National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

ACRP Report 60: Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting (2012)
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)

Citation Manager

Johnson, Michael, Schenk, Donald, Miller, Bruno, Altman, Richard, Brand, Meghan, McDonald, Alan, Thompson, Terry, Driver, Judith, Leistritz, Larry, Leholm, Arlen, Hodur, Nancy, Plavin, David, Glassman, Diana, Anumakonda, Amar, Transportation Research Board. "Appendix B - Certification and Drop-In Capability of Alternative Jet Fuels." ACRP Report 60: Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
71
bottomleft bottomright
Page
71
Front Matter (R1-R9)
Purpose of the Handbook (1-1)
How to Use This Handbook (2-3)
1.2 What Is Driving the Interest in Alternative Jet Fuels? (4-5)
1.4 What Roles Can Airports Play in Alternative Fuel Projects? (6-6)
1.6 Resources for Further Information (7-7)
2.1 Safety and Drop-in Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels (8-8)
2.2 Feedstocks for Producing Alternative Jet Fuels (9-14)
2.3 Technologies for Producing Alternative Jet Fuels (15-18)
2.4 Environmental Benefits of Alternative Jet Fuels (19-20)
2.5 Economic Benefits of Alternative Jet Fuels (21-21)
2.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (22-22)
2.6.3 Domestic and International Policies Related to Greenhouse Gas Reductions (23-23)
2.6.5 Federal Rules for Purchase of Alternative Fuels (24-24)
3.2 Alternative Jet Fuel Projects Evaluation Framework (25-25)
3.3 Stakeholder Analysis (26-26)
3.4 Initial Screening of Options (27-28)
3.5 Comparative Evaluation of Screened Options (29-29)
3.5.1 Regulatory (30-36)
3.5.2 Environmental (37-38)
3.5.3 Logistical (39-40)
3.5.4 Financial (41-42)
3.6 Suggested Next Steps (43-43)
4.1 What Are Some of the Potential Community Concerns About Alternative Jet Fuel? (44-44)
4.2 What Are Some Potential Concerns Regarding Production of Alternative Jet Fuel? (45-46)
4.3 What Are Some of the Potential Concerns Around the Storage, Handling, and Use of Alternative Jet Fuel? (47-47)
5.1 Supporting Material to Evaluate Potential Environmental Benefits of Alternative Jet Fuels (48-48)
5.2.1 Worksheet 1: Stakeholder Analysis (49-49)
5.2.2 Worksheet 2: Regulatory Considerations (50-52)
5.2.3 Worksheet 3: Energy Policy Considerations (53-55)
5.2.4 Worksheet 4: Logistical Considerations (56-56)
5.2.5 Worksheet 5: Financial Considerations (57-57)
5.2.6 Worksheet 6: Evaluation Summary (58-59)
6.3 Certification (60-61)
6.4 Feedstocks for Alternative Jet Fuels (62-63)
6.5 Production Technologies for Alternative Jet Fuels (64-64)
6.6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Benefits (65-65)
6.8 Possible Economic Benefits of Regulation (66-66)
6.10 Regulatory Considerations (67-67)
6.11 Publicly Announced Alternative Jet Fuel Projects (68-68)
Appendices: Primer on Alternative Jet Fuels (69-69)
Appendix A - Introduction (70-70)
Appendix B - Certification and Drop-In Capability of Alternative Jet Fuels (71-72)
Appendix C - Feedstocks for Producing Alternative Jet Fuels (73-82)
Appendix D - Production Technologies for Alternative Jet Fuels (83-86)
Appendix E - Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Benefits (87-90)
Appendix F - Economic Benefits (91-92)
Appendix G - Possible Economic Implications of Regulation (93-95)
Appendix H - Financial Considerations (96-98)
Appendix I - Regulatory Considerations (99-109)
Appendix J - Transportation and Logistics of Alternative Fuels (110-110)
Appendix K - Publicly Announced Aviation Alternative Fuel Projects (111-112)
Glossary (113-114)
Acronyms and Abbreviations (115-117)
References (118-126)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (127-127)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 71
APPENDIX B Certification and Drop-In Capability of Alternative Jet Fuels In considering alternative fuels for aviation use, an initial barrier that must be considered is that the fuel must meet the requirements for use in aircraft. The specifications for jet fuel in the United States and around the world are established by standard-setting organizations such as ASTM International (www.astm.org) and the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence Standard 91-91 (www.dstan.mod.uk). The FAA refers manufacturers and operators of aircraft to these standards in Aviation Circulars. The latest AC to refer to alternative jet fuels is 20-24C (FAA 2010a). Aviation equipment manufacturers have also adopted these organizations' standards. ASTM standard D1655 defines the specifications for conventional fuels for commercial use, such as Jet A and Jet A1. ASTM has also issued standards for all jet fuels from nonpetroleum sources under ASTM D7566. Fuels complying with ASTM D7566 are approved for blends of up to 50% synthetic fuel processes, with the remaining 50% derived from approved Jet A1 fuels. There is no formal definition of or standard for drop-in alternative jet fuels. Nevertheless, an informal definition for a drop-in fuel is one that is fully interchangeable with those fuels com- plying with ASTM D1655. This interchangeability must be possible throughout the entire prod- uct life cycle--from refinery to aircraft. This includes the intermediary distribution steps: pipelines, tank farms, and fuel trucks. Annexes of ASTM D7566 enable the approval of individual process types. The initial ver- sion of ASTM D7566 provides criteria for the production, distribution, and use of aviation turbine engine fuel produced from coal, natural gas or biomass using the Fischer-Tropsch process (see Section D.1). However, the standard is structured to accommodate other future types of synthetic fuels produced from nonconventional feedstocks and processes as they are developed. These new fuel types can be added to ASTM D7566 in annexes after they are qual- ified. For example, hydrotreated renewable jet or HEFA (see Section D.2) is expected to be qualified for aviation use soon. Jet fuel made from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process has been in daily use for scheduled air- line service in South Africa for more than 20 years. The South African energy and chemical com- pany Sasol has produced SPK and other chemicals from locally sourced coal using its proprietary version of the Fischer-Tropsch process. When blended up to 50% with conventional jet fuel, Sasol's SPK was approved for use as commercial jet fuel under the U.K.'s DEFSTAN 91-91 in 1998. Since 1999, this jet fuel blend has been used successfully by commercial airlines in aircraft refueled at South African airports, and since then South African Airlines has experienced no fuel-related problems (Roets 2009), including air worthiness, safety, maintenance, or storage and handling in bulk stor- age facilities (Moses 2008). Indeed, in 2008, DEFSTAN 91-91 approved Sasol's unblended synthetic jet fuel as Jet A-1 fuel, for commercial use in all types of turbine aircraft (Sasol 2011). Furthermore, there have been numerous examples of flight tests by commercial and mili- tary aircraft using alternative jet fuels made with different technologies and feedstocks. A summary of flight demonstrations in commercial aircraft is shown in Table 15. The flight 72

OCR for page 72
Certification and Drop-In Capability of Alternative Jet Fuels 73 tests showed no significant difference in the performance of the alternative jet fuel compared to conventional jet fuel. Furthermore, researchers at the FAA, Department of Defense, and private institutions are pursuing three other processes for approval in 2013­2014. As of this writing, these processes are known as fermentation renewable jet (FRJ), catalytic renewable jet (CRJ), and pyrolysis renewable jet (PRJ) (see Section D.4). Table 15. Alternative jet fuel flight demonstrations in commercial aircraft. Airline or Engine Fuel Date Other Aircraft Feedstock Technology Source Maker Producer Sponsor Feb Rolls- Fischer- Airbus A380 Shell Natural gas Airbus 2011 2008 Royce Tropsch Dec Air New B747- Rolls- Warwick UOP Jatropha HEFA 2008 Zealand 300 Royce 2009 Jan B737- Jatropha, Continental GE/CFMI UOP HEFA DOE 2009 2009 800 algae Camelina, Jan Japan B747- Pratt & Mecham UOP Jatropha, HEFA 2009 Airlines 300 Whitney 2008 algae Oct A340- Rolls- Fischer- Qatar Qatar Shell Natural gas 2009 600 Royce Tropsch Airways 2011 Nov B747- North Sea KLM GE UOP Camelina HEFA 2009 400 Group 2011 Apr Fischer- United A319 IAE Rentech Natural gas Kuhn 2009 2010 Tropsch Nov TAM A320 CFMI UOP Jatropha HEFA Karp 2010 2010 Apr InterJet A320 CFMI UOP Jatropha HEFA Gross 2011 2011 (Mexico) June Rolls- Honeywell G450 UOP Camelina HEFA Chatzis 2011 2011 Royce June Boeing B747-8 GE UOP Camelina HEFA Lane 2011 2011 Palm oil, July Lufthansa A321 CFMI Neste Oil rapeseed, HEFA Reals 2011 2011 animal fats July B737- Used KLM CFMI Dynamic Fuels HEFA KLM 2011 2011 800 cooking oil July SkyNRG Used Finnair A319 CFMI HEFA Mroue 2011 2011 cooking oil Aug B777- Aeromexico Aeromexico GE ASA Jatropha HEFA 2011 200 2011 Sept Thomson Rolls- Used Thompson B757 SkyNRG HEFA 2011* Airways Royce cooking oil 2011 Bomb- Porter Bombardier 2012* ardier PWC UOP Camelina HEFA Airlines 2010 Q400 Advanced 2012* Azul Embraer GE Amyris Sugarcane FRJ Biofuels 2009 B747- Pratt & Stanway 2013* Air China UOP Jatropha HEFA 400 Whitney 2010 *Announced as of Aug 31, 2011