1. SWAFEA Results and outcomes overview Future Transport Fuels conference Brussels, April 13th, 2011 Sustainable Way for Alternative Fuel and Energy in Aviation A study funded by the European Commission (DGMOVE) Philippe Novelli (ONERA) Presented by Nicolas Jeuland (IFPEN) This presentation has been produced by the SWAFEA team, led by ONERA, acting on behalf of DG Mobility and Transport. The contents or any views expressed herein have not been adopted or in any way approved by the European Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission's or DG Mobility and Transport's views.

2. The SWAFEA study A study for the European Commission DG MOVE  February 2009 – April 2011 Purpose : "Feasibility Study and Impact Assessment on the Use of Alternative Fuels for Aviation"  Comparative assessment of the possible options  Possible vision and roadmap for deployment  Ultimate goal: information and decision elements for policy makers Multidisciplinary approach: suitability, sustainability and economics 20 organisations involved  AIRBUS, AIFFRANCE, ALTRAN, BAUHAUS LUFTFAHRT, CERFACS, CONCAWE, DLR, EADS-IW, EMBRAER, ERDYN, IATA, INERIS, IFP, ONERA, PLANT RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, ROLLS-ROYCE, SHELL, SNECMA, University of Sheffield

3. Context European policy for climate change mitigation – European Directive for the Use of Renewable Energy Sources  10% of renewable energy in transport in 2020 – Aviation inclusion in Emission Trading Scheme from 2012 Aviation sector environmental concern  Industry emissions reduction targets  ICAO's resolution on climate change + Developing threat to air transportation – Jet fuel price  ≤ 30% operating costs – Security of supply

4. Study overview * Fuels technical assessment State of the Art On-board renewable Energy sources Environmental & societal impact Business case Conclusions & Demonstration Proposal Roadmap Fuels selection April 2009 Brussels Stakeholders Conference & Workshops 15/16 July 2010 Münich Stakeholders Conference & Workshops 9/10 February 2011 International Conference Toulouse

5. 1. Fuel technical assessment Which fuels for aviation? Aviation specific fuel conditions of use – Altitude  Low temperature properties – Payload/range : constraint on mass and volume  Energy content & density – Turbojet combustion and system requirements  Composition, viscosity, thermal stability,…. – Handling & Safety  volatility, flash point, conductivity,…  The fuel has to be approved to international standards by all stakeholders  Fuel specification  Common ground transportation biofuels not appropriate Aircraft and infrastructure: – Very long life cycles (> 30 years) – Worldwide operation  Focus on “drop-in” fuel – Cost

6. In 3 years, move from "technical feasibility" to "deployment issue" No commercial deployment yet – Limited fuel production – Flight demonstrations over the last 3 years – Announced projects for demonstration on commercial routes 2010 2009 201320122011 Fischer-Tropsch approved HRJ approved Additional processes under consideration ASTM approval process D4054 1. Fuel technical assessment Recent evolution

7. 1. Fuel technical assessment Directions of work in SWAFEA  What’s beyond currently approved fuel? Focus on potentially "drop-in" fuels – Increased flexibility in SPK specifications  Blending limit  Aromatics  Blend stock specifications  IFP/Shell "SPK10" – Additional processes of interest  Naphteno-aromatics compounds  Sugar to hydrocarbons routes – Consequences of oxygen molecules (FAE) + Complementation of existing data base for SPK blends  Lean combustion chamber : emissions and relight Fuel test matrix

8. 1. Fuel technical assessment SWAFEA outcomes Positive effect of aromatics reduction on soot emissions …. but minimum content required for drop in  Synthetic aromatics is a viable option (pyrolysis, liquefaction) Possible alternative approach for SPK biofuel early introduction: – Low blending ratio – « Relaxed » cold flow properties Significant challenges for oxygenated molecule « Fermentation » routes not evaluated but of real interest Importance of quality control Recommendation to create a technical network for fuel evaluation in Europe  Better economical efficiency

9. 2. Sustainability Life cycle green house gas emissions GTL (& CTL): No GHG emissions reduction  CCS currently not sufficient Note: Co-feeding with biomass to be further investigated Biofuels : potential for reduction – BTL: matches RED thresholds – HRJ:  Higher LCA emission than BTL  H 2 use  GHG reductions depending on feedstock and cultivation WTW GHG emission reduction of 60% (RED threshold for 2018) Situation without land use change SWAFEA assessment - Well to Tank GHG emissions

10. 2. Sustainability Life cycle green house gas emissions  Major importance of feedstock production – Feedstock – Cultivation steps  Sensitivity to inputs data Algae: Importance of process integration Biofuels life cycle components Situation without land use change

11. 2. Sustainability Life cycle green house gas emissions Land use change: potentially the dominating effect  Control of land use is a major issue of biofuel

12. 2. Sustainability Life cycle GHG emissions: conclusions Actual biofuel potential for LCA emissions reductions Current issues: – Indirect Land Use change (iLUC)  No answer today – Methodological issues  Possible impacts of methodology, ex: allocation for co-products  Quantitative values affected but general tendencies preserved (ex: PARTNER)  Issue: When regulations enforce emissions reduction thresholds With view to environmental certification  Harmonisation would help

13. Purpose: "potential" biomass availability for biofuel production  "Traditional" biomass: agriculture, forestry and residues 2. Sustainability Biomass availability Methodology: Simulation of possible agriculture production Land availability Realistic production data Sustainable production scenario Yields: historical increase physiological maximum Demography Diet evolution Food demand Sustainability criteria: Food priority No deforestation & biodiversity Grazing land preservation (max use 70%) LUC control  perennial only on grazing land Land for food Remaining land for energy crops Climate, soil, …. Energy crops selection Biomass available for energy Forestry & residues (literature)

14. 2. Sustainability Biomass availability – Detailed results Energy demand / Energy biomass availability in 2050 Aviation target in 2050 – 50% reduction / 2005: 24.4 EJ/y  Use of 76% of total biomass – "Carbon neutral growth at 2020 level": 16.7 EJ/y  Use of 52% of total biomass  58 EJ/y of biofuel in transport  88 EJ/y available for other non food use of biomass (96 EJ/y in IEA "Blue Map")  EU27 could produce 38% of the aviation biofuels uplifted in its territory Biomass available for energy: 183EJ/y (SWAFEA assessment)

15. 2. Sustainability Biomass availability - Conclusion  Biomass availability is a critical bottleneck – Radically more efficient biomass and processes required to halve emissions in 2050 – Ramp-up of biomass production likely to constraint biofuel ramp-up  Carbon neutral growth not expected to be (physically) achievable as early as 2030 – Key importance of biomass production development regarding “fuel versus fuel”  A consolidation of biomass availability is recommended – Strong uncertainties on forestry, residue – Regional approach

16. 2. Sustainability Algae potential Promises: – High yields – No competition for arable lands Status: research and preliminary demonstration Challenges: – Confirmation at large scale of lab yields – Production at competitive costs  Key challenges: Harvesting and oil extraction Specific features: – Need for synergies with other applications (ex.: CO 2 source, nutrients…) – Need for co-production of high value biomass  Trade-off between oil production and proteins (animal feed & nutri-ceuticals )  Need for further researches and large scale demo

17. 2. Sustainability Atmospheric impact Aviation emissions impact radiative forcing beyond CO 2 effect – No x impact on ozone – Soot impact on contrails and cirrus  SWAFEA: preliminary simulation of alternative SPK fuels impact – Significant reduction in soot and So x emissions  Preliminary simulation: significant decrease of contrails radiative forcing  Positive impact on local air quality – Limited impact of other emissions on ozone

18. 3. Economics of alternative fuels BTL and HRJ SWAFEA evaluation  Major influence of feedstock price  Initial lack of competitiveness of biofuels

19. 3. Economics of alternative fuels BTL and HRJ SWAFEA evaluation  HRJ cost dominated by feedstock price  Strong contribution of CAPEX in BTL

20. 3. Economics of alternative fuels Needs for halving emissions by 2050 ~8 plants annually (841bn€) ~2 plants annually (176bn€ total)

21. Linked situation with short term technologies Predictable trends for car industry – Hydrocarbon for technical requirement – Lignocellulose route for biomass availability Fuel profitability in car industry to be considered  Taxes and demand influence Jet fuel Automotive fuel + jet fuel Possible synergy Automotive fuel Biomass Processing 3. Economics of alternative fuels Aviation and road transport

22. Critical impact of biomass production Need for more efficient and economic processes  Expectation from “fermentation” routes No start-up of biofuel without incentive policy  Currently, ETS effect not seen as sufficient 3. Economics of alternative fuels Conclusions

23. Synthesis Technical availability of alternative fuel solution for aviation Potential emissions reduction with biofuels Potential positive effects on air quality and contrails Ramp-up of biofuels in aviation likely to be slowed down by biomass production – Carbon neutral growth not expected to be achievable as early as 2030 without economic measures – Aviation emissions offsets will be needed beyond 2030 Need for research on process and feedstock to accelerate implementation No start-up of biofuel without incentive policy

24. Way forward Aviation fully relies on liquid fuel Need to initiate the move to biofuel from now  A determined policy is required – Define a sectoral goal for 2020 – Promote a number of "end to end" projects – Combine incentive policies – Use ETS revenue to fund the initial deployment plan

25. END  Questions ?  The SWAFEA team: AIRBUS, AIFFRANCE, ALTRAN, BAUHAUS LUFTFAHRT, CERFACS, CONCAWE, DLR, EADS- IW, EMBRAER, ERDYN, IATA, INERIS, IFP, ONERA, PLANT RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, ROLLS-ROYCE, SHELL, SNECMA, University of Sheffield Credit IFPEN