BA has been trying to get some jet fuel made from domestic waste that would otherwise go to landfill, so it can claim it is using “low carbon” fuels. There were plans for a plant in east London, by Solena, back in 2014 but that never got off the ground; Solena went bust in October 2015. Now BA and Shell and Velocys are hoping for a plant on an 80-acre site on Humberside, to convert waste that would go to landfill, into jet fuel. However, Natural England are worried it could harm local wildlife and have filed an objection. Velocys says the plant would turn household waste into 60 million litres of “low-carbon” jet fuel every year. The project is backed by £4.5m of investment from Shell and British Airways, alongside a £434,000 grant from the Department of Transport. In a letter dated 20 February 2020 Natural England said it objects to the development because trucks ferrying waste to the site could increase nitrogen oxide levels – which can cause serious health impacts for humans and wildlife. It is also concerned construction and waste from the site could disturb nearby habitats for rare birds. It is now for North East Lincolnshire Council to decide whether to approve the scheme. . Tweet
Natural England objects to proposed green jet fuel plant backed by BA and Shell
First of its kind plant could slash carbon emissions from flights, but Natural England are worried it could harm local wildlife
By Madeleine Cuff (The i) Thursday, 2nd April 2020
Plans to build a low-carbon jet fuel plant on the Humber Estuary are in jeopardy after Natural England filed an objection to the development.
Developer Velocys wants to develop Europe’s first full scale green jet fuel plant in Lincolnshire, turning household waste into 60 million litres of “low-carbon” jet fuel every year.
The project is backed by £4.5m of investment from Shell and British Airways, alongside a £434,000 grant from the Department of Transport.
But Velocys’ attempts to gain planning permission for the 80-acre site have stalled after Natural England filed an objection to the plans in February.
Wildlife concerns
In a letter dated 20 February 2020 Natural England said it objects to the development because trucks ferrying waste to the site could push up nitrogen oxide levels – polluting gases that can cause serious health impacts for humans and wildlife. It is also concerned construction and waste from the site could disturb nearby habitats for rare birds.
The proposed development lies next to protected wet grassland and open water habitats, where birds such as lapwings, curlews, teals, egrets and avocets roost and feed.
Natural England has demanded a more detailed assessment of the development’s potential impact on air quality and wildlife before it considers changing its mind.
“Natural England notes that the application site is located in close proximity to the Humber Estuary [Site of Special Scientific Interest],” it warned. “Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development could have potential significant effects on the interest features for which the site has been notified.”
The objection does not prevent North East Lincolnshire Council approving the scheme, but it does make winning the green light much trickier for Velocys. It has already led to significant delays to the scheme, which had expected to receive planning approval by Autumn 2019.
Brokering agreement
Velocys insists the scheme could be built and operated without significant impacts on human health or local wildlife, and argues the jet fuel would save 80,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year from flights.
It told i it has met with Natural England to discuss its concerns, and said it was “confident” the project would progress. “This is a complex and unique development, the first of its kind on this scale in Europe, so it is essential that appropriate consultees thoroughly review all information,” a spokesperson said.
Paul Duncan, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Area Manager for Natural England, told i: “We recognise the site’s potential benefits and we have not objected outright to it. What we have done is request more information about work to mitigate potential damage to the local area and wildlife, which is internationally recognised for its precious natural heritage and rare bird species.”
Yet another “first” household & commercial waste to aviation fuel plant planning application – Velocys, Shell, BA
August 27, 2019
Altalto, a collaboration between Velocys, British Airways and Shell, has submitted a planning application for a plant that turns waste into so-called “sustainable” aviation fuel. The proposed plant near Grimsby would take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of household and commercial solid waste destined for landfill or incineration. That would be converted into fuel, to be used by the aviation industry (some could be used for road vehicle fuels…). The scheme is claiming it would “reduce reduce net greenhouse gases by 70% compared to the fossil fuel equivalent.” The company says the fuel also improves air quality, with up to 90% reduction in particulate matter from aircraft engine exhausts and almost 100% reduction in sulphur oxides – but gives no explanation how. It also claims the process produces less air pollution that if the waste was incinerated or landfilled (but gives no details). Usual blurb from British Airways (desperate to try to make out that aviation will emit less CO2 in future, while continuing to grow) about “Sustainable fuels can be a game-changer for aviation…” blah blah… BA had proposed a similar plant in Essex which was cancelled due to lack of funding in 2016.
DfT, always trying to make aviation growth look “green”, to pay £434,000 to fund waste-to-jetfuel project
June 18, 2018
A project to turn landfill waste into (quotes) “sustainable” jet fuel has received a major boost by securing almost £5m of funding from the government and industry backers. The DfT has committed £434,000 to fund the next stage of the project, which will involve engineering and site studies to scope potential for a waste-based jet fuel plant in the UK. This will take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste – otherwise destined for landfill – and convert it into jet fuel. The project is being led by biofuels firm Velocys, which has committed £1.5m to the next phase of development. The scheme has also secured a further £3m from industry partners, including Shell and British Airways. BA hopes to use the fuel, to claim it is cutting its carbon emissions (while continuing to grow, burning ever more fuel). The DfT is keen to give the impression that UK aviation expansion is fine, if some biofuels, or alternative fuels, are used. The funding for the Velocys project is part of £22m alternative fuels fund from the government, to advance development of “sustainable” fuels for aviation and freight transport. As of April 2018 renewable jet fuel also qualifies for credits under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO).
Solena, the company meant to be producing jet fuel from London waste for BA, goes bankrupt
October 29, 2015
In February 2010 it was announced that British Airways had teamed up with American bioenergy company Solena Group to establish “Europe’s first” sustainable jet fuel plant, which was set to turn London’d domestic waste into aviation fuel. The plan was for BA to provide construction capital for a massive plant somewhere in East London. BA committed to purchasing all the jet fuel produced by the plant, around 16 million gallons a year, for the next 11 years at market competitive prices. BA had hoped that this 2% contribution to its fuel consumption – the equivalent to all its fuel use at London City airport – would give it green credibility, and it would claim it cut its carbon emissions. The timescale for the plant to be built kept slipping. Nothing has been heard of it for a long time. Now it has been announced that Solena has gone into bankruptcy in the USA. It was never clear why, if genuinely low carbon fuels could be produced from London’s waste, why these should not be used for essential vehicles in London – and why they would instead become a PR exercise for an airline. British Airways and the company Velocys are listed as creditors of Solena.
A new report by Rainforest Foundation Norway looks at the impact of global biofuel policies on tropical deforestation. Palm oil and soy, in particular, are biofuel feedstocks that are associated with high deforestation risk. The report analyses biofuel policies in all key markets and assesses. It found the impact on demand for palm oil and soy-based biofuels in the coming decade will be huge, and may rise by over 60 million more tonnes of palm oil by 2030. That is about 90% of current global palm oil production. The demand for soy oil might rise by over 40 million tonnes, about 75% of current production. This would cause an estimated 7 million hectares of deforestation, including up to 3.6 million hectares of peat drainage. There would be tragic loss of biodiversity, including charismatic species like orang utans. The deforestation would cause over 11 billion tonnes of extra CO2 entering the atmosphere, by 2030 (more than China’s annual CO2 emissions). The aviation industry is potentially the largest consumer of high deforestation risk biofuels, followed by Indonesia and Brazil. The world is in a dual ecological crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss. This use of biofuels is NOT the answer, to either crisis. . Tweet
Biofuels to drive massive increase in palm and soy demand by 2030
A new report looks at the impact of global biofuel policies on tropical deforestation. Palm oil and soy, in particular, are biofuel feedstocks that are associated with high deforestation risk. The report analyses biofuel policies in all key markets and assesses the impact on demand for palm oil and soy-based biofuels in the coming decade. The conclusions of the report are alarming.
Key findings:
Current ambitions for the use of biofuels is likely to lead to a massive increase in demand for palm oil and soy by 2030. Total demand for palm oil may increase by 61 mill tons, equal to 90% of current palm oil production, and demand for soy oil may increase by 41 million tons, almost 75% of current production. (high demand scenario)
This increase would cause an estimated 7 million hectares of deforestation, including up to 3.6 mill ha of peat drainage.
Global CO2 emissions from this additional deforestation are estimated to be 11.5 billion tons – more than China’s current annual emissions from burning fossil fuels.
The aviation industry is potentially the largest consumer of high deforestation risk biofuels, followed by Indonesia and Brazil.
The world is in a dual ecological crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss. Tropical deforestation and peat destruction are major contributors to these crises, resulting in carbon dioxide emissions from lost vegetation and disturbed soils and driving the massive extinction of species. The global biofuel industry stands at the nexus between these climate change and biodiversity crises and are therefore in a prime position to affect meaningful change.
“Current biofuel policies around the world may lead to massive deforestation and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Policy makers and industries around the world must halt the use of high-deforestation risk feedstock for biofuels, like palm oil and soy, to ensure that biofuel policies don’t have adverse impact on the climate and increase rainforest destruction,” says Nils Hermann Ranum, head of Rainforest Foundation Norway’s Drivers of Deforestation Program.
“Biofuels were supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but this is not what’s happening in reality. If decision makers don’t avoid crop biofuels and especially high-risk feedstock like palm oil and soy, biofuel policies risk adding fuel to the current forest fires around the world,” says Laura Buffet, energy director of Transport & Environment, Europe’s leading NGO campaigning for cleaner transport.
Increased production of palm oil and soy has led to massive deforestation in Southeast Asia and South America, and the report reveals that biofuels are currently by far the major driver of demand for vegetable oils.
Biofuels accounted for 90% of vegetable oil demand increase since 2015.
Palm oil (incl. PFAD) and soy are the two vegetable oils with the highest deforestation risk and are unsuitable as biofuel feedstocks.
“Biofuels based on palm oil and soy are expected to cause higher GHG emissions than fossil diesel. Increased production of palm oil and soy oil has resulted in massive tropical deforestation over the last two decades. The EU and the US have introduced measures to avoid palm oil-based biofuels due to high deforestation risk, but globally demand for high deforestation risk biofuels is still increasing. That has to change, and fast”,says the author of the report, renowned biofuels expert Dr. Chris Malins.
Head of RFN’s Drivers of Deforestation Program, Nils Hermann Ranum, by email (nils.hermann@rainforest.no) or phone (+47 99 00 10 32); or
The author of the report, Dr. Chris Malins, via chris@cerulogy.com or phone, +44 (0)7905 051 671
The report says:
Deforestation and peat loss on this scale have a CO2 cost. As shown in Figure 2, the high palm oil demand scenario could lead to 9.1 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from land use change, with the high soy oil scenario leading to 2.6 billion tonnes. Combined, this is equivalent to about a year of China’s total emissions from burning fossil fuels.2 This value represents land use change emissions only, and would be partly offset by displacement of fossil fuel use by biofuels.
1) Emissions from removal of tree cover plus twenty years of degradation of peat soils. Peat degradation can continue for decades, resulting in further ongoing emissions not counted here. 2) https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2019
….
Aside from the carbon cost of ill-conceived biofuel policies, ongoing agricultural expansion is the main cause of human-led biodiversity destruction and fuels land conflicts with local communities, often indigenous peoples.
….
We recommend that:
Palm oil, soy oil and PFAD are unsuitable as biofuel feedstocks due to their link to deforestation and biodiversity loss. Consumption should be phased out as soon as possible.
EU Member States should adopt policies to rapidly phase out support for high ILUC-risk biofuels.
The European Commission should lower the level at which the threshold for “significant expansion into land with high carbon stock” is set.
In Europe, the use of biodiesel other than that produced from approved waste or by-product feedstocks should be reduced.
Member States should take measures to favour lower-ILUC biofuels and reduce incentives for the use of soy oil biofuels.
.
See also earlier:
Major Italian oil company fined €5 million for adverts greenwashing diesel made from palm oil
January 21, 2020
Italian oil giant Eni has been fined €5 million over its greenwashing of palm-oil based diesel as ‘green’. It ran a major marketing campaign to con consumers into mistakenly believing its ‘Eni Diesel+’ had a positive impact on the environment. T&E and an Italian environmental organisation had complained about the adverts. The ruling and fine deliver a blow to attempts by fossil fuel companies to portray biofuels to politicians as a way to decarbonise transport. In practice, diesel made from any sort of food crop causes deforestation due to indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts. Use of palm oil drives destruction of rainforests and wildlife, and EC data shows biodiesel from palm oil is 3 times worse for the climate than regular diesel when ILUC is accounted for. In March 2019 the EU ruled that the use of palm oil in diesel will be gradually reduced from 2023 and should reach zero in 2030, with some exemptions. But palm oil producing countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are pushing hard for palm oil to be used to produce jet fuel, with the pretence that it is lower carbon than conventional fuel.
Badly thought-through aviation carbon targets, involving biofuels, risk massive deforestation to grow palmoil and soya
October 4, 2019
A new report shows that the aviation industry’s attempts to cut its carbon emissions (caused by encouraging more and more people to take more flights….) are likely to lead to a dramatic increase in demand for palm oil and soy for aviation biofuels. They suggest the amount of tropical forest that would be taken for this could be 3.2 million hectares – an area larger than Belgium. The aviation industry hopes to be able to use as much alternative fuel as possible, and hopes this will be classed as lower carbon than conventional kerosene jet fuel. These hopes are unrealistic. To try to prevent climate destabilisation from worsening, the world needs as much forest as possible left standing, intact and health. The last thing we need is forest being cut down, in order to produce fuel for planes – largely for hedonistic leisure travel. It makes no sense to destroy so much forest, and its biodiversity, for such an inessential reason. The report says the only technology currently operating at a commercial scale to make bio-jet fuel is the ‘HEFA’ (Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids) process using vegetable oils and animal fats. The cheapest and most readily available feedstocks for HEFA jet fuel are palm oil and soy oil, which are closely linked to tropical deforestation – not to mention competition for land for human food.
The aviation industry is nervous of the growing awareness of the looming climate crisis and the need for personal responsibility for air travel CO2. So they are working to try to persuade the public that aviation is fine, and the the carbon emitted is really not a problem. They have it sorted. This is, of course, just greenwash. They are assuming the public is very stupid, or wilfully wanting to be deluded, to believe there will be no extra CO2 in the atmosphere, with 70% more flights. The aviation industry body calling itself (oxymoron!) “Sustainable Aviation” is trying to say UK aviation will be, quotes, “net carbon zero by 2050”. The industry can certainly make some little changes in engines, flight paths, operations etc, to cut a bit of carbon. That is far outweighed by the growth in passengers and flights. They have crazy hopes for low carbon fuels, which themselves would cause huge environmental problems. The rest is offsets. All that means is carbon reductions being made elsewhere are bought by the aviation sector, and are effectively cancelled out by the growth in air travel. It is not a solution. Aviation knows it. Greenpeace said: “This whole strategy is a flight of fancy. Carbon offsetting is simply an excuse to carry on with business as usual while shifting the responsibility to cut emissions to someone else, somewhere else, and some other time. It’s greenwash pure and simple and ministers should be wary of lending it any credibility.”
The UK aviation industry has pledged to cut its net carbon emissions to zero by 2050 – despite still planning for 70% more flights over the next three decades. [“Net” carbon emissions is a disingenuous term, intended to confuse. It means the CO2 emissions from aviation will continue to rise. The industry wants as much growth as it can get. There are preposterous claims about finding new low-carbon fuels, which cannot be done at scale without causing other environmental problems. The industry can find ways of cutting a small % of their emissions by efficiencies of various sorts. But “net” largely means the hope that the carbon can be magically cancelled out, by “offsets”. All that means is some other sector emits less carbon, or somehow sucks carbon out of the air, and instead of that being just what the planet needs – less carbon in the atmosphere – that cut is negated and cancelled out by the growth in carbon from aviation. It is greenwash. People should not be hoodwinked by this stuff. AW comment]
Members of the Sustainable Aviation coalition, which includes most major airlines and airports, as well as aerospace manufacturers, will sign a commitment to reach net zero by mid-century. More than a third of the proposed net reduction will be achieved through offsetting. [Much more than a third, in practice, as they cannot get genuinely lower carbon fuels at anything like the scale they hope for. They cannot be produced without environmental damage. It would be absolutely catastrophic if palm oil was allowed to be used as jet fuel. AW comment]
A “decarbonisation road map” will be published outlining how aviation can cut its carbon footprint – replacing a previous road map that only committed the industry to halving emissions over the next three decades.
The plan sets out potential reductions coming from smarter flight operations, and new aircraft and engine technology – including some yet to be invented. Modernising airspace and developing sustainable aviation fuelswill also contribute to reducing pollution.
About 25.8 million tonnes of CO2, out of 71.1 million tonnes set to be created annually by the UK sector, will need to be addressed through what Sustainable Aviation calls “market-based measures”, or offsetting.
The coalition forecasts that sustainable jet fuels, which are yet to be employed commercially, could meet almost a third of UK’s aviation fuel demand by 2050. [Obviously nonsense. See tweet below. Aspirations for the % of jet fuel that would be used in various years. Like in 2009 the hope by IATA was 10% of jet fuel in 2025 would be low carbon. This year the target is 2% by 2025. In reality, in 2018 just 0.002% of global jet fuel was low carbon. AW comment ]
Expresses new @IATA alt jet target for 2025. Added to the list: 2009: 10% by 2017 2011: 6% by 2020 2020: 2% by 2025 2018 actual: 0.002% https://t.co/FkuS1Bj9S7
The transport secretary, Grant Shapps, described the commitment as a huge step forward in creating a greener future. He added: “Aviation has a crucial role to play in reducing carbon emissions, and with the help of new technologies, renewable fuels and our continued international cooperation … we’ll be able to strike that balance.”
Neil Robinson, the chair of Sustainable Aviation, said: “Climate change is a clear and pressing issue for people, businesses and governments across the world. We know aviation emissions will increase if decisive action is not taken, and that’s why UK aviation today commits to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, through an international approach, working with governments around the world and through the UN.”
However, Greenpeace dismissed the move as “greenwash”. John Sauven, its UK executive director, said: “This whole strategy is a flight of fancy. Carbon offsetting is simply an excuse to carry on with business as usual while shifting the responsibility to cut emissions to someone else, somewhere else, and some other time. It’s greenwash pure and simple and ministers should be wary of lending it any credibility.”
Aviation not the enemy in climate battle, says Heathrow bossImage copyright
High level greenwash warning with this !
4.2.2020 (BBC)
Flying is not “the enemy” in the fight against climate change, the chief executive of Heathrow Airport has said.
John Holland-Kaye told the BBC’s Today programme: “The answer is not to stop people flying. It has to be about decarbonising aviation.”
The UK’s aviation industry is promising to reduce its net carbon emissions to zero by 2050.
Cleaner engines, new fuels and planting trees will all help, according to the industry group Sustainable Aviation.
Mr Holland-Kaye said: “The enemy is carbon, not aviation. We need to protect the ability to fly in a world without carbon.
“When the government blocked Heathrow expansion 10 years ago, people started flying through Amsterdam and Paris instead, taking two flights instead of one and not a single tonne of carbon was saved.”
He said synthetic fuels were the way forward. “It has been around for about 100 years and is becoming more affordable. It needs a real push on investment.”
‘Crisis is here and now’
Sustainable Aviation says the industry’s plan will mean airlines can cut pollution even as passenger numbers grow by an expected 70%.
But campaigners say the only way to cut airline pollution is by reducing air travel and cancelling new airports and runways.
“We need to restrict flying,” said Muna Suleiman, from Friends of the Earth. “We can’t have airport expansion at the same time.”
Rail travel and buses are greener alternatives and taxes should be applied to frequent fliers, she said.
Biofuels, which Sustainable Aviation say will be part of the industry’s plan, still pollute, Ms Suleiman added. “The crisis is here and now.”
The aviation sector is under increasing pressure to come up with a plan to cut emissions, especially as it has no commercial comparator yet to the electric car, which is seen as the auto industry’s hope for cutting emissions.
While other forms of transport produce more carbon, individual journeys on planes produce large amounts of CO2.
Sustainable Aviation says the UK industry can reduce its emissions of CO2 from 30 million tonnes a year to zero, without restricting growth.
An economy-class return flight from London to New York emits an estimated 0.67 tonnes of CO2 per passenger, according to the calculator from the UN’s civil aviation body, the International Civil Aviation Organization. [And about 1 tonne by most other estimates. AW comment]
That is equivalent to 11% of the average annual emissions for someone in the UK or about the same as all of those caused by someone living in Ghana for more than a year.
US firm Wright Electric said last week it had started electric engine development for a 186-seater plane, and hoped to begin test flights in 2023.
British Airways is investing in a project to make fuel from rubbish.
‘Difficult sector’
“We are going to have to do this through many projects,” Alex Cruz, chief executive of British Airways, told the BBC.
“Biofuels will give us a greener alternative and we are attracted by that,” he said, while conceding that they will still produce carbon dioxide and that they are expensive at the moment.
“We do believe we will reach a point where the price will be compatible with the rest of fuel prices.”
BA will also retire old planes, with the double-decker Boeing 747 being phased out in 2024.
Other plans include planting trees – so-called carbon offsetting – and investing in renewable power sources, said Matt Gorman, a council member of Sustainable Aviation.
“Aviation is one of the more difficult sectors to decarbonise but we are absolutely confident it can be done,” said Mr Gorman. “We have to do it”
Sustainable Aviation’s members include Heathrow Airport, British Airways, EasyJet, Rolls Royce, Airbus and air traffic controller Nats.
The aviation sector has a problem. On one level, it is extremely successful. Passenger numbers in the UK are higher than they’ve ever been, and massive growth is expected worldwide over the next couple of decades.
More passengers means more planes, and all else being equal that means an awful lot more emissions. The sector only accounts for about 2.5% of global CO2 output at the moment, but the obvious risk is that share could rise significantly.
You don’t have to be Greta Thunberg to realise where that could lead. There’s a risk that faced with growing public pressure to act on climate change, regulators could start to clamp down on the sector in a meaningful way – and that could hit growth.
So here in the UK, businesses are taking pre-emptive action. Action they claim will reduce emissions to zero without curbing growth.
So how effective will the plans be? Boeing and Airbus are already selling a new generation of aircraft that are much more efficient than their predecessors, and it’s fair to say that there are plenty of benefits to be gained from investing in new technology.
But the value of “market-based measures” such as carbon offsets is harder to calculate and hotly debated. People within the industry claim the projects they support are carefully chosen and reap real benefits.
Climate campaigners say that’s greenwash – and they’d rather we simply decided to fly a lot less.
Italian oil giant Eni has been fined €5 million over its greenwashing of palm-oil based diesel as ‘green’. It ran a major marketing campaign to con consumers into mistakenly believing its ‘Eni Diesel+’ had a positive impact on the environment. T&E and an Italian environmental organisation had complained about the adverts. The ruling and fine deliver a blow to attempts by fossil fuel companies to portray biofuels to politicians as a way to decarbonise transport. In practice, diesel made from any sort of food crop causes deforestation due to indirect land use change (ILUC) impacts. Use of palm oil drives destruction of rainforests and wildlife, and EC data shows biodiesel from palm oil is 3 times worse for the climate than regular diesel when ILUC is accounted for. In March 2019 the EU ruled that the use of palm oil in diesel will be gradually reduced from 2023 and should reach zero in 2030, with some exemptions. But palm oil producing countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are pushing hard for palm oil to be used to produce jet fuel, with the pretence that it is lower carbon than conventional fuel. . Tweet
Oil major slapped with €5m fine for greenwashing palm oil diesel
Italian oil giant Eni has been slapped with a €5 million fine over its greenwashing of palm-oil based diesel as ‘green’. The company ran a major marketing campaign that deceived consumers by claiming its ‘Eni Diesel+’ has a positive impact on the environment, Italy’s advertising watchdog ruled this week.
By Eoin Bannon (Transport & Environment)
January 16, 2020
In a landmark ruling against greenwashing, the Italy’s Competition and Market Authority (all’Autorità Garante per la Concorrenza e il Mercato) imposed the highest possible fine on the state-backed energy company.
The agency told Eni not to use the advertisement again after a complaint was lodged by Italy’s consumer organisation Movimento Difesa del Cittadino, environmental NGO Legambiente, and T&E. The oil company has been running ads on TV, radio, in cinemas, fuel stations, print and online platforms since 2016. Official estimates found it cost between €5m and €15m.
T&E said the authority’s decision delivers a blow to attempts by fossil fuel companies to portray biofuels to politicians as a way to decarbonise transport.
Veronica Aneris, T&E’s Italy manager, said: ‘There is no such thing as green diesel made from palm oil or any other food crop because they cause deforestation. Oil companies need to stop trying to mislead drivers and politicians with the fake claim that biodiesel protects the environment and our health. Instead they should invest in proper clean fuels such as renewable electricity. The government should push oil companies to do their fair share to decarbonise the economy.’
The Eni Diesel+ fuel is 15% composed of HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil) from Eni’s Venice refinery. This ENI refinery makes HVO from crude palm oil and its derivatives, as shown by official data from the governmental energy agency Gestore Servizi Energetici.
The watchdog ruling states that ‘it’s particularly deceitful to use the denomination “Green Diesel’ and the qualifications ‘green’ and ‘renewable’ to refer to the HVO component of the product’. This is mainly because of the indirect land-use change emissions associated with palm oil use. It also argues that there’s no justification or calculation that justifies the 40% reduction in air pollution.
Palm oil is known to be an important driver of the destruction of rainforests and wildlife. According to a study for the European Commission, biodiesel from palm oil is three times worse for the climate than regular diesel when indirect emissions from changes in the use of land are accounted for.
Italian green NGOs are urging the government to stop incentives for the use of palm oil in diesel, and over 50,000 Italians have already requested it at www.change.org/unpienodipalle.
Italy is the second largest palm oil biodiesel producer in the European Union. More than half (54%) of all palm oil and derivatives imported into Italy in 2018 was used to make biodiesel, mainly at Eni’s refinery at Porto Marghera, Venice.
The palm oil comes predominantly from Indonesia and, to a lesser extent, from Malaysia, two countries with notable deforestation rates in the past two decades.
Last March, the EU decided that palm oil is not a green fuel and should not be promoted because it causes deforestation. The use of palm oil in diesel will be gradually reduced from 2023 and should reach zero in 2030, with some exemptions. Thus, Italy, like any other EU country, can amend today the national targets for renewable energy in transport to remove incentives for using palm oil and its derivatives in biodiesel.
Palm oil may be blended in jet fuel as study shows suitable
April 16th, 2019
by AFIQ AZIZ (The Malaysian Reserve)
There are technologies currently available to produce biojet fuel, through conversion of biological resources
THE aviation sector can play a crucial role in boosting Malaysian palm oil, which has been saddled with discrimination in the West, low prices and high inventory.
As debates are still ongoing on palm oil fuel for vehicles, the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) suggests that the commodity can be mixed into biojet fuel — a composition to be blended with the fossil-based aviation fuel.
MPOB DG Datuk Dr Ahmad Kushairi Din said there are technologies currently available to produce biojet fuel, through conversion of biological resources such as oil, fats, palm fatty acid distillate (PFAD), algae and biomass.
“These technologies are different from the conversion of oils or fats into biodiesel that is used in the transportation sector. The biojet fuel is to be blended with the fossil-based aviation fuel,” he told The Malaysian Reserve (TMR) via an email reply.
While PFAD has been accepted as feedstock for sustainable aviation fuel, works are underway for palm oil to be accepted as well.
Ahmad Kushairi said MPOB has conducted a collaborative study with an American company to identify and screen the suitable feedstock from palm for biojet fuel production.
“PFAD and palm oil have been tested under this study in Chicago, US, for pilot plant trials.
“Based on the study, both have shown good conversion into biojet fuel with by-products such as diesel, naphtha, propane and others. The study showed that PFAD and palm oil are suitable feedstock for biojet fuel,” he said.
“But what we can affirm is that Malaysian palm oil industry’s commitment in participating in the CORSIA implementation (reduce carbon dioxide, or CO2, emission from international aviation), by developing sustainable aviation fuel using PFAD, used cooking oil, oil palm biomass and algae,” he said.
The usage of palm oil in biojet fuel mix can reduce palm oil stocks which put a pinch on prices. Recent data from MPOB showed that in March 2019, end-stocks dropped 4.6% to 2.92 million tonnes from February 2019.
According to Ahmad Kushairi, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has adopted the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) to reduce greenhouse gas emission for the aviation sector.
One of the carbon offsetting measures is to use sustainable biojet fuel accredited under CORSIA.
“With the commitment of CORSIA, the minimum blending of biojet fuel is 2% starting 2027, and the approved blending could be up to 50%,” he highlighted.
Under CORSIA, all airline operators with annual emissions greater than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 are required to report their emissions on an annual basis, with monitoring starting in January 2019.
The CO2 offsetting requirements in CORSIA will be implemented in 2021 in phases with mandatory implementation to begin in 2027.
Ahmad Kushairi said MPOB is currently conducting a feasibility study on aviation fuel for the economy and its impact to airline operators, bearing in mind that any effort to protect the environment comes with a cost.
“For example, a Malaysia-based airline would require 60,000 tonnes per year of biojet fuel to meet the 2% blending ratio requirement,” he said.
Currently, there are more than 80 airlines operating to and from Malaysian airports nationwide.
Ahmad Kushairi said in the Asean region, there is no biojet fuel production plant at the moment.
Currently, European firm Neste Corp is producing green diesel (hydro-treated vegetable oil) from waste oil and vegetable oils at one million tonnes per year capacity. The company has also announced to invest an additional €1.4 billion (RM6.51 billion) for setting up the second bio-refinery plant in Singapore by 2023 for biojet fuel and green diesel production with a capacity of 1.3 million tonnes per year.
Indonesia and Malaysia, the world’s top two producers of the vegetable oil, have threatened to challenge the European Union in the World Trade Organisation over the economic bloc’s plan to ban palm oil-based biofuel by 2030.
To minimise impact and reduce stocks, Malaysia started rolling out the B10 biodiesel (a blend of 10% palm oil in diesel) for the transportation sector last month, while Indonesia has introduced B20 since 2016.
An industry player told TMR that the government should demand ICAO to accept palm oil as part of the biojet fuel blend.
“We could lose this competitive market to our neighbours if we do not address this now. Alternatively, we could mandate the use of biojet fuel domestically using palm oil as feedstock.
“This initiative will help to increase usage of palm oil without subject to the ICAO regulations,” the person said.
UN plans for aviation biofuels (ie. much from palm oil) & carbon offsets condemned by 89 organisations worldwide
June 11, 2018
89 organisations from 34 countries have called on the UN’s International Civil Aviation Agency (ICAO) to ditch plans for aviation biofuels and carbon offsets, as the Agency’s governing body convenes in Montreal to finalise proposals for a controversial “Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme”. An Open Letter by the groups warns that ICAO’s proposal could incentivise airlines to use large quantities of biofuels made from palm oil in order to meet greenhouse gas targets – even though member states rejected biofuel targets last autumn amidst concerns about palm oil. Proposed biofuel targets for aircraft were rejected by member states in October 2017, but groups fear that the proposed new rules will introduce large-scale biofuel use ‘by the backdoor’. On sustainability certification for palm oil, “none of the schemes has been effective at slowing down deforestation, peatland draining or the loss of biodiversity”. On carbon offsets, the organisations say “There is no way of reaching the goal to limit global warming to 1.5oC unless all states and sectors rapidly phase out their carbon emissions. This means that there can be no role for offsets”. Instead the growth of the aviation sector needs to be limited – rather than depending on greenwash.
A new report shows that the aviation industry’s attempts to cut its carbon emissions (caused by encouraging more and more people to take more flights….) are likely to lead to a dramatic increase in demand for palm oil and soy for aviation biofuels. They suggest the amount of tropical forest that would be taken for this could be 3.2 million hectares – an area larger than Belgium. The aviation industry hopes to be able to use as much alternative fuel as possible, and hopes this will be classed as lower carbon than conventional kerosene jet fuel. These hopes are unrealistic. To try to prevent climate destabilisation from worsening, the world needs as much forest as possible left standing, intact and health. The last thing we need is forest being cut down, in order to produce fuel for planes – largely for hedonistic leisure travel. It makes no sense to destroy so much forest, and its biodiversity, for such an inessential reason. The report says the only technology currently operating at a commercial scale to make bio-jet fuel is the ‘HEFA’ (Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids) process using vegetable oils and animal fats. The cheapest and most readily available feedstocks for HEFA jet fuel are palm oil and soy oil, which are closely linked to tropical deforestation – not to mention competition for land for human food. . Tweet
Aviation climate targets may drive 3 million hectares of deforestation
The aviation industry’s climate targets are likely to lead to a dramatic increase in demand for palm oil and soy for aviation biofuels. A new report concludes that this may result in 3.2 million hectares of tropical forest loss – an area larger than Belgium.
Published: 01.10.2019 (Rainforest Foundation Norway)
As the general assembly meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) got underway in Montreal, Rainforest Foundation Norway’s new report ‘Destination deforestation‘ goes into the heated debate about “flight shame” and the role of the aviation sector in contributing to the climate crisis.
The report “Destination Deforestation” reviews the status of the targets the aviation industry has set for alternative fuels and shows how high the risk is that expanding biofuel use in aviation will cause the last thing the world wants or needs right now: increased deforestation.
The aviation industry has set an aspirational goal to reduce its CO2 emissions by 50 percent in 2050 (compared to 2005), without limiting growth. Central to this vision is a near complete shift from conventional jet fuel to alternative aviation fuels. Near total replacement of fossil fuel would be needed to meet this target.
Sky-high demand for soy and palm oil
A number of technologies are available to produce aviation biofuels, or even to produce aviation fuels from electricity, but the only one of these technologies currently operating at a commercial scale is the ‘HEFA’ (Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids) process to produce jet fuel from vegetable oils and animal fats.
The cheapest and most readily available feedstocks for HEFA jet fuel are palm oil and soy oil, which are closely linked to tropical deforestation. Unless alternative aviation fuel policies actively support more sustainable options, it is likely that meeting the aviation industry’s aspirations to reduce emissions would lead to a sharp increase in demand for soy and palm oils.
The report estimates that meeting the aspirational targets outlined by ICAO through the cheapest and most readily available technology would lead to an additional demand in 2030 of 35 million tons of palm oil, 3.5 million tons of palm oil by-products (PFAD), and35 million tons of soy oil. For comparison, the current global annual production of palm oil globally is around 70 million tons.
Previous studies, including some published by the EU Commission, have shown that the climate impact of biofuels based on palm oil and soy oil is even higher than continuing to use fossil fuels.
An area the size of Belgium at risk
The report concludes that this increased demand for palm oil and soy could drive 3.2 million hectares of tropical forest loss (an area larger than the size of Belgium) and 5 gigatons of land use change CO2 emissions (close to the current annual greenhouse gas emissions of the USA) in 2030, unless measures are taken to avoid the targets being met using the most readily available aviation biofuel technology and feedstocks.
“The aviation industry risks becoming a major threat against the world’s rainforests. While ICAO’s proposed use of alternative aviation fuels is meant to reduce emissions, it in fact risks inducing massive emissions from the destruction of tropical forests and peatlands, alongside loss of biodiversity and violations of the rights of forest-dependent peoples”, says Nils Hermann Ranum of Rainforest Foundation Norway.
Aviation biofuel policy at the EU level and in selected countries is also reviewed, revealing that proposed government programs in countries such as France, Finland, Sweden and Indonesia could contribute to the massive deforestation outlined in the report, through varyingly allowing for the use of aviation biofuels based on palm oil, PFAD and soy oil respectively.
Strong measures are needed
Avoiding the direct use of palm oil and soy oil as feedstocks can reduce the deforestation impact of alternative fuel policies, but due to the connectivity of global vegetable oil markets, any use of food oils as biofuel feedstock will drive expansion of tropical oil crops, with associated indirect deforestation and accompanying greenhouse gas emissions.
“The aviation industry should take urgent steps to avoid using biofuels from the highest deforestation risk feedstocks such as palm oil, PFAD and soy. They should also exclude or limit support for biofuels from food oils more generally. Anything less would risk severely undermining the world’s commitment through the Sustainable Development Goals to stop deforestation and strive to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius”, concludes Ranum.
The report is written by the renowned low carbon fuels expert Dr. Chris Malins.
Heathrow’s avarice and self-interest appear to know no bounds. Aside from the immense cost to public health from the increased noise and air pollution of its plans for a 3rd runway (equivalent to bolting another large UK airport onto the Heathrow site….) the huge cost to the taxpayer for the necessary improvements to surface access infrastructure, if it expands, and so many other costs – like destroying villages, Heathrow wants yet more. The Treasury has repeatedly said that the aviation industry in the UK pays Air Passenger Duty (APD) BECAUSE that makes up, to a small extent, for the income lost to the Treasury each year, because the aviation sector pays NO fuel duty and NO VAT. The money is NOT there to give the aviation industry a boost. But Heathrow wants the approximately £4 billion raised each year from APD to be given back to the industry, so it can try to find a way to produce jet fuels that are allegedly “sustainable” and “lower carbon” that convention jet fuel. The problem for the aviation industry is that, other than worthy-sounding pronouncements about “the ambition of a net-zero carbon aviation industry by 2050” etc, they have no actual plans of any means by which to do that. APD funds should NOT be given back to aviation. . Tweet
Heathrow urges £4bn APD revenue to boost ‘green’ aviation fuels
by Phil Davies (Travel Weekly)
August 21st 2019
Heathrow is once again urging the government to invest £4 billion annual intake from Air Passenger Duty to raise production of ‘green’ aviation fuels.
The revenue generated from the air tax could help to accelerate the production of biofuels and support the ambition of a net-zero carbon aviation industry by 2050.
The airport first made the demand for a reform of APD last month.
Heathrow sustainability director Matt Gorman said: “Having won an overwhelming majority in Parliament supporting expansion at Heathrow we are getting on with delivering a project that will connect the whole country to economic growth in a way that is sustainable and responsible.
“We understand the responsibility our sector has to help tackle climate change and ensure we protect a world worth travelling, which is why we’re calling on government to invest the revenue generated from Air Passenger Duty in sustainable fuels.
“This move will help to drive a much needed change in our sector and make travel more sustainable.”
More: Industry should stop bleating about carbon tax
APD should be reformed to support sustainable aviation fuels
The call came as the London hub revealed that SAS took the top spot in its ‘Fly Quiet and Green’ airline sustainability league table in the second quarter of the year.
The result came as the Scandinavian flag carrier reduced early and late flights.
The airline also scored well for its operational performance by improving its ‘track keeping’ – following preferential noise route flight paths precisely and using a quieter landing method known as continuous descent approach.
The league table compiles the results of the airport’s top 50 busiest airlines from April to June, rating how each airline scores for operational factors such as punctuality, track keeping, continuous decent approach, and monitors the fleet upgrades that help to reduce emissions.
Both 787 Dreamliners and Airbus A350s are among the top environmental performers, helping airlines to rise in the rankings.
Qantas jumped 28 spots to sixth place, earning the title of most improved airline, after achieving 100% compliance for track keeping and running its schedule without late or early flights.
The announcement coincided with Heathrow’s 12-week expansion consultation, which details measures the airport will be putting in place to reduce emissions and provide respite for local communities as part of its plans for a third runway. The consultation runs until September 13.
£125 million more UK public money going to fund aviation research to (possibly, eventually) minimally cut CO2 emissions
August 27, 2019
The aviation industry repeatedly gets money from the UK government, to help it try to find new technologies, or new fuels, that might slightly cut the carbon emissions of flights. Instead of the industry funding this research itself, it always wants public money to help – money from taxpayers that could be better used. If the aviation sector really wanted to cut its carbon emissions significantly, it would stop attempting to grow as fast as possible. If the government was serious about cutting aviation CO2, it would introduce measures to make flying more expensive and less attractive, in order to cut demand. But instead, money is spent on technologies that just – basically – involve continuing with “business as usual” and carrying on flying as much as possible. Hopes of magical future technologies, or fuels, just postpone the day when they have to “bite the bullet” and reduce aviation growth. Now the UK government is spending another “£125 million in the Future of Flight Challenge, supported by an industry co-investment of £175 million, to fund development of technologies including cargo drones, urban air taxis and larger electric passenger aircraft.” Fiddling while Rome burns….
Altalto, a collaboration between Velocys, British Airways and Shell, has submitted a planning application for a plant that turns waste into so-called “sustainable” aviation fuel. The proposed plant near Grimsby would take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of household and commercial solid waste destined for landfill or incineration. That would be converted into fuel, to be used by the aviation industry (some could be used for road vehicle fuels…). The scheme is claiming it would “reduce reduce net greenhouse gases by 70% compared to the fossil fuel equivalent.” The company says the fuel also improves air quality, with up to 90% reduction in particulate matter from aircraft engine exhausts and almost 100% reduction in sulphur oxides – but gives no explanation how. It also claims the process produces less air pollution that if the waste was incinerated or landfilled (but gives on details). Usual blurb from British Airways (desperate to try to make out that aviation will emit less CO2 in future, while continuing to grow) about “Sustainable fuels can be a game-changer for aviation…” blah blah… BA had proposed a similar plant in Essex which was cancelled due to lack of funding in 2016.
Altalto, a collaboration between Velocys, British Airways and Shell, has submitted a planning application for a plant that turns waste into sustainable aviation fuel.
The proposed plant near Grimsby would take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of household and commercial solid waste destined for landfill or incineration and turn it into clean-burning sustainable aviation fuel, which is claimed would reduce net greenhouse gases by 70% compared to the fossil fuel equivalent.
The company says the fuel also improves air quality, with up to 90% reduction in particulate matter from aircraft engine exhausts and almost 100% reduction in sulphur oxides; and the technology offers a lower emissions route to process UK waste than incineration or landfill.
The site is called Portlink 180 which consists of approximately 80 acres of land located on Hobson Way, between Immingham and Grimsby in North East Lincolnshire.
Alex Cruz, British Airways Chairman and CEO, said: ‘The submission of the planning application marks a major milestone in this project and we are delighted with the progress being made.
‘Sustainable fuels can be a game-changer for aviation which will help power our aircraft for years to come.
‘This development is an important step in the reduction of our carbon emissions and meeting the industry targets of carbon neutral growth from 2020, and a 50% in CO2 reduction by 2050 from 2005 levels. It also brings the UK another step closer to becoming a global leader in sustainable aviation fuels.’
Last week, Heathrow Airport called on UN’s aviation body ICAO to set targets for the use of sustainable fuels in aviation and for the government to invest some of the £4bn annual revenue raised from Air Passenger Duty to scale-up its production.
They will buy the fuel from SkyNRG who will develop Europe’s first dedicated plant for the production of sustainable airline fuel (SAF) in Delfzijl in The Netherlands.
They say it will be capable of producing the fuels bioLPG and naphtha primarily using regional waste and residue streams as feedstock.
Altalto Immingham Limited is a subsidiary of Velocys and a collaboration with project co-investors British Airways and Shell.
Velocys is a British sustainable fuels technology company. Originally a spin-out from Oxford University, in 2008 the company acquired a US company based on complementary technology developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Over 15 years Velocys has developed proprietary Fischer-Tropsch technology that enables the production of drop-in transport fuels from the embedded carbon-sources in a variety of waste materials. Having demonstrated its technology at commercial scale, Velocys is currently developing projects in Natchez, Mississippi, USA and Immingham, UK to produce fuels that significantly reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and key exhaust pollutants for aviation and road transport.
Velocys is leading the development of the Altalto Immingham project and has assembled all the technology components into a standardised integrated design. Velocys also supplies the central processing unit: micro-Channel Fischer-Tropsch reactors with the proprietary Velocys Actocat catalyst. This is the part of the process that turns a gas mixture of carbon and hydrogen into the liquid hydrocarbons required to create the sustainable fuels.
British Airways intends to purchase jet fuel produced at the plant for use in its aircraft. This is an important step in the reduction of the airline’s carbon emissions towards the industry targets of carbon neutral growth from 2020 and a 50% reduction by 2050 from 2005 levels.
Shell intends to purchase both jet fuel and road fuel from Altalto, which may then be blended and sold to Shell’s customers, helping to reduce their carbon footprint. Shell will also provide technical expertise, based on its long experience of gasification and Fischer-Tropsch conversion.
The process enables the production of aviation and road fuels with 70% less net greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional fuel.
Subject to planning and funding decisions, we plan to begin construction in 2021 and to start producing commercial volumes of Sustainable Aviation Fuel in 2024.
The Fischer–Tropsch process is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into liquid hydrocarbons. These reactions occur in the presence of metal catalysts, typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C (302–572 °F) and pressures of one to several tens of atmospheres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
See earlier:
DfT, always trying to make aviation growth look “green”, to pay £434,000 to fund waste-to-jetfuel project
June 18, 2018
A project to turn landfill waste into (quotes) “sustainable” jet fuel has received a major boost by securing almost £5m of funding from the government and industry backers. The DfT has committed £434,000 to fund the next stage of the project, which will involve engineering and site studies to scope potential for a waste-based jet fuel plant in the UK. This will take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste – otherwise destined for landfill – and convert it into jet fuel. The project is being led by biofuels firm Velocys, which has committed £1.5m to the next phase of development. The scheme has also secured a further £3m from industry partners, including Shell and British Airways. BA hopes to use the fuel, to claim it is cutting its carbon emissions (while continuing to grow, burning ever more fuel). The DfT is keen to give the impression that UK aviation expansion is fine, if some biofuels, or alternative fuels, are used. The funding for the Velocys project is part of £22m alternative fuels fund from the government, to advance development of “sustainable” fuels for aviation and freight transport. As of April 2018 renewable jet fuel also qualifies for credits under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO).
Solena, the company meant to be producing jet fuel from London waste for BA, goes bankrupt
October 29, 2015
In February 2010 it was announced that British Airways had teamed up with American bioenergy company Solena Group to establish “Europe’s first” sustainable jet fuel plant, which was set to turn London’d domestic waste into aviation fuel. The plan was for BA to provide construction capital for a massive plant somewhere in East London. BA committed to purchasing all the jet fuel produced by the plant, around 16 million gallons a year, for the next 11 years at market competitive prices. BA had hoped that this 2% contribution to its fuel consumption – the equivalent to all its fuel use at London City airport – would give it green credibility, and it would claim it cut its carbon emissions. The timescale for the plant to be built kept slipping. Nothing has been heard of it for a long time. Now it has been announced that Solena has gone into bankruptcy in the USA. It was never clear why, if genuinely low carbon fuels could be produced from London’s waste, why these should not be used for essential vehicles in London – and why they would instead become a PR exercise for an airline. British Airways and the company Velocys are listed as creditors of Solena.
British Airways + Solena plant to make jet fuel from London’s rubbish – announcement soon?
March 24, 2014
GreenAir online gives an update on the anticipated biofuel plant (costing around $500 million) to be built in east London, to produce diesel and jet fuel. GreenAir says that according to British Airways’ a 20-acre (8ha) site has been selected for its GreenSky project with Solena and an announcement is expected within weeks. Getting the required planning permission had proved “extremely challenging.” GreenSky will convert around 600,000 tonnes of London municipal waste into 50,000 tonnes of biojet and 50,000 tonnes of biodiesel annually, and will – they hope – meet BA’s total fuel needs at London City Airport. BA hope they can claim annual carbon savings of up to 145,000 tonnes of CO2. “It’s very much a demonstration plant for us. If we can prove this works commercially then we will build a number of them in the UK – potentially up to six – at this scale or even bigger.” “The economics is driven by a current UK landfill tax of about £80 per tonne, so the scheme hopes to get the rubbish cheaply – saving councils the landfill tax. Under its 10-year contract with Solena, BA will purchase all the fuel produced by the plant. They hope to start building in early 2015 and start producing fuel in 2017.
Velocys CEO suspended over allegations of ‘serious misconduct’
Velocys, the energy company backed by the billionaire owner of Chelsea Football Club, Roman Abramovich, has suspended its chief executive Roy Lipski over “allegations of serious misconduct”.
The aviation industry repeatedly gets money from the UK government, to help it try to find new technologies, or new fuels, that might slightly cut the carbon emissions of flights. Instead of the industry funding this research itself, it always wants public money to help – money from taxpayers that could be better used. If the aviation sector really wanted to cut its carbon emissions significantly, it would stop attempting to grow as fast as possible. If the government was serious about cutting aviation CO2, it would introduce measures to make flying more expensive and less attractive, in order to cut demand. But instead, money is spent on technologies that just – basically – involve continuing with “business as usual” and carrying on flying as much as possible. Hopes of magical future technologies, or fuels, just postpone the day when they have to “bite the bullet” and reduce aviation growth. Now the UK government is spending another “£125 million in the Future of Flight Challenge, supported by an industry co-investment of £175 million, to fund development of technologies including cargo drones, urban air taxis and larger electric passenger aircraft.” Fiddling while Rome burns….
UK invests $368 million in ‘cleaner, greener’ forms of air transport
Aug 26, 2019
By Graham Warwick (ATW – Air Transport World – online)
.
The UK has unveiled a more than £300 million ($368 million) government-industry investment to develop “cleaner, greener” forms of air transport, including electric and autonomous aircraft and sustainable alternative fuels.
The government will provide £125 million in the Future of Flight Challenge, supported by an industry co-investment of £175 million, to fund development of technologies including cargo drones, urban air taxis and larger electric passenger aircraft.
An additional £5 million has been awarded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to five new transport research networks led by the Universities of Birmingham, Durham and Leeds, Cardiff University and University College London. The funds will support work to develop cleaner fuels and other technologies to reduce emissions.
The first competition under the challenge, to create “compelling concept studies,” will open Sept. 30. Innovate UK plans to brief potential bidders by video conference on Sept. 5.
A presentation by the UK’s Aerospace Technology Institute, from a January workshop on the challenge, said its goal is to “[demonstrate] aviation systems incorporating low environmental impact, electrified, increasingly autonomous air vehicles and airspace management by 2025.”
The document describes four main areas of work under the challenge: new models of airspace management and “anticipatory regulation,” novel air vehicle demonstrators, ground infrastructure demonstrators for cities and “sub-regional airports,” and new operating models for users and commercial operators of air services.
Potential milestones outlined in the January presentation include: unmanned traffic management drone trials in 2021, deployment of initial services on a trial basis in 2022, and autonomous drones operating beyond visual-line-of-sight in UK airspace by 2023. Operation of drones in cities is also planned by 2023.
While it is not clear whether the timescales still hold, the document outlines plans to fly demonstrators of two electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing concepts in 2021, and conduct autonomous flights in 2023. The presentation also calls for demonstrators of two sub-regional, conventional-takeoff electric/hybrid-electric passenger aircraft: a modified existing aircraft in 2021 and an optimized aircraft in 2023.
DfT, always trying to make aviation growth look “green”, to pay £434,000 to fund waste-to-jetfuel project
June 18, 2018
A project to turn landfill waste into (quotes) “sustainable” jet fuel has received a major boost by securing almost £5m of funding from the government and industry backers. The DfT has committed £434,000 to fund the next stage of the project, which will involve engineering and site studies to scope potential for a waste-based jet fuel plant in the UK. This will take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste – otherwise destined for landfill – and convert it into jet fuel. The project is being led by biofuels firm Velocys, which has committed £1.5m to the next phase of development. The scheme has also secured a further £3m from industry partners, including Shell and British Airways. BA hopes to use the fuel, to claim it is cutting its carbon emissions (while continuing to grow, burning ever more fuel). The DfT is keen to give the impression that UK aviation expansion is fine, if some biofuels, or alternative fuels, are used. The funding for the Velocys project is part of £22m alternative fuels fund from the government, to advance development of “sustainable” fuels for aviation and freight transport. As of April 2018 renewable jet fuel also qualifies for credits under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO).
Prototype “Hybrid Air Vehicle” (HAV) – the “Airlander” – may have its first flight this year – government funding
March 3, 2014
The world’s longest aircraft has been unveiled. It is an experimental hybrid, which looks like a giant (helium filled) airship – which has a pod slung underneath, two small engine rotors and small wings. It is the shape of two rugby-ball shapes linked in the middle with a joining section. It uses little fuel and its advocates say it is “70% greener than a cargo plane.” If the giant models can be made to work, they may be able to carry up to 50 tonnes payload. It can land on a small space, or on water, and so is being promoted as possibly helpful to land aid and equipment to remote disaster areas with no long runways. The machines could also be used for long term surveillance as they can stay aloft for days or weeks, and be remotely operated. The length of the prototype is 302ft (92m) which is some 60ft longer than the Airbus A380 or the massive cargo-carrying Antonov An-225. The company developing it has now received £2.5m of UK government funding for development “of quieter, more energy efficient and environmentally friendly planes.” Business Secretary Vince Cable hopes this will be an “innovative low carbon aircraft which can keep us at the cutting edge of new technology …… to lead the world in its field.” They may be able to “fly over the Amazon at 20ft, over some of the world’s greatest cities and stream the whole thing on the internet.” However, supplies of helium are limited, and non-renewable. Some experts suggest supplies of helium could be depleted by the middle of the century.
UK government recommits to funding support for development of advanced aviation biofuels
Mon 28 Aug 2017 (GreenAir online)
The UK government has recommitted to providing up to £22 million ($28m) towards funding for projects to develop advanced low carbon, waste-based advanced fuels for planes and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). The fund, which must be matched by industry, is expected to help deliver up to five new plants in the UK by 2021 that will produce advanced fuels to be used in aircraft and lorries where it is not yet viable to switch to electric power. The UK’s Department for Transport (DfT), in association with engineering and environmental consultancy Ricardo, first launched the ‘Future Fuels for Flight and Freight Competition’ (F4C) in April to invite applications for the funding …. more at
The IPCC report on Climate Change and Land has stressed the importance of humanity not continuing to do so much damage to the land, but growing crops on so much of it, or removing natural vegetation to provide grazing for animals. It emphasises that we need to reduce the amount of land that humanity is using, and let land store and sequester carbon. There is also the added point, made by George Monbiot, that a real calculation of the amount of carbon produced by agriculture – and destruction of the natural vegetation (eg. tropical forest) should look at the opportunity cost of that land; how much carbon would have been saved by leaving it in its natural state. So the carbon emissions are not just those from food production – but also the loss of the natural carbon sink. The emphasis on the extent to which humanity is increasing climate breakdown via agriculture shows how using land to produce biofuels is adding to this problem. Using land to grow biofuels competes with land for growing food crops. Biofuel plantations may lead to decreased food security through competition for land. In addition, BECCS will probably lead to significant trade-offs with food production. .
It’s a tragic missed opportunity. Thenew report on landby the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shies away from the big issues and fails to properly represent the science. As a result, it gives us few clues about how we might survive the century. Has it been nobbled? Was the fear of taking on the farming industry – alongside the oil and coal companies whose paid shills have attacked it so fiercely – too much to bear? At the moment, I have no idea. But what the panel has produced is pathetic.
The problem is that it concentrates on just one of the two ways of counting the carbon costs of farming. The first way – the IPCC’s approach – could be described as farming’s current account. How much greenhouse gas does driving tractors, spreading fertiliser and raising livestock produce every year? According to the panel’s report, the answer is around 23% of the planet-heating gases we currently produce. But this fails miserably to capture the overall impact of food production.
The second accounting method is more important. This could be described as the capital account: how does farming compare to the natural ecosystems that would otherwise have occupied the land? A paper published in Naturelast year, but not mentioned by the IPCC, sought to count this cost. Please read these figures carefully. They could change your life.
The official carbon footprint of people in the UK is 5.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year. But in addition to this, the Nature paper estimates that the total greenhouse gas cost – in terms of lost opportunities for storing carbon that the land would offer were it not being farmed – of an average northern European diet is 9 tonnes a year. In other words, if we counted the “carbon opportunity costs” of our diet, our total footprint would almost triple, to 14.4 tonnes.
—–
Why is this figure so high? Because we eat so much meat and dairy. The Nature paper estimates that the carbon cost of chicken is six times higher than soya, while milk is 15 times higher and beef 73 times. One kilo of beef protein has a carbon opportunity cost of 1,250kg: that, incredibly, is roughly equal to driving a new car for a year, or to one passenger flying from London to New York and back.
These are global average figures, raised by beef production in places like the Amazon basin. But even in the UK, the costs are astonishing. A paper in the journal Food Policy estimates that a kilo of beef protein reared on a British hill farm whose soils are rich in carbon has a cost of 643kg, while a kilo of lamb protein costs 749kg. Research published in April by the Harvard academics Helen Harwatt and Matthew Hayek, also missed by the IPCC, shows that, alongside millions of hectares of pasture land, an astonishing 55% of UK cropping land (land that is ploughed and seeded) is used to grow feed for livestock, rather than food for humans. If our grazing land was allowed to revert to natural ecosystems, and the land currently used to grow feed for livestock was used for grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables for humans, this switch would allow the UK to absorb an astonishing quantity of carbon. This would be equivalent, altogether, the paper estimates, to absorbing nine years of our total current emissions. And farming in this country could then feed everyone, without the need for imports.
A plant-based diet would make the difference between the UK’s current failure to meet its international commitments, and success.
Then there are the nature opportunity costs. A famous paper in Science shows that a plant-based diet would release 76% of the land currently used for farming. This land could then be used for the mass restoration of ecosystems and wildlife, pulling the living world back from the brink of ecological collapse and a sixth great extinction.
People tend to make two massive mistakes while trying to minimise the environmental impact of the food they eat. First, they focus on food miles and forget about the other impacts. For some foods, especially those that travel by plane, the carbon costs of transport are very high. But for most bulk commodities – grain, beans, meat and dairy – the greenhouse gases produced in transporting them are a small fraction of the overall impact. A kilo of soya shipped halfway round the world inflicts much less atmospheric harm than a kilo of chicken or pork reared on the farm down the lane.
The second mistake is to imagine that extensive farming is better for the planet than intensive farming. The current model of intensive farming tends to cause massive environmental damage: pollution, soil erosion and the elimination of wildlife. But extensive farming is worse: by definition, it requires more land to produce the same amount of food. This is land that could otherwise be devoted to ecosystems and wildlife.
In wet temperate nations such as the UK, natural vegetation in most places is dominated by trees. Even the best livestock farms deliver a depleted parody of nature, supporting a small subset of the species that might otherwise occupy the land.
If we want to prevent both climate and ecological catastrophes, the key task is to minimise the amount of land we use to feed ourselves, while changing the way the remaining land is farmed. Instead, governments almost everywhere pour public money into planetary destruction.
Look at the £500m the UK government proposes to spend on buying up beef and lamb that will be unsaleable after a no-deal Brexit. This reproduces the worst and stupidest policy the European Union ever conjured up: the intervention payments that created its notorious butter mountains and wine lakes. Brexit, for all its likely harms, represents an opportunity to pay landowners and tenants to do something completely different, rather than spending yet more public money on trashing our life-support systems.
The IPCC, like our governments, fails to get to grips with these issues. But when you look at the science as a whole, you soon see that we can’t keep eating like this. Are we prepared to act on what we know, or will we continue to gorge on the lives of our descendants?
“Land must remain productive to maintain food security as the population increases and the negative impacts of climate change on vegetation increase. This means there are limits to the contribution of land to addressing climate change, for instance through the cultivation of energy crops and afforestation. It also takes time for trees and soils to store carbon effectively. Bioenergy needs to be carefully managed to avoid risks to food security, biodiversity and land degradation.”
It had been assumed and hoped that used cooking oil (UCO) might be a genuinely low carbon fuel, causing a lot less environmental damage that other liquid fuels. Because UCO is classed as a waste product within the EU, UK fuel producers are given double carbon credits for using it in their fuels. This has sparked a boom in demand for used cooking oil that is so great it is being met in part with imports from Asia. A new NNFCC study found that in fact rising demand is increasing deforestation, for more palm oil plantations. The price they can get selling used cooking oil to makers of biodiesel is far higher than the price of new palm oil – so they pocket the difference. This provides the perverse incentive to make money by selling more used oil, just replacing it with (cheap) palm oil. Between 2011 and 2016 there was a 360% increase in use of used cooking oil as the basis for biodiesel. The available evidence indicates that palm oil imports into China are increasing, in line with their increasing exports of used cooking oils. The NNFCC authors want the government to review the practice and perhaps end the EU’s double credit for imported oil.
Cutting carbon emissions from transport has proved very difficult for governments all over the world. Many have given incentives to speed up the replacement of fossil-based petrol and diesel with fuels made from crops such as soya or rapeseed.
These growing plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and so liquid fuel made from these sources, while not carbon-neutral, is a big improvement on simply burning regular petrol or diesel.
In this light, used cooking (UCO) oil has become a key ingredient of biodiesel in the UK and the rest of Europe. Between 2011 and 2016 there was a 360% increase in use of used cooking oil as the basis for biodiesel.
Because UCO is classed as a waste product within the EU, UK fuel producers are given double carbon credits for using it in their fuels. This has sparked a boom in demand for used cooking oil that is so great it is being met in part with imports from Asia.
In the UK, the most common feedstock source of biodiesel between April and December 2018 was Chinese UCO, totalling 93 million litres. In the same period, used cooking oil from UK sources was used to produce 76 million litres of of fuel.
Now a new study, from international bioeconomy consultants NNFCC, suggests that these imports may inadvertently be making climate change worse by increasing deforestation and the demand for palm oil.
The problem arises because used cooking oil in some parts of Asia is not classed as a waste product and is considered safe for consumption by animals.
The report’s authors are concerned that since it is more profitable to sell Asian UCO to Europe for fuel rather than feed it to animals, it is likely being replaced by virgin palm oil which is cheaper to buy.
“Although correlation does not necessarily equate to causation, the available evidence indicates that palm oil imports into China are increasing, in line with their increasing exports of used cooking oils,” the report states.
Between 2016 and 2018, palm oil imports into China rose by 1 million tonnes, an increase of more than 20%.
“As soon as that point is reached where you can sell used cooking oil for more than you can buy palm oil, it’s a no brainer,” said Dr Jeremy Tomkinson who co-authored the report for NNFCC.
“What you are going to do if you’re in Asia, you’re going to sell as much UCO as you can to the EU and buy palm oil and pocket the difference.”
Demand for palm oil has led to large-scale deforestation and the loss of natural habitats across Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Between 2010 and 2015, Indonesia alone lost 3 million hectares of forest to continued expansion of palm oil cultivation.
Each hectare of forest that’s converted to palm oil releases large amounts of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 530 people flying economy class from Geneva to New York according to a recent study.
Most of the used cooking oil that’s already imported is made from palm. But it’s the extra demand from Europe, say the authors, that is likely to be fuelling deforestation.
“It’s irrelevant if the virgin palm is going into the biodiesel or into the animals,” said Dr Tomkinson.
“If we weren’t pulling that resource out of the market, no new resource would be falling into it.”
The UK government rejects the idea that imports are increasing demand for palm oil. The Department for Transport says that there is no evidence showing a causative link between policies on waste-derived biofuels and increased use of virgin oils.
The department argues that they have worked hard to ensure that such indirect effects do not happen.
“Biofuels are a key way of achieving the emission reductions the UK needs and we have long been at the forefront of action to address the indirect effects of their production, including pushing the EU to address the impact of land use change,” a spokesperson said.
“Last year alone biofuels reduced CO2 emissions by 2.7 million tonnes – the equivalent of taking around 1.2 million cars off the road.”
Counting double
One of the key elements that’s making used cooking oil so valuable is the fact that producers in the EU are given double the number of carbon credits for using the waste material. While the EU allows all countries to “double count” carbon credits for UCO, the UK is one of the few countries to put this into practice.
Palm oil imports into China have boomed in the past two years
Oil importers say the “double counting” is vital in preventing even more palm oil from entering the European market.
“Biodiesel made from waste oil is more expensive to produce; it has higher production costs,” said Angel Alvarez Alberdi from the European Waste-to-Advanced Biofuels Association.
“If we don’t have a policy incentive of double counting then under normal market conditions you will have the cheapest available option and that is conventional palm based biodiesel that would still be able to reach the EU.”
However, the report authors say that the policy has other dangers, not just because it may be driving up demand for palm oil in Asia but because it may also be stymieing development among other alternative fuel producers, such as ethanol in the UK.
The authors want the government to review the practice and perhaps end the double credit for imported oil
Palm oil has been linked to increased deforestation in parts of Indonesia
“If it comes from outside of the EU don’t let it double count unless you put in increased levels of scrutiny to verify it’s not having an impact on land use,” said Dr Tomkinson from NNFCC.
“If you don’t do that then you only get a single credit for that used cooking oil.”
Environmental groups are also concerned about the potential impact that UK and EU imports of UCO are having.
“Making biodiesel from imported UCO is no longer the environmental good it was once perceived to be,” said Greg Archer, UK director of the environmental group Transport and Environment.
“There are real concerns some of these oils may not be genuinely ‘used’ or they may be indirectly causing deforestation. Governments need to scrutinise the source of UCO far more closely and require organisations certifying biofuel feedstocks to undertake far more rigorous and extensive checks.”
KLM and SkyNRG to open factory to produce “low carbon” jet fuel, mainly from “wastes” (like used cooking oil)
May 29, 2019
Airlines are desperate to find some form of fuel that they can claim is “low carbon” and that does not have obviously negative environmental and social impacts. Finding these miracle fuels is the only way the industry could continue its rapid growth in fuel burn, for decades to come – in the face of the global climate emergency. Dutch airline KLM is keen to get “sustainable” aviation fuel (SAF), working with SkyNRG. They are hoping to use “regional waste and residue streams such as used cooking oil, coming predominantly from regional industries” as feedstock. A plant is being built, to be opened in 2022, making this fuel. KLM says: “From 2022, the plant will annually produce 100,000 tonnes of SAF …. It will mean a CO2 reduction of 270,000 tonnes a year for the aviation industry.” That number all depends on how it is measured – they are regarding this fuel as causing the emission of at least 85% less CO2 than conventional kerosene. (Is that realistic?) KLM says: “There will be absolutely no use of food crops, such as soya oil and palm oil (or by-products such as PFAD and POME), for production.” Biofuelwatch has calculated that using all tallow worldwide for biofuels could only supply 1.7% of global aviation fuel burned in 2016. Converting all Used Cooking Oil that can be realistically collected in the EU and USA would meet just 0.16% of US aviation fuel and 0,26% of EU aviation fuel use respectively.
Arlanda airport offering 10% biofuel from American used cooking oil, in “symbolic” initiative
January 6, 2017
The only form of biofuel that airlines have been able to use, and make credible claims that the fuel is low carbon, is used cooking oil. No other forms of fuel made from biological sources can be produced without negative environmental impacts. Therefore Stockholm’s Arlanda airport has had to turn to American used cooking oil, in its attempt to get jet biofuel for its public relations purposes. Arlanda is now using 10% cooking oil, from SkyNRG and Air BP, in Los Angeles (flown over, presumably?) to be put towards fuel for flights made by Swedavia staff. Swedavia is the Swedish state-owned organization that owns and operates 10 airports in Sweden. The quantities of the new fuel are tiny in relation to all the fuel used at the airport, and are seen as symbolic. But Swedavia, SAS Scandinavian Airlines and other airlines are keen to see more use of biofuel, as they hope this will be considered to be cutting their carbon emissions. However, the costs of any biofuel are high, and it is not commercially viable. The industry is keen to get government subsidies to develop more biofuels, to give the impression the industry is environmentally responsible. Biofuels for aviation are, in reality, a “red herring” achieving very little in terms of carbon, or environmental footprint.
