See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269290472

Conversion routes for production of biokerosene—status and assessment

Article  in  Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery · December 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s13399-014-0154-2

CITATIONS READS

30 2,645

2 authors:

Ulf Neuling Kaltschmitt Martin

Technische Universität Hamburg Technische Universität Hamburg
29 PUBLICATIONS   186 CITATIONS    369 PUBLICATIONS   4,689 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Protein recovery from agricultural residues View project

InnoTreib View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulf Neuling on 29 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biomass Conv. Bioref.
DOI 10.1007/s13399-014-0154-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Conversion routes for production of biokerosene—status
and assessment
Ulf Neuling & Martin Kaltschmitt
Received: 9 September 2014 / Revised: 18 November 2014 / Accepted: 21 November 2014
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract For environmental reasons, the use of biokerosene
as a fuel for aviation has been recently discussed more fre-
quently especially due the fact that some air carrier accom-
plished regular flights with different types of such alternative
fuels. Against this background, the overall goal of this paper is
to provide an overview about possible conversion routes for
the provision of biokerosene including an assessment of the
biomass availability. Then, selected biokerosene production
options are discussed in detail from a process engineering
point of view. Based on these data, various conversion path-
ways are assessed, taking technical and economic criteria
throughout the overall conversion chain into consideration.
The assessment shows significant differences within the var-
ious provision routes for biokerosene. So far, only
hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) kerosene is
commercially available. Nevertheless, this possibility is not
the very best choice regarding the possible feedstock and the
high hydrogen consumption. Despite the biogas-to-liquid
(Bio-GtL) process, all other routes need more R&D efforts
to produce biokerosene in an industrial scale.
Keywords Aviation . Biofuels . Biokerosene . Jet A-1
1 Introduction
A high mobility of people and goods is an important charac-
teristic of our modern society. Never in human history have
people and goods been moved around so often and for so long
distances as today. And this development will most likely
increase rapidly especially in emerging nations like China,
U. Neuling (*) : M. Kaltschmitt
Institute of Environmental Technology and Energy Economics,
Hamburg University of Technology, 21073 Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: ulf.neuling@tuhh.de
India, and Brazil. So far, these increasingly demanded trans-
portation duties of people and goods are fueled by fossil fuel
energy and here mainly by crude oil used to produce different
types of liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel, and kerosene [1].
There are lots of challenges associated with this develop-
ment. On the one hand, an increased use of fossil fuel energy
within the transportation sector causes a rise in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions; thus, it gets more likely that globally cli-
mate will change because the politically agreed GHG reduc-
tion goals will not be met till 2020. On the other hand, the
available resources of fossil fuel energy (like crude oil) are
limited, and a significant share of the known and easily
accessible fossil fuel resources—especially for crude oil—
are located in areas which are politically less stable. Addition-
ally, a significant part of the world market for crude oil is
offered by a small number of companies influencing the
energy prices considerably; the latter determine significantly
also the security of energy supply.
Against this background, governments of several OECD
countries implemented measures to switch within their trans-
portation system at least partly to alternative fuels (like
biofuels) to make a significant contribution to solve the chal-
lenges mentioned above. These political goals to use alterna-
tive fuels within the respective transportation system are often
embedded within a more widely designed political strategy to
develop a more sustainable transportation system for the
future.
This is also true for aviation depending, so far basically,
fully on Jet A1 (kerosene) produced from crude oil. While for
land transportation, various alternatives are possible from a
technical point of view (i.e., biofuels, electro mobility, hydro-
gen, and switch to rail roads and/or waterways) this is not the
case for aviation (in a large scale) yet. Here, research has just
recently started to develop alternatives. These activities focus
mainly on the development of the provision of Jet A1 (drop-in
fuel) or—with a much lower intensity and with a very long

term perspective—a fuel similar to Jet A1 (near drop-in fuel)
based on biogenic feedstock. The reason for this is that air-
planes in commercial use today are usually operated with Jet
A1 kerosene, and the average technical lifetime of an airplane
is approximately 20 years and longer. Additionally, fuels used
within airplanes need to show a high energy density, to have a
good combustion quality, to allow for a widespread or even
better global availability, to fulfill numerous safety require-
ments, and to be transported, stored, and pumped easily.
Kerosene resp. Jet A1 fulfills these requirements. Thus, it is
most likely that this fuel will stay in place also in the years to
come especially due to the fact that the fuel characteristics of
kerosene are well adapted to the demands of an airplane
turbine as well as the harsh conditions during a long distance
flight roughly 10,000 m above ground.
So far, numerous options to produce kerosene from organic
matter (i.e., biomass) are under investigation globally. And,
among these various options, no silver bullet is visible so far.
Against this background, this paper gives an overview of
important conversion routes for the production of kerosene
(Jet A1) based on biogenic feedstock. The presented different
pathways will then be assessed based on the same evaluation
criteria taking technological and economic aspects into con-
sideration. Before this, the possibilities to make the biogenic
feedstock available are discussed. Based on the results, some
conclusions are drawn.
2 Feedstock
For the production of biofuels in general and Jet A1 in partic-
ular, many different biogenic feedstocks can be utilized. This
includes various types of energy crops and waste (e.g., sugar
cane, grain, oil seeds, algae, lignocellulosic biomass like wood
and straw, organic and animal wastes, waste wood). To ana-
lyze the possible availability of such feedstock for the provi-
sion of Jet A1 on a global basis, the existing international
markets for such feedstock are assessed; also this shows only a
small amount utilizable of feedstock, since the global biomass
potential is much higher. Therefore, the cultivation of maize,
palm oil fruits, sugar cane, rice, and wheat as well as the
market development for their intermediate products are inves-
tigated. These cash crops represent well-known and widely
utilized feedstock materials from the different groups of po-
tentially usable feedstock.
By interpreting the figures shown below, one has to keep in
mind that most of the biomass streams available on the global
markets are utilized already mainly for food and fodder as well
as raw materials for industry (e.g., chemical industry, wood
processing industry). So far, there is only a limited (small)
amount of biomass available on the global markets for a
potential use outside the traditional markets.
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Area under cultivation Since the world population has signif-
icantly grown in the last decades, the cultivated agricultural
land area also has been expanded—but compared to the
increase in population, is significantly under proportional.
Figure 1 shows exemplarily the rise of cultivated agricultural
land for maize, palm oil fruits, sugar cane, rice, and wheat.
With the exception of wheat, the area cultivated with the other
four cash crops shows a considerable growth in the last five
decades; this becomes especially obvious for maize, showing
an increase of roughly 65 % of the cultivated area. Neverthe-
less, all over the agricultural land has not been significantly
increased during the last 50 years. But a shift in use can be
observed; good fertile land has been used for establishing new
settlements and less fertile land has gone into production.
Additionally, a trend can be observed that more and more
“classical” cash crops are grown and the diversity of the
produced crops have been decreased.
Yields Beside this relative small increase in cultivated land, the
area specific yields for the primarily cultivated cash crops have
been increased significantly throughout the last half century
(Fig. 2). For example, the specific yield of sugar cane has been
increased from 50.3 t/(ha a) in 1961 to 70.2 t/(ha a) in 2012 (i.e.,
40 %). A similar development has been observed, e.g., for
wheat grains (plus 186 %) and for palm oil fruit (plus 284 %).
The area-specific yields vary strongly between different
areas among others due to climatic, soil, and management-
related differences; e.g., in 2012 the specific wheat yield differ
between 3.61 t/(ha a) in Europe, 3.04 t/(ha a) in North Amer-
ica, 3.09 t/(ha a) in Asia, and 2.42 t/(ha a) in Africa [2]. These
figures show that the yields in Europe are roughly one third
higher compared to Africa; this is probably mainly because
African agriculture has not reached the European production
standards yet.
Together with the partly increased use of agricultural, land
the provided amounts of agricultural goods (i.e., the produced
300
Maize Palm oil fruit
Area harvested in Mio. ha
Sugar cane Wheat
250
Rice
200
150
100
50
-
1970
1961
1964
1967
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Fig. 1 Development of the area under cultivation for selected agricultural
feedstock [2]
Biomass Conv. Bioref.

80
Maize Palm oil fruit in 2012, 3568 Mio.t of roundwood have been harvested
Sugar cane Wheat (informal markets, i.e., local markets which are not included
Specific yield in t/(ha a)

Rice
60
40
20
0 of roughly one third.
1961
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
Fig. 2 Specific yield for different biomass feedstock [2]
biomass) have been significantly increased during the last
decades with the consequence that food security has been
considerably and steadily improved globally. Figure 3 (left)
shows the overall amount of produced biomass for the five
cash crops shown above plus wood as well as the energy
content of this feedstock, rated with the lower heating value
(Fig. 3 right). According to this, for example, the overall
wheat yield has globally been increased from 222 Mio.t/a in
1961 to 671 Mio.t/a in 2012 (i.e., factor of 3). If only the
worldwide produced amount of wheat grain is assessed with
the lower heating value, it would represent an energy potential
of 11.4 EJ/a (2012); this corresponds roughly to the overall
primary energy demand of Germany (13.6 EJ in 2013 [1]).
Together with the other agricultural commodities assessed
here, the biomass provided by agriculture represents an energy
potential of roughly 69.1 EJ/a. If additionally the agricultural
side products (like straw, bagasse) would be taken into con-
sideration, this value would roughly be doubled (approx.
140 EJ/a); compared to this, the global primary energy de-
mand for oil, gas, and coal has been at 533 EJ in 2013 [1].
Besides agriculture, forestry also provides a significant
amount of organic material on a global scale. For example,
into global market statistics, are not taken into consider-
ation), whereof around one third was used as fuel wood.
Assessed with the lower heating value, this represents an
energy potential of 51 EJ/a. Together with the energy po-
tential from agriculture (including residues/straw), ca.
191 EJ/a are provided by primary production from agricul-
ture and forestry. Compared to the overall primary energy
demand for oil, gas, and coal in 2013, this represents a share
The comparison made above has no practical use because
the biomass provided by agriculture and forestry is used
already within our overall economy and basically no free
quantities are available. But this theoretical reflection shows
the order of magnitude of the biomass produced already today
on a global scale. Assuming an economic viable market for
such biomass feedstock outside the already existing
established markets and supposing the specific yields already
realized within OECD countries, the global amount of bio-
mass produced will most likely rise even further. Even though
this development might primarily stabilize global food mar-
kets and the lack of food in certain regions, it could also
contribute considerably to the energy markets.
Price The various biomass commodities produced in agricul-
ture and forestry are traded globally. Even the various markets
for these different goods vary significantly; they show a
similar behavior under specific conditions; this was for exam-
ple true in 2008 when (a) the prices increased due to the
economic boom and then (b) dropped significantly due to
the subsequent global financial crises. This behavior becomes
obvious in Fig. 4 showing the price development for maize,
palm oil, sugar, and wheat related to the lower heating value in
comparison to the trend of the crude oil price from 1990 until
nowadays. The graphic makes it obvious that the crude oil
price is on a relatively high level for the last 2 years, whereas
the price for biogenic feedstock has declined in that period.

Fig. 3 Total production (mass 3000 Maize Palm oil fruit 60 Maize Palm oil fruit
and energy content) for different Sugar cane Wheat Sugar cane Wheat
Roundwood Rice Residues Roundwood Rice Residues
biomass feedstock [2] 2500 50
Total production in Mio. t/a

Total production in EJ/a

2000 40

1500 30

1000 20

500 10

0 0
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Fig. 4 Price development for 1400 40

Maize Maize
different biomass feedstock Palm oil
Palm oil
1200 35
(related to the lower heating Sugar

Feedstock price in US$/GJ

Sugar

Feedstock price in US$/t

value) in comparison to crude oil Wheat
Wheat 30
1000 Crude Oil (petroleum)
[3] Crude Oil (petroleum)
Rice 25
800
20
600
15
400
10

200 5

0 0

Concerning the price for the different feedstock analyzed here
related to the lower heating value, sugar and wheat are cur-
rently on a similar level like crude oil. In comparison, palm oil
still has the highest price and maize the lowest for the assessed
commodities. The latter is the reason why bioethanol from
maize is currently cheaper compared to gasoline.
3 Biokerosene provision and assessment
Currently, various options for the provision of biokerosene are
discussed. Basically, all options under investigation/
development at the moment try to realize a chemical
modification of the molecules of the organic raw material
among others with the help of heat, chemically and/or biolog-
ically working catalysts. Figure 5 shows an overview of the
most important conversion routes visible on the market for the
time being. Following this scheme, firstly depending on the
utilized organic material (i.e., biomass), different pretreatment
steps are necessary to obtain the desired feedstock (i.e., veg-
etable oil, starch, sugar, lignocellulose) for the subsequent
processing. In most of the shown processes, this feedstock
produced/extracted from the utilized biomass is then convert-
ed into intermediate products (i.e., ethanol, synthesis gas, bio-
crude oil, other types of hydrocarbons) via a first main con-
version step based on a heat or biochemical-induced

Fig. 5 Possible main conversion routes for biokerosene production (AtJ depolymerized cellulosic jet, LC lignocellulose, SIP synthesized iso-
alcohol-to-jet, BtL biomass-to-liquid, DSHC direct sugar to paraffins, SKA synthetic paraffinic kerosene with aromatics, SPK
hydrocarbons, FT Fischer-Tropsch, GtL gas-to-liquid, HEFA synthetic paraffinic kerosene)
hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids, HDCJ hydrotreated
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
conversion. These intermediates are then converted into
biokerosene by a second main conversion.
Depending on the conversion route, the final products
are usually classified into synthetic paraffinic kerosene
(SPK), synthetic paraffinic kerosene with aromatics
(SKA), and synthesized iso-paraffins (SIP). According to
the ASTM D7566 standard for SPK and SIP fuels, the
aromatic content should not exceed 0.5 Vol.-% to guarantee
a certain purity of the fuel; thus, a low concentration of
aromatics should cause no significant problems. But the
lack of aromatics might lead to lower seal swelling and
lubricity characteristics [4]. This is the reason why some of
the conversion routes aim to provide a biokerosene rich in
aromatics, if the target is to produce a complete drop-in
fuel. Thus, so far, there is no general opinion if synthetic
paraffinic kerosene or synthetic paraffinic kerosene with
aromatics should be provided; both routes are developed
in parallel, also only SPK fuels achieved ASTM certifica-
tion until now. This is especially true due to the fact that
biokerosene will be used most likely as a blend with a share
of less than 50 % (currently up to 50 % for SPK and 10 %
for SIP according to ASTM D7566). Under these circum-
stances the fuel characteristics of the fuel mixture between
Jet A1 from crude oil and from biomass are strongly
influenced by kerosene from crude oil.
Due to the huge variety of the different approaches under
discussion and development (Fig. 5), only a selected amount
of conversion routes to biokerosene are assessed here. But the
analyzed pathways cover a broad variety of mechanical, bio-
logical, thermal, and chemical process steps and reflect the
main development routes. This is true for the following six
provision pathways, i.e.:
& Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA)
& Direct Sugar to Hydrocarbons (DSHC)
& Alcohol-to-Jet (AtJ)
& Biogas-to-Liquid (Bio-GtL)
& Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL)
& Hydrotreated Depolymerized Cellulosic Jet (HDCJ)
These biokerosene provision routes are described in detail
and assessed based on the same criteria to allow for a fair
comparison. The definition of these assessment criteria takes
care of the considerable lack of technically detailed and
public available data. Thus, only the following assessment
criteria are defined. They are rated with (+) meaning posi-
tive, (o) meaning neutral, and (−) meaning negative in
tendency.
& Required feedstock. Different conversion processes can
be based on different feedstock types. But biomass is not
biomass; organic waste for disposal has another “value”
compared to biomass containing starch or sugar for the
food market. Therefore, the assessment criterion is defined
as follows:
– Organic waste/wood waste/residues are rated with (+)
since usually there is no competition with food pro-
duction and no problems like land use change occur.
– Virgin lignocellulosic biomass is rated with (o) be-
cause it is widely available and it cannot be used
within the food market, but within the market as a
raw material for industry like within the pulp and
paper industry where an increased energetic use
might cause also competition.
– Biomass containing sugar, starch, and/or oil is
assessed with a (−) because of food competition and
possible land use change issues.
& Price of feedstock. Besides the feedstock type, the price
for the organic feedstock also determines an approach for
biokerosene provision. Therefore, the specific feedstock
price per gigajoule (GJ) assessed with the lower heating
value will be rated in comparison to the price bandwidth of
all biogenic feedstock analyzed here; i.e., processes which
need an organic feedstock which is located on the upper
edge of the overall price bandwidth (above 40 €/t) are
rated with a (−) and biomass showing relative low market
prices (below 15 €/t) are assessed with a (+). In between
the assessment is (0).
& Additives. Besides biogenic feedstock, often additional
input substances are needed (e.g., biocatalysts, hydrogen).
Such additives might influence the conversion route as
well as the costs significantly. Therefore, they are assessed
here. As one indicator for such substances, hydrogen is
chosen because basically all processes investigated here
need hydrogen to a certain extent. The amount of hydro-
gen consumed is rated as follows:
– If only little hydrogen is needed for hydrogenation of
unsaturated double bonds (e.g., conversion of alkenes
to alkanes), this criterion is rated as positive (+).
– For higher hydrogen consumption rates (e.g., hydro-
cracking of product fractions), this criterion is rated
with (o).
– When multiple hydrogen consuming process steps
(e.g., hydrogenation and isomerization) occur (i.e., high
hydrogen consumption), this criterion is rated with (−).
& Process complexity. Usually, simple conversion routes with
a low complexity are preferred due to technical and eco-
nomic reasons; thus, the more complex a provision chain is
the less profitable it is in most cases especially for the
production of a commodity. But the process complexity is
a relative assessment criterion. Thus, here, the HEFA pro-
cess as the only conversion route for biokerosene

production in commercial scale is used as reference process.
This reference process is rated with a (o) and all other
conversion routes will be rated in comparison to the HEFA
complexity (i.e., a lower complexity is rated with a (+) and
a higher process complexity with a (−)).
& Kerosene production efficiency. As the various conver-
sion routes are based on a variety of different feedstock
types and diverse technical approaches for biomass con-
version to a liquid fuel, the overall product spectrum
associated with the kerosene provision due to technical
reasons varies strongly. Therefore, the kerosene efficiency
of the overall process will be discussed; i.e., how much of
the energy from the biogenic feedstock and the energy of
the additionally needed input materials is transferred to
straight-run biokerosene (because with processes usually
implemented within a crude oil refinery, basically all
hydrocarbons can be converted into the kerosene fraction.)
For this assessment, only the straight-run kerosene effi-
ciencies of processes optimized for the production of
kerosene are assessed. If a share of less than 30 % of the
product fractions is found in the straight-run kerosene, the
process is rated with a (−), a share between 30 and 50 %
with a (o), and above 50 % with a (+).
& Overall efficiency. Since the kerosene efficiency of the
processes does not allow any conclusions regarding the
overall conversion performance of a conversion process,
additionally the overall efficiency will be analyzed; this
efficiency describes the share of biomass energy and the
energy of the additionally needed input materials to be
found in all products provided by the respective process
(i.e., including liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons as well as
electricity; waste heat is not assessed). If a share of less than
30 % of the input energy is found in the provided product
spectrum, the process is rated with a (−), a share between 30
and 60 % with a (o), and above 60 % with a (+).
& Kerosene production costs. For a valid comparison of the
expected kerosene provision costs of all investigated
routes, so far not enough basic data is available. Thus,
such a cost assessment is characterized by very high
uncertainties. But as a rule of thumb, the investment costs
usually correlate directly with the process complexity.
Together with the investment costs, feedstock costs, and
the needed additional input substances as well as the
kerosene resp. the overall efficiency, a statement can be
made if low (rated with (+)), moderate (o), or high (−)
kerosene costs can be expected.
& Market maturity. This criterion rates the status of technical
realization and market implementation of the production
process. If the process is still in the research and develop-
ment process and far away from large scale market intro-
duction, it is rated with (−). Processes near to market
application are rated with (o), and processes already real-
ized in large scale operations are rated with (+).
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
& Development potential. The development potential of a
conversion pathway allows for statements if the kerosene
provision costs can be expected to be reduced in the
future. Within this key figure, the already available pro-
duction capacities as well as the status of industrialization/
commercialization are assessed. Thus, processes available
on a large scale show usually the lowest development
potential and thus the lowest reduction potential of the
kerosene provision cost. These processes will therefore be
rated with (−). Processes characterized by a large improve-
ment potential and thus significant cost reduction poten-
tials are assessed with (+). The remaining conversion
options are assessed in between (o).
4 HEFA
Within the HEFA process, vegetable oil is hydrogenated and
isomerized to fulfill the Jet A1 specification.
Feedstock As a feedstock for the HEFA process, basically any
sort of vegetable oil can be used. This is also true for non-food-
oils like Jatropha as well as for “new” native oils provided, e.g.,
based on algae or other microorganism [5], [6]. Additionally,
also used cooking oil as well as animal fat waste can be used—
if available. Nevertheless, today usually “classical” vegetable
oil is used due to the large scale availability. This oil is pro-
duced from oil seeds provided with agricultural methods by
mechanical processes (like pressing) and/or physical/chemical
processes (e.g., extraction). With existing technology used in
the commercial operated oil mills, more than 98 % of the oil
contained within the biomass can be extracted. After a refining
process, this oil is ready for the conversion to Jet A1.
The area-specific oil yield differs significantly according to
the type of oil seed. “Classical” oil plants like oil palms, soy
plants, or rape plants are characterized by oil yields of 5.5 t/(ha
a), 0.5 t/(ha a), and 2.0 t/(ha a), respectively [7].
Recently, the use of non-food vegetable oil is promoted for
the use as a feedstock for kerosene production due to accep-
tance reasons. Here, the plant Jatropha curcas L. is often
discussed. Based on a possible seed yield under good condi-
tions of 4 t/(ha a) [8] and an average oil content of 35 % [9], an
oil yield of 1.1 t/(ha a) seems to be possible (pressing and
pretreatment losses of approx. 25 % for a small scale rural oil
production). In large scale plants, mechanical extraction can
be combined with chemical extraction (e.g., with hexane as
organic solvent) to minimize losses down to 1 %. Other non-
food oil, crops (e.g., camelina) are under discussion and partly
under investigation.
In 2013 crude palm oil, crude soy oil, and crude rape oil has
been sold in average for 15.8 €/GJ,1 20.8 €/GJ1, and 21.9 €/
GJ1, respectively [10]. For oil from non-food crops, no prices
1
Average exchange rate from US$ to € for 2013 was assumed with 1.33.
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
are available because these oils are not yet traded on the
international markets.
Technical process Vegetable oil consists of triglycerides (i.e.,
esters of three fatty acids bound via glycerol). To convert these
triglycerides to fulfill the Jet A1-specification, the esters and
double bonds have to be saturated with hydrogen (i.e., remov-
al of the double bonds and the oxygen from the molecule).
This catalyst-controlled process is called hydrogenation; usu-
ally regular metal catalysts used within “classical” oil refining
like NiMo or Al2O3 are used [11].
According to hydrogen availability, used catalyst material,
and process conditions, three oxygen removing reactions can
take place [12]:
& Hydro-deoxygenation. Oxygen is removed as water when
enough hydrogen is available (Fig. 6a).
& Decarbonylation. Carbon monoxide is formed when hy-
drogen deficit occurs (Fig. 6b).
& Decarboxylation. Carbon dioxide is formed when the
hydrogen amount is even lower (Fig. 6c).
As decarbonylation and decarboxylation consume carbon
atoms to remove oxygen (i.e., carbon loss), hydro-
deoxygenation is the favorable reaction pathway. This exo-
thermal hydrogenation process takes place at approx. 280 to
340 °C and 50 to 100 bar [13] producing propane and linear
alkanes in the range of C8 to C20 according to the used crude
vegetable oil. Thus, the vegetable oil is transformed via this
chemical process into fully saturated n-alkanes.
To fulfill the ASTM D7566 specification, a further pro-
cessing step, the so-called isomerization, is needed. The goal
of this treatment is to provide branched alkanes to lower the
freeze point. Thus, within a catalyst-controlled cracking pro-
cess, the long chain hydrocarbons (n-alkanes) are broken into
shorter fragments and in parallel the open bounds are saturated
with hydrogen and partially recombined within a complex
branched molecule. The highest isomerization yield occurs
at temperatures between 280 and 400 °C and a pressure
between 30 to 100 bar, depending on the catalyst [13]; cata-
lysts for cracking and isomerization reactions often consist of
zeolites (ZSM), Al2O3, or Pt [13]. At higher temperatures and
lower pressure, the cracking reactions resp. at lower temper-
atures and at higher pressures, the isomerization reactions
dominate [14]. After a subsequent product separation by
Fig. 6 Schematic diagram of the hydrogenation of triglycerides via hydro-deoxygenation (a), decarbonylation (b), and decarboxylation (c)
distillation and rectification (i.e., “classical” refinery process),
the final product (i.e., SPK) can be provided.
With such a process optimized for kerosene production,
kerosene yields up to 60 % related to the overall product
spectrum are reported [15]. The cumulative energy demand
for “green” jet production from Jatropha is stated with approx.
1.45 MJ(Input)/MJ(Output) and for green jet from tallow with
approx. 1.2 MJ(Input)/MJ(Output) [15]. This leads to overall
kerosene efficiencies on an energy basis of approx. 69 and
83 %, respectively. The remaining side products are naphtha,
diesel, and fuelgas/LPG.
To realize these yields, auxiliary materials are needed. For
the pretreatment of the vegetable oil after pressing and/or
extraction, caustic soda and phosphoric acid are used for
degumming and neutralization [16]. For the classical HEFA
process, about 4 wt% of hydrogen compared to the oil feed are
needed for optimal jet fuel production, if Jatropha oil is used
[17]. Product conditioning like CO2 abstraction needs sol-
vents. To compensate catalyst deactivation, the catalysts for
hydrogenation and isomerization have to be replaced partially.
This process (Fig. 7) is commercially available and realized in
different upscaled industrial refineries (e.g., Neste Oil). The
advantage is that basically each vegetable oil can be converted
to standardized fuels and thus partly to Jet A1. One main
disadvantage is the high hydrogen consumption, making this
conversion route demanding and—depending on the hydro-
gen provision process—GHG intensive.
Thus, alternative routes for the conversion of vegetable oil
to HEFA fuels are discussed. One option is based on a hydro-
thermal conversion of vegetable oil and water under high
temperature (510 to 530 °C) and pressure (above 220 bar) to
crack the triglycerides [18]. Under these harsh conditions
within such a hydrothermolysis process, the fatty acids are
converted into unsaturated hydrocarbons and aromatics. The-
se products are then hydrogenated to saturate double bonds
and to remove oxygen from the rearranged molecule. Due to
hydrogen partly provided within the hydrothermolysis process
from water and a lower hydrogen demand in general com-
pared to the “classical” HEFA process due to the formation of
cyclic hydrocarbons, a hydrogen amount of only 75 % of the
“classical” HEFA route is expected [19]. With such a catalytic
hydrothermolysis process, a straight-run kerosene fraction of
up to 33 % can be expected [20].
Regarding investment costs, Neste Oil estimates approx.
670 Mio. € for a HEFA conversion plant in the Netherlands

Fig. 7 Schematic flow sheet
diagram of a possible HEFA
process
Veg. Oil
Pretreatment
which produces around 800,000 t of HEFA products annually
[21]. Based on this, minimum selling prices (MSP) for HEFA
jet fuel have been calculated to be in the range of US$1.16 to
1.27/l for soybean oil and between US$0.88 and 0.99/l for
yellow grease [22]. These low minimum selling prices com-
pared to the high prices for vegetable oil are justified by the
synergy of natural hydrocarbon production used within the
conversion to kerosene. The long hydrocarbon chains extract-
ed from the oil are in the range of kerosene carbon numbers
and slightly higher, so that no energy intensive process steps
are needed to cut the hydrocarbons into smaller molecules and
recombine them later. As hydrogenation and isomerization
reactions have to be realized, this leads to a process of medium
complexity.
Since July 2011, HEFA kerosene is certified for commercial
use according to the ASTM D7566 guideline Annex 2 [22].
The plants with the highest installed production capacity of
800,000 t/a HEFA products each are located and operated in
Singapore and the Netherlands and managed by Neste Oil [21].
Assessment Below, this process is assessed according to the
criteria defined within Section 2.
& Required feedstock. For this process, basically all different
types of oils and fats can be used. Due to the limited
availability of waste oil and fats and the not existing large
scale availability of non-food oils, so far this criterion is
rated with (−).
& Price of feedstock. With average prices from 16 to 22 €/t
the HEFA feedstock prices are located in the medium
range (o).
& Additives. The “classical” HEFA process needs usually
lots of hydrogen for its hydrogenation, cracking, and
isomerization steps. In comparison, the ARA process only
needs approx. 75 % of that amount. Thus, this criterion is
rated with a (−) to (o).
& Process complexity. The HEFA process has been chosen as
the reference process. Thus, this process is rated with (o).
& Kerosene production efficiency. The classical HEFA pro-
cess can achieve good straight-run kerosene efficiencies
(+). Compared to this, the ARA process shows slightly
lower yields in straight-run kerosene and is therefore
assessed to be in the medium range (o).
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
CO2 CO2
Hydrogen
Production
Gas Recovery
Hydrogen Fuelgas
Naphtha
Isomerization Kerosene
Hydrogenation Seperator
and Cat. Cracker
Diesel
H2O
H2O H2O (Waste
(Boiler Feed Water) (Cooling Water) Water)
& Overall efficiency. In this case, the classical HEFA route
shows good results, which is why it is rated with (+).
& Kerosene production costs. The HEFA process has been
chosen as the reference process. Thus, this process is rated
with (o).
& Market maturity. The process is market mature and plants
are commercially operated, that is why the classical HEFA
process is rated with (+). On the other hand, the ARA
process is far away from commercial scales, therefore it is
rated with (−).
& Development potential. Since the process is market mature
and plants are commercially operated, it is rated with (−).
But apart from the classical HEFA process, other conver-
sion pathways like the catalytic hydrothermolysis offer a
higher potential, which is why they are rated with (+).
5 DSHC
Within the direct sugar to hydrocarbon (DSHC) process, the
sugar molecule provided by nature is modified with
biocatalysts to fulfill the ASTM D7566 specification.
Feedstock Sugar is a molecule commonly available in nature.
The easiest and most common pathway is via sugar extraction
from energy crops like sugar cane or sugar beet; the process
technology is fully market mature. Another possibility is the
liquefaction and saccharification of starch-containing biomass
(like corn, wheat); technically, such a process is realized in
each bioethanol production facility. But also cellulose and
hemicellulose—contained in lignocellulosic biomass like
wood and straw—can be converted by acidic and/or enzymat-
ic hydrolysis into sugar; this pathway is still under investiga-
tion even due to the fact that such plants have been operated
on a large scale already some 80 years ago.
With sugarcane average yields of approx. 80 t/(ha a)
representing about 11 t/(ha a) of sugar can be achieved [23].
With an average wheat yield of 8 t/(ha a) for Germany, approx.
1.3 t/(ha a) sugar can be produced via starch liquefaction and
saccharification. In average, wheat straw shows typical yields
of 8.6 t/(ha a) (dry matter basis) whereof approx. 75 % consist
of cellulose and hemicellulose. With an acidic pretreatment
and a subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis, 76 % of the cellulose
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
and hemicellulose can be converted into sugar; thus yields of
4.9 t/(ha a) of sugar are possible [24].
In 2011, the average price for sugar cane was 4.1 €/GJ2 and
13.5 €/GJ2 for wheat [2], whereas sugar was traded for an
average price of 21.7 €/GJ2 in 2011 [3].
Technical process Starting with sugar as feedstock, different
conversion pathways for the direct production of hydrocar-
bons are under discussion. The most promising processes are
the enzymatic conversion of sugar following the mevalonate
pathway (proposed and developed by Amyris and Total) and a
catalytic process using aqueous phase reforming (APR) (pro-
posed and developed by Virent and Shell).
During the advanced aerobic fermentation (Fig. 8) included
within the Amyris DSHC process, special genetically
engineered yeast microorganisms convert sugar molecules
into C15 alkenes called Farnesene and other side products
[25]. For the kerosene production via such a fermentation
process, different types of enzymes and fungi are needed.
They can be cultivated on side in special tanks or purchased
from specialized enzyme producers. After the separation of
the Farnesene from the digested slurry, the long chain hydro-
carbon is upgraded to Farnesane via hydrotreating. After-
wards, it can directly be used as a jet fuel.
If kerosene is produced via the Amyris DSHC process,
yields of approx. 97 % C15 Farnesane related to the feed
carbon can be realized [25]. Side products from DSHC pro-
cessing are mostly hydrocarbons for the chemical industry and
the anti-malaria drug artemisinic acid [25]. Since this conver-
sion route is still in the research, development & demonstra-
tion (RD&D) phase, more detailed information about process
data is not publicly available yet.
Virents Bioforming® process, which is illustrated in Fig. 9.,
combines aqueous phase reforming (APR) with conventional
chemical processing to produce hydrocarbons from sugar. As
a first step, the sugar is hydrogenated before continued pro-
cessing with aqueous phase reforming takes place. The latter
is the main conversion step in this process, which includes the
following reactions over Pt, Re, or C catalysts [26]:
& Reforming to generate hydrogen
& Dehydrogenation of alcohols/hydrogenation of carbonyls
& Deoxygenation reactions
& Hydrogenolysis
& Cyclization
The intermediate products formed during this aqueous
phase reforming are further processed by catalytic processing.
This can be an acid-catalyzed process using zeolite as catalyst
to produce liquid fuels with a high ratio of aromatics (SKA).
2
Average exchange rate from US$ to € for 2011 was assumed with 1.39.
Alternatively, a downstream processing including base cata-
lytic condensation and hydro-deoxygenation to receive kero-
sene consisting of long chain and cyclic alkanes can be real-
ized [27].
Typical kerosene yields for the Bioforming® process are not
published, but fuel range hydrocarbon (C8 to C20) yields from
up to 92 % of all organic products can be achieved. Within this
fraction, up to 68 % of the feed carbon can be found. This
represents the overall kerosene efficiency by carbon numbers
[28]. With the Bioforming® process, other fuel fractions like
gasoline and diesel as well as aromatics for the chemical
industry can be produced. For catalytic conversion, hydrogen
and catalyst materials are required. Like the earlier mentioned
Amyris process, the Bioforming® process is also in the RD&D
stage. Thus, not more detailed data is publicly available.
Besides these more industrial related processes, there are
also research teams working on the sole microbial biosynthe-
sis of alkanes. One research group investigated the production
of C13 to C17 alkenes and alkanes via different enzymes and
microbes [29]. A similar project investigates the production of
straight chain, branched, and cyclic hydrocarbons by means of
different microorganisms, yeasts, and fungi [30].
Due to the fact that no operational large scale plants for the
DSHC process exist these days, no data about actual invest-
ment costs are available. For the current point of view, it is
expected that a large scale plant would be more expensive
compared to a HEFA plant; but this might change with further
R&D progress. Additionally, direct enzymatic conversion of
sugars to hydrocarbons is more challenging from a process
technology point of view than the hydrogenation of vegetable
oil, which is why the production costs are expected to be
higher than for HEFA products according to current knowl-
edge. Because the catalytic conversion via aqueous phase
reforming (APR) has an additional catalytic process step
compared to HEFA, it is also assumed to generate higher
production costs from the current point of view.
The last required research report for ASTM certification of
kerosene produced via direct conversion of sugars was sub-
mitted in February 2014 by Amyris, Total, and the United
States Air Force Research Laboratory [31]. The final approval
in ASTM standard D7566 Appendix 3 followed in June 2014
[32]. For the certification process, Amyris operates a demon-
stration plant producing approx. 24,000 t/a Farnesane in
Brotas, Brazil [33].
Assessment Below, this process is assessed according to the
criteria defined within Section 2.
& Required feedstock. The currently developed processes
mainly use feedstock containing starch and sugar; the
former can easily be transformed into sugar (−). But in
theory (if the technology is available on a large scale) also
lignocellulosic biomass can be processed (o).
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Fig. 8 Schematic flow sheet Sugar Sugar

Juice Water Syrup Aerobic Farnesene Farnesane
diagram of the Amyris DSHC Evaporation Fermentation
Separation Hydrogenation
process
Oxygen Hydrogen

Side Products

& Price of feedstock. Since different feedstocks can be used,
also the feedstock price varies from 4.1 to 21.7 €/GJ. This is
why this criterion is rated from positive (+) to neutral (o).
& Additives. The DSHC process needs hydrogen for the
hydrogenation of farnesene. Even though the Bioforming®
process also shows hydrogenation steps, some hydrogen
can be produced in situ via aqueous phase reforming, thus
the overall hydrogen consumption is lower. Therefore, this
criterion is rated with (+).
& Process complexity. Due to the special requirements of an
aerobic fermentation with special enzymes within the
Amyris pathway and the more complex structure of the
different combined processes within the Virent pathway,
this criterion is rated as negative (−).
& Kerosene production efficiency. According to the defined
bandwidth, the DSHC processes are rated as positive (+).
& Overall efficiency. Similar to the kerosene production effi-
ciency, the assessed DSHC process shows a positive overall
efficiency (+).
& Kerosene production costs. Due to the current state of
commercialization in comparison to the HEFA process,
the production costs have to be rated as negative (−).
& Market maturity. Only a small scale plant for the
Farnesane production is operational but the fuel is certified
by the ASTM and different purchase agreements have
been made. Therefore, this criterion is rated with (o).
& Development potential. Since only a demo plant with
restricted feedstock potential is operating currently, a vast
development potential is seen (+).
6 AtJ
Under the term AtJ, processes are summarized where alcohols
(e.g., ethanol, butanol) are converted to jet fuel by modifying
the molecule via biological and/or chemical processes.
Feedstock The most common feedstock for AtJ is ethanol and
butanol, to be made available firstly.
An alcoholic fermentation for the production of bioethanol
is based on energy crops containing sugar (like sugar cane) or
starch (like corn, wheat). For sugar cane ethanol, yields from
about 6381 l/(ha a) with an average harvest yield of 73 t/(ha a)
(wet matter basis) and 2531 l/(ha a) and 7 t/(ha a) for grain can
be achieved [34]. Ethanol production based on lignocellulose
containing biomass (e.g., straw, wood) might yield exemplar-
ily for straw in approx. 985 l/(ha a) based on a yield of 3 t/(ha
a) [34]. The technology for ethanol production from sugar
and/or starch is market mature and frequently operated in
plenty countries within numerous plants. This is not true for
ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass which is still
in an (advanced) demonstration phase.
Biobutanol can be obtained by fermentation using the
same resource basis described for ethanol. Nevertheless,
the yields are lower and the biocatalysts as well as the
process technology are less optimized compared to an etha-
nol production.
Innovative approaches for ethanol and butanol production
are the synthesis gas fermentation [35], [36] and the mixed
alcohol synthesis [37].
The biomass used to produce alcohols is similar to those
used for DSHC processes. Thus, the feedstock economics are
of the same order of magnitude.
Technical process Irrespective of the feedstock, most AtJ
processes follow more or less the same basic process steps.
The following well-known steps are combined to a new
overall process (Fig. 10):
& Dehydration
& Oligomerization
& Separation
& Hydrogenation

Fig. 9 Schematic flow sheet Aromatics

Acid Catalytic Gasoline
diagram of the Virent Condensation
Bioforming® process
Optional
Sugar Hydro- Aqueous Phase for SAK
deoxygenation Reforming Hydrogen
Jet Fuel
Hydrogen Base Catalytic (SPK)
Hydrogenation
Condensation
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Fig. 10 Schematic flow sheet
Sugar Alcoholic
diagram of the AtJ process Fermentation
After the “classical” alcoholic fermentation, the alcohols
are transformed into alkenes by separation of water via dehy-
dration. Usually, this is realized via acid catalytic reactions
with sulfuric or phosphoric acid at temperatures around 170 to
200 °C [38] and/or by the use of metal oxide catalysts [39].
After dehydration, the short-chain alkenes (ethene or butene)
are merged to longer molecules via catalytic controlled
oligomerization.
After product separation via distillation, a final hydrogena-
tion step is realized. Here, unsaturated double bonds are
saturated with hydrogen to generate alkanes which then can
be used as biofuels. This catalytic reaction which uses Ni, Pt,
or Pd catalysts can be realized at ambient pressure and tem-
perature. A better performance has been observed by using
higher pressures and/or temperatures [39].
Reported yields consist of 48 % kerosene with 35 % gas-
oline and 17 % diesel as side products [40]. Yields and side
products in a similar order of magnitude can be expected for
other AtJ processes. Due to the lack of public available reli-
able and resilient data, no conclusion according to the overall
efficiency can be made for the time being. Other feed mate-
rials needed to perform the overall process depend strongly on
the finally realized conversion process. For classical alcohol
fermentation and syngas fermentation, enzymes and fungi are
needed. For catalytic alcohol synthesis, catalyst materials have
to be supplied. For the downstream conversion steps from
alcohol to kerosene, mostly hydrogen and catalysts are
required.
Different companies are working on the development of AtJ
fuels. These activities can be subdivided into processes with or
without aromatics within the final product. Byogy and
LanzaTech/Swedish Biofuels are the most promising providers
for SKA today according to public available data. Byogy uses
mainly ethanol as feedstock and utilizes internal gaseous prod-
uct fractions for hydrogen provision [41]. LanzaTech has
invented a synthesis gas fermentation process to produce alco-
hols from gasified biomass or industrial waste gases [42].
Ongoing from this mixed alcohol stream, the Swedish Biofuels
process converts mainly ethanol and isobutene to kerosene
[40]. By using isobutanol as feedstock, Gevo is the main
distributor for AtJ fuel without aromatics (SPK) [43].
Different pilot and demonstration plants are operational
these days. Swedish Biofuels has a working pilot plant with
a total production capacity of 10 t/a of products in Stockholm,
Sweden [40]. Gevo operates a small demo plant with a total
capacity of approx. 290 t/a [43].
As discussed for the DSHC process, no commercial indus-
trial plant has been built yet. Therefore, no reliable data is
Naphtha
Alcohol Kerosene
Dehydration Oligomerization Separation Hydrogenation
Diesel
Hydrogen
available regarding investment costs. The alcoholic fermenta-
tion of sugar is well-known, but the downstream processing
for the ethanol to kerosene conversion is still challenging.
That is why higher costs than for HEFA products are most
likely from the current point of view. A minimum selling price
for AtJ products is projected to be between US$0.61 and 2.35/
l from sugar cane and in the range of US$1.09 up to 6.28/l
from switchgrass [22].
The ASTM certification process for AtJ fuels is still ongo-
ing. The task force was established in June 2010. But the final
research report essential for the final certification is not fin-
ished yet [44]. The statement is expected to be finished in the
second half of 2014 so that a final approval of AtJ fuels can
follow most likely in 2015.
Assessment Below, this process is assessed according to the
criteria defined within Section 2.
& Required feedstock. As the same feedstock can be used for
DSHC and AtJ routes, the same rating is assigned due to
matchable reasons ((o), (−)).
& Price of feedstock. According to DSHC feedstock, the
same price range occurs ((+), (o)).
& Additives. Hydrogen is only needed for the hydrogenation
of alkenes produced via oligomerization, which is why
this criterion is rated with (+).
& Process complexity. Since the process steps combined in AtJ
technology (i.e., alcoholic fermentation and oligomerization)
are well-known from other industrial branches, the process is
assumed to be equally complex as the HEFA process (o).
& Kerosene production efficiency. In the defined bandwidth,
the AtJ process shows neutral kerosene efficiency (o).
& Overall efficiency. No data available (x).
& Kerosene production costs. Due to the challenging pro-
cess, the production costs to be expected are rated as
negative in comparison to HEFA (−).
& Market maturity. The process is still in the R&D process
and the ASTM certification is pending (−).
& Development potential. According to the broad variety of
possible feedstock and the early stage of commercializa-
tion, this process shows huge development potential (+).
7 Bio-GtL
The Gas-to-Liquid (GtL) process (Fig. 11) was originally
developed to utilize stranded natural gas resources which

Fig. 11 Schematic flow sheet
diagram of a possible Bio-GtL
process Biomethane
Water
Air
Reforming
could not be used in an economic feasible way by converting
this gas into easy transportable liquid hydrocarbons to be used
as a feedstock in “classical” crude oil refineries. As the main
component of natural gas is methane, bio-methane provided
by biogas production can be used to achieve a Bio-GtL
process as well.
Feedstock For biogas production, basically all types of bio-
mass can be used; only lignin cannot be converted by the
respective bacteria. Classical feedstock is animal manure,
organic waste from the food processing industry, bio-waste
from households, and sewage sludge. Recently in Germany,
energy crops like corn silage, grass silage, or sugar beets
gained some importance due to high biogas yields.
Corn silage, commonly used in Germany for agricultural
biogas production as a feedstock, can be provided with an
average substrate yield of 45 t/(ha a). With an average biogas
yield of 200 m3/t substrate and a bio-methane content of 54 %
[45], a bio-methane yield of 4860 m3/(ha a) can be achieved
[46]. In contrast, green waste from public parks or cemeteries
shows a substrate availability of 15 t/(ha a). Such green waste
can be digested to biogas with a yield of approx. 98 m3/t so
that approx. 794 m3/(ha a) bio-methane can be provided [45].
This organic waste can be used for biogas production inte-
grated into innovative waste management concepts. Here, the
bio-methane yields vary strongly between 20 m3/t for potato
sludge and 260 m3/t for food residues from restaurants and fats
from grease separators.
The actual feedstock price depends strongly on the utilized
biomass. Whereas green waste, animal manure, or organic
household waste have no actual market price, the feedstock
cost is heavily related to the collection and provision of the
biomass. In comparison, feed costs for maize silage are re-
ported with 7.3 €/GJ for average yields [47].
The technology for an anaerobic biogas production is mar-
ket mature. This is true for different process technologies
taking the different characteristic of the various possible feed-
stock materials into consideration. For example, in Germany
more than 7500 biogas plants are under operation. The pro-
vided gas is then cleaned and carbon dioxide as well as
unwanted impurities are removed. After a subsequent
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Hydrogen (in case of SMR)
Naphtha
Fischer- Kerosin
Syngas Separation /
Tropsch-
Conditioning Upgrading Diesel
Synthesis
Gasloop
Fuelgas
Power
Heat Steam Power
Process
conditioning to fulfill the gas quality requested by the grid to
be feed in, the bio-methane is injected into the existing natural
gas grid. This allows it to withdraw significant amounts of
“green” gas at any desired location of a GtL plant. Thus, the
existing natural gas grid acts as a collector of the decentralized
provided bio-methane and allows it to overcome the naturally
caused low energy density of the available biomass.
With different feedstocks like animal manure, organic
household waste, or slaughterhouse waste, bio-methane (of
natural gas grid quality) production costs of 25.6 to 56.4 €/GJ,
depending on the used feedstock and size of the biogas plant,
were reported for 2012 [48].
Technical process Bio-methane is converted to liquid hydro-
carbons via the production of a synthesis gas to be subse-
quently further processed to hydrocarbons. Thus, the first
process step is the synthesis gas production via methane
reforming; i.e., methane (CH4) is transformed to carbon mon-
oxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). This can be realized based on
the following technical processes [49]:
& Steam methane reforming (SMR) with H2 to CO ratios of
4 to 7
& Partial oxidation (POX) with H2 to CO ratios of 1.6 to 1.9
& Autothermal reforming (ATR) with H2 to CO ratios of 2.2
to 2.3
To optimize the overall process for the production of ker-
osene, the subsequent fuel synthesis and thus the following
process steps require H2 to CO ratios of 2.1 [49]. Therefore,
depending on the reformer type used, different syngas condi-
tioning steps have to be applied. Exemplarily for the case of
steam methane reforming, this could be hydrogen separation
through pressure swing adsorption (PSA) and/or membranes
[50] as well as a carbon dioxide separation via amine wash or
Rectisol®, depending on the CO2 content [51]; CO2 is pro-
duced as an unwanted by-product which cannot be completely
avoided.
Afterwards, the conditioned syngas fulfilling the H2 to CO
ratio requirement is converted into long chain hydrocarbons
via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) (Fig. 11). The Fischer-
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Tropsch synthesis was invented in 1923 [52] originally for
diesel production via coal gasification [53]. This synthesis
process is controlled by the so-called chain growth probabil-
ity. For the production of long chain hydrocarbons as a basis
for Jet A1 provision, this chain growth probability α should be
close to 1 [54]. The α value depends on various factors like
temperature, pressure, and catalyst material used [49]. To
achieve high α values, low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch syn-
thesis (LTFT) with Co or Ru catalysts is applied. Since Ru
catalysts are very expensive, in common FTS plants Co cat-
alysts are used. With this setup, an α value of around 0.9 can
be realized.
In large scale FTS plants, low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis processes are utilized with fixed bed [55], [56] or
slurry phase reactors [57]. In recent times, micro-channel
reactors for smaller plants are under development. Besides
the smaller overall size, they have much higher specific sur-
faces in comparison to classic low-temperature Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis reactors [58], which most likely leads to
lower investments costs [59].
After this indirect liquefaction of the gas mixture via
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, the product fractions are separated
by use of “classic” distillation and rectification columns typ-
ically operated in each crude oil refinery. Additionally, the
heavy wax fraction is usually converted into lighter fractions
via hydrocracking within a hydrogen-rich atmosphere.
At maximum kerosene mode of operation, the LTFT
plant in Bintulu, Malaysia is capable of refining 50 %
kerosene from natural gas [60]. If the naphtha fraction is
also converted into kerosene via oligomerization and
hydrotreating, yields exceeding 60 % energy related to the
syngas energy are possible. This can go up to 90 % if all
side products are converted to kerosene [60], also this might
not be reasonable concerning economic factors. Typical side
products are Naphtha, LPG, and Diesel fractions. Depending
on the reformer type, hydrogen can be produced as by-
product, which on the other hand leads to lower kerosene
yields. Depending on the conversion steps after the Fischer-
Tropsch synthesis, overall efficiencies of 48 to 60 % by
mass on the basis of a 500,000-kg/h FT syncrude plant have
been reported [60].
If bio-methane upgraded to natural gas quality is used as
feedstock, no further pretreatment and therefore no additional
material is necessary. Depending on the reformer used, oxy-
gen can be needed. For the syngas conditioning, solvents for
CO2 removal and possibly for H2 separation are required. To
achieve optimal kerosene yields, hydrocracking of the higher
wax fractions is necessary; this leads to a high hydrogen
consumption. As with all catalytic processes, FT and hydro-
cracking catalysts have to be renewed from time to time to
compensate catalyst deactivation.
In comparison to the HEFA process, during the GtL
process, the natural presynthesis of the biomass is not
exploited. The hydrocarbons contained in the biomass are
first split into methane and syngas, before being rearranged
into long chain hydrocarbons via FTS. Therefore, the pro-
cess is more extensive which is why the production costs
would most likely be higher in comparison to HEFA pro-
duction costs.
Since no Bio-GtL plant has been built yet, the investment
costs for a natural gas powered GtL plant are discussed
because no significant cost differences are expected. Here,
total project costs of US$2.5 billion for a GtL plant in Uzbek-
istan with a production capacity of 1.3 million t/a have been
presented [61].
All kerosene fractions produced via FTS are certified since
September 2009 according to the ASTM standard D7566
Annex 1 [22]. The largest GtL plant under operation today is
the Pearl GtL plant in Qatar, which produces approx. 12
million t/a of FT products using natural gas as feedstock [62].
Assessment Below, this process is assessed according to the
criteria defined within Section 2.
& Required feedstock. Within an anaerobic fermentation,
very different residues can be used. Additionally, also
energy crops can be applied. Therefore, the feedstock is
rated from (+) to (−).
& Price of feedstock. The feedstock price varies considerable
between waste with a negative value and selected energy
crops competing with the fodder market, since bio-
methane production costs strongly depends on the used
substrate. This is why this criterion is rated within a range
from (+) to (−).
& Additives. The conversion needs certain amounts of hy-
drogen for hydrocracking processes of the wax fraction;
therefore, this criterion is rated with (o).
& Process complexity. The GtL process and the Fischer-
Tropsch-Synthesis in detail are well-known technologies
whose complexity is comparable to the HEFA process (o).
& Kerosene production efficiency. The GtL process can
achieve good straight-run kerosene efficiencies. Thus, this
criterion is rated with (+).
& Overall efficiency. In comparison to the bandwidth of over-
all efficiencies, the GtL route shows average results (o).
& Kerosene production costs. In comparison to HEFA, equal
(o) or higher production costs are expected (−).
& Market maturity. Since the conversion process is well-
known and also upscaled for natural gas, the technology
is market mature; only the use of bio-methane as feedstock
is still outstanding (o).
& Development potential. Bio-methane production and FTS
from synthesis gas are well-known technologies. New
catalyst materials and reactor types can lead to higher
conversion rates, which is why a neutral development
potential is seen (o).

8 BtL
Within a Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL) process, solid biofuels are
converted into a synthesis gas to be subsequently transformed
via a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to long chain hydrocarbons.
Feedstock For the provision of solid biofuels, a broad re-
source basis could be used. Industrial waste wood and forest
residues, wood from short rotation forestry (SRF), and demo-
lition wood as well as many other sources can be exploited.
Willow and poplar from short rotation forestry (SRF) show
average yields of 10 t/(ha a) (dry matter basis) and forest
residues are usually characterized by roughly 1 t/(ha a) (dry
matter basis) [63]. The average fuel price for forest residues
within the European Union was 3.7 €/GJ3 and 6.2 €/GJ3 for
straw bales and olive residues [64].
Technical process Depending on the available fuel quality, a
pretreatment of the feedstock might be necessary to allow a
continuous feeding of the gasification unit. Additionally, it
might be necessary to dry the fuel depending on the control
scheme of the gasification unit. Some feedstock provision
chains also use pyrolysis or torrefaction as pretreatment step
to achieve a higher energy density and thereby improve the
feedstock logistics.
The subsequent gasification step performs a thermo-
chemical conversion of the solid feedstock into a synthesis
gas. Therefore, the macro-molecules, the solid biomass con-
sists of are heat-induced destroyed under oxygen deficiency
and mainly H2, H2O, CO, and CO2 is formed within a tem-
perature range of 800 to 900 °C. From a technical point of
view, fixed bed, fluidized bed, or entrained flow gasifiers [65]
can be used; due to process engineering reasons, basically
fluidized bed and entrained flow systems would be used. The
raw synthesis gas has a H2 to CO ratio of, e.g., 1.8 depending
on feedstock composition and the gasification agent (O2,
H2O). Beside this, the syngas contains long chain hydrocar-
bons (tars) as well as particles and other impurities which
might poison the catalysts of subsequent synthesis processes.
Thus, the synthesis gas leaving the gasifier needs to be
conditioned before further processing. Additionally, particles
like inorganic mineral materials, ash, and unconverted bio-
mass have to be removed, often via cyclones or filters [66].
Tar, sulfur compounds, and ammonia are usually removed
with different scrubbing technologies [66]. The H2 to CO ratio
can be adjusted by a water gas shift (WGS) reaction to achieve
the necessary H2 content for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis [49].
The further processing steps of the provided syngas are
equal to the ones described for the GtL process. The overall
process is illustrated in Fig. 12.
3
Average exchange rate from US$ to € for 2007 was assumed with 1.37.
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Product yields for BtL fuel production related to the used
syngas are the same as for GtL presented earlier, since the
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is similar for both processes. Nev-
ertheless, the overall efficiency is lower due to energy losses
during syngas production via gasification and especially dur-
ing the necessary gas cleaning and conditioning. These steps
are at least partly required because of the different feedstock
used compared to the Bio-GtL process. Side products are
naphtha and diesel likewise.
For syngas cleaning and conditioning, solvents for CO2
separation and desulfurization have to be provided. Further-
more, catalyst material for the water gas shift reaction and the
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) are required.
The investment costs for downstream syngas processing,
i.e., the FTS and product conditioning and separation, are
comparable to the costs for GtL plants. Actual investment
costs for industrial biomass gasification plants are un-
known, but with regards to the complexity of this process,
it will be more expensive than a GtL plant. Thus, all over,
higher costs are expected compared to a HEFA plant.
Minimum selling prices (MSP) for gasification and indirect
liquefaction of switchgrass have been projected with
US$1.42 to 2.52/l [22]. The company CHOREN offered
FT-fuel for 3 to 5 €/l before this company become insol-
vent in 2011.
Similar to the GtL processes, kerosene from Biomass-to-
Liquid processes is certified for commercial use by the ASTM
standard D7566 Annex 1. But in contrast to large operational
GtL plants, the gasification of solid biomass still hinders the
large scale conversion. Different small laboratory and demon-
stration plants have been built, from which none are opera-
tional at the time being according to public available informa-
tion. However, some projects for the conversion of municipal
solid waste (MSW) are under development and construction.
This is true for the Fulcrum Sierra BioFuels Plant in the USA
with a capacity of approx. 30,000 t/a kerosene or diesel [67] as
well as the Solena GreenSky London facility with a capacity
of 120,000 t/a of liquid fuels [68].
Assessment Below, this process is assessed according to the
criteria defined within Section 2.
& Required feedstock. Since wood waste and residues can
be used in addition to classical lignocellulosic feedstock,
this criterion is rated from positive (+) to neutral (o).
& Price of feedstock. Related to the shown feedstock low
prices, this criterion is assessed with (+).
& Additives. Similar to the Bio-GtL process, hydrogen is
needed for the hydrocracking of the higher wax fractions,
therefore this criterion is rated with (o).
& Process complexity. The gasification step is technically
very challenging, and the subsequent gas cleaning and
conditioning is expensive from a process engineering
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Fig. 12 Schematic flow sheet
Biomass
diagram of the BtL process Pretreatment
Gasification
0<λ<1
Gasification
Agent
point of view. Additionally a FTS is needed. Therefore,
this criterion is rated with (−).
& Kerosene production efficiency. In comparison to the
defined bandwidth, a positive production efficiency
occurred (+).
& Overall efficiency. The overall process efficiency is locat-
ed in the neutral region (o) but lower than for the GtL
process.
& Kerosene production costs. In comparison to the HEFA
process and due to the shown problems, the production
costs are rated as negative (−).
& Market maturity. The back end of the process, namely the
FTS section, is well-known, but the gasification stage still
is quite challenging. Since high R&D efforts have to be
done on this filed, the market maturity is rated with (−)
& Development potential. A positive development potential
is seen, especially for the gasification step (+).
9 HDCJ
Within the Hydrotreated Depolymerized Cellulosic Jet
(HDCJ) process, solid biomass is converted into a bio-crude
oil via pyrolysis which is then subsequently upgraded to
biokerosene.
Feedstock The feedstock basis for the HDCJ process is basi-
cally the same as discussed for the BtL process (see Section 8).
Technical process The Hydrotreated Depolymerized Cellu-
losic Jet pathway (illustrated in Fig. 13) is—like the BtL
process—based on a thermo-chemical conversion of lignocel-
lulosic biomass. But here, wood, straw, or other solid biofuels
are converted firstly into so-called bio-crude via pyrolysis.
This depolymerization step can be performed—among
others—within a “classical” pyrolysis process or within a
biomass fluid catalytic cracking (BFCC) process. In all pro-
cess variations, the solid biomass is converted under absence
of oxygen at relatively high temperature and pressure—most-
ly in presence of a catalyst—into a bio-crude oil.
Fig. 13 Schematic flow sheet
Biomass
diagram of the HDCJ process Pretreatment
Pyrolsis
=0
Catalyst Recycle
Naphtha
Syngas Kerosene
Syngas- Fischer-Tropsch Separation /
conditioning Synthesis Upgrading Diesel
Tar /
Impurities Hydrogen
Therefore, the biomass has to be broken up so that it can be
led into the reactor together with the preheated catalyst mate-
rial. After the pyrolysis reaction, usually a separator follows to
separate the reaction water and the catalyst material, which is
then regenerated and recycled. The product fractions, i.e., the
pyrolysis oil and gas, are then separated in the product recov-
ery section, where the oil vapor is condensed and sent to
further hydroprocessing. After hydrotreating, i.e., conversion
of alkenes to alkanes and desulfurization reactions, the prod-
ucts are separated into the desired product fractions via stan-
dard distillation technologies.
Typical yields are reported for the HDCJ process of 41 %
gasoline, 37 % diesel, and 22 % fuel oil [69]. For further
processing, catalyst material for the FCC as well as hydrogen
for fuel hydrocracking and hydrotreating is needed. Overall
efficiencies are not reported.
No commercial or large scale industrial plant for HDCJ
fuel production is operational at the time being. Thus, no valid
data about investment costs for such plants is available. Sim-
ilar to the gasification step of the BtL process, the pyrolysis
process to convert solid biomass efficiently into a crude oil
with pre-defined characteristics is very challenging. Apart
from that, the bio-crude conditioning is analog to the crude
oil conditioning. Thus, the overall conversion process is ex-
pected to be more complex than HEFA. Therefore, the pro-
duction costs are assumed to be higher.
The certification process of the HDCJ process is quite
advanced. An ASTM task force has been established in the
fourth quarter of 2011. The final research report should be
submitted in 2014 so that a final certification according to
the D7566 standard could follow by the end of 2014 or
beginning of 2015 [44]. To achieve these goals, a demo
plant (without any published performance data) with a total
capacity of approx. 40,000 t/a is operational in Columbus,
USA [70].
Assessment Below, this process is assessed according to the
criteria defined within Section 2.
& Required feedstock. Same feedstock as for BtL processing
can be used ((+), (o)).
Naphtha
Bio-Crude Kerosene
Product
Hydrotreating Separation
Recovery Diesel
Pyrolysis
Hydrogen
Gas
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

& Price of feedstock. Feedstock price is located in the same
region as for BtL (+).
& Additives. Similar to crude oil refining technologies, hy-
drogen is needed for hydrocracking of higher product
fraction. Therefore, this criterion is rated as (o).
& Process complexity. Well-known oil conditioning and
upgrading technologies are included. But the pyrolysis
step makes the HDCJ process more complex than the
HEFA process (−).
& Kerosene production efficiency. The HDCJ process as
operated today shows the low kerosene production effi-
ciency. Therefore, it is rated as negative (−).
& Overall efficiency. No data available (x).
& Kerosene production costs. According to the early stage of
commercialization, the production costs are rated as neg-
ative (−) in comparison to HEFA.
& Market maturity. Even though a demo plant exists, ASTM
certification is still pending and the final market introduc-
tion needs more time, therefore this criterion is rated as (−).
& Development potential. The process is based on a prom-
ising feedstock basis and shows a huge development
potential (+) in terms of cost reduction.
10 Final consideration
This paper gives an overview and assessment of the current
state of technology of biokerosene production processes.
Hence, six different conversion pathways for the production
of kerosene from biogenic feedstock have been described and
assessed. Therefore, possible feedstock and technical facts
related to the process engineering have been presented. To
compare these various pathways possible feedstock and cor-
responding prices as well as product yields, additional mate-
rials, investment, and production costs, the status of market
introduction and also process complexity and overall efficien-
cies have been assessed.
The comparison of the different provision pathways dom-
inated by differing process technologies made it obvious that
the processes show significant differences concerning the
actual status of commercialization. Despite the HEFA path-
way, all options need more R&D to allow for a large scale
biokerosene production at moderate production costs. The
Bio-GtL route is a kind of exception; all major parts of this
provision chain are available but they have not been combined
yet. Additionally, all routes need hydrogen and all options
provide more than one product; i.e., besides biokerosene,
various other fuel types are also provided with varying shares.
The results of the assessment outlined above can be sum-
marized as follows (comparison is given in Table 1):
& Required feedstock. In matters of feedstock availability,
HDCJ and BtL processes are the most promising choices,
because all kinds of lignocellulosic biomass can be used.
Bio-methane production via anaerobic fermentation is
based on an even broader feedstock variety, including
organic waste and other residues characterized by high
water content. Thus, for these routes, no acceptance prob-
lems arising from the ongoing “food versus fuel” debate
are expected. DSHC and AtJ processes also have a good
feedstock basis since sugar can be produced from starch
and sugar-containing biomass as well as from lignocellu-
losic biomass, although this process is not realized in large-
scale plants today. Since HEFA mostly uses vegetable oil,
it has the smallest feedstock basis. Aside from fat contain-
ing waste and algae discussed as feedstock, vegetable oil
still is the mainly used feedstock. Thus, these processes
lack in using biogenic material which can be used also
within the food and fodder market; this might cause con-
troversial discussions within a more and more critical
society if such processes are realized on a large scale.
& Feedstock price. For purely price reasons, BtL and HDCJ
processes are the best options, if wood residues (e.g.,
industrial residual wood) and wastes (e.g., demolition
wood) can be utilized. Feedstock costs for AtJ and DSHC
processes also are in a good order of magnitude, if sugar-
cane can be utilized because due to the high yields of this
cash crop, usually low production costs are given. If sugar
has to be provided by conversion of starch, the feedstock

Table 1 Comparison of assessment results for all processes; (+)=positive, (o)=neutral, (−)=negative, and (x)=no data available

Required Feedstock Additives Process Kerosene Overall Kerosene Market Development

feedstock price complexity efficiency efficiency production costs maturity potential

HEFA – o − to o o + to o + o + to − − to +
Bio-GtL + to − + to− o o + o o to − o o
BtL + to o + o – + o – – +
DSHC o to − + to o + – + + – o +
AtJ o to − + to o + o o x – – +
HDCJ + to o + o – – x – – +
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
prices would be above the lower average of the feedstock
assessed here. This is also the case for the Bio-GtL feed-
stock; but due to the broad variety of possible biomass, the
feedstock price is subject to significant fluctuations vary-
ing between negative prices of organic waste from the
food processing industry up to considerable costs for
energy crops. These variations are also valid for the bio-
methane price depending significantly on the used sub-
strate. But due to the necessary process technology, the
average price per gigajoule of the bio-methane is slightly
higher than for the other processes described so far. The
highest feedstock price occurs for the HEFA route, as long
as vegetable oils have to be used. If used cooking oil or fat
waste from slaughterhouses are available, these costs are
lower—but the available amounts of these organic mate-
rials are very small.
& Additives. In terms of hydrogen consumption, the DSHC
and AtJ processes come off best, since they utilize the
smallest amounts of hydrogen to saturate the hydrocar-
bons. Bio-GtL, BtL, and HDCJ processing need hydrogen
for hydrocracking reactions, similar to crude oil refining
technologies, which consume medium amounts of H2.
The highest hydrogen consumption occurs for the “clas-
sical” HEFA process as multiple reactions under hydrogen
supply take place.
& Process complexity. Concerning the process complexity,
for the time being, all processes assessed here are more
complex than the HEFA route. This is due to the fact that
the HEFA route is the only conversion pathway using the
result of the biosynthesis realized by nature during the
plant growth to a maximum extend. All the other process-
es start usually with the destruction of the organic mole-
cule and then re-synthesize them to fulfill the given
standards.
& Kerosene efficiency. The kerosene efficiency varies for all
processes. According to published data (from the manu-
facturer), the DSHC process has the highest yields. Addi-
tionally, the product contains only C15 molecules. All
other processes produce kerosene consisting of a mixture
of different carbon chain length. The Fischer-Tropsch and
HEFA processes show the second highest kerosene yields
followed by the AtJ and HDCJ routes.
& Overall process efficiency. A similar picture occurs for the
overall process efficiency. Also, only very few data is
published and the shown efficiencies are based on very
different produced physical quantities only tendencies for
the overall efficiency of the assessed processes can be
seen. According to this, HEFA and DSHC show the best
overall efficiencies followed by the Bio-GtL process. Ac-
cording to the FT section of the BtL process, efficiencies
should be similar to the GtL process. But having the
complex gasification step in mind, the overall efficiency
might be lower.
& Kerosene production costs. Concerning economic factors,
the HEFA process can achieve the lowest production costs
today, followed by the Bio-GtL process. Since most of the
other discussed processes are not realized in an industrial
scale yet, a fair comparison is difficult, especially since
small pilot and demo plants are more expensive regarding
the economy of scale as well as missing experience about
cost reduction possibilities.
& Market maturity. In terms of market maturity, only the
HEFA process is able to produce larger amounts of
biokerosene and is therefore market mature. The DSHC
and GtL processes are seen to be the next processes ready
for market introduction, also different constraints have to
be overcome. The other three processes (i.e., BtL, AtJ, and
HDCJ) need even more time and research activity to
realize an upscaled market introduction.
& Development potential. From a technical point of view,
only HEFA and the GtL process based on natural gas are
already available on a commercial basis on the large scale;
all other technologies still have to realize more or less
RD&D efforts. Of all discussed processes, the HEFA route
is surely the most commercially implemented conversion
pathway for the time being. Even though fuels based on
the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis are ASTM certified, Bio-
GtL and BtL plants are not available in industrial scales
today. Since the DSHC pathway was recently certified by
the ASTM D7566 standard and the AtJ and HDCJ pro-
cesses should although be certified by mid of 2015, the
commercial scale-up might follow soon.
This investigation has shown that a lot of activities are
ongoing to pave the way for providing renewable jet fuels
fulfilling the Jet A-1 specification. Nevertheless, so far, no
pathway without considerable reservations can be observed.
All options under discussion show huge advantages as well as
significant drawbacks. This is true for the feedstock basis, the
process engineering as well as the economic and probably also
the environmental performance (not discussed in this paper).
Thus, the development during the years to come will show
which pathway can exploit the still given development poten-
tial to overcome these challenges and to contribute signifi-
cantly to a more environmentally sound kerosene provision.
To support and accelerate this development process, more
R&D activities are needed to perform a big step towards
“green” aviation.
References
1. BP (2014) BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014
2. Faostat FA (2014) Statistical databases. Organization of the United
Nations, Food and Agriculture

3. The World Bank (2014) Worldbank Databank: Global Economic
Monitor (GEM). http://databank.worldbank.org, Accessed 20 Auf
2014
4. Gormley RJ, Link DD, Baltrus JP et al (2009) Interactions of jet fuels
with nitrile o-rings: petroleum-derived versus synthetic fuels. Energy
Fuel 23(2):857–861. doi:10.1021/ef8008037
5. Robota HJ, Alger JC, Shafer L (2013) Converting algal triglycerides
to diesel and HEFA jet fuel fractions. Energy Fuel 27(2):985–996.
doi:10.1021/ef301977b
6. Yeh TM, Dickinson JG, Franck A et al (2013) Hydrothermal catalytic
production of fuels and chemicals from aquatic biomass. J Chem
Technol Biotechnol 88(1):13–24. doi:10.1002/jctb.3933
7. Zimmer Y (2010) Competitiveness of rapeseed, soybeans and palm
oil. J Oilseed Brassica 1(2):84–90
8. Wahl N, Hildebrandt T, Moser C et al (2012) Insights into Jatropha
projects worldwide. Key Facts & Figures from a Global Survey,
Lüneburg
9. van Eijck J, Smeets E, Romijn H et al. (2010) Jatropha Assessment.
Agronomy, socio-economic issues, and ecology, The Netherlands
10. International Monetary Fund (2013) IMF Primary Commodity
Prices. http://www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.aspx.
Accessed 14 Aug 2014
11. Kuchling T, Wollmerstädt H, Endisch M (2013) Hydrierung von
Pflanzenölen-mechanismus und kinetik. Chem Ing Tech 85(4):508–
511. doi:10.1002/cite.201200199
12. Tóth C, Kasza T, Kovács S et al. (2009) Investigation of Catalytic
conversion of Vegetable Oil. 44th International Petroleum
Conference, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
13. Myllyoja J, Aalto P, Savolainen P et al. Process for the Manufacture
of Diesel Range Hydrocarbons(US 8,212,094 B2). Accessed 30 Apr
2014
14. Kasza T, Hancsók J (2011) Isomerization of paraffin mixtures pro-
duced from sunflower oil. Hung J Ind Chem 39(3):363–368
15. Bertelli C (2011) Next Steps in Biofuel Development and
Deployment. Contribution to Austrailian International Airshow and
Aerospace & Defence Exposition Avalon, Mar 2011, Geelong
16. Nikander S (2008) Greenhouse Gas and Energy Intensity of Product
Chain. Case Transport Biofuel. Masterthesis, Helsinki University of
Technology
17. Pearlson MN (2011) A Techno-Economic and Environmental
Assessment of Hydroprocessed Renewable Distillate Fuels.
Masterthesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT]
18. Coppola E, Red C, JR., Nana S (2014) High Rate Reactor System(US
2014/0109465 A1). Accessed 15 May 2014
19. Li L, Coppola E, Rine J et al (2010) Catalytic hydrothermal conver-
sion of triglycerides to non-ester biofuels. Energy Fuel 24(2):1305–
1315. doi:10.1021/ef901163a
20. Applied Research Associates, Inc. Biofuels Isoconversion Process.
http://www.ara.com/fuels/Why-ReadiJet.html. Accessed 23 May
2014
21. Kröger V (2013) NesteOil - The Only Way is Forward. Contribution
to Aireg task force 2 meeting, Jan 2011, Berlin
22. IATA (2013) IATA 2013 Report on Alternative Fuels
23. Somerville C, Youngs H, Taylor C et al (2010) Feedstocks for
lignocellulosic biofuels. Science 329(5993):790–792. doi:10.1126/
science.1189268
24. Saha BC, Iten LB, Cotta MA et al (2005) Dilute acid pretreatment,
enzymatic saccharification and fermentation of wheat straw to etha-
nol. Process Biochem 40(12):3693–3700. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.
2005.04.006
25. Garcia F (2011) Amyris-Total Alternative Aviation Fuel Partnership.
Contribution to CAAFI General Meeting and Expo, Nov 2011,
Washington DC
26. Blommel PG, Cortright RD (2008) Production of Conventional
Liquid Fuels from Sugars. White paper, http://biofuelstp.eu/
viewreport.php?viewid=66, Accessed 26 Mar 2014
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
27. Bauldreay J (2012) Catalytic conversion of sugars to create bio Jet
fuels - Virent/Shell. Aireg Workshop “Technologies of fuel
conversion”
28. Kania J, Blommel PG, Woods E et al. (2013) Production of distillate
fuels from biomass-derived polyoxygenates(US 2013/0263498 A1).
Accessed 10 Jun 2014
29. Schirmer A, Rude MA, Li X et al (2010) Microbial biosynthesis of
alkanes. Science 329(5991):559–562. doi:10.1126/science.1187936
30. Ladygina N, Dedyukhina EG, Vainshtein MB (2006) A review on
microbial synthesis of hydrocarbons. Process Biochem 41(5):1001–
1014. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2005.12.007
31. ASTM (2014) WK45569 Revision of D7566 - 13 Standard
Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized
Hydrocarbons. http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/
WORKITEMS/WK45569.htm. Accessed 10 Jun 2014
32. Amyris, Total (2014) Amyris - News - Total and Amyris Renewable
Jet Fuel Ready for Use in Commercial Aviation. http://www.amyris.
com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=398&NewsAreaID=
2&ClientID=1. Accessed 18 Jun 2014
33. Stöckel R, Total (2014) Aireg Meeting. Email dated 09 May 2014
34. Schmitz N, Henke J, Klepper G (2009) Biokraftstoffe. Eine
vergleichende Analyse, 2. Neuauflage
35. Abubackar HN, Veiga MC, Kennes C (2011) Biological conversion of
carbon monoxide: rich syngas or waste gases to bioethanol. Biofuels,
Bioprod. Biogeosciences 5(1):93–114. doi:10.1002/bbb.256
36. Griffin DW, Schultz MA (2012) Fuel and chemical products from
biomass syngas: a comparison of gas fermentation to thermochemical
conversion routes. Environ Prog Sustain Energ 31(2):219–224. doi:
10.1002/ep.11613
37. Dutta A, Talmadge M, Hensley J (2011) Process Design and
Economics for Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol:
Thermochemical Pathway by Indirect Gasification and Mixed
Alcohol Synthesis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/TP-5100-51400
38. Wollrab A (2009) Organische Chemie. Eine Einführung für
Lehramts- und Nebenfachstudenten, 2009th edn. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg
39. Breitmaier E, Jung G, Breitmaier-Jung (2005) Organische Chemie.
Grundlagen, Stoffklassen, Reaktionen, Konzepte, Molekülstruktur;
zahlreiche Formeln, Tabellen, 5., überarb. Aufl. Thieme, Stuttgart
40. Hull A (2012) Technology for the production of fully synthetic
aviation fuels, diesel and gasoline. Contribution to Solakonferansen,
Sep 2012, Stavanger
41. Weiss KR (2013) Commercialization of a Renewable Aviation Fuel
Industry in Brasil. Contribution to Ethanol Summit, Jun 2013, Sao
Paulo
42. Holmgren J (2013) Innovative use of industrial waste gases to pro-
duce sustainable fuels & chemicals. Geelong, Australia
43. Johnston G (2013) Alcohol to Jet (AtJ). Contribution to Paris Air
Show, Jun 2013, Paris
44. Rumizen M (2014) Certification-Qulification Breakout Session.
Contribution to CAAFI General Meeting and Expo, Jan 2014,
Washington DC
45. Adler P (ed) (2014) Leitfaden Biogasaufbereitung und -einspeisung.
Diese Arbeit wurde im Rahmen des Projektes: \“Studie - Einspeisung
von Bioas in das Erdgasnetz\” angefertigt, 5. Aufl., vollständig
überarb. Aufl. Fachagentur für Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Gülzow
46. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (2013) Leitfaden
Biogas. Von der Gewinnung zur Nutzung; 6., überarb. Aufl.
biogas.fnr.de, Gülzow
47. Finneran E, Crosson P (2013) Maize Silage. risk and reward. Today’s
Farm 24(2)
48. Lindorfer J, Schwarz MM (2012) Site-specific economic and eco-
logical analysis of enhanced production, upgrade and feed-in of
biomethane from organic wastes. Water Sci Technol 67(3):682. doi:
10.2166/wst.2012.617
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
49. de Klerk A (2011) Fischer-Tropsch Refining, 1. ed. Wiley-VCH;
Wiley, Weinheim, Hoboken, NJ
50. Häussinger P, Lohmüller R, Watson AM (2000) Hydrogen, 3.
Purification. In: Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co, KGaA, Weinheim,
Germany
51. Hiller H, Reimert R, Marschner F (2000) Gas Production. In:
Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Wiley-VCH
Verlag GmbH & Co, KGaA, Weinheim, Germany
52. Fischer F, Tropsch H (1923) The preparation of synthetic oil mixtures
(synthol) from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Brennstoff-Chem 4:
276–285
53. Janiak C, Klapötke TM, Riedel E et al. (2003) Moderne anorganische
Chemie. de Gruyter Verlag Berlin
54. Hamelinck CN (2004) Outlook for advanced biofuels. Dissertation,
University of Utrecht
55. Steynberg A, Dry M (2004) Fischer-Tropsch Technology. Elsevier
56. Sie ST, Krishna R (1999) Fundamentals and selection of advanced
Fischer‐Tropsch reactors. Appl Catal A Gen 186(1):55–70
57. de Deugd RM, Kapteijn F, Moulijn JA (2003) Trends in Fischer–
tropsch reactor technology. Opportunities for structured reactors.
Top Catal 26(1–4):29–39. doi:10.1023/B:TOCA.0000012985.
60691.67
58. Ehrfeld W (1996) Microsystem technology for chemical and biolog-
ical microreactors. Papers of the Workshop on Microsystems
Technology, Mainz, 20 - 21 February, 1995. DECHEMA mono-
graphs, vol 132. VCH, Weinheim
59. Walter S, Frischmann G, Broucek R et al (1999) Fluiddynamische
Aspekte in Mikrostrukturreaktoren. Chem Ing Tech 71:447–455
View publication stats
60. de Klerk A (2010) Fischer-Tropsch Jet Fuel Process(US 2010/
0108568 A1). Accessed 23 May 2014
61. Oil & Gas Journal Sasol to establish GTL plant in Uzbekistan. http://
www.ogj.com/articles/2009/07/sasol-to-establish.html. Accessed 11
Jun 2014
62. Shell Global The world’s largest gas-to-liquids plant is now fully
online. http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/major-projects-2/
pearl/largest-gtl-plant.html. Accessed 11 Jun 2014
63. Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H, Hofbauer H (2009) Energie aus
Biomasse. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg
64. Alakangas, et al. (2007) Biomass fuel Trade in Europe. VTT
Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT-R-03508-07
65. Swanson RM (2009) Techno-economic analysis of biomass-to-
liquids production based on gasification. Master thesis, Iowa State
University
66. Stevens DJ (2001) Hot Gas Conditioning: Recent Progress With
Larger-Scale Biomass Gasification Systems; Update and Summary
of Recent Progress
67. Fulcrum BioEnergy (2014) Sierra BioFuels Plant. http://www.
fulcrum-bioenergy.com/facilities.html. Accessed 18 Aug 2014
68. Solena Fuels GreenSky London. http://www.solenafuels.com/index.
php/projects/greensky-london. Accessed 18 Aug 2014
69. Media B Green Car Congress: KiOR halts cellulosic fuels production
at Columbus in Q1 to optimize production; need for R&D to boost
yield and cut costs. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/01/
20140113-kior.html. Accessed 11 Jun 2014
70. KiOR KiOR, Inc. - Production Facilities. http://www.kior.com/
content/?s=6&s2=56&p=56&t=Production-Facilities. Accessed 11
Jun 2014