Biofuels & novel fuels News
Below are links to stories about aviation biofuels.
Head of Boeing not optimistic that SAF will be cheap enough any time soon
The head of Boeing has warned that biofuels will “never achieve the price of jet fuel”, expecting that this central pillar of the aviation sector’s strategy to slash emissions is not likely to be successful. Airlines say that so-called "sustainable aviation fuels" (SAF) — made from food wastes, agricultural and forestry waste, and domestic rubbish, could enable lower CO2 from the sector, by replacing the kerosene-type fuels, such as Jet A, used in aircraft today. But SAF currently accounts for less than 1% of global aviation consumption and its price is at least x2 or x3 that of kerosene fuel. If the fuel could be made in anything approaching the scale the aviation industry wants, and without other serious unintended agricultural and environmental impacts, it would still be expensive. The extra cost would have to mean more expensive flying, and thus fewer people flying - less future growth for the sector. “There are no cheap ways to do SAF — if there were, we would already be doing them.” Governments want to mandate use of SAF by airports, even though it is not available in large amounts.
Click here to view full story...
European airline sector fears competitors from outside the EU that don’t have CO2 reduction goals
European airlines fear losing out to rivals based outside the EU that can ignore the bloc's emissions-reduction rules to become carbon neutral by 2050. The EU's "Fit for 55" package sets out an initial goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 55% in 2030 compared with the 1990 level. This involves EU obligations to scale up the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) to be blended with fossil fuels in all flights departing from European airports. SAFs come from sources such as municipal solid waste, leftovers from the agricultural and forestry industry, used cooking oil, crops and plants, and hydrogen. The makers of the fuels claim they have considerably lower CO2 emissions than conventional kerosene (though about the same when burned in a jet engine). SAF is still in its early stages, with very little produced - and it is much more expensive than kerosene, so flights using it would cost more. If people choose to fly first to Istanbul or Doha or Dubai for the next part of a long flight, it would cost less than flying from a European airport. Airports like Istanbul hope to grow massively in coming years.
Click here to view full story...
Climate groups taking government to High Court over greenwash “Jet Zero” aviation strategy
In July 2022, the UK government published a "Jet Zero" strategy (the best part of which is the catchy name). It aspires to allow the UK airline sector to continue to grow, with unrealistic hopes of being able to decarbonise with novel fuels. It was widely condemned at the time as being greenwashing, with no credible ways to achieve its goals, and its steadfast refusal to contemplate measures to reduce the demand for flights. Two organisations, GALBA and Possible, challenged the government. In October 2022, with lawyers at Leigh Day, Possible filed for a judicial review of the “Jet Zero” strategy. They now have permission to proceed to a joint hearing. This is a hugely important milestone in climate change litigation in the UK. Experts have judged the plans in Jet Zero to be inadequate, and lawyers will argue that the failure to consider this risk to the delivery of its plans renders its net zero aviation strategy unlawful. The key grounds on which the challenge will be heard in the High Court are: The government failed to lay a report before Parliament setting out how the strategy would enable carbon budgets to be met. And the government failed to consult in a lawful manner by having a “closed mind” before the consultation commenced on whether demand management measures were required.
Click here to view full story...
Imperial College briefing paper on low-carbon fuels for aviation
A paper has been published by Imperial College, on low-carbon fuels for aviation. The authors looked carefully at the various fuels that the sector is hoping to use in future, to enable it to continue with its expansion plans, flying ever more people each year. The Imperial scientists concluded that hydrogen is impractical and will not contribute significantly as jet fuel in the foreseeable future. They looked at fuels made from various wastes, and their real lifecycle costs, including manufacture and emissions when burned in a jet engine ("well to wake"),and concluded that the scope for production of such fuels, that genuinely offer a CO2 advantage, on a large enough scale, is unlikely. For fuels made from plant material, it is important to look at the timescale of carbon absorption by plants, and its emissions when burned. Ignoring the time lag makes these fuels look unrealistically positive. Looking at "power to liquid" fuels, ie. those made using surplus renewably-generated electricity, they conclude that there will not be enough of this electricity available to make jet fuels in sufficient quantity. They appreciate that it is important that novel fuels to not have other negative environmental impacts. All the novel fuels come with serious problems of scalability and dubious carbon savings.
Click here to view full story...
Royal Society report on novel aviation fuels – no option other than cutting demand for flying
The UK government has been promoting the idea of "guilt-free flying" in a few years time. Now a report from the Royal Society says (as has been well known by anyone who properly investigated the issue!) that there is currently no single, clear alternative to traditional fuel. Switching to so-called "sustainable" fuel is key to the government's aim to reach "jet zero" flying by 2050. Realistically, there will be no significant impact on reducing aviation CO2 from electric planes, or hydrogen. Small economies and efficiencies by airlines can only make a small dent, while demand for flights is expected to increase. The Royal Society looked at options for "greener" fuels to replace the 12.3m tonnes of jet fuel used annually in the UK. They conclude that to produce biofuels for UK aviation would require half of Britain's farming land, putting severe pressure on food supplies and nature. There is not enough genuinely low carbon electricity to produce much "green" hydrogen. The Royal Society says research and development is required to understand and mitigate the non-CO2 climate impacts of all the alternative fuel options. But it stops short of the obvious solution to reducing aviation carbon emissions - reducing the demand for air travel, and not allowing it to grow.
Click here to view full story...
Holland-Kaye says the rich should pay more for using SAF, to subsidise tickets for poorer countries
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos (which is attended by a lot of high carbon emission companies) the CEO of Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye, has said that in order for the industry to meet targets for the use of so called "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF) someone is going to have to pay more for air tickets, in order to pay for it. He said rich travelers will have to pay more to fly if the aviation industry is to transition to SAF, as they are hugely more expensive than conventional kerosene. If the rich, including most in rich countries, and businesses pay more, then tickets could cost less for people in poor countries. Of course, the best way to cut aviation CO2 is for people to fly less, but that idea is anathema to Holland-Kaye and his industry. SAF is expensive to develop, and the industry already has a lot of government subsidy, to develop its production. But it is unjust for the population, many of whom never or rarely fly, to have to pay for this fuel, for the minority who fly frequently. SAF is the only tool the industry has, to try to cut CO2 emissions, while increasing flights and passengers. However, in 2019 it accounted for just 0.1% of jet fuel used in commercial aviation, and the sector hopes it will make up 0% of global jet fuel by 2030.
Click here to view full story...
Report questions using renewably generated electricity to make e-fuels for aviation
The aviation sector is desperate to find some form of jet fuel that it can claim is low carbon, so it can justify continuing to fly ever more planes, transporting ever more passengers, against all logic of the carbon emissions generated. Hydrogen-fuelled and electric planes are not going to contribute in any meaningful way, for decades, if ever. That leaves SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel), one section of which might be "electrofuels" - ie. those generated by using surplus renewably generated electricity. But there are huge problems, due to the immense global demand for this electricity, which needs to be used for domestic heating and lighting, for all commercial buildings, all vehicles, trains etc etc. There just is not going to be much spare electricity, to (rather inefficiently) produce jet fuel. Now a new paper from a climate venture capital firm says this is not an efficient use of the electricity. "The figures show that a lot of renewable electricity is spent for scaling the production of synfuels which means it would be more efficient to use that electricity for other things like displacing coal generation or powering an electric vehicle."
Click here to view full story...
Virgin gets £1 million government funding for demonstration SAF flight
Virgin Atlantic has secured £1 million of UK Government funding (ie. from taxpayers) to fly a Boeing 787 jet from London Heathrow to New York JFK next year using so called "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF) instead of kerosene. Virgin Atlantic and its partners are putting in similar funding. The SAF is expected to be produced primarily from waste oil and fats, such as used cooking oil. (There aren't enough waste oils and fats in the world to power many planes ...). SAF can, in some circumstances, reduces carbon emissions by around 70% compared with kerosene. The claim is that the other 30% will magically be offset by buying carbon credits (which usually do not actually do anything to remove CO2 from the atmosphere). But SAF is expensive, and in short supply. Up till now, planes have only been allowed to fly with 50% SAF in an engine, but the UK DfT's Baroness Vere said this plane with fly with 100%. Using SAF is the only realistic tool the aviation industry has, to cut its carbon emissions, other than flying efficiencies. Hydrogen and electric planes are unlikely to make much impact for many decades, if ever.
Click here to view full story...
Airlines want £billions taxpayer handouts to cover cost of developing “sustainable” jet fuel
Virgin Atlantic, BA and EasyJet have been criticised for making ‘outrageous’ requests for taxpayers to subsidise the attempts to use more lower carbon fuels, and indirectly, subsidise air passengers. Airlines are lobbying the government for £ billions in handouts to help them cover the cost of developing new fuels, called "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF). Freedom of Information requests by OpenDemocracy found Virgin Atlantic, British Airways and easyJet are among the companies demanding public money to help them meet a requirement to use SAF in future. In any year, about 50% of the UK population do not fly, and the richest fly much more than poorer people. So subsidy for SAF from taxpayer money in inequitable. The airlines claim they pay money to the government, through the ETS and CORSIA. But that small amount of money helps to fund public services. The airlines are trying to claim that boosting SAF production would increase jobs etc ... There are not enough genuine sources of waste, that are not doing environmental harm, to produce much SAF - certainly not on the scale they want. The sector also wants "contracts for difference" to pay SAF producers agreed prices, even if the market price fell. Money for that has to be found from somewhere (taxing fossil jet fuel perhaps?)
Click here to view full story...
Airlines and airports call on UK Gov to ramp up financial support for SAF production
Airports and airlines have written to Mark Harper, the new transport secretary, calling for more state intervention to support the "fledgling green fuel industry." The aviation sector is placing most of its hopes, of being able to continue at its current size and to grow further, on so called "sustainable aviation fuels." (SAF). These fuels will have to be produced from wastes of various sorts, in order to have credible claims to be lower carbon than conventional jet fuel. (Both sorts of fuel produce about the same CO2 emissions and non-CO2 impacts when burned in a jet engine). The aviation sector wants government funding, to help develop SAF. It says "Britain will struggle to create an industry producing sustainable aviation fuel unless the government provides regular subsidies to manufacturers." The government has promised £165mn as seed capital to encourage manufacturers to open at least 5 plants producing SAF and hopes they will be started by 2025. It has also set a target under which 10% of aviation fuel must be SAF by 2030.They want the government to create “contracts for difference” (CFDs) to agree a set price for SAF, to give confidence to investors.