White Paper on Sustainable Jet Fuel

Prepared by Prof. Dr. Andr Faaij (Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University) Maarten van Dijk (SkyNRG)

June 2012

Rationale for sustainable aviation fuel

Abstract Air travel has become an integral part of everyday life. There will be air travel, now and in the future, as it fulfills an important social function in todays global society. The aviation industry acknowledges the urgency for emission reduction and knows there is a need to switch to alternative, renewable and stable priced resources as fossil fuel supply (and related prices) is getting increasingly volatile. In addressing the challenge to replace fossil kerosene in a sustainable way, aviation has no alternative but liquid hydrocarbons from bio-based (waste) sources. Renewable fuels for aviation are new for airlines, but can have profound impact on lowering the carbon footprint of the industry (if produced in a sustainable way), while reducing the dependency on fossil kerosene. Current, first generation biofuels can play a role on short to medium term but are constrained in their potential and outlook. What is essential is to walk down the learning curve to develop competitive technologies for biomass conversion to high quality fuels and to build production capacity for sustainable biomass. Both will require time, in particular when 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels are concerned. Potentials for those biofuels are large and they can become competitive with fossil fuels on medium term (2020-2030) under the condition that technologies are scaled-up and optimized and mature and sustainable markets for biomass supplies are developed. Essential components to realize such a future vision are: - Strong investment in Research, Demonstration and deployment of key conversion technologies - RDD&D on sustainable biomass production and supply systems for the coming 10-15 years. - Gradual scale up of conversion capacity and biomass supplies over the coming decades. Biomass production and supply capacity needs to be developed in balance with improved agricultural management to avoid conflicts with food supply and biodiversity. - Internationally accepted and effective sustainability frameworks that are enforced by legal requirements and backed by agro-ecological zoning by governments to secure sustainable land-use. In total, aviation can be a frontrunner in creating a sustainable demand for advanced biofuels in the international market that can accelerate the development of sustainable biomass production, required infrastructure and key technologies. By enforcing a demand for fully certified biofuels, their production can deliver not only renewable and low GHG emission fuels, but also contribute to rural development and better management of natural resources.

Introduction Air travel has become an integral part of everyday life as an important mode of public transport for the modern world. It fulfills an important social function in todays global society; it brings long-distance mobility to people, makes remote regions accessible, increases and connects business and markets globally. Globally, over 2 billion passengers flew in the course of 2007. The air transport industry generates approximately 29 million jobs worldwide and has an economic impact that is estimated to be equivalent to 8% of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Aviation is expected to be one of the strongest growing transport sectors till 2050, with an estimated CAGR of 3%. (ACARE, 2010) One of the main challenges for the industry is to preserve its societal benefits and maintaining its growth while minimizing the environmental impacts, of which CO2 emissions are likely the biggest. In 2005, 2.5 per cent of man-made CO2 emissions came from aviation. When taking into account non-CO2 effects, estimates suggest aviation contributed about 3.5 per cent (excluding the effects on increased cloudiness1) to the total climate warming from human activities in 2005, and this figure is expected to rise to 4 to 4.7 per cent by 2050 (ATTICA, Lee et al.). We acknowledge that man made green house gas emissions are one of the main drivers for global warming and climate change (Figure 1) and that there is strong scientific evidence that indicates there is a need to keep global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius to avoid irreversible changes in global ecosystems. To stay below this threshold, most recent forecasts predict atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations should be kept below 450 ppm, which translates into a reduction of manmade GHG emissions by at least 80% in 2050, compared to 2005 levels (4th IPCC assessment, 2007). We accept the fact that fossil (energy) resources are finite (WEO, 2010; Global Energy Assessment, 2011). The increasing scarcity of cheap oil resources brings volatility to the market and is driving up prices. The sustained high price levels and fluctuations as well as supply disruptions are an existential risk for the
1

Fig. 1 - Fossil CO2 emissions and global surface warming (actual and forecasts)

Further work is needed to understand and quantify the effects of aviation on clouds, including contrails, increased cirrus cloud development from spreading contrails and altered properties of clouds from soot emissions, which are likely to have an overall warming impact on the climate.

aviation industry. Another undesired mechanism of this situation is that fuels that are more difficult to exploit (i.e. more energy intensive) become economically attractive; a visible trend is the increased interest in alternative resources like tar sands, shale oil and (gas &) coal-to-liquids (Figure 2). More energy use thus means more carbon intensive energy carriers (Figure 3) are used and consequently accelerating GHG emissions of the transport sector (PARNTER, 2010).

Fig. 2 - World oil production by type

Fig.3 - Well to Wing emissions different (jet) fuel production pathways (gCO2/MJ)

The combination of strong growth of energy demand and increased carbon intensity of the transport sector (Figure 4) conflicts directly to the required GHG emissions reductions in that sector. Most recent insights (Figure 5) indicate that about a quarter of the global required GHG emission savings need to be realized in the transport sector, to achieve the 450 ppm concentration target (IEA BLUE map scenarios, 2011)

Fig.4 Baseline CO2 emissions per sector (Gton/year, 2010 & 2050), based on the IPCC 4th assessment report)

Fig.5 - CO2 emission reductions needed per sector (Gton/year)

There is thus a strong need to produce and utilize low carbon fuels. Although a major challenge, we believe that there are possibilities to increase efficiency and especially switch to alternative, renewable energy sources during the next decades to achieve that (IPCC scenarios SRREN, 2011; Greenpeace Energy [R]evolution, 2010; WWF Energy report, 2011). Figure 6 shows a scenario for an almost 100% transition to renewable energy sources by 2050.
Fig.6 - World Energy Supply by Source; WWFs Energy Report

Carbon emissions and Aviation More than 99% of airline emissions and approximately 50% of airport emissions (through Landing & Takeoff Cycles) result from the combustion of kerosene. Increased energy efficiency and energy demand reduction is an effective way and first priority to reduce fuel consumption and related green house gas emissions. But efficiency improvements does not offer a sole solution to aviation related emissions and dependency on oil; only fuels from renewable biomass can also reduce the dependency on fossil kerosene. To further reduce green house gas emissions in aviation, there are currently three major options; operational improvements (e.g. improved routing, gliding), technical improvements of the planes (e.g. wing tips, fleet renewal, improved turbines), and the use of fuels with lower life cycle green house gas emissions (Figure 7). All three will play an important role in the years to come (IATA, 2010). And all three can (and probably will) be driven by an Fig.7 - Breakdown of CO2 reduction options for aviation till 2050 overarching reduction option: market based measures. Technical and operational improvements have resulted in impressive reductions in fuel consumption in the past and are expected to continue for years to come. Renewable fuels for aviation are new for airlines, but can have profound impact on lowering the carbon footprint of the industry, if produced in the right way. There is not really a trade-off between the possibilities of efficiency improvement (aircraft and engine design + improved air traffic control) and alternative fuels. Both elements are required. Aircraft replacements and new aircraft & engine designs, together with operational improvements, are expected to lead to a gain in fuel efficiency (and a net reduction in related emissions) of 40% by 2050 (SWAFEA, 2011). In addition, such efficiency improvements will, though very important, most likely not lead to an absolute reduction in demand for fuels because global growth in demand for air transport will more than compensate efficiency gains. Currently no manufacturer of aircraft or engines is going to limit the use of their equipment to a particular fuel or way of operating. In the short to medium term any alternative fuel for aviation must therefore be a drop in replacement of fossil kerosene, as the development of new engines, aircraft and infrastructure is incredibly complex and expensive. Although a new type of aircraft (and corresponding engines) able to use a non drop in fuel, could enter the market in the future, it is not likely to see this happening (at commercial scale) before 2050, mainly because of the slow rate of replacement of current aircraft. Renewable aviation fuels must therefore have a similar technical performance to fossil kerosene if to be used in the current generation of jet engines. This means that some of the fuel alternatives considered for road transport (e.g. ethanol, hydrogen, electricity) do not provide a viable alternative (SWAFEA, 2010). See Table 1 for a brief summary.

Table 1 - Comparison on drop in properties different energy s ources for aviation

Besides technical performance, these fuels must have a substantially better GHG balance than their fossil alternative, whilst not causing other undesired social and ecological impacts. Today, renewable fuels come from biomass resources. The sustainability of the biomass feedstock largely determines the overall sustainability of the renewable fuel, including lifecycle GHG, as well as other impacts. A biobased fuel does not automatically mean: sustainable fuel with low GHG emissions. Although biofuels can have a significant reduction in overall life cycle GHG emission, in some cases it can be shown (Figure 8) that the overall life cycle GHG emissions are even higher for biofuels than those of fossil based fuels (PARNTER, 2010). The ecological and socio-economic impacts of biofuels may be positive or negative depending on local conditions and the design and implementation of specific projects.

It should be noted that direct engine emissions of alternative fuels (other than GHG emissions) are
Fig.8 - Well to Wing emissions different jet fuel production pathways (gCO 2/MJ), including renewable options

generally positive compared to the fossil fuel based baseline. The most notable are fine particles (3090% reduction) and SOx emissions (>99% reduction). Other important emissions (NOx, CO and UHC) do not seem to have a direct fuel quality related reduction. Possible fluctuations in emissions are mainly caused by engine configurations (SWAFEA, 2011) 5

Biomass resources for renewable aviation fuel The expected growth aviation fuel demand, from 2010 to 2050, is expected to have a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2.2% (IATA, 2010) and 3.0% (ACARE, 2010). This means an increase from 215 million tonnes in 2010 to between 460 630 million tonnes in 2050 (which equals 20 27 EJ). Including a conversion for biomass to fuel efficiency of some 60%, the primary biomass demand amounts about 33-45 EJ. The raw materials for future renewable aviation fuel can originate from various biomass resource categories. Recent global assessments (IPCC-SRREN, 2011) suggest an upper-bound technical potential of biomass resources of around 500 EJ (in 2050), covering the following resource categories: Residues originating from forestry, agriculture and organic wastes (including the organic fraction of MSW, dung, process residues etc.) Technical potential: 100 EJ/yr Surplus forestry other than from forestry residues Technical potential: 60-80 EJ/yr Biomass produced via cropping systems (for energy crop production) on possible surplus good quality agricultural and pasture lands Technical potential: 120 EJ/yr o Assuming strong learning in agricultural technology leading to improvements in agricultural and livestock management would add an additional 140 EJ/yr Potential contribution of water-scarce, marginal and degraded lands could amount to an additional 70 EJ/yr Adding these categories together leads to a technical potential of up to about 500 EJ in 2050, with temporal data on the development of biomass potential ramping from 290 to 320 EJ/yr in 2020 to 330 to 400 EJ/yr in 2030 (Hoogwijk et al., 2005, 2009; Dornburg et al., 2008, 2010). From the expert review of available scientific literature potential deployment levels of biomass for energy by 2050 could be in the range of 100 to 300 EJ. This takes into account that only part of the technical potential can be mobilized due to economic, infrastructural and implementation constraints. If it is assumed that all this biomass would be converted with an overall efficiency of 60% to biofuels, this could deliver 60 180 EJ of liquid fuel. Logically, there will be competition between different biomass applications, which also include delivery of heat, electricity and feedstock for materials. However, long term energy scenarios indicate that other key options (solar and Fig.9 - Fossil kerosene demand and Biomass resource wind based, CCS with fossil fuels) to supply potential (EJ/year, 2050) low carbon electricity (and heat) may overall become more effective and competitive over time than biomass. Furthermore, the biomass demand for biomaterials is expected to be an order of magnitude smaller than for energy applications (just as about 10% of current oil is used for feedstock). In addition, to this, biomaterials will end up as (organic) waste at some point in time and can than serve as fuel again for waste to energy facilities (including fuel production). Overall, it is thought that biomass could in principle cover the larger part up to all of the demand for liquid transport fuels halfway this century. The demand for aviation represents roughly 1020% of that total. The potential of biomass is thus in principle sufficient to provide a key alternative for mineral oil based fuels (Figure 9). 6

In order to achieve the high biomass potential deployment levels, increases in competing food and fibre demand must be moderate, land must be properly managed and agricultural and forestry yields must increase substantially. Expansion of bioenergy in the absence of monitoring and good governance of land use carries the risk of significant conflicts with respect to food supplies, water resources and biodiversity, as well as a risk of low GHG benefits. Conversely, implementation that follows effective sustainability frameworks could mitigate such conflicts and allow realization of positive outcomes. The impacts and performance of biomass production and use are region- and site-specific. Therefore, as part of good governance of land use and rural development, bioenergy policies need to consider regional conditions and priorities along with the agricultural (crops and livestock) and forestry sectors. Securing sustainable biofuel production and supply therefore generally means that investments in the larger agricultural sector (of which biomass production is part) are required and combined with good environmental policies as well as business models that secure a positive socio-economic impact on rural economies and local producers. Fair trade like principles can play a positive role in securing the latter. Biomass resource potentials are influenced by and interact with climate change impacts but the specific impacts are still poorly understood; there will be strong regional differences in this respect. The current debate on indirect land use change (iLUC), and the measures being implemented to account for some of these iLUC effects is a recent example of the ongoing dynamics of concept of sustainability of bio-energy resources. But, bio-energy and new (perennial) cropping systems also offer opportunities to combine adaptation measures (e.g., soil protection, water retention and modernization of agriculture) with production of biomass resources. Biomass feedstocks Different regions have different opportunities for biomass production and supply. Future estimates depend, as argued, on development of the agricultural system and governance of land use. Figure 10 gives an indicative breakdown of the future (technical) energy potential for biomass over different world regions, divided over two (grouped) land categories. Regions that stand out for good production potentials are Latin America, Sub Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe (including Russia). In addition to possibilities for crop production, it is especially forest rich countries and key agricultural production areas that can contribute supplies of forest and agricultural residues.

Fig.10 - Energy potential (EJ/year, in 2050) of crop production on better quality land surpluses and of (perennial) crop production on marginal and degraded lands; low & high scenario

A distinction can be made between so-called 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels and related feedstocks (see table 2). The performance and environmental impacts of feedstock production cover a wide range for both annual and perennial crops (such as trees and grasses). For example sugar cane and palm oil can be very productive crops that are commercial today. Overall though, lignocellulosic biomass resources offer better environmental performance and the possibility to use lower quality lands for crop production.
Table 2 - Comparison of differentgeneration biofuels and biomass feedstocks

1 generation
Biomass type Annual crops = food crops. Typical examples are corn, rapeseed, cereals

st

Biofuels and biomass feedstocks 2nd generation 3rd generation

Lignocellulosic materials, including agricultural and forestry residues, cultivated trees and grasses Arable, pasture as well as marginal and degraded lands Large Currently more expensive st than 1 generation, but robust outlook for more competitive production costs on medium term (>2020) Generally (very) good environmental performance and net GHG emission reduction Range of technologies in demonstration phase but not commercial yet Micro & macro algae produced in ponds and bioreactors (in wastewater or seawater) Can be produced with limited land use; does not require fertile land Very large (in principle) Expectedly long development time is needed; uncertain outlook In principle very sounds, but Certain sustainability aspects less understood

Land type

Production is limited to arable land and competition with food markets direct Constrained Relatively high feedstock costs, largely determined by food markets Modest GHG and environmental performance. Food versus fuel conflict Relatively simple and proven conversion technologies

Potential Economics (outlook)

Sustainability

State of the art

Unproven technology; competitive production is uncertain and requires fundamental breakthroughs

Lignocellulosic feedstocks can come from available residues and organic wastes and already utilized for production of power and heat today. For example, wood pellets are increasingly used as a biomass fuel to replace coal. In addition, trees and grasses can be grown on marginal and degraded lands and can deliver additional ecosystem services, such as soil improvement and protection and when produced in agroforestry systems lead to good biodiversity impacts. Large scale commercial production requires more investment and market development though, as well as effective sustainability frameworks to secure responsible production. Currently available, biomass residues and waste streams only, can be pinpointed now in specific regions. Furthermore, often infrastructure around processing facilities and waste treatment is already available. However, the supplies of such streams are often limited and demand is increasing in many regions. Cultivated biomass (both food crops and perennial crops) is therefore becoming increasingly important 8

already today to meet growing demand for biofuels and power and heat generation from biomass. This is evident in the first generation biofuel markets (production of corn, sugar cane, rapeseed, soy beans and palm oil) but this is also occurring in production of wood for energy. Figure 11 lists a number of key biomass resources in relation to key settings and preconditions.

Fig.11 - Key (potential) biomass resources and regions for energy use in relation to key settings and preconditions

Technology Drop-in aviation fuels Stringent fuel specifications apply to the aviation fuel infrastructure. To enable the use of any new alternative aviation fuel in this infrastructure, a new specification needs to be developed or an existing specification needs to be revised. If the alternative fuel is found to have essentially the same performance properties as conventional jet fuel then there is no need to change ground and supply infrastructure, airframe or engines (i.e. a drop-in fuel). The specifications of the new fuel may be incorporated into the existing jet fuel specifications, and will therefore meet the established operating limitations for the existing fleet of turbine engine powered aircraft. There are four main conversion pathways that have the potential to produce a drop in alternative for fossil kerosene; Fischer-Tropsch, Hydro-processed Esters and Fatty Acids, Sugar Conversions, Direct Liquefaction (table 3)
Table 3 - Different production pathways for fossil jet fuel alternatives Technology Fischer-Tropsch (also known as CtL, GtL, BtL, WtL) HEFA (also known as HRJ, HVO) Sugar Conversion (e.g. fermentation, thermochemical) Direct Liquefaction (of which pyrolysis is most referred to) Feedstock Any material containing carbon (coal, gas, biomass, waste) Vegetable (waste) oils and animal fats C6 sugars (from starch or cellulose) Products Straight alkanes Certification ASTM (2009) DEFSTAN (2009) NB: Max. 50% blend with fossil jet ASTM (2011) DEFSTAN (2011) NB: Max. 50% blend with fossil jet None (Note: The Alcohol to Jet pathway is currently in the process of ASTM certification) None (Note: Regarded as a blend stock fuel at best as upgrading poses serious -cost- constraints )

Straight alkanes

Alcohols, alkanes and other hydrocarbons (e.g. terpenes) Mainly naphtenic compounds

Any solid material containing carbon (coal, biomass, -plastic-waste)

Next to that there are several other production pathways that yield liquid fuels, although it is uncertain to which extent these fuels can be used as drop in alternative to fossil jet fuel. These are: - Fatty Acid Esters (of which FAME is best known) - Alcohols (of which ethanol is best known) - Furane derivatives - Succinic acids derivatives - Cryogenic fuels (LNG & liquid Hydrogen)

10

Current production options The first hurdle for an alternative jet fuel is to be accepted as a technically safe fuel (regardless of the sustainability). In general the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the official body to give off technical certification for new (production routes for) jet fuels. Up to now ASTM and DEF-STAN only approved the use of fuel (in a 50% blend with fossil kerosene) produced by either the FT or the HEFA production routes. Fischer-Tropsch conversion (FT) This technology makes use of gasification and subsequent catalytic processing of syngas and can use any type of organic material as feedstock (coal, gas, and biomass, waste). Depending on the feedstock, FT is known as Coal-to-Liquid (CtL), Gas-to-Liquid (CtL), Biomass-toLiquid (BtL) or Waste-to-Liquid (WtL). Product of the process is FT wax (regardless of the feedstock), that can be converted into desired fractions of straight hydrocarbons, kerosene being one of them. To produce sustainable jet fuel through the FT process, BtL and WtL are the only options.

Technical certification To be acceptable to Civil Aviation Authorities, aviation turbine fuel must meet strict physical criteria. There exist several specifications around the world that authorities refer to when describing acceptable conventional jet fuel. The ASTM D1655 and Def Stan 91-91 are recognized globally. Other commonly used specifications are the Joint Check List (AFQRJOS) and GOST 10227 TS-1. Bio jet fuel produced through either the Fischer-Tropsch or the HEFA production routes are currently accepted for commercial use under the ASTM and Def Stan specifications, but only in a blend with fossil jet fuel (with a maximum bio-component of 50%) Once the bio-component has been blended and complies with the relevant ASTM product specifications, it is regarded as identical to conventional jet fuel (under both ASTM and Def Stan). In this case no special handling requirements apply and the fuel can be mixed with conventional jet fuel along the supply chain; including refineries, fuel storage depots, and at airports*.
*Note: Although most regional jet fuel specification follow the ASTM standard, Europe follows the AFQRJOS (also known as JIG) - a petroleum industry standard incorporating the strictest specifications from ASTM D1655 and Def Stan 91-91

Hydro-processed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA; also known as HRJ and Bio-SPK) In this process, vegetable oils, organic greases and fats can be converted to hydrocarbons through treatment with hydrogen and catalysis (i.e. isomerization). The product is a mix of so-called renewable diesel (i.e. green diesel) and renewable kerosene (and a small amount of light hydrocarbons). It is important to note that this is a completely different process than biodiesel (i.e. FAME) production. It is technically impossible to get FAME production during the process. Current market situation Availability of production capacity makes the HEFA technology the only realistic option today to produce significant volumes of sustainable jet fuel on commercial scale, although prices are still substantially higher than fossil kerosene. Part of the feedstock will come from waste streams (i.e. waste greases and fats). Other part will come from oilseed crops (i.e. rapeseed, camelina, jatropha). Feedstock for the HEFA route should be selected carefully to minimize negative ecological and social effects as much as possible.

11

Economics Production of 1st as well as 2nd generation biofuels is technically possible today and the future economic performance of several different key biofuels production routes is promising. But for large scale use, production costs must be reduced, especially for the so-called 2nd generation options. There is a need to walk down the learning curve of different technologies to reduce costs. This will take investment, time and development of the markets (key improvements include infrastructure, demand, scale, new technologies, integrated production concepts, etc.). There is solid evidence of substantial cost reductions in the past of currently commercial biomass and biofuel technologies due to technological learning. Strong cost reductions have been achieved in the past for supply of forest biomass supplies (factor 3 cost reduction in Scandinavia in the 80 - 90-ies), combined heat and power production from biomass (factor of 4 cost reduction in Sweden in the 90-ies), corn ethanol production in the United States and sugar cane based ethanol production in Brazil. These experiences give confidence that similar cost reductions can be achieved in the future for new (and now expensive) technologies and biomass supplies as well. The combination of advanced, larger scale conversion and optimized biomass supplies can push down the costs of bio jet fuel to fossil fuel levels over the next 20 years. Figure 12 provides cost projections for different biofuel routes (based on extensive literature review in the IPCC-SRREN report, 2011).
Fig.12 Projected production cost biofuels in 2030 ($/gallon)

Figure 13 is a simplified version of the IEA advanced biofuels roadmap which incorporates comparable improvements in (economic) performance. If such improved performance would be achieved, biofuel demand would increasingly be driven by market demand and no longer by mandates or financial support. The implications of such a situation on the future energy market are profound; such biofuels will most likely have a moderating effect on oil prices as well, therefore contributing to lower costs and a more diversified energy supply.

Fig.13 IEA Advance biofuel roadmap, including schematic projections of the bio jet cost curve

12

Securing sustainability; governance and certification Sustainable biomass feedstock is the key to sustainable biofuels. The potential for biomass production on a global scale and the preconditions that must be fulfilled to reach the higher end of those estimates in a sustainable way were discussed. Also, potential conflicts of uncontrolled expansion of biomass production were highlighted. The challenge is to gracefully reconcile all legitimate claims on resource usage (e.g. energy, land, water, raw materials). Biomass for material and fuel use will always displace some other use. This should only be admissible if higher value applications (e.g. living, food/feed production, high conservation areas, leisure) are not displaced, if the side effects are far less negative than usage of fossil fuel and if food security and biodiversity are not sacrificed. We subscribe the statement that sustainable biomass should primarily be used for those activities and sectors that have no alternative for liquid fuels (WWF Energy Report, 2011) We believe in the notion that the impact of bioenergy on social and environmental issues may be positive or negative depending on local conditions and the design and implementation of specific projects (SRREN, 2011). That means we cannot say a specific feedstock is always sustainable, or unsustainable, but that it depends on how and where the feedstock is produced. Figure 14 (developed for IPCC-SRREN) illustrates the balance that needs to be found between different objectives, scale levels and impacts.
Fig. 14 - Bioenergys complex, dynamic interactions among society, energy and the environment include climate change feedbacks, biomass production and land use with direct and indirect impacts at various spatial and temporal scales on all resource uses for food, fodder, fiber and energy (Dale et al., 2011). Biomass resources must be produced in a sustainable way as their impacts can be felt from micro to macro scales. Risks are maintenance of business-as-usual approaches with uncoordinated production of food and fuel. Opportunities are many and include good governance and sustainability frameworks that generate strong policies that also lead to sustainable ecosystem services (van Dam et al., 2010).

Sustainability certification Especially since 2008, global action has been taken to develop and deploy sustainability frameworks and certification initiatives (see van Dam et al., RSER, 2010; IEA Task 40). Today, there are many governmental, non-governmental (NGO) and 3rd party initiatives on all levels (international, national and regional) supporting or actively working towards sustainability criteria, methodological frameworks, requirements and standards for the assessment and development of bioenergy resources. These initiatives include (but are not limited to) Global Bioenergy Partnership, OECD Roundtable on Sustainable Development, European Committee for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization, Renewable Energy Directive (EU), Renewable Fuel Standard (US), Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (UK), Biofuel Sustainability Ordinance (De), Cramer Criteria and NEN (NL), ISCC (Germany), REDCert, Council for Sustainable Biomass Production, Sustainable Biomass Consortium, Roundtable for Responsible Soy, Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, Better Sugarcane Initiative, Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). Table 4 summarizes the main principles that are the basis for the certification system of the RSB (RSB, 2009). There is strong convergence between different systems on the type of principles that are the basis for sustainable biomass production.

13

Table 4 - RSB Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Biofuel Production Principle 1 - Legality Biofuel operations shall follow all applicable laws and regulations. Principle 2 Planning, Monitoring and Continuous improvement Sustainable biofuel operations shall be planned, implemented, and continuously improved through an open, transparent, and consultative impact assessment and management process and an economic viability analysis. Principle 3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biofuels shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Principle 4 Human and Labor rights Biofuel operations shall not violate human rights or labor rights, and shall promote decent work and the well-being of workers. Principle 5 Rural ad Social Development In regions of poverty, biofuel operations shall contribute to the social and economic development of local, rural and indigenous people and communities. Principle 6 Local food security Biofuel operations shall ensure the human right to adequate food and improve food security in food insecure regions. Principle 7 - Conservation Biofuel operations shall avoid negative impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and conservation values. Principle 8 - Soil Biofuel operations shall implement practices that seek to reverse soil degradation and/or maintain soil health. Principle 9 Water Biofuel operations shall maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of surface and ground water resources, and respect prior formal or customary water rights. Principle 10 - Air Air pollution from biofuel operations shall be minimized along the supply chain. Principle 11 - Use of technology, Inputs, and Management of waste The use of technologies in biofuel operations shall seek to maximize production efficiency and social and environmental performance, and minimize the risk of damages to the environment and people. Principle 12 Land rights Biofuel operations shall respect land rights and land use rights.

These initiatives are not an end stadium; they are constantly evolving due to increased insights on both production and demand side. The development and deployment of comprehensive sustainability frameworks, certification and verification will thus take more time. The discussion on securing sustainable biomass resources for energy is spilling over to agriculture and land-use at large. All if this, we see them as very important steps in the right direction. What is also important in the coming years is a gradual harmonization of standards and frameworks and incorporation of indicators that cover sustainable land-use, food security and other main themes that relate to land use in general. Aviation should therefore work with state-of-the-art certification systems and frameworks and remain open for further sharpening and deepening of the requirements and guidelines. Also strong verification in the field is needed to give teeth to the certification process. Certification has the potential to influence direct, local impacts related to environmental and social effects of direct bioenergy production. Considering the multiple spatial scales, certification should be combined with additional measurements and tools on a regional, national and international level. The role of bioenergy production on indirect land use change (iLUC) is still uncertain and current initiatives have not fully captured impacts from iLUC in their standards. There are clear indications that with the right strategies, undesired land use change can be avoided. Integrating iLUC in current discussions and certification efforts can be an effective way to flush out specific issues and to come up with solutions that can work in a broader context.

14

Outlook Creating a long term and sustainable future for aviation during the first half of this century requires major transitions. Increased efficiency in aircraft performance and responsible growth are key components of such a transition. Nevertheless, even when all possibilities to reduce energy use, global growth in demand is expected to lead to substantial increases in fuel demand. For aviation, liquid fuels remain the energy carrier of choice and therefore sustainable (renewable) fuels from biomass are at the heart of a transition strategy. Hydrogen (e.g. produced via renewable electricity or by conversion of fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage) still meets fundamental technical difficulties. Biofuels produced from sustainable feedstocks are essential. Current, first generation biofuels can play a role on short to medium term but are constrained in their potential and outlook. What is essential is to walk down the learning curve to develop competitive technologies for biomass conversion to high quality fuels and to build production capacity for sustainable biomass. Both will require time, in particular when 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels are concerned. Potentials for those biofuels are large and they can become competitive with fossil fuels on medium term (2020-2030) under the condition that technologies are scaled-up and optimized and mature and sustainable markets for biomass supplies are developed. Proper governance of land use and effective sustainability frameworks are an essential prerequisite to achieve that. Assuming that such a pathway will be pursued by key sectors (such as aviation) energy companies, the agricultural sector and governments, it is feasible to achieve large scale deployment of 2nd generation capacity between 2020 and 2030 (e.g. covering 10-20% of fuel demand in aviation). When such a phase is reached, market demand and improved capabilities in the agricultural and biofuel sector can turn such fuels into sustainable commodities. Than the market can mature and between 2040 and 2050 the larger share of fuel demand could be covered by sustainable biofuels. It is possible that sustained Research and Development efforts result in successful large scale production of algae at attractive cost levels by that time as well and thus 3rd generation biofuels may contribute in addition to that. Essential components to realize such a future vision are: - Efficiency in aircraft, engines and flight planning should always be a priority; its potential is however limited and to a large extent dependent and aircraft and engine manufacturers. Sustained interest in and demand for high efficiency designs by airlines can support R&D and market introduction. Strong investment in Research, Demonstration and deployment of key conversion technologies RDD&D on sustainable biomass production and supply systems for the coming 10-15 years. Setup full Field-to-Flight chains that have sound outlook for economic, sustainable production and with significant potential for scale-up. This could include a limited number of distinctive and exemplary pilot chains that can dominate on shorter, medium and longer term with growing level of sophistication in terms of technology and resource mobilization, but also with improved perspectives in terms of volume and economics.. Gradual scale up of conversion capacity and biomass supplies over the coming decades. Biomass production and supply capacity needs to be developed in balance with improved agricultural

15

management to avoid conflicts with food supply and biodiversity. Pooling demand of different airlines are at specific airports make an important contribution to achieving this. Internationally accepted and effective sustainability frameworks that are enforced by legal requirements and backed by agro-ecological zoning by governments to secure sustainable landuse.

In total, aviation can be a frontrunner in creating a sustainable demand for advanced biofuels in the international market that can accelerate the development of sustainable biomass production, required infrastructure and key technologies. By enforcing a demand for fully certified biofuels, their production can deliver not only renewable and low GHG emission fuels, but also contribute to rural development and better management of natural resources. Airlines and airports should get involved in upstream activities for sustainable biofuel production. Airport could be a driving actor in themselves in the biofuel market by pooling both supply of biofuel producers and the demand of different airlines. Long term partnerships between airports and airlines on the one and frontrunner biomass and biofuel producers on the other can be a key way to achieve that.

16

On the authors Andr Faaij Andr P.C. Faaij is Professor Energy System Analysis and Head of Department at the Copernicus Institute of Utrecht University. He has a background in chemistry and environmental sciences and holds a Ph.D. on energy production from biomass and wastes. He worked as visiting researcher at Princeton University and Kings College - London University. He is a member of a variety of expert groups in bio-energy and energy policy, research and strategic planning. He works as an advisor for governments, the EC, IEA, the UN system, GEF, OECD, WEF, the energy sector & industry, strategic consultancy, NGOs, etc. He is appointed Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum. Since 2004 he is Task Leader of Task 40 under the Bio-energy Agreement of the International Energy Agency on Sustainable International Bio-energy Trade securing supply & demand, a global network with 14 countries. In 2008, he joined the IPCC team as Convening Lead Author to draft the Special Report on Renewable Energy as well as the new Global Energy Assessment (GEA). Currently, he is Lead Author on Energy Systems for the IPCC 5th assessment report. He published over 600 titles in scientific journals, reports, books and proceedings, qualifies as highly cited scientist (top 1%) of his field, is frequently visible in media and lecturing across the globe.

Maarten van Dijk Maarten van Dijk works for SkyNRG, the KLM Joint venture that has as mission to make the market for sustainable jet fuel. At SkyNRG he is responsible for Business Development and Sustainability. He focuses on feedstock and technology development, upstream investments and sustainability. He is SkyNRGs representative in their Independent Sustainability Board, is in the Steering Board of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels and holds a seat in the Advisory Board for the Renewable Jet Fuel Initiative of the Carbon War Room. Maarten studied Chemistry at Utrecht University, focusing his second Master on Renewable Energy Technologies. Before joining SkyNRG he worked for Spring Associates, dedicated to business development, modeling and due diligence in the clean tech sector. In this function he was involved in the development of the biofuel strategy for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.

17