Bio-fuelled or bio-fooled?

AVIATION AND THE

Environment0408

The current content rules for jet fuellimit this type of contamination to lessthan five parts per million by volumeand this incident showed the import-ance of carrying out post-manufacturetesting when the fuel is actually intransit or being stored in the airportpipeline/distribution system. Notes fromthe Joint Inspection Group (JIG) showthat they were aware of this problem intheir “November 2007 Bulletin number15” – the JIG is open to membershipfrom the following categories ofinterested parties and oversees theU.K.’s aviation pipeline network:

• Organisations with interests infacilities used for the storage anddelivery of aviation fuels;

• Professional organisations withsimilar objectives to JIG;

• Organisations that use aviationfuels or represent airlines ormilitary users;

• Aviation fuelling equipment sup-pliers, aircraft manufacturers oraircraft component manufacturers.

So the safe level of fatty acid methylesters (FAME) – the biofuel componentin biodiesel – contaminant is currently5ppm. FAME can have a freezing pointthat renders them unsuitable for aircraftuse and the various high-profileaviation biofuel trials underway now allhave an additional high-specificationanti-freeze additive component and arebeing trialled in a variable 10-50 percent mix with conventional kerosene.They can also degrade seals in aircraftfuel systems and leaks may arise – thisis because the aromatic content of thistype of fuel is lower than kerosene andcan affect the expansion co-efficient ofseals, another reason why they are usedonly in blends with conventionalkerosene.

However, the U.K. pipeline network,as this product cross-contaminationshows, has supply links to both airportsand other end-user storage anddistribution points, hence the need fordifferent products to flow through thenetwork at different times. The JIGseems primarily, and perhaps under-

44

A lot of hope is being pinned on biofuels such as algae, jatropha and helophytes to providean environmentally-friendly alternative to conventional fuel in the near future. But is theindustry right to think that it is the best end user, or even that cost-effective quantitiesof certain biofuels can be produced in time to have a significant effect on climate changepolicies? Jeff Gazzard, a board member of the Aviation Environment Federation, says thebiofuel issue may not be as clear as it seems

The law of unintended consequencesTo begin with, a cautionary tale. In May 2008, aviation fuel distributed bypipeline to Birmingham airport in the U.K. was found to be contaminatedby biodiesel. Pipelines from oil refineries distribute all types of petroleumproducts in batches around the U.K., including diesel. This can now containa biodiesel component as part of the U.K.’s Renewable Transport FuelsObligation legislation for all road vehicle fuels to contain at least five percent biofuel from sustainable renewable sources by 2010. This policy hasbeen introduced to help reduce CO2 emissions from the transport sectoras part of the U.K. and Europe’s climate change policies and CO2 reductiontargets.

AV&E04 Biofuel:Layout 1 15/12/08 16:12 Page 44

AVIATION AND TH E

Environment0408

“

”

The jury is still well andtruly out as to whethereither synthetic orbiofuels are yet capableof being either entirelyfail-safe for aviation useor environmentallysustainable in thelonger term.

standably, concerned about theresilience of their overall pipelineoperations as these two extracts fromtheir documentation show:

“The JIG Product Quality Committeehas recently initiated a process withthe OEMs and the specification author-ities to approve the presence of FAMEat levels that will provide optimumflexibility for multi-product pipelineoperators involved in the co-transportof biodiesels and jet fuels. It is hopedthat this process can be completedwithout delay to facilitate the imple-mentation of the various renewabletransport fuel legislation requirementsand help maintain unconstrainedpipeline operations.”

And further that:

“Renewable transport fuels legislationaround the world is already making animpact on the operation of bulk fueltransport systems and it will likelybecome of greater significance fromearly in 2008. Therefore, the JIG PQcommittee believes that maintainingprocedures that hold trace levels ofFAME to the current minimum level ofdetection (5ppm) are not operationallypractical or sustainable in the longerterm.

“The industry needs to establishwhat level FAME in jet fuel affects itssuitability for use…the initial test resultsprovide some confidence that trace

The Aviation Environment Federation is a non-profit makingenvironmental association concerned with the environmentaleffects of aviation. It seeks to promote a sustainable future forthe industry, and as a membership organisation providesadvice and information to its members.

Photo: Alexander Kolomietz – Fotolia.com

AV&E04 Biofuel:Layout 1 15/12/08 16:12 Page 45

AVIATION AND THE

Environment0408

46

Energy Institute to seek approval for anew 20 times higher limit of 100ppmFAME-in-aviation fuel contamination.This goal seems, to the writer at least,to be based upon an assumption of thepossible likely future levels of pipelinecontamination as quantities of FAME in non-aviation fuels increase over timeand the consequent supply difficulties(for example product write-offs, dis-continuity of supply, cost implicationsand so on) rather than a fully risk-assessed safety case for preventing thecontamination of aviation fuel based onits unadulterated performance specific-ation and in-flight needs.

This is a frankly unacceptablebottom-up approach from a self-interested part of the supply chain.What’s needed is a top-down safetycase starting from the approved JetA1kerosene specification as recognised byair transport safety regulators and otherparties. This should ensure that anyFAME contamination doesn’t degrade

What of next generationbiofuels now that oil isaround the $50 mark?2008 was the year that saw aviation take on theproblems of future fuel procurement, and it was theyear when many large aviation companies startedopenly talking about a world beyond kerosene, withall sorts of options mentioned. This was of course ata time when oil was marching towards the highs of$147 a barrel. This meant that the long toutedbiofuel-from-algae price range was suddenlylooking very attractive, being as it is within the $75-85 a barrel bracket. This led to investment, aviationcompanies getting involved and all sorts of breakingnews stories throughout 2008.

But then came the collapse of Lehman Brothers, oilfell back to close to $50 a barrel, stock marketsplummeted and investment was subsequentlyreigned-in. With Opec in disagreement about theway forward and the global economy set for a harsh2009, it is hard to see oil getting close to the $100 abarrel mark within the next twelve months, if notthe $80 a barrel mark. So is biofuel development onhold for now? Not one bit of it! The R&D investmentmay have taken a blow from the economic problemsof the west but now there are others with more cashwho want in!

levels of FAME up to 100ppm may beacceptable.” (Source: JIG Bulletin number

15, November 2007)

The JIG, in light of increasingamounts of FAME in the system, iscurrently looking to significantlyincrease the “safe” level of FAMEcontamination thus:

“JIG also noted the need for anapproval of 100ppm FAME in jet fueland the UK Energy Institute has recentlycreated a joint industry project topursue this goal.” (Source: JIG Bulletin

number 16, June 2008)

So, at first sight of the notes of theindustry body looking at this problem,we know that the pipeline distributioncontamination difficulty at Birminghamairport is confirmed as a result of cross-contamination from biodiesel FAME;the incident showed levels of up to 20ppm of FAME present in the affectedaviation fuel, four times higher than thecurrent 5ppm recommended limit. TheJIG group is working with the U.K.

AV&E04 Biofuel:Layout 1 15/12/08 16:13 Page 46

AVIATION A ND TH E

Environment0408

47

the immediate, medium and longterm performance requirements of jetengines and their fuel systems, or theirsafe day-to-day operation, based asthey currently are on a tightly-specified petroleum-derived keroseneproduct.

It is vital that confidence is main-tained in the integrity of JetA1 fueland this episode shows, in our view,the unforeseen impacts that biofuelcontamination from an unexpectedsource can have.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration sees a real future forbiofuels, in particular the reduced sulphur content of suchfuels potentially enabling, over time, lower, if not virtuallynon-existent levels of particulate matter.

“

”

“

Where we are withalternative aviationfuelsMoving on to alternative aviation fuelsthemselves, there are some seriousissues starting to surface with the safein-flight performance of aviation-specific FAME biofuels.

The first flight earlier in 2008 fromVirgin Atlantic can perhaps bedismissed as a PR stunt – it transpires

Strangely, it will be those countries that currentlysuffer from desertification that will be in the frontline of next generation fuel supply. As oil runs outfor the likes of the Middle East, so helophytes willbe grown to replace lost revenue. In the eventualitythat oil prices fall as biofuel production matures,the Middle East will be able to offset the twoagainst each other. It is this sound economicreasoning that has seen the large Middle Easternsovereign wealth funds move substantial funds forinvestment into the founding of sustainablehelophyte fuel production development. The plantsare able to grow in the desert sand with irrigationsupplied by salt water... a perfect option for theMiddle East and North Africa. With soundeconomics behind biofuel production throughhelophytes and the continued prosperity of theMiddle East at stake it is hard to see fuelproduction through helophytes failing.

This development of helophyte sourced fuelcoupled with the natural reluctance to rely onother countries for fuel could in turn lead to asurge in funding from western governments for thedevelopment of other sourced biofuels, such asalgae. There are of course other options but it isalgae and helophytes which offer the very bestyield with the least environmental damage.

You could argue that the real joke is on those thathave been hoping for a world that does notdepend on the fractious Middle East region forfuel! When/if oil runs out you will be able to lookover fields of helophytes in the sand and the realfuture beyond petroleum, in the very same region!Surely though it is nothing short of fantastical thathumans could use the baron lifelessness of thedesert to fuel future progress through organicgrowth, at the same time giving many of thepoorest countries in the world a foothold on theladder of prosperity.

Oil may well have fallen below the biofuel pricerange for now, but fuel derived from helophyteswill become reality. With the Middle East nowvesting so much interest in biofuel developmentsome say that it is likely that we will see the birth ofa biofuel cartel, much like Opec, by 2020. It seemsincreasingly likely that biofuel will be exchanged inthe same manner as oil with the same spheres ofinfluence: the more things change, the more theystay the same!

Philip Tozer-PenningtonManaging Director, AIP

Photo: Alexy Stiop – Fotolia.com

AV&E04 Biofuel:Layout 1 15/12/08 16:15 Page 47

48

Virgin Atlantic would argue that the 747 demonstration flight, using a biofuel composed of babassu oil andcoconut oil (of which the oils are considered environmentally and socially sustainable), is helping to pioneerrenewable fuel sources for aviation.

AVIATION A ND THE

Environment

aviation biofuel trials in the full, sought-after glare of the world’s media forwhat can best be described as thegeopolitical aims of the global airtransport industry to paint itself“green”. The next flight test is expectedto be Air New Zealand’s 747 using a“second generation” biofuel, a 50 percent blend of kerosene and a hydro-genated FAME from the nuts of thejatropha tree.

The fuel on this flight is, we believe,likely to be a hydrogenated vegetableoil. The hydrogenation process removesthe oxygen to leave a diesel-type fuelnot dissimilar to kerosene, with anacceptable fuel density and therefore acomparable range to kerosene.

Aviation consumes about 240million tonnes of kerosene a year at themoment. With the very best jatrophayields – far from incidentally on alreadyproductive arable land that doescompete with food production – about1.7 tonnes per hectare, againPetroleum Review pointed out that“replacing that [current aviation fuel]would take almost 1.4 million squarekilometers, well over twice the area ofFrance”. It added that: “In context, D1

Oils, the British company pioneeringbiofuel from jatropha in countries suchas India, Zambia and Indonesia, plans toplant 10,000 square kilometers over thenext four years.”

Planting jatropha on marginal landthat doesn’t compete with arable landmay be possible but will not achieve theyields quoted previously. And for manybiofuels where marginal land may beconsidered for planting and harvesting,water resource pressures will be animportant issue. But another significantpotential problem with cultivating pre-viously unused land for biofuels of anydescription is that by disturbingany such land, the stored carbon pre-sent may be released back into theatmos-phere and negatively impact thesupposed “carbon balance” of the“plant-to-biofuel-to-end use” cycle inquestion.

At the Omega project’s AlternativeAviation Fuel Conference held at theRoyal Aero-nautical Society in Londontowards the end of November, 2008, welearnt that there are a range of availablehabitat/land use, water and fertiliserresource implications, “carbon balance”questions and competition between allother potential users of biofuels (suchas road transport) that are as yetunanswered in the kind of detail thatwould allow any rational decision asto the likely future role of biofuelsin powering commercial passengeraircraft. The economic viability of switch-ing to any alternative aviation fuel,whether synthetic or an agro-fuelderivative is still an open book – with bigquestions requiring much more studyand discussion.

Other hurdles to overcome are theexact effects the components in thechemical make-up of any new biofuelmay have on topics as seeminglyunrelated as jet engine performance andlongevity, and human health impacts.

At the Omega event, Rolls-Royce andSheffield University gave an updateon the extensive test and analysis pro-gramme they are jointly running. It looksat what impact the metals likely to bepresent in conventional agriculturally-sourced bio-fuel, such as zinc andcadmium, could have on the perform-ance and in-service life of aircraftengines and their components. Import-antly, JetA1 kerosene’s specification is

that the fuel used was never going tomake it into production in any way, size,shape or form! Virgin’s much-vaunted747 flight from Heathrow to Amster-dam consumed 22 tonnes of fuel ofwhich five per cent (1.1 tonnes) wasbiofuel. According to the fuel companyImperium Renewables’s director ofinternational business development,Brian Young, producing even thatamount required the equivalent of150,000 coconuts.

And as further reported in the May2008 edition of Petroleum Review,“had the hour-long flight run entirelyon biofuel, it would have consumedthree million coconuts – an astro-nomical number that highlights thescale of the problem.”

However, the flight did prove thatwith the right anti-freeze additive,which we believe was a (sustainable?)bioethanol product, the fuel seemsto have stayed ice-free; that modernjet turbine engines are relatively fuel-tolerant under strictly controlledconditions; and that Sir Richard Bransonwill drink it!

There seems to us, however, to be aconcerted, well-organised effort to run

AV&E04 Biofuel:Layout 1 15/12/08 16:19 Page 48

0408

for zero metal content; observations ofdiffering combustion chamber flameluminosity between kerosene andbiofuel with potential negative radiativeheat impacts on internal surfaces; andinvestigating the potential for depositbuild-up in parts such as fuel injectornozzles.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Adminis-tration (FAA) sees a real future forbiofuels, in particular the reducedsulphur content of such fuels poten-tially enabling, over time, lower, if notvirtually non-existent levels of partic-ulate matter (PM), thus improving localair quality around large U.S. airports. Inturn this allows compliance with tough,mandatory U.S. Environment ProtectionAgency PM Local Air Quality stand-ards. This outcome will, it’s fair to say,potentially happen only with a 100 percent aviation biofuel, which we feel issome way off.

The FAA was also keen to establishits positive view of sustainable biofuelsand perceived potential for “carbonneutrality”, particularly in a maturing air transport market like the U.S. It also stressed the Department of Agri-culture’s interest in U.S.-sourcedagricultural biofuels which could in-clude subsidy interventions. The FAAsupports and co-funds the U.S.Commercial Alternative Aviation FuelInitiative, a good source of informationabout biofuel programmes as well asthe huge efforts CAAFI and the U.S.military are putting into synthetickerosene manufactured via the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process, a programmebeing driven for well-documentedenergy security reasons.

The Department of Defense/U.S. AirForce programme has a Coal-to-Liquid(CTL) FT process, a so-called “drop-in”fuel as a direct replacement for kero-sene at its core, plus several linkedstrands as the diagram on this pageillustrates, all of which could bedeveloped over time.

The CTL FT process, and its sisterprocess Gas-to-Liquid FT, currentlybeing developed and promoted byAirbus and Shell, produce nearly twiceas much CO2 as petroleum-derivedkerosene. Not much environmentalbenefit there then!

The CCS element of the above chartis carbon capture and storage, without

which the project’s U.S. governmentstrategic climate policy remit to end upwith a replacement alternative syntheticor biofuel with at least the same, if notlower, carbon footprint than present-day kerosene (or the military jet fuelversion) would not be met. CCS is aprocess where CO2 is “captured” eitherby chemically removing or scrubbingproduction process gases, in this caseCO2, which are then sequestered inperpetuity by pumping into permanentunderground storage in suitable sub-

Estimated change in greenhouse gas emissions if petroleumfuels were to be replaced by one of these alternative fuels

-100%

-76%

-22%

-5%

80%

0

Coal + Biomass

to

Liquids w

/CCS

Coal + Biomass

to

Liquids w

/CCS

Coal + Biomass

to

Liquids w

/CCS

Coal to Li

quids

with CCS

Coal to Li

quids w/o

CCS

With 10% Switchgrass by energyWith 28% Switchgrass by energy

With 38% Switchgrass or 21%Mixed Grass by energy Sources: Robert H. Williams, University of Princeton, Coal/Biomass-to-liquids w/CCS information from

presentation to Laboratory Energy R&D Working Group LERDWG), April 18th, 2007 Washington.

Coal to liquid and carbon

Preliminary Results NETL Comprehensive CBTL Study

surface strata.CCS would add extremely large

costs, making the four “with CCS”elements potentially non-viable in ourview at any stage of the chart. CCS isstill a “drawing board” concept as faras we are concerned and we think itunwise to bank on such costlyengineering “solutions” to sequesterCO2 as being at all likely to provide cost-effective solutions to greenhouse gasreduction strategies within a reasonabletimeframe.

Political positioning?There is currently a tremendous volumeof noise concerning both synthetic andbiofuels for commercial air transport.Much of this we feel is politicalpositioning by industry and friendlygovernments to manufacture consentto keep expanding aviation in the faceof growing demands for environmentallimits, particularly in respect of theworrying increase in aviation’s green-house gas and wholly negative climatechange impacts. These Boeing com-ments are just one example of thisgung-ho approach: “Certification willhappen much sooner than anybodythought. We are thinking that withinthree to five years we are going to seeapproval for commercial use ofbiofuels – and possibly sooner.”(See news section for full story)

We are not convinced that aviationwould be the best end-user even if

biofuels could be produced sustainably.We have also followed the increasinginterest in algae as a potential source ofaviation fuel but are unconvinced thatany cost-effective algae-derived aviationfuel could be produced within apractical timeframe that would allowany such fuels to make any substantialcontribution to climate change policies.

For us, the jury is still well and trulyout as to whether either synthetic orbiofuels are yet capable of being eitherentirely fail-safe for aviation use orenvironmentally sustainable in thelonger term. All the avenues beingexplored today urgently need to beplaced within a proper context – howdoes the world manage to includeestimated aviation emissions growthwithin a low-carbon economy anddeveloped world CO2 cuts of 60-80 percent by the year 2050? Answers on apostcard please!