IATA 2007 Report on Alternative Fuels - International Air · PDF file · 2010-03-02IATA 2007 Report on Alternative Fuels 1 FOREWORD Minimizing the impact of the aviation industry

IATA 2007 Report on Alternative Fuels

1

FOREWORD

Minimizing the impact of the aviation industry on the Environment is one of IATA’s top priorities. Airlines are taking practical measures to limit their 2% share of global CO2 emissions and to help them attain this objective; IATA developed the Environment Campaign. Under the guidance and support of our IATA Board of Governors and the Operations Committee (OPC), which provides expertise in the fields of Safety, Operations and Infrastructure, IATA’s actions are strategically coordinated thought a four-pillar strategy, which is expanded in 2008 to address:

Technology: a data bank for upgrades/fleet renewal will be developed and a technology roadmap drawn up.

Operations: Fuel Efficiency Go-Teams will be expanded into “Green Teams”, covering ground operations, fleet renewal programmes and aircraft upgrades.

Infrastructure: more aggressive pursuit of flexible airspace tracks with focus on airports and TMAs’, plus the development of new procedures based on GNSS technology.

Economic measures: the campaign against punitive taxes and charges and in favour of positive economic incentives continues.

Communications: the industry’s good environmental track record will be promoted. Oil prices are higher then ever and the concerns about global warming feed the interest in fuels from affordable, but environmentally friendly alternative sources. IATA’s vision is to lead the aviation industry in future supply initiatives of sustainable alternative fuels. Using and producing alternatives fuels require the right information, developments and technologies. Based on the positive feedback received from last year’s Report on Alternative Fuels, this publication was issued to cover another year of intense effort by IATA, its member airlines and partners. I invite you to read this report that presents IATA’s vision on the future supply of sustainable alternative fuels and gain lessons that can add value to your own operation and help perverse the Environment. Günther Matschnigg Senior Vice-President Safety, Operations & Infrastructure


2


3

SUMMARY

For more than 100 years the aviation industry has used fuel derived from conventional crude oil (fossil fuel feedstock). Some sources believe that with the expected world growth, the supply of oil from conventional sources may only be available for several decades to come. In addition, many of the major crude oil resources come from unstable parts of the world. Replacing crude oil may provide more security for jet fuel supplies and moderate the fluctuations in price. Today, alternative jet fuel is being produced as a ‘drop-in’ fuel (indistinguishable from crude derived jet fuel) from natural gas or coal. The ‘Fischer Tropsch’ (F-T) process is currently in use by Sasol in South Africa to produce diesel, naphtha and jet fuel out of coal. While it indeed avoids the use of crude oil, the process comes with disadvantages, two of which are, 1) a higher carbon dioxide footprint (1.5 to 2 times more than conventional jet fuel) and 2) additional/new processing facilities requiring extremely high capital investments. Depending on the requirements of capital recovery, the end result of employing new F-T processes can be jet fuel priced more than 70% higher than crude based jet fuel based on $56 / barrel. In addition, jet fuel production competes with the production of low sulphur diesel and other products; the product with the highest profit is chosen for production. The awareness of the aviation industry’s role in global warming (said by IPCC to contribute 2% of total emissions) increases the interest in biomass derived jet fuel (biojet fuel) that has a lower carbon footprint than conventional jet fuel. Biomass grows by consuming carbon dioxide, water and sunlight. The consumed carbon dioxide is emitted again when biojet fuel is burned. Despite the net zero carbon dioxide emission if one considers only the feedstock growth and burning of biojet, biojet fuels are not 100% carbon neutral, because today’s method for conversion of the biomass uses fossil fuel to produce the energy to convert the biomass to biojet. Bio and F-T jet fuels contain no sulphur, resulting in no detectable emissions of sulphur compounds and may lower emissions of particulate matter (soot). One main problem of producing biojet fuel is the shortage of sustainable biomass material. The current trend of deforestation (responsible for 25% of global CO2 emissions) to make land available for growing some types of biomass gives the biomass derived from those lands a worse carbon footprint than oil. Sustainable biomass is biomass derived without causing deforestation, new demand for fresh water or competition with the food industry. To overcome the shortage of sustainable biomass, different techniques to produce and use biomass are in development. Growing oil-crops is well understood, but growing large amounts of sustainable oil-crops is more challenging, because the shortage of suitable land and fresh water. The oil-crops are not a substitute for the complete supply of oil in a sustainable way. Sustainability must be achieved and other biomass must be explored, for example algae. The main competitor of biojet fuel is biodiesel, mainly because of current subsidies of € 0.26 to € 1.05 per litre ($ 1.44 to $ 5.83 / gallon) for biodiesel. Another challenge in cost effective production and distribution of bio-derived fuels is the need to have refineries in reasonable proximity to the feedstock. Current petroleum refineries were built to be close to ports and shipping. Pipelines, which transport crude and refined products, are well-established supply chains. Moving biomass produced in new areas using a hub-and-spoke model is efficient, but could require investment in new processing plants (refineries) close to biomass production and/or development of new pipelines and rail systems. Technical challenges to produce biomass-based jet fuels have been overcome and many are optimistic that with continued investment in research and development it will be possible to overcome the commercial obstacles. The goal of biomass derived oils being cost-effectively grown, gathered and processed in today’s refineries may be achievable. In addition, there are also other sources of biomass being explored that can be processed into biojet fuels via new methods and combinations of various existing processes.


4


5

KEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Alternative to conventional fossil based raw materials for the generation of jet fuel are possible. Before these alternative resources can be realized additional testing is required along with an expansion of production facilities. The properties, performance, and environmental impact of utilizing fuels derived from alternative sources should be thoroughly evaluated prior to implementation on a large scale. Due to the conservative nature of the industry it is anticipated that the initial introduction of these non-traditional fuels will occur as blend with conventional jet fuel. Government subsidies and regulations will speed up the acceptance of these fuels into the market place. Alternative fuel systems, derived from biomass sources, have the potential of lowering the carbon footprint compared to conventional jet fuel. It is also anticipated that by utilizing biojet fuels in the aviation industry, other emissions will be decreased. Strict controls and safeguards should be established to ensure that the environmental impact of harvesting and processing of biojet fuels be minimized. Abuse of fresh water reserves, deforestation, and detrimental effects to the food supply, should not be tolerated. New technologies are in developing stage and look promising. By following the developments of different technologies closely and by supporting them, the most promising may result in faster and more economic integration of alternative fuels.


6

GLOSSARY

The applied definitions and acronyms in the report are mentioned in this glossary. DEFINITIONS

1st generation biodiesel = biodiesel based on an ester and produced out of bio-oil and an alcohol 2nd generation biodiesel = biodiesel produced out of bio-oil by hydrotreating Acid number = acidity of fuel Airframer = aircraft manufacturer Algae = organisms grown in water, also called “pond scum” Alternative fuel = fuel from other source than crude oil Aromatics = specific molecule with a carbon ring of unsaturated bonds ASTM D 1655 = Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels Biochemical = processing raw material with organisms Biodegradable = product that can be processed by organisms Biodiesel = diesel produced out of biomass Bioflocculation = process for the separation of algae and water Biofuel = fuel produced out of biomass Biomass = any renewable raw material, plants, algae, waste etc. Biojet fuel = jet fuel produced out of biomass Bioproducts = products produced out of biomass Bio-oil = oil from biomass Bioreactor = closed system for the production of biomass, mainly algae Blend = mixing of different types of fuel Butanol = alcohol with longer carbon chain and higher specific energy than ethanol Carbon footprint = amount of carbon dioxide released by the applied material Carbon neutral = zero carbon footprint Cetane number = measure of the combustion quality of diesel fuel CO2 = carbon dioxide Conductivity = the ability to conduct an electric current Cracking = converting long carbon chain molecules into shorter more economic Cryogenic = gases with extremely low boiling points Def Stan 91-91 = UK Defence Standard for Turbine Fuel, Aviation Kerosene Type Density = amount of kilogram per cubic meter Digestion = transforming biomass into other products Direct liquefaction = transforming solids directly into liquids Distillation = the separation of liquids by means of boiling Distillation curve = Graphic of boiling temperature versus volume fraction distilled Drop-in fuel = indistinguishable from crude derived jet fuel, no changes any fuel system required Elastomer seal = a polymer seal with elasticity property Esterification = production process to produce esters, i.e. FAME and FAEE Ethanol = drinkable alcohol, also biofuel for gasoline cars FAME / FAEE = 1st generation biodiesel, esters Feedstock = raw material Fermentation = biochemical transforming of biomass Fertilizer = compounds to promote growing of biomass Flash point = lowest temperature at which fuel can form an ignitable mixture in air Fly ash = valuable remaining component after burning a fuel, mostly from coal Freezing point = temperature at which fluid becomes solid Fresh water = raw material for drinking water FT fuel = fuel produced with the Fischer Tropsch process Furan = new type of biodiesel with a possibility for biojet fuel


7

Gasification = transforming liquids and solids into gaseous components of other chemical structure HBO = 2nd generation biodiesel, high potential for biojet fuel Hydrocarbons = molecules made out of carbon and hydrogen, fuels Hydrogenated = raw material upgraded with the hydrotreating process Hydrotreating = upgrading of oils with hydrogen, current technology in refineries Jet A = commercial jet fuel for North America Jet A-1 = commercial jet fuel outside North America JP8 = kerosene based fuel, used in military jets Life cycle = the process from raw material to waste Lipid = type of bio-oil Lipid content = percentage of biomass source that are lipids LHV = specific energy LNG = natural gas in liquid state at colder temperatures than -162 ºC LPG = propane and butane mixture, this is a additional product of refineries Maximum fuel capacity = maximum amount of fuel that an aircraft can carry Methane = molecule with 1 carbon atom and main component of natural gas Methanol = smallest alcohol with only 1 carbon atom and low specific energy Metric ton = 1000 kilogram MTOW = maximum weight of aircraft for take-off MZFW = total weight of aircraft and contents, minus the weight of fuel on board Non drop-in fuel = fuel that is not able to use in current jet fuel system Oil-crops = plants that produces oil, palm oil, jatropha oil, soybean oil, etc Open pond = fish farmery, used for the production of algae Palm oil = oil derived from the oil palm Payload = net carrying capacity of an aircraft Process scheme = figure in which different processes are linked and combined to a system Processing facilities = chemical plants, can be part of new plants Processing techniques = techniques for the upgrading and production of jet fuel Purification = separation of mixtures to purer forms Refinery = current place for the production of jet fuel Residues = byproducts of industries Short ton = 2000 pound Solid biomass = biomass in solid state, wood, switch grass, etc. Soot = the black smoke from engines, in newer engines not detectable Specific energy = amount of energy per unit weight = LHV or FLHV Specific energy volume = amount of energy per unit volume Specific gravity = density Sulphur / sulfur = molecule that causes acid rain Sulphur content = amount of sulphur in the fuel Sustainability = the level of renewable and environmentally friendly Sustainable = renewable and environmentally friendly Sustainable biomass = renewable and environmentally friendly biomass Tank Volume Limitation = maximum fuel volume that an aircraft can carry Thermochemical = processing raw material with high temperature processes Unsustainable = environmentally unfriendly Viscosity = thickness of a fluid Waxes = long carbon strain molecules


8

ACRONYMS

APU = Auxiliary Power Unit BTL = Biomass To Liquids BTU = British Thermal Unit CBTL = Coal and Biomass To Liquids CTL = Coal To Liquids DER = Designated Engineering Representative EU ETS = European Union Emission Trading Scheme FMS = Flight Management System GTL = Gas To Liquids F-T = Fischer Tropsch FAA = Federal Aviation Administration FAEE = Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester FAME = Fatty Acid Methyl Ester HBO = Hydrogenenated Bio Oils IEA = International Energy Agency IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LHR = London Heathrow Airport LHV = Lower Heating Value LH2 = Liquefied Hydrogen LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas LPG = Liquefied Petroleum Gas MJ = Mega Joule MTOW = Maximum Take Off Weight MZFW = Maximum Zero Fuel Weight NREL = National Renewable Energy Laboratory OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer PVG = Shanghai Pudong International Airport RSPO = Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil USAF = United States Air Force YVR = Vancouver International Airport YYZ = Toronto Pearson International Airport


9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD..........................................................................................................................1

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................3

KEY RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................5

GLOSSARY...........................................................................................................................6 DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................................6 ACRONYMS ..........................................................................................................................8

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................9

1. GLOBAL PRODUCTION CAPACITY ..........................................................................11 1.1 RAW MATERIAL ........................................................................................................11

1.1.1 Non-renewables / Fossil .................................................................................11 1.1.2 Renewables....................................................................................................15

1.2 PRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................18 1.2.1 Fischer-Tropsch..............................................................................................18 1.2.2 Non Oil Resources Upgraded in refineries .....................................................19 1.2.3 Fermentation ..................................................................................................20

1.3 TIME FRAME.............................................................................................................21 2. LIFE CYCLE AND EMISSIONS ...................................................................................22

2.1 SUSTAINABLE REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................22 2.1.1 Land use.........................................................................................................22 2.1.2 Price of raw material.......................................................................................22 2.1.3 Fresh water requirement ................................................................................22 2.1.4 CO2 Emissions...............................................................................................22

2.2 CO2 EMISSIONS ......................................................................................................23 2.3 REMAINING EMISSIONS.............................................................................................25 2.4 WATER USE .............................................................................................................25 2.5 LAND USE................................................................................................................27 2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................27

3. ECONOMICS AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE........................28 3.1 PRICE EFFECT..........................................................................................................28

3.1.1 The future price of crude oil and jet kerosene ................................................30 3.1.2 Lessons from power/heat generation and surface transport...........................30 3.1.3 The cost of alternatives to aviation jet fuel......................................................32

3.2 INDICATION FOR GLOBAL INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS ................................................33 3.2.1 Fischer-Tropsch fuel.......................................................................................33 3.2.2 Feedstock from algae .....................................................................................33

4. OPERATIONAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................34


10

4.1 PROCESSING ...........................................................................................................34 4.1.1 Alternative Fuel Characteristics......................................................................34

4.2 TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................................36 4.3 AIRPORT .................................................................................................................37 4.4 AIRPLANE................................................................................................................37

4.4.1 Background information..................................................................................37 4.4.2 Performance impact .......................................................................................38

4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................42 5. OEM/AFM INDIVIDUAL TESTING AND APPROVAL STATUS..................................43

5.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING ...................................................................................43 5.1.1 Test Program..................................................................................................43 5.1.2 OEM Approval Review ...................................................................................43 5.1.3 Specification Change .....................................................................................43

5.2 TEST RESULTS OF FT KEROSENE ..............................................................................46 5.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE SOURCE FUELS ....................................................48 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................48

6. TECHNOLOGIES.........................................................................................................49 6.1 OBTAINING RAW MATERIAL ........................................................................................49

6.1.1 Crop-oil...........................................................................................................49 6.1.2 Algae ..............................................................................................................50 6.1.3 Solid biomass and biodegradable waste ........................................................54 6.1.4 Recommendations .........................................................................................54

6.2 PROCESSING ...........................................................................................................54 6.2.1 Biomass processing .......................................................................................54 6.2.2 Fischer-Tropsch .............................................................................................55 6.2.3 Liquefaction ....................................................................................................55 6.2.4 Hydrotreating / Upgrading ..............................................................................56 6.2.5 Esterification...................................................................................................57 6.2.6 Furans ............................................................................................................57 6.2.7 Process flow schemes....................................................................................59

6.3 TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................................60 6.4 USE ........................................................................................................................61

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................62

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................63

APPENDIX A EXTENDED PROCESS FLOW SCHEMES ............................................64

APPENDIX B INDUSTRY INITIATIVES ........................................................................66 VIRGIN ATLANTIC, BOEING AND GE AVIATION BIOJET FUEL DEMO FLIGHT ................................66 DARPA BIOFUEL SOLICITATION ...........................................................................................66 USAF AVIATION SYNTHETIC FUEL INITIATIVES........................................................................67

11

1. GLOBAL PRODUCTION CAPACITY Global production capacity of alternative aviation fuel has been limited, which is contrary to the growing production capacities of alternative diesel, especially biodiesel. This chapter deals with the production capacity of different raw material and production facilities.

1.1 RAW MATERIAL As the current limited supply of conventional fossil-based oil is being depleted at an in creasing rate there is an urgent need to investigate alternatives sources of raw materials for the production of fuels. There are numerous raw materials sources that are being investigated as a replacement to fossil-based oil such as coal, lignite, natural gas, and biomass. The economics of the production and implementation as well as the sustainability of these sources are currently being evaluated.

1.1.1 Non-renewables / Fossil One of the most abundant sources of raw material for the production of fuel is fossil based. The following subparagraphs will address the availability of oil, coal and natural gas.

Crude oil[1] The world proven reserves of oil are 164.5 billion tons (1208.2 billion barrels). It is estimated that these reserves provide for only another 40 years at the current 2006 production rate. In many parts of the world these reserves will be depleted earlier. For example, it is projected that the reserves in North America will be depleted in 12 years, Western Europe in 11 years and Asia Pacific (including China and India) reserves in 14 years. The main oil reserves reside in the Middle East (61.5%), the Russian Federation (6.6%), and Venezuela (6.6%) as a result these areas are projected to be able to produce oil for a longer period of time as compared to other areas of the world. However, these estimations are based on current consumption rates for the regions. The consumption of oil is the highest in the Asia Pacific with 29.5% of total, followed by North America with 28.9% and Europe 20.9%. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrates that the largest consumers of oil have the lowest reserves in their region.


12

Proved Oil Reserves

1.5 5

8.6

68.1

3.4

9.7

10.5

Western EuropeNorth AmericaSouth and Central AmericaMiddle East & RussiaAsia PacificAfricaEastern Europe

Figure 1 Proved Oil Reserves, source for input [1]

Oil consumption

20.9

28.9

6.1

7.2

29.5

3.44

Western EuropeNorth AmericaSouth and Central AmericaMiddle East & RussiaAsia PacificAfricaEastern Europe

Figure 2 Oil consumption 2006, source for input [1]

Global Production Capacity

13

Coal The world coal reserves are estimated to be approximately 909 billion metric tons[1] which could potentially supply the world energy needs for 100 years. Currently, there are 17.6 billion metric tons (19.4 billion short tons) of known coal reserves in the United States. The total identified and undiscovered coal reserves is expected to be approximately 3.6 trillion metric tons (4 trillion short tons) total identified and undiscovered [2], (Figure 3) which would be able to supply US energy needs for more than 200 years.

Figure 3 US coal reserves

Natural gas Natural gas is typically used for electrical power generation and heat generation, however it’s recently have been considered for use as a fuel for the transportation industry. There are many ground transportation vehicles running on natural gas either as a primary fuel or in duel fuel engines. The use of natural gas as a fuel for aeronautics applications would require significant effort in redesigning the propulsion system as well as the airframe. The total amount of proven natural gas resources is 181.46 trillion Nm3 from which 26.3% is owned by the Russian Federation. This amount of reserves can supply the world gas demands for 63 years with the current production rate. The distribution of the world reserves is illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 5 illustrates the natural gas consumptions based on geographic region. The major consumers are North America 27.3% and Western Europe 21.8%. Similar to the situation with oil, the largest consumers of natural gas have the lowest reserves in their region.


14

Proved Natural Gas Reserves

4.14.4

3.8

40.5

8.2

7.8

26.3

4.9

Western Europe

North America

South and Central America

Middle East

Asia Pacific

Africa

Russian Federation

Eastern Europe

Figure 4 Proved natural gas reserves, source for input [1]

Natural gas consumption

21.8

27.3

4.6

10.1

15.3

2.6

15.1

3.2

Western EuropeNorth AmericaSouth and Central AmericaMiddle EastAsia PacificAfricaRussian FederationEastern Europe

Figure 5 Natural gas consumption, source for info [1]


15

1.1.2 Renewables Biomass does not have reserves but relies on the continuous generation of raw material. The utility of biomass as a raw material for the production of fuels is set by the ability to supply. Common sources of biomass for the production of fuel are algae, crop-oil (soybean, palm, rapeseed, etc), waste, by-products and solid biomass. The effect on the environment and the question whether the biomass is sustainable is treated in chapter 2. Figure 6 illustrates the different sources of biomass raw material.

Figure 6 Biomass sources [29]

Solid biomass One of the largest sources of biomass is solid material such as wood and switchgrass. Many of these biomass materials can be used as raw materials for fermentation, furan production and feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch process (chapter 6). Fermentation of solid biomass often has an added benefit due to the production of high-quality fertilizer. The restrictions in many countries for chopping trees restrict the supply of wood-based biomass inflating the price of these raw materials significantly if used to make fuel.

Crop-oil Oil derived from crop-oil (soybean, palm, rapeseed, etc) are relatively easy to refine to aviation fuel. The major concern for the crop-oil is its sustainability. For example, an area the size of Europe would be required to produce enough soybean derived jet fuel to supply the aviation industry (Figure 7). The total production of crop-oil in 2006 was 149 million ton[6] which is 54.3% higher than 10 years ago when the oil was mainly used for the food industry.


16

Figure 7 Complete Europe covered with soybean, chart Boeing Presently, the most economical sources of crop-oil are the oils that are used in the food industry. There are numerous plants dedicated to the conversion of crop-based oils to biodiesel. One of the most successful is the Neste Oil Company. Neste Oil builds a 2nd generation biodiesel plant in Finland. Neste has produced a premium grade of diesel with a higher heating value (44 MJ/kg) and cetane number (84-99) than conventional diesel fuel (42.7 MJ/kg and 53 cetane). The plant required an investment of €100 million and produces 170.000 metric ton (340 million pounds) of biodiesel annually. The freezing point of the 2nd generation biodiesel is about 10 degrees lower than conventional diesel. Currently, Neste Oil has been focused on the production of diesel and not aviation jet fuel due to the economic advantage for diesel. Neste Oil is in the process of building a second NExBTL plant of €100 million for 170.000 metric ton (340 million pounds) of biodiesel annually and is planning to invest another € 550 million in a biodiesel plant in Singapore with a capacity of 800.000 metric ton (1.6 billion pounds) annually.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Thou

sant

of t

ons

total fats and oil productionpalm oil production

Figure 8 Worlds Fats and Oils production


17

Waste and byproducts Biomass derived from waste and industrial byproducts have the widest range of properties and generally have the lowest price of all the biomass raw material sources. Supply of this raw material stream can be correlated to the degree in which a country is considered developed i.e. the more developed a country is the higher the volume of waste. Most of the waste produced is not suitable for use for the production of fuel. For example, the total amount of waste produced in the UK in 2003/04 was 29 million metric tons[3], of which only 41% (5M metric ton) is suitable to produce biofuels. The collection and separation of the waste material is a significant challenge, which may require sociological as well as political changes.

Figure 9 Composition of UK household waste [4]

Algae The sun delivers a nominal power of 1.4 kW/m2 at the earth. However, the net power averaged over the day and with influences of weather is only 0.3 kW/m2. Algae have been shown to be able to harvest this power with efficiency between 0.1 and 0.2 % (0.06% for switch grass). A 1-km2 area of algae with a conversion efficiency of 0.15% would be capable of producing 636 barrels of oil per day. An algae field of 20 by 50 km would be able to delivers at least 636 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day[5]. The technical challenge of growing algae in large area is an active area of research and will be discussed in subparagraph 6.1.2. Typically, algae oil is produced from open pond systems with a biomass growth of 10 to 50 gr/m2/day in open ponds or in bioreactors with a growth rate of 50 to 200 gr/m2/day. The produced algae have a lipid1 content of 20 – 50 dry wt%. Higher lipid contents (85%) have been achieved, but not at a consistent rate. Initial estimates from the Boeing Corporation have suggested that in an area the size of Belgium would be required for algae growth in order to supply the current demand for fuel for the aviation industry.

1 Lipids are the vegetable oils in algae


18

1.2 PRODUCTION The fossil reserves, other than oil, require different processing techniques than conventional oil refineries. Most biomass based raw materials except for wood requires similar processing technologies.

1.2.1 Fischer-Tropsch Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology is relatively mature technology. There are two types of Fischer-Tropsch processes; GTL (Gas To Liquids) and CTL (Coal To Liquids). The CTL process can be expanded to a CBTL (Coal and Biomass To Liquids) process with the addition of extra processing steps for the biomass. The FT process is further explained in subparagraph 6.2.2. There are 2 commercially operated GTL plants, the Mossgas plant in South Africa and Shell’s GTL plant in Bintulu, Malaysia. Combined these plants have a capacity of less than 40.000 b/d and have been used primarily to develop technology and process reliability. The plants under construction or in are just coming on-line are the 140.000 b/d plant of Shell in Qatar and the Sasol Chevron’s 34000 b/d plant in Escravos, Nigeria. Other planned GTL plants have all been cancelled or deferred for various reasons[8]: Two projects planned in Qatar involving Qatar Petroleum partnerships with Marathon and with ConocoPhilips were indefinitely put on hold in early 2006 when Qatar placed a moratorium on new gas developments pending further reservoir evaluation of the giant North field. In early 2007, ExxonMobil and Qatar petroleum announced the cancellation of the proposed 154.000 b/d Palm GTL project, citing severe cost escalation as the main reason. The plant was originally scheduled to cost approximately $ 7 billion, but reports suggested that costs may have risen to $18 billion. Sonatrac of Algeria has deferred bids on its planned 65.000 b/d Tinhert GTL plant from 2006 until later in 2007. The CTL production capacity now is 43.8 M b/y and is all produced by Sasol in South Africa. The total production capacity of FT plants for the current situation and the future is given in Table 1. Table 1 FT production capacity

Project Year into op.Capacity /

(M b/y)Capacity /

(Mton/y) Product ProcessOperating Bintulu (Malaysia) 2000 5.4 0.68688 D GTL Segonda (South Af.) 1955 / 1970 43.8 5.57136 D / J CTL (High T) Oryx (Qatar) 2007 12.4 1.57728 D GTL

2010 Erdos (Mongolia) 2008 23 2.9256 D / LPG /

Naphta CTL Yulin construction 67 8.5224 D CTL Pertamina (Indonesia) construction 28 3.5616 D CTL

Pearl (Shell / Qatar petroleum) 2010 / 2011 2 x 25.5 6.4872 D GTL

CHOREN (Germany) 2008 0.1 0.01272 D / J BTL Escravos (Nigeria) 2011 13 1.6536 D / J GTL

2015 Shaanxi (Sasol/Shenhua) 2014 2 x 21,4 5.44416 D / J CTL

Ningxia (Shell / Shenhua) ??? 25.5 3.2436 D / J CTL

CHOREN (Germany) ??? ??? D / J BTL Monash ( Australia) ??? 29.2 3.71424 CTL

2020 Philippines (H & WB) Design in 2007 36.5 4.6428 D CTLD = diesel, J = jet fuel,


19

1.2.2 Non Oil Resources Upgraded in refineries The upgrading of bio-oils to diesel and Jet fuel can be done in 2 production methods,

• esterification, known as 1st generation biofuel • hydrotreating, known as 2nd generation biofuel.

Some 2nd generation biofuels have the required properties to meet the Def Stan 91-91 for Jet A1. Current refinery methods may require additional changes to process bio-oils and FT derived waxes. The hydrotreating part of the refineries will be utilized more heavily than the fractionation equipment in the refineries. A detailed analysis is required to determine the available capacity for the production of biojet fuel from bio-oils. In general, it would take a year to build additional capacity.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Thou

sand

bar

rels

a d

ay

Oil refinery capacitythroughputsConsumption

Figure 10 World Oil Refinery capacity [1] The worlds refinery capacity in 2006 was 10.8 million tons (87.2 million barrels) a day. The Asia-Pacific region has the largest refinery capacity with 27.4% of the total. India increased its refinery capacity 17% in 2006 followed by China and Indonesia. Northern America had a refinery capacity of 23.7% and Europe with 22.6% (Figure 11).


20

Refinery Capacities

22.6

23.9

7.78.3

27.4

3.86.3

Europe

North America

South and Central America

Middle East

Asia Pacific

Africa

Russian Federation

Figure 11 Refinery capacity, source for input [1]

1.2.3 Fermentation Fermentation is the biochemical processes that convert biomass into hydrogen, methane and alcohols. The fermentation process has been used to produce ethanol for automobile transportation. Products from the fermentation process can be used as raw materials for the conversion to bio-oils and ultimately to biojet fuel. Alcohols produced in the fermentation process can be used in the esterification reaction of oils to produce 1st generation biodiesel: FAME and FAEE2. The production of ethanol is now about 60 mln m3 (16 billion gallon) annually and is growing rapidly, see Figure 12. The USA has a production capacity of 27.5 million m3 (7.3 billion gallon) annually and there are plants under construction for an additional 23.5 million m3 (6.2 billion gallon) annually.

2 FAME = Fatty Acid Methyl Ester, FAEE = Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester


21

Figure 12 World ethanol production[7]

1.3 TIME FRAME Currently only the FT- process produces alternative jet fuel. The following Figure 13 shows the FT plants that are being build or are operational. The titled blocks on the graph represent new plants that either have started operation or are projected to begin operation.

Figure 13 FT production growth

40 Shaanxi Production capacity / (Mton/y)

35 Escravos

30 Pertamina

25 Yulin

20

Pearl 15

Erdos 10 Oryx

Bintulu 5

0 2000 2007 2014 2008 2010 2011

22

2. LIFE CYCLE AND EMISSIONS There is increasing public concern over the process of generating biofuels from unsustainable resources like rain forests. The issue of sustainability is becoming increasingly important. The current fuel consumption demands from the aviation industry are above the capabilities of the current technology in renewable resources to produce fuel. This chapter will focus on the environmental effects of producing fuels and raw material from renewable resources.

2.1 SUSTAINABLE REQUIREMENTS In an ideal case, the production and use of the fuel would not have any negative effect on the environment. It does not appear possible at this time that we will be able to achieve a 100% sustainable fuel source for the aviation industry. The challenge is to develop and promote technology that limits the environmental impact as much as possible. A detailed analysis on the economic and environmental impact as well as the sustainability of the raw materials should be thoroughly investigated for each fuel source. Many industries are starting to examine these issues. For example the palm oil industry has setup an organization (RSPO[11]) that attempts to examine all aspects of growing, processing and distributing palm oil worldwide.

2.1.1 Land use Depleting environmentally sensitive areas such rainforests or sequestering large landmasses that have been traditionally used for growing food-crops for the production of biofuel is a critical concern. Researchers are investigating utilizing relatively harsh environments such a deserts and salt grounds for harvesting crops for use in the production of biofuels.

2.1.2 Price of raw material The economic advantage of raw material feedstock may override concerns on the sustainability issues related to particular feedstock.

2.1.3 Fresh water requirement It is postulated that there is a larger shortage of fresh water in the world than food. Utilizing this limited supply of fresh water to grow crops to be used in aviation fuel would deplete these fresh water reserves significantly.

2.1.4 CO2 Emissions There is a strong desire to reduce the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. By substituting a fossil based carbon source for a biomass carbon source the total CO2 emission will be lower.

IATA Four Pillar Strategy IATA recommends the industry to lower the CO2 emissions by improving on four pillars, Technology, Operations, Infrastructure and Economic Measures. Technology is an important driver of progress. Accelerated development of alternative fuels and more advanced technology for airframe, engine and air traffic management is absolutely essential. In operations, more efficient aircraft operations can save fuel and CO2 emissions by up to 6%, according to the IPCC in its 1999 special report on aviation. Infrastructure improvements present a major opportunity for fuel and CO2 reductions in the near term. By addressing airspace and airport inefficiencies, governments and infrastructure procedures can eliminate up to 12% of CO2 emissions from aviation, according to the IPCC. Economic measures should be used to boost the research, development and deployment of new technologies rather than as a tool to suppress the demand.

http://www.rspo.org/

Life Cycle and Emissions

23

2.2 CO2 EMISSIONS Carbon Dioxide emissions are released during the use and generation of a fuel. It is hypothesised that fuel generated from biomass will have a lower net increase in CO2 emissions than traditional fossil-based fuels.

Biomass Biomass is considered as carbon neutral; during the growing it consumes and stores CO2. When the biomass is used for combustion, it emits the CO2 again and so it makes the complete cycle of biomass CO2 neutral not taking into consideration the energy required in the processing and transport the biofuels. A graphical representation of the CO2 cycle is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 Biomass life cycle [31]


24

Jet fuel Figure 15 illustrates the CO2 emissions of fuels for their complete life cycle compared to conventional derived Jet fuel. Jet fuel derived from biomass has a significantly lower CO2 emission level than conventional jet fuel. The majority of CO2 emissions from bio-derived jet fuel is due to the burning of fossils fuels for the processing and transportation of these fuels.

Figure 15 Jet fuel comparison[9]

Life cycle approach Fuel consumption by jet airplanes is often reduced by lowering the weight of the airplane, improving engine performance, and in optimizing flight routes. Further fuel consumption savings can be realized by improving the properties of the fuel. A total system analysis approach should be employed to determine the effects on any one of these components as well as the steps in producing the fuel to the overall fuel efficiency, economics, and environmental impact of implanting changes in any one of these areas (Figure 16). The CO2 credit trading system, currently under consideration in Europe, benefits some alternative fuel scenarios that are more costly to produce, but have lower CO2 emission footprints.


25

Figure 16 New approach for lowering the CO2 emissions

2.3 REMAINING EMISSIONS

SOx Lowering the Sulphur content in the base fuel will lower SOx emissions upon burning the fuel. Current advancement in the desulphurization of diesel fuel also translates to producing low sulphur jet fuel.

Particulate (Soot) Emissions It has been demonstrated that low aromatic and low sulphur content fuels such those produced in the Fischer Tropsch and hydrotreated process have lower particulate emissions.

2.4 WATER USE Many alternative fuel raw materials require a large amount of fresh water. With the current shortage of fresh water in major parts of the world, the competition for water to grow fuel crops is a major concern. The following tables, Table 2 and Table 3, give an overview of the required water per unit fuel derived from the raw material. The significant amount of water required for the production of soybean and corn crops illustrates that deriving this raw material can be highly competitive with the food industry and can cause water shortage in many areas.

Refinery Extraction

Aircraft Transport

CO2

Green


26

Table 2 Water requirement fuels [10]

Table 3 Water requirement raw material [10]


27

2.5 LAND USE As discussed earlier the amount of land required for deriving fuels has a major impact on the sustainability of the derived fuel. The following table, Table 4, gives a comparison of common raw materials for fuel production and their requirements on land, water and energy. This table is not complete and a more extended table with land use is shown in subparagraph 6.1.4, Table 14. Table 4 Land required per raw material

2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS The Four Pillar strategy of IATA describes paths for achieving a zero emission industry. The biojet fuels from the technology pillar require a roadmap for substitution. To solve the current shortage of sustainable raw material by algae with additional supply of crop-oil, waste and other biomasses requires a detailed understanding of the economics, sustainability and economic impact of the complete process of production, refining and transportations. The competition of the resources of fuel crops with food crops should be minimized as much as possible. New technologies that utilize waste byproducts from agricultural and industrial process should be explored to minimize the competition of resources of fuel crops with food crops for valuable resources.

28

3. ECONOMICS AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USE New alternatives for jet fuel must be price competitively to be successful. However, the determination of the actual price of the alternative fuel when you take under consideration the supply, market stability, and environmental impact are difficult to determine. The following chapter will address the price effect of alternative fuels, supply considerations, and the level of investment that would be required.

3.1 PRICE EFFECT Accurately predicting the future cost of alternative fuels is an extremely difficult problem. The experience observed in ‘mature’ alternative fuel technologies for power generation and surface transportation shows that there is wide and changing range of costs. Unit cost decline of 0.5-1% a year is usually observed for most new technology once it’s implemented. A further decline of 12-20% can be realized if there is a large investment (2x annually) in research. Initial cost predictions suggest that many alternative fuel approaches would be economically viable when compared to crude oil when the price of crude is above $75/barrel. Government subsidies similar to the ones being considered in the US and Europe for biodiesel ($0.7-1.5/litre) or through carbon tax and emission credits can further add to the economic advantage of alternative jet fuels. The EU ETS has suggested a rate of €0.5-33 per tonne CO2, whereas the study below shows it would take a ‘carbon price credit’ of €100 per tonne CO2 to close the cost gap between fossil fuels and most alternative fuel technologies. The proposed system would apply only to jet fuel used for flights in and out of EU airports. There is a question of whether the EU will be able to require non-EU airlines to buy allowances. In summary, the EU ETS cannot be relied upon to improve the competitiveness of biofuels. Subsidies or other Government support would be required to close the cost gap and make alternative fuels competitive, if oil prices fall below $75 a barrel.

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Brazilia

n mod

el eth

anol

US etha

nol

Ligno

cellu

losic

ethan

olAlga

e

Low en

ergy b

iomas

s to h

ydroc

arbon

optio

ns

HT Veg

etable

Oils

(like

Palm

)

FT BTL

Jet ($

50/b

crude

)

Jet ($

75/b

crude

)

Jet ($

100/b

crud

e)

$/lit

re HighLow

Source: Shell presentation which used Huber, Spath and IATA estimates.

Figure 17 Estimated fuel cost for mature production process Data on the cost of alternatives to jet kerosene produced from fossil fuels (e.g. FT process) is limited and controversial. One study suggested that the cost of producing FT kerosene was higher than the cost of producing kerosene from fossil fuels at an oil price of $75/barrel. However, other estimates illustrated in the chart above in the chart above suggest that at crude oil prices above $75 a barrel, FT kerosene from biomass

Economics and Potential for Future Commercial Use

29

is economically competitive. The current technology challenges and cost overruns in many FT projects are making the FT process less attractive as an alternative fuel source. The chart below shows the IEA forecast for the cost of biofuels over the next 25 years. FT biodiesel costs are expected to fall by 1% a year. However, the scale of the existing gap (if accurate) suggests that, if crude oil prices fall below $75 a barrel, it will not be economically cost effective for airlines to buy alternatives to kerosene unless there are subsidies similar to those seen for biodiesel and bioethanol, or other Government support mechanisms.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Sugar

cane

etha

nol (2

005)

2030

Maize e

thano

l (200

5)20

30

Ligno

cellu

losic

ethan

ol (20

05)

2030

Vegeta

ble oi

l biod

iesel

(2005

)20

30

FT biod

iesel

(2005

)20

30

Jet ($

50/b

crude

)

Jet ($

75/b

crude

)

Jet ($

100/b

crud

e)

$/lit

re

Figure 18 IEA forecast of biofuel production costs A key component of the cost of these alternatives processes is the cost of the feedstock for producing biofuels. Increasing the use of bio-based feedstocks for ground transportation has driven up the cost of the feedstock due to competition of the feedstock with the food market thus reducing the competitiveness of the fuel. More recent technologies, such as kerosene from algae may avoid the problem of bio feedstocks competing with food production for land and other resources.


30

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Rapeseed Palm Soy Jet fuel

US

$/ to

nne

Historic price2007 price

Source: Shell Aviation

Figure 19 Impact of competition on raw product cost of conventional bio options

3.1.1 The future price of crude oil and jet kerosene The competitiveness of alternative fuels depends highly on the relative cost of the alternative fuel relative to fossil-based jet fuel. For example, the recent rise in the production of alternative surface transportation fuels such as ethanol has been driven by crude oil prices reaching $100 a barrel. In its late-2007 medium-term outlook, the International Energy Agency has assumed crude oil prices will average $66 a barrel in real terms. However, just a few months earlier their assumption had been $50 a barrel which is the value was used for the data present below. Forecasts, particularly of commodity prices like oil traded in very unstable markets, are notoriously inaccurate. The range of crude oil prices in the past five years has been between $25 – 100 a barrel. In recent years the refinery margin for jet kerosene has averaged around 30%, implying at $50 a barrel for crude oil an average jet kerosene price of $65 a barrel or 41 US cents/litre over the medium term. However if the latest forecast average medium-term price for crude oil of $66 is used then the average jet kerosene price would be $86 a barrel or 54 US cents/litre over the medium term.

3.1.2 Lessons from power/heat generation and surface transport There has been considerable analysis of the cost of providing alternatives to fossil fuels for power or heat generation and surface transportation. Based on these studies there appears to be potential for developments in making alternative fuels more cost competitive for air transportation. The current green power from the power/heat generation industry is cost competitive due to subsidies and carbon credits. The fuel properties for the power/heat generation industry are less restrictive than fuel properties for the aviation industry, this gives the potential for using the highest quality product for the aviation industry and lower quality (lower price) product in the power/heat generation industry. The following two tables come from a 2006 study produced for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, by Professor Dennis Anderson at Imperial College, London, who was formerly Chief Economist at Shell. Professor Anderson is a well-known expert on the economics of alternative fuels.


31

Table 5 Cost competitiveness of alternative fuels over the next 5-10 years [33]

Low carbon technologyMarker technology Cost unit Cost of marker

Cost of marker + carbon price

Cost of low carbon technology

Net cost % marker

Net cost % marker (inc carbon price)

Near-term estimates (5-10 years), ?70/tCO2 carbon tax

Electricity from gas with CCS NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 4.8 85% -23%Electricity from coal with CCS NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 4.3 65% -31%Nuclear power NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 3.9 50% -37%Electricity from energy crops NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 6.3 142% 2%Electricity from organic wastes NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 6.9 165% 11%Onshore wind NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 4.7 81% -24%Offshore wind NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 6.8 162% 10%Solar thermal (sunny regions) NG or coal p/kWh 2.6 6.2 11.7 350% 89%PV distributed generation (sunny regions) Grid electricity p/kWh 7.9 10.7 18 128% 68%dCHP:H from NG or coal + CCS Grid electricity p/kWh 7.9 10.7 20.6 161% 93%

Hydrogen: NG or coal + CCS-industry NG ?/GJ 4 7.6 7.7 93% 1%Hydrogen: NG or coal + CCS-distributed NG ?/GJ 6 9.6 4.2 -30% -56%Electrolytic hydrogen-industry NG ?/GJ 4 7.6 19.7 393% 159%Electrolytic hydrogen-distributed NG ?/GJ 6 9.6 27.1 352% 182%Biomass for heat-distributed NG ?/GJ 6 9.6 9.4 57% -2%

Bioethanol Petrol p/litre 29.5 75.5 28.4 -4% -62%Biodiesel Diesel p/litre 29.5 75.5 47.3 60% -37%Hydrogen ICE vehicle-fossil H + CCS Petrol p/litre 29.5 75.5 54.2 84% -28%

Electricity markets

Gas markets

Transport markets

These cost estimates are based on crude oil prices averaging $50 a barrel ($/₤ 1.60 purchasing power parity exchange rate used throughout), and the cost competitiveness of alternatives to fossil fuels depend critically on this assumption. At this level the cost of the products that the alternatives would displace are in most cases cheaper than the alternative fuels. As a result, even with the more mature alternative fuel technologies developed for power generation and surface transportation these alternatives fuels will not replace existing fossil fuels without government intervention. If crude oil prices remain over $75 a barrel then some of these technologies do become economically viable. The table above suggests that bioethanol could be competitive as a replacement for gasoline for surface transportation. A recent US study by Scully Capital for the US DOE/DOD also suggests, with opportunistic costs, the same for FT diesel derived from coal.

Table 6 Costs FT diesel

$/b p/litre $/b p/litreFT diesel From Bitumous coal 72.8 28.6 76.9 30.2 From Lignite coal 76 29.9 79.8 31.4

Without carbon With carbon capture

Past experience in similar sectors is that the average costs will decline over time as a result of innovation and experience which should also be the case for alternatives to conventional jet fuel. In addition, Governments have closed the cost gap with cheaper fossil fuels by supporting many of these alternative fuels with subsidies and other interventions. There is an obvious precedent for similar support to be given to alternative aviation fuels. However, Anderson points out that few Governments have taken the route of putting a financial penalty on the use of fossil fuels, largely for fear of damaging business competitiveness and economic growth. Instead, substantial subsidies and other interventions have been put in place to make alternative fuels competitive. Ethanol Biodiesel

Country Cost unit Low High Low HighSubsidy per litre fossil fuel displacedUnited States $/litre 1.03 1.40 0.66 0.90EU $/litre 1.64 4.98 0.77 1.53Switzerland $/litre 0.66 1.33 0.71 1.54Australia $/litre 0.69 1.77 0.38 0.76

Table 7 Existing subsidies for alternative fuels


32

3.1.3 The cost of alternatives to aviation jet fuel Table 8 The cost of alternatives to aviation jet fuel [32]

Marker technology Cost unit

Cost of marker

Low High Low HighFT kerosene from biomass Kerosene p/litre 25.9 51.6 75.5 99% 191%Biodiesel Kerosene p/litre 25.9 79.3 124.8 206% 382%Hydrogen from biomass Kerosene p/litre 25.9 54.6 71.3 111% 175%Hydrogen from electrolysis Kerosene p/litre 25.9 50.8 127.5 96% 392%

Cost Net cost % marker

The evidence on the competitiveness of alternatives to jet kerosene based on a 2003 study in the UK produced by Imperial College’s Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, suggests that economic advantage of alternative jet fuels are not viable even at a crude oil price of $75 a barrel. At $50 a barrel crude oil price and using a $/₤ exchange rate of 1.60 producing FT kerosene from biomass (wood chips from short rotation coppice in this case) is at least twice as expensive as jet kerosene. At $75 a barrel crude oil price and $/₤ exchange rate of 1.9 the cost of FT kerosene would be higher than jet kerosene. Even with cost reductions assuming the standard 1% a year and 12-20% with a large investment in R&D the UK study suggests that alternatives to jet kerosene remain uncompetitive. The cost advantage gap would need to be reduced by Government intervention with perhaps a 40-96 p/litre subsidy that biodiesel currently receives in the US and Europe. Bioethanol subsidies are currently twice that amount. It should also be noted that the current oil industry based on crude oil produces not only jet kerosene but also gasoline, diesel, heavy fuel oil, solvents, plastics, etc. This has allowed the oil industry to diversify into several different market segments and to increase financial viability. Coal fired power plants have better economics when they sell the products derived from the burning of coal, for example the fly ash to the cement industry. The food industry supplies power plants and refineries with used oils. Integrating alternative fuels into these markets as well as others markets may aid in the acceptance and introduction of these fuels. For example, if the commercial production of algae for fuel could be integrated with waste water treatment the algae production costs could be reduced and lower the final cost of the fuel, which would make it more competitive.

0

20

40

60

80

100Brazilian model ethanol

US ethanol

Lignocellulosic ethanol

AlgaeLow energy biomass to hydrocarbon options

FT BTL

HT Vegetable Oils (like Palm)

PessimisticOptimistic

Figure 20 Estimated potential capacity of biofuels to meet global transport demand by 2050


33

3.2 INDICATION FOR GLOBAL INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS The following section will attempt to determine the level of capital investment that will be required for the different alternative fuel scenarios. These calculations are based on actual produced numbers.

3.2.1 Fischer-Tropsch fuel FT based fuel is one of the most matured technologies as compared to other alternative fuel sources. FT based fuel are already in use especially in the military sector. The amount of capital required for supplying the world with fuel from FT production facilities is based on the very optimistic report made by Scully Capitol[13]. Although the report list costs described for building the power plant that are surprisingly low the report provides a rough estimate on the capital required if there are significant improvements in new technology. The calculation describe in the report does not include the capital requirements for infrastructure and upgrading the fuel to Jet fuel. The focus was of the report was on diesel and not aviation fuel. The report suggests that to produce 5.5 million barrels per day using a coal derived FT process the capital investment that would be required would be approximately $440 billion excluding carbon dioxide sequestration. By using other feedstock than coal the capital investment required would be increased.

3.2.2 Feedstock from algae Producing raw materials from algae is currently receiving considerable attention. The investments required for biojet fuel from algae is divided into 2 major parts; 1) the investments for growing and harvesting the algae and 2) the oil extraction. It is assumed that current refining technology will be used to upgrade the fuel thus investment in refinery technology would not be required. Growing the algae can be done in photo bioreactors, open ponds or at open sea. Bioreactors have a productivity of 50 to 200 gr/m2/day3 and a lipid content maximum in continuous production of 55%. The initial costs of bioreactors are between $120.000 and $1 mln / ha. Assuming this rate of production from the algae the capital investment that would be required to supply the current aviation demand for fuel would be between the range of $74 billion and $2.5 trillion depending on the process. For example, the productivity of open pond systems are lower than bioreactors but they require higher investment costs. With a productivity of 10 to 50 gr/m2/day and a max lipid content of 50% and initial investment costs of $72.000 to $100.000 / ha the investment costs of open pounds would be between $190 billion and $ 1.4 trillion to supply the current aviation industry with fuel.

3 Depending on the system, amount of light, time of the year, etc.

34

4. OPERATIONAL CONSEQUENCES The main fuel properties that are pertinent from a flight operations perspective are the fuel specific energy (Lower Heating Value, LHV), flash point, freezing point and the fuel density (or specific gravity). The specific energy will directly influence the aircraft fuel consumption for those missions for which the payload is limited by the certified Maximum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW) of the aircraft. The higher the specific energy of the fuel the lower the fuel consumption rate of the fuel during flight. The fuel density may dictate the mission feasibility based on the aircraft design requirements and regulatory issues. The current Chapter will attempt to address the operational consequences of the fuel properties for refineries, transportation, airports and aircraft.

4.1 PROCESSING The conversion of bio-based oil to jet fuel will require processing changes from fossil-based oil processing. For example, increased capacity for hydrotreating will be required for alternative fuel sources. There maybe logistic issues will refineries handling multiple feedstock sources such as separate tank farms. Initially it is projected that the biofuels will be blended with fossil-based fuels and that the blending will be done at the refineries and not at the airports. This approach will limit the need for additional infrastructure for blending at the point of use.

4.1.1 Alternative Fuel Characteristics Compared to “conventional” jet fuel, the fuel obtained via the Fischer-Tropsch and the hydrotreated bio oil (HBO) processes contain a higher specific energy (by around 2%) and a lower specific gravity (by around 5%). Table 9 Fuel comparisons Conventional Jet

Fuel (1) Fischer-Tropsch Fuel (2)

SASOL CTL Syntroleum Biofining Fuel (HBO)

Specific Energy

43.26 MJ/kg 18600 BTU/lb

44.19 MJ/kg19000 BTU/lb

43.7 MJ/kg18788 BTU/lb

43.8 MJ/kg18831 BTU/lb

Specific Gravity

798 kg/m3 754 kg/m3 781 kg/m3 unknown

The following figures show that these fuel properties for FT based fuel demonstrate a linear trend in respect to concentration when blended with conventional fuels.

Operational consequences

35

BLEND

SPECIFIC ENERGY (BTU/lb)

18600

19000

MIN SPEC LIMIT = 18400

2σ=??

19000Lower fuel mass for given energy Lower fuel mass for given energy

+2%

2σ=+/- 86

0 % FT fuel(Current Jet Fuel)

18800

18400

100 % FT fuel

SPECIFIC ENERGY (BTU/lb)

BLEND

18600

19000


2σ=??

19000Lower fuel mass for given energy Lower fuel mass for given energy

+2%

2σ=+/- 86

0 % FT fuel(Current Jet Fuel)

18800

18400

100 % FT fuel

Figure 21 Specific energy blend

BLEND

SPECIFIC GRAVITY (kg/m3)

798

820


2σ=??754Greater fuel volume for given energy Greater fuel volume for given energy

((@ @ given specific energy) given specific energy)

-5%

2σ=+/- 11

0 % FT fuel 100 % FT fuel

800

780

760

740

SPECIFIC GRAVITY (kg/m3)

820

BLEND

798

2σ=+/- 11


2σ=??754Greater fuel volume for given energy Greater fuel volume for given energy

((@ @ given specific energy) given specific energy)

-5%

0 % FT fuel

800

780

760

740

100 % FT fuel Figure 22 Specific gravity blend There will be only one jet fuel specification since there is only one supply chain. Therefore, a change in property limits will apply to all jet fuels. The industry is not presently proposing any changes to ASTM D 1655 and DEF STAN 91-91. This is the reason we need to understand the impact on flights, city pairs.


36

Blending Table 10 lists the properties of conventional jet fuel as well as the proposed alternatives. Table 10 Alternative fuel comparison Property\fuel DEF-STAN

91-91 Jet A1 FT/HBO Furans Butanol FAME /

FAEE LHV / (MJ/kg) 42.8 43.26 43-44 42 33 38 Density / (kg/m3)

775-840 798 754-781 890 810 877-885

Freezing point / ºC

-47 -50 -58 -62 -90 -47 5

LHV / (BTU/lbm)

18400 18600 18800 18060 14200 16300

Freezing point / ºF

-53 -58 -72 -80 -130 -53 41

The table illustrates that the Furans and the FT / HBO fuels are very similar to Jet A1. Butanol and FAME / FAEE fuels are outside the operational specifications of acceptable jet fuel. The integration of these alternative fuels as blends would thus be limited. Table 11 describes the theoretical blending percentages range of the fuels with each other to meet the DEF STAN 91-91 standard. The data in the table is for the “best case” scenarios. Table 11 Blending possibilities Furans FT/HBO Butanol FAME / FAEE Jet A1 0 – 36.5 % 0 – 100 % 0 – 4.5 % 0 – 8.7 % FT / HBO 0 – 60 % 0 – 11 % 0 – 20 % For a specific blend of FT/HBO fuel and furans the specific energy volume is 34.8 MJ/litre with the same LHV of Jet A1. This value is 0.8% better than Jet A1, meaning that an aircraft can carry more energy and make longer flights when this fuel blend is used. Economical analysis will show the most valuable blend(s) to use in aviation.

4.2 TRANSPORTATION The transportation system from oil refineries to consumers is typically by a single pipeline. Different fuels go through the same pipeline in large batches, the minimal shipment in the Colonial Pipeline Company in the USA is 120.000 m3 (=750.000 barrels). The transportation system consists of storage tanks at the refinery, pipelines, tank farms and terminals at airports and distribution centers. The tank farms make it possible to store product and arrange the shipment of different products through a single pipeline. A schematic overview of a pipeline system is shown in Figure 23. A non-drop-in fuel would require a review of controls and buffers to prevent contamination with other products.


37

Figure 23 Colonial Pipeline system [14] A non-drop-in fuel would require a review of quality controls and storage in order to prevent contamination of other products. With large quantities it is possible to transport non-drop-in fuels through pipelines. An extra issue for blended fuels concerning the transportation is the quality control during the shipment. The materials of the transportation system would have to be tested for possible impact of these type of alternative fuels.

4.3 AIRPORT Most airports have a single hydrant system for the dispensing of jet fuel. Therefore, only one type of fuel should be delivered to the airport. Additionally, an airline cannot be assured that a specific fuel purchase will go only to their aircraft. Logistic issues as well as the large investment that would be required for separate fuel delivery systems would make separate delivery systems for alternative fuels unfeasible.

4.4 AIRPLANE Utilizing alternative fuels may create differences in the wear, emissions and fuel consumptions of the airplane. This section will focus on the effect of fuel consumption of the airplane as a function of fuel properties.

4.4.1 Background information Each aircraft undergoes performance deterioration over time, starting from the entry into service. Such deterioration is mainly due to the engines (airframe playing a smaller role). Typically, such deterioration is routinely monitored by on-ground tools provided by the airframer that have the capabilities to analyse aircraft performance reports generated during aircraft cruise. The degradation of performance is compared to the stated aircraft performance level (the book value) and is recorded in both the flight planning system and the Flight Management System (FMS). For a given route, the flight planning system will then provide the affordable payload (and/or the affordable zero fuel weight) and the regulatory fuel requirement (in terms of mass) to be input in the FMS for consistent in-flight fuel predictions


38

The following sketch, Figure 24, illustrates the process.

Specific fuel energy

- A02/A32102,1,1/CC AI-002,APR11,153333,EFO U,EFH K,0368/C106,34201,5000,54,0010,0,0100,54,X/CEN173,31019,290,782,7080,242,C 73001/CN N171,31053,290,783,7080,242/ECSN0001,00208,00256,00165,73,33,22/EESN0002,00208,00260,00165,73/N10844,0845,0928,5947,1428,07947/N 20844,0845,0929,5888,1443,07827/S115521,0712,1537,4321,3980,020,006/S215528,0713,1531,4308,4019,018,002/T1099,096,026,46,045,0 6271,0336/T2099,096,023,46,036,06335,0305/V105,00,287,168,03,00,00000/V202,02,135,105,01,00,00000/V3 XX,XX,XXX,XXX,XXXX/V4 XX,XX,XXX,XXX,XXXX/V511,01,283,046,0916/V612,02,182,268,0916/V7044,083,00081,22222222222111/V8043,082,00061,22222222222111/X102541,N002,0017,0000,00000,0000/X202527,0000,0014,0000,00000,N 000/X3N000,0004,N006,N 007,N006,N 002,N000/X40000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000/X50000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000/X61891,E0256,N625,056,278,N 000,0807/X71893,E0255,N624,055,279,0001,0806, /- A02/A32102,1,1/CC AI-002,APR11,104839,LFPG ,EFHK,0872/C 106,33901,5000,50,0010,0,0100,50,X/CEN256,37008,256,790,6865,277,C 73001/CN N255,37041,256,791,6865,277/ECSN0001,00205,00253,00163,73,14,07/EESN0002,00205,00257,00163,73/N10868,0868,0934,6281,1296,06317/N 20868,0869,0935,6209,1308,06231/S112372,0668,1325,4367,4228,001,004/S212375,0670,1321,4360,4253,N00,001/T1099,079,026,42,042,0 4750,0103/T2099,079,022,43,028,04795,0094/V105,02,303,142,03,00,00000/V206,02,137,112,01,00,00000/V3 XX,XX,XXX,XXX,XXXX/V4 XX,XX,XXX,XXX,XXXX/V511,01,283,046,0916/V612,02,182,268,0916/V7043,087,00061,22222222222111/V8042,087,00081,22222222222111/X103612,N003,0022,0000,00004,N 000/X203525,N000,0020,0000,00004,N 000/X3N000,0006,N 004,N007,N 006,0000,N000/X40000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000/X50000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000/X60293,E0074,N543,030,250,N011,0812/X70293,E0075,N543,028,252,N 012,0813,/

Specific fuel gravity

FMS

Check Specific Energy consistency

Flight PlanSpecific fuel energy



Specific fuel gravity

FMSFMSFMS

Check Specific Energy consistency

Flight PlanFlight Plan

Figure 24 Flight Management System The fuel specific energy value shall be consistent across the performance-monitoring region, the flight plan and the FMS, in order to have FMS fuel predictions as homogenous and accurate as possible with the proposed flight plan. Currently, no changes in the flight planning or FMS are expected when FT fuels are used.

4.4.2 Performance impact The properties of the alternative fuels will affect the operational capability and performance of the aircraft. Air Canada performed a case study on the fuel consumption of a A330-300 flown on a fuel with a LHV of 44.0 MJ/kg (18917 BTU/lb) and a density of 768 kg/m3 compared to conventional Jet A1. Jet A-1 has a LHV of 43.2 MJ/kg (18585 BTU/lb) and a density of 803 kg/m3. The fuel consumption was calculated for 3 different types of flights: max zero fuel weight limitation, max take off weight limitation and tank volume limitation (Figure 25).


39

Figure 25 Flight operation principles [15] The calculation was performed for 3 flights (1 in every section): YYZ – YVR4 (4:30 hour ~3700 km / ~2300 miles), YVR – LHR (9:30 hour ~7960 km / 4950 miles) and YVR – PVG (12:30 hour ~10.500 km / 6560 miles). The result of the flight analysis is shown in Figure 26 - Figure 28. The effect on the range and payload are shown in Figure 29.

4 YYZ = Toronto Pearson International Airport, YVR = Vancouver International Airport, LHR = London Heathrow Airport, PVG = (Shanghai) Pudong International Airport


40

YYZYVR

Current Jet A1 FT jet fuel : + ~167 km / 100 miles

Figure 26 Payload and Range study YYZ –YVR [34]

LHRYVR

Current Jet A1 FT jet fuel : + ~167 km / 100 miles

Figure 27 Payload and Range study YVR –LHR [34]


41

YVR

PVG

Current Jet A1 FT jet fuel : - ~185 km / 115 miles

Figure 28 Payload and Range study YVR – PVG[34]

Figure 29 Payload and Range summary [34] The result of this fuel consumption study was that the use of a fuel with a LHV of 44.0 MJ/kg (18917 BTU/lb) and a density of 768 kg/m3) would be very desirable. It would be beneficial to examine other fuel properties scenarios as well as introducing fuel costs to the calculations.


42

4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS The following figure, Figure 30, suggests the points where alternative fuels can be added.

Figure 30 Adding alternative fuels It is anticipated the initial introduction of the alternative fuels will be at the refinery stage. Adding alternative fuels in the transportation section or at airports require blending facilities and adjustments in the handling of the fuel batches. Further study is required to determine the price to the airlines for implementing alternative fuels. Ideally, such a study should take into account the amount of flights in each section and the total amount of fuel burned. There should be minimal impact on flight preparation and operational capability to the airline (Figure 12). Table 12 Operational summary Max ZFW limitation Max TOW limitation Tank volume limitation Lower consumption Lower consumption Lower consumption Additional uplift (volume) Additional uplift (volume) Extended range Range penalty Range penalty Payload increase Payload penalty Each airline should assess its network to quantify the economic impact of alternative fuel utilization.

Refinery Airport Aircraft Pipeline

Adding Alternative Fuels

43

5. OEM/AFM INDIVIDUAL TESTING AND APPROVAL STATUS Fuels from alternative sources other than bulk petroleum are welcome for use. Several times in history fuels from non-bulk petroleum have been introduced, such as from tar sands and oil shale in the 1980’s. The more challenging alternative fuel sources are those from biomass due to their variety in structure and properties. The process of testing for approval of these alternative source fuels has no obstacles that would eliminate the candidate fuels. Especially for safety of flight and maintenance reasons, the testing process for fuels is long and specific to included detailed laboratory, rig and engine testing as required. This chapter describes some of the fuel requirements, test results from Fischer Tropsch (F-T) fuels and gives recommendations that helps the industry to adapt alternative source fuels more quickly.

5.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING An overview of the approval process is shown in Figure 31 and applies to both fuels and proposed fuel additives. The approval process is comprised of three parts:

1. Test Program 2. OEM Approval Review 3. Specification Incorporation.

5.1.1 Test Program The purpose of the Test Program is to ensure that the candidate fuel or additive will have no negative impact on engine operability, durability, performance cost of ownership, emissions and safety of flight. This is accomplished by investigating the impact of the candidate fuel or additive on fuel specification properties, fit-for-purpose properties and performance through component rig, and/or engine tests. Figure 31 outlines the elements of the approval process and test program. It should be considered as a guideline. Figure 32 is a detailed look at the test program. It is unlikely that all of the individual line item tests shown in Figure 32 will need to be performed. The Original Engine Manufacturers (OEM) should be consulted and will provide guidance as to which tests are applicable. Applicability will be based on the chemistry of the new fuel or additive, similarity to currently approved fuels and additives and engine manufacturer experience. Departure from engine manufacturer experience requires more rigorous testing. The product of the Test Program is a report submitted by the investigating body to the engine manufacturers.

5.1.2 OEM Approval Review The OEM Review is the process by which the results of the Test Program are carefully inspected by the respective OEM chief engineers and their discipline chiefs. An OEM Designated Engineering Representative (DER) appointed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) interfaces for the FAA to determine extent of FAA involvement. Combustion, Turbine, Fuel System Hardware, Performance System Analysis, System Integration and Airworthiness Discipline Chiefs and their staff engineers engage in iterative meetings and reviews until all concerns and potential impacts on the engine have been explored and satisfactorily addressed. This exercise can result in requests for additional information or testing. Final approval is made at the executive level based on the recommendation of the chief engineer. The product of the OEM Approval Review is a document or a report that either rejects or approves the new fuel or additive. Note that an equivalent process is carried out in support of inclusion of such fuels in U.K. Defence Standard 91-91 where the Airworthiness Authority is European Aviation Safety Agency. Compatibility between both ASTM D1655 and Def Stan 91-91 is desired whenever possible.

5.1.3 Specification Change Approval by the OEMs of a new fuel or additive may only effect OEM internal service bulletins and engine manuals and have no impact of ASTM D1655. If the OEM proposes changes to D1655, then these changes must be reviewed and balloted within ASTM D02, Subcommittee J, Aviation Fuels. Changes to ASTM D1655 could include listing the additive or fuel material source and manufacturing process as acceptable for use. The OEM’s take every opportunity to insure that the candidate fuels behave similarly to the current petroleum produced fuels to limit the need to change existing specification limits, incorporate special restrictions or


44

additional precautions. Figure 31 shows an overview of the ASTM review and balloting process, which is quite rigorous and typically goes through several iterations before a ballot is successful culminating in a change to ASTM D1655. The OEMs regard the ASTM review and balloting process and the subsequent scrutiny of industry experts, as an additional safe guard to ensure all aspects relating safety of flight, durability, performance and operation have been adequately addressed. Although not a requirement, the OEMs typically wait for a successful ASTM ballot before changing their service bulletins and engine manuals to accommodate the new fuel or additive. A similar process of review is implemented in the UK and Europe.

Specification Change

ASTMSpecification

Approve

ASTM

Review

& Ballot

Reject or Additional

DataAs Required

Reject

SpecificationPropertiesFail

Fit ForPurpose

Properties(FFP)

Componentor RigTest

FurtherEvaluation?

EngineTest

Fail

Fail

Fail Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

No

Start

Yes

Yes

No

No

Test Program

FurtherEvaluation?

FurtherEvaluation?

Report to Engine

Manufacturer

Yes

OEM Internal Review

FAAReview

OEM Report

OEMInternalReview

Reject or Additional

Data AsRequired

Reject

Reject

OEMSpecification

and/or Service Bulletin

Figure 31 Overview fuel and additive approval status

OEM/AFM Individual testing and approval status

45

Figure 32 Test Program


46

5.2 TEST RESULTS OF FT KEROSENE The only approved alternative source of jet fuel at the present time, is the FT-kerosene produced by Sasol of South Africa for use at OR Tambo International Airport (formerly Johannesburg International Airport). The FT fuel is manufactured from coal. The tests done on this fuel, which is used as a blending stock to extend current airport fuel supplies were conducted with pure FT fuel and as a 50% blend with Jet A-1 fuel. Examples of some of the test results are shown below. The effect of the change of the Bocle lubricity rating versus lubricity additive concentration is shown in Figure 33.

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0 5 10 15 20 25LUBRICITY ADDITIVE CONCENTRATION, mg/L

BO

CLE

LU

BR

ICIT

Y R

ATI

NG

, mm

F-T kerosene

50% semi-syntheitc jet fuel

Note: Fuels with BOCLE lubricity ratingsbelow about 0.6mm WSD may not respond to lubricity additives as they are already

b t d th b

Figure 33 Typical response to corrosion inhibitor/lubricity improver (CI/LI) additive Additives are often added to increase the electrical conductivity of the fuel to prevent static discharge in the fuel tanks. Figure 34 graphs the change in electrical conductivity of Jet A1 and a 50% blend of FT fuel versus the concentration of the static dispersive discharge additive. The chart indicates that the 50% FT blend behaves very similarly to Jet A1.

OEM/AFM Individual testing and approval status

47

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5CONCENTRATION OF STATIC DISSIPATOR ADDITIVE, mg/L

ELEC

TRIC

AL

CO

ND

UC

TIVI

TY, p

S/m

Jet A-1

50% semi-synthetic jet fuelCRC World Fuel Survey did not includeeffect of SDA concentration. This and other data from the Sasol program indicates the effect is linear and 0.5 to 2.0 mg/L is sufficient.

Specificationlimits

Figure 34 Typical response to static dissipator additive To insure the acceptability of the Sasol semi-synthetic jet fuel for commercial aircraft, additional requirements were added to the U.K Jet A-1 fuel specification (Def Stan 91-91). A minimum aromatic content specification was added to insure acceptable elastomer seal swell, a minimum lubricity requirement to insure fuel pump durability, and the requirement of a anti-oxidant additive to insure storage stability. The ASTM D1655 specification recognizes that the Sasol semi-synthetic fuel referenced in the Def Stan 91-91 specification meets all requirements. A fully synthetic FT jet fuel manufactured from coal by Sasol has just completed extensive analysis and testing by the engine OEMs. The Sasol process produced a FT fuel that contains the required level of aromatics. Not all FT process produces the required level of aromatics content in the fuel to meet the Def Stan 91-91 specification. The initial tests of the Sasol fuels were completed satisfactorily, and the fuel will be introduced into the U.K. Def Stan 91-91 Jet A-1 fuel specification at the next revision. To insure this fully synthetic fuel is acceptable for commercial use, additional requirements were added to the fuel specification. In addition to the requirements for the Sasol FT fuel noted above, requirements for maximum flash point and distillation characteristics will be added to the specification to insure acceptable engine starting and operability. The fully synthetic Sasol fuel will be added to the ASTM D1655 specification during subsequent ASTM review and ballot processes. The aircraft and engine OEMs are currently working with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) with a goal to approve a 50/50 blend of FT synthetic JP-8 fuel and conventional JP-8 fuel for all USAF aircraft by 2011. JP-8 is a military low-freeze point kerosene-type fuel similar to commercial Jet A-1 fuel, but with additional mandatory fuel additives. Ground and flight tests completed on engines and APUs used in military transport and tanker aircraft with semi-synthetic JP-8 fuel will have some relevance to commercial aircraft that use the same (or very similar) equipment. FT blending stock purchased by the USAF to date has been produced by the Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) process. The military and civil aviation communities are working together to characterize the variability of FT fuel from different processes, sources (coal, natural gas, biomass), and producers. This information will be used to draft an ASTM specification for the FT blending component. It is anticipated that the Hydrogenated Bio Oils (HBO) will have comparable properties to FT kerosene. However, fuel analysis and component testing to verify the acceptability of HBO for aircraft use needs to be completed.


48

5.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE SOURCE FUELS Alternate source fuels shall be characterized for quality assurance and control of properties. If the quality assurance causes variation in properties from batch to batch, then high and low boundaries for each property shall be determined, but if these lie far outside the current known aviation fuel properties, they may be a reason to disqualify the candidate fuel. At a minimum, freezing point, distillation curve, flash point, density, energy content, viscosity, sulphur content, acid number, aromatic content and conductivity should be determined and defined. Other properties not normally tested for in conventional kerosene fuels such as trace metals and other non-hydrocarbons may be required. If there is a significant difference in any property, relative to normally observed values, the alternate source fuel shall be judged more carefully against the anticipated max and min of the affected properties, or, via dialogue with the suppliers seek means to control these parameters within acceptable limits (specification revision).

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS The blending of alternative source fuels discussed in chapter 4 requires examination of the blending stability and the range in which they can be used. It is highly recommended that samples of (pilot) production runs that include alternative fuels be tested to ensure conformance to the required specification for that fuel. Prior to entering the approval process a detailed assessment of the potential new fuel’s total environmental impact of production, processing, and implementation be examined to determine if the proposed fuel offers any added environment benefit.

49

6. TECHNOLOGIES Technological innovations have the potential to reduce cost from fuel consumption (e.g. efficiency increase), flight operation (e.g. shorter routes) and maintenance. New technology innovations are required to solve future problems of fuel supply and greenhouse gas emissions. Outlined below are areas where technology innovations might be required to assist in the acceptance and use of alternative fuels.

6.1 OBTAINING RAW MATERIAL There is a wide range or sources of raw materials (harvesting, industrial by-products, etc. ). The following section addresses the available technologies for obtaining raw material and for further processing to jet fuel. This paragraph focuses on the biomass production processes.

6.1.1 Crop-oil Raw material from crop-oil is obtained in 2 ways: directly from growing crops (palm oil, soybean oil, jatropha oil etc) or indirectly from byproducts from the food industry (e.g. frying oil, cooking oil, etc). Used crop-oil from the food industry is already being collected for use as fuel for power generation and biofuel facilities.

Palm oil Oil palms are grown in warm wet lands, like Malaysia and Indonesia, producing palm fruits. From the palm fruits oil is extracted for use in soaps, candles, cooking oil as well as a raw material source for producing fuels. The non-oil portion of the palm plant can be used for fibres, energy, paper and other products. Figure 35, provides a summary of the uses of oil palm plants. The variety of products that are produced from the oil palm show that the price of palm oil is not only dictated for fuel use but also for other products.

Figure 35 Oil palm products [21]

Soybean oil Soybeans are grown on lands with short daylights (14 hours or less) at optimum temperatures of 20ºC to 30ºC (68 ºF to 86 ºF). The soil must be well irrigated so a reliable and sufficient supply of fresh water is required.


50

Jatropha oil Jatropha curcus is a drought-resistant perennial (growing for more than 2 years). The plant grows reasonably well in marginal to poor soil. It is easy to establish, grows relatively quickly and lives producing seeds for 50 years. Jatropha produces seeds with an oil content of 30-37%. The oil is a good raw material for processing to biojet fuel. Unrefined, it burns with clear smoke-free flame. The raw oil has been tested successfully as fuel for simple diesel engines. The by-products of processing the oil from the plant are press cake, a good organic fertilizer. An additional advantage of the oil is that it contains a natural insecticide[22].

Rapeseed oil [23] Rapeseed, a large winter or spring annual oil crop in the Brassica family, is related to mustard, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and turnip plants. Rapeseed is primarily grown for its oil and meal. However, it has also been shown to be beneficial as a cover crop. It provides good soil cover in winter to prevent soil erosion, produces large amounts of biomass, suppresses weeds and can improve the soil. Generally, canola grade refers to the edible oil crop that is characterized by low erucic acid (less than 2 percent). “Industrial rapeseed” refers to any rapeseed with a high content (at least 45 percent) of erucic acid in the oil. Traditionally, industrial rapeseed is produced for birdseed and oil for industrial purposes. Industrial varieties of rapeseed are used for non-edible purposes such as lubricants, hydraulic fluids and plastics. High-erucic-acid rapeseed oil is especially useful where high heat stability is required. One of the primary markets for high-erucic-acid oils is erucamide. Erucamide has been used for decades by plastic film manufacturers for use in bread wrappers and garbage bags and is preferred over cheaper alternatives for its production properties. The properties of the industrial rapeseed oil makes it a good raw material for deriving biofuels and is widely used and grown in Germany.

6.1.2 Algae There are 3 production methods for producing algae: bioreactor, open pond and open waters. Algae growth requires sunlight (the energy), CO2, water and nutrients. By adjusting these requirements in the right amounts, the algae has a capacity to grow at a minimum 10 times faster than the fastest growing crop on land. The required nutrients, iron, nitrogen and phosphor, are common industrial waste products. The heterogeneity of industrial waste streams and the high water solubility of many of these nutrients make them difficult to use in other industrial processes, however these streams maybe used for the production of algae.

Bioreactor Bioreactors are the most easily controlled environment for algae production. In a bioreactor, the algae is grown in transparent tubes that are fed with CO2 and nutrients. A sample of the different types of bioreactors is illustrated in Figure 36. A bioreactor has the capability to tightly control growing conditions as well as contamination levels. There is a lot of experience in the use of bioreactors. Bioreactors are presently being used to produce high quality products for the pharmaceutical and food industries. The typical growth rate achieved in bioreactors is 50-200 gr/m2/day. The lipid (algae oil) content is mainly controlled at 25-55 dry wt %. Higher lipid contents 85% has been achieved, but they haven’t proved sustainable over time. The typical costs of bioreactors are between $120.000[19] and $ 1 mln / ha ($48.600/ac - $0.4 mln/ac). The cost is highly dependant on the surface area required and the desired process.

Technologies

51

Figure 36 Different photobioreactors The more economic design ($120.000 / ha) of a photobioreactor is the system designed by XL Renewables, the Simgea™ system. Plastic tubes with algae are partially buried for temperature control and in the winter covered with plastic for extra isolation, Figure 37.

Figure 37 Simgea bioreactor concept

Open ponds Open ponds algae systems are similar to those systems currently used in fish farming and have the advantage for lower capital costs ($72.000 / ha to $100.000 / ha, $29.000 / ac to $40.000 / ac) than bioreactors. The algae growing in open systems are exposed to contaminations from outside and refreshing the system in time is still required. The growth rate in open ponds (10 and 50 gr/m2/day) which is less than for bioreactors. The produced algae have a lipid content of 20 – 50 dry wt%. Higher lipid contents 85% has been achieved, but they haven’t proved sustainable over time. Seambiotic in Israel is presently producing a high value product by this process that has an estimated production cost of $17 / kg and a market price of the product is $ 4000 / kg[19]. The company is focusing on growing algae for the production of oil at a cost price of $0.34 /kg ($0.15 /lb) in combination with a power plant for fuel derivation. The algae growth rate will have to be increased by a factor of 10 to meet these goals. The company plans on using bio flocculation methods to harvest the product instead of using energy consuming centrifuges. The basic design of an open pond system is shown in Figure


52

38. The Hawaii facility for the production of spirulina, food supplement is shown in Figure 39. Royal Dutch Shell announced on 11 December to start with a pilot facility on Hawaii for growing marine algae for biofuel production.

Figure 38 Schematic open pond system[19]

Figure 39 Commercial Microalgae Production Facility, Hawaii.

Technologies

53

Open water The majority of the sea is not used especially the silent waters. Growing algae at sea requires a relatively low level of capital investment. Open water ponds have limited capabilities to control the growing environment. A method of obtaining energy from algae at sea is the process developed by Em.Prof.dr.ir. Fred Kreuger, professor at the Technical University of Delft, Netherlands. Dr Kreuger has chosen the algae specie laminaria for his study. The algae specie floats on water and connects to each other, see Figure 40.

Figure 40 A laminaria algae A connected field stays together and the requirement of nutrients makes it impossible for the algae to grow uncontrolled over the sea. Outside the field where nutrients are added the algae dies. The algae is sowed at one side of the field and harvested on the other side. This process has the great benefit in that it only requires 2 ships and a fertilizer system. For higher productivity in the future it could be possible to use CO2 from oil refineries and power plants as fertilizer. All the processes from sowing to oil production are underway as a research project. The design for the ships for harvesting and sowing are under construction and the processes for extracting the oil on the ships are proposed. TU Delft research group is looking for partners for this project. An additional source of algae at sea is near industrial areas where the growth of wild algae is commonly observed. The wild algae can also be a source of raw material for producing fuels.

Recommendations Fuel derived from algae is very promising. However, there are significant challenges for scaling up the different processes. A comparison of the different methods of production is shown in Table 13. The environment impact of these production methods requires further investigation. Table 13 Algae systems comparison Bioreactor Open pond Open watersCapital -- - ++ to 0 Operating costs -? 0? ? Grow rate ++ + -- to ? Waste water treatment ++ ++ - Experience ++ 0 - Contamination risk ++ 0 to ++ ?


54

6.1.3 Solid biomass and biodegradable waste The non-oil biomass can also be a raw material for the production of biojet fuel. Degradable products can be transformed by fermentation into ethanol or by anaerobic digestion into methane. In both processes there is CO2 produced, in the case of fermentation the produced CO2 is at a high concentration. The ethanol is a source for the esterification reactant described in subparagraph 6.2.5. The process of the conversion to fuel using this raw material is dependant on the type of waste. Biodegradable waste is one of the easiest waste streams to process. Most biological waste can be processed by fermentation to ethanol or by digestion to methane. Waste products from the fermentation process can be used as fertilizer.

6.1.4 Recommendations The different biomass raw materials are already being used for processes in a wide variety of industries. Table 14 lists the potential oil equivalent per year for common biomass feedstocks. Geographical growing conditions will play a crucial role in the determination which biomass crop is more suitable for that particular region. For example, jatropha is able to be grown in parts of Africa where other species of crops would have difficulty thriving. Table 14 Oil yield crop comparison [20] Crop Oil yield / (barrel/ha/year) Oil yield / (barrel/ac/year) Corn 1.1 0.4Cotton 2.1 0.8Soybean 2.8 1.1Mustard seed 3.6 1.5Sunflower 6.0 2.4Rapeseed/Canola 7.5 3.0Jatropha 11.9 4.8Oil palm 37.4 15.1Algae >290.0 >120.0

6.2 PROCESSING Unique processing methods are required for processing biomass raw materials to jet fuels. A brief introduction of these processing technologies is described below.

6.2.1 Biomass processing Biomass processing can be described as two methods: Biochemical and Thermochemical (Figure 41). The basic concept of the thermochemical process is to heat the biomass until it transforms to the desired product. Examples of thermochemical processes are direct liquefaction, gasification and Fischer Tropsch. Conversely, the biochemical process is the process were organisms or enzymes convert biomass into desired products. Figure 41 Biomass conversion

Technologies

55

6.2.2 Fischer-Tropsch The Fisher-Tropsch process was developed in 1920 and has been widely studied. The basic process is shown in Figure 42. The commercial Sasol plant in South Africa utilizes an iron catalyst for the conversion. The fuels produced from this process are mainly highly branched isoparaffins. The Syntroleum process is a low temperature reaction with a cobalt catalyst that produces mainly straight chain isoparaffins. The purification of the gas streams is more difficult when biomass-based raw materials are used then when natural gas feedstock is used.

Figure 42 Schematic XTL process

6.2.3 Liquefaction Directly producing liquids out of solid raw material is done by heating the raw material to high temperatures and keep it under these conditions for a period of time. Then separate the liquids from the residue and upgrade the liquids to fuels. The Shenhua process developed in China describes a process for liquefying solids. The process flow diagram is described in Figure 43.

Figure 43 Direct coal liquefaction (Shenhua project)


56

6.2.4 Hydrotreating / Upgrading The upgrading of oil and FT-waxes consists of pre-treatment, hydrotreating, isomerization and distillation. These processes are well known in current refineries. Syntroleum has developed a system of “Biofining” for producing diesel and Jet fuel out of vegetable oils and animal fats. Syntroleum is projected to start building a biofining plant in 2008. The plant is expected to begin commercial operation in 2010. Figure 44 illustrates the Syntroleums FT and biofining process.

Figure 44 Syntroleums Biofining process [28] Hydrotreating is the process in which hydrogen is reacted with the a material. Reduction of the olefinic bonds and carbon-oxygen bonds occurs raising the heating value of the fuel. The result of hydrotreating is a clean fuel with a lower heating value on average 2% higher than Jet A. The basic reaction for hydrotreating raw material is described by the equation:

( ) contOxHRyHcontRO Catalystx ++⎯⎯ →⎯+ 22

In simple form:

wastewaterbiodieselBioJetHydrogenOilsVegetable Catalyst ++⎯⎯ →⎯+ / The R represents the hydrocarbon chain. The oxygen parts (Ox) react with the hydrogen (H2) to form water. Halogens can also be replaced by hydrogen in this reaction.

Technologies

57

6.2.5 Esterification The esterification reacts a carboxylic acid with an alcohol. The alcohols that are usually used for fuels is methanol or ethanol. The esterfication of bio-oils to produce fuels is often referred to as 1st generation biodiesel. The basic esterification reaction is described by the following equation:

OHHRCOOCRCOOCHHHOCHOCHRCOOH Catalyst2523523 // +⎯⎯ →⎯+

In simple form:

waterFAEEFAMEEthanolMethanolOilsVegetable Catalyst +⎯⎯ →⎯+ // R = Hydrocarbon group HOCH3 = Methanol HOC2H5 = Ethanol COOH = Carboxylic acid FAME = Fatty Acid Methyl Ester FAEE = Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester FAME and FAEE are commonly used as biodiesel. Extra processing of FAME and FAEE is often required for the fuel to meet Jet fuel specifications.

6.2.6 Furans Furans, especially dimethylfuran (C6H8O, DMF), can also be used as a fuel source. The production of the furans for fuel is done by converting the biomass into glucose. In this biological process HMF (hydroxymethylfurfural, C6H6O3) is produced. Reduction of the aldhyde (C=O) and hydroxyl (-OH) groups with hydrogen produces DMF. Figure 45 shows the simplified process of producing fuels and high quality products out of biomass using this process.

Figure 45 Biomass to furan [27] The produced fuel has a freezing point of -62 ºC, a heating value of 42 MJ/kg and a density of 890 kg/m3. The furan fuel is a hydrophobic molecule that has a low affinity for water. The heating value of furan fuel is slightly lower than described in the DEF STAN 91-91 specifications and therefore still requires blending to meet the specification. The toxicity of the fuel requires further investigation.


58

Figure 46 2,5-dimethylfuran The Dutch company Avantium Technologies claims to possess technology that produces the furan fuel, Furanics[35], at a competitive price to diesel fuel. The furan fuel this is produced by the company is claimed to have a lower price to produce than bioethanol using the same raw materials. The fuel has been tested as a diesel fuel and has undergone several hours of testing in a Citroën Berlingo over a wide range of blends. Preliminary results indicate that the fuel has shown a reduction in soot production.

Technologies

59

6.2.7 Process flow schemes Multiple processes are often required to produce jet fuel from alternative raw materials. Diversification and integration of these processes into multiple industries have the potential of increasing the acceptance and lowering the production costs of these alternative fuels. The general scheme for producing jet fuel from biomass was generated by Sandia National Laboratory and illustrated in Figure 47.

Figure 47 Process flow scheme Sandia National Laboratories [19]


60

Algae The future algae concept proposed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is an integrated process that includes a powerplant, algae farm and processing facilities that are capable of producing multiple products in addition to raw materials for fuel production. The simplified process scheme for algae is shown in Figure 48. Valuable byproducts of this process such as fertilizer are not shown in the diagram. Carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels can be used as a feed stream to the algae farms. Other more extensive process flow schemes are shown in Appendix A.

Figure 48 Future Algae concepts[18]

6.3 TRANSPORTATION It is not anticipated that “drop-in” and blended fuels will require significant changes to the current transportation system. Fuels that are not commonly defined as drop-in replacements for jet fuel such as methane and hydrogen require unique transportation requirements. For example, the natural gas networks that already exist in most countries cannot supply the liquefied gas at the purity level required for use in airplanes. Liquefaction and purification systems would have to be installed at the airports.

Technologies

61

6.4 USE Ideally the industry would like to have a fuel that would be a considered in all aspects as a “drop-in” replacement for the current fuel that would not require any changes in the fuel or transportation systems or in the operation of the airplane. A detailed understanding of the properties and the impact of implementing alternative fuels in aviation should be thoroughly studied before a fuel is considered. Non drop-in fuels like hydrogen, methane, LPG5 requires significant changes in the transportation system, airplane and engine design. A few of these required changes are new storage facilities and fuel handling systems in the airplanes. Combustion chambers in the engine will also have to be redesigned to accommodate these types of fuels. The energy per weight potential of gaseous fuels is better than kerosene. Table 15 lists the weight and volume comparison of the energy content of 100 litres of kerosene to a variety of liquefied gaseous fuels, LPG, LNG and LH2

6. Table 15 Gaseous fuel comparison Boiling

temperature / ºC

Density / (kg/m3)

Lower Heating Value / (MJ/kg)

Volume / litre At given energy content

Weight / kg

Kerosene 170 – 260 800 43 100 80LPG - 42 – - 0.5 ºC 508 - 601 46 124 – 147 75 LNG -162 400 50 172 69LH2 - 253 70 120 410 29 The emissions of gaseous fuels compared to kerosene are described in Table 16. Table 16 Emission comparison gaseous fuels, source for input [30] Carbon dioxide

CO2

Sulphur oxides SOx

Particulates PM

Water vapour H2O

Kerosene base base base Base LPG ±10% less less less ±16% more LNG 25% less 100 x less less 50% more LH2 none none none 150 % more For this comparison, the engine efficiency is kept constant and the positive effect of lower fuel weight is neglected on the fuel consumption.

Technical feasibility Experimental airplanes have already flown with cryogenic fuels (LNG / LH2) [30]. In 1956 a modified B57 Bomber flew on LH2 in the USA and a Tupolev 155 with NK-88 engine flew on LH2 and later on LNG in 1988-1989. For commercial use, there has to be significant advances in many key technology areas. For example, liquefied gaseous fuels require new storage tanks that are capable of storing the liquefied fuels at low temperatures. These storage systems will require changes to the current fire detection and extinguishing systems. Transporting the liquid fuels within the airplane would also have to be redesigned. A sample of some of the other aspects that will need to be understood using these liquefied fuels are start-up and shut down, icing, heat exchangers surfaces, effects of vibrations.

5 LPG = liquefied petroleum gas (propane / butane mixture) 6 LH2 = liquefied hydrogen


62

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

IATA would like to express its appreciation to the following member experts of this IATA Alternative Fuels Project: Tedd Biddle – Pratt and Whitney Tracy Boval – Chevron Staffan Elmen – Scandinavian Airline System Mike Farmery – Shell Aviation Francois Guay – Air Total Linda Gallaher – Chevron Oren Hadaller – Boeing Andreas Hardeman – IATA Chris Lewis – Rolls Royce Myrka Manzo – Air Canada Brian Pearce – IATA Sebastien Remy – Airbus Stanford Seto – Belcan / General Electric Aviation Lasantha Subasinghe – IATA Vincent Toepoel – IATA Ross Walker – Airbus Randy Williams – Honeywell Michel Baljet – IATA


63

REFERENCES

1. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2007 2. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/chapter1.html 3. Recycling household waste, Parliamentary office of Science and Technology, December 2005 nr

252 4. Analysis of household waste composition, Dr J Parfitt, WRAP 2002 5. Akkers van Algen, De Ingenieur, 05 Oktober 2007 6. http://www.mpob.gov.my/ 7. http://www.distill.com/World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html 8. Gas To Liquids, National Petroleum Council, 18 july 2007 9. Boeing commercial airlines 10. Sandia National Laboratories 11. The round table of sustainable palm oil www.rspo.org 12. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/062-12900-316-11-46-910-

20071109IPR12781-12-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm 13. The Business case for coal gasification with co-production, Scully capitol 14. Colonial Pipeline Company presentation at CAAFI, Buster Brown 15. Air Canada presentation at CAAFI, Myrka Manzo 16. A2BE-BiomassSummit.pdf, Jim Sears 17. Presentation Bioenergy Briefings, NREL, 31 October 2007 18. Presentation Bio Pacific Rim Summit, NREL, 16 November 2007 19. Presentation Day1_Panel2_plus DARPA.pdf, Algae Biomass Summit 20. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL 21. http://www.ppi-

far.org/ppiweb/bcropint.nsf/$webindex/32EDD1030D2EEF5D852568F600558DE0/$file/i99-1p03.pdf

22. http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org 23. http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/grainsoilseeds/rapeseed/ 24. 1. Garry Rickard (Qinetiq)– The quality of aviation fuel available in the United Kingdom – Annual

Survey 2005 (QINETIQ/S&DU/T&P/E&M/TR0601360) 25. 2. Matthew J. DeWitt, Richard Striebich, Linda Shafer, Steven Zabarnick, William E. Harrison III,

Donald E. Minus and Timothy Edwards - Evaluation of fuel produced via the Fischer-Tropsch process for use in aviation applications

26. 3. Sipke Baarsma – Akkers van Algen, De Ingenieur 5 oktober 2007 27. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/avantium-engine.html#more 28. Biofining_Investor_Presentation, Syntroleum 29. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/etb/ctec/cetc01/htmldocs/Publications/factsheet_bioenergy_e.htm 30. EUCASS 2005 abstract.pdf 31. http://www.pspb.org/e21/media/thumbs/magick.php/bioenergy-cycle-med2.jpg 32. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7294712.PDF 33. http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/media/2/D/stern_review_supporting_technical_material_dennis_anderson_231006.pdf

34. Airbus 35. http://www.avantium.com/index.php?p=70; http://biopact.com/2007/10/avantium-tests-new-

generation-of-high.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/chapter1.html

http://www.mpob.gov.my/

http://www.distill.com/World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html

http://www.rspo.org/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/062-12900-316-11-46-910-20071109IPR12781-12-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/062-12900-316-11-46-910-20071109IPR12781-12-11-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm

http://www.ppi-far.org/ppiweb/bcropint.nsf/$webindex/32EDD1030D2EEF5D852568F600558DE0/$file/i99-1p03.pdf



http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/

http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/grainsoilseeds/rapeseed/

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/avantium-engine.html#more

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/etb/ctec/cetc01/htmldocs/Publications/factsheet_bioenergy_e.htm

http://www.pspb.org/e21/media/thumbs/magick.php/bioenergy-cycle-med2.jpg

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7294712.PDF

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7294712.PDF

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/2/D/stern_review_supporting_technical_material_dennis_anderson_231006.pdf




http://www.avantium.com/index.php?p=70


64

APPENDIX A EXTENDED PROCESS FLOW SCHEMES The following figures provide extended process flow schemes of how industries can be integrated for more efficient production and better economics. The process flow scheme of possible waste water treatment with integrated algae farm.

Figure 49 Integrated waste water treatment Another process flow scheme for waste water treatment and algae production from the California Polytechnic State University.


65

Figure 50 Waste water - Biofuel concept The total overview scheme from NREL to produce fuels out of algae:

Figure 51 Algae fuel production paths[20]


66

APPENDIX B INDUSTRY INITIATIVES

VIRGIN ATLANTIC, BOEING AND GE AVIATION BIOJET FUEL DEMO FLIGHT

Sir Richard Branson announced in April 2007 that Virgin Atlantic would be the first commercial airline to use a Biojet fuel in one of their airplanes. Plans are well underway for the demo flight done in early 2008 in a commercial Boeing 747 with GE engines. So why is Virgin doing the demo flight? Simply, because of the environmental benefits of Biofuels over fossil fuels. Boeing, GE Aviation and Virgin Atlantic’s aim is to find a Biojet fuel derived from a sustainable raw material that can be “dropped in” without any changes to existing engine or air frame technology. The demo flight will be conducted under normal flight conditions using a biofuel/Jet A1 blend. The fuel will be rigorously tested before being used on the demo flight, to ensure that it meets the necessary performance characteristics. By doing this demo flight Virgin Atlantic is challenging the norm and accelerates the industry to introduce sustainable fuels in the current supply system of fuels. The focus is on developing renewable, sustainable alternative fuels that do not compete with the food market and have lower life-cycle emissions than current jet fuel. It is by demonstrating that there could be a new market for high-tech Biofuels in which Virgin Atlantic hopes to stimulate investment in the necessary R&D to make them a commercial reality. In the further development of commercial Biojet fuel Virgin Atlantic is looking on how to work with Boeing and other key players to help make Biofuels a viable option for the aviation industry as a whole. DARPA BIOFUEL SOLICITATION

DARPA is soliciting innovative research proposals in the area of technologies that enable the affordable production of a surrogate for petroleum based military jet fuel (JP-8) from agricultural or aqua cultural crops that are non-competitive with food material. This current solicitation expands the scope of the BioFuels program described in BAA06-43 (http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/BioFuels/) to additionally focus on: (1) processes for the affordable and efficient conversion of cellulosic materials to JP-8, and (2) processes for the affordable and efficient production of algal raw material for conversion to JP-8. Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

DARPA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) No. 08-07, entitled BioFuels - Cellulosic and Algal Raw materials, is provided as an attachment to this solicitation notice and includes information on the specific areas of interest; the submission process; abstract and proposal formats; evaluation and selection/funding processes; as well as all other pertinent administrative and contractual information. The BAA may be obtained from the FedBizOpps website: http://www.fedbizopps.gov or by electronic mail request to the email address given below.

http://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/BioFuels/index.htm

http://www.fedbizopps.gov/


67

USAF AVIATION SYNTHETIC FUEL INITIATIVES

Background

Air Force Energy Vision: Make energy a consideration in all we do.

Air Force Energy Strategy: Reduce Demand: Increase our energy efficiency and awareness of the need to reduce our energy consumption Increase Supply: Research, testing and certifying new technologies, including both renewable and traditional energy sources in order to create new domestic sources of supply Cultural Change: Create a culture where all Airmen make energy a consideration in everything they do. This strategy balances demand-side energy efficiency measures with a long-term commitment to supply-side alternative energy sources, some facts: AF spent approximately $5.8B in aviation fuel in FY06, up from $4.0B from FY05; price volatility significantly impacts Air Force O&M budgets. With 2.6B gal of aviation fuel used in FY06, the Air Force is about 10% of the US aviation fuel market. B-52 Aviation Certification After extensive lab tests and over 100 hours of static ground engine testing, AF Flight Test Center conducted 4 flight tests using approximately 100,000 gals of US manufactured synthetic fuel in a 50/50 blend with conventional jet fuel. Completed a series of cold weather engine start tests and confirmed that there are no deleterious effects of using a synthetic blend jet fuel in military aircraft. Secretary of the Air Force signed a certificate fully authorizing the use of a synthetic fuel-blend in the B-52 on August 8, 2007. Current status of the AF synthetic fuel effort

Established a Program Management Office for the Synthetic Fuel program on August 20, 2007; will use results from B-52 test it to create a process to expedite fleet certification. Currently conducting a gap analysis of all Air Force airframes, engines and systems that will determine future work and the amount of fuel required to meet certification goal. Working with FAA and the commercial aviation industry through Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) to define a synthetic fuels standard specification by FY09, and certify military and commercial aviation more efficiently and economically by capitalizing on respective resources. Working with Army at TARDEC and Navy at Patuxent River on their respective certification programs. DLA will be conducting an extensive synthetic fuel market survey of industry regarding potential US manufacturing capacity over the next decade. Partnered with DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory to study the technical, environmental, and economic issues impacting the feasibility of producing l00,000 barrels per day of jet fuel from coal and biomass. Bought 281K gallons at market price of $3.41/gallon for testing; deliveries to testing sites began mid-September 2007. NASA ordered 9,000 gallons for aircraft engine emissions testing.


68

Future direction of the AF synthetic fuel effort

Long-term Program Goals Certify the entire inventory of aircraft for operations with a 50/50 synthetic fuel blend by early 2011. Continue testing beyond 2011 for different versions of synthetic fuel blend. Cost effectively acquire 50% of contiguous United States (CONUS) aviation fuel via a synthetic fuel blend utilizing domestic raw materials and produced in the United States by 2016, with the intent to require that the synthetic fuel purchases be sourced from suppliers with manufacturing facilities that engage in carbon dioxide capture and effective reuse Based on FY06 consumption rates, this equates to approximately 400 million gallons of synthetic fuel per year beginning 2016.

Next Steps Begin testing the C-17 and the B-1 engine in Fall 2007. C-17 chosen because its high-bypass engines are derivatives of the engines on a Boeing 757 and it consumes large volumes of AF fuel; the testing will coincide with work being done by the engine manufacturer with the commercial airline industry. B-1 engine tests will be conducted beginning in November 2007; work will focus on the augmenters and afterburners that will be critical in determining how synthetic fuel will operate in fighter aircraft. Rationale for the AF pursuing alternative fuels

National Security/Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil Provides the Air Force with greater flexibility to continue to fly and fight in air and space and cyberspace, delivering sovereign options on behalf of our nation and its global interests. United States currently imports nearly 60% of its petroleum products; that number is expected to rise to 68% by 2030. Growing economies of China, India and the rest of Asia are expected to continue to increase world-wide petroleum demand. US crude oil imports and refinery capacity in the Gulf Coast significantly impacted by Hurricanes Katrina/Rita. 25% Of global coal reserves reside in the United States, offering hundreds of years of domestically-sourced energy.

Potential Environmental Benefits Synthetic fuels manufactured by the Fisher-Tropsch process have greatly reduced levels of sulphur compounds (SOx) and very little particulate matter when operated in a modern gas turbine engine. Reduced particulate matter could result in lower maintenance costs due to decreased cleaning frequency. CO2 emissions in manufacturing process must be addressed. A number of government, commercial and academic laboratories are exploring options to reduce emissions; promising alternatives are emerging.

Documents

IATA 2007 Report on Alternative Fuels - International Air · PDF file · 2010-03-02IATA 2007 Report on Alternative Fuels 1 FOREWORD Minimizing the impact of the aviation industry