Post on 02-Jan-2016
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