Environmental Assessments Status · PDF fileEnvironmental Assessments Status Presented to: ......
Transcript of Environmental Assessments Status · PDF fileEnvironmental Assessments Status Presented to: ......
Environmental Assessments Status
Presented to:ICAO Workshop: Aviation and Alternative Fuels
February 11, 2009Montreal, Canada
Lourdes MauriceCAAFI Environmental Team Lead and Federal Aviation
Administration Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
• CAAFI Seeks to Facilitate Introduction of Alternative Aviation Fuels to:– Secure a stable fuel supply– Reduce environmental impacts– Improve aircraft operations– Further research and analysis
Context
Assess Impact
CAAFI Environmental Panel Tasks
FAA
ATA
AIA ACI
R&D Panel
Environmental Panel Certification-Qualification Panel
Generate Ideas/Solutions
Generate Demand
Enable Supply
Business & Economics Panel
Quantify Emissions
Life Cycle Analyses
Impacts & Cost Benefit Analyses
Aircraft Emissions & Climate Change
Emissions
Adapted by J. Hileman from: Sequeira, Christopher J., An Assessment of the Health Implications of Aviation Emissions Regulations, S.M. thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics
SOx
NOx
Primary PM2.5
O3
CH4
CO2
H2OGlobal Climate
Change
CO2: 71%Water: 28%
CO, HC, NOx, SOx, Primary PM2.5: < 1%
(an extraordinarily simplified view)
Aircraft Emissions & Air Quality
Emissions
CO2: 71%Water: 28%
CO, HC, NOx, SOx, Primary PM2.5: < 1%
Population Exposure and Health Impacts
SOx
NOx
UHCCO
Secondary PM2.5
Ozone
Primary PM2.5
Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics
(an extraordinarily simplified view)
Adapted by J. Hileman from: Sequeira, Christopher J., An Assessment of the Health Implications of Aviation Emissions Regulations, S.M. thesis, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008.
Category 2009 2011 20132007 20152005
IndustrySASOL Rig Test
Quantify LTO emissions
Quantify Altitude emissions
Quantify infrastructure impacts
B-52Test Flight
AF Engine Test 2
NASA/ Industry FT Blend Rig Tests
(Level 3 - Environment Roadmap)PlannedDesired
NASA-Industry Biojet Rig Test
Comm. Engine Test Fuel 2
Comm. Engine Test Fuel 3
Comm. Engine Test Fuel 4
C130 Test
Characterize military GHE with FT fuels
FAA Parametric Studies
Altitude Test - if warranted
FT Comm. Engine
Impact analyses Impact
analyses Fuel 2
Impact analyses Fuel 3
Impact analyses Fuel 4Comm.
Equip test
Assessment of benefits of single fuel
Comm. Equip test Fuel 2
Comm. Equip test Fuel 3
Comm. Equip test Fuel 4
Fuels 2, 3, 4 etc. could be CTL, GTL, BTL via FT, other bio, etc. as defined by what fuel producers are likely to drive to
Category 2009 2011 20132007 20152005
Net environ. impacts
Compare GHG prdxn
Toxicology impacts
AF Tests
Test Fuel 2 Test Fuel 3 Test Fuel 4
FAA Scoping Study
FAA Scoping Study
Planned
Desired
If warranted heavy metal impact assessment
Heavy metal content assessment
SASOL Operational plant data
US Operational plant data
In-depth assessment
Review Other US and international data
Chinese Operational plant data
In-depth assessmentFuel 2
In-depth assessmentFuel 3
In-depth assessmentFuel 4
Operational Assessment
Operational Assessment Fuel 2
Operational Assessment Fuel 3
Operational Assessment Fuel 3
Air Canada H2 fuel cell GSE
Fuels 2, 3, 4 etc. could be CTL, GTL, BTL via FT, other bio, etc. as defined by what fuel producers are likely to drive to
(Level 3 - Environment Roadmap)
Quantify Environmental Impact- CAAFI Environmental Panel
ICAO/CAEPEngine Emissions
Certification
USAFB-52 FT Fuel
Emissions Qualification
High-Bypass Engine FT Fuel Emissions
Sponsor Life Cycle Emissions Studies
Boeing/GEBio-fuel Emissions
Engine Ground Test
Flight Demo
NASA/PWFT fuel Emissions Engine
Ground Test
PARTNER-RANDFeasibility Studies
Alternative Fuel Emissions Life Cycle
Study
Cost-benefit analyses
Dept of EnergyCO2 Sequestration Studies
Co-fired CTL/BTL Studies (NOBLIS/Princeton)
FAASupporting
Legislation for US Gov’t Funding
Sponsor Life Cycle Emissions
Studies
Emissions Measurements
Partnering with X-Prize on incentives
Sample Contributors to Activities
Quantifying LTO Emissions
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent F-T Fuel in Jet Fuel Blend
Perc
ent C
hang
e in
Prim
ary
Part
icul
ate
Mat
ter M
ass
T63 IdleT63 CruiseAverage TF33 IdleAverage TF33 Non-Idle
Measured reductions in primary PM in military gas turbine engines burning various alternative fuel blends (USAF)
y = 66.634x - 82.189R2 = 0.9342
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Engine Power Condition (%)
Perc
ent c
hang
e in
EIn
wrt
ba
selin
e JE
T A
1Results showing observed reductions in primary PM in a CFM56-7B engine burning a mixture of 50% F-T fuel and 50% Jet A-1 (PARTNER COE)
Emissions Life Cycle Analyses
Assessing uncertainties critical:– Key sources of uncertainties include feedstock properties, N2O emissions from nitrogen fertilizer use, land use change emissions, process efficiencies, allocation of co-product credits– Should use sensitivity analysis to address uncertainties– Should provide range of GHG emissions rather than a single value
Results from H.M. Wong S.M. Thesis (2008)
Sample Life Cycle Analyses (LCA)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Biomass to F-T Fuel
Crude to Conventional Jet Fuel
Crude to ULS Jet Fuel
Coal to F-T Fuel (with carbon capture)
Oil Sands to Jet Fuel (surface)
Natural Gas to F-T Fuel
Oil Sands to Jet Fuel (in-situ)
Oil Shale to Jet Fuel
Palm Oils to Biojet
Coal to F-T Fuel (without carbon capture)
Soy Oil to Biojet
Life-cycle GHG Emissions Relative to Baseline Conventional Jet Fuel
In general, life-cycle emissions are not deterministic, “Point Values.” Instead, they are better defined as scenario-dependent ranges.
Potential for Biojet and BTL - Results from H.M. Wong S.M. Thesis (2008)
Enabling Carbon Neutral U.S. Aviation Growth
• Assessed potential for carbon neutral growth from 2006 to 2025.
• Analysis used biofuel life-cycle GHG emissions and yield per hectare.
• Circles show land area requirements for three existing and two hypothetical feedstocks.
• Soybean and palm requirements both exceed current production levels.
• Analysis looked at single feedstock solutions –practical approach is to consider multiple feedstock solutions.
• Need feedstocks with high yield and low life-cycle emissions that do not require arable land.
Note: Assumed no land use
change emissions with
all of the feedstocks.
Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) Conclusions
• Alternative aviation fuels from biomass offer substantial life-cycle GHG emissions reductions relative to conventional jet fuels
• Land use change impacts from the use of biomass feedstocks(particularly food crops) could potentially increase life-cycle GHG emissions
• Use of waste products and dedicated energy crops in the large-scale production of bio-jet fuel more feasible than food-based crops in terms of feedstock requirements
• Next generation biomass feedstocks with high oil yields offer promise
Next Steps for LCA
• Explore the use of any additional feedstocks that could reduce GHG emissions
• Examine overall sustainability of potential alternative jet fuelpathways to assess viability for large-scale production
• Conduct detailed, specific analysis of land use change impacts in the use of biomass feedstocks for alternative jet fuel production
• Develop an aviation-specific life-cycle analysis framework (including aircraft operation emissions analysis)
• Conduct multiple but coordinated analyses, engage stakeholders, peer review results
Aircraft operations produce
emissions
Emissions influence ambient
concentrations
Ambient concentrations
influence human health
Primary PM
Secondary PM
Fuel Sulfur Standard
NOxStandard
SNStandard
Ozone
HC Standard
SOx
NOx
VOCs
Health Incidences
Regulations affect aircraft technology
and operations
Primary PM
Impacts & Cost-Benefit Analyses (CBA)
• Yearly health costs from aviation in the USA: ~ $0.8 billion, with ~90% due to Particulate Matter (PM) exposure
• PM related to fuel sulfur dominates the PM related health cost (46% - 73%)
FOA3 Health Costs: $767 million
SOxAmmonium
Sulfate69%
NonvolatilePrimary PM
5%Organics vPM
6%
AmmoniumNitrate20%
Sulfates vPM0%
Aviation PM Impacts
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
2005
US$
x 1
09fuel cost increase: $0.04/gal
fuel cost increase: $0.07/gal
NOISE
LAQ CLIMATE
CONSUMERSURPLUS
PRODUCERSURPLUS
NETIMPACT
BET
TER
WO
RSE
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
2005
US$
x 1
09fuel cost increase: $0.04/gal
fuel cost increase: $0.07/gal
NOISE
LAQ CLIMATE
CONSUMERSURPLUS
PRODUCERSURPLUS
NETIMPACT
BET
TER
BET
TER
WO
RSE
WO
RSE
Illustrative Cost-benefit Analysis of Fuel DesulphurizationCOST DATA AFTER: Energy Information Administration, The Transition to Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel: Effects on Prices and Supply, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, SR/OIAF/2001-01, May, 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Introduction of Cleaner-Burning Diesel Fuel Enables Advanced Pollution Control for Cars, Trucks and Buses, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA420-F-06-064, October 2006. URL http://www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel/regs/420f06064.htm
Illustrative Analyses of Low Sulfur Impacts
• Illustrative analyses show that U.S.-wide switch to alternative lower sulfur jet fuel would reduce annual health costs by ~$200 million and possibly be cost-beneficial, with uncertain climate impacts
• CAAFI sponsors/stakeholders plan to pursue a more detailed study to assess the environmental, safety, maintenance and cost impacts of reduced sulfur jet fuel
• Collaborating with Coordinating Research Council (CRC) – expect preliminary results by summer 2009
Next Steps for Low Sulfur CBA
• Alternative fuels exist that could both reduce lifecycle CO2and improve air quality
• Need to do life cycle GHG and costs and benefits very carefully – getting this right is critical to progress
• CAAFI environmental panel facilitating data collection and analyses to inform decisions
• CAAFI environmental panel is engaged in interagency LCA tools and rules team.
Summary
Questions?