Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sustainable Flying Biofuels As An Economic and Environmental Salve For The Airline Industry
Sustainable Flying Biofuels As An Economic and Environmental Salve For The Airline Industry
Sustainable Flying Biofuels As An Economic and Environmental Salve For The Airline Industry
Sustainable Flying:
Biofuels as an Economic and Environmental Salve for the Airline Industry
EQ Email: enquiries@eq2.eu.com UK: 0845 371 2520 International: +44 7921 253 222
insight
Executive Summary
Feb 2010
The aviation industry will need carbon-neutral biofuels as a feasible and desperately needed way to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and cut its greenhouse gas emissions. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), starting from 2012, will put a direct cost on carbon emissions for all flights into or out of Europe. It is likely only a matter of time before most flights around the world will be similarly taxed. More than just the carbon risks, the airline industry has been battered by unstable jet fuel prices and biofuels offer a potentially more stable (not to mention more sustainable) fuel source. This report provides a review of the development of biofuels for aircraft and a critical examination of the economic and climate impacts of the aviation industry moving towards the large-scale adoption of biofuels. Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK), made from Jatropha, Camelina, algae or halophyte feedstocks, is the most promising candidate for alternative jet fuel and test flights have successful proven its feasibility as a replacement for conventional jet fuel. Although not commercially viable yet, the EU ETS offers a strong financial incentive for the adoption of bio jet fuels. Based on the current EU ETS price for carbon in 2012 of 15 and 2009 average jet fuel price of $1.69 per gallon, every gallon of jet fuel burned would incur carbon costs of an additional $0.21, which is a total cost of $1.34 billion across the industry. This is a premium of 12.4% that would not apply to biofuel, but would help make it more cost competitive. Further out, the EU ETS will impose costs of $9.56B in 2020 and $19.48B in 2030 on the airline industry. This will be equivalent to approximately 3.6% of the total operating cost of the EU aviation industry by 2030. While airlines may be able to pass along some of these costs to consumers, it is too competitive a market for the industry to reap windfall profits, particularly in later years when the industry needs to buy most (and likely all) of its carbon credits. Based on the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) industry body assumptions of 15% and 30% consumption of biofuel in 2020 and 2030, the EU aviation industry will be able to avoid 35 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2020 and 100 million tonnes in 2030. Such reduction in emissions is equivalent to $2.01 and $5.84 billion of savings on carbon expense in 2020 and 2030, respectively. Based on the same assumption of aviation biofuel consumption, the global aviation industry will be able to avoid 129 million tonnes and up to 420 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2020 and 2030, respectively.
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
If the global aviation industry is to achieve the International Air Transport Association (ATA)s aim of carbon neutral growth from 2020 solely by biofuel consumption, it will need to use approximately 46.172.0 billion gallons of biofuel in 2030, which is equivalent to 38-49% of total jet fuel consumption.
The internalisation of billions of dollars carbon costs by the air transportation industry will provide a significant financial incentive for the development and adoption of new carbon reduction alternatives. Biofuel offers the only near to mid-term solution for the industry to significantly reduce its climate impact, with the added benefit of diversifying away from non-renewable fossil fuels.
$200 Credit Cost ($ bn) $160 Biofuel Cost ($ bn) Jet Fuel Cost ($ bn) $120
Expense ($ bn)
800
$80
400
$40
$0
201 0 201 2
uel) iofuel) biofuel) uel) iofuel) b b biof biof (no 0 (30% neutral (no 0 (15% 0 0 3 2 20 20 203 030 (C 202 2
0 2010 2020 2030 Low 2030 High (15% biofuel) (30% biofuel) (15% biofuel)
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
Content
1. Introduction: Biofuel in aviation
1.1 1.3 The challenges faced by the aviation industry The feedstock 1.2 Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) 1.4 Environmental benefit 1.5 Economic viability of Bio-SPK 1.5.1 Price and production cost uncertainties 1.5.2 Oil price pressure on biofuel producers 1.5.3 Aviation industrys dependence on fossil fuel 1.5.4 Emission trading
4. References
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
1. Introduction: Biofuel in aviation
Kerosene-type jet fuel has been the prevalent fuel used by commercial aircraft since World War II when it became financially preferable to gasoline-type fuels. The specification for the fuel was established in the 1950s and has not changed since. Such a monopoly of fossil fuel in the aviation industry is set to change with the next generation of new, sustainable jet fuel biofuel. In 2008, airlines started to carry out test flights using jet fuel blended with biofuel. Virgin Atlantic was the first to carry out a test flight with a blend of coconut-derived methyl ester with conventional jet fuel. Later in 2008, different airlines started to join the aviation biofuel testing trend and perform test flights with biofuel derived from a variety of feedstocks. Up to December 2009 there were five successful biofuel test flights performed by Air New Zealand, Continental Airlines, Japan Air Lines, Qatar Airways and KLM. In addition, Jet Blue, Interjet and British Airway have already scheduled their biofuel test flights in 2010.
The problem is further worsened by the climate change crisis. The environmental issues are so important nowadays that they are given the same priority as the economy on the national and global agenda. Translating these environmental issues into business operating terms is leading to additional regulations and compliance, which means a tougher operating environment. Companies endeavour to remain profitable while paying a considerable amount of attention to their environmental footprint. A companys obligation on environment has become the second driver for the development of sustainable aviation fuel.
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
be the way forward. One of the most promising candidates for alternative aviation fuel is Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK). Bio-SPK is the biofuel used in all the test flights mentioned above, apart from Virgin Atlantics. It is the most tested type of biofuel by the aviation industry and has shown very similar performance levels to conventional jet fuel. In understanding the potential of Bio-SPK to the aviation industry, this paper will provide an informative and critical account of the environmental and financial benefits and uncertainties of Bio-SPKs both to airlines and the industry as a whole.
Camelina
Camelina has high lipid oil content and the primary market of its oil is as a feedstock to produce renewable fuels. Camelina is often grown as a rotational crop with wheat and other cereal crops when the land would otherwise be left fallow as part of the normal crop rotation program.
Algae
Algae is potentially the most promising feedstock for producing large quantities of sustainable aviation biofuel. These microscopic plants can be grown in polluted or salt water, deserts and other inhospitable places. They thrive on carbon dioxide, which makes them ideal for carbon capture (absorbing carbon dioxide) from sources like power plants. One of the biggest advantages of algae for oil production is the speed at which the feedstock can grow. It has been estimated that algae produces up to 15 times more oil per square kilometer than other biofuel crops.
Jatropha
Jatropha produces seeds containing inedible lipid oil that can be used to produce aviation fuel. Each seed produces 30 to 40% of its mass in oil and is capable of growing in a range of difficult soil conditions, including arid and otherwise non-arable areas. The seeds are toxic to both humans and animals and are therefore not a food source.
Halophytes
Halophytes are salt marsh grasses and other saline habitat species that can grow either in salt water or in areas affected by sea spray where plants would not normally be able to grow.
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
storage of edible crops to historically low levels; a study by the World Bank in 2008 suggested that biofuel production has caused the worlds food prices to surge by 7075% 1. This, furthermore, led to another long-term environmental problem; the alternation of land use and deforestation, which contributes significantly to GHG emissions, thus causing an increasing rate of climate change. Moreover, all of these biofuels cannot be used directly by aircraft. Refining biofuel to aviation fuel involves energy-intensive manufacturing processes and in so doing, the cost and life-cycle GHG emission of these processed biofuels increase substantially and can exceed that of conventional jet fuel. While commercialisation of food-derived biofuels may be unsustainable, Bio-SPKs are derived from a new array of feedstocks, namely Jatropha, Camelina, algae and halophytes. Biofuel derived from these feedstocks are sometimes referred as second-generation biofuel and they share two overwhelming advantages over traditional biofuel feedstocks. The first advantage is that these second-generation feedstocks are all inedible, which means the production of bio-SPK will not compete with the food supply. The second advantage is that the feedstock vegetations do not need to be cultivated on fertile farmland. For example, Jatropha is resistant to drought and pests and can be grown on non-arable land. This gives them the potential to be cultivated in remote areas or factories
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
Figure. 3 - Comparison of life cycle GHG emissions between conventional jet fuel and aviation biofuel
Figure. 4 - Life-cycle GHG emission comparsion between petoleum jet fuel and Bio-SPKs
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
g CO2 eq/MJ
Jatropha Bio-SPK
Camelina Bio-SPK
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
Figure. 5 the potential life cycle GHG emission intensity (normalised with conventional jet fuel) of different type of alternative jet fuel in different production scenarios. This figure illustrates how unsustainable cultivation of feedstock can lead to dramatic increase in life cycle GHG emissions of biofuel.
Source: Near term feasibility of alternative jet fuel, Hileman et al. (2009) Scenarios (S0) No land-use change (Soy oil to HRJ) (S1) Grassland conversion to soybean field (Soy oil to HRJ) (S2) Worldwide conversion of noncropland (Soy oil to HRJ) (S3) Tropical rainforest conversion to soybean field (Soy oil to HRJ) (P0) No land-use change (Palm oil to HRJ) (P1) Logged-over forest conversion to palm field (Palm oil to HRJ) (P2) Tropical rainforest conversion to palm field (Palm oil to HRJ) (P3) Peatland rainforest conversion to palm field (Palm oil to HRJ)
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
tion. The current production price estimation for coal-and-biomass-derived FischerTropsch jet fuel from a coal-and-biomass-to-liquid (CBTL) FT plant range from $1.97 to $2.39 per gallon. However, pure biomass-derived FT fuel produced from a biomass-toliquid (BTL) FT plant costs $6 per gallon. For hydro-processed renewable jet fuel, which most of the test flights used, cost information is not yet publicly available.
Figure. 6 - Global assest financing of bio-refinery. The figure suggests that the amount of investment in biofuel sector closely resemble the trend of oil price Source: World Energy Outlook 2009, IEA (2009)
Press Releases: Questions & Answers on Aviation & Climate Change, European Union (2005)
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
mobile industry that involves personnel, facilities and infrastructure all over the world. Such reliance makes the aviation industry extremely vulnerable to the instability of oil prices and such financial risk makes the aviation industry keen to develop alternative fuels and gradually reduce its dependence on fossil fuel. Therefore, economically and financially speaking, the aviation industrys desire for a drop-in renewable fuel far exceeds any other industry simply due to the lack of alternative solutions. Although aviation biofuel developers will be stressed by the fluctuation of oil prices, they are likely to have a more stable client base and receive robust support from the airlines.
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
A. The refining technology is well developed and there is a sufficient supply of oil sands from Canada. The down side of oil sands-derived Jet A is that they have even higher lifecycle GHG emissions than conventional jet fuel and they are not derived from sustainable feedstocks and are not carbon neutral. Another type of alternative jet fuel that is of wide commercial use is Fischer-Tropsch synthetic jet fuels. While Bio-SPKs produced by FT processes are still in the development stage, mainly due to the immaturity of the supply of the second-generation feedstocks, FT fuel derived from fossil fuel has long been used by the aviation industry. Since 1999, aircraft leaving O. R. Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg, South Africa, may receive a blend of up to 50% FT synthetic fuel. However, the downside of FT synthetic fuels is that their lifecycle emissions are significantly higher than conventional crude-oil derived jet fuel. Compared with conventional jet fuel, coal-derived FT fuel is estimated to be 2.0 to 2.4 times higher in lifecycle GHG emissions and natural gas-derived jet fuel is about 1.15 times higher 1. Recently FT fuel suppliers are putting efforts into minimising the environmental impacts of FT synthetic fuel production by employing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. This would contribute to a substantial reduction in life-cycle emission of FT synthetic jet fuel down to 0.8 to 1.3 times that of conventional jet fuel. These alternative jet fuels, though still fossil-fuel derived and not sustainable, could be used as a substitute for conventional jet fuel before Bio-SPKs are available in commercial scale.
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
2.1 Main assumptions
Our projections and estimations are based on the following assumptions: Rate of biofuel commercialisation In this report, based on the commercialisation rate suggested by Air Transport Action Group, we assume that aviation biofuel consumption will be equal to 15% and 30% of total jet fuel consumption in 2020 and 2030, respectively.
Source: Beginner guide to aviation biofuel, Air Transport Action Group & enviro.aero (2009)
2010
$139.00 $3.31
2012*
$139.56 $3.32
2020
$145.00 $3.45
2030
$205.00 $4.88
Table. 1 - Assumptions for conventional aviation fuel price: 2010, 2012, 2020 & 2030 Source: IATA economic briefing: outlook for oil and jet fuel price, IATA (2008) *Jet fuel price 2012 is projected with linear projection based on the IATA Economic Briefing figures
Carbon price
Currency
EURO/tCO2 USD/tCO2
2012
15.00 $21.95
2020
40.00 $58.53
2030
40.00 $58.53
Table. 2 - Assumptions for carbon credit price: 2012, 2020 & 2030 Source: 2012 carbon price Carbon Price Summary, Vertis Finance (2009) 2020 and 2030 carbon price - IATA 2008 Report on Alternative Fuel, IATA (2008) December 2009 exchange rate - 1 EURO = 1.4632 USD
Table. 3 - Assumptions for EU ETS emission caps for aviation Source: Transportation emission data, European Commission (2009)
There will be other assumptions related with each specific case and will be stated in the footnotes.
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
Table. 4 Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions implications of biofuel consumption for EU27 aviation
2010
Scenarios
-
2012
19.23 183.98 -
2020
No biofuel 24.47 234.13 -
2020
w/ biofuel 15 24.47 3.67 199.01 35.12
2030
No biofuel 34.78 332.81 -
2030
w/ biofuel 30 34.78 10.43 232.97 99.84
2030
Carbon neutral growth from 2020) 40.2 34.78 13.98 199.01 133.80
18.10 -
gal) Total CO2 emissions (Mt) 173.22 CO2 emissions avoided by biofuel (Mt)
2010
Scenarios
-
2012
$1.34
2020
No biofuel $9.56 $94.04 3.56%
2020
w/ biofuel 15 $7.51 $2.06 $94.04 2.79%
2030
No biofuel $19.48 $189.25 3.60%
2030
w/ biofuel 30 $13.64 $5.84 $189.25 2.52%
2030
Carbon neutral growth from 2020) 40.2 $11.65 $7.83 $189.25 2.15%
EUA expense ($ bn) Avoided EUA expense ($ bn) Total (maximum) expense on fuel ($ bn) EUA expense vs total
$59.91 -
$65.23 0.72%
*Total operating cost is calculated based on the assumption that total fuel expense account for 35% of the total operating cost. [Source: Boeing, IATA]
and the purchased EUAs from other industry sectors, and excluding the free credits allocated to them. Without biofuel, we estimate the potential EUA cost on airlines will rise to $9.6 billion in 2020 and $19.5 billion in 2030. Such an increase is dramatic and is equivalent to an 11% spending increase on carbon credits annually. Relating these figures with business operation terms, spending $1.34 billion on EUAs in 2012 is equivalent to nearly 2% of the total fuel cost. The percentage rises sharply to 10% of the total fuel costs when the credit expense reaches $19.5 billion in 2030 if no biofuel is used by the aviation industry. This rapid increase is driven by a combination of aviation industry growth, increase in EUA prices and an increase in auctioned EUAs. In other words, assuming that fuel cost accounts for 35% of airlines operating costs, the carbon credit expense in 2030, without using biofuel, would be equivalent to approximately 3.6% of total operating cost. There is a possibility that the spending increase will be even sharper than we estimate
Table. 6 Biofuel price premium in US Dollar per gallon
10
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
Figure. 7 - Projection of 2010 - 2030 jet fuel consumption of EU27 aviation
40
Biofuel
between 2012 and 2020 because it is a possibility that auctioned EUAs may likely reach 100% of the emissions cap by 2020, from 15% in 2012. One of the solutions to mitigate the financial pressure of the EU ETS is to use aviation biofuel. Regarded as a carbon neutral fuel, airline operators do not have to buy EUAs for biofuel combustion. Assuming 15% and 30% consumption in 2020 and 2030 respectively, we estimate that biofuel application can contribute to potential saving of $2.1 billion in 2020 and $5.8 billion in 2030 on carbon credits. This would only be true if bio jet fuels were the same price as traditional jet fuel.
30
20
10
201
2 201
202
203
280
Currently, second-generation biofuels are very expensive to produce, but with the price expected to come down as technology and production volumes improve. Given that biofuel would avoid the financial carbon costs associated with traditional jet fuel, airlines would be willing to pay a price premium at least up to the fuels associated carbon cost savings. The price premium of biofuel varies depending on the price of EUAs. Based on the current EU ETS price for carbon in 2012 of 15 and 2009 average jet fuel price of $1.69 per gallon, every gallon of jet fuel burned would incur carbon costs of an additional $0.21, which is equivalent to a premium of 12.4%. Table. 6 summarises the price premium of aviation biofuel calculated using our main assumptions on EUAs and projected conventional jet fuel prices. Note that, an increase in jet fuel prices or a decrease in biofuel prices would cause a decrease in the percentage price premium of aviation biofuel. However, only an increase in jet fuel prices would create an incentive to develop and adopt aviation biofuel.
CO emission (Mt)
210
Free credits
140
70
0
0 201 201 2 202
Expense ($ bn)
$80
$40
$0
201 0 2 201 202
el) el) el) fuel) fuel) iofu % biofu ral biofu o bio % bio t no b 0 0 (n 20 (15 30 ( 030 (3 (C neu 0 2 0 2 2 0 203
*Grey section (figure. 7) represents the amount of jet fuel whose emissions would need to be offset to achieve the IATA target of carbon-neutral growth from 2020. Other Assumptions Projection of jet fuel consumption: 4.1% annual increase [Boeing Aviation outlook 2009-2028] Fuel efficiency improvement: 2000 2010 = 1.3%; 2010 2020 = 1.0%; 2020 2030 = 0.5% [estimation used by DEFRA] Prjection from EU27 aviation emission 2006 [Source: European Commission]
11
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
Figure. 8 - Projection of 2010 - 2030 jet fuel consumption of global aviation industry
16 0
Figure. 9 - Global CO2 emission and potential emission abatement by using biofuel
1600 Avoided CO emission
120
80
CO emission (Mt)
1200
800
40
400
0 2010
Biofuel
2010
2020 2030 Low 2030 High (15% biofuel) (30% biofuel) (15% biofuel)
2.3.2 How much biofuel does the aviation industry need in order to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020?
EU If the commitment of carbon neutral growth from 2020 is achieved entirely by aviation biofuel utilization, the level of biofuel penetration needs to be even higher than Air Transport Action Group (ATAG)s targets. Assuming that aviation CO2 emissions will be capped at 2020 levels, we estimate that the EU aviation industry alone will require around 14 billion gallons of biofuel in 2030 in order to achieve carbon neutral growth
Table. 7 Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions implications of biofuel consumption for global aviation industry
Low 2010
Biofuel (bn gallon) gallon) Total CO2 emissions (Mt) CO2 emissions avoided by biofuel (Mt)
61.03 584 -
High
2020
89.88 860 -
2020
15 89.88 13.48 731 129.00
2030
122.48 1172 -
2030
30 122.48 36.75 820.4 351.60
2030
148.40 1420 -
2030
30 148.40 44.52 994 426.00
12
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
Low 2020
Scenario Biofuel Total (maximum) expense on fuel & EUA ($ bn) EUA expense ($ bn) Total biofuel cost ($ bn)* EUA expense : total fuel cost (%) EUA expense : expense (%)
Table. 8 Cost implication and benefit associated with EU ETS compliance *Total operating cost is calculated based on the assumption that total fuel expense account for 35% of the total operating cost. [Source: Boeing, IATA] Other Assumptions Assumed emission cap used is 457.9 Mt, 95% of 2005 level CO2 emission forecasts are taken from Allocation of international aviation emissions from scheduled air traffic - future cases, 2005 to 2050 (final report to DEFRA global atmosphere division) and the 2030 High (FAST-A1) and Low (FAST-B2) emission forecasts is generated by the FAST model. FAST model is a global aviation inventory model that general projection using external data on projections of revenue passenger km (RPK).
$337.85 $27.55 8.16% 2.85%
High 2030
Biofuel carbon neutral 38% $653.04 $37.60 $273.47 5.76% 2.02%
2020
15% biofuel 15% $337.85 $20.00 $54.09 5.92% 2.07%
2030
$653.04 $86.11 13.19% 4.61%
2030
30% biofuel 30% $653.04 $47.43 $218.03 7.26% 2.54%
2030
$794.06 $113.39 14.28% 5.00%
2030
30% biofuel 30% $794.06 $66.53 $264.16 8.38% 2.93%
2030
Biofuel carbon neutral 49% $794.06 $37.60 $427.25 4.73% 1.66%
solely on biofuel. That would be 8.8 billion gallons more than we estimate with a biofuel market penetration of 30%, and will be equivalent to 40% of total fuel consumption. Global We estimate that the entire industry will need to use 46-72 billion gallons of biofuel in 2030 globally in order to achieve the carbon neutral growth target entirely with biofuel. That is equivalent to about 38-49% of total jet fuel consumption in 2030. This level of biofuel consumption in the aviation industry is very unlikely to happen in 2020 or 2030 due to current biofuel production constraints.
13
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
Without using any biofuel, we estimate that carbon expenses will be $27.6 billion at 15% auctioned credit level (2020), and $86.1 - $113.4 billion at 50% auctioned credit level (2030) for the global aviation industry. By using biofuel, the expense on carbon credits can be greatly reduced, with the corresponding expense on biofuel increasing if the aviation industry needs to pay a premium price for biofuel.
14
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
independent on fuel production location and fuel consumption purpose. Based on the same penetration assumption, we estimate that global aviation biofuel production will be 0.88 million barrels per day in 2020 and about 2.40 to 2.90 million barrels per day in 2030. That implies the potential downward price pressure of aviation biofuel on world oil prices will be about 0.53% to 4.64%. Therefore, there is a fair possibility that future aviation biofuel prices likely could be lower than our estimation.
Is the CDM Fulfilling its Environmental and Sustainable Development Objectives? An Evaluation of the CDM and options for improvement, Schneider, L. (2007)
15
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
Figure. 10 - Biofuels demand by type and scenario Source: World Energy Outlook 2009, Interational Energy Agency (2009)
fuel. We have identified that the biggest incentive for the development of aviation biofuel is aviation industrys dependence on crude oil. Such dependence makes the industry passive and vulnerable to oil price fluctuation. A drop in fuel derived from sustainable source is hugely desirable and will bring about a paradigm shift to the fuel consumption habit of the aviation industry. Policies and compliance costs create direct financial incentives for the development of aviation biofuel. Without any biofuel consumption, we estimated that the carbon credit expense will cost the EU aviation industry $9.56 billion in 2020. The expense will rise sharply to about $19.5 billion in 2030, which is equivalent to 11% of the total fuel cost and 3.6% of total operating cost. Such financial pressure in an industry with very narrow to non-existent profit margins clearly demonstrates how compliance costs can have a potent effect on airlines energy policies. The same theory can be applied to the global aviation industry. The International Energy Agency s findings (Figure. 10) suggest that if the world is to commit to stabilise CO2-e concentration at 450 ppm, the demand for second generation biofuels, including Bio-SPKs, would increase more than 6 fold.
Business Sustainability
Ultimately, the development of Bio-SPKs is all about sustainability. Financially, Bio-SPKs potentially help aircraft operator to ease their operational burden by avoiding carbon allowance expenses. However, most important of all, Bio-SPKs provide a chance for the aviation industry to shift into a truly sustainable business model by decoupling from the reliance on crude oil, thus departing from the passive position of being controlled by fossil fuel prices. Environmentally, as a significant GHG emitter, the aviation industry cannot isolate itself from the fight against climate change. While aircraft fuel efficiency has increased over 80% from the 1960s through to the 1980s, mainly due to the development of widebody and mid-range aircrafts, efficiency improvements have dropped to less than one percent annually since. Under the aspirational aim of energy-related emissions to peak by 2020 and stabilising global CO2-e at 450 ppm, changing to renewable fuel is the only option that the aviation industry can adopt to contribute to this battle against anthropogenic climate change.
16
www.eq2.eu.com
insight
4. References
Air Transport Action Group (2009), Beginners Guide to Aviation Biofuel The Boeing Company (2009), Current Market Outlook 2009 2028 Biofuelwatch (2009), Biofuels for Aviation: More Future Land Grabbing and Deforestation for Agrofuels to Justify Todays Airport Expansion? http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Aviation_biofuels_Biofuelwatch_March2009.pdf Cobbs, R. & Wolf, A. (2004), Jet Fuel Hedging Strategies: Options Available for Airlines and a Survey of Industry Practices http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/ fimrc/papers/jet_fuel.pdf Committee on Climate Change (2009), Meeting the UK Aviation Target Options for Reducting Emissions to 2050 Daggett, D.L., Hendricks, R.C., Walther, R. & Corporan, E. (2008), Alternative Fuels, for Use in Commercial Aircraft, NASA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2007), A Study to Estimate Ticket Price Changes for Aviation in the EU ETS: A Report to Defra and DfT Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2008), A study to estimate the impacts of emissions trading on profits in aviation Ernst & Young, & York Aviation (2007), Analysis of the EU Proposal to Include Aviation Activities in the Emissions Trading Scheme EUROPA (2009), Aviation and climate change Consolidated Version of the EU ETS Directive 2003/87/EC, European Union http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/aviation/index_en.htm Hendricks, R.C. (2008), Alternate-Fueled Flight: Halophytes, Algae, Bio-, and Synthetic Fuels, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Hileman, J.I., Ortiz, D.S, Brown, N., Maurice, L. & Rumizen, M. (2008), The Feasibility and Potential Environmental Benefits of Alternative Fuels for Commercial Aviation, MIT, RAND Corporation & Federal Aviation Administration Hileman, J.I., Ortiz, D.S., Bartis, J.T., Wong, H.M., Donohoo, P.E., Weiss, M.A. & Waitz, I.A. (2009), Technical Report: Near-Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels, Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction & RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment International Air Transport Association (2008), IATA 2008 Report on Alternative Fuels International Air Transport Association (2008), IATA Economic Briefing: Outlook for Oil and Jet Fuel Prices, IATA
17
www.eq2.uk.com
insight
International Civil Aviation Organization, Putting Aviations Emissions in Context http:// www.icao.int/Act_Global/Aviation_Emissions-in-Context.pdf International Energy Agency (2009), World Energy Outlook 2009 Kanellos, M. (2009), Algae Biodisesl: Its $33 a Gallon, Greentech media http://www. greentechmedia.com/articles/read/algae-biodiesel-its-33-a-gallon-5652/ Kinder, J.D. & Rahmes, T. (2009), Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK), Sustainable Biofuels Research & Technology Program, The Boeing Company Nygren, E. (2008), Aviation Fuels and Peak Oil, Uppsala Universitet http://www.tsl. uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/Aviationfuels.pdf Oilgae Blog (2009), Biofuels Digest released summary of US venture capital investment in biofuels http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2009/01/biofuels-digest-released-summaryof-us.html Owen, B. & Lee, D.S. (2006), Study on the Allocation of Emissions from International Aviation to the UK Inventory CPEG7: Final Report to DEFRA Global Atmosphere Division: Allocation of International Aviation Emissions from Scheduled Air Traffic Future Cases, 2005 to 2050 (Report 3 of 3), Manchester Metropolitan University Patil, V., Tran, K.Q. & Giselrod, H.R. (2008), Towards Sustainable Production of Biofuels from Microalgae, Int. J. Mol. Sci., Vol. 9, pp. 1188-1195 Rutherford, D. (2009), Stagnation in Aircraft Efficiency Improvement Highlights Need for Comprehensive Carbon Dioxide Standards, The International Council on Clean Transportation Sims, R., Taylor, M., Saddler, J. & Mabee, W. (2008), From 1st- to 2nd-Generation Biofuel Technologies: An Overview of Current Industry and RD&D activities, International Energy Agency & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Wallace, L. & Macintosh, A. (2008) International Aviation Emissions to 2025: Can Emissions be Stabilised without Restricting demand?, Centre for Climate Law and Policy, The Australian National University Cover page image: Renewable Fuel and Power, LLC
18
www.eq2.eu.com
Report contacts
Max Tam
Research Analyst
EQ2
Gregory Elders
Director of Research
London Washington Boston enquiries@eq2.eu.com UK: 0845 371 2520 International: +44 7786 893 123
Steve Burt
Chief Executive
About EQ2
EQ is a sustainability economics company. We provide organisations with the most accurate and up-to-date information relating to their environmental impacts, sustainability risks and financial performance implications. EQ has developed Evolution, an Enterprise Carbon, Environmental and Financial Accounting Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution, that helps organisations to identify and map their environmental impacts to their financial metrics using real-time measurement of resource inputs including energy, water and raw materials and production outputs of goods, emissions and waste. Evolution provides business changing information to decision makers and employee teams.
The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to EQ2. The information herein has been obtained from sources, which the authors and publishers believe to be reliable, but the authors and publishers do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. The authors and publishers make no representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and opinions contained herein. All opinions expressed herein are based on the authors and publishers judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry and firm-specific factors. 2010 EQ2.
www.eq2.uk.com