Future of biofuel

E N A C / IATA
Promotion2015
End of Studies Project Memoir
Arif Hussain
Subject: The Future of Biofuels in the Aviation Industry
April 26, 2017

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................................ii & iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................................................................v
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background.............................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims.............................................................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Research Question..............................................................................................................................................3
1.4 Scope...........................................................................................................................................................................3
1.5 Hypothesis (If applicable)..............................................................................................................................3
1.6 Significance .............................................................................................................................................................3
1.7 Structure of the Project...................................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................6
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................24
3.1 Thesis Design......................................................................................................................................................24
3.2 Data Collection...................................................................................................................................................24
3.3 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................24
3.4 Ethical Consideration (if applicable)....................................................................................................25
3.5 Assumptions........................................................................................................................................................25
3.6 Limitations ...........................................................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................26

iii
CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................51
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................................513
APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................................................711
Appendix A: Feedstock fuel pathways.........................................................................................................71
Appendix B: Environmental trends assessment to 2040................................................................72
Appendix C: Annex to the 2014 Climate summit - Catalyzing action.......................................73
Appendix D: Fuel Readiness Level.................................................................................................................79

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Potential Production Profile 2015-2050 (Liters) 27
2. Predicted distribution of Biofuels by percentage of market share 28
3. Biofuel supplier production volumes 33
4. Proposed Volumes of Different Categories of Biofuels 34
5. Targets set by states and Industry for Biofuel Implementation 34
6. Advantages and distadvantages of Feedstocks 35
7. Biomass and Land Required to Produce 100 litres of Bio fuel 39
8. Predicted Land Required for Future Biofuel Production
(Land in thousand Hectares) 39
9. Capital Investment and Production cost. 41
10. Airline investment in Biofuel alternatives to conventional Jet fuels 41
11. Alternative Jet fuel purchases made by the U.S.
Department of Defence 2007-2012 44
12. Passenger carrying flights undertaken with Biofuel blends 49
13. Airline off-take agreements 50

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
14. Total potential Biofuel production (IATA) 27
15. 2015 Distribution of Biofuels by Market share 31
18. Distribution of Biofuels by market share 32
19. Airlines engagement of Biofuel, current as of 2015 33
20. Airlines use of Biofuel by feedstock/source 34
21. Future land required for Biofuel production 41
22. Key (potential) biomass resources and regions
for the production of Bio Fuel (SKYNRG 2012) 41
23. Significant investment into Biofuel Research and production 44
24. Historical Jet fuel prices and price projections in the
united states. (Annual Energy outlook, 2014) 44
25. Current Biofuel initiatives by region (2015) 45
26. Passenger flights undertaken using biofuel blends
by Biofuel production 46
27. Passenger carrying flights operated using biofuel
blends, by supplier nationality 46
28. Passenger carrying flights operated with Biofuels,
by airline nationality 47
29. Passenger carrying flights that have been undertaken
with Biofuel blends by airliners currently included in
the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme 47
30. Passenger carrying flights that have been undertaken
under the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme 48
31. Biofuel Initiatives Pre and Post the 2012 introduction
of the EU ETS 48
32. Key Oil producing regions vs. Optimum land for growing
sustainable Biofuels 49

vi
ABSTRACT
The Aviation industry has encouraged the development and commercialization of
biofuel for economic and environmental reasons. Not only the increasing demand for the
industries services, but IATA targets to reduce the CO2 emission by 50 per cent
comparative to 2005 levels by 2050, are accelerating the development and usage of
biofuel in the aviation industry.
The purpose of this thesis is to identify the current level of biofuel development and
distribution and therefore forecast the usage of biofuel in the aviation industry in 2050.
Furthermore, there are a number of challenges and barriers to overcome such as
technical and variable feedstock issues that must be overcome to allow for the full
commercialization of Biofuel as a conventional Jet fuel alternative. By investigating these
challenges, detailed information regarding the market development of biofuel can be
attained.
From the many existing articles and studies, the information relating to the use of
Biofuels within the industry was collected and investigated. The data was classified in
respect to political, technical, financial, social and Environmental Drivers. Based on the
information analysed, a conclusion was reached on the predicted market share of
Biofuels within the industry between 2015-2050. Future publicised partnerships and
purchase agreements allowed for a more accurate forecast when compared with IATA
projections.
Consistent with the previous studies, the findings of this thesis can be utilised to
determined biofuel usage expectations in aviation industry. Also, this thesis found that
there is a positive trend in biofuel usage in aviation field. Continuous research and
development needs to be conducted to enable the cost reduction and commercial
competitiveness of the biofuel supply chain. Hence, it is strongly expected that the usage
of biofuel will continue to increase consistently and will enable to industry to meet
carbon targets.

1
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Eco-friendly development in the aviation industry is crucial to the sustainable industry growth.
The most viable method to support ecological industry expansion is the introduction of aviation
Biofuels.
Since 2011, when BioJet fuels were certified for use on passenger flights (IATA, 2013), 21
airlines including Air France, KLM and Lufthansa have used blends of up to 50% BioJet in
conjunction with current aviation fuels to conduct almost 1,600 passenger flights (IATA, 2013).
As the majority of mechanical barriers, such as developing the technology to allow Biofuels to
operate on existing engines, have been surmounted, the challenge now is that of
commercialisation. (ATAG, 2012)
Member states of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the aviation industry as
a whole, are working towards reducing the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2). One of the most
practicable ways to achieve this goal is by implementing the use of a viable substitute to current
aviation jet fuels (typically BioJet). This is the sole viable alternative to fossil fuels in the short to
mid-term.
Oil crops such as algae, Camelina and Jatropha or wood and rubbish biomass constitute an
ecological alternative, which can bring down the global aviation carbon footprint by almost 80%
over their total lifespan, in comparison with Jet A1. Numerous airlines have carried out test
flights which have all concluded that biofuel is a sustainable alternative and can be mixed with
current jet fuel. (IATA, 2013)
From 2008 to 2011, a series of test flights were completed with several blends of BioJet and
fossil fuels containing up to a ratio of 50:50 mixture to determine industry approval for
commercial passenger carrying flights (IATA). The results showed that BioJet fuel was
mechanically sound, and the following observations were made:
 BioJet fuel can be mixed with conventional fuel
 An engine powered by a BioJet mix indicated an enhancement in fuel efficiency in some
cases.

2
 Lufthansa successfully accomplished a 6-month series of commercial flights to
experiment on the long-term effect of BioJet fuel on engines with no negative effects on
engine health observed. (IATA, 2014)
The aviation industry is under constant pressure to lower its CO2 emissions. Air travel around
the globe contributed to more than 2% of CO2 releases in 2012, equivalent to 677 million tons,
(AISAF, 2015) primarily from exhaust. As the aviation industry is constantly growing, there is no
sign that this quantity will decrease without proactive measures.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and IATA in conjunction have set emissions
diminution objectives, which include the goal of carbon neutral development in the aviation
sector past 2020 (IATA, 2009)
IATA has a vision for the future of Biofuels:
 To considerably decrease the carbon footmark over the coming 10 years
 To create a lasting durable substitute for petroleum-based jet fuel
Airlines have restricted opportunities to tackle their fuel challenges to meet international
objectives. Their primary options are:
 Purchasing modern aircraft, a highly capital intensive investment
 Placing an emphasis on fuel efficiency and fuel saving measures such as improved
efficiency in air traffic procedures in liaison with Air Navigation providers and airports.
 Work closely in conjunction with engine and airframe manufacturers to develop new
technologies that will assist in the reduction of fuel consumption
The development and implementation of sustainable aviation fuels has been demonstrated as
the most beneficial means by which the aviation sector can tackle fuel costs, security and
emissions while continuing to support expansion (AISAF, 2015).

3
1.2 Aims
This study aims to determine the most likely source of alternate fuel for use within the aviation
industry between 2015-2050. In doing so, this study will determine the viability of Biofuel
substitutes for conventional Jet fuel.
1.3 Research Question
Which Biofuel will demonstrate the most potential for commercial production as a Jet fuel
substitute, for use within the aviation industry by the year 2050, with respect to economical,
technological, political and social driving factors?
1.4 Scope
This study will focus only on the development and actions undertaken by the member states of
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Attention will only be paid to the methods
of Biofuel production currently certified for commercial production and use as of 2015. The Data
will include published projections from IATA and ICAO as well as annual reports from fuel
manufacturers.
The collected data will be gathered from the aforementioned reports and projections spanning
1998-present to ensure that the data is consistent and to allow the identification of any
anomalies.
1.5 Significance
This study will determine the most viable source of alternative aviation fuels between 2015-
2050. The determination made by this study will be of interest to a variety of stakeholders
within the Aviation Industry.
Airport owners and managing corporations will be able to use the results of this study to
determine the future technology that will be required in order for the transition to an industry
powered by biofuels. This will be possible as the study will determine the most prevalent biofuel
for use in the industry in 2050. Each biofuel has different technological requirements and will
necessitate the implementation of new infrastructure for storage and distribution. The results of

4
this study, determining the most viable Biofuel, will allow airports to begin planning financially
for any required changes. This will allow a smooth transition to alternative fuels over time and
will be more viable than the dramatic overhaul that would be required in the future when/if
biofuels take the majority of the market from conventional fuels.
Using the results of this study, aircraft and engine manufacturers will be able to conclude which
fuel compositions aircraft should be optimized to run off in the future. This will help with aircraft
design and allow increased efficiency to be developed by tailoring the aircraft to the biofuel
blend that will be most prevalent in 2050. This will allow for a head start in design and
production of new technologies to compliment the use of biofuels and will result in a smooth
transition to a Biofuel driven market with the release of new fleet.
Airliners plan and manage the acquisition of future fleets in partnership with manufacturers, the
results of this study will be of significance to airliners looking to expand their fleet as it will
assist in determining which aircraft choices will be the most economically sound while moving
away from conventional Jet fuels. The outcome determined by this study will also allow airliners
to predict their ability to meet their carbon targets, with respect to availability, commercial
production and technological innovation.
Global governing bodies such as ICAO, IATA and the UN will be able to use the information
gathered by this study to assess and determine global climate goals. It will be assist in
determining the significance and effectiveness of global policy in shaping the alternative fuel
industry and will help determine areas for improvement on the global stage. The study will
identify the key drivers for Biofuel production and global bodies will be able to use this
information to act accordingly when determining regulations. It will also assist in determining
the most effective partnerships within the industry to supply source and produce alternative Jet
fuels.
This study will be of significance to a wide variety of fields within the aviation industry and the
results and data will enable the smooth transition from conventional Jet fuels to environmentally
superior Biofuel alternatives.
1.6 Structure of the Project
Chapter two will inspect the literature currently existing on alternative aviation fuels. This
literature review conducted will pay particular attention to identifying the key drivers and
constraints currently facing the Aviation industry; with regards to current production

5
technologies, aircraft design, infrastructure development, financial viability, global carbon
targets and social factors such as public opinion. The environmental aspects with regard to
carbon emissions, land use and food security will also be examined in the second chapter.
Chapter Three will elucidate the design of the thesis and inform on the methods that will be used
to collect and perform analysis on the data. It will also identify the assumptions that have been
made in order to conduct the research and the limitations to which the study is held.
Chapter Four will present the findings of the study and include the numerical data that has been
gathered as well as visual representations.
Chapter Five will consist of the analysis of the data as well as the conclusions presented by the
results. Chapter Five will also answer the research question that is the basis of this study and in
doing so, fulfill the aims of this thesis.

6
CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW
Observed changes to global warming are caused by the emission into of greenhouse gases such
as nitrogen oxide, methane and carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Global
warming is likely to become more complicated in the coming years (energy enviro, 2008). The
role of aviation is expected to increase; a rise in air traffic will trigger an increase in demand for
fuel with a definitive impact on the environment. The increase in CO2 emissions as a result of
industry expansion are of major concern to the industry, therefore many researches are
conducting studies into emission-reducing methods (Sandquist et al. 2012).
Bio fuels are combustible liquids from crops with high oil content such as canola, soybeans and
sunflowers. The oil content in the crops is used to produce bio – blending components. 100% of
the extracted bio oils may not produce combustion; however Bio-oils and bio- blending materials
can be blended in small quantities (5-20%) with jet petroleum fuels to produce combustion. Bio
fuels can be obtained from renewable resources like plants and animal fat (Daggett, et al. 2006).
The bio-jet blend can be produced from organic waste, which makes it attractive as a step
towards reducing carbon emissions (energy enviro, 2008).
There are two bio fuel types certified for aviation (Sandquist, 2012), both in maximum 50%
blends with conventional jet A/A-1; Hydro treated vegetable oil (HVO) derived from oil seed
plants and Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) kerosene, a gas to liquid Biofuel derived from lignocelluloses
materials; a combination of carbohydrate and aromatic polymers most commonly sourced from
grass and tree varieties.
HVO is currently commercially available in small quantities and is already in use. Fischer-
Tropsch bio fuel is expected to emerge into the commercial market in the next 5-10 years
(Sandquist et al, 2012).
The life-cycle benefits of HVO fuels are dependent on biomass feedstock availability, and current
aviation fuels are more cost effective than existing environmentally friendly alternatives. The
manufacturing process of F-T is capital intensive, however the feedstock required to produce F-T
biofuel is cost effective and produces a superior environmental profile than that of conventional
Jet fuel (Sandquist, 2012).

7
KLM airlines became the first commercial carrier to undertake a flight using Biofuel on the 29th
of June 2011. The Biofuel used on this flight was derived from waste cooking oil (ATAG,2011).
2.1.2 FIRST GENERATION BIO FUELS
First-generation Biofuels are produced using sugar, starch or vegetable oil (Energy enviro, 2008).
First-generation bio fuels differ from second-generation Biofuels in the source they are derived
from. The feedstocks for first-generation fuels are not sustainable. If the Biofuels were utilized in
large quantities it would have a negative impact on the food sector. (Energy enviro, 2008)
2.1.3 SECOND GENERATION BIO FUELS
Second-generation bio fuels are processed from waste vegetable oils and fats as well as from
non-food crops and biomass sources. Second-generation Biofuels are more economically viable
and can sustainably support mass fuel production. The technology to blend second-generation
Biofuel is currently in the research stage. (Energy enviro, 2008).
2.2 TYPES OF BIOFUELS
2.2.1 BIO ALCOHOL
Second-generation bio ethanol is typically produced from a range of readily available and
inexpensive biomass feedstocks such as grass, forest waste, agriculture waste and wood. The
methanol and ethanol are not viable for use as a jet fuel substitute due to their low mass and
temperatures for volumetric combustion (Daggett, 2006). However alcohols are currently being
utilised as fuels for on road vehicles as E85 (energy enviro, 2008).
2.2.2 BIODIESEL
Biodiesel is produced from oily crops such as sunflower, palm, soybean and rapeseed via a
chemical process called trans-esterification, Trans-esterification separates the Glycerin from the
fat or vegetable oil by reacting triacylglycerol with an alcohol, usually ethanol or methanol.
(Gupta, et al. 2013)The process produces Methyl Esters (Bio diesel) and Gylcerin as a byproduct
that can be sold for use in soap and other products
2.2.3 SUGARS CONVERTED TO HYDRO CARBONS
Sugars can be used to produce hydrocarbon Biofuels, using catalytic processing or specially
designed microbes. Renewable products companies specialising in fuel development, LS9 Inc.

8
(Now a subsidiary of the Renewable Energy Group) and Amyris are conducting research in an
attempt to genetically engineer the metabolic systems of microbes to produce useful
hydrocarbons using sugar (Savage, 2007). However the University of Wisconsin-Madison has
stated that that chemical reaction is more advantageous than that of microbial fermentation
(Patel, 2008). When chemically reacted, Glucose is treated at high temperatures using a catalyst
to produce hydrocarbon Biofuels. This is not commercially certified, however is a cost effective
conventional fuel alternative and has demonstrated potential for use within the aviation
industry.
2.2.4 HYDROGEN FUEL:
Hydrogen gas is not a source of energy and requires electrical power, nuclear fusion and clean
water to produce. Although the combustion of hydrogen gas emits no carbon dioxide, its
lightweight properties, production, handling, infrastructure and storage requirements present
significant challenges. The thermal energy generated from a volume of hydrogen gas is limited
and this would force aircraft and engine manufacturers to compromise on aircraft design in
order to facilitate its use as an alternative to conventional Jet fuel (Daggett, 2006).
2.2.5 LIQUID HYDROGEN:
Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) is a potential non-CO2 emitting alternate fuel for aircraft, however its
use poses a number of significant technical challenges. According to estimates from EU based
endeavour, Cryoplane; the implementation of liquid Hydrogen technology can be expected in the
next 15 to 20 years (Savage, 2007).
2.2.6 BIO HYDROGEN:
Hydrogen gas does not emit greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane during combustion.
Hydrogen produced by biological methods consumes and uses less energy during its
manufacturing process, when compared to hydrogen produced by Photo electrochemical
methods. This makes biologically produced Hydrogen an advantageous alternative.
2.2.7 HYDRO TREATED VEGETABLE OILS:
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D7566-11 specifications, issued on 4 of
July 2011 allow a 50% blend of fuels derived from hydro processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA)
with conventional petroleum-based jet kerosene. Vegetable oils and fats are hydro treated to

9
produce an HVO fuel. When compared to fatty Acid Methyl Esters, HVO fuels consist of
approximately 99% hydrocarbon. A HVO fuel has similar properties to that of conventional jet
fuel, contributing to its suitability as a BioJet fuel. HVO fuel contains same number and type of
molecules that are typically found in a conventional petroleum-based jet fuel (Sandquist, 2012).
The chemical processing of HVO fuel is comparable to conventional refinery techniques and as a
result, HVO fuel can be produced in existing oil refineries (Kinder and Rahmes, 2009).
2.3 BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
2.3.1 FISCHER TROPSCH (F-T)
The Fischer Tropsch method is used to convert, such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen, to
hydrocarbons. Sasol limited has been manufacturing aviation fuel using coal since the early
1990s. The Fischer – Tropsch method can process coal to produce synthetic fuels with the
potential for use in the transportation industry. Coal is extracted from reserves and crushed,
before being converted to carbon monoxide, hydrogen gases and ash. The ratio of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen gases are adjusted to specifications before the mixture is sent to a
synthetic unit to produce jet fuel (Daggett, 2006). Fischer-Tropsch fuels were approved for 50%
blend with the conventional jet fuel (JetA/A-1) by the ASTM in its D7566 standard. Fuel derived
from the Fischer-Tropsch process is of a higher quality than fuels derived from natural gas, coal
and biomass. One of the primary advantages of biomass gasification is that all types of bio mass
or organic material such as different types of agricultural wastes, wood and paper production
waste can be used to produce Biofuel. The quantities of feedstock can vary but the quantity and
content of synthetic gas can be same (Sandquist et al, 2012).
2.3.2 SYNTHETIC JET FUELS
Jet fuels produced via synthetic processes are different from petroleum based jet fuels and
research is currently being undertaken by the aviation industry into its potential as an alternate
fuel source. The advantages of synthetic fuels consist of high thermal stability and lower
emissions with no traces of sulphur. The negative aspects of synthetic fuels however include an
increase in CO2 emissions during the manufacturing process, a possibility of fuel system leakage
due to the reduced elastomeric swelling that takes place when the fuel seals come in contact
with synthetic fuels (Morser, F, 2011) Synthetic Jet Fuels also have Inferior lubricating
properties when compared to conventional fuels. Synthetic Jet fuel is commonly produced via
the Fischer – Tropsch process using a variety of feedstock. In addition to the Fischer –Tropsch

10
method, synthetic fuel can also be produced by direct liquefaction, however direct liquefaction is
significantly more capital intensive than that fossil fuel (Daggett, 2006).
2.4 BIOFUEL TECHNOLOGY
Before any jet fuel, conventional or renewable, can enter the supply chain, it must be certified as
meeting the applicable standard specification. (MASBI, 2013) The primary concern for the
aviation industry is a balance of safety and profit, with global fuel costs taking up an estimated
31% of the total airline operating costs in 2013 (IATA, 2013).
2.4.1 REQUIREMENTS
Current Jet fuel, kerosene oil (Jet A/A-1), is extracted from oil and is a middle distillate between
gas and diesel. Typically, kerosene fuel is around 10% raw petroleum, with a maximum of
around 15% (Blakey et al, 2010). To ensure safe air transportation, requirements must be met to
allow fuels to be utilised for the commercial aviation purposes:
a) Aviation fuel must deliver a large volume of energy per unit, to minimize the amount of fuel
carried for given range.
b) Aviation fuel must be thermally stable to be sustainable at low temperatures and to satisfy the
requirements of ignition properties, surface tension, and viscosity as well as compatibility with
the materials typically used in aviation (Blakey et al, 2010).
2.4.2 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIAL (ASTM)
The ASTM must test any alternative fuel before it is used in commercial flight. (Yildirima, &
Abanteriba, 2012) The ASTM International Aviation Fuel Subcommittee (Subcommittee J)
coordinates the evaluation of data and the establishment of specification criteria for new
alternative jet fuels. (CAAFI, 2013) Subcommittee J has issued two standards to facilitate this
process; ASTM D4054 – “Standard Practice for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation
Turbine Fuels and Fuel Additives”, and ASTM D7566 – “Standard Specification for Aviation
Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons”. (CAAFI, 2013)
Fischer-Tropsch synthesized (F-T) and Hydro-treated Esters (HEPA) have passed the approval
process and are certified for use (Qantas, 2013, Danish Transport Authority, 2014, MASBI, 2013).
Alcohol to Jet biofuels (ATJ-Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene and ATJ-Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene

11
with Aromatics) are currently undergoing the certification process (Danish Transport Authority,
2014).
The Biofuels approved by the ASTM D7566 permit blending of up to 50% with conventional jet
fuels for commercial use. (Qantas 2013, Danish Transport Authority 2014, MASBI 2013) The
fuels blended and certified act as ‘drop-in’ fuels and prevent the additional cost of new
supporting infrastructure. (Qantas, 2013)
The ASTM certification process can be expensive, taking in excess of two years and requiring
investments of tens of millions of dollars. (CAAFI 2013) Both alcohol to jet and HDCJ
technologies, highlighted as high-potential technological pathways, are expected to gain ASTM
certification by 2015, but other promising technologies still face years until approval (MASBI
2013)
2.4.3 COMMERCIAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVE FUELS INITIATIVE (CAAFI)
The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) is a coalition of airlines, aircraft
manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, international participants and United States
government agencies' (SCIRO 2011). The sub-groups that make up the CAAFI were formed in
order to research, develop and implement alternate jet fuels for commercial aviation in the
United States. The Biofuels investigate by the CAAFI must offer equivalent levels of safety and
normalize financial costs while focusing on the environmental aspects and taking into
consideration energy security.
This organization consists of a network of stakeholders that include Biofuel producers, airlines
and aircraft manufacturers all located in different geographical areas working towards the same
goals. (Hamelinck C., Cuijpers M., Spoettle M. and van den Bos 2013) CAAFI's goal was to certify a
50% Synthetic F-T aircraft fuel by late 2009 and 100% by 2010 and an HRJ biofuel by 2013. As of
2016 CAAFI facilitated the certification of F-T and HEFA drop in fuels in conjunction with ASTM
as well as developed the Fuel Readiness Level (FRL)(See Appendix D) a road map that allows the
classification and progress tracking of the research, certification and demonstration of
alternative fuels
2.4.4 TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT
Aviation is responsible for 2% of global CO2 emissions and by 2050 is predicted to represent 3%
of global CO2 emissions due to increased air traffic (IATA, 2008).

12
Over the last 40 years, aircraft generated CO2 emissions have been reduced by approximately
70% (Boeing 1998-2007; pg. 14). However, with the industry continuing to expand, CO2
emission reductions need to improve.
2.4.5 AIRCRAFT DESIGN & MANUFACTURE
Aircraft Manufacturers invest substantial time and money to develop, market and commercialise
new aircraft. (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt 2001)
The transition from Jet-A1 fuel to a new fuel source would require current aircraft to be refitted
to be compatible with the new fuel source. In time, a new generation of aircraft will be designed
to optimize the future technology, leading to a large loss on existing investments. (J.E. Allen 1999)
To avoid this, biofuels must be “drop-in” in order to minimise the cost associated with a new fuel
source (MASBI 2013).
Aircraft have been developed with significant improvements to their aerodynamic properties
over the last 60 years. Increasing the Lift to Drag ratio is a means to reduce fuel burn and by
virtue, carbon emissions. The three most widely used methods to increase the Lift/Drag ratio are
1) Increasing aircraft wing span,
2) Reducing drag produced by wing vortices,
3) Reducing the profile drag area,
(Agarwal 2012)
The most commonly utilised method to reduce fuel burn is increasing the wing aspect ratio
resulting in increasing Lift/Drag ratio. However, the longer the wingspan, the more weight the
aircraft must carry, resulting in higher fuel burn. Long-range aircraft are optimized to minimize
the fuel burn at specific Mach numbers. The transition of advanced composite materials, which
are lighter and sturdier for the wing structure, will enable an optimized wing to be equipped
with greater span. (Agarwal 2012)
The vortex drag factor is a measure of the degree to which the span-wise lift distribution over
the wing departs from the theoretical ideal. Current aircraft featuring a swept-wing design are
already highly developed and there is little scope for further improvement in vortex drag
reduction. There are still opportunities to make small reductions in the vortex drag factor but no

13
significant benefits to reducing fuel burn, and as a by-product, CO2 emissions, are possible.
(Agarwal 2012)
The adoption of a blended wing-body (BWB) layout reduces parasitic drag by approximately
30%, providing an increase of around 15% in Lift/Drag ratio. The first Boeing BWB will be
introduced into service for civil passenger aircraft in 2030. (New Aircraft Concept Research
NACRE 2005-2009)
The Recently unveiled “Honda Jet” has combined several innovative aircraft and engine design
features, namely a combination of over the wing (OTW) engine mount design, laminar flow wing
(NLF), all composite fuselage, HF – 120 turbofan engine, which as a whole provide a 30-35%
improvement in fuel efficiency and higher cruise speeds than conventional light business jets.
(Saeed et al. has recently conducted a study into the conceptual design of a Laminar Flow Wing
(LFW) aircraft capable of carrying 120 passengers. It has estimated that it has the potential to
reduce aircraft fuel-burn by 70%.
2.4.6 ENGINE TECHNOLOGY
It is estimated that the aircraft operating today are 70% more efficient than those in service 10
years ago. (Capoccitti, Khare, Mildenberger, 2010) IATA predicts that by 2020, a further 25%
efficiency will be achieved through improvements in aircraft efficiency (GLOBE-Net, 2007).
GLOBE-Net (2007) reports that the majority of improvements to aircraft efficiency have been
achieved through developments in engine technology. Engine enhancements must increase fuel
efficiency (and therefore, decrease CO2 emissions) with reductions in Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
water vapour, and other air pollutants.
Some technological advancements in engine technology use high-pressure ratios to improve
efficiency but this worsens NO2. If new control techniques for NO2 are developed to keep within
regulatory compliance limits, high-pressure ratios will likely be the path pursued by aircraft
manufacturers. (Capoccitti, Khare, Mildenberger 2010)
The current focus is on making turbofans even more efficient by leaving the fan un-cowled. A
ductless “open rotor” design would make larger fans possible, however this will require the
associated noise and structural problems to be addressed. In the short-to-medium-haul market,
where the most fuel is burned, the open rotor offers an appreciable reduction in fuel burn

14
relative to a turbofan engine of comparable technology, but at the expense of some reduction in
cruise Mach number. (NACRE 2005-2009)
In Europe, Rolls Royce and Airbus have developed and researched open rotor configurations,
including wind-tunnel investigations of power plant installation. They concentrate on a way to
balance the conflicting aims of reducing fuel burn and nitrogen oxide emissions. The goal is to
improve engine fuel efficiency by 20% by 2020. (Agarwal 2012)
2.4.7 AIRLINES AND FLEET SELECTION
Airlines carefully consider aircraft selections. Airlines choose aircraft that can maximize profit
margins, dependant on the company’s requirements. For example, an airline makes a decision to
introduce the A380, which requires adaptation on the part of the airport. If the airport is
unwilling to upgrade its facilities, the aircraft cannot operate an A380 service to this airpo rt (F.
Betz 1998)
With the introduction of technological innovation such as the substitution of fossil fuel for
biofuel alternatives airlines are hesitant to upgrade their aircraft due to the large costs involved
in selling old aircraft and the increased spending on purchasing new aircraft (E.H.M. Moors 2000)
This suggests that, in a similar way to airports and aircraft manufacturers, airlines would most
likely favour incremental technological change. The substitution of Biofuel for fossil fuel is
therefore more likely to be supported than radical technological changes, such as switching to
LH2, or future potentially solar powered aircraft (F. Betz 1998).
2.4.8 AIRPORT BIOFUEL FACILITIATION
Airport operators have invested large sums of money in existing infrastructure, which is closely
aligned to the requirements of current aircraft that are optimized to use Jet-A fuel. (A.R.C. de
Haan 2007)
Since airports are largely dependent on airlines making use of their facilities, there is a formal
relationship between the airports and the airlines, usually in the form of a contract whereby
airlines rent slots and space (Wells, Young 2004). When airlines decide to use new types of
aircraft, airports can choose to modify airport infrastructure as required, if they feel that doing
so it will ultimately benefit them. This was evident with the introduction of the Boeing 747 and

15
the A380, which resulted in airstrips being elongated and terminal adaptions to accommodate
them. (S. Arnoult 2005)
However, since these infrastructural changes require substantial investments, airports will not
make these decisions lightly. Privatized airports in particular are driven by profit maximization.
Their goal is to optimize the utilization of available space and utilities (A. Graham 2003).
Airports would not necessarily welcome the introduction of innovative technology requiring
new or enhanced infrastructure. This is because they would be forced to change the current
infrastructure completely or, if the technology were to be introduced gradually, would be forced
to operate two different infrastructures simultaneously. Both options could prove costly. (T.
Devezas, D. LePoire, J.C.O. Matias, A.M.P. Silva, 2008) Substituting the current fuel supply with
Biofuels would require fewer significant changes with respect to the current paradigm. In this
case, the airport would be able to retain most of its existing infrastructure and still gain a return
on current investments.
2.5 ECONOMIC DRIVERS
2.5.1 PROCESSING AND STORAGE
An analysis by Allen (1999) in regards to LH2 stipulates that in order to install cryogenic LH2
production and storage facilities at an airport that operates 700 flights 70 acres of land would be
required. This will hamper the implementation of LH2 at airports due to restricted availability of
land and lack of funding from airport operators. Moreover, generating LH2 as a by-product from
the refining process of renewable crops requires significantly more land for growing these
feedstocks.
The focus of LUC is to efficiently use pastureland suitable for crops (Nassar et al, 2011). For
example, in regions such as South America and Africa, pastures occupy land for suitable crop
production. However, in Europe, farmers have already neared maximisation of available
cropland and new pastures are confined to areas not suitable for perennial and annual crops.
This attests that the future development of suitable pastures for growing Biofuel crops is
dependent on current pasture development availability.
2.5.2 AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IS THE DRIVER FOR LAND USAGE CHANGE (LUC)

16
In regions such as West Africa, Central Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than 90% of
new agricultural land occupies and disturbs forestland (Interface Focus, 2011). A 2010 study
(Gibbs, Ruesch, Achard, Clayton, Holmgren, Ramankutty, Foely, 2010) states that deforestation
for agricultural purposes is occurring on a widespread scale. As of 2011, 1.5 Billion hectares,
12% of the world’s land, is used for crop production. This area makes up 36%, of the land
estimated to be suitable for crop production. According to Campbell, 2.7 Billion hectares of land
mostly concentrated in South and Central American and Sub-Saharan Africa has the potential for
cropping, however not all of this available land would be suitable for food production (Campbell,
2011)
2.5.4 FOOD SECURITY
2.5.4.1 CAMELINA
The benefits of Camelina as a source of Biofuel include its short –season crop growth (85-100
days to maturity), Its ability to adapt well in regions of temperate climate requiring a low
temperature for the germination process and its tolerance to frost (Vollmann, Damboeck, Eckl,
Schrems & Ruckenbauer, 1996). Its suitability to less fertile conditions also makes camelina a
viable feedstock for Biofuel production. (Shonnard et al, 2010). Previously, Camelina cultivation
has not been seen on a commercial level due to Europe and the US providing subsidies in the
past for higher yielding commodity grains and oilseed crops. However, more recently Camelina
is being investigated as a viable feedstock due to its low-input requirement and lack of
interference with conventional food supply.
There are advantages for seeding wheat crop if these plots are rotated to camelina. Soil moisture
increases, giving a substantial boost to crop yields the subsequent year. Not growing the same
crop every year limits pest and disease concerns. A positive change in the nutrient profile by
complex soil biochemical mechanisms can also be seen with the rotation of camelina crop
(Shonnard, 2010). The US has the potential for over 5 million acres of land to be used in the
production of camelina in a sustainable manner with no impact on food distribution.
Additionally, an increase in yield could provide 800 million gallons of oil per year for use as a
secure and environmentally friendly Bio-oil feedstock (Shonnard, 2010).
The possibility of camelina becoming a next-generation green jet fuel is highly likely. With 20
million acres of dry-land cereals (wheat, oats, and barley) and fallowing every 3 or 4 years there
would be 5–7 million acres available for camelina cultivation annually as a rotation crop. This, In

17
line with planned yield improvements, is expected to produce 3000 lbs of seed per acre by 2016.
Most significantly the seeds contain 36% of oil with the remainder 64% being meal. Therefore,
the scope of oil is between 750 and 1000 million gallons/year (Shonnard, 2010). This will add to
food security and the increase in yield will further support job and local economic development,
in the African and South American regions in particular.
2.5.4.2 PALM KERNAL OIL (PKO)
Additional production of Palm Oil (E4Tech, 2010) would displace coconut oil production. Palm
oil is found in the fleshy portion of the fruit mesocarp, whereas palm kernel oil is found in the
kernel or the seed of the fruit. These two oils have very different fatty acid compositions
(American PalmOil, 2004). Expert advisory groups have stated that in the countries where
coconut oil is produced, PKO and palm oil can be used interchangeably, Coconut oil and PKO
have similar physical and chemical characteristics due to high lauric acid levels and similar
applications (e.g. oleo chemicals and soap, speciality foods, cooking oils in Indonesia, Malaysia
and Philippines).
2.5.5 ECONOMIC FACTORS
Evaluations of the costs of LH2 are vague and highly varied. The average cost of manufacturing
and transporting LH2 to airlines in Europe is $6.9USD/kg (Stadler, 2014), but ranges from
$0.60USD to $1.8USD/kg if derived from natural gas, coal gasification or biomass. The expected
cost of LH2 in 2040/2050 is predicted a $2.0USD/kg compared to Jet A1 fuel at a price of
$1.37USD/kg (IEA, 2006; MVA, 2009). This shows that the price of LH2 is expected to drop,
however it will not become as cost effective as Jet A1.The conclusion reached by Janic (2014) on
the cost of LH2 suggests that if LH2 is mass-produced for commercial aviation to satisfy current
and future demand, the cost will decrease to an economically viable state. For this to occur
however, significant financial investment in LH2 production plants and associated equipment
must be made in the short term.
According to E4Tech, (E4Tech, 2010) Schmidt and Weidema (2008) found that the opinion of
stakeholders is that palm oil is going to continue to be the biggest contributor in vegetable oil in
2020 due to its low cost. Production costs for camelina average at $45-$68USD/acre. The break
even cost for camelina of $1.23USD is lower than that of canola at $4.33USD and spring wheat at
$1.81USD in Montana. The initial cost of making Biofuels from second and third generation

18
feedstocks such as algae and jatropha have similar cost predictions as camelina and in the long-
term could be viable when compared to Jet A1 fuel (BioZio, 2011).
There is considerable agreement in Kohler’s research (Kohler, Walz, Weidemann & Thedieck,
2013) that there will be a high cost associated with the development of the initial infrastructure
including the facilities and equipment needed to converting gaseous hydrogen into liquid Bio -
fuel and extracting carbon and hydrogen from petroleum or ethanol, with an estimated $174
Billion USD required to provide for the necessary facilities (Thedieck, 2012).
2.5.6 PARTNERS AND INVESTORS
Studies conducted by Gegg et al. into the market drivers and constraints for Biofuel production
suggest “airlines had a pioneering role in driving initial interest in [Biofuel]” (Gegg, 2014: 37).
Gegg et al. further submits that during the course of the study, five [unnamed] fuel developer
respondents “acknowledged that their initial interest in [Biofuel production] came about after
the airline industry approached them regarding advice of services” (Gegg et al, 2014: 37) This
demonstrates that the industry is highly self driven and that investors face concerns in
development of Biofuels without Airline support.
Gegg et al. stated that “the main factors hindering the level of investment were: uncertainty of
the technologies and legislation support.” (Gegg et al, 2014: 38) It was also noted that the global
economic downturn lead to an inability for investors to obtain lines of credit to investigate “first
of a kind technology” (Unnamed investor, Gegg et al, 2014: 38)
Aircraft manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing, have undertaken demonstration flights powered
with Biofuel blends (GreenAir, 2011 and Engineer, 2010). This further establishes the aviation
industries commitment to self-drive eco friendly development.
Alliances between Airlines and fuel suppliers are crucial to drive research and development of
Biofuels. Lufthansa is collaborating with the US firm Solena (Kohler, et al, 2013) in constructing a
sustainable fuel plant, prompting airlines such as Qantas and British Airways to enter into
similar coalitions and seek out fuel partners. This identifies the significance of having worldwide
alliances between airlines and the suppliers of green fuel.
Europe’s Defence agency has developed an airplane to exhibit the potential of second-generation
biofuels (Wagner, 2010) suggesting that existing technological development within the aviation
industry is prompting interesting into Biofuel production external of the commercial industry.

19
2.6 POLITICAL DRIVERS
2.6.1 ICAO CARBON TARGETS
ICAO, under increasing political pressure, in particular from the 2010 Aviation and Environment
Summit has set a global carbon target of a 2% improvement in fuel efficiency per year, with a
final goal of a 50% reduction in net aviation carbon emissions by 2050, comparative to 2005
levels (ICAO, Transport – Aviation Action Plan). With IATA further committing to carbon neutral
growth by 2020 (IATA, 2009). To meet these goals ICAO has required the submission of Action
plans from member states, outlining how the targets will be met. As of the 38th ICAO Assembly
2014 Seventy-Four member states have submitted Action plans, representing 84% of all global
air traffic. ICAO has set the intention of 90% coverage by 2016.
Gegg et al. have stated that some of the efficiency required to meet ICAO’s carbon targets can be
achieved with enhanced Air Traffic Control (ATC) management, with up to 4% improvement in
efficiency by 2020 (IATA). Procedural improvements could contribute up to 3% increase in
efficiency by 2020 (IATA). However these measures alone will not be sufficient to deliver the
necessary reductions to meet global climate targets. The results of the Trends Assessment
undertaken by the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) further
support this position, stating “even with the anticipated gain in efficiency from technological and
operational measures, aviation CO2emissions will increase in the next decades due to a
continuous growth in air traffic” (See Appendix 1)
The Aviation Transport Action Group (ATAG) has suggested that on a full carbon lifecycle basis,
using equivalent alternative fuels could result in an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions
comparative to Jet fuel. This statement, coupled with the predictions of the limited availability of
improvements to procedural and structural efficiency, indicates that Biofuels are the only way to
meet the mandated global carbon targets.
2.6.2 GOVERNMENT POLICY
At the 37th ICAO assembly, held in 2010, member states governments agreed to a global
partnership to meet international goals. (ICAO, Transport – Aviation Action Plan)
However the EU has taken its own forceful action to meet international goals by proposing “the
inclusion of aviation within its emissions trading scheme (ETS) – significantly to overcome

20
ICAO’s failure to adequately address Aviation’s rising emissions” (Anderson et. Al., 2013:67).
This suggests that ICAO targets alone are not enough to prompt industry wide action.
A study by Gegg (2014) found that “Most respondents stated the [EU Emissions Trading System]
is a predominantly long-term driver because the price of carbon is currently too low” (Gegg
2014: 37) This suggests that more proactive measures will need to be implemented before
Government Policy becomes a significant driving factor to the aviation sectors investigation into
the use of Biofuels.
Gegg (2014) also found that US airlines are not subject to environmental legislation and
therefore perceive the ETS as the primary threat to revenue rather than an incentive to reduce
emissions. In contrast EU airlines stated that the need to reduce emissions was driven by
environmental legislation and voluntary targets. This suggests that Biofuel development in the
commercial sector in in the US would be exclusively economical with airliners turning to
alternative fuel development to reduce their bottom line.
However in the government sector, the need for a secure energy source for Military enterprises
has been noted as a potential driving factor for Biofuel production (Hari, 2014) and within the
U.S. in particular may act as a catalyst for development and uptake of production in the
commercial sector (Gregg et al.)
Findings by the ATAG state that subsidies in place in the EU and US for Biodiesel production
could hamper the establishment of aviation alternate fuel production (enviro.aero). Demirbas
(2009:S110) disagrees with the ATAG analysis stating that the “liquid biofuels have attracted
particularly high levels of assistance in some countries given their promise of benefits in several
areas of interest to governments” such as energy security and the potential to reach mandated
carbon targets.
A 2006 Report by Bows stated that “with the publication of the 2003 Energy White Paper, the UK
Government explicitly endorsed a target of reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by
2050”(Bows et al. 2006:104)
As indicated by Bows (2006) conventional methods for emission reductions through fleet
redevelopment and policy improvements cannot meet the ambitious and essential, targets set by
the UK Government whilst supporting the projected growth of the UK’s Aviation Industry, stating
that the nature of fuel sources must be altered.

21
This further supports that biofuels are the only means to meet emissions targets whilst
supporting industry growth.
2.6.3 INTERNATIONAL PRESSURES
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has stated in its climate
change report that “The ultimate objective of The Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced)
interference with the climate system." (WHO, 2002)
The 2014 Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
established that with atmospheric concentrations of greater than 1000 parts per million of CO2,
warming is “more likely than not”(IPCC, 2014: 18-19) to exceed 4°C above pre-industrial levels
by 2100. The research established that “The risks associated with temperatures at or above 4°C
include substantial species extinction, global and regional food insecurity, consequential
constraints on common human activities and limited potential for adaptation (IPCC, 2014: 18-
19).
In order to limit warming to a sustainable level of “less than 2°C relative to … 1861-1880…
would require cumulative CO2 emissions… to remain below 2900Gt of CO2… 1900 GtCO2 had
already been emitted by 2011” (IPCC, 2014: 10) Concentrations of about 450parts per million or
lower are likely to maintain warming below 2°C (IPCC)
Continued international pressure has been placed upon governing bodies to limit warming to
‘safe’ levels. The UNFCCC requires Industrialized countries to report on their climate change
policies, “including issues governed by the Kyoto Protocol”(UNFCCC), as well as their annual
inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990-Present. Non-Industrialized countries have
been placed under conditions requiring general progress reports to receive international
funding.
This measure provides aid incentive for Governments of non-industrialised to meet agreed upon
targets, as well as promoting a Global co-operative to meet carbon deadlines. As Biofuels have
been established as the only way to meet carbon targets, global co-operatives will allow for the
implementation of incentives and allow for global ecologically friendly development.
2.7 SOCIAL DRIVERS

22
2.7.1 INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
South African Airways in partnership with Jet fuel supplier SkyNRG [Project Solaris] is now
executing the process of converting the solaris plant into a viable aviation fuel. Since South Africa
and neighbouring regions have vast amount of unused land suitable for solaris, growth and
production of this plant as a fuel source will generate revenue and jobs for South African
nationals, providing an economical boost. South African Airways will also receive substantial
economic benefits, as the high expenditure associated with importing Jet A-1 fuel will become
rendered unnecessary (Boeing, 2015).
2.7.2 PUBLIC VIEW
In December 2007, a food riot occurred in Mexico due to spikes in food prices that spread to
poor communities all over the developing world. The spike in food prices was seen as directly
caused by Biofuel production interfering with food supply production. The annual harvest of
Bioethanol and Biodiesel surged from 16 million litres globally in 2000 to around 100 million
litres over a period of 10 years (Fairley, 2011), outpacing growth of corn, sugarcane and
vegetable oil.
Current trends are shifting towards the production and use of Biofuels; this has been influenced
by a serious of disasters involving petroleum as well as the shifting perceptions of society with
regard to sustainable living. The swing toward Biofuels is further influenced by growing
instability in the Middle East and shrinking petroleum reserves. HSBC’s analysis (Fairley, 2011)
claims that the narrowing oil supply has been created by an increase in demand from developing
countries.
SUMMARY
The use of Biofuel has been established as the most viable way forward for the aviation industry.
F-T Liquid Hydrogen fuels derived from carbon and HVO fuels from feedstocks such as palm oil
and camelina are demonstrated as the only way to effectively meet globally agreed upon carbon
targets.
At present, Biofuels are a more capital intensive investment when compared with conventional
Jet A/A-1 however with initial investment and global use, the long term financial gains could
supersede the costs. To make biofuels commercially viable it is evident that airlines, airports and
government bodies will be required to make large financial commitments. This will be necessary

23
to undertake future research and facilitate the required infrastructure to market, mass-produce
and deliver Biofuel to the commercial sector. Government incentives as well as the cost of
schemes such as the EU ETS have the potential to offset some of the higher costs associated with
the use of Biofuels by imposing taxes on carbon.
Aside from potential economical advantages, the benefits of Biofuels include, food and energy
security whilst meeting global targets and supporting continued industry expansion without
detriment to the global health and the environment.

24
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY
3.1 Thesis Design
This thesis is academic in nature, focusing on forecasting the use of Biofuel in the aviation
Industry between 2015-2050 while conducting an investigation into the current consumption of
Biofuel through the undertaking of a literature review.
Having identified these key-driving factors, a forecast for HVO and F-T fuels mapped against
trends identified
3.2 Data Collection
The data collected in this study will be secondary data gathered from thorough research and will
be inclusive of existing published company reports featuring Biofuel predictions. Official reports
from government and non-government organisations will also be examined and used to map
Biofuel growth within the aviation industry between 2015-2035. Data from fuel companies and
airliners annual reports as well as regulatory bodies and environmental activists forecasts will
be utilised to collect the necessary information to undertake comparisons between the drivers
and limitations of HVO and F-T fuels
3.3 Data Analysis
The purpose of data collection is to provide a clear understanding of the subject matter and to
facilitate the studies objective, mapping Biofuel usage against the identified drivers.
This thesis aims to undertake an analysis of the key driving factors and therefore glean the
changes that are likely to be made to the industry in the future, with specific regard to fuel usage.
The use of HVO and F-T Biofuels will be mapped individually against each identified driving
factor with regards to technology, economic forces, political agenda and social views. This will
determine the most significant driving factor with regard to Biofuel use and development within
the aviation industry. Mapping and analysing evident trends will answer question, identifying
the most viable Biofuel that is likely to support industry expansion.
The data will be presented visually, utilising a graphical format to demonstrate predicted Biofuel
development and use. This will be accompanied by a written analysis that will consider the
drivers in more detail.

25
3.4 Ethical Consideration
Ethical considerations are not applicable to this study as data will be secondary from existing
thesis.
3.4 Assumptions
In order to appropriately map global biofuel usage, it is assumed that ‘global’ refers to ICAO and
IATA member states due to the limited data available for non-member states.
Due to the limited projections available, when determining rate of production growth, it is
assumed that growth will be uniform.
3.5 Limitations
Currently, the only Biofuel production methods certified for use are Hydro treated vegetable oils
and Fischer-Tropsch process. Other Biofuel products will doubtless become available in the
future, however the certification process is lengthy, with no guaranteed outcome. Therefore, this
study is limited to Biofuels that have already met the requirements for certification, namely HVO
and F-T.
The data collected for the purposes of this study is secondary, the thesis is limited to what has
already been undertaken and published. It is therefore impossible for the study to accurately
account for unpublicised legislation, partnerships or developments. This may limit the reliability
of the data.
All findings are based on ICAO and IATA member states. This may limit the accuracy on a global
scale, as the use of non-member territories will not be taken into account.
Biofuel as a substitute for conventional Jet fuel has been studied and developed over a period of
decades. However, commercial production of Biofuel is still in the initial stages. This imposes a
limitation on the accuracy of the study as the potential for the development of currently unheard
of feedstocks and production methods may impact on the global usage of Biofuel. Uncertified
technologies were not considered due to an inability to accurately gather data and map future
technological developments.

26
CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS
Figure 1. Total potential Biofuel production (IATA)
*Based off IATA mean estimate
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050
BillionLitresofBiofuel
Year
Total potential Biofuel production profile

27
Table 1. Potential Production Profile 2015-2050 (Liters)
2015 2030 2040 2050*
FT 24,750,000L 2,198,160,000L 13,450,570,000L 44,882,750,000L
HEFA 1,401,000,000L 6,963,680,000L 17,228,820,000L 19,332,500,000L
ATJ 74,250,000L 2,198,160,000L 12,500,610,000L 40,284,750,000L
Total 1.5 Billion L 11.36 Billion L 43.18 Billion L 104.5 Billion L

28
Table 2. Predicted distribution of Biofuels by percentage of market share.
FT HEFA ATJ
2015 1.65% 93.40% 4.95%
2016 2.83% 91.26% 5.91%
2017 4.01% 89.12% 6.97%
2018 5.19% 86.98% 6.83%
2019 6.37% 84.84% 8.79%
2020 7.55% 82.70% 9.75%
2021 8.73% 80.56% 10.71%
2022 9.91% 78.42% 11.67%
2023 11.09% 76.28% 12.63%
2024 12.27% 74.14% 13.59%
2025 13.45% 72% 14.55%
2026 14.61% 69.86% 15.51%
2027 15.81% 67.72% 16.47%
2028 16.99% 65.58% 17.43%
2029 18.17% 63.44% 18.39%
2030 19.35% 61.30% 19.35%
2031 20.53% 59.16% 20.31%
2032 21.71% 57.02% 21.27%
2033 22.89% 54.88% 22.23%
2034 24.07% 52.74% 23.19%
2035 25.25% 50.60% 24.15%
2036 26.43% 48.46% 25.11%
2037 27.61% 46.32% 26.07%
2038 28.79% 44.18% 27.03%
2039 29.97% 42.04% 27.99%
2040 31.15% 39.90% 28.95%
2041 23.33% 37.76% 29.91%
2042 33.51% 35.62% 30.87%
2043 34.69% 33.48% 31.83%
2044 35.87% 31.34% 32.79%
2045 37.05% 29.20% 33.75%
2046 38.23% 27.06% 34.71%
2047 39.41% 24.92% 35.67%
2048 40.59% 22.78% 36.63%
2049 41.77% 20.64% 37.59%
2050 42.95% 18.50% 38.55%

29
Figure 2. 2015 Distribution of Biofuels by Market share.
2015 Distributionof Biofuels
FT
HEFA
ATJ
2030 Predicted distribution of Biofuels
FT
HEFA
ATJ

30
Figure 5. Distribution of Biofuels by market share
2050 Predicted distrubtion of Biofuels
FT
HEFA
ATJ
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2015 2030 2040 2050
Totalmarketshare(%)
Year
Distributionof potentialBiofuel
production 2015-2050
FT
HEFA
ATJ

31
Figure 6. Airlines engagement of Biofuel, current as of 2015
<http://aviationbenefits.org/environmental-efficiency/sustainable-fuels/passenger-biofuel-
flights/>
*Mix of feedstocks: Algae, Jatropha, Camelina, UCO
66.7
6.7
10
10
3.3 3.3
Airlinesuse of Biofuel2015
UCO Jatropha Camelina Mix of feedstocks Algae ATJ

32
Figure 7. Airlines use of Biofuel by feedstock/source.
*Others Include: Cellulosic Synthetic Biofuel, Brassica Carinata, Chicken Fat, Mallee Tree,
Agricultural Residues, HEFA fuel
36.4
11.4
16
6.8
9
6.8
13.6
AirlineEngagements of Biofuelby source
UCO Camelina Algae MSW Jatropha ATJ Others

33
Table 3. Biofuel supplier production volumes
Producer Production
Method
Volume Duration
Altair(United
Airline)
HEFA 19,181,767 L/yr (17,000 t/yr) 2015-
2017
Fulcrum(Cathay) FT (waste) 112,833,923 L/yr (100,000
t/yr)
2017-
2026(10
years)
Red
Rock(Southwest
Airline)
FT (forest
residues)
11,283,392 L/yr (10,000 t/yr) n/a
Solena(British
Airways)
HEFA
(Municipal
solid
waste)
56,416,961 L/yr (50,000 t/yr) 2017-
2026(10
years)
U.S Department
of Defense
HRJ/HEFA 4,108,428 L 2007-
2012
FT 2,763,050 L 2007-
2012
ATJ 352,005 L 2007-
2012
DSH 162,755 L 2007-
2012
HDC-D 24,603 L 2007-
2012
Neste Oil HEFA 16,925,088 L/yr (15,000 t/yr) Current Finland
UOP HEFA 338,501,768 L/yr (300,000
t/yr)
Current Italy
BTG HPO 56,416,961-112,833,922 L/yr
(50-100,000 t/yr)
Current Netherland
Sydisese FT 56,416,961 L/yr (50,000 t/yr) Planned Thurrock
CEA FT 16,925,088 L/yr (15,000 t/yr) Planned France
LanzaTech ATJ 625,000 L/yr Planned New
Zealand,
China

34
Table 4: Proposed Volumes of Different Categories of Biofuels
Type of Biofuels 2014 (Litres) 2015 2016 2017
Cellulosic
Biofuel
150 M 482 M 937 M N/A
Biomass –
based diesel
7.4 B 7.7 B 8.2 B 8.6 B
Advanced
Biofuel
12.2 B 13.2 B 15.5 B N/A
Table 5. Targets set by states and Industry for Biofuel Implementation

35
Table 6. Advantages and distadvantages of Feedstocks
Feedstock Description Yield (Dry
tones/hect
ares pa.) *
Advantages Key Challenges
Forest
wood and
forest
residues
Bark, sawdust,
pulpwood
0.1-3.7 + Residue, therefore no
additional land required
+ Available throughout
the year
- Low energy density
- Demand from other
sectors (paper products and
electricity generation)
- Partially utilized at
present
- Might cause bush fires in
hot regions.
Agricultural
Residue
The residue
remaining after
the harvest of
Cereals.
- Available during crop
harvest only
- Low energy density and
Potential demand from
electricity sector
- Minor amounts utilized at
present
- Concerns with long term
soil nutrient balance and
erosion potential
- More research required on
soil carbon impacts
Sugar Cane
Residue
The stem residue
remaining after
the crushing to
remove sugar-
rich juice from
sugar cane.
+ Transport to central
processing point
already carried out for
sugar juice extraction
- Demand from electricity
sector and Bio fuel for road
transport
- Nearly all utilized at
present but with potential
to divert to fuel if more
efficient cogeneration
facilities developed

36
- Uncertainty around
sustainability given high
degree of farm inputs and
irrigation
Animal Fat
(UCO)
Meat and
livestock by-
product
NA + No additional land
required
Camelina Includes canola
and cotton seed
0.6-1.8 + Produced in between
crop rotations to limit
impact on food
production
+ Existing harvesting
equipment
+ Extracted oil
relatively inexpensive to
transport for refining
- If used as rotational crops,
scale up potential is limited
- Production already fully
utilized at present
Municipal
Solid Waste
Urban waste,
commercial and
industrial waste,
palettes,
furniture and
demolition
timber
12-18 + Concentrated at waste
management sites
+ No additional land
required
+ potential to source
future production of Bio
fuel
- Contamination with toxic
preservatives can restrict
use
- Potential demand from
electricity generation
Grasses Various varieties
– wild sorghum,
kangaroo grass,
tall fescue,
perennial
ryegrass
8-28 + Could suit degraded
land and mitigate soil
erosion
+ Planting may result in
increased soil carbon
- Little known about local
production potential. A
variety called switch grass
is under development in the
US
- Low energy density
feedstock
- Competition from animal
feed and electricity

37
generation
- Potentially invasive
Jatropha Plant that
produces seeds
containing
inedible oil
content of 30-
40% seed weight
0.5-5.03 + Extracted oil relatively
inexpensive to
+ Requires 1-2 years of
cultivation before it can
be harvested.
- Classified as noxious weed
in several Australian states
and not permitted for
cultivation
- No significant scale
Australasian trials
conducted. Mainly grown in
India, Sri Lanka, Africa
- Prefers the temperate
tropics and tropics. Can
grow on marginal land
- The seeds are toxic to
both humans and animals
- Harvesting is by manual
means, though branch
brushers have been used.
Asynchronous ripening of
seed represents a limitation
to mechanical harvesting.
Manual harvesting implies a
requirement for markets
with low labour costs
Palm oil Produces high
oil content seed
3.7-10.04 + Extracted oil relatively
inexpensive to
- Usually grown within 5
degrees of the equator
mainly in Malaysia and
Indonesia, West-Africa.
Consequently not suitable
for Australasia
- Requires high nitrogen
fertilization.
- Requires manual
harvesting which implies a
requirement for low labour

38
costs
- Major sustainability
issues (food and
deforestation), however
over the long run these may
be addressed through the
Roundtable for Sustainable
Palm Oil
Algae Aquatically
grown plant
species
37-100 + Does not require
arable land and
therefore no
competition with food
+ Requires water but
can be polluted or salt
water
+ Land use per unit of
biomass is relatively
low.
+ Extracted oil relatively
inexpensive to
- Open Pond and photo
bioreactor requires high
concentration carbon
dioxide source (e.g. power
station, waste management
facilities). Heterotrophic
fermentation requires large
volumes of sugar
- Requires various
technologies (water
separation, oil extraction)
not yet proven at
commercial scale
- Requires nutrients
including nitrogen and
phosphorous which is
predicted to be a limiting
constraint in future years
* Mega joules per kilogram of refuse-derived fuel

39
Table 7: Biomass and Land Required to Produce 100 litres of Bio fuel
Feed stock Bio Mass Required to Produce 100
litres of Bio Fuel
Land Required to Produce 100
litres of Bio Fuel(land in
hectares )
Jatropha 0.3 tons 0.6
Camelina 0.2 tons 0.33
Sugar cane 0.19 tons 0.05
Forest and
Agricultural Residue
0.4 tons 4
Table 8: Predicted Land Required for Future Biofuel Production (Land in thousand Hectares)
2015 2030 2040 2050
FT 990 87,926.4 538,002.8 1,795,310
HEFA 4,623.3 22,980.1 5,168.6 773,300
ATJ 37.1 1,099.08 6,250.3 20,142.3

40
Figure 8. Future land required for Biofuel production
Figure 9. Key (potential) biomass resources and regions for the production of Bio Fuel (SKYNRG
2012)
-500000
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055
LAND VS YEAR

41
Table 9. Capital Investment and Production cost.
Year Cost per plant
(USD)
Biofuel
Production (L)
No. of plants
required
FT Fuel
Cost
(USD/Litre)
HEFA
Cost
(USD/L)
Jet Fuel Cost
(USD/Litre)
2016 476,667,000 338,500,000 3 1.58 2.00 0.65
2017 467,500,000 902,671,000 4 n/a
2020 447,950,000 2,256,680,000 9 0.76
2030
Forecast
407,950,000 -
650
50,000,000 –
225
22,566,800,000 8- 79
85 - 806
1.20 1.18 0.92
2050
Forecast
327,950,000 -
550
40,000,000 -
200
451,336,000,000 159 – 1,589
1,703 –
16,119
0.80 0.78 0.92

42
Table 10. Airline investment in Biofuel alternatives to conventional Jet fuels
Airline/Country Feedstock/Progr
am
Volume Capital
Invested (USD)
Notes Producers
Qatar Airways
(Qatar)
ATJ/F-T N/A N/A
Virgin Australia
(Australia)
Algae (ATJ/F-T) N/A $3.125 M
United Airlines
(USA)
Agricultural
Waste & Non-
edible Oils ()
56.8 ML N/A
Southwest
Airlines (USA)
Woody Biomass
(F-T)
11.36 ML /
year
$0.80/L ($9.1
M)
British Airways
(UK)
MSW (F-T) 61 ML /
year
Similar to
Conventional
Jet Fuel
($0.80/L) =
$49.8M
Alaska Airlines
(USA)
UCO (HEFA) 105,980 L $4.49/L =
$476,000
Red Rock
Biofuel (USA)
Woody Biomass
(F-T)
57 ML/ yr
from
140,000 dry
tons
$70M fund
($200M)
Plans to
expand in
AUS, CAN,
BRA, US
Agreement
with FedEx
Express to
buy 11 ML
by 2017
FAA (USA) HEFA/ATJ N/A Gave $7.7 M in
Awards
$1M for
Honeywell
OUP
$3M to
Lanzatech
USDA (USA) MSW (F-T) 42 ML/ yr Spend $105 M
($266M MSW
facility)
Loan to
Fulcrum
Bioenergy
Fulcrum
Bioenergy
(USA)
MSW & Waste (F-
T/ATJ)
681 ML / yr
(5 plants)
Awarded $4.7
M for 1st MSW
plant.
Gave $200 M
contract for
engineering,
procurement &
construction.
Additional
Opportunit
y for
340ML/yr
for 10 yrs
United has
stake
worth $30
M

43
Figure 10. Significant investment into Biofuel Research and production
Figure 11. Historical Jet fuel prices and price projections in the united states. (Annual Energy
outlook, 2014)
1000
25 30 8.6 2.38 0.86
512
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Qatar Airbus + Air
Canada
US Navy Lufthansa Virgin Aus +
Air NZ
Iberia
Airport
Canada
Cost$(Millions)
INVESTED ENTITY
Significant Investmentsby Major Airlines
Airlines

44
Table 11. Alternative Jet fuel purchases made by the U.S. Department of Defence 2007-2012
(IATA Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap)
Figure 12. Current Biofuel initiatives by region (2015)

45
Figure 13. Passenger flights undertaken using biofuel blends by Biofuel production.
Figure 14. Passenger carrying flights operated using biofuel blends, by supplier nationality
Passenger carrying flights by
Production method
HEFA
FT
Passenger carrying flights operated
with biofuel by Supplier Nationality
Europe
Asia
North America

46
Figure 15. Passenger carrying flights operated with Biofuels, by airline nationality
Figure 16. Passenger carrying flights that have been undertaken with Biofuel blends by airliners
currently included in the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme
Passenger carrying flights operated
by biofuel by Airline nationality
Europe
North America
Asia
Australia
Passenger carrying flights by inclusion to
the EU ETS as of 2015
Included
Not Included

47
Figure 17. Passenger carrying flights that have been undertaken under the European Unions
Emissions Trading Scheme
Figure 18. Biofuel Initiatives Pre and Post the 2012 introduction of the EU ETS
Passenger carrying flights powered by
Biofules by Airlines included under the
EU ETS
Not- Included
Included
Biofuel Initiatives Pre and Post
introduction of the ETS
Pre 2012
Post 2012

48
Figure 19. Key Oil producing regions vs. Optimum land for growing sustainable Biofuels

49
Table 12. Passenger carrying flights undertaken with Biofuel blends

50
Table 13. Airline off-take agreements

51
CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS
5.1 2015-2050 PROJECTIONS
IATA mean estimates providing a projection of the potential for biofuel production between
2015-2050 suggest that an excess of 100 billion litres could be in production by 2050 (See
Figure 1) Assuming uniform growth based of 2015-2030 growth estimates, it is predicted that
FT will be the most viable production method for Aviation biofuel by the year 2050 (See Table 1).
HEFA will remain the most widely utilized Biofuel between 2015-2040. Between 2040-2050 FT
and ATJ will both overtake HEFA (See Figure 5).
FT is the least viable certified method of producing Aviation Biofuel as of 2015. However, it will
experience rapid growth between 2015-2050, increasing its market share by 1.18% per year. FT
will overtake HEFA as the most viable Biofuel in 2043 controlling 34.69% of potential
production compared to HEFA’s 33.48% (See Table 2)
HEFA is currently the most viable Biofuel in circulation with a 2015 market share of 93.4% (See
Figure 2). However, it is already experiencing a decline in production by up to 2.14% per year.
ATJ is the most recently certified method of producing biofuels. Its market share is expected to
increase by 0.96% per year (See Table 2). This yearly increase in the rate of production will see
ATJ overtake HEFA as an alternate to Aviation Jet fuel in 2044 controlling 32.79% of potential
production to HEFA’s 2044 expected market share of 31.34%.
Whilst ATJ provides a viable and competitive alternative to current Aviation Jet fuel, it will not
exceed FT as the most commercially produced and utilised biofuel.
5.2 POTENTIAL VOLUME AND PRODUCTION
As the emission of Carbon, amongst other greenhouse gases, has become a prevalent topic within
the aviation industry, government organisations and commercial entities including IATA and the
European Union have pledged to combat the continued growth of emissions.
In 2009, the IATA announced their plans to reduce net CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050,
compared to the 2005 CO2 levels. A proposed target of 2 million tons of biofuel for use within
Europe has been established. In addition to this commitment, many nations and airlines have

52
created partnerships in order to commercialize Biofuel through the airline off-take agreements
(See Table 13) In 2013 United Airlines signed an agreement with Altair, a Biofuel supplier, to
receive 17,000 ton of HEFA Biofuel per year over a period of three years. Furthermore, in 2014
Cathay Pacific airlines signed an exclusive contract with Fulcrum to obtain 100,000 tons of F-T
biofuel produced from waste products, over a ten year period. This shows a high level of interest
in Biofuels as airlines are already shifting away from conventional fuels. Table 13 demonstrates
that F-T fuels produced from waste products are appealing to airlines as a future source of fuel,
superior to HEFA over a ten year delivery period.
As of 2015 there are two certified processes to produce biofuel, which is becoming more widely
used in the aviation industry (See Table 12); the F-T process and the HEFA process. The ATJ
process has recently been approved by the ASTM and is likely to positively penetrate into the
Biofuel market (See Figure 5)
Table 3 shows that HEFA and FT produced Biofuels account for the majority of biofuel current
and planned production. The Biofuel purchases made by the U.S. Department of Defense, as well
as the biofuel currently in production by Neste Oil, UOP and BTG is created by the HEFA method
of production, indicating that HEFA Biofuel is the most widely produced and purchased Biofuel.
However, when compared with the off-take agreements between fuel producers and airlines
(See Table 13) it can be seen that the FT is the most ordered Biofuel and therefore likely to
overtake HEFA in supply and demand.
When comparing F-T and HEFA, both HEFA produced and F-T produced Biofuels provide high
quality product. They both meet critical jet fuel properties such as freeze and flash point and
have gained their approval by ASTM. However the F-T process is the most cost effective
production process. Due to the characteristics of the feedstock required to produce a reasonable
quantity of HEFA fuel, it has a higher output cost.
When comparing potential production volume, F-T has a high output potential of 1-2billion
gallons per year. HEFA by comparison can be produced in quantities of 90-150 million gallons
per year.
For these reasons, the Biofuel production trend is gradually switching from the HEFA process to
the F-T process. Figures 2, 3 and 4 demonstrate that HEFA, which accounts for approximately
93% of total biofuel production will decrease its market share to 61% in 2030 and will show
steady decline to 19% in 2050. However, the F-T process, which currently accounts for 2% of

53
total biofuel production is estimated to increase to 19% in 2030 and is expected to continuously
rise to 43% by 2050. As a direct result of the change in the trends of biofuel production, the
HEFA process, which has previously dominated the alternative Jet fuels market, will likely be
replaced by the FT process in terms of total production.
Alongside the increase of the FT process, the ATJ process, which is not yet widely
commercialised due to its status as a brand new biofuel technology as of 2015, will also
contribute greatly to the biofuel industry. As can be seen in Table 2 the ATJ process will establish
itself as another effective alternative to the HEFA process in 2015 and is predicted to rise
dramatically to a 19% share of the market in 2030 and will continuously grow to a 39% share in
2050. This will therefore see the ATJ process account for almost the same rate of biofuel
distribution as the FT process, ultimately placing the HEFA processes in indefinite decline.
The effort to commercialize biofuel in the aviation industry is under way. Airliners and
government bodies have set ambition Biofuel production goals. Research and development
schemes are progressively underway and infrastructure for the production of biofuels to satisfy
airline demands has begun construction so that the supply chain for biofuel to be commercially
utilised can effectively be established.
As a result, there will be a subtle change between 2015 and 2020 and then gradually increase to
11.36 billion liters of potential biofuel production in 2030 (See Table 1). The total potential
biofuel production is estimated to reach 43.18 billion liters by 2040 and will continue to rapidly
increase and peak at 104.5 billion liters in 2050. Our study shows that there is no decrease or
reduction in biofuel production and demonstrates that there is a positive trend in the biofuel
industry.
5.3 FINANCIAL INDICATIONS
The research undertaken by this study indicates that airlines, fuel suppliers and producers,
aircraft manufacturer’s and various national governments have shown support and interest into
the development of Biofuel alternatives to conventional Jet fuels.
However, at present Airlines and fuel producers and suppliers face difficulties in producing and
purchasing large quantities of Bio-Jet fuel due to the relatively high cost of the feedstocks.

54
Sources of feedstock such as Camelina and Jatropha oil plant are expensive to cultivate since
they require land, fertilizer, water and harvesting machineries (See Table 6)
Table 9 shows a cost forecast for 2050, indicating the capital invest required to develop an F-T
refinery plant would be between $328million-$550million per facility. A HEFA refinery requires
$40million of capital investment for a small-scale facility and $200million for large-scale facility.
The financial investment will decrease over time for both types of fuel production as the facilities
are developed. Using cost effective additions such as cleaner and faster equipment in refinery
plants as well as in collecting, filtering phases will facilitate this decrease in cost over time.
United Airlines has invested in a $30 million stake in Fulcrum Bioenergy. Fulcrum uses
municipal solid waste (MSW) as a feedstock and converts it to Biofuel via the F-T or ATJ process.
This investment is mirrored by other airline investments into Biofuel production (See Table 10)
demonstrating airlines interest in fuels sourced from MSW
MSW does not require land or compete with food production as forest and woody residues does.
Moreover, utilising MSW will improve quality of life by removing MSW from populated areas,
bringing with it reduce human illnesses/deaths and an increase overall. This improvement in
health by the removal of waste products from communities will have a filter effect to the medical
industry by reducing incidence of illness and therefore hospital expense.
Opting for MSW as a Biofuel presents difficulties (See Table 6). As MSW is wide spread and
broadly distributed it is difficult and requires financial investment to transport all of the
obtainable waste to one plant to facilitate its use as a Biofuel. This is similar to used cooking oil
(UCO) and therefore presents the same challenges to HEFA fuels.
Algae, as a feedstock, have the benefit of being grown in water therefore removing the need for
land conversion. However algae is conventionally processed through the expensive HEFA
process. Cultivating this feedstock as a source for HEFA fuel is very cost effective compared to
traditional HEFA feedstocks that are quite costly. Algae also has a short growth to maturity
period and is capable of generating large volumes of product in a relatively short timeframe. The
lack of land usage and feedstock costs makes HEFA fuel produced through use of Algae an
attractive option of Middle Eastern governments and airliners. It is for this reason that HEFA,
while predicted to decline as an alternate fuel, is unlikely to disappear from the market until an
alternative for Algae production is developed.

55
The F-T pathway makes biofuel from sources such as Municipal Solid Waste and
Woody/Forestry/Agricultural Residues, which has relatively low expense compared to HEFA
sources. The feedstock in this instance is relatively inexpensive, however, development of F-T
refinery plants is not economical as shown in Table 9.
Due to the lack of purpose built infrastructure, BioJet fuels are being produced in the same
facilities as second-generation Biodiesel fuels produced for road vehicles. The disadvantage of
this is that BioJet fuels receive only limited government subsidies whilst road transport Biodiesel
production receives significant subsidies. When not produced in a purpose built facilities,
Biodiesel has a monopoly due to the cost benefits. Despite the initial capital investment required,
the subsidies likely to come into effect with purpose built facilities will help offset the economic
difficulties.
The increasing cost of Jet fuel (Jet A1) (See Figure 11) is a primary motivation for airliners
looking to make the transition to Biofuels. Since the price of conventional Jet fuel is forecast to
continue to rise, and the demand for air travel is increasing, airliners and aircraft manufacturers
are investing large sums of money into difference types of biofuels in different regions.
As seen in Figure 10, significant investment by airliners is already underway. Qatar Airways
investment of $1000 Million can be seen as a growing trend as between 2015-2020 a number of
other airliners have committed funds to develop a suitable Jet fuel alternative.
The key considerations taken in selecting the type of feedstock for future growth and cultivation
are:
1. The feedstock must be available locally and easily produced on a commercial
scale
2. It must not have negative impact on land, food security or carbon emissions.
From the research, it has been identified that the largest number of Biofuel initiatives is located
in North America and Europe (See Figure 12). Both of these Regions contain primarily developed
nations with stable economies that allow the investment of future fuel sources.
Overall, the price of feedstock is determined to be the most significant economic factor in Biofuel
selection as despite the cost of the initial facilities required to produce F-T fuels in comparison

56
with HEFA, F-T is predicted to significantly overtake HEFA as viable alternative. MSW,
Forest/Wood Residues and Algae are the most cost effective. Jatropha and Camelina are very
costly to cultivate. This indicates that F-T will be the most financially viable Biofuel for long term
use.
5.4 POLITICAL INCENTIVES
The political and regulatory landscape of the aviation biofuel industry is uncertain.
Figure 16 shows that a majority of airliners undertaking commercial flights powered by biofuels
are currently included under the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme, However, the ETS
did not come into effect for Aviation emissions until the year 2012, and covers flights within the
EU only. Figure 17 Shows that the number of airlines that have operated flights under the ETS
since its introduction is significantly less than the flights that were operated outside of the
jurisdiction of the ETS. This suggests that the ETS does not have a significant impact on the
decision of an airliner to employ alternate fuels sources. Therefore it can be deduced that the
consequences of the scheme are not significant enough to offset the risks associated with the
implementation of alternate fuels.
However, Figure 18 shows the European initiatives and coalitions into the commercialisation of
alternate jet fuels pre and post the implementation of the ETS. There has been a near two-fold
increase in the enactment of new enterprises since the 2012 inclusion of aviation into the
scheme. This suggests that while the cost of carbon under the scheme may not be a sufficient
incentive for airliners to operate commercially using Biofuels, European emission policies do
have an impact on the decision of developers to investigate Biofuels potential for the industry.
Figure 14 and Figure 15 also show that Europe is the leading continent in both supply and
demand for commercially viable Biofuel. Australia and Asia both have a 0% share in supplier
nationality (See Figure 14). This indicates that Asia and Australia have the potential to become
large-scale importers of Biofuel based of the current supplier network. This is despite the lack of
government regulation and incentives for the aviation biofuel sector within these continents.
North America is the second largest provider of commercially operated, passenger carrying,
flights run off biofuels. This is despite a less than quarter share of the supplier market. The
importation of Biofuels from Europe to operate commercially indicates that North American has
a significant interest in Biofuel usage.

57
North America, the United States of America in particular, is also the second largest introducer of
new Biofuel initiatives (See Appendix C). As North America does not operate under an emissions
trading scheme that includes aviation, and has deregulated government policy with regard to
carbon emission and green fuel targets, this suggest that North America, USA specifically, is more
concerned by the potential benefits Biofuels offer for energy security.
The low amount of new initiatives in developing countries and in the oil rich middle east
suggests a lack of financial and political incentives.
Africa is yet to operate commercial passenger carrying flights fuelled by Biofuels. This could be
due to political instability in parts of the continent as well as a lack of government incentives and
policy. Replacement of food with Feedstocks for conversion to Biofuel could also be a
contributing factor due to the regions heavy reliance on agriculture.
South America has conducted a number of commercial passenger carrying flights with biofuels.
This is despite a lack of South American suppliers. However Figure 19 shows that Jatropha can
be heavily produced in South America, more so than in other regions, suggesting that South
American regions have the potential to commercialise the export feedstocks to be used by
international suppliers.
The overall implication is that while the EU ETS is effective in influencing new initiatives and
coalitions between airliners and suppliers for further investigation into the potential for Biofuels
within the industry, it is not a significant driver in airliner Biofuel consumption. When combined
with the results from continents with no environmental policy, it is clear that the Government
incentives are not sufficient to promote growth and that socioeconomic factors are much more
prevalent in determining the future of Aviation Biofuels.
5.6 ENVIRONMENT
The current worldwide fuel consumption for the aviation sector is around 200 million tons of
kerosene fuel. Table 1 shows that aviation bio fuel production plants have produced around 1.5
billion litres of bio fuel for the year 2015. The biomass required for producing this level of
aviation Biofuel would be produced from crops such as Jatropha, camelina, sugar cane, Palm oil
and oil seed crops (See Appendix A). In addition to these sources, Biofuel can also be produced
from animal fat, municipal solid waste, forest and agricultural residue and algae. The primary

58
quantities of bio fuels have been produced from sources; Cameina, Jatropha, Municipal solid
waste, sugar cane and forest and agricultural residue.
To produce a sustainable amount of bio fuel to meet the global demand, very large quantities of
bio mass will be required. The amount of feedstock that can be produced from farms and forests
is heavily dependent on the climate, fertility and soil nutrition as well as the availability of
quality water within the the region.
To ensure that bio fuel production is sustainable, the effects on land, water, air and other
biodiversity issues have to be considered. As there is increase in global population, the amount
of land available for cultivation and forestry is reducing.
There is no way to increase landmass available for use on earth and increasing crop yield per
hectare can be extremely difficult due to the its dependence on weather and the nutritional
content of the soil. The result of these constraints is that Biofuel must find a niche within the
existing available land to become successful.
Production of feedstock s such as algae, forest and agricultural residue and Municipal solid waste
do not require any additional land due to being produced at sea in the case of Algae or being a
byproduct of existing land use. Appenix A shows that the F-T process uses feedstock from forest
and agricultural residue and municipal solid waste. Therefore as the F-T process requires no
additional land, the major quantity of bio fuel for the future could be produced from F-T process
without risk to food security or land required to facilitate population expansion. However,
according to Figure 5, the amount of bio fuel produced using the F-T process for the year 2015 is
considerably less than the amount of HEFA fuel produced. F-T process would also significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emission and support food production and fresh water conservation.
This makes it an attractive method of production when looking purely into the advantages and
disadvantages of feedstock production.
HEFA Biofuel is produced using feedstock such as Camelina, Jatropha, animal fat and algae.
Feedstocks required to produce bio fuel through the HEFA process require large amounts of land
and water. Because of this, HEFA Biofuels have the potential to disrupt food production and
fresh water resources.
By 2050 the primary source of aviation Biofuels will be F-T fuels (See Figure 4) However HEFA
produced Biofuels will also play a vital role in meeting the fuel requirement targets.

59
The land required to produce various kinds of feedstock for bio fuel production has been shown
in Table 7. Feedstock can be produced on any arable land-mass, however, crop yield depends on
the fertility of the soil and water resources of the region. Algae feedstock production in
particular can potentially utilise the vast areas of land with low agricultural potential, therefore
limiting the impact on food crops. Locations to produce algae are less depended on the fertility of
land and are more dependent on water nutritional content including levels of phosphorous,
nitrogen and carbon dioxide content in water. According to Table 8, the land area required to
produce feedstocks to me global Biofuel requirements will increasing dramatically from 2015 to
2050. The next generation biomasses will need to be sustainable within the limited of land mass
and water resources available. Municipal solid waste and algae production are likely to be a
better option to sustainable fuels within these constrains.
Consideration must be taken to ensure the production and distribution of Biofuel can be carried
out in an environmentally conscious and sustainable manner. Considerations include Carbon
emissions, land use, fresh water supply and air pollution. Cultivation of Jatropha and large scale
Algae production in particular raise the potential for contamination of water supply’s. Municipal
solid waste harbors the potential to cause soil and air pollution if preventative measures are not
taken.
705million tones of Carbon Dioxide gasses were produced world wide in 2013. The potential
risks associated with Feedstock supply must therefore be weighed against the risk of allowing
climate change to proceed unchecked.
Due to the Middle Easts limitations on freshwater supply and arid landscape, existing local
agriculture would not be able to supply the energy crops required to produce alternate fuels and
an attempt to do so would place food supply in jepoardy. However, agricultural operation
residues could provide feedstock as well as municipal waste.
Agricultural and municipal wastes are extremely sustainable feedstocks as they do not put
pressure on land and water use or risk food security and environmental biodiversity. Abu Dhabi
is facing serious waste management challenges that saw waste streams grow by more than 25%
in four years. To combat this, the government has demanded 85% diversion of recyclable or
reusable materials by 2030 and has stated waste-to-energy as the only way to achieve this goal.
Therefore, It is most likely that MSW will be the most viable Biofuel feedstock within the Middle
Eastern region.

Future of biofuel

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Future of biofuel

Ähnlich wie Future of biofuel (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Future of biofuel