INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT THE ARTS This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public CHILD POLICY service of the RAND Corporation. CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research POPULATION AND AGING organization providing objective analysis and effective PUBLIC SAFETY solutions that address the challenges facing the public SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and private sectors around the world. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Both RAND and PARTNER documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and posting permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page. Requests will be vetted by both PARTNER and RAND. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discus- sions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research profes- sionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. TECHNICAL REPORT Near-Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels James I. Hileman, MIT • David S. Ortiz, RAND • James T. Bartis, RAND Hsin Min Wong, MIT • Pearl E. Donohoo, MIT • Malcolm A. Weiss, MIT Ian A. Waitz, MIT Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT The research described in this report was sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration. The research was jointly performed by the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Report No. PARTNER- COE-2009-001) and the Environment, Energy, and Economic Development Program within RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment. The Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) is a cooperative aviation research organization, and an FAA/NASA/Transport Canada- sponsored Center of Excellence. PARTNER fosters breakthrough technological, operational, policy, and workforce advances for the betterment of mobility, economy, national security, and the environment. The organization’s operational headquarters is at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA, NASA or Transport Canada. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. Title page photo by Isaiah Shookt © Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Both RAND and PARTNER documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/permissions.html). Requests will be vetted by both PARTNER and RAND. Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] The Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 37-395, Cambridge, MA 02139 PARTNER URL: http://www.partner.aero Preface Two primary concerns motivate the consideration of alternatives to conventional petroleum– derived jet fuel in commercial aviation: price and environmental effects. From 2003 through mid-2008, the rise in world oil prices led to a commensurate rise in the price of petroleum products, including jet fuel. In the process, the high price of jet fuel contributed to the bank- ruptcy of several airlines and was one factor motivating other airlines to merge. All economic sectors, including aviation, are experiencing growing pressure to reduce their greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. Aviation, however, has fewer alternative-energy options to petroleum-based fuels. In addition to contributing to global climate change, emissions from aviation degrade air quality. Alternative fuels, if available in sufficient quantities, could reduce the world demand for petroleum, consequently reducing the world price of oil and products derived from it and therefore benefiting commercial aviation. Alternative jet fuels derived from biomass or renew- able oils offer the potential to reduce life-cycle GHG emissions and therefore reduce aviation’s contribution to global climate change. Several alternative jet fuels have reduced fuel sulfur content and fuel aromatic content; using these fuels could result in reduced contributions to ambient particulate matter, lessening aviation’s impact on air quality. This technical report documents the results of a joint study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the RAND Corporation on alternative fuels for commercial avia- tion. The study compared potential alternative jet fuels on the basis of compatibility with exist- ing aircraft and infrastructure, near-term production potential, near-term production costs, life-cycle GHG emissions, emissions affecting air quality, and the relative merit of using the fuel in aviation versus ground transportation. The focus is on alternative jet fuels that could be available commercially in the next decade using primarily North American resources. Of the alternative jet fuels that we considered, three that are not derived from conven- tional petroleum may be available in commercial quantities during the next decade: (1) Jet A derived from Canadian oil sands and Venezuela’s very heavy oils (VHOs); (2) Fischer-Tropsch (FT) jet fuel produced from coal, a combination of coal and biomass, or natural gas; and (3) hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ) fuel produced by hydroprocessing renewable oils. All of these fuels are compatible with the current infrastructure or easily can be made compatible through the use of additives. Of these fuels, (1) FT jet fuel produced from biomass or from a combination of coal and biomass with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and (2) HRJ fuel may reduce aviation’s impact on climate, but they are likely to be available only in limited quantities. Producing fuels yielding a net reduction in GHG emissions requires that biomass and renewable oil resources be produced so as not to incur land-use changes that would result in releases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs. Alcohol fuels, due to their low energy iii iv Near-Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels density, high volatility, and high flash points, pose operational and safety issues that make them inappropriate for use in aircraft. Similarly, biodiesel and biokerosene, because they may break down during storage or operations and because of their high freezing temperatures, are also inappropriate for use in aviation. Regarding the benefits derived from producing and using alternative jet fuels, the study found that the economic benefits of producing alternative liquid fuels extend to all petroleum users. In particular, producing alternative liquid fuels yields benefits to commercial aviation, whether or not those fuels are used in aviation. Finally, moving to an ultralow-sulfur (ULS) specification for Jet A would reduce aviation’s impact on air quality. From its findings, the research team recommends the following: • Measures designed to lower GHG emissions should be broad and place a price on GHG emissions, allowing economically efficient choices to be made across multiple sectors. Aviation should not be treated differently from other sectors. • Measures designed to promote alternative-fuel use in aviation should consider the poten- tially large GHG releases associated with land-use changes required for cultivating crops for producing biomass or renewable oils. • A standard methodology should be developed for assessing life-cycle GHG inventories and impacts of producing and using aviation fuels that takes into account key inputs in producing the fuels and aviation-specific effects associated with high-altitude emissions of gases other than CO2. • To improve air quality, the adoption of a reduced-sulfur standard or a ULS jet fuel should be considered, but economic and climate costs and benefits must be weighed carefully. • Research and testing should be performed