Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 30

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 29
How Can Alternative Jet Fuels Be Integrated into the Airport Setting? 29 Airports should consider both screens with respect to the possible location of the alternative jet fuel project (on-airport, near-airport, and off-airport). This may be a repetitive process since the location decision and the screens depend on each other. The screening criteria are explained in the following: Feedstock screen What feedstocks are available? Consideration should be given to fossil feedstocks and bio-derived feedstocks. A great deal of work is being done to identify the availability of feedstocks for alternative jet fuel by geographic region. Therefore, it is important to obtain the most recent research. CAAFI is a good resource for the most up-to-date information. Other resources are the National Renewable Energy Lab's interactive Biofuels Atlas ( and the DOE's Bioenergy Knowledge Discovery Network ( What is the proximity of the feedstock to the processing plant (economics)? The trans- port of the feedstock to the processing plant is a key determinant of the cost of the feed- stock, and therefore it has a significant influence on the economic viability of the alterna- tive jet fuel. For fossil fuels, plant oils, and animal fats, it is advisable that the processing plant be located close to existing transportation infrastructure such as pipelines, railways, or waterways. For biomass feedstocks, it is widely accepted that the processing plant should be no farther than 50 miles from where the feedstocks are harvested. Technology screen What technologies are available? This screen is highly affected by the time frame. If the airport wants to have a project in operation within 5 years, the technology will likely be limited to FT and hydroprocessing of plant oils or animal fats. If a longer time frame is considered, there are likely to be many options. For the purposes of this handbook, the conversation centers on FT and hydroprocessing since they are the best candidates for near-term implementation. What technologies are compatible with the feedstocks identified in the feedstock screen? The feedstocks identified in the previous step also determine the technology that can be used. For example, FT can be used with coal, natural gas, or biomass, while hydroprocessing can be used with plant oils or animal fats. CAAFI and the other resources in Section 1.6 should be consulted regarding the latest developments in each of these technologies. How much area is required to build the plant? A high-level estimate of the land required to build the processing plant is useful at this point. In general, FT plants require a minimum of 10 to 15 acres, while hydroprocessing plants need a minimum of 1 to 5 acres. At the end of the initial screening, the reader should have identified a number of options to pro- ceed with a comparative evaluation. At this point in the analysis, each option is determined by three elements: (1) location (on-airport, near-airport, off-airport), (2) production technology, and (3) feedstocks. 3.5 Comparative Evaluation of Screened Options This section evaluates the options identified in the initial screening with respect to four cate- gories: (1) regulatory, (2) environmental, (3) logistical, and (4) financial. This is envisioned to be a simple green/yellow/red rating of each option in each of the four categories that results in a net assessment of each option relative to the others. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify those options that would be ready to undergo a more detailed analysis (see Figure 5). For each category, the green/yellow/red rating provides guidance regarding how well each alternative fuel option meets the requirements of that category. A green rating means that there