SWAFEAResults and outcomes overview

Future Transport Fuels conferenceBrussels, April 13th, 2011

Sustainable Way for Alternative Fuel and Energy in AviationA study funded by the European Commission (DGMOVE)

Philippe Novelli (ONERA) Presented by Nicolas Jeuland (IFPEN)

This presentation has been produced by the SWAFEA team, led by ONERA, acting on behalf of DG Mobility and Transport. The contents or any views expressed herein have not been adopted or in any way approved by the

European Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission's or DG Mobility and Transport's views.

The SWAFEA study

• A study for the European Commission DG MOVE February 2009 – April 2011

• Purpose : "Feasibility Study and Impact Assessment on the Use of Alternative Fuels for Aviation"

Comparative assessment of the possible options

Possible vision and roadmap for deployment

Ultimate goal: information and decision elements for policy makers

• Multidisciplinary approach: suitability, sustainability and economics

• 20 organisations involved AIRBUS, AIFFRANCE, ALTRAN, BAUHAUS LUFTFAHRT, CERFACS, CONCAWE, DLR, EADS-IW,

EMBRAER, ERDYN, IATA, INERIS, IFP, ONERA, PLANT RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, ROLLS-ROYCE, SHELL, SNECMA, University of Sheffield

Context

• European policy for climate change mitigation– European Directive for the Use of Renewable Energy Sources

10% of renewable energy in transport in 2020 – Aviation inclusion in Emission Trading Scheme from 2012

• Aviation sector environmental concern Industry emissions reduction targets ICAO's resolution on climate change

+ Developing threat to air transportation– Jet fuel price ≤ 30% operating costs– Security of supply

Study overview

*Fuels technical assessment

State of the Art

On-board renewableEnergy sources

Environmental & societalimpact

Business case

Conclusions&DemonstrationProposal

Roadmap

Fuelsselection

April 2009Brussels StakeholdersConference & Workshops

15/16 July 2010Münich StakeholdersConference & Workshops

9/10 February 2011International ConferenceToulouse

1. Fuel technical assessmentWhich fuels for aviation?

• Aviation specific fuel conditions of use– Altitude Low temperature properties

– Payload/range : constraint on mass and volume Energy content & density

– Turbojet combustion and system requirements Composition, viscosity, thermal stability,….

– Handling & Safety volatility, flash point, conductivity,…

The fuel has to be approved to international standards by all stakeholders Fuel specification

Common ground transportation biofuels not appropriate

• Aircraft and infrastructure:– Very long life cycles (> 30 years)– Worldwide operation Focus on “drop-in” fuel– Cost

• In 3 years, move from "technical feasibility" to "deployment issue"

• No commercial deployment yet– Limited fuel production– Flight demonstrations over the last 3 years– Announced projects for demonstration on commercial routes

20102009 201320122011

Fischer-Tropschapproved

HRJapproved

Additional processes under consideration

ASTM approval process D4054

1. Fuel technical assessmentRecent evolution

1. Fuel technical assessmentDirections of work in SWAFEA

What’s beyond currently approved fuel?

•Focus on potentially "drop-in" fuels– Increased flexibility in SPK specifications

Blending limit Aromatics Blend stock specifications IFP/Shell "SPK10"

– Additional processes of interest Naphteno-aromatics compounds Sugar to hydrocarbons routes

– Consequences of oxygen molecules (FAE)

+ Complementation of existing data base for SPK blends Lean combustion chamber : emissions and relight

10% FAE + 90% Jet-A1

Potential for limitedblending ratio

Investigation of theconsequence of

oxygen

FAE

50% NA + 50% HRJPotential as substitute

to aromatics

Neat productPotential blendstock

Naphtenoaromatics

10% SPK10 + 90% Jet A1

75% SPK75 + 25% Jet-A1Trade-off quality /

economicsHRJ

75% HVO + 25% Jet-A1Upper blending limitHRJ

TestsFuel / blendPurposeFuel family

10% FAE + 90% Jet-A1

Potential for limitedblending ratio

Investigation of theconsequence of

oxygen

FAE

50% NA + 50% HRJPotential as substitute

to aromatics

Neat productPotential blendstock

Naphtenoaromatics

10% SPK10 + 90% Jet A1

75% SPK75 + 25% Jet-A1Trade-off quality /

economicsHRJ

75% HVO + 25% Jet-A1Upper blending limitHRJ

TestsFuel / blendPurposeFuel family

APU combustion test3

Compatibility: polymers / metalsThermal stability & oxydationBiocontaminationChemical properties

2

Standard tests, Chemical analysis1

APU combustion test3

Compatibility: polymers / metalsThermal stability & oxydationBiocontaminationChemical properties

2

Standard tests, Chemical analysis1

Fuel test matrix

1. Fuel technical assessmentSWAFEA outcomes

• Positive effect of aromatics reduction on soot emissions …. but minimum content required for drop

in Synthetic aromatics is a viable option (pyrolysis, liquefaction)

• Possible alternative approach for SPK biofuel early introduction:–Low blending ratio–« Relaxed » cold flow properties

• Significant challenges for oxygenated molecule

• « Fermentation » routes not evaluated but of real interest

• Importance of quality control

• Recommendation to create a technical network for fuel evaluation in Europe

Better economical efficiency

2. SustainabilityLife cycle green house gas emissions

• GTL (& CTL): No GHG emissions reduction

CCS currently not sufficientNote: Co-feeding with biomass to be further investigated

• Biofuels : potential for reduction

– BTL: matches RED thresholds

– HRJ: Higher LCA emission than BTL

H2 use GHG reductions depending on

feedstock and cultivation

Well To Wake GHG emissions

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Conv. reference fossil fuel

GTL w/o CCS

GTL with CCS

Camelina

Jatropha

Palm

Rapeseed

Microalgaes

Miscanthus

SRC

Switchgrass

GT

LH

RJ

BT

L

gCO2eq/MJ

Well to Tank

Tank to Wake

WTW GHG emission reduction of 60% (RED threshold for 2018) Situation without land use change

SWAFEA assessment - Well to Tank GHG emissions

Well To Tank GHG emissions

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Miscanthus

SRC

Switchgrass

Camelina

Jatropha chemical fertilizer

Jatropha seed cake recycling

Rapeseed

Palm

Microalgaes pathway 1

gCO2eq/MJ fuel

Cultivation and drying

Transportation and intermediate storageOil extraction and refining

Oversea transportationFuel plant

Transportation / Distribution

2. SustainabilityLife cycle green house gas emissions

Major importance of feedstock production

– Feedstock– Cultivation steps

Sensitivity to inputs data

Algae: Importance of process integration

Biofuels life cycle components

Situation without land use change

Examples of LUC possible emissions on grasslands

-400.00

-300.00

-200.00

-100.00

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

Camelina Rapeseed Miscanthus SRC Sw itchgrass Jatropha

gC

O2e

q /

MJ

fuel

LUC emissions (dry)

LUC emissions (moist)

Reference GHG emissions

2. SustainabilityLife cycle green house gas emissions

• Land use change: potentially the dominating effect

Control of land use is a major issue of biofuel

2. SustainabilityLife cycle GHG emissions: conclusions

• Actual biofuel potential for LCA emissions reductions

• Current issues:

– Indirect Land Use change (iLUC) No answer today

– Methodological issues Possible impacts of methodology, ex: allocation for co-products Quantitative values affected but general tendencies preserved (ex: PARTNER) Issue:

• When regulations enforce emissions reduction thresholds• With view to environmental certification Harmonisation would help

• Purpose: "potential" biomass availability for biofuel production "Traditional" biomass: agriculture, forestry and residues

2. Sustainability Biomass availability

• Methodology: Simulation of possible agriculture production

Land availability

Realistic production data

Sustainable production scenario

Yields: historical increasephysiological maximum

Demography

Diet evolutionFood demand

Sustainability criteria:• Food priority • No deforestation & biodiversity• Grazing land preservation (max use 70%)• LUC control perennial only on grazing land

Land for food

Remaining land for energy crops

Climate, soil, ….

Energy crops selection

Biomass available for energy

Forestry & residues(literature)

2. SustainabilityBiomass availability – Detailed results

• Energy demand / Energy biomass availability in 2050

• Aviation target in 2050– 50% reduction / 2005: 24.4 EJ/y Use of 76% of total biomass

– "Carbon neutral growth at 2020 level": 16.7 EJ/y Use of 52% of total biomass

58 EJ/y of biofuel in transport 88 EJ/y available for other non food use of biomass (96 EJ/y in IEA "Blue Map") EU27 could produce 38% of the aviation biofuels uplifted in its territory

Energy EJ/y Total Biomass

Total Primary energy 750 150

Final energy 112 29

Share of demand - 26%Transport

Biomass available for energy: 183EJ/y

(SWAFEA assessment)

2. Sustainability Biomass availability - Conclusion

Biomass availability is a critical bottleneck

– Radically more efficient biomass and processes required to halve emissions in 2050

– Ramp-up of biomass production likely to constraint biofuel ramp-up

Carbon neutral growth not expected to be (physically) achievable as early as 2030

– Key importance of biomass production development regarding “fuel versus fuel”

A consolidation of biomass availability is recommended– Strong uncertainties on forestry, residue– Regional approach

2. SustainabilityAlgae potential

• Promises:– High yields– No competition for arable lands

• Status: research and preliminary demonstration• Challenges:

– Confirmation at large scale of lab yields– Production at competitive costs

Key challenges: Harvesting and oil extraction• Specific features:

– Need for synergies with other applications (ex.: CO2 source, nutrients…)

– Need for co-production of high value biomass Trade-off between oil production and proteins (animal feed & nutri-ceuticals)

Need for further researches and large scale demo

2. SustainabilityAtmospheric impact

• Aviation emissions impact radiative forcing beyond CO2 effect

– Nox impact on ozone

– Soot impact on contrails and cirrus

SWAFEA: preliminary simulation of alternative SPK fuels impact

– Significant reduction in soot and Sox emissions

Preliminary simulation: significant decrease of contrails radiative forcing

Positive impact on local air quality

– Limited impact of other emissions on ozone

3. Economics of alternative fuelsBTL and HRJ SWAFEA evaluation

Biofuel final production cost

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1 000.00

1 200.00

1 400.00

1 600.00

1 800.00

2 000.00

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Fuel

Pric

e [E

UR/

t]

Jet-A

Jet-A + ETS (SWAFEA)

HRJ - High feedstock price

HRJ - Low feedstock price

BTL - High feedstock price

BTL - Low feedstock price

Major influence of feedstock price

Initial lack of competitiveness of biofuels

3. Economics of alternative fuelsBTL and HRJ SWAFEA evaluation

HRJ cost dominated by feedstock price Strong contribution of CAPEX in BTL

3. Economics of alternative fuelsNeeds for halving emissions by 2050

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

HRJ BTL

Num

ber o

f pla

nts

Required Number of Plants to Supply Europe in 2050

Current Operational Plants Worldwide

Required to Supply Europe by 2050

~8 plants

annually

(841bn€)

~2 plants annually

(176bn€ total)

• Linked situation with short term technologies

• Predictable trends for car industry– Hydrocarbon for technical requirement– Lignocellulose route for biomass availability

• Fuel profitability in car industry to be considered Taxes and demand influence

Jet fuel

Automotive fuel + jet fuel

Possible synergy

Automotive fuel

Biomass Processing

3. Economics of alternative fuelsAviation and road transport

• Critical impact of biomass production

• Need for more efficient and economic processes Expectation from “fermentation” routes

• No start-up of biofuel without incentive policyCurrently, ETS effect not seen as sufficient

3. Economics of alternative fuelsConclusions

Synthesis

• Technical availability of alternative fuel solution for aviation

• Potential emissions reduction with biofuels

• Potential positive effects on air quality and contrails

• Ramp-up of biofuels in aviation likely to be slowed down by biomass production

– Carbon neutral growth not expected to be achievable as early as 2030 without economic measures

– Aviation emissions offsets will be needed beyond 2030

• Need for research on process and feedstock to accelerate implementation

• No start-up of biofuel without incentive policy

Way forward

• Aviation fully relies on liquid fuel

• Need to initiate the move to biofuel from now

A determined policy is required

– Define a sectoral goal for 2020

– Promote a number of "end to end" projects

– Combine incentive policies

– Use ETS revenue to fund the initial deployment plan

END

Questions ?

The SWAFEA team: AIRBUS, AIFFRANCE, ALTRAN, BAUHAUS LUFTFAHRT, CERFACS, CONCAWE, DLR, EADS-IW, EMBRAER, ERDYN, IATA, INERIS, IFP, ONERA, PLANT RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, ROLLS-ROYCE, SHELL, SNECMA, University of Sheffield

Credit IFPEN