National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting (2012)

Chapter: Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?

« Previous: Section 1 - Introduction
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Section 2 - What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14634.
×
Page 24

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

This section discusses the main characteristics of alternative jet fuels. These characteristics include safety, feedstocks, production technologies, environmental and economic benefits, and the regulatory environment. 2.1 Safety and Drop-in Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels Are alternative jet fuels safe for use in airplanes and with other elements of the existing jet fuel infrastructure? Yes. For alternative jet fuels, safety and compatibility with existing aircraft, engines, and other elements of the jet fuel infrastructure are of critical importance. Current efforts to certify the use of alternative jet fuels are based on the principles that they meet or exceed the same safety crite- ria as conventional jet fuel and that they are 100% compatible with the existing jet fuel infra- structure. Who is responsible for setting the standards to certify conventional and alternative jet fuels? The specifications for jet fuel in the United States and around the world are established by standard-setting organizations such as ASTM International and the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence Standards (DEFSTAN). The role of the FAA and other safety organizations is to establish ground rules for the standard-setting organizations to use. Aircraft manufacturers, air- lines, and airports refer to the ASTM and DEFSTAN standards when designing, operating, and maintaining aircraft. What are drop-in alternative jet fuels? There is no formal definition of or standard for drop-in alternative jet fuels. Informally, a drop-in fuel is one that is fully interchangeable with petroleum-based fuels complying with ASTM or DEFSTAN standards. This drop-in interchangeability must be possible throughout the entire product distribution cycle—from refinery to aircraft. This includes the intermediary dis- tribution steps: pipelines, tank farms, and fuel trucks. By definition, drop-in alternative jet fuels can use the same infrastructure as conventional jet fuel, thus avoiding the need to build expen- sive duplicate infrastructure. Characteristics of drop-in alternative jet fuels must be equivalent to those of petroleum-based jet fuel (within the ranges established by standards for petroleum-based jet fuel). These charac- teristics include a number of elements such as safety (freeze point, flash point), performance (heating value and density), wear on fuel systems, and electrical conductivity. 8 S E C T I O N 2 What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels?

Are there examples of drop-in alternative jet fuels? Synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) is the best example of a drop-in alternative jet fuel. SPK is considered a drop-in alternative jet fuel because it meets the technical and safety properties of conventional jet fuel—except for aromatic content. Aromatics are complex hydrocarbon com- pounds that are required to be present in any jet fuel to some minimal amount (currently 8%). The existing jet fuel distribution, storage, and handling infrastructure has been designed with aromatics in mind. Without aromatics, rubber seals in valves and other elements of the jet fuel supply infrastructure can leak and present unacceptable environmental and safety issues. There- fore, to be considered as a drop-in alternative jet fuel, SPK must be mixed with conventional jet fuel so that the resulting blend contains the amount of aromatics mandated by the jet fuel specification. To date, blends of up to 50% of two types of SPKs have been approved and certified as drop- in alternative jet fuel. One type includes SPKs made out of coal, gas, biomass, or municipal solid waste (MSW) using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. The other type of SPK includes hydro- processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) made from plant oils and animal fats. HEFA is also referred to as hydrotreated renewable jet (HRJ). Both the FT and HEFA processes will be discussed further in Section 2.3. What are the blending requirements for alternative jet fuels? As discussed previously, current approval of alternative jet fuel for use in aircraft requires that they be blended with conventional jet fuel up to a concentration of 50% alternative jet fuel. As new processes for producing alternative jet fuels are developed and more experience with the handling of existing alternative jet fuels is obtained, it is possible that the blending requirements could be reduced. Have alternative jet fuels been used in aircraft? Yes. Jet fuel made from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process has been in daily use for sched- uled airline service in South Africa for more than 20 years. The South African energy and chem- ical company Sasol has produced SPK and other chemicals from locally sourced coal using its proprietary version of the FT process. When blended up to 50% with conventional jet fuel, Sasol’s SPK was approved for use as commercial jet fuel under the U.K.’s DEFSTAN 91-91 in 1998. Since 1999, this jet fuel blend has been used successfully by commercial airlines in aircraft refueled at South African airports, and since then South African Airlines has experienced no fuel- related problems (Roets 2009). Prior to qualification, there were numerous examples of commercial flight tests using alter- native jet fuels made with different technologies and feedstocks. A summary of flight demonstra- tions in commercial aircraft is shown in Table 1. The flight tests showed no significant difference in the performance of the alternative jet fuel compared to conventional jet fuel. Since the qualification of HEFA on July 1, 2011, KLM, Lufthansa, and Aeromexico have ini- tiated commercial service using fuels purchased from U.S. and European sources. These flight commitments for extended commercial use will prove HEFA fuel’s service reliability. Flights by the airlines Thomson (UK charter operator) and Finnair are imminent. 2.2 Feedstocks for Producing Alternative Jet Fuels What feedstocks can be used to produce alternative jet fuels? The two primary sources of feedstock for alternative fuels are fossil fuels and bio-derived feedstocks. Fossil fuel feedstocks include coal and natural gas. Bio-derived feedstocks include What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 9

10 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting Date Airline or Other Sponsor Aircraft Engine Maker Fuel Producer Feedstock Technology Source Feb 2008 Airbus A380 Rolls- Royce Shell Natural gas Fischer- Tropsch Airbus 2011 Dec 2008 Air New Zealand B747- 300 Rolls- Royce UOP Jatropha HEFA Warwick 2009 Jan 2009 Continental B737- 800 GE/CFM I U OP Jatropha , algae HEFA DOE 2009 Jan 2009 Japan Airlines B747- 300 Pratt & Whitney UOP Camelina , Jatropha , algae HEFA Mecham 2008 Oc t 2009 Qatar A340- 600 Rolls- Royce Shell Natural gas Fischer- Tropsch Qatar Airways 201 1 Nov 2009 KLM B747- 400 GE UOP Camelina HEFA North Sea Group 2011 Apr 2010 United A319 IAE Rentech Natural ga s Fischer- Tropsch Kuhn 2009 Nov 2010 TAM A320 CFMI UOP Jatropha HEFA Karp 2010 Apr 2011 InterJet (Mexico) A320 CFMI UOP Jatropha HEFA Gross 2011 June 2011 Honeywell G450 Rolls- Royce UOP Camelina HEFA Chatzis 2011 June 2011 Boeing B747-8 GE UOP Camelina HEFA Lane 2011 July 2011 Lufthansa A321 CFMI Neste Oil Palm oil, rapeseed, animal fats HEFA Reals 2011 July 2011 KLM B737- 800 CFMI Dynamic Fuel s Used cooking oil HEFA KLM 2011 July 2011 Finnair A319 CFMI SkyNRG Used cooking oil HEFA Mroue 2011 Au g 2011 Aeromexico B777- 200 GE ASA Jatropha HEFA Aeromexico 2011 Sept 2011* Thomson Airways B757 Rolls- Royce SkyNRG Used cooking oil HEFA Thompson 2011 2012* Porter Airlines Bom- bardier Q400 PWC UOP Camelina HEFA Bombardier 2010 2012* Azul Embraer GE Amyris Sugarcane FRJ Advanced Biofuels 2009 2013* Air China B747- 400 Pratt & Whitney UOP Jatropha HEFA Stanway 2010 *Announced as of August 31, 2011 Table 1. Alternative jet fuel flight demonstrations in commercial aircraft.

plant oils, animal fats, crop residues, woody biomass, municipal solid waste, and other organic material. Each has relative strengths and weaknesses. Following is a brief overview of each potential feedstock and the most important considerations for each. 1) Fossil fuels Coal and natural gas can be used to make alternative jet fuel with the Fischer-Tropsch process (see Section 2.3). Because of availability, transportation systems, and developed markets, coal and natural gas can support production in commercial quantities. a) Sources and availability Ample supplies of coal and natural gas at low per-unit costs support large rates of extraction for sustained periods of time. Costs and methods for extraction are well known, and large un- tapped deposits exist in the United States. b) Economics and logistics Coal and natural gas have well-developed markets, supply chains, pricing mechanisms, and risk management tools such as financial derivatives to hedge against volatility in the price of the commodities. Existing pipeline and rail transportation systems are cost effective and cheaper than truck transportation for transporting coal and natural gas; however, alternative jet fuel pro- cessing facilities would need to be located in proximity to existing transportation infrastructure in order to take advantage of this cost advantage. Construction of new rail lines and pipelines would likely compromise the economic viability of any alternative jet fuel project. c) Environmental considerations If not properly mitigated, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas (GHG) footprint of alternative jet fuels from fossil fuel feedstocks can be two to three times that of conventional jet fuel (see Box 1 and Section 2.4 for more details on life-cycle GHG analysis). These results depend to a great extent Box 1. Brief introduction to life-cycle greenhouse gas analysis. Life-cycle analysis (LCA) of GHGs estimates the amount of greenhouse gases (e.g., CO2) released in the full life cycle of an alternative fuel (see Section 2.4 for a more complete discussion). This includes emissions from the production, distribution, and combustion of an alternative fuel, including extraction; inputs to production such as tillage, planting, and harvesting biomass feedstocks; processing and con- version; transportation; and storage. It is a cradle-to-grave estimate of all GHG emissions from the production of the fuel. A key concept in life-cycle GHG analysis is land use change (see Section 4 for more information on land use). Land use change can lead to indirect GHG emissions. For example, increased demand for feedstocks that compete for land with the exist- ing food and feed production chain (e.g., corn, soybeans) may lead to conversion of unused land, such as grassland or forests, to agriculture production. This can result in an increase in CO2 emissions that would be included in the life-cycle GHG analysis. Thus, LCA results can show a significant increase in GHG emissions for alternative fuels made from renewable feedstocks because of indirect land use change. Inclusion of indirect land use changes in life-cycle analysis is currently a controversial and politically charged debate. What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 11

on the efficiency of the process to convert coal or natural gas to alternative jet fuel. However, there are ways to reduce the GHG footprint. For example, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology could be employed to capture and permanently store CO2 during the produc- tion process (see Section 2.3). In addition, using biomass in addition to coal can reduce the GHG footprint of the overall process. d) Advantages Fossil fuel feedstocks are abundant and available at relatively low cost. Their large-scale avail- ability is an advantage for FT plants, which tend to be very large (and expensive to build) in order to benefit from economies of scale. e) Disadvantages Fossil fuel feedstocks may have a potentially unacceptable life-cycle GHG footprint if not mit- igated properly. Possible mitigation strategies include the use of CCS technology and use of bio- mass as a co-feedstock for the FT process. FT plants tend to be very large and capital intensive. For example, a typical FT plant could process 1 to 2 billion gallons per year (GPY) and cost several billion dollars to build. For comparison, the average size of the top 100 U.S. petroleum refineries is 2.5 billion GPY (EIA 2011). In addition, since there are not many commercial-scale examples in operation, it is difficult to evaluate their economics of production. 2) Oils and fats Plant oils and animal fats can be used as feedstocks for making alternative jet fuels via hydro- processing (see Section 2.3). a) Sources and availability Many different plant oils can be used to make alternative jet fuel. These include nonfood oils such as Camelina, Jatropha, pennycress, and algae, and food oils such as soybean and canola. Some of these oils are currently produced at commercial or semicommercial scales in the United States. Others have not yet reached such large scales of production. Research is ongoing to improve the oil content (yields) and other characteristics that are advantageous to alternative jet fuel production. Animal fats (tallow), frying oils, and greases may also be used to produce alternative jet fuel. Nonfood oils are promising potential feedstocks with attractive characteristics. Algae are adaptable, grow very quickly, and have higher oil content than other alternative fuel feedstocks. Jatropha, an oilseed plant historically grown in tropical areas, has high concentrations of oil and can be grown in poor-quality soils not suitable for traditional agricultural crops. Pennycress and Camelina have high oil content and have the potential to be grown without competing for land availability with traditional crops. Tallow and other fats are generally considered waste products, so these materials are more economically attractive than refined plant oils; however, the current poor refining quality may require additional processing or additives. b) Economics and logistics Feedstock is expected to be the largest cost component in the production of alternative jet fuel from plant oils. Some plant oils that could potentially support commercial-scale production of alternative jet fuel, such as soybean oil, are already expensive to produce. In addition, because soybean and other plant oils are also used for human and animal consumption and in the pro- duction of biodiesel, competition for this feedstock is likely to keep prices high. Therefore, there is great interest in alternative oilseed feedstocks such as Jatropha, pennycress, and Camelina that can be produced at a lower cost. 12 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

Soybean oil and other oilseed feedstocks have well-developed markets, available risk manage- ment tools, and well-developed supply chains. Alternative oil feedstocks such as algae and Jatropha may be able to be integrated into the existing transportation infrastructure. Markets, pricing mechanisms, risk management tools, and contract and supply chain considerations would all have to be developed for algae, Jatropha, and other feedstocks not currently produced at commercial scale. Transportation and storage of tallow can be expensive, requiring heated tanks at a minimum of 65°C to thwart the growth of bacteria and enzymatic activity. c) Environmental considerations Alternative jet fuels from plant oils and fats may have a lower life-cycle GHG footprint com- pared to conventional jet fuel; however, the life-cycle GHG footprint of alternative jet fuels from plant oils is very dependent on land use. If the plant oil is grown on existing cropland, the land- use change impact may be limited; however, if forest needs to be cleared to grow the plant oil, the land-use impact would be significant. Plant oils that can grow in fallow or marginal lands, such as Jatropha and Camelina, can avoid some of these concerns. d) Advantages Some plant oils are available in commercial quantities and have developed markets, supply chains, and transportation systems. Some alternate feedstocks have great potential. Some strains of algae have the potential to produce more than 30 times the amount of oil per acre per year than any other plant currently used to produce alternative fuels. The relatively small size of HEFA facilities makes co-location near airports possible. e) Disadvantages All current oil-based alternative jet fuels struggle with high costs. Improving the productivity of growing oil plants is critical to achieve competitive costs for alternative jet fuel. Feedstock costs make up 80% or more of the cost of these fuels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has programs to improve yields that are similar to food crop yield improvement programs. Similarly, current production yields for algae are not yet commercially viable and are still in the research stage. Fuels derived from edible plant oils could be considered to compete with food supplies (see Section 4.1 for more information on the food-versus-fuel question). Tallow-based oils enjoy a steady if limited supply, but storage and transportation issues may constrain their use as a feedstock. Furthermore, their limited supply may constrain their use on a large-scale commercial basis. 3) Biomass feedstocks Biomass feedstocks are generally divided into three categories: energy crops (e.g., switchgrass), agricultural residues (e.g., corn stover), and woody biomass (e.g., wood chips). The potential sup- ply of biomass is substantial, although there are considerable constraints related to its bulk. Bio- mass can be used with the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce alternative jet fuel (see Section 2.3). a) Sources and availability Energy crops are grown specifically and primarily for biofuels, including alternative jet fuel. Switchgrass, Miscanthus, energy cane, wheatgrass, and bluestem are potential energy crops. Agri- cultural residues such as corn stover and wheat straw are other promising sources of biomass feedstock for alternative jet fuel production. Woody biomass and by-products are also potential feedstocks. The lumber, mill, pulp, and paper industries have long burned woody by-products as a source of energy and consume most available supplies. Recent declines in these industries, how- ever, are driving down the costs of woody biomass and spurring interest in its use for producing alternative jet fuel. What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 13

b) Economics and logistics Energy crops need to be grown on marginal lands not appropriate for traditional agriculture production in order to keep feedstock costs low. Absent production on marginal lands, energy crops will have to compete for land use with current agriculture production activities and pro- vide a return to producers at least equal to current production. Agriculture residues such as corn stover and wheat straw have an economic advantage over dedicated energy crops because they are by-products of corn and wheat production. Even though the production costs of agricultural residues are already covered by existing revenues, producers will likely require additional incen- tives as compensation for harvest, collection, and transportation costs. Furthermore, agricultural residues have soil quality benefits such as nutrient cycling and moisture retention; accordingly, not all agriculture residues could be collected. There are many challenges associated with the use of dedicated energy crops and agriculture crop residues as alternative fuel feedstock. No established markets exist, and contracting and sup- ply chain considerations would have to be resolved before producers would be willing to supply either a dedicated energy crop or agricultural residues. The huge quantities of biomass required to support commercial-scale operations make trans- portation and logistical issues very challenging. Densification and pretreatment techniques to address these issues are being studied. Woody biomass not currently utilized for other products and processes, such as harvest residues, faces logistical challenges similar to crop residues and energy crops due to low bulk density. c) Environmental considerations Land use can have a bearing on the life-cycle GHG footprint of alternative jet fuels made from biomass feedstocks. In order to prevent competing uses for land, dedicated energy crops will need to be grown on land that is marginal for traditional agriculture. What constitutes marginal land, what crops would be grown, and the practicality of production of dedicated energy crops will vary regionally. Research is ongoing to identify how much marginal land is available. Research on cultivation, yield, and production economics of various potential dedicated energy crops is also ongoing. Assuming no changes in land use, the life-cycle GHG footprint of alternative jet fuels from biomass can be less than that of conventional jet fuels. d) Advantages Energy crops may be able to grow on land not suitable for traditional agriculture, are adapt- able to various soils and climates, and integrate well with conventional agriculture. The use of marginal land for energy crops eliminates the competition with land for traditional agriculture commodities, reduces production costs, and avoids food-versus-fuel concerns. Agriculture residues may be available in sufficient quantities to potentially support a commercial conversion facility. Corn stover and wheat straw have the greatest potential as low-cost, first-generation biomass feedstocks. e) Disadvantages Logistical and transportation challenges are a major impediment. Because of their low energy density, very large amounts of biomass feedstocks are required to feed production facilities. Handling this bulky material can be expensive and uneconomical outside of a 50-mile radius from the production facility. Market, supply chain, contracting, transportation, and logistical infrastructure need to be developed. Furthermore, there are concerns about how much forest and other residue can be extracted for fuel production without adverse impacts (SAFNW 2011b). 14 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

4) Municipal solid waste a) Sources/availability MSW includes a wide array of discarded materials such as residential and commercial garbage, plastics, textiles, wood, yard trimmings, and food scraps. In some areas, MSW can also include nonsolid materials such as sludge from wastewater treatment plants. Depending on the type of solid waste used as feedstock, different technologies can be used to produce liquid fuels. For example, wood and yard trimmings can be used with FT processing facilities, while waste oils can be used in HEFA processing facilities. b) Economics and logistics Once recyclables are removed, waste-to-energy providers and landfills compete for the remaining MSW. Depending on the locality, MSW generators may pay for its disposal. In some instances, however, depending on the market structure and scarcity value of the waste, MSW generators may receive payment for access to their waste. Because of MSW’s bulk, an alternative jet fuel processing plant would need to be sited close to existing waste flows. MSW may need to be preprocessed to convert it into feedstock. While the preprocessing technology exists, it adds cost to the entire process. c) Environmental considerations The environmental effects of MSW-based fuels vary significantly based on the contents of the waste. Therefore, the environmental effects could be minimized by the removal of various items down the waste stream. For example, if an objective is to maximize life-cycle GHG footprint reduction, then plastics and tires can be left out of the feedstock. If an objective is to eliminate or reduce the use of landfills, plastics and tires can be included in the feedstock, although this would suboptimize the potential life-cycle GHG reduction. d) Advantages Municipalities may recapture some of their waste collection costs by selling MSW to refiners. In addition, using MSW can reduce the need for landfills and decrease methane and other greenhouse gasses typically associated with MSW in landfills. e) Disadvantages There are several challenges to using MSW as a feedstock, including consistency and reliabil- ity of supply, proximity of waste to the conversion facility, sorting, and preprocessing. The poten- tial perception that an MSW-based alternative jet fuel plant and the accompanying transporta- tion infrastructure degrade the local municipal environment must also be addressed. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that some may perceive use of MSW for fuel as competing with existing recycling programs by diverting waste that would otherwise be recycled to fuel production. 5) Summary comparison of feedstock characteristics Table 2 presents a summary of feedstock characteristics. 2.3 Technologies for Producing Alternative Jet Fuels What technologies can be used to produce drop-in alternative jet fuels? There are currently two main technologies for producing drop-in alternative jet fuels: the FT process and hydroprocessing. FT can be used to turn coal, natural gas, or biomass into liquid fuels, including alternative jet fuel and diesel. Hydroprocessing uses a process similar to conventional What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 15

16 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting Feedstock Sources/Availability Economics and Logistics Environmental and GHG Benefits Supply Extraction and Cultivation Cost Markets, Pricing Mechanisms Supply Chain Logistics Fossil fuels Coal Abundant; feedstock supply scalable to match commercial conversion facility. Well developed Low Well developed Well developed Without CCS, GHG footprint may be greater than for conventional fuels. Natural gas Abundant; feedstock supply scalable to match commercial conversion facility. Well developed Low Well developed Well developed GHG footprint less than conventional fuels with CCS; similar or greater without CCS. Oils and fats Nonedible oils (e.g., Camelina, Jatropha, pennycress, algae) Current supplies are tight and very competitive. Need significant increase in acres cultivated to support commercial conversion facility. Developing quickly; on- going research needed to increase yields. Currently high; expected to decline with yield improve- ments. Not mature; expected to develop as feedstock availability increases. Can use existing infrastructure for commercial oils available today. Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint than conventional fuels depending on land-use change assumptions. Edible oils (e.g., soybean, canola) Tight and very competitive Well developed High Well developed Well developed Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint than conventional fuels depending on land-use change assumptions. Animal fats (tallow), frying oil, greases Steady but finite supply Well developed Medium to low Well developed Well developed Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint than conventional fuels. Biomass Energy crops Potentially abundant Still in research and develop- ment stage. Still in research and develop- ment stage Not mature; expected to develop as feedstock availability increases. Low energy density of bulky biomass makes logistics challenging to support commercial scale. Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint than conventional fuels depending on land-use change assumptions. Agricultural residues Abundant; type and availability varies considerably based on geographic region. Well developed with research ongoing to address bulk density issues. Low Not mature; expected to develop as feedstock availability increases. Low energy density of bulky biomass makes logistics challenging to support commercial scale. Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint than conventional fuels depending on land-use change assumptions. Woody biomass Must compete with current uses in pulp and paper industry. Well developed Medium to low Well developed Well developed Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint than conventional fuels depending on land-use change assumptions. MSW Steady but finite supply Well developed for some types Medium to low Well developed Well developed Potential for lower GHG carbon footprint. Table 2. Summary comparison of feedstock characteristics.

petroleum refining to turn plant oils or animal fats into liquid fuels. Alternative jet fuels obtained through hydroprocessing are also known as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids or bio-SPK fuels. What are the main characteristics of FT and HEFA processes? Table 3 lists the main considerations of the FT and HEFA processes. Consideration Fischer-Tropsch SPK (FT SPK) Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet (HEFA or bio-SPK) Feedstock Biomass, coal, natural gas. Plant oils or animal fats. Cost of feedstock Very low for biomass. Low for coal. Low to medium for natural gas. High for commercial plant oils (e.g., soybean) because of high demand. High for plant oils not currently produced at commercial scales (e.g.,Camelina) but expected to decrease as scale is achieved. Medium to low for animal fats. Cost of feedstock gathering and logistics High infrastructure and procurement costs for biomass collection and transport. Low for natural gas if connected to existing infrastructure. Medium for coal if connected to existing infrastructure. Medium to high for extracting plant oils, but low for transporting plant oils with existing infrastructure. Medium to high for animal fats. Production costs Low marginal cost of production. Low to medium marginal cost of production. Scale Very large (300 million GPY minimum, 1-2 billion GPY typical). Medium (7.5 million GPY minimum, 90–150 million GPY typical); production economics favor larger sizes. Product quality High (meets critical jet fuel properties—such as freeze and flash points—defined in the ASTM specification). Approved by ASTM. High (meets critical jet fuel properties—such as freeze and flash points—defined in the ASTM specification). Approved by ASTM. By-products Large quantities (60%–80%) of by-products: diesel, high molecular waxes, naphtha, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Moderate quantities (30%–50%) of renewable diesel, LPG, and naphtha. Capital requirements Existing FT plants are very large—larger than typical crude oil refineries. Small-scale FT plants are being proposed, but typical capital investments are about $500 million for small scale (75 million GPY) and running up to billions of dollars for large scale (750 million GPY). Depends on scale. Smallest practical scale is about 7.5 million GPY for about $50 million; larger scale of 70 million GPY for about $250 million. Plant area or physical footprint Typical refinery size footprint is 10 to 15 acres. Large-scale refinery is about one-tenth the size of a conventional refinery—roughly 1 to 5 acres. Can be integrated into a conventional refinery. Life-cycle GHG footprint Medium with CCS. Very large for coal gasification without carbon CCS. Medium for natural gas. Low for biomass (ignoring land- use change). Medium for biomass (including land-use change). Low for land-based plant oils (ignoring land use). Very low for sea-based plant oils (e.g., algae). Medium for plant oils (including land-use change). Table 3. Main considerations of the FT and HEFA processes. What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 17

What are the major factors affecting the economics of alternative jet fuel production? The major factors affecting the economics of alternative jet fuel production can be classified in three categories: market, technology, and policy factors. Market factors reflect the dynamics of a new industry having to compete with established industries for the same resources. For example, current availability of nonfood feedstocks for alternative jet fuel production, such as forest residues, oilseed crops, and algae, is rather limited because there has not been historically signifi- cant demand for these kinds of raw materials. However, it is expected that as alternative fuels start to expand, more quantities and types of feedstock will become available. As the supply chains for these feedstocks mature, their costs are projected to fall. At the same time, alternative jet fuel pro- duction will face competition from other alternative fuels (e.g., biodiesel) for the same nonfood feedstocks and other inputs (e.g., labor, land, water, industrial supply chains). Another important market factor is the cost of alternative jet fuel with respect to conventional fuel. If the price of crude oil and carbon increases as forecasted by some, alternative jet fuel will become more competitive. Technology factors are related to processes available for producing alternative jet fuels and how their costs are expected to change over time. The FT and HEFA technologies provide a near- term opportunity for commercial production of alternative jet fuel. As these technologies im- prove, become more efficient, and scale-up, processing costs are expected to decrease. Further- more, new facilities are expected to have lower operating costs due to the more efficient use of natural gas and other inputs. A similar cost-reduction progression is expected for new production processes that are still in research and development. Finally, policy and government action can have a significant impact on the costs of alternative jet fuels. In the United States there are a series of mandates, taxes, and tariffs on alternative fuels, including the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS-2) and other mechanisms discussed in Section 2.6. All of these mandates and regulations can greatly influence the economics of alternative jet fuels. Moreover, the military is considering various ways to support the development of alternative jet fuel supplies, including the provision of funding for facilities, long-term purchase agreements, and the possibility of fuel pricing that is not tied to that of petroleum-based fuel. Therefore, it is important for all stakeholders of alternative jet fuel projects to understand how government action can affect them, positively or negatively. It is important to point out that capital requirements and operating costs for any facility will be dependent on local conditions such as access to feedstocks and labor, site conditions, and what utilities are already in place. For example, space adjacent to an existing processing facility is advantageous due to utilities typically being in place and the advantage for creating a mixing point on-site. Are there other pathways for producing alternative jet fuels? Many research and development (R&D) sources are pursuing so-called “advanced process” pathways, with the goal of ASTM qualification in the 2013 to 2015 time period. While the qual- ification authorities are in the process of deciding how many independent pathways to pursue, as of this writing, there are three fundamental approaches under consideration: 1. Advanced fermentation to jet (FTJ), using biological organisms that turn feedstocks directly into finished products, 2. Catalytic to jet (CTJ), using nonbiological agents that produce alcohols, which can then be processed into alternative jet fuel, and 3. Pyrolysis oil to jet (PTJ), which converts cellulosic feedstocks into a bio-crude that can be used to produce alternative jet fuel. These processes are characterized by the fact that they can utilize a broad variety of bio-based feedstocks, including cellulosic materials. The potential for a large supply of possible feedstocks 18 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

increases the chances that these technologies can reach commercial scale and add significant pro- duction to the alternative jet fuel supply pool. Furthermore, production costs for these technolo- gies are mostly driven by process maturity instead of feedstock cost, which is the case for HEFA. These technologies are still in the early stages of R&D and have yet to be tested in actual air- craft. As of this writing, flight programs are planned for both FTJ and CTJ. In the case of FTJ, a program is planned in Brazil in 2012 (see Table 1). In the case of the CTJ, the U.S. Air Force is teamed with Swedish Biofuels to execute a flight program on a Gripen fighter aircraft in 2014. Based on the pace of R&D and ASTM qualification activities as proven by the FT and HEFA experience, these fuels could be qualified in the 2013 to 2015 time period. Readers are advised to review the resources listed in Section 1.6 to stay current with these developments. How water intensive is the production of alternative jet fuel? Water use is a topic that frequently comes up during the discussion of alternative jet fuels. Depending on the specific way in which feedstocks are recovered and processed, water consump- tion for the production of alternative jet fuels may be comparable to or larger than the water amounts required for conventional jet fuel production (Stratton, Wong, and Hileman 2010). The water impact of alternative jet fuels should be evaluated by considering the feedstocks and conversion technologies separately. There are two water components pertaining to feedstocks: consumption and pollution. In terms of water consumption, traditional feedstock crops, such as soybeans, require large amounts of freshwater. In contrast, new bio-derived crops, such as switchgrass, do not need irrigation. Nontraditional crops like Camelina and Jatropha can grow in arid areas. Algae can grow in brackish water or seawater, which would limit the consumption of freshwater; however, freshwater needs also depend on the specific process used for algae growth and processing. In terms of water pollution, fossil feedstocks and traditional feedstock crops contribute runoff from fertilizers and pesticides. Regarding conversion technologies, the need for cooling is what drives water impact. The impact varies widely, from extensive to minimal, with the type of cooling and conversion technology. FT requires substantial cooling and is generally more water intensive than hydroprocessing per unit of energy produced. The water use of a HEFA facility is less than that of a Fischer-Tropsch facility. HEFA production involves the use of hydrogen, which in combination with the oxygen present in plant oil feedstocks produces net water from the process chemistry. What is carbon capture and sequestration? Carbon capture and sequestration involves capturing the gaseous CO2 released during a produc- tion process and storing it or converting it into other carbon compounds that are not released into the atmosphere. CCS technologies are being explored for manufacturing processes in which CO2 would be released into the atmosphere, such as the FT process to make alternative jet fuel. CCS will help lower the life-cycle GHG footprint of alternative jet fuels by preventing CO2 in the processing stage from being released into the atmosphere. Enhanced oil recovery, a process in which CO2 is injected into oil fields, is a known technology for carbon sequestration that has been used for decades (DOE 2011a). Research is being conducted to find more efficient means of capture, stor- age, and conversion. These include algal systems that could potentially convert the gaseous carbon dioxide into carbon-based compounds and carbon-based oils through photosynthetic activity. 2.4 Environmental Benefits of Alternative Jet Fuels What are the potential environmental benefits of alternative jet fuels? This handbook focuses on two main potential environmental benefits of alternative jet fuels. First, the overall life-cycle GHG footprint may be lower than that of conventional jet fuel. Second, What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 19

PM emissions may be lower. Reductions in NOx have been documented for alternative ground fuels relative to conventional diesel fuel, but there is currently no evidence to suggest that the same benefit extends to alternative jet fuels. The following sections discuss the GHG and PM benefits. What are the potential life-cycle greenhouse-gas benefits of alternative jet fuels? Compared with petroleum-based jet fuel, alternative jet fuels may have a lower GHG footprint when the entire life cycle of the fuel is considered. Life-cycle analysis (LCA) as it applies to jet fuel consists of estimating the amounts of various substances produced (or consumed) during the complete process of obtaining and using the fuel. This process is broken down into various stages as the fuel is transformed from its raw form, transported, and used. Appendix E contains a more detailed description of the life-cycle GHG analysis process. When reviewing the detailed LCA, consider the following observations: • The results depend greatly on the feedstock and the processing pathway to jet fuel; • There is substantial uncertainty in the impacts of land-use change, and this drives uncertainty in the overall GHG footprint; and • Best practices for such analysis are still evolving, particularly with regard to social equity (e.g., fuel-versus-food impacts). Are there estimates of life-cycle GHG footprints for different alternative jet fuel pathways? In order to illustrate the range of estimates that might be expected, we include results from a recent report (Stratton, Wong, and Hileman 2010) that analyzed several pathways to drop-in aviation fuels requiring no alterations in aircraft or storage facilities. Figure 2 shows the life-cycle GHG emissions for various combinations of feedstocks relative to conventional jet fuel. As Figure 2 shows, depending on assumptions (particularly those associated with land-use changes associated with growth of the feedstocks), these pathways were estimated to have life- cycle GHG emissions ranging from less than 1% of the conventional crude petroleum pathway to over 8 times greater than this pathway. Several pathways have estimated life-cycle GHG emis- sions that are less than half of that of crude to conventional jet fuel (switchgrass to FT fuel, Jat- ropha oil to HEFA, and Salicornia to HEFA and FT fuel). What are the potential benefits of alternative jet fuels with respect to local air quality? Another potential benefit of using alternative jet fuels is the reduction in emissions that affect local air quality, in particular SOx and PM. These emissions can lead to respiratory diseases such as asthma, and they are major contributors to acid rain, smog, and reduced visibility. 20 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting 0 1 2 3 4 98765 Crude to conventional jet fuel Crude to ULS jet fuel Oil sands to jet fuel Oil shale to jet fuel Natural gas to FT fuel Coal to FT fuel (no CCS) Switchgrass to FT fuel Coal and Biomass (w/ CCS) Soy oil to HEFA Palm oils to HEFA Rapeseed oil to HEFA Jatropha oil to HEFA Algae oil to HEFA Salicornia to HEFA and FT Figure 2. Relative life-cycle GHG emissions of several pathways for alternative jet fuels (conventional jet fuel = 1.0; adapted from Stratton, Wong, and Hileman 2010).

Sulfur oxides in jet fuel are precursors and indicators of particle and PM2.5 formation. PM2.5 is known to cause serious health problems and is regulated with separate standards by the EPA. Furthermore, as a criteria pollutant, high levels of PM2.5 can lead to areas being designated as non-attainment zones (see Section 2.6.1), with potential negative consequences to growth and operations at airports in such areas. Ultra-fine particles (UFP) are another pollutant of concern. While there are currently no standards regulating UFP, it is possible that they will be subject to regulation in the future. Alternative jet fuels may also potentially provide benefits with respect to UFP emissions. Alternative jet fuels are essentially sulfur-free, and tests by the U.S. Air Force indicate that their PM2.5 contribution is significantly lower than that of conventional jet fuel. 2.5 Economic Benefits of Alternative Jet Fuels Since there is an adequate amount of research and field experience to demonstrate the actual economic benefits of alternative jet fuels produced from agricultural feedstocks, the discussion that follows focuses on facilities that use those feedstocks. Nevertheless, the essential analytical principles can apply to studies for nonagricultural feedstocks such as coal and natural gas. What are the economic benefits of alternative jet fuels? Alternative jet fuel projects have the potential to bring significant benefits in terms of job cre- ation and economic activity to the places where the processing facilities are located. Processing a commodity contributes to the local or regional economy to the extent that local inputs are used. Examples include payments for these inputs, such as wages and salaries; payments for locally purchased supplies, materials, and utilities; and possibly payments to local financial institutions. These initial local expenditures are direct impacts that set in motion rounds of spending and re-spending that result in secondary impacts. What are the main factors affecting the analysis of regional economic impacts of alternative jet fuel projects? Recent analyses of renewable fuels plants suggest that there may be a number of factors affecting the regional economic impact of these facilities. These fall into five categories: 1. Choice of feedstock: When analyzing the economic impact of an agricultural processing project, the usual assumption is that the processed commodity is already being produced and, in the absence of the project, is sold to an alternative market. Thus, the direct impacts of the processing operation include payments for locally produced inputs such as labor and utilities but do not include commodity purchases (e.g., plant oil or corn). However, if the feedstock has little or no alternative market (e.g., agricultural residues), sale of these feed- stocks to an energy plant represents a new revenue source for farmers and adds to the regional economic impact. 2. Differences in unit of analysis (county versus state): Another factor affecting impact analy- sis studies is differences in the definition of the study area. Some studies estimate impacts for a single county, others for multiple counties, and others for an entire state. None of these approaches is more or less appropriate than another, and the definition of the study area often depends on who constitutes the primary audience—local leaders or state decision makers. However, other things equal, the impacts measured at the state level will always be greater than those for a single county or a multi-county area within the state. 3. Nature of ownership (local versus corporate): Another factor that can give rise to substantial differences in impact estimates is the degree of local ownership. If a plant is largely or wholly owned by farmers or other local investors, the profits are distributed to these local owners and What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 21

a substantial portion may be spent locally. If the facility is owned by a corporation headquar- tered elsewhere, the profits leave the local area. In addition, some suggest that some other local expenditures are likely to be greater for a locally owned facility; accounting, administrative, and marketing functions are more likely to be performed locally for a locally owned plant, whereas much of this activity might be centralized off-site for a corporately owned facility. 4. Specific model/analysis assumptions: Some differences in impact estimates can result from dif- ferences in assumptions incorporated in the impact model and analysis procedure. For exam- ple, some analyses incorporate a small premium for locally supplied corn, whereas others do not. 5. Differences in study areas: A final factor affecting impact estimates is the nature of the study area. A site area that incorporates a substantial trade center and has a somewhat diversified, self-sufficient economy will have larger secondary impacts, other things equal, than a sparsely populated rural site. How can the regional economic effects of alternative jet fuel projects be estimated? The rationale and methods for estimating the economic impact of alternative jet fuel projects are similar to those for assessing impacts of other processing initiatives. The models most often used to measure these types of impacts are input–output, IMPLAN (impact analysis for plan- ning), and RIMS (Regional Input–Output Modeling System). For more information, please refer to ACRP Synthesis 7: Airport Economic Impact Methods and Models (Karlsson et al. 2008). 2.6 Possible Economic Implications of Regulation What are the possible economic implications of regulation on alternative jet fuels? There are potential economic implications for alternative jet fuel projects that may result from existing and future regulation. It is difficult to determine what the net benefits or disadvantages may be given that many of these rules and regulations are fairly new and lacking details. It is important, however, to be aware of them and to understand that they may have an impact on how the alternative jet fuel industry develops. Listed in the following are some of the more significant regulations with the potential to have economic implications for alternative jet fuel projects. 2.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards Airport activity is subject to compliance with all federal regulations, including Environmen- tal Protection Agency (EPA) regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA) (FAA 1997a). The EPA establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a series of criteria pollutants, including NOx, SO2, and PM, which can be present in or result from the exhaust of jet engine emissions. (Such emissions together account for a very small percentage of jet engine emissions.) Geographic areas in which concentrations of these pollutants are determined to be in excess of the NAAQS are designated as non-attainment areas (NAAs) and are subject to formulating a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to bring the area back into compliance (FAA 1997a). SIPs can affect airports in two important ways. First, an airport in an NAA may be subject to regulation targeted at bringing the area back into compliance with NAAQS. Federal aviation statutes preclude state regulators from imposing emissions requirements on aircraft, but they can affect other non-aircraft sources at the airport, such as on-road vehicles (including cars, taxis, and shuttles), construction equipment, power plants, and other stationary sources. It is not clear if emissions from ground support equipment (GSE) can be regulated by states. Sec- ond, if an airport is in an NAA and has plans for a development project, the airport has to show that the project will be in conformity and will not cause or contribute a further violation of an SIP before it can receive federal approval. It is important to note that construction-related 22 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

emissions have historically been a significant concern for airports located in non-attainment areas (i.e., subject to SIPs). Alternative jet fuels may help airports in NAAs meet the goals specified in SIPs because of their potential to have lower emissions levels of criteria pollutants, such as SOx, NOx, and PM, as com- pared to conventional jet fuel. This may allow airports to save time and cost in the approval process for development projects. It may also allow airports to grow their operations without violating existing SIPs. 2.6.2 Emission Reduction Credits The Clean Air Act of 1990 created an opportunity for industry to buy and sell emission reduc- tion credits (ERCs) tied to atmospheric pollutants (EPA 1990). Airports or airlines operating within an NAA could theoretically generate and sell ERCs if they could demonstrate they are removing criteria pollutants through the supply or use of cleaner aviation alternative jet fuel. As discussed previously, alternative aviation jet fuels can potentially produce less SO2 and PM than conventional jet fuel, and thus they could potentially generate ERCs. However, while creating a market for ERCs, the Clean Air Act also created restrictions based on New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in which any entity operating a site subject to NSPS regulations must reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and cannot claim ERCs. Airports interested in claiming ERCs through the introduction of alternative jet fuels should investigate this in more detail. 2.6.3 Domestic and International Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions Emissions trading mechanisms have been successfully used in the United States for limiting pollutants and emissions. Examples of successful cap-and-trade programs are the nationwide Acid Rain Program (EPA 2010a) and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program (EPA 2010d) in the Northeast. In terms of GHG, however, it appears unlikely that the U.S. Congress will introduce a carbon or GHG market system in the near future, even as some states and munici- palities have passed rules or legislation that addresses the issues within their jurisdiction. The most notable example is California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), which requires the state to develop regulations to reduce GHG (CAEPA 2009). It is important to note that AB32 does not apply to jet fuel. Nevertheless, there are developments in other parts of the world that may have an impact on U.S. airports and airlines. For example, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is currently analyzing a CO2 standard for new aircraft. In Europe, EU legislation requires that all air- lines landing at EU airports participate in the European Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), a cap-and-trade mechanism that puts a ceiling (cap) on the maximum amount of GHG that airlines can emit (EC 2010). The rules governing the EU’s ETS have not been finalized, and its potential economic impact on airlines remains unknown. Several U.S. airlines have taken legal action against this proposed regulation, and as of this date there has been no resolution. Even though there is still uncertainty with respect to aircraft GHG emissions regulations, the airline industry has been proactive by adopting a common position of a commitment to carbon- neutral growth starting in 2020 (IATA 2009). The industry realizes that alternative jet fuels with a life-cycle GHG footprint smaller than conventional jet fuel can help airlines meet their carbon- neutral growth goals. Furthermore, in the event that GHG emissions targets under the EU’s ETS or other potential cap-and-trade mechanisms become mandatory, alternative jet fuels may also help airlines meet their cap and reduce the need to purchase emissions credits. Airports that offer alternative jet fuels could therefore provide benefits to airlines. What Are the Main Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels? 23

2.6.4 EPA Renewable Fuel Standards The EPA adopted a renewable fuel standard (RFS) called RFS-2 in February 2010 (EPA 2010c). While aviation does not have a required biofuels contribution under RFS-2, producers of alterna- tive fuel for aviation may generate benefits in the form of tradable credits for fuels merited by their ability to provide benefits as quantified by the Renewable Index Number (RIN) of those fuels. 2.6.5 Federal Rules for Purchase of Alternative Fuels Section 526 of the 2007 Department of Energy (DOE) Authorization mandates that U.S. gov- ernment buyers can only purchase alternative fuels if their life-cycle GHG footprint is less than that of petroleum-based fuels (Sissine 2007). In the case of alternative jet fuels, this can be of relevance to airports that have or want to attract government customers such as the air national guard. Furthermore, the U.S. Air Force and DOE have published peer-reviewed procedures to help alternative jet fuel companies verify that their products meet the requirements of Section 526 (NETL 2008; Allen et al. 2009). These documents can also be of value to airports interested in a better understanding of the process to determine the life-cycle GHG footprint of alternative jet fuels and overall compliance with Section 526. 24 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting

Next: Section 3 - How Can Alternative Jet Fuels Be Integrated into the Airport Setting? »
Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 60: Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting identifies the types and characteristics of alternative jet fuels; summarizes potential benefits; addresses legal, financial, environmental, and logistical considerations and opportunities; and aids in evaluating the feasibility of alternative jet fuel production facilities.

The report also summarizes issues and opportunities associated with locating on- or off-airport alternative jet fuel production facilities and their fuel storage and distribution requirements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!