“What about secondary containment pipe? You can’t move gasoline without it.”
Why is that an issue?
“I can’t imagine this saving much money using carbon and epoxy.”
You might be right, or then again the lead scientist/engineer maybe crunched the numbers, including the alternative numbers for all the cement & steel, and considering their transportation costs, and thinks there is an economic opportunity. I don’t know that answer, they do.
“Also, mandrel-wound composite pipe is structurally inferior to pipe centrifugally cast inside a hollow mandrel.”
I wonder if that holds true for “mandrel wound” pipe made with the different materials involved in making this pipe.
“When they can come up with a mobile centrifugal casting process then they’ll really have something.”
They talk about a mobile process they intend to engineer (not finished on that yet they say) for their “wound mandrel” method. Given your first question about “wound mandrel” cast pipes, I think your last question requires their answer to your first.
“But none of this could work in secondary containment applications.”
Why? I’m ignorant and just asking.
I can’t get my head around anyone making a pipe like that within a another pipe like that in the field. EPA rules for underground systems carrying just about anything other than water require secondary containment, including petroleum.
As far as single pipe, something field-fabricated would save a ton of money in terms of labor and logistics. But I’m not sure how the expense of carbon fiber would fit into that equation. What I meant earlier is that if they used fiberglass which is cheaper with a stronger fiberglass process (centrifugal casting) then they would ahve something really cool ... but still the whole idea just seems like a pipe dream. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;^)