of Organic Acid Esters”; Presentation by
Dennis Miller (Michigan State University) and Richard Glass (National Corn Growers Association).
3
Mueller, S. “2008 National dry mill corn ethanol survey”; Biotechnol Lett DOI 10.1007/s10529-0100296-7, May 15, 2010.
Integrated Ethyl Lactate / Ethanol Production
Fermentation
Raw ethanol
30 Mgal/yr
Corn
(11.2 M bu/yr)
$23 Million/yr
Azeotrope
(EtOH/H2O)
Distillation
30/1.0 Mgal/yr
EtOH/H2O recycle
2.3/0.1 Mgal/year
Lactic acid (88%)
(20 M lb/yr)
$10 MM/yr
Esterification
process
Azeotropic EtOH/H2O
32.3/1.1 Mgal/yr
H2O
Ethanol
purification
Absolute EtOH
3.8 Mgal/yr
Ethyl lactate
25 M lb/yr
($28 Million/yr)
Absolute EtOH
32.3 Mgal/yr
Absolute EtOH
28.5 Mgal/yr
($60 Million/yr)
Figure 1: Ethyl Lactate Production at Corn Ethanol Plant
Table 1: Ethyl Lactate Production at Corn Ethanol Plant
Ethanol In (mgpy)
30
Ethanol Out (mgpy)
28.5
Yield Decrease
0.95
Ethyl lactate out (million lbs/yr))
25
Lactic acid in (million lbs/yr)
20
Ethyl Lactate Product (lbs/hr)
3,157
Ethyl Lactate Product (lbs/yr)
25,000,000
Hours of Model Plant Operation
7,919
Electricity (kWh/h)
21
Electricity Use (kWh)
166,297
Natural Gas (cfm)
110
Btu/cubic foot
1,028
Nautral Gas Use (Btu)
53,728,222,997
2
Table 2: Ethanol Plant Co-Producing Ethyl Lactate; Yields and Energy Consumption
Base Plant
Ethyl Lactate Plant
ETOH Yield (gal/bu)
2.78
2.64
Btu/gal LHV
26,206
27,585
Btu/gal LHV Incremental
1,885
Btu/gal LHV for purification
129
Total (Btu/gal):
26,206
29,599
Electricity use (kWh/gal, base)
0.73
0.77
Electricity use (kWh/gal Incremental)
0.01
Total (kWh/gal)
0.73
0.78
Lactic Acid In (lbs/gal)
0.70
Ethyl Lactate Out (lbs/gal)
0.88
Lactic Acid per Ethyl Lactate (lbs/lbs)
0.80
DDGS Bone Dry (lbs/gal)
5.68
5.98
Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Modeling
Life cycle greenhouse gas modeling was performed using Argonne National Laboratory’s
GREET model, Version 1.8c.0. GREET was first parameterized with the energy and
yield values from the base case followed by the energy and yield values from the ethyl
lactate producing ethanol plant. This analysis returned the greenhouse gas emissions for
each stage along the ethanol production pathway including emissions from farm
equipment, farm chemicals, downstream N2O, feedstock transport, ethanol production
(plant energy consumption), DDGS credit, ethanol transmission and distribution, and
combustion emissions (net of biogenic carbon). The results are listed in Table 5. All
GREET input parameters are listed in Appendix A.
Separately, the greenhouse gas lifecycle emissions of ethyl lactate production (from lactic
acid at the yields listed in Table 2) and the greenhouse gas credit from substituting ethyl
lactate for different petrochemicals needed to be evaluated. The BREW Report lists the
greenhouse gas emissions on a cradle to full-oxidation (use) basis for lactic acid and the
petroleum solvents substituted by ethyl lactate.
The greenhouse gas emissions for the various lactic acid processes in tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent per tonne of lactic acid produced are listed in the BREW Report and
reproduced in Table 3. The lactic acid process requirements of 0.702 lbs/gal of produced
ethanol are first converted to tonnes of lactic acid required per MMBtu of ethanol
produced.4 This value is multiplied by the life cycle factors stated in tonnes CO2e emitted
per tonne of lactic acid produced from the BREW Report to derive tonnes of CO2 emitted
per mmBtu of corn ethanol and then converted to grams per MJ. For example, as noted in
Table 3 lactic acid produced according to the BioLA-Anaer-GA-Fed process results in
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of 1.2 tonnes CO2e per tonne of lactic acid. Using
4
0.702 (lbs/gal) /2000 (lbs/ton)/76,330 Btu/gal ethanol*1,000,000 Btu/MMBtu*0.907 metric
tones/ton=0.0042 tonnes/MMBtu
3
0.702 lbs of this type of lactic acid per gallon ethanol results in overall lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions of 4.7 g CO2e/MJ.
Next, the greenhouse gas credit from substituting ethyl lactate for different
petrochemicals is being assessed (see Table 4). The selected chemically similar
petrochemicals to ethyl lactated are Ethyl Acetate, Benzene, EGBE, MEK, and Acetone.
Following the same equations as described above with process yields of 0.877 lbs/gal of
ethyl lactate substituting for MEK, for example, would generate life cycle greenhouse gas
savings of 28.2 gCO2e/MJ.
Finally, we compare the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for base case corn ethanol to
the emissions for co-producing ethyl lactate at an ethanol plant. As shown in Table 5 the
emissions for base case corn ethanol total 51.5 g CO2e/MJ.5 The CO2e for each pathway
component are also shown in Figure 2. Assuming lactic acid production using the BioLAAnaer-GA-Fed described above (emitting 4.7 g CO2e/MJ) and producing ethyl lactate
substituting for MEK (a 28.2 g CO2e/MJ credit) and adding the other life cycle
components of the corn ethanol production process we derive total emissions of 32.3
gCO2e/MJ. The pathway details are listed as Case 1 in Table 5. The pathway details for
the least favorable production conditions (producing lactic acid via BioLA-SRITpH6cont and substituting ethyl acetate) are listed as Case 2 in Table 5.6
In summary, depending on the lactic acid production process and the petrochemical
substituted by ethyl lactate, co-producing ethyl lactate at corn ethanol plants can reduce
ethanol’s life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 8% to 37%.
Table 3: Lactic Acid Fuel Cycle Emissions
BioLA-SRI-TpH6cont (Lactic acid via anaerobic,
continuous ph6 fermentation by Lactobacillus
delbruecki on dextrose, workup via extraction),
BioLA-SRI-FlowpH (Lactic acid via anaerobic,
continuous low ph fermentation by homolactic
bacteria on dextrose, work up via extraction),
BioLA-NW-Tu (Lactic acid via anaerobic
fermentation on dextrose, workup involving
neutralization and acidification),
BioLA-Sh-Fex (Lactic acid anaerobic, continuous
low ph fermentation, workup via solvent extraction),
BioLA-Sh-Fed (Lactic acid via anaerobic, low ph
fermentation, workup via electrodialysis,
BioLA-Anaer-GA-Fed (Lactic acid via anaerobic
continuous fermentation on dextrose, workup via
electrodialysis),
BioLA-NW-FU (lactic acid via anaerobic
fermentation on dextrose)
CO2e
tonne/tonne
2.7
CO2e
g/MJ ethanol 10.7 BioLA-SRI-FlowpH
2.4
9.5 BioLA-NW-Tu
2.0
7.9 BioLA-Sh-Fex
1.9
7.5 BioLA-Sh-Fed
1.8
7.1 BioLA-Anaer-GA-Fed
1.2
4.7 BioLA-NW-FU
1.2
4.7 BioLA-SRI-TpH6cont
5
This does not include emissions from land use change
Note that the farm related emissions also increase for Case 1 and Case 2 over the Base Case due to lower
ethanol output from the same amount of bushels, which results in a smaller denominator for fixed inputs.
6
4
Table 4: Ethyl Lactate Fuel Cycle Emissions
CO2e
tonne/tonne
3.9
CO2e
g/MJ ethanol -19.3
Benzene
4.9
-24.2
EGBE
4.0
-19.8
MEK
5.7
-28.2
Acetone
4.2
-20.8
Average
4.5
-22.4
Petroleum Solvents
Ethyl Acetate
Table 5: Ethyl Lactate Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison
Pathway Component
Base Ethanol
gCO2e/MJ
Farm Equipment
Farm Chemicals
Downstream N2O
Feedstock Transport
Plant Energy
DDGS Credit
Lactic Acid
Ethyl Lactate Credit Petr.
Substitute
Ethanol T&D
Combustion (net)
Total Fuel Cycle
Reduction from Base Ethanol
Ethyl Lactate
Case 1
Ethyl Lactate
Case 2
gCO2e/MJ
gCO2e/MJ
5.0
7.9
15.6
2.2
29.4
-13.0
0.0
5.3
8.3
16.4
2.3
32.8
-13.6
4.7
5.3
8.3
16.4
2.3
32.8
-13.6
10.7
0.0
1.4
2.9
51.5
-28.2
1.4
2.9
32.3
-37.2%
-19.3
1.4
2.9
47.2
-8.3%
gCO2e/MJ
Life Cycle Analysis: Ethyl Lactate Co-Produced with Corn Ethanol
100.0
100.0
90.0
90.0
80.0
80.0
70.0
70.0
60.0
60.0
50.0
50.0
40.0
40.0
Lactic Acid
30.0
30.0
DDGS Credit
20.0
20.0
Plant Energy
10.0
10.0
Feedstock Transport
0.0
0.0
Downstream N2O
-10.0
-10.0
-20.0
-20.0
-30.0
-30.0
-40.0
-40.0
-50.0
-50.0
-60.0
Combustion (net)
Ethanol T&D
Ethyl Lactate Credit Petr. Substitute
Farm Chemicals
Farm Equipment
Total Fuel Cycle
-60.0
Base Ethanol
Ethyl Lactate Case 1
Ethyl Lactate Case 2
Figure 2: Ethyl Lactate Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison
5
2) Controlled Flow Cavitation
Process Parameters
Controlled flow cavitation (CFC), a process enhancement developed by Arisdyne
Systems, Inc., is currently utilized by 2 operating ethanol plants. The process
improvement routes the corn and enzyme slurry through a narrow nozzle, which reduces
the particle size distribution and enhances starch accessibility to enzymes. The resulting
yield increases range between 3% to 5%. Besides increased starch conversion, laboratory
testing has shown that CFC also holds particular promise for corn kernel fiber to ethanol
conversion, which would increase yield by an additional 3% to 5%. We model both the
additional starch conversion from CFC and a combined starch and fiber to ethanol case.
Employing CFC alters the feed production and energy requirements of an ethanol plant.
While feed production on a mass basis is reduced, the protein and fat content remain
unchanged from the base process. Since less DDGS are being dried, the thermal
requirements are reduced, but electricity needs increase to operate an additional 500 hp
motor needed for the process (see Table 6).7
For our analysis we model the following cases:
1) A base case corn ethanol plant yielding 2.72 gal/bu and producing 312,500 tons of
DDGS per year. Lower yielding base plants would likely stand to gain higher
yield increases from CFC.
2) An ethanol plant with CFC yielding 2.83 gal/bu and producing 286,100 tons of
DDGS per year. However, due to the DDGS’ protein and fact content the feed
value is equivalent to the base plant’s production of 312,500 tons.
3) An ethanol plant with CFC and corn kernel fiber conversion yielding 2.94 gal/bu
and producing 259,700 tons of DDGS per year. However, due to the DDGS’
higher protein and fact content (on a mass basis) the feed value is equivalent to
the base plant’s production of 312,500 tons.
4) An ethanol plant with CFC and corn kernel fiber conversion yielding 2.94 gal/bu
and producing 259,700 tons of DDGS per year. This case, however, assumes that
the feed value is evaluated on a mass basis and therefore equivalent to 259,700
tons.
7
Note that in the CFC&fiber case, the electricity consumption is slightly less than in the CFC only case
because the CFC&fiber increases yield without incremental electricity thus slightly reducing electricity use
on a per gallon basis.
6
Table 6: Ethanol Plant with CFC; Yields and Energy Consumption
Million Gallon Per Year Yield (gal/bu) DDG Displacement lbs/gal (bone dry) Modeled DDGS Displacement (tons/yr) Actual DDGS Production (tons/yr) Energy Consumption (Btu LHV/gal anhydrous) Base Case Energy Consumption (kWh /gal anhydrous) 100,000,000 2.72 5.63 312,500 312,500 30,000 0.710 Starch 104,000,000 2.83 5.41 312,500 286,100 29,023 0.742 CFC&fiber 1 108,000,000 2.94 5.21 312,500 259,700 28,118 0.741 CFC&fiber 2 108,000,000 2.94 4.33 259,700 259,700 28,118 0.741 Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Modeling
Life cycle greenhouse gas modeling was performed using Argonne National Laboratory’s
GREET model, Version 1.8c.0. GREET was first parameterized with the energy and
yield values from the base case followed by the energy and yield values for the various
process improvement cases. The GREET input parameters are summarized in Appendix
B. The resulting greenhouse gas emissions by individual pathway component are listed in
Table 7 and Figure 3. The results indicate that CFC reduces greenhouse gas emissions on
a life cycle basis by 2.3% and CFC combined with corn kernel fiber conversion reduces
greenhouse gas emissions by 4.9%.8 In the less likely case that DDGS is not valued for its
protein and fat content, greenhouse gas emissions in the CFC combined with corn kernel
fiber conversion are reduced by 1.3% over the base case.
Table 7: CFC Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison
Pathway Component
Farm Equipment
Farm Chemicals
Downstream N2O
Feedstock Transport
Base Case
(g CO2e/MJ)
5.1
CFC Only
(g CO2e/MJ))
4.9
CFC&Fiber 1
(g CO2e/MJ)
4.7
CFC&Fiber 2
(g CO2e/MJ)
4.7
8.1
7.8
7.5
7.5
15.9
15.3
14.7
14.7
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
Plant Energy
32.5
32.0
31.2
31.2
DDGS Credit
-12.8
-12.3
-11.9
-9.9
Ethanol T&D
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Combustion (net)
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
Total Fuel Cycle
55.4
% Reduction from Base Case
54.1
52.7
54.7
2.3%
4.9%
1.3%
8
Note that the farm related emissions decrease for the CFC and CFC&fiber cases over the Base Case due
to higher ethanol output from the same amount of bushels, which results in a larger denominator for fixed
inputs.
7
gCO2e/MJ
Life Cycle Analysis: Contolled Flow Cavitation
70.0
70.0
65.0
65.0
60.0
60.0
55.0
55.0
50.0
50.0
45.0
45.0
40.0
40.0
35.0
35.0
30.0
30.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
-5.0
-5.0
-10.0
-10.0
-15.0
Combustion (net)
Ethanol T&D
DDGS Credit
Plant Energy
Feedstock Transport
Downstream N2O
Farm Chemicals
Farm Equipment
Total Fuel Cycle
-15.0
Base Case
CFC
CFC & Fiber 1
CFC & Fiber 2
Figure 3: Controlled Cavitation Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Comparison
8
Appendix A: GREET Modeling Inputs for Ethyl Lactate Production
Corn Farming
Fuel Inputs (Corn Basis)
Diesel
Gasoline
Natural gas
LPG
Parameter
5,715
2,298
1,835
2,119
Electricity Input
Electricity
kW h/bu
Chemical Inputs
N
P2O5
Parameter
Units
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
0.2
667.3
Units
Ammonia
70.7%
Urea
21.1%
Amm. Nitrate
8.2%
1,202 g/bu
Atrazine
Metolachlor
Acetochlor
Cyanazine
8.10 g/bu
0.68 g/bu
31.2%
28.1%
23.6%
17.1%
420 g/bu
149 g/bu
K 2O
174 g/bu
CaCO3
Herbicide
Insecticide
Soil N Emissions (g/bu corn)
N content of ag system
N in N 2O as % of N in fertilizer and
141.6
1.3%
Corn Transport to Ethanol Plant
Transport Segment
Corn to stack
Stack to Ethanol plant
Mode
Medium Duty Truck
Heavy Duty Truck
Capacity (tons)
Distance (mi)
8
15
10
40
Share
100.0%
100.0%
Ethanol Plant
Select scenario
Yields
Ethanol
DGS
DGS moisture content
Thermal Energy Inputs
Natural gas
Coal
Electricity Input
Electricity
Products Displaced by DDGS
Feed corn
Soybean meal
N-urea
Ethyl Lactate Scenario
Parameter
Units
2.64 gal/bu
6.64 wet lbs/gal
10.0% dry lbs/gal
Baseline
2.78
6.31
Btu/gal
Btu/gal
26,206
0
29,599
0
kWh/gal
Btu/bu
0.78
kWh/gal
2,656
Displacement Ratio
0.99
0.31
0.02
Ethyl Lactate Scenario
2.64
6.64
Btu/gal
29,599
0
kWh/gal
0.73
0.78
Displacement Ratio Displacement Ratio
0.99
0.99
0.31
0.31
0.02
0.02
Ethyl Lactate Production
Ethanol Allocation
Ethanol fuel
Ethanol feedstock
Total
M gal/yr
Inputs
Ethanol
Lactic acid
lbs/lb EL
Output
Ethyl Lactate
Thermal Energy Inputs
Natural gas
M lbs/yr
95.0
5.0
100.0
625.8
32.9
658.7
0.40
0.80
lbs/lb Ethanol Input
2.53
lbs/lb Ethanol Fuel lbs/gal Ethanol Fuel
0.13
0.88
Btu/lb EL
2,055
9
Appendix B: GREET Modeling Inputs for Controlled Flow Cavitation
Corn Farming
Fuel Inputs (Corn Basis)
Diesel
Gasoline
Natural gas
LPG
Parameter
Units
5,715
2,298
1,835
2,119
Electricity Input
Electricity
kW h/bu
Chemical Inputs
N
P2O5
K2O
CaCO3
Herbicide
Insecticide
Parameter
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
Btu/bu
0.2
Units
420
149
174
1,202
8.10
0.68
Soil N Emissions (g/bu corn)
N content of ag system
N in N2O as % of N in fertilizer and biomass
667.3
g/bu
g/bu
g/bu
g/bu
g/bu
g/bu
Ammonia
70.7%
Urea
21.1%
Amm. Nitrate
8.2%
Atrazine
31.2%
Metolachlor
28.1%
Acetochlor
23.6%
Cyanazine
17.1%
141.6
1.3%
Corn Transport to Ethanol Plant
Transport Segment
Corn to stack
Stack to Ethanol plant
Mode
Medium Duty Truck
Heavy Duty Truck
Capacity (tons)
Distance (mi)
8
15
10
40
Share
100.0%
100.0%
Ethanol Plant
Select scenario
Yields
Ethanol
DDGG
DGS moisture content
Thermal Energy Inputs
Natural gas
Coal
Electricity Input
Electricity
Products Displaced by DDGS
DGS:Corn
DGS:Soy Bean Meal
DGS:N in Urea
Baseline
Parameter
Units
2.94 gal/bu
4.81 wet lbs/gal
10.0%
Baseline
Btu/gal
28,118
0
kWh/gal
Btu/bu
0.741
2,527
Displacement Ratio (lb/wet lb DGS)
0.992
0.306
0.022
Starch
Starch & Fiber 1 Starch & Fiber 2
2.94
2.94
6.25
4.81
2.72
6.25
2.83
6.25
Btu/gal
30,000
0
Btu/gal
29,023
0
Btu/gal
28,118
0
Btu/gal
28,118
0
kWh/gal
0.710
kW h/gal
0.742
kWh/gal
0.741
kW h/gal
0.741
Ratio
Ratio
0.992
0.306
0.022
Ratio
0.992
0.306
0.022
Ratio
0.992
0.306
0.022
0.992
0.306
0.022
Ethanol Transport and Distribution
Transport Segment
Fuel transport
Fuel distribution
Mode
Rail
Barge
Heavy Duty Truck
Heavy Duty Truck
Capacity (tons)
25
25
Distance (mi)
800
520
80
30
Share
40.0%
40.0%
20.0%
100.0%
10