Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
99 9.1 Potential Community Concerns around Alternative Fuel Q: What is the food-versus-fuel debate and what is the implication for alternative fuel? A: The food-versus-fuel debate arises from questions related to the use of agricultural food commodities for the production of alternative fuels. The debate stems from a spike in animal feed costs and food prices in 2008 and the rapid development and expansion of the corn ethanol industry. Currently, 30% of the domestic corn crop is used for etha- nol production. Some people fear that the use of corn as a feedstock for alternative fuel production will lead to higher food prices and perhaps even compromise food supplies. Others argue that the rapid increase in food prices in 2008 was the result of high energy costs not corn ethanol production. The issue has become very politically charged. There is little consensus on the role of alternative fuel production on food production and prices. To avoid the controversy surrounding the food-versus-fuel debate, the Commercial Avia- tion Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) and other stakeholders in the U.S. airline industry support the use of feedstocks that do not compromise food availability. Therefore, these entities are interested in feedstocks that are not used for human food production and that, according to some, would not have an impact on food prices or security. Examples of these feedstocks include agriculture residues (e.g., wheat straw, corn stover), dedicated energy crops (switchgrass), woody biomass, MSW, alternative oilseed feedstocks (e.g., algae, Jatropha), and non-food oilseeds (e.g., mustard seed, Camelina). Q: What does the concept of the energy-water-food nexus mean and why is it important to alternative fuels? A: The energy-water-food nexus is a prominent issue among senior business, finance, pol- icy, military, and non-governmental organization leaders. It refers to the links between energy, water, and food. Because these issues are so closely intertwined, credible analysis of one part of the nexus requires evaluating implications on the other parts of the nexus. For example, evaluation of crops for energy requires consideration of food-versus-fuel concerns and agricultureâs impact on increasingly scarce water resources, including in marginal land such as in arid environments that may not be fit for other types of agri- culture. In addition, the evaluation of natural gas requires consideration of extraction techniques on water quality. Q: What does âland useâ mean and why is it important to the future of alternative fuel? A: Land use is an important component of the water-energy-food nexus. The term âland useâ refers to unresolved concerns about whether increasing demand for agricultural products in one part of the world, for food or energy crops, drives conversion of forests S e c t i o n 9 Frequently Asked Questions
100 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs into agricultural land in other parts of the world such as in Brazil, Indonesia, and Africa. This issue is of importance for several reasons. First, deforestation is one of the worldâs largest sources of carbon emissions and has many other social, environmental, and eco- nomic impacts. In addition, overturning topsoil for planting, especially the first time once the land is deforested, also releases significant carbon. Land use implications are difficult to prove, disprove, or quantify. Despite this uncertainty, correctly gauging the impact of alternative jet fuels on land use will be critical to their long-term acceptance. Q: How may the production of alternative fuel impact water resources? A: Water utilization is a topic that frequently comes up during the discussion of any kind of alternative fuels. Depending on the specific way in which feedstocks are recovered and processed, water consumption for the production of alternative fuels may be comparable to or larger than that required for conventional fuel production. The water impact of alternative fuels should be evaluated by considering the feedstocks and conversion tech- nologies separately. There are two components pertaining to feedstocks. In terms of water consumption, traditional feedstock crops, such as soybeans, require large amounts of fresh water. In contrast, new bio-derived crops, such as switchgrass, do not need irrigation, and algae can grow in brackish or sea water. In terms of water pollution, fossil feedstocks and traditional feedstock crops contribute runoff from fertilizers and pesticides. Regarding conversion technologies, the need for cooling drives water impact. The impact varies widely from extensive to minimal with the type of cooling and conversion technol- ogy. Fischer-Tropsch requires substantial cooling and is generally more water intensive than hydroprocessing per unit of energy produced. It should be noted that the United States has extensive laws and regulations governing water, as indicated in Section 6.3.2. Compliance with these laws and regulations should be considered sufficient to meet any concerns about impacts to water resources. Q: Are there sustainability criteria for alternative fuels? A: Production of alternative fuels may affect the environment in several ways, as noted previ- ously. In the United States, there are no mandatory sustainability criteria for alternative fuels. The United States has a full suite of detailed environmental laws and a legal system to enforce compliance with those laws and regulationsâdemonstration of compliance with the law should be considered sufficient to establish sustainability according to exist- ing laws and regulations. There are efforts to develop sustainability standards applicable to development of alter- native fuels in general (not only alternative jet fuel). One example is the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (http://rsb.epfl.ch/). These standards aim to include a number of fac- tors including food security, land and water rights, and fair labor laws. The development of these standards has been difficult because of the complexities and sensitivities around the main issues that need to be considered. 9.2 Potential Concerns Regarding Production of Alternative Fuel Q: Who can I turn to for help in finding out more about particular production methods or feedstocks? A: Contact the CAAFI through its website (www.caafi.org) or Airlines for America (A4A) at info@airlines.org. These organizations are knowledgeable in the application of feedstocks
Frequently Asked Questions 101 and processes to alternative jet fuels. Renewable fuel trade associations (e.g., Advanced Biofuels Association, Algal Biomass Organization, BIO) can introduce airports to their members. Biofuels Digest and other trade publications are also excellent sources of this information. Increasingly fuel suppliers are now present at major air shows and can be contacted at those venues. Q: What is the biggest challenge in finding the best option for producing alternative fuel in my region? A: The main challenge for alternative fuel production is finding the appropriate feedstock. For processing plants using biomass feedstocks, local availability of feedstocks is likely the most important factor. For processing plants using fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas, easy access to existing transportation infrastructure is the main concern. Q: We have identified a possible production technology and have plenty of local feed- stock; how can we find a company to produce the fuel? A: Contact CAAFI or A4A. The CAAFI website (www.caafi.org) contains links to many com- panies that are among its stakeholders. A4A can help identify a fuel expert from one of the airlines that serve your airport. Other sources are the Advanced Biofuels Association, BIO, and the Algal Biomass Organization. In addition, several trade publications (e.g., Biofuels Digest) contain lists of qualified producers. Q: Can more than one feedstock be utilized in an HEFA facility? A: Yes, in fact most producers will not want to rely on a single feedstock. Multiple plant oils can grow in the capture radius of an HEFA facility. Q: Can the percentage of alternative jet fuel and other products from an alternative fuel processing facility be altered during the life of the facility? A: Yes. Alternative jet fuel requires more hydroprocessing capacity than diesel. Once a facil- ity is built for alternative jet fuel it can always produce more alternative (green) diesel. Typically, the maximum amount of alternative jet fuel production is up to 60%. Q: How much more will alternative jet fuels cost compared to conventional jet fuel? How will the cost differential change with time? A: According to most pricing scenarios, alternative jet fuels produced from new energy feed- stocks and bought only in small quantities will cost more than conventional jet fuel. These initial costs are mitigated by both congressional subsidies ($1 per gallon in recent years) and the USDA Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Considering the history of food crops, in which the yield per acre has improved over time, it is reasonable to expect that the yield per acre of bio-feedstocks will also increase, resulting in a reduction in their price. Q: Are there public funding sources that can support feasibility studies for a biofuel facility at or near an airport? A: Yes. USDA Rural Development has a series of programs to fund these types of studies. State agriculture departments are a source of programs as well. Contact CAAFI for more information. Q: What constitutes a âruralâ alternative jet fuel program that can be supported by USDA? A: In new rules published in February 2011, the definition of âruralâ is greatly expanded. For example, a program constructed in a more densely populated location using feedstocks from historically rural locations can be eligible. Airports, their clients, and stakeholders should consult with local and national USDA rural development authorities to establish how these new rules are applied in the local area.
102 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs Q: Are there limitations on the sources of foreign funding that can be supported by the USDA loan guarantee program? A: In new rules issued by USDA in February 2011, foreign sources of investment in United States-based project developments are now eligible for support through certain USDA pro- grams, including loan guarantees to develop alternative jet fuel projects. While this policy has been executed, regulations on specific USDA programs may be required to capture its intent. Airports and their clients should consult with CAAFI or local or national USDA Rural Development authorities to establish which projects are eligible. Once this is known, consultation with the U.S. Department of Commerce programs, such as Invest in America (http://www.investamerica.gov/), may be useful. 9.3 Potential Concerns around the Storage, Handling, and Use of Alternative Jet Fuel Q: Do airlines support the use of alternative jet fuel? A: Yes, the U.S. airlinesâ interest in alternative jet fuel is being coordinated by A4A. A4A sup- ports alternative jet fuels as long as they are safe, environmentally friendly, reliable, and economically feasible. Airlines are committed to supporting alternative jet fuel facilities by signing long-term purchase agreements, but their willingness to pay a premium over the cost of conventional fuel will depend on the amount and duration of the premium. Q: Does alternative jet fuel need any special airport-related infrastructure? A: No, alternative jet fuel will not be qualified if it cannot be handled by existing airport fueling equipment. Q: Will alternative fuels require duplicate storage or distribution systems at my airport? A: No, by definition, drop-in fuels do not require duplicate storage or distribution. However, if the fuel is delivered through infrastructure not currently in use, then hookups will be necessary. For example, if an airport currently receives conventional jet fuel through a pipeline from a refinery and starts to receive alternative jet fuel by railroad, then a hookup between the railroad car and the pipeline is required. Q: Is alternative jet fuel really safe to use in all aircraft, including older models? A: Yes, alternative jet fuel will be thoroughly tested and will not receive certification unless it is safe in all existing gas turbine engines. Q: Is alternative jet fuel safe to mix with conventional jet fuel in our existing tanks? A: Yes, alternative jet fuel will be thoroughly tested and will not receive qualification approval from ASTM unless it is safe to mix with conventional jet fuel. Q: How can I know jet fuel produced by a particular process has been qualified as safe? A: Alternative jet fuels that are safe are listed under annexes to the alternative fuels specifica- tion ASTM D7566. CAAFI can be consulted if there are questions in this regard. Q: We always test jet fuel before we accept delivery and add it to our fuel tanks. Can we use the same testing methods on regular Jet A and alternative jet fuels? A: Yes, the same testing procedures will be used for regular Jet A and alternative jet fuel per current plans.
Frequently Asked Questions 103 Q: Does alternative jet fuel have more quality control problems than regular fuel? A: There is no current evidence to indicate that alternative jet fuels have more quality control problems than conventional jet fuel. One concern, however, will be the proliferation of many new fuel providers. This issue is being studied by the FAA and has been highlighted by CAAFI. 9.4 Potential Community Concerns around Alternative Surface Fuels Q: What safety concerns can be associated with alternative surface fuels? A: Vehicles powered by alternative surface fuels are at least as safe as current gasoline- powered vehicles. There is a perception that CNG-powered vehicles carry an increased risk of explosion or fire due to the high pressures at which CNG is stored. However, CNG is very safe due to high ignition temperatures and a narrow range of flammability in air. These two components make an uncontrolled, accidental explosion of CNG unlikely. Q: How would potential customers know if they have a flex-fuel vehicle? A: Flex-fuel vehicles are denoted by various types of badging near the rear of the vehicle as well as at the refueling point. Newer FFVs have bright yellow fuel tank caps to indicate the ability to use both gasoline and E85. Q: What are the costs of alternative surface fuels relative to gasoline or diesel? A: Though these costs vary due to market and other forces, most of todayâs alternative fuels are competitive with conventional gasoline and diesel. CNG tends to be priced, on an energy-equivalent basis, significantly lower than gasoline and diesel. LPG is priced competitively with conventional fuels. Costs of electricity can be dramatically different depending on location. In 2010, average electricity prices in the United States ranged from as high as 25.1 cents per kilowatt-hour in Hawaii to as low as 6.2 cents per kilowatt- hour in Wyoming (EIA 2011a). Though high electricity prices hurt the competitiveness of electric vehicles when compared with gasoline vehicles, the top three most expensive states for electricity (Hawaii, Connecticut, and New York) also generally have gasoline prices that are higher than the national average. Biodiesel and green diesel can also be competitive with conventional diesel depending on the prices of both oil and green/ biodiesel feedstocks. Q: Are there any incentives available to encourage airport operators to invest in alterna- tive surface fuel systems? A: There are multiple incentives and programs available on both the state and federal lev- els. Additionally, other miscellaneous entities, such as utilities and fuel companies, offer incentives to support the development of alternative fuels. Visit the Alternative Fuels Data Center website (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/laws/) for more information.
