Sustainable Bio-Fuel Aviation Performs Well

The Boeing Company (BA) and a team from across the aviation industry just released high-level elements of a June 2009 study that shows that sustainable biofuels analyzed in a series of pioneering test flights performed favorably in comparison to petroleum-based fuel.

According to the study, Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK), a series of laboratory, ground and flight tests conducted between 2006 and 2009 indicated the test fuels performed as well as or better than typical petroleum-based Jet A. The testing included several commercial airplane engine types using blends of up to 50 percent petroleum-based Jet A/Jet A-1 fuel and 50 percent sustainable biofuels.

In addition, the study showed the Bio-SPK fuel blends used in the test flight program met or exceeded all technical parameters for commercial jet aviation fuel. Those standards include freezing point, flash point, fuel density and viscosity, among others.

The tests revealed that using the Bio-SPK fuel blends had no adverse effects on the engines or their components. They also showed that the fuels have greater energy content by mass than typical petroleum-derived jet fuel - which potentially could lower fuel consumption per mile. Renewable jet fuels from bio-derived sources are being considered because of their ability to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

"These are very gratifying results," said Bill Glover, managing director of Environmental Strategy for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "Everyone on the team - and across the industry - is working hard to make sustainable biofuels a real solution for reducing the carbon footprint of aviation, and these results move us closer to that goal."

The report is endorsed by Boeing, fuel technology developer UOP, a Honeywell company; engine-makers GE Aviation (GE), CFM International, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and Honeywell (HON) and airlines Air New Zealand (ANZ), Continental Airlines (CAL), Japan Airlines (JALSY.PK) and Virgin Atlantic. Test flights involved an ANZ 747-400 powered by Rolls-Royce engines, a CAL 737-800 powered by CFM engines and a JAL 747-300 powered by Pratt & Whitney engines. In addition, GE conducted static testing at its Ohio facility. Virgin Atlantic proved the technical viability of biofuels at high altitude with its test flight in early 2008.

Each of the test flights used a different blend of biofuel sources: The Air New Zealand flight used fuel derived from jatropha; the Continental flight used a blend of jatropha and algae-based fuels; and the JAL flight used a blend of jatropha, algae and camelina-based fuels.

The biofuels used in the tests were “drop-in”, meaning that engines didn’t require modification. Boeing says the blends didn’t damage the equipment, and actually proved to have more mph, or “greater energy content” than standard jet fuel - meaning potentially better fuel economy. The greenhouse gas benefit was evident as well: a blend that included jatropha and camelina can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 65% to 80% from standard petroleum-based fuel, an executive summary of the consortium’s research said.

Surprisingly, the freezing point of the plant-based fuel was between -56 and -63 centigrade – colder than petroleum-based jet fuel's freezing point of between -40 and -47 centigrade. That should ease concerns about airplanes with frozen fuel in their tanks.

For its next steps, Boeing, in cooperation with UOP and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, is preparing a comprehensive research report for submission to the ASTM International Aviation Fuel Committee later this year. The report will support efforts to gain approval to use Bio-SPK fuel at up to a 50 percent blend in support of industry goals to accelerate availability and use.

Aviation is working to improve the environmental performance of all aspects of flight and ground operations. In support of the industry's renewable fuel goals, Boeing and a group of leading airlines, environmental organizations and fuel technology leaders are helping to accelerate the development and commercialization of sustainable new aviation fuels derived from biomass sources. Through the Sustainable Aviation Fuel User Group, they are collectively working to drive sustainability practices into commercial aviation's future fuel supply chain.

In fact, the United States Air Force, DoD has been working since 2007 to fast tracking “Mobile Integrated Sustainable Energy Recovery, 2009 pages 216-218 ” (MISER) JP-8 <$5/gal cost or less biofuel development for affordable conversions set for introduction by 2010 to certify and deliver operational fighter planes capable of high performance as successfully tested on a 50/50 mix of conventional fuel, also known as “Jet A”, combined with alternative portable fuels similar to processed natural gases and advanced biofuels using algae, camelina and Jatropha, a smelly but high fuel yield, subtropical plant already in widespread use in India, Brazil, Philippines, and parts of Asia.

Disclosure: The author does not hold any significant interests in the companies listed.

Comments

[louis Hemmings:]

good to see jatropha getting positive views from Boeing & the US military. have a look at UK DOO.L share price range. it's current historic low is UK 05.25 pence. call me an optimist but i am long DOO.L.

Jul 02 09:17 AM

[tc1:]

James, thank you for this very comprehensive (even exhilarating!) update on the biofuels' success story for aviation--a story i'd been following here and there over the many months. This is wonderful news and you've reported it comprehensively.

Jul 02 11:52 AM

[SubsidyEye:]

Biojet is definitely a good fuel, technically. But what matters in the end is cost, and right now the cost of producing biojet is at least twice that of petroleum-derived jet A-1 kerosene. If the cost of production can be brought down through technological breakthroughs, great. But the industry is clearly looking to the government for more than just help on the R&D side, and that is what is worrying. According to the recently published, "Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels" (p. 20):

"The main hurdles are in attracting investment for biofuels production and distribution and ensuring that the industry has access to this biofuel stock, at a price that is costcompetitive with traditional jet fuel.

"The industry has called on governments to assist potential biofuel suppliers to develop the necessary feedstock and refining systems – at least until the fledgling industry has achieved the necessary critical mass.

"The positive incentives required include:

"(1) Assistance in identifying the most suitable areas in which to grow these crops.

"(2) Support in starting the farming and production of algae – building of facilities, hiring labour resources, buying seeds and setting up any irrigation components.

"(3) Incentives for companies to develop the processing and refining capacity needed to turn raw feedstock into biofuel crude oil and then into biojet fuel.

"(4) Positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate the economic viability of these new types of fuels so that airlines can use them as quickly as possible."

When an industry starts referring cryptically to "incentives" and "positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate ... economic viability" it is time to check your wallets. While, personally, I cannot see governments being willing to bridge the enormous cost gap between petroleum jet and biojet, stupider things have happened.

Don't forget: subsidies to ethanol and biodiesel were time limited and supposed to last only "until the fledgling industry ha[d] achieved the necessary critical mass." Well, the ethanol industry has long surpassed the level of "critical mass", yet it has no intention of giving up its subsidies. And the biodiesel industry -- dependent on the same lipid feedstocks as the makers of biojet -- will likely never be economically viable, and yet governments continue to keep it on a life-support system.

Jul 02 12:50 PM

[SubsidyEye:]

Web link for the "Beginner’s Guide to Aviation Biofuels" :

enviro.aero/Content/Up...

Jul 02 12:51 PM

[ryncef:]

subsidyEYE:

corn ethanol and soy biodiesel failed to get cheaper because they are based on global traded food commodities, which are in turn based on agronomic systems making use of arable land, a lot of to-date free water, a lot of petroleum fertilizer, and other high cost inputs. Works for food (its starting not to for food as well), but won't work for sustainable fuels.

whats in process right now is a revolution in agronomic systems and plant genomics which is already, and will further lower the inputs needed for these next gen biofuel sources.

How long has humanity been cross breeding corn to get to where we are today? thousands of years. How long has sugarcane had massive research (mostly from HI) to increase its yields 6 fold? About 120 years.

How long have serious agronomic and genomic efforts been underway on things like jatropha, pongamia, algae, halophytes: answer is no more than 10 years and only a trickly until 5 years ago, and only a serious push from 2 years ago.

For you to say in a sweeping way "watch out for your wallets" fails to comprehend a mega phenomenon: these fundamentally new agronomic systems and genomics efforts are going to take a lot of work. Some of them are going to require heavy lifting from governments. Just like with wind--without government help, the basic R&D took long enough that government kick start was needed to get the industry to a state where it could run on its own. Now it is, and if you even attempt to say wind isn't in the money without incentives, you clearly know not of what you speak..I bought wind farms for a living, I know how much they cost on levelized and portfolio cost basis and its far cheaper than coal.

So, does government have a role in helping next generation biofuels down the cost curve: yes. For you to say no, and to ascribe a "forever subsidy" indicates your lack of understanding of the state of play and cost curve dyanamics around a multitude of next gen options which are already getting close to being in the money at $70-$90 / bbl.

Sorry, you don't know of what you speak on this topic...

Whats new here is fundamentally


On Jul 02 12:50 PM SubsidyEye wrote:

> Biojet is definitely a good fuel, technically. But what matters in
> the end is cost, and right now the cost of producing biojet is at
> least twice that of petroleum-derived jet A-1 kerosene. If the cost
> of production can be brought down through technological breakthroughs,
> great. But the industry is clearly looking to the government for
> more than just help on the R&amp;D side, and that is what is worrying.
> According to the recently published, "Beginner’s Guide to Aviation
> Biofuels" (p. 20):
>
> "The main hurdles are in attracting investment for biofuels production
> and distribution and ensuring that the industry has access to this
> biofuel stock, at a price that is costcompetitive with traditional
> jet fuel.
>
> "The industry has called on governments to assist potential biofuel
> suppliers to develop the necessary feedstock and refining systems
> – at least until the fledgling industry has achieved the necessary
> critical mass.
>
> "The positive incentives required include:
>
> "(1) Assistance in identifying the most suitable areas in which to
> grow these crops.
>
> "(2) Support in starting the farming and production of algae – building
> of facilities, hiring labour resources, buying seeds and setting
> up any irrigation components.
>
> "(3) Incentives for companies to develop the processing and refining
> capacity needed to turn raw feedstock into biofuel crude oil and
> then into biojet fuel.
>
> "(4) Positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate the economic
> viability of these new types of fuels so that airlines can use them
> as quickly as possible."
>
> When an industry starts referring cryptically to "incentives" and
> "positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate ... economic
> viability" it is time to check your wallets. While, personally, I
> cannot see governments being willing to bridge the enormous cost
> gap between petroleum jet and biojet, stupider things have happened.
>
>
> Don't forget: subsidies to ethanol and biodiesel were time limited
> and supposed to last only "until the fledgling industry ha[d] achieved
> the necessary critical mass." Well, the ethanol industry has long
> surpassed the level of "critical mass", yet it has no intention of
> giving up its subsidies. And the biodiesel industry -- dependent
> on the same lipid feedstocks as the makers of biojet -- will likely
> never be economically viable, and yet governments continue to keep
> it on a life-support system.

Jul 19 10:10 PM