Alternative Aviation Fuels
Tim Edwards
Propulsion Directorate
88ABW-2009-4026
2
DoD Fuel Costs
DoD Fuel Costs Are
Volatile AndHave Risen
Dramatically
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE, AFRL-WS 07-1431 4
Fuel – Gallons (1) 2.5B 0.3B 1.8B 4.6B
Fuel – Cost $10.2B $1.2B $7.3B $18.7B
Air Force Army Navy Total
(1) Compiled from the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency
DESC – Defense Energy Support Center Data
DESC (Jul 2008) adjustment to $4.07/ Gallon
1997
1998
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Oct
200
5Ju
n 20
06
Oct
200
6
Feb
200
7Ju
n 20
07Dec
200
7Ju
l 200
8$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
+354%
J P- 8
Pri
ce p
er
Gal
l on
Aim for Balanced Solutions
Energy Strategy
Need to Consider Inter-related
Consequences of Energy Strategies
Tim Skone DOE/NETL 2008RZ-08-0530
4
U.S. Air Force Energy Approach
Strategy:
Reduce Demand
Increase Supply
Change the Culture
Vision:Make Energy A Consideration In All We Do
5
5
AVIATION Fuel Used: 2.5B gallons Fuel Cost: $5.6B
FACILITIES Energy Used: 71.2M MMBTU Energy Costs: $1.1B
GROUND EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES Fuel Used: 138.4 M gallons Fuel Costs: $302.3M
U.S. Air Force 2007 Energy Use
$7 billion spent for energy in 2007
Facilities 15%
Ground Equipment 4%
Aviation 81%
6
Sponsors
FAA
ATA
AIA ACI
Aerospace Industries Association
Aircraft Engine OEMs
Aircraft OEMs
Aircraft Equip Cos
DOCDOEUSDA
USAF
USNDARPA
US Army
DESC
NISTNASA Oil
Companies
Energy Companies
ASTM
CRC
Bio-Fuels Companies
Airports Council International
Federal Aviation Administration
Air Transport Association
UK MoD
Bauhaus
NRC Canada
ANP Brazil
UniversitiesThink Tanks
Consultants
Airlines
ALPA
Air Cargo
Airport Operators
NetJets
CAAFI’s Member / Contributors
….150 Contributors from
4 Continents
The CAAFI Coalition seeks energy security and environmental sustainability for aviation, … to promote the development of alternative fuel options that offer equivalent levels of safety and compare
favorably with petroleum based jet fuel on cost and environmental bases, with the specific goal of enhancing security of energy supply
77
CO2 Sequestration)
CoalOil Shale
Alternatives to Oil:US Energy Resources
Domestic Resources• 1.4 trillion barrels (shale) • 900 billion barrels of FT (coal) • 0.15 billion barrels (pet coke) • 22.7 billion barrels oil reserves • 240 billion barrels of oil (EOR)• 100 million pounds of pulp waste/year Total 2.3+ trillion barrels equivalent
Domestic Resources• 1.4 trillion barrels (shale) • 900 billion barrels of FT (coal) • 0.15 billion barrels (pet coke) • 22.7 billion barrels oil reserves • 240 billion barrels of oil (EOR)• 100 million pounds of pulp waste/year Total 2.3+ trillion barrels equivalent
8
Mature Process:Fischer Tropsch is a proven
process with benefits including:
• Maturity: South African aviation use 1999• CTL – South Africa,
China• GTL – Malaysia, Middle
East • BTL -- Germany
• Chemical similarities to conventional fuels
• Manufactured fuel– No sulfur– Reduced particulates– High/Low temperature
stability
Fischer-Tropsch Technology
Natural GasCoal
Pet CokeBiomassWastes
Synthesis GasProduction
OxygenPlant
Air
O 2
F-TLiquid
Synthesis
ProductRecovery
LiquidFuels
TransportationFuels
TailGas
PowerGeneration
H 2
HydrogenRecovery
WaxHydrocracking
Wax
HydrogenSeparation
Hydrogen
LiquidFuels
AnOption
COH2
Co Capture and Reuse
2
First Generation Alternative Fuels
Fuels From Alternate SourcesWe Could Be the New Middle East
2.3+ Trillion Barrels
Old Middle EastSaudi Arabia:
261.8 Billion BarrelsIraq:
112.5 Billion BarrelsUAE:
97.8 Billion BarrelsKuwait:
96.5 Billion BarrelsIran:
89.7 Billion Barrels Qatar:
15.2 Billion BarrelsOman:
5.5 Billion BarrelsYemen:
4.0 Billion BarrelsSyria:
2.5 Billion Barrels
TOTAL 685.5 Billion Barrels
Appalachian States 0.9+ T Bbls
Western States 1.4+ T Bbls
TOTAL: 2.3+ T Bbls
Domestic SourcesDomestic SourcesCoal and ShaleCoal and Shale
TOTAL 2.3+ T Bbls Equivalent
Indiana Coal: 20B Bbls
Value Added Choices For Coal
1 ton ofIl. Coal$32/ton
Combustion
Gasificatio
n
Gasification
Electric Power ProductionProducts Value
2 MWh electricity $70.00Total $70.00
FT Fuels and Power Products Value
0.41MWh electricity $14.000.34 bbls naphtha $15.001.36 bbls jet fuel $81.00Total $110.00
A choice to make:
Fertilizer, FT Fuels and Electric Power Products Value 0.07 MWh electricity $ 0.230.17 bbls naphtha $ 8.000.78 bbls jet fuel $46.500.25 tons of ammonia $87.00Total $141.73
Gasification
Projected Numbers RenTech 2006
11
Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch
Franz Fisher
Hans Tropsch
12
Converting Coal to Liquid Fuel
13
Sasol Secunda South Africa
14
14
B-52 Certified for 50/50 Blend!B-52 Certified for 50/50 Blend!8 Aug 20078 Aug 2007
15
Alternative Fuels Certification Office Certification Process Execution
15
Process owner: ASC• Coordinates gap analysis• Coordinates sustaining engineering• Ensures data flow between SMs• Updates MIL-Handbook with lessons learned• Revise Specification (if req’d)
Tech DataHandbook
Identify Gaps (System/Class)
Sustaining Engineering
Fills Gaps
Evaluation/Risk
Analysis
Fuel RejectedFuel Rejected
Fuel Approved“Restricted”
Fuel Approved“Restricted”
No Gaps –Performs “Like” JP-8
Knowledge Gaps
SingleManagers
Process Owner CoordinatesSingle Managers Execute
• MIL-HDBK-510 – used for fuel approval• Specification – used for fuel procurement
B-52/C-17 approach consistent with this processB-52/C-17 approach consistent with this processB-52/C-17 approach consistent with this processB-52/C-17 approach consistent with this process
Fuel Approved“Unrestricted”
Fuel Approved“Unrestricted”
Fuel Approved“Unrestricted”
Fuel Approved“Unrestricted”
16
Early 2011 Certification Goal
Certify entire AF Fleet to use a 50/50 SynFuel blend
2016 Acquisition Goal
Acquire 50% of CONUS aviation fuels from domestically produced synthetic fuel-blends from sources using
CO2 capture and reuse
AF Developing Biofuel Strategy
Current USAF Perspective
Maximizing War-winning Capabilities For… Every Airman…Every Aircraft
Alternative Fuels Certification OfficeFT-Blend Summary Certification Schedule/Status
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
C-17
B-1
GSE / ESOH / Infrastructure
KC-135
B-2
All Transports
All Fighter/Attack
Heli/Special
Trainers
All USAF Systems
B-52
F-15
F-16
F-22
Gap Analysis Cert. Completion FSE
Today
Engine Test
Cert Complete
Flight Complete
25 Nov 09NOTIONAL
Excludes F-35
Excludes CV-22
AFRL Major Thrusts
• High level goals:– 2011 – 50/50 F-T blend certification for all systems (Alternative Fuel
Certification Office (AFCO))– 2016 – 50% of domestic consumption contains synthetics (F-T + ?)
(~400M gal), “greener” than petroleum, cost-competitive• AFRL major efforts (joint w/ AFPET) (coord w/ CAAFI)
– F-T certification support (properties, mat’l compatibility, toxicology)– Aviation biofuel certification– Key parameters
• Performance (“drop-in”)• Cost (“competitive”)• Production potential (“significant”)• Lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint (“less than petroleum”)• Sustainability (“?”)
18
19
Timeline Summary
July Aug
FT ASTM Research Rpt Issued
Draft FT ASTM Research Rpt
FT ASTM Research Rpt OEM App’l
FT ASTM Research Rpt ASTM Ballot
FT Fuel Spec ASTM Ballot
ASTM Approval of Spec and Research Rpt
Sept Oct Nov Dec
HRJ Task Force
2008 2009 2010 20122011 2013
DXXXX Spec Wrkg Grp HRJ ASTM Research Rpt Issued
DARPA Fuel Samples at WPAFB DXXXX Spec Ballot
HRJ xx% Blend ASTM App’l HRJ ASTM App’l
Longer-Term Strategy
Near-Term Strategy
2008
19
ASTM Synthetic Fuels Task Force19Federal Aviation
AdministrationDecember 8, 2008Mark Rumizen, CAAFI
Certification “Pipeline”
20
R&D
Potential alternative
fuels
HRJ 50/50
?
TRL 1 TRL 5-6
CertificationTRL 9
Sasol SSJF ‘99
Sasol
FSJF
‘08
Jet A/A-1
JP-8/5
100% F-T
100% bio
• Fuels may travel along conveyor at different rates!• AF energy security goals benefit by feedstock diversity
moving fast, “drafting” F-T SPKDARPA
Approved fuels (ASTM D7566, MIL-DTL-83133F)
incubator
non-HRJ
bio
F-T SPK
50/50
New! ASTM D7566
New! DESC SolicitationSP0600-09-R-0704 600K gal
Aviation
FAA Partner Studies
MIT Partner Study
Alternative fuels must have a life cycle greenhouse gas footprint equal or less than
petroleum (Sect 526 EISA 2007)
22
U.S. Air Force Greenhouse Gas Inventory Initiative
CO2 inventory paves way for change
• Voluntary carbon dioxide (CO2) inventory used to:
– Evaluate policy and operational impacts
– Support sustainability– Identify risk areas– Understand investment
and mitigation areas
23
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Biomass to F-T Fuel
Crude to Conventional Jet Fuel
Crude to ULS Jet Fuel
Coal to F-T Fuel (with carbon capture)
Oil Sands to Jet Fuel (surface)
Natural Gas to F-T Fuel
Oil Sands to Jet Fuel (in-situ)
Oil Shale to Jet Fuel
Palm Oils to Biojet
Coal to F-T Fuel (without carbon capture)
Soy Oil to Biojet
Life-cycle GHG Emissions per unit Energy (g CO2e/MJ)
Recovery
Processing
Transportation
Land Use Change
Combustion
WTT N2O
WTT CH4
Life-Cycle GHG Emissions Results - H.M. Wong S.M. Thesis (2008)
Baseline EmissionsRepresentative Results
Air Force Leading a Multi-Agency/University LCA
Analysis Team
Potential for Renewable Fuels - H.M. Wong S.M. Thesis (2008)5
Carbon Neutral U.S. Aviation Growth
• Assessed potential for carbon neutral growth from 2006 to 2025.
• Analysis used biofuel life-cycle GHG emissions and yield per hectare.
• Circles show land area requirements for three existing and two hypothetical feedstocks.
• Soybean and palm requirements both exceed current production levels.
• Analysis looked at single feedstock solutions – practical approach is to consider multiple feedstock solutions.
• Need feedstocks with high yield and low life-cycle emissions that do not require arable land.
Notes:
1. Assumed no land use change emissions with all of the feedstocks.
2. Land areas are given relative to continental U.S. for illustrative purposes (e.g., palm trees do not grow in Colorado).
Jim Hileman MIT
Sustainability
• Need to develop an aviation consensus view– Environmental sustainability
• Water usage• Water pollution• Local air quality• Global air quality• Land use changes
– Business sustainability• Aviation sector performance is closely linked to fuel
costs
25
Uncertainties:
• Feedstock variation
• Process efficiency
• Carbon capture efficiency
Land use change scenarios:1. Use Marginal Land or Waste Product
2. Conversion of Brazilian Cerrado
3. Wide-Spread Agricultural Changes
4. Destruction of Peatland Rain Forest
Quantifying Well-to-Wake Benefits - Hileman et al. (2008)5
Assessing Uncertainties
Jim Hileman MIT
Supply Cost Curve for Low-Carbon-Footprint Diesel Fuels
75.0
100.0
125.0
150.0
175.0
200.0
225.0
250.0
275.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
% Reduction in Life-Cycle GHG Emissions Below the Petroleum Baseline
Cru
de
Oil
Eq
uiv
. Req
. Sel
ling
Pri
ce,
Ja
n-0
8 $/
bb
l
$0/metric ton CO2-equiv.
$30/metric ton CO2-equiv.
D/E=60/40; Int.=7.5%;
Term=25 yrs.;IRROE=20%
CTL w ith CCS+ATR, 50K bpd
CTL w ith CCS, 50K bpd
15 w t% CBTL w ith CCS+ATR, 50K bpd
30 w t% CBTL w ith CCS+ATR, 30K bpd
BTL w ith CCS+ATR, 5K bpd
15 w t% CBTL w ith CCS, 50K bpd
BTL w ithout CCS, 5K bpd
30 w t% CBTL w ith CCS, 30K bpd
Credit for Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions Below Petroleum
BTL w ith CCS, 5K bpd
How Does the Cost of Carbon Effect the Price of Fossil/Bio Fuels?
Tim SkoneDOE/NETL
EconomicReadiness
BusinessReadiness
AF Alternative Fuel Score Card
Med
Med
Med
$1.00
Summary
• Alternative fuels offer potential to reduce green house gases and particulate emissions
• Air Force will certify its entire fleet by 2011 to use a 50/50 blend of FT fuels
• FT fuels can be produced from coal, biomass, natural gas as well as coal and biomass
• Sect 526 EISA 2007 governs DoD purchases of alternative fuels• Coal derived FT fuels could be produced with a CO2 footprint
equal to or less than petroleum• Developing assessment “rules and tools” to compare
alternative fuels
30
Triglycerides (fats, oils)
Aviation Biofuel Production Options
jet fuel components
Cellulose
CO + H2
Fischer-Tropsch
“BTL”
“first generation” - ?“second generation” - ?
Lignin gasification
(or co-gasification with coal)
“HRJ”
“Bio SPK”
C18:0
C16:1
Sugars“direct fermentation”
alcohols
pyrolysis oil
hydroprocessing
catalysis
1
2
31
SpecificationPropertiesFail
Fit ForPurpose
Properties(FFP)
Comp/RigTesting
FurtherEvaluation?
EngineTesting
Fail
Fail
Fail Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
No
Start
Yes
Yes
No
No
Fuel Evaluation(ASTM Guidance)
FurtherEvaluation?
FurtherEvaluation?
Report
Yes
Equipment Evaluation/Approval
FAAReview
OEMSpec/SB
Approved
OEMInternalReview
Reject
Report
Fail
Add’l DataAs Required
Pass
Fuel Specification Approval
(ASTM Process)
ASTMSpecification
Accept
ASTM
Review
& Ballot
Re-EvalAs Required
Reject
ASTMSpecification
Accept
ASTM
Review
& Ballot
Re-EvalAs Required
Reject
Certification Processes – MIL-HDBK-510, ASTM D4054
which rigs?
which engines?
32
Fit-for-Purpose Test Results(for Research Report)
FIT-FOR-PURPOSE PROPERTIES
CHEMISTRYHydrocarbon chemistry (carbon
number, type, distribution)Trace Materials/Metals
BULK PHYSICAL AND PERFORMANCE PROPERTIES
Boiling Pt DistributionVapor/Liquid RatioThermal Stability BreakpointLubricityResponse to Lube ImproverViscosity vs TempSpecific Heat vs TempDensity vs TempSurface Tension vs TempBulk Modulus vs TempThermal Conductivity vs TempWater Solubility vs TempSolubility of Air (oxygen/nitrogen)
FIT-FOR-PURPOSE PROPERTIES
ELECTRICAL PROPERTIESDielectric Constant vs DensityElectrical Conductivity and Response
to Static Dissapator
GROUND HANDLING/SAFETYEffect on Clay FiltrationFitration (Coalescers & monitors)Storage Stability
PeroxidesPotential Gum
ToxicityFlammability LimitsAutoignition TemperatureHot Surface Ignition Temp
COMPATIBILITYOther Additives/FuelsEngine/Airframe Seals, Coatings,
Metallics
Completed on multiple samples In progress Planned
Research Reports
33
• Used to support commercial specifications (data also used for military certification)
• Addresses whether “drop-in” fuels fall within experience base
Experience Base
34JP-8 Spec Limits(0.775-0.839)
Syn
tro
leu
m 5
0/5
0 B
len
d
(0.7
86
)
Sh
ell
50
/50
Ble
nd
(0.7
77
)
Syn
tro
leu
m 1
00
% F
T
(0.7
55
)
Sh
ell
10
0%
FT
(0.7
37
)
• World Fuel Survey
• PQIS database
• Newly developed data
NIST
35
Key Provisions
– Body of Spec Applies to Finished Semi-Synthetic Fuel
– Annex for Each Class of Synthetic Blending Component
– Allow Re-Certification to D1655No need for separate tracking
– Annex 1Hydroprocessed SPK
– Includes 50% FT Fuel
– Issued in August 2009– Hydroprocessed Renewable
Jet (HRJ) Added to Annex 1 in Next Revision
ASTM D7566 Fuel Specification
Blend Comp’s Criteria and Blend % Limits
Annex 3
Other Adv Fuels or Processes
Annex 2
Other Adv Fuels or Processes
Annex 1
50% Hydpross’d SPK Fuel Blends
Fuel Produced to D7566 Can Be Designated as D1655 Fuel
5.1 Materials and Manufacture
D1655
Table 1
D7566Av Turbine Fuel Containing
Syn HC’s
Table 1Blended Fuel Performance Properties
Baseline Fischer-Tropsch Fuels
n-paraffins
• Form basis of Research Report to support specification
B-52, T-38
C-5, C-130, A-10, F-16
C-17, B-1, F-15F-22, KC-135R
36
Cetane = 31
Cetane=60
Cetane=60
Alternative FuelsOn-Going Analysis
5 10 15 20 25 30Time-->
5 10 15 20 25 30
5 10 15 20 25 30
-->
F-T SPK (blend stock)
HRJ - hydrotreated fats/oils (blend stock)
4751 JP-8
C13 C14 C15C16
C12C9
C8C7
C11C10
C17 C18 C19
TRL 2-3
TRL 2
TRL 9 –current fuels JP-8, Jet A
TRL 8 – generic F-T 50/50
TRL 5 (?) – HRJ 50/50(flight demonstrated)
More Challenging
Biofuels
37
Combustion Evaluation
38
• Lean blow out• Altitude relight• Transient accel/decel• Instability• Emissions/efficiency• Liner/nozzle heating• Engine control response• …
• Density vs T• Viscosity vs T• Flash point• Heat of combustion• Boiling range• Vapor pressure• Surface tension• Cetane• …
Composition
Properties
CombustionPerformance
• Aromatics, cycloparaffins, n- and i-paraffins• Hydrocarbon chain length
Prototype Combustion Evaluation Process
H: FA8650-09-D-2925-0005P: FA8650-09-D-2923-0010G: FA8650-09-D-2922-0007W: FA8650-09-D-2924-0006R: FA8650-09-D-2921-0007
39
O2
Fuel+Inert
Non-Premixed Flame
Stagnation Plane
Fundamental expts
Flame tube rigs
Sector rigs
Full annular
Engines
fail
pass
“Biocarbon” Analysis
• ASTM D6866 assesses fraction of carbon that is “modern” using C14
• Initial assessment
40
FuelWPAFB JP-8
Sasol IPKShell SPK
Syntroleum R-8R-8X
JP-8/R-8 50/50UOP DARPA “biojet”
Feedstockpetroleum
coalnat. gas
fat/oilSalicornia
blendbio + pet. aromatics
% modern C000
961004973
Summary
41
• Interest in alternative fuels remains high
• Biomass-derived fuels are current S&T focus– “Drop-in” petroleum replacements/blendstocks are
focus in near term – fully synthetic in mid term
– Assessment criteria must be defined: performance, cost, manufacturing potential, GHG footprint, sustainability
– Biofuels may not always be “greener” than petroleum or CBTL (w/CCS)
– Scale-up/cost/land use issues
42
SECNAV Energy GoalsSECNAV Energy Goals
At the Naval Energy Forum, the Honorable Ray Mabus expressed support for President Obama’s goal to reduce consumption of fuel and water and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. He announced five DON Energy Goals:
New Requirements for Acquisition Processes • Mandatory evaluation factors used when awarding contracts for platforms, weapon
systems, and buildings will include:
– Lifecycle energy costs– Fully-burdened cost of fuel– Contractor energy footprint
Sail the “Great Green Fleet” • DON will demonstrate a Green Strike Group in local operations by 2012 and sail it by 2016
– Nuclear ships– Surface combatants using biofuels with hybrid electric power systems– Aircraft flying on biofuels
Reduce Petroleum Use in Non-Tactical Vehicles• By 2015, DON will reduce petroleum use in the commercial fleet by 50 percent
– Flex fuel vehicles– Hybrid electric vehicles– Neighborhood electric vehicles
Increase Alternative Energy Ashore• By 2020, DON will produce at least 50 percent of shore-based energy requirements from
alternative sources– Solar, Wind, Ocean, Geothermal
Increase Alternative Energy Use Navy-wide• By 2020, 50 percent of total DON energy consumption will come from alternative sources
What’s Next After HRJ?
• Fully synthetic fuels (cycloparaffins, aromatics for density, seal swell)
• Need to access non-fat/oil feedstocks• Fermentation (w/ microorganisms) to alcohols, conversion to
hydrocarbons (or direct)– Initially using sugar, ultimate goal is cellulosic
• Pyrolysis of ligno-cellulosics
43
sugars alcohols jet fuels, components
fermentation
dehydration, oligomerization, hydroprocessing
“direct fermentation”
biomass “pyrolysis oil” jet fuels, components
stabilization,
hydroprocessing
Gevo Public Data
44
• Fermentation to isobutanol, followed by dehydration/ oligomerization/hydroprocessing