Biofuel—The Inevitable Future

By Rob Neil.

The issue of biofuel as a viable source of aviation fuel for the future is no longer questionable. Biofuel is not only one answer; it is, realistically, the only answer.

Unlike the automotive and other industries, which have other viable alternatives to hydrocarbon fuel, there is no option for aviation. There will never be “electric” airliners and it is highly unlikely there will ever be hydrogen-powered airliners. Hydrocarbon fuel is the only one that provides the necessary qualities and properties that are essential for safe, reliable long-distance air travel.

Although gas to liquid (GTL) and coal to liquid (CTL) synthetic fuels are viable in terms of the qualities and properties necessary to power aircraft, they are certainly not sustainable in the long term and, at best, will only ever be “interim” solutions.

According to Airbus’s Paul Nash, who was in Australia and New Zealand recently as part of a project called the “Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap”, time is critical if the world is to come up with an effective, sustainable solution to providing aviation biofuel for the world’s fleet, and to meet the aviation industry’s stated goals of achieving—by 2020—carbon-neutral growth, a 50% reduction in CO₂ emissions and an 80% reduction in NOX emissions.

At present, aviation use accounts for only around 200 megatons of the 4,000 megatons of fuel used by the world’s transport industry annually (by 2036, aviation is expected to require around 450 megatons annually). Of the current 4,000 megatons, less than 0.02% is currently biofuel—all of which is used by the road transport industry. With statistics like this, it is clear that there is no immediate commercial incentive for fuel companies to make major investments in producing aviation biofuel while there is still “plenty” (from a commercial “make the most of it while it lasts” point of view) of oil.

The rabid greenies would suggest that a simple solution to the need for aviation fuel would be to stop flying. However, the world has become far more dependent upon aviation than many people realise. The degree of our dependency on aviation was graphically demonstrated in the wake of the volcanic eruption in Iceland earlier this year, when almost one-third of the world’s trade ground to a halt with the closure of European airspace.

The impact on trade and commerce came as no surprise to the world’s airlines, nor to Airbus or Boeing. In their positions as the world’s two major airframe suppliers, Airbus and Boeing are both working feverishly to promote and help establish commercially viable, sustainable biofuel production facilities around the world. The role of the two companies is to act as catalysts to establish an entire industry from farm to aircraft tank. Neither manufacturer has any intention of becoming a fuel producer or supplier. However, both companies appreciate that without contributing their expertise and technology to establishing a sustainable biofuel industry, their business of building aircraft cannot survive.

Accordingly, despite the massive amounts of money involved in the industry, this is one area in which the “big two” manufacturers have both set aside all “competition” in their shared drive to establish commercial biofuel production around the world. Both believe it is possible for aviation to continue to grow while simultaneously reducing its environmental footprint, and they are working towards this goal. To this end, a thorough life-cycle analysis will be a vital component of any future biofuel project.

In addition to their expertise, both Airbus and Boeing are providing funding for various initiatives in order to progress the commercialisation of biofuel, even though, as airframe manufacturers, neither has any direct influence on the process.

Airbus is part of a worldwide body called the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). The organisation involves groups such as NGOs, farmers, biofuel producers, manufacturers and airlines. RSB applies 12 stringent principles to projects involving biofuel in order to assess their sustainability. These principles are:

1. Legality. Ensuring that biofuel operations follow all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Planning, monitoring and continuous improvement. This involves open, transparent and consultative Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and an economic viability analysis.
3. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ensuring that biofuels mitigate climate change by reducing lifecycle GHG emissions compared to fossil fuels.
4. Human and labour rights. Ensuring that biofuel operations do not violate human rights or labour rights, and promote decent work and the wellbeing of workers.
5. Rural and social development. In regions of poverty, biofuel operations shall contribute to the social and economic development of local, rural and indigenous people and communities.
6. Local food security. Biofuel operations shall ensure the human right to adequate food and improve food security in food insecure regions.
7. Conservation. Biofuel operations shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems and other conservation values.
8. Soil. Biofuel operations shall implement practices that seek to reverse soil degradation and/or maintain soil health.
9. Water. Biofuel operations shall maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources, and respect prior formal or customary water rights.
10. Air. Air pollution from biofuel operations shall be minimised across the entire supply chain.
11. Use of technology, inputs and management of waste. The use of technologies in biofuel operations shall seek to maximise production efficiency and social and environmental performance, and minimise the risk of damage to the environment and people.
12. Land rights. Biofuel operations shall respect land rights and land use rights.

A project must meet all of the principles in order to gain RSB accreditation—the assessment for which is carried out by an independent body. In order for Airbus to become involved in any projects, it insists on RSB accreditation, thus ensuring transparency and accountability.

Another organisation in which Airbus is involved is SAFUG (Sustainable Aviation Fuels User Group), which, so far, includes 20 airlines—Air New Zealand amongst them. The group also includes Boeing and Embraer, as well as UOP, which is a Honeywell company involved in petrochemical refining and processing.

Paul Nash says that all parts of the industry need to work towards the same goals. He says it is important that airlines are major drivers for biofuel commercialisation projects. Not only do airlines have an interest in providing sustainable fuel options for their futures, but also, they know their own governments and how local systems and communities work better than outside interests. As a result, he says that airlines are ideal catalysts for the process in their respective countries.

Airbus is also lobbying national and local governments around the world to provide incentives and encouragement for biofuel commercialisation. This might involve such things as tax credits and, as matters of national policy, prioritising energy types for different transport sources. Paul says that governments have a responsibility to focus their efforts on addressing the root causes of environmental problems. By only contributing 2% of man-made CO₂ to the atmosphere, aviation is not a major problem. Nevertheless, airlines and other aviation industry participants still recognise that any CO₂ contribution needs to be addressed and are taking steps to address their own contributions. While Paul accepts that emission trading schemes are inevitable, and will cost airlines hugely, he says he would like to see at least some of the money that is eventually paid by the aviation industry being put back into developing sustainable biofuel commercialisation.

Despite the general media’s tendency to blame aviation for every environmental evil in the world, the world’s aviation fleet contributes at least 8% of global GDP in return for its mere 2% of man-made global CO₂ emissions. Although large aviation companies have gone some way towards addressing unfounded media criticism, Paul says more needs to be done to keep media views objective and the public better informed.

As Paul points out, during the last 40 years (and since long before the current “environmental awareness”), the aviation industry has led the world in self-improvement in terms of fuel efficiency. Aircraft today are now 70% more fuel-efficient than first-generation jetliners and, each year, Airbus says it averages a 1.5–2% improvement in product efficiency.

Despite such commitment—and both Airbus and Boeing are genuinely committed to environmental responsibility—product improvement alone will be an insignificant nothing in the overall scheme of things if the fuel industry attempts to continue “business as usual”.

Airbus would have to double—and subsequently maintain—its current rate of 1.5–2% product efficiency improvement annually to have even the faintest hope of meeting the ambitious (but necessary) 2020 targets that the company’s CEO, Tom Enders, has signed up to. Obviously, this isn’t realistic and thus it is essential that sustainable biofuel production gets underway as soon as possible.

The key requirement of the entire “alternative fuel” issue is that of sustainability. Airbus has made it clear that it will not enter into any programme that cannot prove long-term environmental sustainability. In keeping with RSB accreditation, this means that biofuel cannot adversely impact existing land or water use, disrupt food crops or cause “indirect land use issues”. Indirect issues would include such things as utilising land for biomass feedstock that might otherwise have been used to produce solely export crops (if such reduction in exports would affect others adversely).

A number of crops have been proposed as suitable for biofuel production, including such things as jatropha, camelina and sunflowers. As a result of extremely active research during recent years, it is now widely accepted that although any organic material has the potential to be made into fuel, the two most practical and sustainable sources from which to produce biofuel are algae and yeast.

As an example of algae’s potential compared to other feedstocks, Paul Nash gave a graphic comparison of the yield of algae compared to that of sunflowers.

If one were theoretically to plant the entire surface of France (coloured yellow in the following map) in sunflowers in order to produce biofuel, the amount of fuel produced would only just be sufficient to allow domestic aviation—only within an area the size of France—each year.

Compare this with the yield from algae, where, if one were to produce algae in an area the size of Belgium (coloured green in the following map), the amount of fuel that could be produced from it would be sufficient to run the whole world’s international air transport system annually!

Graphic comparison of algae's viability compared to sunflowers.

(Paul was quick to point out that there was no intention to bulldoze the surface of either country for biofuel production.)

Algae has other advantages in addition to its high yield. Because its high yield derives specifically from its ability to convert large amounts of CO₂ into biomass (algae absorbs more CO₂ than any other feedstock), and the driving requirement for biofuel is the necessity to reduce atmospheric CO₂, the potential exists to move closer to an ideal “closed-loop life-cycle process” of energy production. Indeed, Paul even talked of the future possibility that major algae production might tie up so much atmospheric CO₂ that there might even be a shortage of the gas!

In the case of algae grown on land, its ability to grow in brackish water means it can be produced in areas that would otherwise be unsuitable for any other form of land/surface use and would not place demands on shrinking fresh water supplies as some other crops would do. Algae would complement, rather than compete with, any existing biomass-based fuel technology.

Despite algae’s advantages, many other biomass feedstocks are suitable options in different parts of the world. In Brazil, for example, the climate and land are particularly suitable for growing jatropha. (It was a jatropha-based biofuel blend that Air New Zealand used for its demonstration flight in 2009.) In other parts of the world, other feedstocks, such as the rotational crop camelina or, in northern climates, forestry or woodchip waste might be appropriate.

In attempting to establish a worldwide biofuel industry, a multitude of various crops need to be considered in relation to their respective environments. In this way, local solutions will contribute towards solving a global problem. By having localised biofuel industries, nations will eventually be able to develop the kind of energy independence that they have never known before—while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint of their aviation industry.

Whatever feedstock is used to produce biofuel, all resulting fuel will have to conform to strict ASTM and Def Stan international standards. In order to be practical, it is an essential pre-requisite of sustainable future aviation fuel that it be a totally “drop-in” solution. That means it must have identical properties to fossil-based jet fuel such as energy density, flash-point and freezing point; be able to utilise existing storage and distribution infrastructure without change; and operate in aircraft without needing to modify aircraft or engine design. The necessity for all fuel to conform with ASTM/Def Stan standards means that it would be merely an interesting technicality that an aircraft might conceivably begin its journey with tanks full of algae-based biofuel, refuel along the way in another country with fuel derived from jatropha and at its destination, fill up with a woodchip-based biofuel.

Few people might realise it, but already, today, anyone whose aircraft stops and refuels in South Africa will probably leave the ground with tanks full of 100% coal-to-liquid (CTL) synthetic fuel—all “normal” and perfectly safe, thanks to consistent stringent fuel standards.

Paul was full of praise for the nation of Qatar for its forward thinking in relation to biofuel. Despite having the worlds third-largest known gas reserves—and thus the ability to produce an enormous amount of GTL synthetic fuel—Qatar is leading the way in establishing a commercial biofuel industry—something that Airbus and others have been involved in establishing. In January 2010, the Qatar government, Qatar Petroleum, Qatar University, Rolls Royce and local farmers announced an agreement to work together to produce biofuel from algae. Furthermore, Qatar Airlines has committed to buying all the fuel produced by the new plant, which would give it a guaranteed buyer.

Commitment and investment like this will prove the viability (environmentally and commercially) to others and will undoubtedly lead to further developments elsewhere.

Airbus is currently involved with TAM Airline in another biofuel project in Brazil (using jatropha-based fuel). In the near future, Airbus will conduct a demonstration flight in conjunction with TAM, flying a TAM A320 fuelled with a 50% blend of jatropha-based biofuel and conventional jet fuel. While there is no technical necessity for “proving” the fuel’s viability (it already has ASTM and Def Stan approval), the TAM flight will serve to foster the industry in South America and encourage investment. It will also instil the awareness that biofuel is not just about the automotive industry, but can also produce kerosene.

Paul says that the most interesting thing from his and Airbus’s perspective will not be the flight itself, but the fact that Airbus will have been involved in helping establish the whole “value chain” in Brazil.

Just as Qatar Airlines has done, TAM has committed to buying all of the fuel produced by its indigenous biofuel industry, thus providing added incentive to potential investors.

Brazil and Qatar’s examples highlight another benefit of biofuel over fossil fuel in negating the need for major transport costs and hazards. By locating biofuel production in the vicinity of aviation centres, there will be no need for centralised major storage and transport infrastructure as is currently required for fossil fuel distribution (no more transcontinental pipelines or possibilities of Gulf of Mexico-type oil spills).

The future of aviation biofuel is simultaneously exciting and concerning. Exciting from the point of view that biofuel is a proven and viable technology; in theory, it can replace existing aviation fuel. Concerning in that there is still insufficient impetus to get things moving quickly enough. It is in the area of providing that impetus that companies like Airbus, Boeing and Embraer have important roles to play as partners in a global aviation future that extends well beyond their individual abilities to build new aeroplanes.

Comparison chart of oil yields of different biofuel feedstocks.