i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Life cycle evaluation of hydrogen and other

potential fuels for aircrafts

Yusuf Bicer a,*, Ibrahim Dincer b

a
Department of Automotive, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario L1H 7K4, Canada
b
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey

article info abstract

Article history: In the present study, hydrogen and some other alternative fuels (such as ammonia,
Received 16 December 2016 methanol, ethanol, liquefied natural gas) are considered for aviation applications under a
Received in revised form comprehensive life cycle assessment study and are evaluated comparatively with the
23 December 2016 conventional kerosene based jet fuel for various impact categories. Therefore, this study is
Accepted 25 December 2016 performed with a well-to-wake approach to evaluate the overall life cycle of an aircraft
Available online 16 January 2017 running on these conventional and alternative fuels. Both conventional and renewable fuel
routes are considered for the production of ammonia and hydrogen fuels. Although there
Keywords: are modifications required to fulfill the aviation fuel specifications for such alternative
Hydrogen economy fuels, the long term viability and environmental sustainability make them attractive so-
Fuels lutions for the future of aviation industry. This study uses a life cycle assessment of an
Aircrafts average aircraft utilizing various alternative aviation fuels to determine the relative envi-
Aviation ronmental impact of each life cycle phase. The life cycle phases included in the analyses
Life cycle assessment are as follows: (i) production, operation and maintenance of the aircraft, (ii) construction,
Environmental impact maintenance and disposal of the airport, (iii) production, transportation and utilization of
the aviation fuel in the aircraft. The results show that hydrogen and liquefied natural gas
represent more environmentally benign alternatives although fuel costs are higher
compared to ammonia, jet fuel and methanol. The total GHG emissions from hydropower
based ammonia and hydrogen are calculated to be about 0.24 kg CO2 eq. per traveled
tonne-km and 0.03 kg CO2 eq. per traveled tonne-km, respectively. Renewable based
ammonia and hydrogen fueled aircrafts can further decrease the overall environmental
impact in many categories allowing a brighter future for aviation industry.
© 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

transportation sectors, including air, road, and sea. However,

Introduction
Petroleum based fuels have combination of accessibility, easy
handling, energy content, performance and reasonable price
because of being a mature product, and hence commercial
viability. Therefore, these types of fuels are heavily used by all
limited proven reserves, nonhomogeneous source distribu-
tion, changing prices, and end use related emissions of fossil
fuels have driven most of the industries, such as air trans-
portation to search for other alternatives. The global aviation
industry produces around 2% of all human induced carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions. Specifically, the aviation sector is

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yusuf.bicer@uoit.ca (Y. Bicer), ibrahim.dincer@uoit.ca (I. Dincer).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.119
0360-3199/© 2016 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports
sources whereas it is 74% for road transport [1]. Around 80% of
aviation CO2 emissions are originated from flights of over
1500 km, for which there is no practical alternative mode of
transport. Through the local and international flights overall
the world produced over 770 million tons of CO2 in 2015 only [1].
Presently, the aviation industry consumes the fuels,
particularly derived from fossil fuels, mostly in specialized
forms of petroleum based fuels. Such fuels tend to have
higher qualities compared to some conventional applica-
tions, such as heating and transportation. Note that aircraft
fuels have additional requirements compared to land and
sea transportation counterparts, such as resistance to
extreme temperature changes. Recently, emerging biofuels
and transportation fuels have been considered alternatives
to traditional hydrocarbon fuels. Among them, hydrogen and
ammonia have zero or very little emissions when produced
from water by renewable energy sources. Possibly, hydrogen,
ammonia, methanol and ethanol can eliminate aviation
industry's reliance on the limited fossil fuel sources with
fluctuating prices and drastic GHG emissions. Particularly,
hydrogen and ammonia help considerably decrease aviation
industry's impact on the greenhouse gas emissions.
Aviation industry emissions have been studied extensively
in the open literature by assessing alternative bio-fuels and
hydrogen. Dincer and Acar [2] presented a comprehensive
review for the utilization of hydrogen in the aviation sector.
They considered various pathways for the hydrogen and
concluded that hydropower and wind electrolysis routes for
hydrogen aircraft are more environmentally friendly although
the cost is higher. Koroneos et al. [3] performed an LCA study
of kerosene manufactured in Greece for aviation industry
applications. They determined that kerosene's most impor-
tant environmental impact is the SO2 emissions which is
named as acidification effect. 99.5% of overall LCA CO2 emis-
sions of kerosene occurs for the period of aircraft operation.
Howe et al. [4] conducted an LCA study of an Airbus A320
passenger car production, operation and fuel utilization with
the usage of Eco-Indicator 99 impact assessment methodol-
ogy. They concluded that the operational steps of the aircraft
represent the highest contributor to the overall environ-
mental impact of the A320 with kerosene combustion causing
the mainstream of emissions. Nojoumi et al. [5] comparatively
evaluated GHG emissions of kerosene and hydrogen in various
phases as aircraft fuels where they considered the fuel storage
and aircraft operation. They examined the utilization oppor-
tunities of hydrogen as an alternative fuel in aviation which
can supply important reductions of GHG emissions. They
compared kerosene fueled aircrafts with hydrogen alternative
in terms of environmental impact, radiative forcing, storage,
and safety viewpoints. They analyzed three main destinations
from Toronto to Montreal, Calgary and London in order to
investigate the total emissions and consumptions. Brewer
et al. [6] explored many further performance indicators of
hydrogen as an aviation fuel. They discussed essential alter-
ations to support hydrogen powered aircrafts including
compressor air pre-cooling, hydrogen refrigerating, reforma-
tive fuel reheating and turbine air refrigeration.
Khandelwal et al. [7] studied various perspectives of
hydrogen fueled aircraft by implying the current problems.
10723
They expressed that weight is a very important issue with
aero applications since the design of the aircraft and cryogenic
storage of hydrogen need to be setup with the least amount of
boil off for the minimal weight. The primary properties of
hydrogen enable fuels to be combusted stably at leaner
equivalence ratios, reducing the residence times. Thus
reduced emissions are acquirable with hydrogen combustion.
They implied that two most viable methods of hydrogen
combustion for gas turbines are lean direct injection (LDI) and
micro-mix methods. Verstraete [8] showed that the liquid
hydrogen fueled aircrafts are more effective and still continue
beneficial from the perspective of weight compared to kero-
sene fueled aircrafts, therefore suggesting lower direct oper-
ating costs. Sharpe et al. [9] suggested hydrogen to be utilized
as an alternative aircraft fuel, particularly in supersonic/hy-
personic aircrafts. Hydrogen production, distribution, and
utilization as an aviation fuel have, however, bring some
complications. Compatibility with the current infrastructure
and probable environmental impacts are some of these sig-
nificant points requiring solutions. The urgency, necessity,
and practicability of global hydrogen economy were discussed
greatly in the literature. Xu et al. [10] concluded in his study
that with hydrogen powered aircrafts, it is probable to save
more than 50,000 kg fuel in gross weight and about 11,000 kg
throughout empty weight operation. Pereira et al. [11] inves-
tigated each phase of life cycle assessment to evaluate liquid
natural gas and liquid H2 produced by different sources with
jet fuel by considering energy consumptions, CO2 emissions,
and several pollutants such as HC, CO, NOx and PM.
Hileman and Stratton [12] studied the feasibility of various
synthetic fuels which can propose aviation with a varied
collection of possible feedstocks which can hypothetically
substitute petroleum. However, they also stated that a few
problems concerning the economic cost of production and the
current lack of feedstock obtainability restricts the close term
availability to aviation. Furthermore, Han et al. [13] performed
an LCA study of various bio-aviation fuels such as hydro-
processed renewable jet fuel, FishereTropsch jet fuel path-
ways from corn stover and coal, pyrolysis jet fuel pathways
from corn stover. They concluded that well-to-wake GHG
emissions can be decreased by 41e63% with the usage of
hydro-processed renewable jet fuel, 68e76% with pyrolysis jet
fuel, and 89% with FishereTropsch jet fuel from corn stover
compared to kerosene based jet fuel. Janic [14] built a model is
developed to estimate the emissions of greenhouse gases
following the gradual replacement of conventional by cryo-
genic aircraft according to different scenarios.
The emissions from the internal combustion engines do
not only result in environmental concern, but also sustain-
ability and economic challenges. The full life-cycle of the fuel
needs to be assessed. When considering alternative fuels, is-
sues such as land use, fertilizer use, water for irrigation, waste
products etc. are necessary points to be addressed. This type
of analysis is recognized as life cycle assessment which is a
cradle-to-grave approach. From the feedstock extraction or
manufacture to the end use in an engine, the fuel has
numerous phases establishing its life cycle. In each phase,
GHG emissions are generated. The whole carbon foot print of
the fuel is attained by summing all emissions in the LCA
approach. Besides, together with combustion, emissions
10724 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
related with crude oil extraction and refining are included for
fossil based fuels, as well as final fuel transport and distribu-
tion. Especially, based on the feedstock and agricultural ap-
plies, the agriculture of the feedstock may constitute an
important part of the emissions. Hence, in order to measure
the emission decreases from utilizing the substitute fuels, a
complete evaluation is required to be accompanied of all
emissions through all phases of the fuel's life cycle, from the
ground to the tank of the aircraft. Environmental advantage is
an attractive point for climate change if the emissions are
lesser than the emissions on the full life cycle of fossil fuels,
counting the combustion.
In general, the following fuel requirements are expected to
be fulfilled in selecting suitable aviation fuels:
 High levels of maximum range or payload heat. This in-
dicates a high specific energy and high energy density.
 Good atomization, rapid evaporation, good burning prop-
erties, including the ability to lower high and low risk of
explosion.
 High specific heat capacity, pollution-free, low carbon
formation.
 Low viscosity and high lubricity, good characteristics of
pumped storage, including low freezing point, in order to
facilitate the operation amount.
 High stability thermal/chemical stability, wide availability
and price acceptable and respects the environment.
 Proper ground and handling characteristics.
It is important to note that the literature studies mainly
focus on the operational processes of the aircrafts whereas in
this study we account for the processes from raw material
extraction, airport operation to fuel combustion in the
aircraft. In addition, they do not consider alternative fuel
options extensively as covered in this study. Here, five
alternative fuels are evaluated in addition to conventional jet
fuel. Furthermore, various fuel production pathways are
considered to study alternatives for more environmental
friendly routes. In this regard, a life cycle assessment study
of an average aircraft transport using various alternative
aviation fuels to determine the relative environmental
impact of each life cycle phase is presented. Using LCA
Fig. 1 e Illustration of the complete well-to-wake life cycle phases used in the present LCA study.
methodology, the overall life cycle emissions of an aircraft
running on various aviation fuels are calculated from well-
to-wake. The steps considered in the analyses cover: (i)
production, operation and maintenance of the aircraft, (ii)
construction, maintenance and disposal of the airport, (iii)
production, transportation and utilization of the aviation
fuel. The environmental impact categories taken into ac-
count in this study are human toxicity, global warming, land
use, depletion of abiotic resources and stratospheric ozone
depletion. The specific objectives of the study can be listed as
follows:
 to conduct a life cycle assessment study for alternative
aviation fuels including aircraft, airport and fuel cycles.
 to evaluate the performance and cost assessments of
alternative aviation fuels.
 to assess the environmental and cost impacts of the fuels
for practicality of the alternative aviation fuels.
 to investigate the alternative fuel production routes in
terms of environmental impact reduction.
Methodology
The evaluation of the life cycle of alternative fuels include the
GHG emissions of the fuel cycle. This includes the extraction
and transportation of raw materials from the well field or mine
to the simple production, processing of these materials in fuel,
transport and distribution of fuel in the tank on the plane and
finally burn the fuel in the aircraft. The stages of this lifecycle
analyze from well to wake as shown schematically in Fig. 1.
When biomass is contained in the generation of fuel, LCA
analysis needs to consider the land use variations which can
occur due to feedstock growing. If the exterior causes of CO2
are utilized for feeding biofuel growing, the boundaries of the
systems needs to comprise the cause of the CO2 emissions [12].
Life cycle analysis includes all stages in a product's life,
namely from the extraction of raw materials through the
material processing, manufacture, distribution, use, and
disposal or recycling. For this analysis, we account for all
the stages in the life cycle of aviation fuels, including
feedstock recovery and transportation, fuel production and
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8 10725

transportation, and fuel consumption in an aircraft. The

Table 1 e Specifications of the alternative aviation fuels
exploration and recovery activities from the well to fuel
considered in the present study.
production and the subsequent transportation to the
Fuel Specific Density at Energy
dispensing pumps constitute the well-to-pump (WTP) stage.
energy (MJ/kg) 15  C (g/m3) density (MJ/L)
The combustion of fuel during aircraft operation constitutes
the pump-to-wake (PTWa) stage. These two stages com- Kerosene 43.2 0.808 34.9
(Jet A/Jet A-1)
bined comprise the well-to-wake (WTWa) fuel cycle as
Liquid hydrogen 120 0.071 8.4
illustrated in Fig. 1. Liquid methane 50 0.424 21.2
Note that the functional units are critical when comparing Methanol 19.9 0.796 15.9
LCA results of various alternative products. For energy prod- Ethanol 27.2 0.794 21.6
ucts, a common functional unit is a unit of delivered energy Biodiesel (typical) 38.9 0.87 33.9
such as MJ of fuel. This is particularly important when Liquid ammonia 18.6 0.73 13.6
comparing fuels that are used in similar combustion tech- Source: Refs. [15e17].
nologies with similar end-use efficiencies such as petroleum
jet and renewable jet fuel in the same aircraft. However, when
fuels are used in different combustion technologies with aviation kerosene using data from the results to observe the
different efficiencies but similar functions, the energy func- aviation biofuel impacts relative to fossil fuels. Note that
tional unit may not be appropriate. In such cases, a service sufficient fuel properties and operational characteristics are
function unit could be a more reliable metric which can be km considered with acceptable characteristics of alternative
traveled carrying a specific payload. In such cases, the LCA fuels. Hence, the adaptation of the infrastructure of the air-
results would depend on the aircraft's payload fuel energy crafts for other fuel combustion purposes only is not
intensity. A ton kilometer by aviation is defined as the unit of considered in this study. All these selected fuels are
measure of goods transport which represents the transport of considered to be combusted in the same type of aircraft.
one ton by an aircraft over 1 km. Therefore, the aircraft manufacturing and airport opera-
To quantify energy uses and emissions of a trip to a pas- tional and maintenance phases are treated in an identical
senger, it is assumed that 100 kg of the payload represents an manner for the selected cases.
average weight of a passenger and luggage. This is equivalent The LCA is performed using SimaPro LCA software in
to a mass allocation of energy and emissions between the combination with the Ecoinvent database. Here, ecoinvent
passengers and cargo onboard the aircraft. A simple con- contains industrial life cycle inventory data on energy supply,
version of per-kg results to per-passenger results considers resource extraction, material supply, chemicals, metals,
the fixed weight of a passenger plus luggage. This kind of agriculture, waste management services, and transport ser-
quantification methodology reasonably works for all aircraft vices. Hence, the inventory data for airport construction/
classes regardless of the split between passengers and cargo maintenance/operation and aircraft manufacturing/mainte-
payloads onboard the aircraft. It is important that multi- nance phases are taken from the SimaPro 7.3 software data-
plying the passenger-based functional unit by the total base while the other phases are generated based on the earlier
passenger-distance flown will not provide the total emis- literature data and works. CML 2001 is the selected method to
sions for a flight because this method will not account for the calculate the environmental impact of the inventory data. The
emissions that were allocated to the cargo in the aircraft. To first phase of LCA focuses on the fuel production process,
obtain the total emissions from a flight, it should multiply including the exploitation of raw resources, feedstock culti-
the payload-based functional unit by the total payload- vation and transportation, fuel production and trans-
distance flown. portation, storage and distribution. The second phase is
The aviation sector is forced to subsidize about 3% of the airport construction and maintenance. The third step is the
enforced emission of greenhouse gases related to energy. The manufacturing of the aircraft, and the final step is the com-
International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set a goal bustion of fuel [18] as the schematic diagram is shown in Fig. 1.
to reduce global aviation emissions by 50% in 2050 compared The impacts of HC, CO, NOx, PM, and CO2 emissions are
to the 2005 level strategy [1], and the use of alternative fuels is also analyzed based on their environmental and hence the
under the LCA and its current impact on the product and social costs. As shown in Table 2, each type of these emissions
incidentally. Table 1 illustrates the specific energy, density has specific environmental and social cost derived from
and energy density properties of various alternative aviation
fuels. The liquid hydrogen has the highest specific energy
although currently utilized jet A fuel has the highest energy
Table 2 e Environmental and social impact costs of the
density. According to the aviation fuel standards, a few of pollutants.
these fuels are not currently suitable for aircraft usage, how-
Pollutants Environmental and social impact (USD/kg)
ever, by advancing technologies in engines and combustion,
the aforementioned fuels are likely to be alternatives in the HC 8.27
PM 229.20
aviation industry.
NOx 24.80
In this study, the critical environmental impacts are
CO2 0.07
measured by the selected environmental impact categories. CO 4.16
The estimates of their potential for reducing greenhouse
Source: Ref. [19].
gases are then compared with the results generated for
10726 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
literature. Using the environmental and social costs method-
ology is helpful since it provides a significant view on the
economic impact of emissions on the environment and
human health. In the United State of America, the current
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) use PM2.5 as
the indicator for fine particles. This PM2.5 refers to particles
with a nominal mean aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to 2.5 mm. The particles span many dimensions and
involve many diverse chemicals.
The first particles are often referred to as the primary
particles and the later ones are secondary particles. The par-
ticulate pollution is affected by being dependent on the loca-
tion, the season, temperature, clouds, humidity, wind and
many climatic problems. Additional layers of complexity
result from the ability of the particles to move. Microelement
is mainly formed by a gas discharge, such as the combustion
process and the conversion of the SOx, NOx, and VOCs. The
chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 can vary consid-
erably over time based on the place, weather and source cat-
egories. Therefore, PM2.5 can comprise a mixture consisting
of sulfate, nitrate, organic compounds, the carbon element
and the metal compound. These particles can stay for days or
weeks in the atmosphere waiting for hundreds of thousands
of kilometers to travel. Accordingly, this study contains the
costs of emissions and particulate matters.
LCA steps
The LCA study is divided into three main steps namely;
manufacturing of the aircraft, construction and maintenance
of the airport and operation of the aircraft including the fuel
processes.
Aircraft manufacturing
Here, the materials usage values denote the manufacture of a
regular aircraft in the denoted category where the net weight
of the aircraft is about 234 tonnes. The interventions for pro-
duction processes of these aircrafts are derived from specific
exchanges per seat. The aircraft is assumed to have about 367
seats. The inventory data represent 16 European production
sites of Airbus company where they are located mainly in
Europe, namely Germany, France, Spain and the UK [20]. The
inventory data of aircraft include the processes of material,
energy and water use in the aircraft manufacturing. The rail
and road transport of materials are considered together with
their respective VOC emissions. However, the plant infra-
structure is not included. The energy consumption for
deionized water is included in the electricity value. The spe-
cific material expenditures are not accounted for. Note that
transport of vehicle parts between the different sites are
excluded.
Construction and maintenance of airport
In this step, the maintenance, construction and disposal of
airports are considered. The inventory data for construction
and maintenance of the airport include material consumption
and energy expenditures related with the construction sealed
area such as aircraft parking, runways, etc. at airports [20].
Furthermore, the expenditures for buildings are considered.
The data include the specific expenditures due to refurbish-
ment and demolition. The airport is chosen as a major one in
Zurich, Switzerland with the following specifications: The
foundation layer is 40 cm gravel and a life span of 100 years is
considered. The concrete floor is 22 cm with a concrete rein-
forcement of 1.8 kg steel/m2 and a lifespan of 30 years is
considered. The distance for transport is 25 km. In order to
facilitate a first estimate, the following assumptions are made
for analysis and assessment [20]:
 70% of the built up area is occupied with building halls.
 30% are multi storey buildings with an average of 5 floors.
 The height between the floors is 2.7 m.
Operation of the aircraft
The fuel consumption and airborne emissions are especially
significant for this process. For the airborne emissions, the
location of emissions are separated into three main cate-
gories; low population density area, stratosphere and un-
specified region.
The inventory data include the consumption of selected
fuel, which is jet fuel kerosene, in conventional applications
and other fuels, direct emissions to air as gaseous emissions,
particulate emissions and emissions of heavy metals [20].
The results show the emission data based on the average
fuel consumption and average flight. With inter-continental
(94.6%) and intra-Europe (5.4%), the transmission capacity
distribution is based on the annual transport capacity of the
aircraft from the airport in Switzerland. Data refer to the
average transportation conditions of departure from the
airport at the airport of Switzerland.
Air transport segments require fuels with high energy
density and are thus largely dependent on liquid hydrocar-
bon fuels. Alternative aviation fuels must bear certain tech-
nologies, such as good low temperature flow characteristics,
thermal stability, and low freezing temperatures. Fuel should
also be suitable for the current method of aircraft engines.
Sustainable aviation fuel must satisfy the low CO2 emissions
of the life cycle.
As alternative fuels, the following options are taken into
account in the operation of the aircraft. The production
methods of the alternative fuels are then summarized as
follows:
 Hydrogen: 95% hydrocarbon cracking and 5% salt brine
electrolysis and underground coal gasification (UCG) with
carbon storage capture (CCS) as conventional methods,
hydropower, wind, solar photovoltaic and geothermal as
renewable resources
 Methanol: Steam reforming process of methane
 Ethanol: Direct hydration of ethylene
 Ammonia: Heavy fuel oil and natural gas reforming as
conventional methods, hydropower, wind, solar photo-
voltaic and geothermal as renewable resources
 Liquefied natural gas: Liquefaction of natural gas in a
liquefaction plant
 Jet Fuel (Kerosene): Production from crude oil
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
Thus, the production processes and details of the fuels are
explained here.
 Kerosene
Kerosene is the fuel used mainly in the aviation industry.
Jet fuel is a petroleum derivative. Jet A-1 fuel kerosene class
suitable for most turbo engine aircraft. It is agreed in strict
criteria internationally point over 38  C inflammation, the
maximum value of the freezing point is 47  C. Also, Jet-A
kerosene is a type of fuel in accordance with ASTM specifi-
cation. It has the same firing point as Jet A-1, but higher point
of maximum condensation corresponding to 40  C.
In kerosene production, all processes on the refinery site
including waste water treatment, process emissions and
direct discharges to rivers are accounted for. The emissions
from combustion facilities are only excluded. Refinery crude
oil produces several products such as bitumen, diesel, fuel oil,
kerosene, naphtha, propane/butane, refinery gas, sulfur and
secondary power supplies. Processing effects are assigned to
different products accordingly.
Major indicators like energy use were estimated based on a
survey in European refineries [20]. Other data and indicators
were estimated based on different environmental reports [20].
Inventory represents the distribution of petroleum product to
the final consumer including all necessary transports. Trans-
portation of product from the refinery to the end user is the
full cycle. Operation of storage tanks and petrol stations are
also considered. Emissions from evaporation and treatment of
effluents are taken into account.
 Ethanol
Currently, the usage of ethanol is appropriate for human
consumption and road vehicles especially in the North and
South America, but it is doubtful for aviation sector due to the
properties of ethanol. It is caused by dangerous storage cir-
cumstances and low flash point. Its high volatility can cause
difficulties in cruise process because of evaporative fatalities
or fuel system vapor lock. Although there are technically
available methods to reduce risks during normal flight oper-
ations, significant investments are required for ethanol to be
used with the current version of the aircraft. Also, the use of
ethanol and butanol results in lower performance character-
istics and low energy efficiency of aircraft operations. Etha-
nol's specific energy and energy density are known as 40% less
than conventional jet fuel [12]. The production of ethanol in
this study is considered from direct hydration of ethylene
including materials, energy uses, infrastructure and emis-
sions. Inventory is taken using data obtained from plants in
Europe and India [20].
 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
LNG is the form of natural gas cooled to 162.1  C. Natural
gas typically includes methane with lesser amounts of ethane,
propane and butane, and other hydrocarbons. LNG has been
used as an intermediary for the transportation of natural gas
for more than 50 years, the use of which is growing. Natural
gas is one of our abundant energy resources, with significant
10727
new unconventional resources, such as shale gas, which is
produced around the world. In addition, methane hydrate can
give you more energy in the form of methane, which is
included in all other fossil fuels. Methane hydrates are
methane particles covered by ice and potentially accessible
throughout the world. Currently, the extraction of methane
hydrate is problematic because of the position of the deposits.
In addition, the treatment of ice must be done carefully so that
the methane are not emitted into the air. The biggest advan-
tage of LNG compared to conventional kerosene is the enor-
mous strength of the reserves. The main disadvantage is the
storage condition with respect to the allocation of fuel, which
not only has a lower energy density than conventional aircraft
fuel but is also cryogenic. LNG could not be well suited for
today's aircraft and also require a significant expansion of the
existing international distribution network, like all airports,
LNG-equipped aircrafts need this fuel. However, it is also
likely that FischereTropsch synthetic fuel gas is financially
and ecologically superior to LNG [12]. Emissions of carbon di-
oxide are reduced by about 25% with LNG. The scheme of the
engine is a problem that must be taken into account for the
marketing of LNG fuel. LNG fuel combustion releases
methane, which is a major greenhouse gas. The data for this
study defines the liquefaction of natural gas in a liquefaction
plant [20].
 Liquid hydrogen
Hydrogen is considered as a promising fuel for several
decades. Since the energy required for hydrogen production is
essential, which is theoretically not a fuel, but alternatively it
is a type of energy storage from a primary resource with low
carbon content such as nuclear, wind or solar energy. Due to
the low density of hydrogen gas, it is important to be liquefied
at a temperature of about 251  C for aviation as a source of
energy for use. The use of hydrogen in aviation, ultimately
depends on the ability to produce clean and affordable energy.
Because aviation requires liquid hydrogen, which must be
stored in cryogenic form, it is possible that aviation would use
synthetic hydrocarbons, although hydrogen gas can be used
in other sectors of the economy, with less severe energy
density needs. If a satisfactory source of the low carbon
hydrogen industry was, aviation area could be equipped with
such a hydrogen in the building and deliberately generating
alternative rechargeable nozzle using hydrogen and a
renewable carbon resource as it can lead to lower costs for
aircraft, new fleet of aircraft, cryogenic use considered
hydrogen. However, further studies are needed to identify the
compromise between fuel conversion efficiency and aircraft
design in such a situation.
Liquid hydrogen produces more energy per unit mass of
conventional aviation fuel, however, it requires a large vol-
ume of storage. Combustion of liquid hydrogen as fuel results
in low greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum-
based fuels. There are also some disadvantages of liquid
hydrogen such as the manufacturing cost. The other problem
is the use of liquid hydrogen in the context is that when mixed
with air, it can burn at low concentrations, which cause safety
complications and liquid hydrogen storage is difficult because
it needs low temperature. The output of a moderately high
10728 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
volume of water vapor is also a problem with the hydrogen
aircraft.
For the production of hydrogen in this study, it is assumed
that 95% of hydrogen is produced from the cracking of fossil
fuels where it was taken from 17 European plants, 5% of
saltwater electrolysis [20]. For salt water electrolysis, the
process establishing an average European hydrogen pro-
duction from the three different electrolysis cell technologies
namely: mercury (55%), diaphragm (23%), membrane (22%)
are evaluated. It is an average of the different technologies
used for hydrogen production (as co-product of chlorine). For
the electrolysis process in a membrane cell, the following
process steps are included into this process: brine produc-
tion, brine purification, brine re-saturation as well as the
final handling of the electrolysis products, without the
chlorine liquefaction. The data represent the extraction of
raw materials until delivery to the factory for all processes.
To compare the production of hydrogen from renewable re-
sources, the methods of electrolysis of water from wind,
hydropower, geothermal and solar energy are also evaluated.
In renewable cases, the hydrogen production is conducted
using electrolyzer consuming 53 kWh per kg of hydrogen.
 Liquid ammonia
Ammonia is projected to be a potential hydrogen carrier
with high hydrogen content in the near future. In recent
years, expectations are rising for hydrogen and hydrogen
carriers as a medium for storage and transportation of en-
ergy in the mass introduction and use of renewable energy.
Both storage and transport of hydrogen are considered an
important issue since hydrogen is a gas under normal tem-
perature and pressure. Hydrogen carriers are mediums that
convert hydrogen into chemical substances containing large
amounts of hydrogen, to simplify storage and transport
processes. Hydrogen carriers include ammonia synthesized
from nitrogen and hydrogen that can be used for direct
combustion. Ammonia becomes an important hydrogen
carrier that does not contain any carbon atoms and has a
high hydrogen ratio. Therefore, it is evaluated as a power-
generating fuel. Since ammonia produces mainly water and
nitrogen on combustion, replacing a part of conventional
fuel with ammonia will have a large effect in reducing carbon
dioxide emissions.
General ammonia synthesis technology is recognized as
the Haber-Bosch in the world. In this way, nitrogen is an air
separation process that is primarily supplied as a cryogenic
fluid. Cryogenic air separation is currently one of the most
efficient and cost effective techniques for producing large
quantities of oxygen, nitrogen and argon. It can be used as a
starting material for the production of ammonia for conven-
tional resource naphtha, heavy oil, coal, natural gas, coke and
refinery gas. Natural gas is the main source for manufacturing
ammonia worldwide. Therefore, 85% of liquid conventional
ammonia is considered in this study by steam methane
reforming and 15% by partial oxidation of heavy oil [20].
Values generally correspond to the prior art in European
ammonia production [20]. In order to compare the production
of ammonia based on renewable resources, hydropower,
wind, solar and geothermal energy paths are considered in the
analysis. For renewables based ammonia production, the
hydrogen is initially produced from electrolysis as performed
in previous step of hydrogen production and then it is com-
bined with nitrogen in a Haber-Bosch ammonia plant.
The manufacturing process is considered from emissions
of heavy oil and natural gas, including air and auxiliary power,
energy, transportation, infrastructure land use, waste, air and
water. Transportation of raw materials, auxiliary materials
and waste is included. Carbon dioxide is the product pro-
duced. They are not considered excessive or unstable opera-
tions, but it is assumed that production is a stable operating
condition. Air emissions are considered to emanate in areas of
high population density. It is assumed that the discharge
stream water is discharged into the rivers.
 Methanol
Much of the world's methanol is produced by coal, but the
primary raw material used in the production of methanol is
natural gas. Methanol can be produced from renewable re-
sources such as wood, forest waste, peat, municipal solid
wastes, sewage and even from CO2 in the atmosphere. The
methanol production represents an important market for the
use of natural gas. Modern methanol plant from natural gas
is 70% energy efficient with more than 99% selectivity of the
of methanol. The raw materials, processing energy, estimate
on catalyst use, and emissions to air and water from process,
plant infrastructure are included. The process describes the
production of methanol from natural gas via steam reform-
ing process to obtain syngas. There is no CO2 use and
hydrogen is assumed as burned in the furnace. Raw mate-
rials, average transportation, emissions to air from tank
storage, estimation for storage infrastructure are included
for the distribution part where 40% of the methanol is
assumed to be transported from overseas [20]. The subject
matter particulate emissions cover exhaust and abrasions
emissions. Data for distances from production places to
Switzerland are estimated based on actual plant capacities
[20]. Similar overseas distances assumed. Additional 13% of
methanol is assumed to be from Norway including tanker
transport. Other production is within Europe continent. The
energy and fuel requirements of the selected fuels are shown
in Table 3.
Maintenance and operation of the airport
The operation of aircraft infrastructure contains the heat and
electricity consumption for aircraft maintenance and build-
ings in the airport [20]. A high amount of the heat is consumed
at the airport is produced on-site via natural gas and oil.
Additionally, the consumption of water, waste of water and
disposal of the wastes are considered. The inventory analysis
includes energy expenditures and airport energy infrastruc-
ture. The transport services on airport site are included. The
use and emissions of de-icing materials are taken into account
in addition to land transformation and occupation. The data
considered represent a major airport in Europe. The use of de-
icing materials is calculated as the geometric mean of three
years. In the literature, the emission characteristics of some
airports are also assessed by Turgut and Rosen [22]. They
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
Table 3 e Fuel and energy requirements of various fueled aircrafts.
Fuel Energy consumption (MJ/tonne-km)
Kerosene (Jet fuel A) 9.35
Hydrogen 8.62
Ammonia 9.53
Methanol 9.80
Ethanol 9.80
Natural gas 12.53
Source: Refs. [20,21].
emphasized that the engine number in an aircraft and the age
of the engines are other important factors which contribute to
emission creation as the situation of the combustion cham-
ber, cooling systems and the necessary cooling air are not
same as for new engines [22].
Transportation via aircraft
In this step, all the previous processes are included for
determining the overall life cycle results per tonne-kilometer
by considering the operation of aircraft, production of
aircraft, construction and land use of airport, operation,
maintenance and disposal of airport. For this reason, LCA is
considered the stock of all life cycle stocks in this analysis of
transportation. Airborne infrastructure expenditures and Eu-
ropean and inter-continental cargo performance weighted
average environmental measures at the airport are consid-
ered. Aircraft manufacturing is allocated based on the total
life time of an aircraft which corresponds to a value of
4.28  10 10 vehicle/tonne-km [20]. In the case of aircraft
production, modern production technology is considered [20].
Results and discussion
The full life cycle of an aircraft running on the conventional
jet fuel and various alternative fuels, including hydrogen,
are assessed in terms of environmental impact and perfor-
mance in SimaPro LCA software based on the inventory
data. The results presented here are given on per tonne-km
basis which represents a wider approach for all aircraft
classes regardless of the split between passengers and cargo
payloads onboard the aircraft. The analyzed impact cate-
gories are: Human toxicity which is related with toxic sub-
stances on the human environment and given in terms of
1,4-dichlorobenzene DB equivalents, global warming which
represents the greenhouse gases to air associated with the
climate change and given in kg CO2 eq. (equivalents) unit,
depletion of abiotic resources which is related to extraction
of minerals/fossils and given in terms of kg Sb Antimony
equivalents, stratospheric ozone depletion is the ozone
depletion potential of various gasses in kg CFC-11 equiva-
lent unit, land use which is the extraction of raw materials,
production processes, agricultural land, area of industrial
territory, landfill sites, incineration plant area, transport,
use processes and given in terms of m2a. The land use refers
to the total arrangements, activities and inputs undertaken
in a certain land cover type. The term land use is also used
10729
Energy consumption (MJ/km) Fuel consumption (kg/tonne-km)
343.5 0.21
316.5 0.07
350 0.51
360 0.49
360 0.33
460 0.25
in the sense of the social and economic purposes for which
land is managed. In the CML2001 the life cycle impact
assessment method, competition is measured as occupied
area*time (m2a) where a represents the annual (year) [20].
The feedstock generation is the process which can cause
land employment. Land usage per entity of fuel is lowermost
for the liquid hydrogen case as shown in Fig. 2 due to its higher
overall fuel heating value. However land use intensities for jet
fuel and methanol pathways are relatively similar and lower
than liquid ammonia when compared with the wider collec-
tion of alternative fuel pathways. The annual land use in-
tensities for liquid hydrogen and LNG in the study are found to
be 0.0011 m2/tonne-km and 0.0014 m2/tonne-km, respectively.
For LNG and hydrogen, the land occupation and human
toxicity potentials are significantly lower than for kerosene.
The result matches with other LCA studies of alternative
aviation fuels which have deliberated impacts other than GHG
emissions. Hydropower options for hydrogen and ammonia
significantly lowers the environmental impacts where it cor-
responds to about 60% reduction and 20% reduction for
ammonia and hydrogen, respectively. Liquid ammonia from
geothermal energy has comparable land use values with
methanol and ethanol fueled aircrafts. The low efficiency of
solar photovoltaic systems (in the range of 15%e20%) causes
greater land use for liquid ammonia and hydrogen routes as
seen in Fig. 2.
The sources of the land use for solar PV based liquid
ammonia aircraft are shown in Fig. 3. Hardwood (38%) and
softwood (41%) in forest are two primary contributors where
the air and the CO2 emissions from the land use for the trees
grow. For forest road, land use is not included. This is con-
nected to the forest and CO2 required from the air to produce
beech for hardwood and spruce for softwood. Operation and
maintenance of the airport represents 4% of the overall land
use whereas PV production factory represents only 1% as
shown in Fig. 3.
Though CO2 is the furthermost significant GHG and is the
major emission from the whole life cycle, quantifying the total
amount of greenhouse gases produced is the key for exam-
ining the global warming potential (GWP) of the different
systems. The GWP of the cases is a mixture of CO2, CH4 and
N2O emissions. Ethanol fueled aircraft has the highest GWP
among others. Although ammonia is a carbon free fuel,
because of the conventional production process, it has high
GHG emissions compared to LNG and hydrogen as shown
in Fig. 4. Although, there are some drawbacks of the renew-
ables [23], using renewable resources such as wind, solar,
geothermal and hydropower, the total GHG emissions are
10730 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8

Fig. 2 e Land use in the entire life cycle of various fueled aircrafts per traveled tonne-km.

Fig. 3 e Contribution of various processes to land use of solar PV based ammonia fueled aircraft.

considerably lower for liquid ammonia and liquid hydrogen.
The overall GWP value of ethanol is the highest corresponding
to 1.09 kg CO2 eq/tonne-km since it comes from ethylene
which is a hydrocarbon. Renewable energy usage in the fuel
production processes decreases the overall GHG emissions.
Compared to conventional ammonia fueled aircraft (1.08 kg
CO2 eq/tonne-km), the hydropower based ammonia fueled
aircraft releases about 0.24 kg CO2 eq per tonne-km. This value
goes down to 0.21 for kg CO2 eq/tonne-km for ammonia fueled
aircraft and 0.015 kg CO2 eq/tonne-km for hydrogen fueled
aircraft in case the renewable source is geothermal energy.
The exergoenvironmental analysis of a four cylinder, spark
ignition, naturally aspirated and air-cooled piston-prop
aircraft engine for landing takeoff and cruise phases was also
studied in the literature [24]. The maximum emission was
calculated to be for takeoff process. At the approach phase,
the maximum specific environmental impact and relative
environmental difference is calculated as 18.8 mPts/MJ and
208.9%, respectively.
The distribution of responsible processes for GWP of
hydrogen driven aircraft is illustrated in Fig. 5. Although there
are several processes, operation of the aircraft is the second
largest contributor corresponding to 34%. Operation and
maintenance of the airport is the primary responsible for GWP
corresponding to 48.9% in total where it is distributed into
sub-processes such as natural gas burning in the furnace
(22%), light fuel oil burning in the furnace (5%), lignite burning
in the power plant (7%) and hard coal burning (8%) as shown in
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8 10731

Fig. 4 e Global warming potential of various fueled aircrafts per traveled tonne-km.

Fig. 5 e Contribution of various processes to GWP effect of geothermal based hydrogen fueled aircraft.

Fig. 5. For the case where hydrogen is produced from UCG with
CCS, the operation of the aircraft share increases to 40.7% as
seen in Fig. 6 whereas aircraft production represents 13.3% of
the overall GHG emissions.
Stratospheric ozone depletion can cause harmful effects
on human and animal health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosys-
tems and biochemical cycles. Ozone depletion potential of
several gasses are specified in kg CFC-11 equivalent/kg emis-
sion where the time span is infinity. Fig. 7 presents the life
cycle kg CFC-11 eq. emissions of the aircrafts with different
fuels per kilometer traveled. It is high for methanol and liquid
ammonia while it is considerably less for liquid hydrogen,
LNG and methanol fuels. Liquid hydrogen from UCG with CCS
and geothermal based options are lower than LNG. Further-
more, utilization of renewable based ammonia is better than
kerosene, methanol and ethanol in terms of ozone layer
depletion.
The depletion of abiotic resources is connected to
extraction of minerals and fossil fuels because of in-
volvements in the structure. It is recognized for every
extraction of minerals and fossil fuels depending on con-
centration of resources and rate of deaccumulation. The
terrestrial scope of this indicator is provided at a global scale.
It is expressed in kg antimony equivalents/kg extraction unit.
In contrast to other categories, LNG has quite higher value in
comparison with hydrogen, jet fuel and ethanol as illustrated
in Fig. 8. This is caused by the exploration and extraction
process of natural gas. Similarly, natural gas dependent fuels
such as methanol and liquid ammonia has high abiotic
depletion values. Due to higher fuel flow rate for ammonia, it
yields about 0.01 kg Sb eq/tonne-km. However, renewable
based ammonia driven aircrafts can significantly decrease
the depletion of abiotic resources down to 0.0014 kg Sb eq/
tonne-km which corresponds to about 10% of conventional
10732 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8

Fig. 6 e Contribution of main processes to GWP effect of UCG with CCS based hydrogen fueled aircraft.

Fig. 7 e Ozone layer depletion values of various fueled aircrafts per traveled tonne-km.

steam methane reforming based ammonia fueled aircraft.
For all type of fuels, renewable based routes are more pref-
erable in terms of abiotic depletion.
When the distribution of the sub-processes contributing
to abiotic depletion value of hydrogen fueled aircraft is
investigated, it is seen that 44.6% comes from operation and
maintenance of the airport and 40.7% comes from operation
of the aircraft for UCG with CCS option. The detailed dis-
tribution is illustrated in Fig. 9. Here, hard coal is mainly
used for the required energy of reinforcing steel for
hydrogen production process from UCG with CCS and nat-
ural gas is primarily consumed at the airport for operation
and maintenance. Crude oil is used for diesel requirements
of airport operation and lignite usage originates from power
supply of construction material production for the airport.
On contrary, hard coal has the primary share for ammonia
fueled aircraft where ammonia is produced from UCG with
CCS process as shown in Fig. 10. Because in this process, the
electricity required is supplied from a hard coal fired power
plant.
In the human environment, toxins are the main concern
of the human toxicity category. 1,4-DB (Dichlorobenzene)/kg
of emissions are used to express each toxic substance
equivalent. Among all alternative aviation fuels, the kero-
sene jet fuel, methanol and ethanol human toxicity values
are greater as shown in Fig. 11. On contrary, LNG and liquid
hydrogen have significantly lower toxic impacts on humans.
Geothermal based hydrogen fueled aircraft has the lowest
human toxicity value among others whereas methanol has
the highest value. It is attributed to operation of aircraft with
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8 10733

Fig. 8 e Abiotic depletion values of various fueled aircrafts per traveled tonne-km.

a share of 93% as illustrated in Fig. 12. Natural gas burned in
the furnace has a portion of 3% where it is also utilized in the
methanol production process. Copper and ferrochromium
are used for steel and building materials during the con-
struction of the airport. Ammonia fuel from hydropower
resource has comparable toxicity value corresponding to
0.08 kg 1,4- DB eq/tonne-km with LNG corresponding to
0.03 kg 1,4- DB eq/tonne-km.
Kerosene combustion is a significant contributor to the
environmental impact categories according to distance by
airplane. Energy production from fossil fuels produces high
greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas has a high trend for
CO2 eq emission production of life cycle instead of kerosene
and fuel production. Though the environmental emissions
of hydrogen and ammonia fueled aircrafts are high for
current conventional methods, production of these two
fuels from renewable resources bring better environmental
results.
It is common knowledge that of HC, CO, NOx, PM, and
CO2 which are named as GHG emissions cause environ-
mental damages and adverse effect on human health. The
marginal external price of a unit of these emissions is
identified as environmental and social costs of emissions. In
the literature, these values are estimated by using an inte-
grated assessment (IAM) framework. IAM framework em-
ploys: a reference socio-economic situation, a model of the
connection between emissions and temperature variation,
and a link between the temperature variation and financial
damages.
The environmental and social costs methodology is
essential, for the reason that it gives a unique perspective
on the economic impact of emissions on environment and

Fig. 9 e Contributions to abiotic depletion values of UCG with CCS based hydrogen fueled aircraft.
10734 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
Fig. 10 e Contributions to abiotic depletion values of UCG
with CCS based ammonia fueled aircraft.
human health. Environmental and social costs of HC, CO,
NOx, PM, and CO2 emissions of various fueled aircrafts are
evaluated in terms of USD/tonne-km as shown in Fig. 13 and
Table 4. Fig. 13 shows the calculated environmental and
social cost of emissions based on the values given in Table 2.
Since, they are associated with the amount of various type
of emissions, kerosene jet fuel and fossil fuel based
ammonia represent higher costs. However, as illustrated in
Fig. 14, renewable based ammonia yields lower environ-
mental and social costs of emissions in comparison with
kerosene. Specifically, Fig. 14 shows renewable only based
routes for hydrogen and ammonia in comparison with
kerosene. It is noted that the total environmental and social
costs for renewable based ammonia and hydrogen fueled
Fig. 11 e Human toxicity values of various fueled aircrafts per traveled tonne-km.
Fig. 12 e Contribution of various processes to human
toxicity values of methanol fueled aircraft.
aircrafts are considerably lower than conventional kerosene
jet fuel.
Fig. 15 and Table 5 illustrate the cost of flight for a 5600 km
distance in which alternative fuels are used for the aircrafts.
Although LNG represented better environmental perfor-
mance, the cost of aircraft operation in terms of fuel is the
highest for ethanol and LNG.
In the calculations, the current conventional based routes
are taken into account for comparison purposes. Hydrogen
fueled aircraft has lower cost compared to these two alter-
natives. Since the production of kerosene from crude oil is a
more mature technology, it represents the lowest cost among
all. Liquid ammonia is also low cost alternative compared to
hydrogen as seen in Table 5. Hydrogen has the highest cost per
unit mass, however, having higher heating value makes
hydrogen a cost effective solution.
The performances of the aircrafts are also compared in
terms of energy and exergy efficiencies in Fig. 16. In the
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8 10735

Fig. 13 e Total environmental and social costs of emissions for various fueled aircrafts from conventional and renewable
resources.

Table 4 e Environmental and social costs of emissions for complete life cycle of various fueled aircrafts from conventional
resources.
Environmental and social cost of emissions (USD/tonne-km)
Substance Environmental and Ethanol Kerosene Liquid Liquid LNG Methanol
social impact (USD/kg) ammonia hydrogen
Particulates, <2.5 um 229.2 0.0122 0.0115 0.0672 0.0259 0.0629 0.0942
Carbon monoxide 4.16 0.028174 0.00528 0.035917 0.005910 0.03164 0.02794
Nitrogen oxides 24.8 0.024039 0.11302 0.076339 0.010959 0.01217 0.02386
Hydrocarbon 8.27 0.031481 0.00847 0.025059 0.012483 0.01247 0.02315
Carbon dioxide 0.07 0.074508 0.07320 0.072602 0.006922 0.05735 0.07086

Fig. 14 e Comparison of total environmental and social costs of emissions for renewable based ammonia/hydrogen driven
aircrafts and kerosene driven aircraft.
10736 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8

calculations, two different efficiencies are taken into account

Fig. 15 e A comparison of fuel costs during the operation of
aircrafts for the given range.
namely: fuel production efficiency and fuel combustion effi-
ciency. The production efficiency represents the process from
raw material to final product as fuel. The combustion effi-
ciency is the process of utilization in the aircrafts. Although,
there can be storage and transportation losses, the overall
efficiency can be calculated based on these two main effi-
ciencies by neglecting the storage and transportation effi-
ciencies. Here, the conventional methods are taken into
account for hydrogen and ammonia rather than renewable
based options.
The efficiency values are taken from the open literature
[25e27] and calculated accordingly. Kerosene has the high-
est production energy and exergy efficiencies yielding the
highest overall efficiency. Liquefaction of natural gas in an
energy intensive process causing lower exergetic efficiency,
hence lower overall efficiency for utilization in aircrafts.
Ammonia has high combustion efficiency which results in
the second highest overall exergy efficiency among the
other alternative fuels. The overall efficiencies of methanol
are lower than other fuels. It is noted that the selected
alternative fuels may represent higher efficiencies but also
higher environmental impacts depending on the production
process and technology.

Table 5 e Average fuel consumption rates and fuel costs for selected alternative fuels.
Fuel Fuel consumption (kg/km) Fuel consumption (kg/tonne-km) Fuel cost (USD/kg)
Kerosene (Jet fuel) 7.99 0.217 0.409
Methanol 18.06 0.492 0.250
Ammonia 18.82 0.512 0.280
Hydrogen 2.64 0.071 2.300
LNG 9.46 0.257 0.716
Ethanol 12.47 0.339 0.619

Source: Refs. [20,21].

Fig. 16 e Comparison of energy and exergy efficiencies of various fueled aircrafts counting the fuel production and
combustion.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8 10737

Conclusions Nomenclature

In this study, a well-to-wake approach is used in order to ASTM American Section of the International Association
determine the overall life cycle emissions of an aircraft for Testing Materials
running on various conventional and alternative fuels. Oper- DB Dichlorobenzene
ation of the aircraft, construction, maintenance and operation CCS Carbon Capture Storage
of airport, manufacturing of the aircraft, production and uti- CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
lization of fuel are considered as a complete LCA cycle. CML Center of Environmental Science of Leiden
Although there are modifications required to achieve the University
aviation fuel qualifications for such alternative fuels, the long CNG Compressed Natural Gas
term viability and environmental sustainability are necessary EV Electric Vehicle
to promote these to be attractive solutions for the future of GHG Greenhouse Gas
aviation industry. The following findings are obtained from GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy
this study: Use in Transportation
GWP Global Warming Potential
 Alternative aviation fuels including hydrogen, methanol, HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle
ammonia and LNG are more environmental-friendly op- IATA The International Air Transport Association
tions than kerosene. IAM Integrated Assessment
 Although ammonia and hydrogen are carbon-free fuels, ICE Internal Combustion Engine
the emissions may be high when the fossil fuel are used in ISO International Organization for Standards
the production methods. LCA Life Cycle Assessment
 Hydrogen (produced by the use of geothermal energy) LDI Lean Direct Injection
fueled aircraft route releases the least GHG emissions LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
among the considered cases corresponding to 0.014 kg CO2 LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
per tonne-km although kerosene fueled aircraft releases MSWI Municipal Waste Incineration Plant
1.05 kg CO2 per tonne-km when the complete cycle is NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
considered. PM Particulate Matter
 Renewable sources based hydrogen and ammonia routes PTWa Pump to Wake
represent the most preferable option in terms of the envi- PV Photovoltaic
ronmental impact. RCV Refuse Collection Vehicles
 Global warming potentials of LNG (0.84 kg CO2 per tonne- RER Europe
km) and methanol (1.03 kg CO2 per tonne-km) driven air- UCG Underground Coal Gasification
crafts are lower than currently used kerosene based jet UCTE Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of
fuels. Electricity
 Ammonia production is mainly dependent on natural gas UV Ultraviolet
causing high environmental impacts overall. However, VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
renewable energy resources based ammonia production WTP Well to Pump
considerably lower the environmental impacts corre- WTWa Well to Wake
spondingly to 0.23 kg CO2 per tonne-km for hydropower
route.
 The operation of the aircraft has almost equivalent share
references
(40.7% for hydrogen route of UCG with CCS) with operation
and maintenance of the airport (44.6% for hydrogen route
of UCG with CCS) in total GHG emissions. Hence, the en-
[1] Facts and Figures, Air Transport Action Group, May 2016,
ergy supply of airport facilities are also critical when
http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html. [Accessed in
complete life cycle is evaluated. June 2016].
 The environmental cost analyses reveal that nitrogen ox- [2] Dincer I, Acar C. A review on potential use of hydrogen in
ides are the highest contributor followed by carbon aviation applications. Int J Sustain Aviat 2016;2(1):74e100.
dioxides. [3] Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N. Life
 The cost of flight is currently lower for kerosene jet fuels cycle assessment of kerosene used in aviation. Int J Life Cycle
Assess 2005;10:417e24.
however by developing technologies the cost of flight for
[4] Howe S, Kolios AJ, Brennan FP. Environmental life cycle
methanol, ammonia and hydrogen can compete with
assessment of commercial passenger jet airliners. Transp
conventional jet fuels. Res Part D Transp Environ 2013;19:34e41.
[5] Nojoumi H, Dincer I, Naterer GF. Greenhouse gas emissions
assessment of hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircraft
propulsion. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:1363e9.
Acknowledgement [6] Brewer R, Nagashima J, Kelley M, Heskett M, Rigby M. Risk-
based evaluation of total petroleum hydrocarbons in vapor
The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Natural intrusion studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. 2013;10:2441e67.
10738 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 0 7 2 2 e1 0 7 3 8
[7] Khandelwal B, Karakurt A, Sekaran PR, Sethi V, Singh R.
Hydrogen powered aircraft: the future of air transport. Prog
Aerosp Sci 2012;60:45e59.
[8] Verstraete D. Long range transport aircraft using hydrogen
fuel. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:14824e31.
[9] Sharpe JE, Bimbo N, Ting VP, Rechain B, Joubert E, Mays TJ.
Modelling the potential of adsorbed hydrogen for use in
aviation. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 2015;209:135e40.
[10] Xu W, Li Q, Huang M. Design and analysis of liquid
hydrogen storage tank for high-altitude long-endurance
remotely-operated aircraft. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2015;40:16578e86.
[11] Pereira SR, Fontes T, Coelho MC. Can hydrogen or natural gas
be alternatives for aviation? e A life cycle assessment. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39:13266e75.
[12] Hileman JI, Stratton RW. Alternative jet fuel feasibility.
Transp Policy 2014;34:52e62.
[13] Han J, Elgowainy A, Cai H, Wang MQ. Life-cycle analysis
of bio-based aviation fuels. Bioresour Technol
2013;150:447e56.
[14] Janic M. The potential of liquid hydrogen for the future
‘carbon-neutral’ air transport system. Transp Res Part D
Transp Environ 2008;13(7):428e35.
[15] Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N.
Advantages of the use of hydrogen fuel as compared to
kerosene. Resour Conserv Recycl 2005;44(2):99e113.
[16] Contreras A, Yig €

it S, Ozay
lu TN. Hydrogen as
K, Vezirog
aviation fuel: a comparison with hydrocarbon fuels. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1997;22(10e11):1053e60.
[17] Wang MQ, Huang HS. A full fuel-cycle analysis of energy and
emissions impacts of transportation fuels produced from
natural gas. Center for Transportation Research, Energy
Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory; 1999. ANL/
ESD-40.
[18] Cox K, Renouf M, Dargan A, Turner C, Klein-Marcuschamer D.
Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of aviation biofuel
from microalgae, Pongamia pinnata, and sugarcane
molasses. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 2014;8(4):579e93.
[19] Pindilli E. Applications for the environment: real-time
information synthesis (AERIS) e benefit-cost analysis. In:
AERIS program. RITA-research and innovative technology
administration. U.S. Department of Transportation; 2012.
[20] Ecoinvent database. SimaPro Life Cycle Analysis Database.
Version 7.3 (software).
[21] Argonne National Laboratory. GREET model. 2016. http://
greet.es.anl.gov.
[22] Turgut ET, Rosen MA. Assessment of emissions at busy
airports. Int J Energy Res 2010;34(9):800e14.
[23] Azarpour A, Suhaimi S, Zahedi G, Bahadori A. A review on
the drawbacks of renewable energy as a promising energy
source of the future. Arab J Sci Eng 2013;38(2):317e28.
[24] Altuntas O, Karakoc TH, Hepbasli A. Exergoenvironmental
analysis of pistoneprop aircrafts. Int J Exergy 2012;10(3):290e8.
[25] Kong S-C. Combustion efficiency and exhaust emissions of
ammonia combustion in diesel engines. In: Department of
mechanical engineering, Iowa state University, 4th annual
conference on ammonia; Oct 15-16, 2007.
[26] Reiter AJ, Kong S-C. Combustion and emissions
characteristics of compression-ignition engine using dual
ammonia-diesel fuel. Fuel 2011;90(1):87e97.
[27] Turner D, Xu H, Cracknell RF, Natarajan V, Chen X.
Combustion performance of bio-ethanol at various blend
ratios in a gasoline direct injection engine. Fuel
2011;90(5):1999e2006.