Biofuels & novel fuels News
Below are links to stories about aviation biofuels.
EU lawmakers to stop biofuels, that compete with food, from fuelling planes
The European Parliament has barred the use of controversial biofuel feedstocks, including intermediate crops and palm oil by-products (PFADs), from Europe’s aviation "green" fuel mandate (ReFuelEU). Environmental NGO, "Transport & Environment" (T&E) has asked the 3 main European institutions – the Parliament, the Council and the Commission – to keep the momentum going by excluding the last remaining problematic feedstock – animal fats (of the third category) – in their upcoming negotiations in September. Matteo Mirolo, T&E aviation policy officer, said: “Sustainable aviation fuels should have no link whatsoever to deforestation, loss of biodiversity and increasing food prices.” Excluding these feedstocks from the definition was an important step to avoid devastating consequences for the climate. But animal fats remain included in the definition of what constitutes a green fuel in Europe. Animal fats are by-products of the animal slaughter process. They are used in competing industries, creating shortages in sectors that already use them. T&E support the use of electro-fuels.
Click here to view full story...
The madness of cutting down forests to grow food crops for supersonic aircraft biofuels
Dan Rutherford, shipping and aviation director at the ICCT (International Council for Clean Transportation, in the US) has set out the nonsense of United Airlines attempting to convince people that flying supersonic could be "low carbon" or "sustainable." United have said they intend to buy 15 supersonic jets, and fly them using 100% "low carbon" fuels. Dan's calculations show that, as well as fuels produced from renewably produced electricity being implausible at scale, fuels derived from crops of any sort would have high lifecycle carbon emissions. Already, crazily, in 2020, the US devoted about a third of its corn and soybean harvests to production of ethanol and biodiesel for road transport. The volume of jet fuel United would want for its (very high fuel consumption) supersonic jets would require millions of hectares of agricultural land, competing with food crops and driving up the price of food globally. United also has another 860 or so other planes, which it might try to fuel with novel fuels. And so called "sustainable aviation fuels" (SAF) derived from plants would probably, at best, reduce CO2 emissions by perhaps 27% compared to conventional jet fuel. Just say no to the "supersoynic" renaissance.
Click here to view full story...
Aviation industry wants large scale government “incentives” to hugely ramp up SAF
The aviation industry only really has one way to cut its carbon emissions, without hugely cutting the number of passengers and flights. That is changing fuels, to allegedly "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF). Those fuels can basically be produced from one sort of waste or another, or by using surplus renewably generated electricity (which is already in demand by other sectors). So what constitutes a genuine waste as feedstock, that is not competing with food or doing other environmental harm? Making fuel from domestic waste is hard. Taking crop and forestry wastes brings other environmental problems, such as the definition of waste being stretched too far. Then there is "used" cooking oil, and the problem that much of the oil is in fact virgin oil, that has been deviously branded as used. And there are animal fats and greases, such as beef tallow. Leaving aside the obscene concept of raising sentient animals, in poor conditions, to produce meat, then taking the fat from these sadly abused beings to burn in jet engines. There are many other markets and uses for animal fats, such as tallow. The industry, hell bent not only maintaining the current level of global flying, but increasing it, wants a range of government help and incentives to produce more SAF.
Click here to view full story...
Alex Chapman: Five ways the government’s irresponsible plans for aviation are putting us all at risk
In an excellent analysis, Alex Chapman (from the New Economics Foundation, NEF) looks at the reality of the UK government's hopes of reducing aviation carbon emissions, while letting the sector continue to grow for decades. The DfT will allow an increase in the UK’s air capacity by 70%, or 200 million passengers above 2018 levels, by 2050. There is no way this can be done, without increasing CO2 emissions, as there are no proven technologies for low carbon flight available at scale, and quickly. The DfT's plans are irresponsible and dangerous, and represent the epitome of the ‘burn now and cross our fingers something will save us later’ philosophy which has led our climate to the brink. A key problem is how the UK government ignores the highly significant non-CO2 impacts of aviation. Electric flight, or hydrogen powered flight, will not be available on any scale for decades (if ever) so the sector is depending on "sustainable aviation fuels" (SAF) and doing dodgy carbon life-cycle accounting for them. It also ignores the various environmental impacts, other than just carbon, created by using plant material in SAF. Then all that is left is hoping against hope that offsets might work (no) or that carbon can be captured from the air and stored. That will not happen on the scale needed.
Click here to view full story...
BA and Velocys planning to produce aviation fuels in Immingham
Velocys, a company keen to produce alternative aviation fuels, has extended its agreements with British Airways over plans for a fuel refinery on the South Humber Bank. Velocys and BA have signed up to further the joint development proposal for the £350 million Altalto Immingham project, as well as an option agreement for BA to buy 50% of it. Velocys has also entered into a contract with an un-named European renewable fuels developer to provide initial engineering services. The aim is to use "sustainable residues" (not adequately defined) into lower carbon fuels, using the energy intensive Fischer Tropsch process. BA says it has just started receiving "sustainable aviation fuel" from the nearby Phillips 66 Humber Refinery. BA originally, in 2020, joined up with Velocys and Shell, to produce "low carbon" jet fuel in Immingham, but Shell pulled out in January 2021 to develop on its own in Germany. Velocys is also developing aviation fuels with other companies, in the US.
Click here to view full story...
Dutch watchdog rules KLM’s ‘Carbon Zero’ advert is misleading
The Dutch advertising watchdog (like the UK's ASA) ruled that a KLM promotion telling customers they could fly carbon-emission free is misleading. The ad’s tag line, “Be a hero, fly CO2 zero,” is an absolute claim, the Dutch Advertising Code Committee said in their verdict and the company had the burden of proving the statement - it could not. While the ruling is limited to only one airline it touches on broader pressure on airlines to lower their carbon footprint and ‘flight-shaming’ campaigns to get people to stopping flying. Commercially viable alternatives like electric and hydrogen powered jetliners are decades away - so all airlines can do at present is "offsetting" carbon emissions (that is not an effective measure). Offsets such as tree planting and forest protection are no proper compensation for carbon emitted, by a journey or other burning of fossil fuels. There is no real chance of genuinely low carbon aviation fuel being available in significant amounts, without causing various other environmental problems. KLM has two weeks to decide whether it wants to appeal.
Click here to view full story...
UK government paying £685 million for “sustainable aviation fuel” development over 3 years
The aviation industry, and pro-aviation governments, are doing all they can to convince themselves and the world in general that it will be possible - at some not-too-far-ahead date - to fly huge, heavy planes thousands of miles, but with no additional carbon entering the atmosphere. The trick most are banking on is "sustainable aviation fuels" (SAF). These fuels are going to have to be impressive, in being combusted in a jet engine, with no net carbon produced ... The aviation sector is keen not to have to pay the fuel research costs itself. So it wants financial assistance from governments (ie. taxpayer money). The UK Sec of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, is an aviation enthusiast (he has his own plane), and is enthusiastic about funding being given to companies trying to make flying "green." In October 2021 the UK government announced it would provide £180 million to support the development of SAF plants. In December we were told of £15 million being given to 8 companies. But now it is announced that £685 million is being given for a "sustainable aviation" programme over 3 years. The government wants to see perhaps 10% of SAF being used by planes by 2030 - even 50% by 2050 - the current figure is well below 1%.
Click here to view full story...
Environmental Audit Committee puts the vital, hard questions to BEIS Minister, on future dreams of carbon storage
The UK government, the Committee on Climate Change, and industries such as aviation are hoping (against hope) that carbon can continue to be emitted, in amounts only a bit lower than now, and wonderful technologies in future will take carbon out of the atmosphere, and save us all. Now the Commons Environmental Audit Committee - which has a vital role in trying to hold government to account on environmental issues - has written to the BEIS minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, setting out a list of issues with future "Negative Emissions Technologies" (NETs) and engineered greenhouse gas removals. They ask a long list of important, necessary questions. Some of the key issues are whether misguided hopes of the efficacy of these will just allow industries to continue with "business-as-usual" emissions, rather than making the steep, rapid cuts needed. They ask how government will measure and monitor the NETs; how they will assess their effectiveness; how much harm would be done to global biodiversity by growing vast areas of crops, in order to burn them (and capture the CO2). They ask if the carbon storage will be permanent, or if the government will allow captured carbon to be used by industry, especially for enhanced oil and gas recovery. And much more.
Click here to view full story...
British Airways receives batch of SAF made from “waste oils” from Phillips 66
British Airways says it has received its first batch of "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF) after it launched into a multi-year agreement with Phillips 66 Humber Refinery. Phillips 66 say the y can produce the fuel at "commercial scale." BA is hoping to be able to get SAF at significant scale, to say it is cutting its carbon emissions - while continuing to fly ever more planes and flights. The parent company of BA, IAG, says it hoped to power 10% of flights with SAF by 2030. There is lots of hype about jobs etc. and that Phillips 66 has invested £20 million in the fuel production complex. Phillips 66 are (as usual for these fuels and ventures) coy about saying what the fuel is actually made from, except that it is from "waste oils", but say they are "currently refining almost half a million litres of sustainable waste feedstocks a day, and this is just a start." IAG is investing $400 million over the next 20 years into the development of SAF. As well as Phillips 66, IAG is hoping to get fuel from the planned Altalto Immingham refinery (using plastic waste) which is not yet even built. The concern is if the jet fuels produced contain any palm oil, or its derivatives, or other plant oils, that compete with food production and increase habitat destruction.
Click here to view full story...
DfT launches new technical consultation on its “jet zero” (ie. huge future SAF use) plans
The UK government currently does not have an aviation policy, and is aware that this will first require policy decisions on aviation carbon emissions. It hopes that air travel demand will not need to be reduced (the most effective way to control the level of emissions) but instead hopes for "jet zero" flying, largely using novel fuels. These are called SAF (sustainable aviation fuels) and the hope is that they emit less carbon, over their lifecycle, than conventional jet fuel. Now the government has opened a consultation which it calls "Further consultation on the updated evidence and analysis to inform the different pathways to achieve net zero aviation – or jet zero – by 2050." It lasts until 25th April. There was an initial consultation on "jet zero" in July 2021. This consultation is technical (so not easy for most people to respond to). The consultation is unrealistically hoping there might be 50% of SAF use by 2050, with 27% of flights being "net zero" by 2050. It also assumes a continuous 2% increase in efficiency each year, and a 70% increase in air passengers (cf. 2018) when the earlier estimate was a 60% increase.