[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AVIATION AND THE EMERGING
USE OF BIOFUELS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 26, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-004 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona, Chair
DAVID WU, Oregon PETE OLSON, Texas
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio Wisconsin
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
BARON P. HILL, Indiana MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 26, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Pete Olson, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 21
Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor,
Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Biography.................................................... 40
Dr. Alan H. Epstein, Vice President, Technology and Environment,
Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 41
Biography.................................................... 45
Mr. Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environment Strategy,
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 46
Mr. Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President, Global Real Estate
and Security, Continental Airlines
Oral Statement............................................... 52
Written Statement............................................ 54
Biography.................................................... 66
Discussion
Quantifying Priority Levels for Biofuels in the Aviation
Industry..................................................... 66
Biofuels Carbon Emission Reductions............................ 69
Cap-and-Trade Is the Wrong Route............................... 70
Incentives to Encourage Alternative Fuels in the Aviation
Industry..................................................... 71
Reducing Aviation Particulates to Curb Pollution............... 72
Reducing Real Carbon Emissions................................. 74
Subsizing Algae as a Biofuel................................... 75
Executive Branch Coordination of Biofuels R&D.................. 76
Possible Unintended Consequences of Biofuels Production........ 77
Where Is the U.S. in Comparison to Europe on Biofuels?......... 78
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).......................................... 82
Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor,
Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 85
Dr. Alan H. Epstein, Vice President, Technology and Environment,
Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Corporation............... 90
Mr. Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environment Strategy,
Boeing Commercial Airplanes.................................... 93
Mr. Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President, Global Real Estate
and Security, Continental Airlines............................. 95
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Global Warming Quotes submitted by Representative Dana
Rohrabacher.................................................... 100
AVIATION AND THE EMERGING USE OF BIOFUELS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gabrielle
Giffords [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Aviation and the Emerging
Use of Biofuels
thursday, march 26, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
I. Purpose
The House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics is convening a hearing to review the status of
federal and industry research and development (R&D) efforts to develop
and demonstrate the safe and cost-effective use of biofuels in civil
aviation. The hearing will focus on the following questions and issues:
What research is needed to determine the optimal
characteristics of both aircraft engine technologies and
biofuels to minimize harmful emissions while maintaining
aircraft safety and reliability and maximizing performance?
What are the most realistic aviation biofuel options
over the long-term, and what will be required to achieve
widespread use of biofuels in aviation?
What steps, if any, is the Federal Government taking
to assess the viability of biofuels for aviation or to
facilitate their widespread use in aviation?
What are the results of the recently completed
aviation biofuels demonstrations?
II. Witnesses
Dr. Jaiwon Shin
Associate Administrator
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Dr. Lourdes Q. Maurice
Chief Scientist
Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Lead for the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative
Dr. Alan H. Epstein
Vice President, Technology and Environment
Pratt & Whitney
United Technologies Corporation
Mr. Billy M. Glover
Managing Director, Environmental Strategy
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company
Mr. Holden E. Shannon
Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security
Continental Airlines
III. Overview
The convergence of high fuel prices with possible caps on harmful
aircraft engine emissions has encouraged the aviation community to
investigate alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuels that would be
safe and cost-effective--both to use and produce. In 2006, for the
first time in history, fuel became the single largest component of U.S.
airline operating cost. According to the Air Transport Association
(ATA), while consumption by commercial aircraft has stayed steady over
a seven year period at about 20 billion gallons per year, jet fuel
expenses have more than doubled over that same period. The aviation
industry has achieved substantial improvements in fuel efficiency since
the introduction of commercial jet aircraft in the 1960s through fleet
modernization, air traffic management improvements and operational
changes. However, despite such improvements, expectations of increased
fuel consumption from projected growth in air travel and the
possibility of higher fuel prices are forcing the aviation industry to
try to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and find alternative sources
of supply.
So far, alternative fuels being considered for aviation include
synthetic fuels, such as those produced using a process called Fischer-
Tropsch, and a number of biofuels. While synthetic fuels made from
coal, natural gas and other hydrocarbon feedstock are attractive
because they can be easily integrated into existing aircraft systems,
such fuels do not help address climate issues and as such are viewed by
some as only near-term alternatives. In contrast, biofuels produced
from a wide variety of plant material are characterized as ``carbon
neutral'' and thus may help mitigate the impact of aviation on the
environment. First-generation biofuels, commonly made from fermented
sugars from wheat or corn; soy beans; and sunflower seeds are generally
unsuitable for aviation jet fuel. If biofuels are to become successful
in commercial aviation use, they will need to be high in energy, safe
to use, capable of working well in sub-zero temperatures at high
altitudes, cost-efficient to make, suitable for production in large
quantities, and capable of burning cleanly.
Of late, there has been significant activity in the development and
testing of biofuels for aviation. U.S. research in the application of
biofuels for aviation is being conducted by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA); the Department of Defense (DOD); a
consortium of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), airlines and
aircraft manufacturers; and other partnerships. The airline industry
views the primary benefit of using biofuels as being the enhancement of
the industry's ability to reduce greenhouse gases throughout the fuels'
entire life cycle.
Recent tests using various biofuel blends, including well-
publicized demonstrations by several commercial partnerships, have
created high expectations, both in this country and abroad. Testimony
at this hearing should provide the Subcommittee with an assessment of
what research and tests are being done, who is doing it, what further
research is needed, and whether a timeframe for the widespread
availability of biofuel for aviation can be projected.
IV. Potential Hearing Issues
The following are some of the potential issues that may be raised
at the hearing:
What research is being conducted to validate the
projected benefits of using biofuels in aviation with regards
to their ability to reduce aircraft engine emissions?
Is there an overall ``roadmap'' for conducting
aviation biofuel research? Is the research performed by the
Federal Government aligned with that conducted by the private
sector? Are research results available to all?
Can the development readiness of emerging biofuels be
commonly characterized and measured using standard metrics?
What has been learned so far from partnership
demonstrations using biofuels? Are additional demonstrations
planned?
What research is being planned or conducted to
determine the impact long-term and widespread biofuel use may
have on aircraft safety, and engine performance/
maintainability/reliability? Is more research needed? In what
areas?
Has the recent downturn in fuel prices and in the
Nation's economy lessened the urgency of developing biofuels
for civil aviation use?
What key challenges need to be resolved before
widespread use of biofuels in civil aviation can occur and what
role should the Federal Government play?
V. Background
Issues Associated with Biofuels in Aviation
Before biofuels can be used in civil aviation, a number of issues
will need to be addressed. While not exhaustive, the following list of
R&D tasks identified by NASA is illustrative of the scope of research
that may be needed before widespread use of biofuels in the aviation
sector can occur:
Understanding combustion behavior for the new fuels
and demonstrating long-term engine combustor performance and
developing predictive models for combustor performance to
enable low emission combustor design using biofuels.
Understanding the emission characteristics of
biofuels, in particular understanding the effect of biofuel
constituents on the emission characteristics so that the
biofuel can be optimized for reducing emissions in gas turbine
engines.
Demonstrating the biofuels' desired thermal stability
under a range of temperatures encompassing high temperatures to
freezing, lubricity, and no seal leakage.
Demonstrating long-term performance of engines.
Demonstrating long-term durability of engine
components.
The setting of fuel specifications is another significant issue
recognized by the aviation industry. As indicated in an Alternative
Aviation Fuels Q&A by the Air Transport Association (ATA) on their
website, all aircraft and engines in the United States must be approved
(technically, ``certificated'') by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) for use. To quote the ATA website's Q&A:
``FAA approval is specific to the fuel that is used and the
particular aircraft and/or engine type. Any deviation from the
FAA approval certificate requires extensive FAA re-evaluation
and approval.''
FAA's role is in certifying aircraft, not in the fuel. However,
FAA's certification has a tie-in to the type of fuel utilized. As
stated in ATA's Q&A:
``The FAA certifies aircraft and engines. An element of this
certification is a listing of the operational requirements and
limitations for the specific equipment that is being certified,
which includes identification of the type of jet fuel approved
for use in that equipment. Therefore, the FAA specifies what
type of fuel is to be used but does not certify the jet fuel
itself. Separately, airline fueling manuals, with which
airlines must comply by law, are based upon the jet fuel
recognized by the FAA. Before FAA identifies the fuel
appropriate for specific equipment, and before airlines can
include the fuel requirements in fueling manuals, the fuel
already has been determined to meet the specifications
necessary to be safely used in the relevant equipment. In the
case of jet fuel, the applicable standard (also referred to as
a ``specification'') is controlled by ASTM International, an
organization devoted to the development and management of
standards for a wide range of industrial products and
processes. It is this specification that is included in FAA
product approvals and required air carrier manuals.
Periodically, through ASTM's established procedures, the
specification is updated and revised by a specialized committee
of experts. Proposed changes to the specification are carefully
considered, and a formal balloting process is conducted to
secure consensus before any revision is accepted. Fuels
produced from alternative sources must complete this rigorous
vetting process to establish that they meet the specification
requirements to be safely used as jet fuel.''
Alternative fuels such as biofuels will need to go through this
vetting process before they can be used in civil aviation. The ATA
website's Q&A further states:
``In light of this regulatory arrangement and the fact that
the specification for Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel is identified in
the FAA approval certificate, no other type of fuel can be
utilized at this time in the United States. Much work needs to
be done before alternative fuels can safely be used in
commercial aircraft operations with approval from the FAA.''
The importance of establishing alternative fuel specifications was
recently highlighted in the Technical Appendix to the National Plan for
Aeronautics Research and Development and Related Infrastructure. In
this document, released in December 2008 by the Executive Office of the
President's National Science and Technology Council, opportunities were
listed where additional R&D focus may be warranted. One such
opportunity relates to alternative fuels. Specifically, the document
states:
``Certification in a timely manner could help enable
alternative fuels for the civil aviation sector. An area of
opportunity identified for potential increased emphasis is R&D
efforts appropriate to promote the development of private
sector capabilities to produce alternative fuel (including
renewable fuels) in the large quantities necessary to conduct
tests essential for the certification process. These tests
include evaluation of fuel specification and fit for purpose
properties, turbine hot section tests, combustor rig tests, and
engine and auxiliary power unit endurance tests.''
A representative of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative (CAAFI), a coalition drawn from all elements of the
commercial aviation industry, fuel suppliers, universities, and U.S.
Government agencies, recently highlighted the need for an ASTM
specification for alternative fuels at a workshop held by the
International Civil Aviation Organization. Dr. Lourdes Maurice, a
witness at the hearing who also serves as one of FAA's representatives
on CAAFI, will be able to provide further details on the challenges
associated with the setting of alternative fuel specifications for
aviation.
Recent Activities of Key Aviation-focused Alternative Fuels
Stakeholders
There are a number of stakeholders whose views have helped shape
the discussion of the technical, operational, and economic issues
associated with the use of alternative fuels in aviation. Many of these
stakeholders are involved in research initiatives associated with the
use of alternative fuels in the aviation sector. They represent
federal, industry, and global interests.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program has been conducting a range
of research activities related to alternate aviation fuels. For
example, NASA is:
Conducting fundamental reaction studies on the
Fischer-Tropsch process. Although the process is well-
established, NASA believes that there is significant potential
for process improvement that will increase process yield and
reduce cost and reduce energy consumption during the Fischer-
Tropsch process which should translate to a decrease in carbon
dioxide emissions. As a result, NASA research is focusing on
investigating Fischer-Tropsch reaction kinetics and developing
a nanotechnology based catalyst. The process improvements
resulting from NASA laboratory reactor studies will be
implemented in the Air Force Research Laboratory's Fischer-
Tropsch pilot plant. Scientists and researchers from NASA's
Glenn Research Center are conducting this research in the
Alternative Fuel Research Laboratory. Partners in this effort
include the FAA, DOD, the Department of Energy (DOE), General
Electric, Pratt and Whitney, Boeing and the University of
Kentucky's Center for Applied Research.
Generating a database of properties for the use of
alternate fuels in aviation. The database of key properties
such as thermal stability and freezing point is being generated
to evaluate various alternate fuels for application to aviation
uses and provides an independent assessment of these fuels.
Modeling growth processes for biofuel feedstock.
Under a non-reimbursable Space Act Agreement, NASA is
partnering with Seambiotic, Inc. on a project aimed at biomass
process cost reduction. The goal of the Space Act Agreement is
to make use of NASA's expertise in large scale computational
modeling and combine it with Seambiotic's biological process
modeling to make significant advances.
Performing engine and flight testing with alternate
fuels in collaboration with Pratt & Whitney, the Air Force
Research Laboratory, Aerodyne Research, FAA, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, NASA's DC-8
at the Dryden Flight Research Center was recently used to
evaluate aircraft performance and emissions using alternate
fuels. Fuels used for the ground tests were 100 percent
synthetic fuels and 50/50 blends of synthetics and regular jet
fuel. NASA believes that synthetic fuels may have fewer
particulates and other harmful emissions than standard jet fuel
and is attempting to validate that hypothesis. The tests used
sampling probes placed downstream from the DC-8's right inboard
engine. Researchers are examining the plume chemistry and
particle evolution to compare it to that of standard jet fuel.
Federal Aviation Administration
In addition to its involvement in the Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative described later in this section, FAA may
have some legislative direction related to alternative fuels in pending
legislation. The agency was directed in the House-passed FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2007 [H.R. 2881, Sec. 914] to ``establish a
research program related to developing jet fuel from alternative
sources (such as coal, natural gas, biomass, ethanol, butanol, and
hydrogen) through grants or other measures authorized under section
106(l)(6) of such title, including reimbursable agreements with other
federal agencies.'' The bill further directed that in conducting the
program, the Secretary ``provide for participation by educational and
research institutions that have existing facilities and experience in
the development and deployment of technology for alternative jet
fuels.''
The bill also directed, within the section describing the
Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) program [Sec.
505] that the FAA Administrator, in coordination with the NASA
Administrator, ``enter into a cooperative agreement, using a
competitive process, with an institution, entity, or consortium to
carry out a program for the development, maturing, and certification of
CLEEN engine and airframe technology for aircraft over the next 10
years.'' Performance objectives for the program, to be achieved by
September 30, 2015 included the ``determination of the feasibility of
the use of alternative fuels in aircraft systems, including successful
demonstration and quantification of the benefits of such fuels.''
Legislation [H.R. 915] to authorize appropriations for FAA for
fiscal years 2009 through 2012 was recently marked up by the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The direction to FAA on
alternative fuels and CLEEN program is maintained [Sections 505 and
913] in that bill.
Department of Defense
Knowledge gained from research on alternative fuels being conducted
by DOD, the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) in particular, is beneficial to the aviation community since
test results can be extended to commercial aircraft.
The Air Force has been investigating synthetic fuels produced using
the Fischer-Tropsch process, even though it recognizes that synthetic
fuels will not lead to fewer emissions of carbon dioxide, the
greenhouse gas primarily responsible for global climate change.
According to a recent article in Flight International, the Air Force
``is uninterested in fuels made from feedstocks that compete with food
supply or require huge amounts of land for production.'' In that same
article, the Air Force's Alternative Fuels Certification Office
director was reported as having said that the service is planning to
apply lessons learned from its Fischer-Tropsch initiative to an
expanded alternative fuel development program that includes biofuels.
The Air Force's involvement in alternative fuels is understandable: It
has been reported that the service uses more aviation fuel than all
other branches of the U.S. military combined. In 2007, this amounted to
2.5 billion gallons--about 10 percent of the total used by the entire
U.S. domestic aviation-fuel market. The Air Force has set a goal of
running half of its domestic operations on a 50/50 blend of synthetic
and conventional jet fuel by 2016.
DARPA has also shown a growing interest in biofuels. Biodiesel
Magazine has reported that DARPA's BioFuels program recently awarded
two research contracts aimed at developing a scalable process for the
cost-effective and large-scale production of algae oil to be processed
into an alternative to JP-8 jet fuel. In one contract valued at $43
million, General Atomics will lead a team of 18 university and
industrial partners in a three-year project. The contract will conclude
with a pre-pilot-scale demonstration. In the second contract, Science
Applications International Corp. (SAIC), along with industrial and
academic organizations from Georgia, Florida, Hawaii and Texas will
investigate all phases of an algae development program. It has been
reported that during the first 18 months of the project, the two teams
will try to get costs of algae-based oil down to $2 a gallon. It was
also reported that, in the following 18 months, they will attempt to
drop it to $1 a gallon and build a 30- to 50-acre demonstration
facility.
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
The Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) is a
coalition drawn from all elements of the commercial aviation industry,
fuel suppliers, universities, and U.S. Government agencies, including
FAA, DOE, NASA, the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), the
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), and the Airports Council
International-North America (ACI-NA). CAAFI staff come from its
members. For example, Dr. Lourdes Maurice, a witness at this hearing,
is from FAA and serves as CAAFI's Environmental Lead. The coalition's
stated goal is to enhance energy security and environmental
sustainability for aviation by exploring the potential use of
alternative fuels. CAAFI provides a forum for the U.S. commercial
aviation community to engage the emerging alternative fuels industry
and to work together, share and collect needed data, and motivate and
direct research on aviation alternative fuels.
CAAFI participants meet annually to give updates on the state of
alternative fuel developments, identify gaps and hurdles, and decide on
next steps required in the research, development and deployment
process. Work to date has included the creation of roadmaps to
communicate aviation needs and solutions; disseminating flight-test
information on synthetic fuels and biofuels; supporting R&D on low
carbon fuels sourced from plant oils, algae and biomass; understanding
life cycle environmental impacts of production and use of alternative
fuels; and planning for certification in 2009 of a 50 percent synthetic
fuel, 2010 for 100 percent synthetic fuel, and 2013 for biofuels.
CAAFI's Executive Director told Subcommittee staff that the coalition
is presently executing a major update to its roadmaps as a result of
the Dayton workshop discussed below and projected that they would be
available in the near future.
Two CAAFI initiatives relevant to the focus of this hearing are
worth noting:
At CAAFI's request, the Partnership for AiR
Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER), a
university, industry, and government collaborative that
researches solutions for existing and anticipated aviation-
related noise and emissions problems, is conducting a study on
alternative fuels for commercial aviation. The study, conducted
by MIT and the RAND Corporation, compares a set of potential
alternative jet fuels on the basis of compatibility with
existing aircraft and infrastructure, near-term production
potential, near-term production costs, life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions, emissions impacting air quality, and relative
merit of using the fuel in aviation versus ground
transportation. The focus is on alternative jet fuels that
could be commercially available in the next decade using North
American resources. According to CAAFI, the report documenting
PARTNER's research is under internal review and is scheduled to
be released in May of this year. PARTNER is an FAA/NASA/
Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence.
Last January, CAAFI held a Research & Development
Team workshop in Dayton, OH. The workshop's goals were to
update ongoing R&D activities and needs; develop an overall R&D
roadmap and a renewable fuel feedstock roadmap; and align
aviation efforts with broader government and private sector
energy initiatives. The workshop was an opportunity for makers
of biofuel feedstocks to meet with funding sources. Federal
attendees included representatives of the Air Force;
Departments of Agriculture and Energy; the National Science
Foundation; EPA; FAA; and NASA. In commenting on the progress
that the alternative fuels effort had made in a short time,
Boeing's representative and R&D team co-lead said:
``We've made great strides in making aviation a
central focus of alternative fuels research including
four successful flight programs [These flight programs
are described later in this section]. Our efforts today
will help focus industry and government--suppliers and
users on how to move forward to deployment on those
fuels that have been tested and how to mature
additional technologies.''
One of the participants at the workshop introduced a new
Fuel Readiness Level (FRL) scale to allow a common
understanding of fuel development steps from R&D to fuel
certification to business development. The new scale
incorporates civilian and military Technology Readiness Level
(TRL) scales and was advanced as a useful tool and common
language for tracking the fuel development, approval and
commercialization process.
Departments of Energy and Agriculture
The U.S. Departments of Energy (DOE) and Agriculture (USDA)
announced in January 2009 that they were providing up to $25 million in
funding for research and development of technologies and processes to
produce biofuels, bioenergy, and high-value biobased products. USDA and
DOE issued a joint funding opportunity announcement (FOA) for several
types of projects aimed at increasing the availability of alternative
renewable fuels and biobased products. The projects, DOE and USDA said,
will aim to create a diverse group of economically and environmentally
sustainable sources of renewable biomass.
In commenting on the announcement, the Air Transport Association
said that it was the first step in implementing provisions found in the
2008 Farm Bill that provide grants for commercial-scale biofuel
demonstration projects, including those that could ultimately produce
clean, homegrown, renewable jet fuel.
ATA's President and CEO added: ``This commitment to the research
and development of advanced renewable fuels will allow for commercial-
scale demonstration projects and other important activities that will
move us closer to commercially viable, environmentally friendly
alternative jet fuel. ATA and its member airlines look forward to
working with the Federal Government to further promote the rapid
development of these exciting new fuel sources.''
European Commission
In February 2009, the Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches
Aerospatiales (ONERA) was chosen by the European Commission's
Directorate-General for Energy and Transport as prime contractor to
conduct a strategic feasibility and impact study on alternative fuels
for aviation called Sustainable Way for Alternative Fuel and Energy in
Aviation (SWAFEA). ONERA is leading a consortium of 19 industry and
research partners representing aircraft manufacturing, air transport,
oil industry, research and consulting sectors. ONERA is the French
national aerospace research center and was originally created by the
French government in 1946.
By providing a clearer view of the feasibility of different
alternative fuel options, the SWAFEA study will also help determine
research paths to prepare future European programs as well as providing
a foundation for potential international partnerships extending beyond
Europe, including the United States.
According to the ONERA press release announcing the program, the
SWAFEA study will be carried out over a 26-month period, ``synthesizing
our current knowledge of the different alternatives to conventional jet
fuel, and issuing recommendations and a road map for their deployment
in the medium-term.'' Furthermore, the press release stated that the
study ``will call on a multi-disciplinary approach to integrate all
issues involved, spanning technical, organizational, economic, society,
environmental and geopolitical aspects. This inventory of the ``state
of the art'' will be backed by experimentation.''
International Air Transport Association
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), representing
230 airlines that account for 93 percent of scheduled international air
traffic, released a report in December 2008 entitled ``IATA 2008 Report
on Alternative Fuels.''
The report's findings were listed as:
``The potential for biomass as feedstock supply is
high, even though the differences in sources and locations
require multiple technologies for conversion.
The oil price will stay low as long as deep recession
causes more demand destruction. However, projects to develop
new reserves are being stopped. Once recession ends supply-
demand pressures are widely expected to take oil prices back up
to the $100 a barrel level.
``Peak oil'' is not reached yet; the current oil
reserves are high enough to supply the world for the next 42
years of oil, calculated with current consumption.
The impact of the European Union emissions trading
scheme is estimated to add around five percent to jet kerosene
fuel costs for flights in and out of the EU from 2012.
The current certification process of aviation fuels
can take up to four phases in testing: testing on specification
properties, fit-for-purpose properties, component testing and
engine testing. When all the testing steps have to be performed
the amount of fuel is about 1000 m3 (250.000 gallon).
Some of the technologies, both in biochemical as
thermo chemical conversion, are well established and have
produced renewable jet fuel for testing.''
The report's recommendations were stated as:
``Applying biomass as a feedstock requires further
analysis in sustainability criteria in order to ensure that
negative nature changes from historic actions, like
deforestation, are not repeated.
The uncertainty in calculated greenhouse gas
emissions needs to be reduced. This can be done by increasing
the quality of models and performing measurements at production
plants.
Most of the technologies that are able to produce jet
fuel from the currently available feedstock need more research
and development to become commercial.
The technologies that are in the end of the
innovation phase require actions that reduce the risk of
commercialization.
Industry stakeholders are taking various diversified
actions to promote sustainable alternative fuels for aviation.
It is recommended to the industry to collaborate in directly
non-competitive issues to reduce the accessibility hurdles of
innovators.''
International Civil Aviation Organization
The search for alternative fuels for aviation is not limited to the
U.S. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an agency of
the United Nations, held a workshop in Montreal, Canada on Aviation and
Alternative Fuels in February 2009 The main goals of the workshop were
identified by ICAO as stimulating a dynamic exchange of views and
initiating work on a global roadmap for the effective, and the
responsible contribution of aviation alternative fuels to protecting
the environment. The event, ICAO noted, was designed as a preparatory
event to a world conference in November 2009 that will showcase
progress and establish a road map for the implementation of alternative
fuels for aviation.
In his opening remarks, ICAO's Secretary General said:
``Alternative fuels on their own are not, and never will be,
the solution. They should, however, be part of a comprehensive
energy strategy. There are very few low-carbon energy options
for reducing aviation emissions, and alternative fuels may be
the only option for large scale use in the short-term.
Nevertheless, the decision to develop and use alternative fuels
must be an informed and responsible one, taking into account
total life cycle costs and carbon footprints.''
In summarizing the workshop in his closing remarks, ICAO's Director
of the Air Transport Bureau said:
``As we heard over the last three days, much progress has been
achieved to date and there are high expectations for the use of
more environmentally friendly drop-in alternative fuels for
aviation in the short-term. At the same time, research is
underway with potential for a globally-available alternative
fuel in the mid to long-term. However, concerted international
action will be necessary to translate this possibility into a
reality.''
``It is clear from this workshop that aviation alternative
fuels could be a win-win solution in that they will reduce
aviation's dependence on climate changing fossil fuels while
stabilizing the economic volatility associated with
conventional fossil fuels. Now, let us take another look at
these alternatives.
While synthetic fuels are already or soon to be available,
their environmental benefit over conventional fuels is unclear.
They do however address the issue of energy security and also
diversify energy sources. Biofuels, on the other hand, seem to
offer environmental benefits but the production scalability
issues need to be resolved. Regardless of these challenges, the
importance of alternative fuels in the development of balanced
and robust strategies to mitigate the impact of aviation on the
environment is unquestionable.''
``As is so often the case in recent industrial
undertakings where the supplier and consumer base is not
limited to any one country or region, global cooperation will
be essential in ensuring the consistent and standardized use of
alternative fuels. This is especially true of aviation which
relies on a standard and consistent infrastructure across the
world for its efficient operation. However, at present, the
international aviation community has not achieved an integrated
approach to alternative fuels. While regional and national
efforts by airlines, manufacturers, and fuel producers have
done an excellent job of bringing together the expertise to
consider technical issues, the subject has been addressed in a
fragmented way. ICAO can help with better coordination since it
is the only globally recognized forum to deal with aviation.''
Partnerships between Major Carriers and Airframe/Engine
Vendors and Fuel Providers
Several partnerships have conducted flight demonstrations using
biofuels in the past year:
In February 2008, a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747-400
flew from London's Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam's Schiphol
Airport partially fueled by a 20 percent mix of biofuel derived
from coconut and babassu oil with conventional jet fuel. Other
test participants were Boeing, General Electric and Imperium
Renewables. Mr. Bill Glover, a witness at the hearing
representing the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, will
provide further details about this and other demonstrations
involving Boeing aircraft.
In May 2008, Jet Blue teamed with Airbus,
International Aero Engines (IAE) and Honeywell Aerospace to
pursue the development of sustainable biofuels derived from
algae and other non-food vegetable oils for use in commercial
aircraft. In addition to investigating the environmental
benefits of biofuels, the partnership plans to conduct research
into whether biofuels could potentially be developed that would
expand payload-range aircraft performance, reduce fuel burn,
and increase engine reliability and durability.
In July 2008, Rolls-Royce and British Airways
announced that they were starting a test program to research
alternative fuels for the aviation industry. The companies
invited suppliers to offer alternative fuel samples for testing
on an engine taken from a British Airways Boeing 747. The tests
will be carried out on an indoor engine testbed. After a
selection of up to four alternative fuels, these fuels will
undergo laboratory testing before being delivered to Rolls-
Royce for further testing. It was recently reported that the
partnership encountered difficulty in securing alternative fuel
samples in the desired quantities.
In December 2008, an Air New Zealand Boeing 747-400
powered by Rolls-Royce RB211 engines flew a two-hour
demonstration flight using a 50-50 jatropha and conventional
jet fuel mix. The jatropha-derived fuel was supplied by Terasol
Energy, which is based in India. Other test participants were
Boeing, Rolls-Royce, and Honeywell subsidiary UOP.
In January 2009, a Continental Boeing 737-800 powered
by two CFM56-7B engines made a two-hour demonstration flight at
Bush International Airport in Houston using a biofuel mixture
of jatropha and algae that was provided by Honeywell UOP. The
test included powering the right engine with the biofuel mix,
turning it off and on as well as rapidly accelerating and
slowing down the plane. A borescope inspection was done on the
engine using the biofuel mixture; no change in engine condition
was found. This followed a November 2008 ground test of the
biofuel mixture at which time fuel consumption at different
power settings was measured. Among Continental's reasons for
conducting a flight demonstration were helping collect needed
data to support fuel qualification/certification for use by the
aviation industry; showing the public that biofuel is safe and
that it works; and stimulating research and development on
biofuel use in aviation. Other test participants were Boeing
and the engine's manufacturer, CFM. Mr. Shannon Holden, a
witness at the hearing representing Continental Airlines, will
provide further details on Continental's test and interest in
biofuels.
In January 2009, a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747-300
outfitted with Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines made a one hour
flight at Tokyo's Haneda Airport using a mixture of camelina,
jatropha, and algae. Camelina was sourced from Sustainable
Oils, a U.S. based provider. Terasol provided the jatropha oil.
Other test participants were Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, and
Honeywell UOP. Dr. Alan Epstein, a witness at the hearing
representing Pratt & Whitney, will provide further details on
the test.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group
Formed in September 2008, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group
brings together major airlines, Boeing, and biofuel provider Honeywell
UOP with the goal of accelerating the development and commercialization
of sustainable new aviation fuels. The group's charter is to enable the
commercial use of renewable fuel sources that can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, while lessening commercial aviation's exposure to oil price
volatility and dependence on fossil fuels. The group receives support
and advice from two environmental organizations, the World Wildlife
Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Airline members
are Air France, Air New Zealand, All Nippon Airways, Cargolux, Gulf
Air, Japan Airlines, KLM, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), and
Virgin Atlantic. Collectively, these carriers account for over 15
percent of annual commercial use of jet fuel.
According to Honeywell UOP, the group has announced two initial
sustainability research projects. An Assistant Professor at Yale
University's School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, through
funding provided by Boeing, will conduct the first peer-reviewed,
comprehensive sustainability assessment of jatropha curcas, to include
life cycle CO2 emissions and the socioeconomic impacts to
farmers in developing nations. Similarly, NRDC will conduct an
assessment of algae to ensure it meets the group's sustainability
criteria.
Algal Biomass Organization
The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) is a trade association
dedicated to the advancement of the algal biomass industry. Formed in
May 2008 out of the 2007 Algae Biomass Summit, ABO's goal is to promote
the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and
sustainable commodities derived from algae. The organization is
composed of companies, some aviation-related such as Boeing, air
carriers such as Continental, Air New Zealand, Virgin Atlantic, and
FedEx; along with researchers, entrepreneurs, harvesters, processors
and end-users of algae. Among the primary purposes of the organization,
ABO cites:
Facilitating commercialization and market development
of microalgae biomass specifically for biofuels production and
greenhouse gas abatement.
Establishing cutting edge research and
commercialization summits and other meeting opportunities.
Developing quality and measurement best practices for
algal biomass, products, systems technology, and econometrics.
Chairwoman Giffords. Good morning everyone. This hearing
will now come to order.
Good morning, it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to
today's Subcommittee hearing. We have an impressive panel of
experts appearing before us this morning, and I look forward to
a good discussion.
Let me come right to the point. I think that today's
hearing is one of the most important that this subcommittee is
going to have all year. And why do I say that? It is no secret
that this nation is wrestling with twin challenges of achieving
energy independence and protecting and preserving our
environment. These are very difficult challenges, but they are
challenges we have to address and they are challenges that we
have to meet.
Every sector of our economy is going to have to play its
part in helping to reduce our dependence on foreign energy as
well as combating climate change.
We all know the importance of aviation to our economy and
to our quality of life, but that doesn't give us a free pass.
We only have to look at the recent European moves on aviation
emissions penalties to realize what is going on.
This Congress will be focused on finding the best path
forward as it considers climate and energy legislation in the
coming months.
This hearing will be the first opportunity for our
committee to examine one important option for addressing both
of those challenges, namely the potential offered by aviation
biofuels.
In that regard, we have seen increased attention in recent
months to the role that biofuels could play as a future
aviation fuel source. There even have been recent flight
demonstrations of biofueled aircraft, and we will hear about
some of those flight tests at today's hearing.
Yet, the limited experience to date with the latest
generation of aviation biofuels doesn't provide enough
information to know what role they will ultimately play in
aviation, and that is not surprising. As a Nobel prize-winning
physicist once said, prediction is very difficult, especially
if it involves the future.
Now, we also don't yet have enough information on the
potential unintended consequences of different types of
aviation biofuels, and in particular, their impacts on land use
and water use if they would go into widespread production.
I called today's hearing so that the Subcommittee can start
to get some real answers on the outstanding questions that will
have to be addressed if biofuels are to play a significant role
in aviation in the future. Most importantly, I would like to
find out what is being done by both the Federal Government and
the private sector to address these challenges.
We have first-rate R&D capabilities at NASA, the FAA, DOD,
and DOE, as well as America's companies, research institutes,
and universities. However, those capabilities will not suffice
without clear R&D roadmaps, program plans, and resource
commitments to guide our efforts.
I am afraid the odds of success will be reduced without an
integrated federal/private sector approach to evaluating the
potential benefits and costs of aviation biofuels, including a
systematic plan to understand their impacts on both existing
and future aircraft technologies. We have to quote Yogi Berra.
I love a committee with good quotes: ``You've got to be very
careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might
not end up getting there.''
So we need to get there as a nation, and I look forward to
hearing from today's panelists about that productive path
forward. And again, I want to welcome all of you to this very
important hearing.
And now I will yield to Mr. Olson for any opening remarks
he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Giffords follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Good morning, it's a pleasure to welcome you to today's
Subcommittee hearing.
We have an impressive panel of experts appearing before us this
morning, and I look forward to a good discussion.
Let me come right to the point.
I think that today's hearing is one of the most important that this
subcommittee will hold this year.
Why do I say that?
It's no secret that this nation is wrestling with the twin
challenges of achieving energy independence and preserving our
environment.
They are tough challenges, but we've got to succeed.
Every sector of our economy is going to have to play its part in
helping to reduce our dependence on foreign energy as well as helping
to combat global warming.
We all know the importance of aviation to our economy and to our
quality of life, but that doesn't give it a ``free pass.''
We only have to look at the recent European moves on aviation
emissions penalties to realize that.
This Congress will be focused on finding the best path forward as
it considers climate and energy legislation in the coming months.
This hearing will be the first opportunity for our committee to
examine one important option for addressing both of those challenges--
namely the potential offered by aviation biofuels.
In that regard, we have seen increased attention in recent months
to the role that biofuels could play as a future aviation fuel source.
There even have been recent flight demonstrations of biofueled
aircraft, and we will hear about some of those flight tests at today's
hearing.
Yet, the limited experience to date with the latest generation of
aviation biofuels doesn't provide enough information to know what role
they will ultimately play in aviation.
That's not surprising. As the Nobel prize-winning physicist Niels
Bohr once said: ``Prediction is very difficult, especially about the
future.''
We also don't yet have enough information on the potential
``unintended consequences'' of different types of aviation biofuels,
and in particular, their impacts on land use and water use if they
would go into widespread production.
I called today's hearing so that the Subcommittee can start to get
some answers on the outstanding questions that will have to be
addressed if biofuels are to play a significant role in aviation in the
future.
Most importantly, I would like to find out what is being done by
both the Federal Government and the private sector to address those
challenges.
We have first-rate R&D capabilities at NASA, the FAA, DOD, and DOE,
as well as in America's companies, research institutes, and
universities.
However, those capabilities will not suffice without clear R&D
roadmaps, program plans, and resource commitments to guide our efforts.
I'm afraid the odds of success will be reduced without an
integrated federal/private sector approach to evaluating the potential
benefits and costs of aviation biofuels, including a systematic plan to
understand their impacts on both existing and future aircraft
technologies.
Or to quote another notable person, Yogi Berra: ``You've got to be
very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might
not get there.''
I think we need to ``get there'' as a nation, and I look forward to
today's hearing as an important step towards crafting a productive path
forward.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I now will
yield to Mr. Olson for any opening remarks he would care to make.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for
calling this morning's hearing. My thanks, too, to our
witnesses for taking the time out of your busy schedules to
appear before us today. I know that you invested many hours in
preparation for today's hearing, and I am grateful for all of
your efforts.
While aviation is a relatively small contributor of
greenhouse gas emissions, the marketplace compels the industry
to continue to invest in technologies that make the system and
the aircraft that operate within it more efficient and more
environmentally benign, no matter the vast performance
improvements that have been achieved over the past couple of
decades.
Fuel price spikes that occurred during 2008 were a stark
signal that if we are to obtain a robust and affordable
aviation system, we must take aggressive steps to develop
alternative sources of fuel.
World demand for petroleum resources and production caps
imposed by OPEC are again driving fuel prices to higher levels,
and in doing so, they threaten our economy and our quality of
life.
Biofuels present a possible new source of energy that could
power our aircraft and at the same time greatly diminish the
amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. I am optimistic
that through cooperative government and industry research and
development, the marketplace will be able to develop fuels that
will meet these challenges.
I commend the work done at NASA, the FAA, and by the
private companies, some of whom are represented here today. I
am hopeful that the good work being done is both widely
communicated and adequately funded. In my mind, this is the
kind of research our Federal Government should be funding, the
kind which has practical use for private industry that will
eventually benefit consumers and in doing so help to end our
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and to our
discussion, and please don't think I am going to be easy on Mr.
Shannon just because after only two months as a Member of
Congress, I have already achieved elite Status on Continental
Airlines.
Thank you very much for being here today. Madam Chairwoman,
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
Madame Chairwoman, thank you for calling this morning's hearing,
and my thanks too, to our witnesses for taking time out of their busy
schedules to appear before us today. I know that you have invested many
hours in preparation for today's hearing, and I am grateful for all of
your efforts.
While aviation is a very small contributor of greenhouse gas
emissions, the marketplace compels industry to continue to invest in
technologies that make the system--and the aircraft that operate within
it--more efficient and more environmentally benign, no matter the vast
performance improvements that have been achieved over the past couple
of decades.
Fuel price spikes that occurred during 2008 were a stark signal
that, if we are to retain a robust and affordable aviation system, we
must take aggressive steps to develop alternative sources of fuels.
World demand for petroleum resources, and production caps imposed by
OPEC, are again driving fuel prices to ever higher levels, and in so
doing, they threaten our economy and our quality of life.
Biofuels present a possible new source of energy that could power
our aircraft, and at the same time, greatly diminish the amount of
carbon emitted into the atmosphere. I am optimistic that through
cooperative government and industry research and development, the
marketplace will be able to develop fuels that will meet these
challenges.
I commend the work done at NASA, the FAA, and by the private
companies, some of whom are represented here today, and am hopeful that
the good work being done is both widely communicated and adequately
funded.
In my mind, this kind of research our Federal Government should be
funding, the kind which has practical use for private industry that
will eventually benefit consumers, and in doing so helping to preserve
our environment and our freeing us on our reliance on foreign sources
of energy.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and to our discussion, and
please do not think that I will be easy on Mr. Shannon just because
after only two months as a Member of Congress I've already achieved
Elite Status on Continental Airlines.
Madame Chairwoman, thank you again.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, their
statements will be added to the record at this point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. First
up we have Dr. Jaiwon Shin who is the Associate Administrator
for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, NASA.
Welcome. Dr. Lourdes Maurice who is the Chief Scientific and
Technical Advisor for Environment in the FAA's Office of
Environment and Energy and is the Environmental Lead on the
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiatives, or CAAFI.
Good morning. Dr. Alan Epstein who is Vice President of
Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney. Good morning. We
have also Mr. Billy Glover who is the Managing Director of
Environment Strategy at Boeing. And finally, we have Mr. Holden
Shannon who is the Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate
and Security at Continental Airlines. Welcome.
As our witnesses should know, we will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing, and when you have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel, and
why don't we start with Dr. Shin.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAIWON SHIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Dr. Shin. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman Giffords,
Ranking Member Olson, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
NASA's perspective on the emerging use of biofuels for
aviation, including the agency's current research in this area.
Growth in the air transportation system is vital to the
economic well-being of our nation. In order to meet the
projected growth in aviation, significant challenges must be
overcome including environmental sustainability. NASA is
conducting cutting-edge research to dramatically improve
aircraft efficiency and revolutionize aircraft operations in
the national airspace system, both of which will reduce the
environmental impact of aviation. Biofuels offer the potential
for the significantly reduced carbon footprint over the entire
life cycle, from fuel production to utilization. Current NASA
research on increasing aircraft efficiency and operational
procedures, coupled with the use of biofuels, presents a
possibility of dramatically reduce the carbon footprint for the
aviation sector despite the projected growth.
Recognizing the importance of biofuels for the future of
aviation, NASA has initiated a modest research effort in 2007
that builds upon the existing expertise in fuel chemistry and
processing, combustion, and gas turbine engines to address some
of the challenges associated with the application of these
fuels for aviation. However, NASA also recognizes that the
widespread use of biofuels for aviation will require a
concerted effort by multiple government agencies, aerospace
industries, academia, and biofuel producers. The need for a
coordinated approach to enabling new fuel sources is
highlighted as one of the goals of the National Plan for
Aeronautics Research and Development and Related
Infrastructure.
While recent successful flight tests has shown the
feasibility of using blends of jet fuel and different types of
biofuels under controlled conditions, several technical and
economic barriers remain for widespread use of biofuels in the
aviation sector.
The major question related to the production of biofuels is
whether they can be made sustainably, economically and at a
scale sufficient to support the aviation industry. Additional
basic and applied research will be required to scale up the
process for producing large quantities of biomass that are
economically viable and sustainable.
There are uncertainties related to the application of
biofuels for aviation because of the extremely limited amount
of testing conducted to date with these fuels. Most of the NASA
research is focused on issues related to the application of
alternative fuels.
We need to study the combustion process using alternative
fuels and understand whether the combustor performance is
different from that achieved when jet fuel is used.
The impact of the use of alternative fuels on aircraft
safety is another area that needs further study. Foundational
research on the effect of alternative fuels on engine
performance and degradation of engine materials is required to
identify potential safety issues and develop mitigation
strategies.
NASA is conducting long-term foundational research to
understand the effects of various alternative fuels on aircraft
engine emissions. Research includes laboratory combustion
testing under controlled conditions and ground engine testing
under simulated flight conditions.
All of NASA's research efforts on alternative fuels to date
have been focused on the application of synthetic jet fuel
produced from natural gas and gasification of coal and
conversion of the gases to liquid fuel by the Fisher-Tropsch,
or F-T, process. Current research using F-T fuel is providing
valuable insight into emission characteristics of alternative
fuels. We are also studying ignition times, flame speeds, and
chemical kinetics. These are parameters which affect the design
of new combustors.
As the second generation of biofuels becomes available,
there is a need for research to understand these parameters for
biofuels so that we can effectively design new low-emission
combustors that are fuel-flexible.
The effects of biofuels and engine emissions will also be
determined through a combustion laboratory testing and ground
engine testing under simulated flight conditions.
In conclusion, NASA participates in alternative fuel
related road-mapping and planning activities that are under
way, most prominently led by CAAFI. We also participate in Air
Force led efforts to develop rules and tools for use in
predicting the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
alternative fuels, and we are on the Advisory Board of FAA's
PARTNER Center of Excellence which conducts alternative fuel
emissions and life cycle studies. We are willing to participate
in this alignment of alternative fuels activities along with
other government agencies, industries, and academia as
appropriate. These roadmaps are identifying the research,
development, and demonstration needs, and defining the roles
and responsibilities for multiple organizations.
NASA believes its expertise and research capabilities in
combustion, turbine engine performance, fuel processing,
materials, and computational modeling can be utilized as part
of a nationally coordinated research effort to address some of
the key challenges that must be overcome for widespread use of
second-generation biofuels in future aviation.
I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the
other Members of the Committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jaiwon Shin
Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking Member Olson, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide a NASA perspective on the emerging use of biofuels for
aviation, including the Agency's current research in this area.
Growth in the air transportation system is vital to the economic
wellbeing of our nation. In order to meet the projected growth in
aviation, significant challenges must be overcome including
environmental sustainability. NASA is conducting cutting-edge research
to dramatically improve aircraft efficiency and revolutionize aircraft
operations in the national airspace system, both of which will reduce
the environmental impact of aviation. An emerging technology area that
has attracted considerable attention recently is the use of renewable
energy sources such as aviation biofuels. Biofuels offer the potential
for a significantly reduced carbon footprint over the entire life
cycle, from fuel production to utilization. Current NASA research on
increasing aircraft efficiency and operational procedures, coupled with
the use of biofuels, presents a possibility to dramatically reduce the
carbon footprint for the aviation sector despite the projected growth.
The first generation of biofuels, such as those produced from
soybean and corn, is derived from food products and requires large land
masses. Second generation biofuels from energy crops such as
switchgrass and woody feedstocks have higher productivity and smaller
land use. The second and third generation of biofuels, produced from
jatropha, camelina, algae, and halophytes, appears to impact much
smaller land masses and is not derived from food products, which is the
reason for strong world-wide interest for this class of materials.
NASA recognizes the importance of biofuels for the future of
aviation and in 2007 initiated a modest research effort that builds
upon the existing expertise in fuel chemistry and processing,
combustion, and gas turbine engines to address some of the challenges
associated with the application of these fuels for aviation. However,
NASA also recognizes that the widespread use of biofuels for aviation
will require a concerted effort by multiple government agencies,
aerospace industries, academia, and biofuel producers. The need for a
coordinated approach to enabling new fuel sources is highlighted as one
of the goals of the National Plan for Aeronautics Research and
Development and Related Infrastructure. As noted in the plan, the
Commercial Alternative Aviation Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) is
coordinating development and commercialization of ``drop-in''
alternative aviation fuels and is considering the feasibility,
production, and environmental footprint--``well to wake''--of these
fuels.
Challenges
While recent successful flight tests, including the Air New Zealand
flight demonstration in December 2008, the Continental airlines flight
in January 2009, and the JAL flight in January 2009, have shown the
feasibility of using blends of jet fuel and different types of biofuels
under controlled conditions, several technical and economic barriers
remain for widespread use of biofuels in the aviation sector. The
challenges can be grouped into two categories: biofuel production and
application of biofuels. Most of the NASA research in this domain
focuses on issues related to the application of biofuels.
The major question related to the production of biofuels is whether
they can be made sustainably, economically and at a scale sufficient to
support the aviation industry. It is NASA's opinion that additional
basic and applied research will be required to scale up the process for
producing large quantities of biomass that are economically viable and
sustainable. This will require understanding the factors affecting the
growth of biomass and translating that understanding to increase
process yield. In addition, production processes that reduce energy use
during the biomass to biofuel conversion process must be developed
towards the goal of carbon neutrality, which can be achieved for the
entire life cycle encompassing production and utilization of biofuels.
There are uncertainties related to the application of biofuels for
aviation because of the extremely limited amount of testing conducted
to date with these fuels. For alternative fuels not produced by the
Fisher-Tropsch (F-T) process, the knowledge base of the characteristics
and qualities of these fuels is incomplete, and many of the challenges
may not be known yet. In order to understand these challenges,
foundational research is required in many areas. We need to study the
combustion process using alternative fuels and understand whether the
combustor performance is different from that achieved when jet fuel is
used. Of particular concern is the long-term performance of combustors
and turbine engines burning alternative fuels. Because nitrogen oxide
(NOX) causes gourd-level smog and contributes to acid rain, the
compatibility of alternative fuels with advanced, ultra-low NOX
combustor designs must be addressed as well.
Research will be needed to understand both gaseous and particulate
matter emission characteristics from engines so that alternative fuels
can be optimized for reducing emissions.
The other unknown is the effect of alternative fuels on the long-
term durability of engine components, including advanced fuels from
coal and natural gas.
The impact of the use of alternative fuels on aircraft safety is
another area that needs further study. Flight tests with a blend of jet
fuel and biofuels to date have been conducted under controlled
conditions and have not yet indicated any major safety issues. However,
one potential safety issue is leaks and degradation of seals in the
aircraft fuel system because of the lower aromatic content of
alternative fuels compared to that of jet fuel, which affects the
expansion coefficient of seals. Any potential, unexpected degradation
of engine components when alternative fuels are used could pose safety
issues. Foundational research on the effect of alternative fuels on
engine performance (including control system) and degradation of engine
materials is required to identify potential safety issues and develop
mitigation strategies.
Current NASA Research
NASA is conducting long-term foundational research to understand
the effects of various alternative fuels on aircraft engine emissions.
NASA intends to disseminate the results of its research to the greatest
extent possible, and enters into collaborative relationships with other
organizations such that the results will benefit the wider community.
Research includes laboratory combustion testing under controlled
conditions and ground engine testing under simulated flight conditions.
NASA has recently modified several laboratory-scale combustion
facilities to study combustion performance and emission characteristics
with different types of alternative fuels and blends of alternative
fuel with Jet-A. Research conducted in these facilities will provide
the much needed emission data for alternative fuels as well as improved
understanding of factors affecting gaseous and particulate emissions
with the use of alternative fuels. An important feature of NASA's
research is to understand the effect of alternative fuels on both
gaseous and particulate emissions for advanced combustor designs that
are being developed to reduce NOX for future generations of aircraft.
All of NASA's research efforts on alternative fuels to date have
been focused on the application of synthetic jet fuel produced from
natural gas and gasification of coal and conversion of the gases to
liquid fuel by the F-T process. Current research using F-T fuel is
providing valuable insight into emission characteristics of alternative
fuels. We are also studying ignition times, flame speeds, and chemical
kinetics. These are parameters which affect the design of new
combustors. As the second generation of biofuels becomes available,
there is a need for research to understand these parameters for
biofuels as well so that we can effectively design new low-emission
combustors that are fuel-flexible. The understanding, coupled with
improved emission prediction models, will enable the design of
advanced, ultra-low emission engines with the flexibility to operate
with a mix of fuels that range from blends of jet fuel with biofuel to
100 percent biofuel. Several examples of the type of alternative fuels
testing conducted by NASA are provided below.
NASA, in partnership with industry, is conducting engine tests with
alternative fuel to understand the emission characteristics. In 2008,
NASA partnered with Pratt and Whitney to study emissions from a geared
turbofan engine that was run with a blend of jet fuel and F-T fuel. The
tests indicated that there was no significant difference in gaseous
emissions, while confirming the benefits of F-T fuel in reducing
particulate emissions. Initial results from these tests were presented
at the Fundamental Aeronautics Program Second Annual Meeting held in
Atlanta on October 7-9, 2008, and NASA will hold a workshop later this
year to widely disseminate the results. In another collaboration with
Pratt and Whitney, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerodyne,
United Technologies Research Center, and NASA studied emissions from a
PW308 turbofan engine run with 100 percent F-T fuel and a blend of jet
fuel and F-T fuel. This study provided detailed understanding of the
nature of particulate emissions resulting from the combustion of F-T
fuel under engine operating conditions.
Recently, in January 2009, NASA, in partnership with 11 other
organizations that include the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.
Air Force Research Lab (AFRL), Environmental Protection Agency, Boeing,
GE Aviation, and Pratt & Whitney, conducted ground tests using a NASA-
owned DC-8 plane to study emissions from engines burning alternative
fuel, which included two 100 percent F-T fuels and blends of jet fuel
with the two F-T fuels. The test provided data that will improve
understanding of the evolution of particulate emission and plume
chemistry for engines burning alternative fuel.
In addition to extensive experience in testing and analysis, NASA
has expertise in multi-scale modeling of fluid mechanical processes.
This is being recognized by the private sector engaged in the
development of large scale processes for growth of the second
generation biofuel biomass source material (such as algae and
halophytes). In order to meet the challenges of large-scale production
of second generation biofuel biomass economically, the fluid mechanical
processes which transport nutrients and waste in the bioreactor need to
be understood and modeled. The models can then be employed to design
improved bioreactors that can reduce the cost of biomass production.
NASA is working with industrial partners to develop multi-scale, fluid-
mechanics models that integrate physical and biological processes in a
bioreactor. NASA has laboratory scale reactors suitable for validating
multi-scale, fluid-mechanics models to be used for improved bioreactor
designs.
Need for Collaboration
NASA believes that long-term, foundational research on
understanding of fuel processing, combustor and engine performance,
durability of engine components, and emission characteristics will be
required for application of second generation biofuels in aviation.
Realization of the full potential for the application of
alternative fuels in aviation requires a coordinated effort among
multiple government agencies, aerospace companies, academia, and fuel
producers. This is an area of significant national importance and will
require a strong national effort.
NASA participates in alternative fuel related road-mapping and
planning activities that are underway, most prominently led by the
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, or CAAFI. We also
participate in Air Force led efforts to develop rules and tools for use
in predicting the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of alternative
fuels and are on the Advisory Board of FAA's PARTNER Center of
Excellence which conducts alternative fuel emissions and life cycle
studies. We are willing to participate in this alignment of alternative
fuels activities along with other government agencies, industries, and
academia as appropriate.
These roadmaps are identifying the research, development, and
demonstration needs, and defining the roles and responsibilities for
multiple organizations. Continued participation in these planning
activities will allow NASA to better coordinate its plans for
foundational research on aviation biofuels. In addition, NASA will
continue to work with the Aeronautics Science and Technology
Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council to ensure
that proper research objectives and goals are coordinated at the
highest level.
Conclusion
NASA recognizes the high potential of alternative fuels for the
aviation industry from the perspectives of protecting the environment
and ensuring the long-term viability of the fuel supply. The Agency has
initiated research activities to address some of the major challenges
of alternative fuels development, fully recognizing that this is an
emerging technology area that will require collaboration on research
and development among multiple government agencies, industries, and
academia to make biofuels a reality. NASA believes its expertise and
research capabilities in combustion, turbine engine performance, fuel
processing, materials, and computational modeling can be utilized as
part of a nationally coordinated research effort to address some of the
key challenges that must be overcome for widespread use of second
generation biofuels in future aviation. Such research on biofuels will
complement a diverse portfolio of technologies that NASA is working on
to improve the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of
aviation in the future.
I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Biography for Jaiwon Shin
Dr. Jaiwon Shin is the NASA Associate Administrator for the
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. In this position, he manages
the agency's aeronautics research portfolio and guides its strategic
direction. This portfolio includes research in the fundamental
aeronautics of flight, aviation safety and the Nation's airspace
system.
Shin co-chairs the National Science & Technology Council's
Aeronautics Science & Technology Subcommittee. Comprised of federal
departments and agencies that fund aeronautics-related research, the
subcommittee wrote the Nation's first presidential policy for
aeronautics research and development (R&D). The policy was established
by Executive Order 13419 in December 2006 and will guide U.S.
aeronautics R&D programs through 2020. The subcommittee finished
writing the National Aeronautics R&D Plan in December 2007 and is
currently writing the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
(RDT&E) Infrastructure Plan both of which were called for by the
Executive Order.
Between May 2004 and January 2008, Shin served as Deputy Associate
Administrator for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate where he
was instrumental in restructuring NASA's aeronautics program to focus
on fundamental research and better align with the Nation's Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).
Prior to coming to work at NASA Headquarters, Shin served as Chief
of the Aeronautics Projects Office at NASA's Glenn Research Center. In
this position he had management responsibility for all of the Center's
aeronautics projects. Prior to this he was Glenn's Deputy Director of
Aeronautics, where he provided executive leadership for the planning
and implementation of Glenn's aeronautics program, and interfaced with
NASA Headquarters, other NASA centers, and external customers to
explore and develop technologies in aeropropulsion, aviation safety and
security, and airspace systems.
Between 1998 and 2002, Shin served as Chief of the Aviation Safety
Program Office, as well as the Deputy Program Manager for NASA's
Aviation Safety Program and Airspace Systems Program. He assisted both
Program Directors in planning and research management.
Dr. Shin received his doctorate in mechanical engineering from the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia. His Bachelor's degree is from Yonsei University in Korea and
his Master's degree is in mechanical engineering from the California
State University, Long Beach. His honors include NASA's Outstanding
Leadership Medal, NASA's Exceptional Service Medal, a NASA Group
Achievement Award, Lewis Superior Accomplishment Award, three Lewis
Group Achievement Awards, and an Air Force Team Award. He is a graduate
of the Senior Executive Fellowship Program at the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University. He has extensive experience in high
speed research and icing, and has authored or co-authored more than 20
technical and journal papers.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Shin. Dr. Maurice,
please.
STATEMENT OF DR. LOURDES Q. MAURICE, CHIEF SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL ADVISOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Maurice. Good morning, Madam Chair, Congressman Olson,
Members of the Subcommittee. I welcome the opportunity to
testify today about the ongoing work of the FAA and our
colleagues on renewable jet fuels.
FAA helped form and is an active participant in Commercial
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative, or CAAFI. I serve as the
Environmental Lead for the group. Founded in 2006, CAAFI is a
coalition of airlines, airports, aircraft and engine
manufacturers, energy producers, researchers, and U.S.
Government agencies that are leading efforts to develop and
deploy alternative jet fuels for commercial aviation.
We know environmental and energy issues will significantly
influence the ability of our aviation system to grow. Renewable
jet fuels could be the game changer technology that gets us
closer to carbon neutrality. These fuels could not only improve
air quality and reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions but
also enhance energy security and supplies, and renewable jet
fuels are critical to achieving the environmental goals of the
next generation air transportation system, or NextGen.
Today's hearing is well-timed. Aviation has made enormous
progress in the last three years identifying and testing
technologies for alternative fuels and in progressing toward
broad air worthiness certification. We have identified a number
of options that can replace petroleum jet fuel without the need
to modify aircraft, often referred to as drop-in fuels.
CAAFI has taken a comprehensive approach to the
development, evaluation and deployment of these drop-in
alternative jet fuels. Efforts are focused in four key areas:
field certification, research and development, environmental
impacts and costs and benefits, and the business and economics
of commercialization. Let me highlight a few key points.
The CAAFI environmental team has focused on measuring the
potential to reduce aviation greenhouse gases using renewable
jet fuels. The FAA and the U.S. Air Force are jointly funding
the development of a greenhouse gas life cycle analysis
framework. We refer to the approach as well-to-wake. We are
also assessing the ability of these fuels to reduce air quality
impacts. For example, we recently obtained direct measurements
that showed significant particulate matter reductions. This is
important because 44 percent of our busiest 50 airports are in
areas of non-attainment status for particulate matter
emissions.
CAAFI uses R&D roadmaps to align and communicate research
needs for alternative fuels. I should note that CAAFI does not
sponsor research, per se. Rather, we try to ensure a
coordinated approach to strengthen each other's efforts and
avoid duplication. We have submitted copies of the roadmap with
my written testimony and would welcome your input.
With regard to how alternative fuels will actually be
introduced for use, the FAA collaborates with ASTM
International, the industrial standard-setting organization, to
perform the technical evaluation of potential alternative jet
fuels leading to FAA air worthiness certification. The process
adheres to strict rules and standards to ensure safety. We
anticipate approval for a generic standard for a range of fuels
from Fisher-Tropsch processes including biomass-to-liquid fuels
for use at a 50 percent level this year. Similarly, we forecast
approval for use by as early as the end of 2010 of
hydroprocessed renewable jet derived from non-food biomass
feedstocks. This potential approval relies on recent data but
may also require additional investment in research.
A number of significant challenges remain. First and
foremost is certification. We believe we have a path for
achieving renewable jet fuel approval. However, approval would
require significant amounts of alternative fuels and engine
tests and evaluation. There can be no shortcuts to safety.
Next is the challenge of accurately quantifying
environmental impacts. Assessment of both air quality and
greenhouse gas life cycle emissions must continue to be timely
and thorough as new options emerge. This will also require
significant effort and the collaboration of all stakeholders
involved. Supporting certification and environmental impacts
assessments are a major focus of FAA's CLEEN program, and we
appreciate the Subcommittee's support for these efforts.
The final hurdle is infrastructure and deployment. The
unique combination of dependence on high-density liquid
hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future and a very
condensed infrastructure, about 80 percent of all jet fuel used
at our 35 busiest airports, makes aviation both difficult and
attractive for pursuing alternative fuels. We are convinced
that the public/private partnership that CAAFI represents will
help commercial aviation be a first mover in the deployment of
alternative fuels.
Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, that completes my
prepared remarks, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Maurice follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lourdes Q. Maurice
Madam Chair, Congressman Olson, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the invitation to testify on ``Aviation and the
Emerging Use of Biofuels.'' I am the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment and
Energy. In that role I also serve as the environmental team leader for
the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). I am
pleased to be able to speak to the Subcommittee today about biofuel
(hereinafter referred to as ``renewable jet fuel'') activities of
CAAFI.
Today's hearing is well timed. Aviation has made enormous progress
in the last three years identifying and testing technologies for
renewable jet fuels, and progressing toward broad airworthiness
certification for the most mature of these technologies. As you may
know, the FAA has the responsibility to make sure that any aircraft,
aircraft engine or part, or fuel that is used in aviation is safe and
performs to set standards. We have identified a number of alternative
jet fuels (including renewable jet fuels) that can replace petroleum
jet fuel without the need to modify aircraft, engines and fueling
infrastructure (often referred to as ``drop-in'' fuels). Compared to
the other transportation sectors, aviation is, in fact, well positioned
to adopt renewable jet fuels. Moreover, this effort is critical to
achieving the environmental goals of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen).
In order to spur deployment of fuels with clear environmental
benefits we are aggressively pursuing robust and reliable environmental
life cycle analysis to quantify environmental impacts of renewable jet
fuels, including air quality and greenhouse (GHG) impacts from direct
and indirect land use change, feedstock production, fuel processing,
transport and use in aircraft. We are coordinating this aviation effort
with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) life cycle analysis
through an interagency working group. Airlines and multiple fuel
suppliers are developing a range of opportunities to deploy renewable
jet fuels and are pursuing deployment options via incentives available
from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) programs on, for the first time, an equal basis with ground
transportation users. And because safety is crucial to this effort, FAA
is taking the certification process step-by-step to ensure that any
fuels developed will meet or exceed the safety performance of today's
jet fuels. FAA will also ensure, in collaboration with EPA, that any
new fuels will meet or exceed emissions standards for aircraft engines.
While the aviation community has made significant strides, we have
learned as we have worked on this effort, as is the case with most new
technical initiatives. There are ongoing efforts now that we did not
imagine at the outset. One example is the rapid pace of development and
flight testing of hydroprocessed renewable jet fuels. However, it is
clear there is no one ``silver bullet'' global process or feedstock
solution. Rather there are multiple solutions, which we can pursue in
an environmentally and economically viable and safe manner via regional
development and deployment.
Founded in 2006, CAAFI\1\ is a coalition of airlines, airports,
aircraft and engine manufacturers, energy producers, researchers and
U.S. Government agencies (including FAA, EPA, USAF, NASA, DOE and USDA)
that are leading efforts to develop and deploy alternative jet fuels
for commercial aviation. Jointly sponsored by the FAA, the Air
Transport Association of America, the Aerospace Industries Association
and Airports Council International-North America, CAAFI has taken a
comprehensive approach to the development, evaluation and deployment of
alternative jet fuels. CAAFI focuses its stakeholder efforts in four
key areas: fuel certification, research and development (R&D) needs,
environmental impacts and costs and benefits, and the business and
economics of commercialization. The goal is to promote the development
of renewable jet fuels for use with today's aircraft fleet that offer
equivalent or better cost compared to petroleum based jet fuel, with
equivalent safety. Further, the goals are also to provide environmental
improvement, energy supply security and economic development. Promising
renewable jet fuel feedstocks options may include biomass, corn-stover,
and inedible crops such as jatropha and camellina, and algal oils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CAAFI coalition includes 300 domestic and international
stakeholder representatives: U.S. Government agencies, aircraft and
engine manufacturers, over 40 energy producers, many of the world's
airlines, and numerous Universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your invitation to testify, the Subcommittee asked me to
specifically address the following five questions regarding emerging
aviation renewable jet fuels:
1. What research is CAAFI sponsoring or coordinating to validate the
projected benefits of using biofuel in civil aviation in terms of their
ability to reduce engine emissions?
First I should clarify that CAAFI does not sponsor research per se.
Rather we are a coalition of stakeholders that individually and
collectively sponsor and coordinate research to meet CAAFI's goals.
This ensures we strengthen each other's efforts and avoid duplication.
One of the goals of CAAFI's environmental team is quantifying the
potential for renewable jet fuels and renewable jet fuel blends to
improve air quality and reduce life cycle GHG emissions. An improved
environmental footprint is a critical objective of alternative jet
fuels (including renewable jet fuels) for both the FAA and other CAAFI
sponsors. Largely funded by FAA, the CAAFI environmental team's efforts
in air quality include both the measurement of engine exhaust emissions
such as particulate matter and sulfur oxides and calculating the cost
and benefits of reducing these emissions with alternative fuels. The
FAA funded efforts totaling $1 million in fiscal\2\ year 2008 through
the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction
(PARTNER) Center of Excellence focused on assessing select air quality
emissions for alternative fuels including renewable jet fuels:
Emissions Characteristics of Alternative Aviation Fuels and Ultra Low
Sulfur (ULS) Jet Fuel Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In fiscal year 2009, we expect to invest approximately $2
million in alternative jet fuels (including renewable jet fuels).
\3\ More information about PARTNER is available at http://
web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/projects/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. has National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate
matter emissions and 44 percent of our 50 largest airports in terms of
enplanements are in areas of non-attainment status for these emissions.
Common to all alternative fuels under consideration is their potential
to reduce particulate matter emissions. We have obtained direct
measurements in in-service aircraft engines that clearly validate these
benefits.\4\ Additionally, with CAAFI's support, the FAA-sponsored
Transportation Research Board's Airport Cooperative Research Program
(ACRP) will complete in May 2009 a handbook enabling possible
investors, airlines and airports to quantify environmental and/or
financial gains for alternative jet fuel (including renewable jet fuel)
use at their specific airports.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hileman, J., Ortiz, D., Brown, N., Maurice, L., and Rumizen,
R., ``The Feasibility and Potential Environmental Benefits of
Alternative Fuels for Commercial Aviation,'' International Congress of
Aeronautical Sciences, Anchorage, Alaska, September 2008.
\5\ See ACRP Project 02-07: Handbook for Analyzing the Costs and
Benefits of Alternative Turbine Engine Fuels at Airports. See http://
www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay. asp?ProjectID=1585
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consideration of the life cycle emissions from alternative fuel
production and transportation must be considered when calculating
environmental impacts and the CAAFI environmental team has also focused
on measuring the potential to reduce aviation GHG emissions by using
renewable jet fuels. For example, the FAA and the U.S. Air Force are
jointly funding the development of a GHG life cycle analysis (LCA)
framework through the FAA's PARTNER Center of Excellence.\6\ We refer
to the approach as ``well-to-wake.'' The CAAFI environmental team
endorsed the intent to develop a consistent framework in October 2008.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-endorsed global
aviation emissions modeling tools anchor the framework on the aircraft
exhaust end. To measure GHG emissions from the production end, CAAFI
researchers are part of a working group (including FAA, U.S. Air Force,
DOE, EPA, and university experts) that is developing best practice
tools to capture the many variables associated with GHG life cycle
calculation. At the present time a half dozen domestic and
international alternative jet fuel producers are participating with
CAAFI and can evaluate the outcomes of their specific projects using
this framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For work to develop alternative jet fuel life cycle analyses,
see PARTNER Center of Excellence Project 17: Alternative Jet Fuels and
Project 28: Alternative Jet Fuel Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis at
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/projects/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once completed, we will rigorously peer review the LCA framework to
ensure it is based on the best science and accurately captures GHG life
cycle emissions to inform the aviation industry and potential fuel
producers.
2. What is the status of CAAFI's roadmap? How does CAAFI ensure that
federal and private sector biofuel research is aligned?
CAAFI uses R&D roadmaps to align and communicate research needs
that will define both process and feedstock maturity up to
certification and subsequently through deployment. On January 27
CAAFI's R&D team, hosted by the U.S. Air Force in Dayton, OH, updated
the R&D roadmaps. Participants contributing to this process included
government technology investors such as the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), DOE's National Renewable Energy Labs and
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office, and USDA, as well as
private sector investors. The resulting roadmaps define the work done
to date, and what's planned or needed to support deployment of
alternative aviation fuels. These updated roadmaps include milestones
for maturing feedstock and production processes for renewable jet
fuels. The roadmaps are currently available in draft form; stakeholders
as well as government, and any other entities concerned about aviation
alternative fuels, can use the roadmaps in their final form to guide
investment decisions. CAAFI welcomes the Subcommittee's participation
in both using and contributing to these roadmaps (see Appendix A).
3. Can the development readiness of various biofuels be commonly
characterized and measured?
As a complement to communicating research needs, we also need a
common definition of alternative fuels among all fuel investors and
aviation consumers to determine the maturity of the variety of
alternative options that are under considerations. Such a system helps
to differentiate candidates in the research phase (such as those being
pursued by NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) ), candidates ready for certification, and candidates in the
deployment phase and worthy of support by private investors and public
funding such as that by the USDA Rural Development program. On January
27, 2009, CAAFI introduced a risk management measuring system for
alternative fuels named Fuel Readiness Level (FRL). The basis of FRL is
the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) used by the U.S. Air Force, NASA
and CAAFI's manufacturing sector to classify systems development
maturity. FRL combines TRL with critical manufacturing readiness level
(MRL) steps to characterize the readiness of alternative fuel
candidates. As is the case with CAAFI's roadmaps, FRL protocols are
available to the Subcommittee (see Appendix B).
4. What research is CAAFI sponsoring or coordinating to determine the
impact that long-term and widespread biofuel use may have on aircraft
safety, and engine performance/maintainability/reliability? Is more
research needed? In what areas?
The FAA (through CAAFI) collaborates with ASTM International, the
industrial standards-setting organization, to perform the technical
evaluation of potential alternative jet fuels leading to FAA
airworthiness certification. The process adheres to strict rules and
standards to ensure safety. The CAAFI certification team comprises core
members of that body representing equipment manufacturer, fuel
producer, and fuel consumer sectors. My colleague Mark Rumizen of the
FAA's Airworthiness division chairs the CAAFI certification team. The
certification team's goal is to facilitate fuel certification for
alternative jet fuels by coordinating the fuel evaluation and
specification development process with airworthiness authorities and
industry stakeholders. The team is initially focused on, as noted
above, ``drop-in'' fuels. These fuels are essentially identical to
conventional Jet A and transparent to the aircraft system and aviation
fuel infrastructure. Equivalent operating performance and maintenance
characteristics are inherent in the definition of ``drop-in'' fuel.
Simply meeting top-level specification requirements for
airworthiness (for example freeze point, flash point and energy
content) is not sufficient for fuel approval. ASTM uses testing
protocols developed by a special ASTM task force to ensure no changes
in operating and maintenance characteristics. For example the ``fit for
purpose'' testing puts bounds on lubricity requirements that will
influence fuel system wear. Testing identifies a minimum aromatic
content to ensure elastomer seals perform properly. Limits on
electrical conductivity of the fuel ensure that there is no
interference with cockpit instrumentation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Much of the fit for purpose testing is being done by the U.S.
Air Force and then shared with CAAFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently CAAFI's certification team and ASTM are completing a
framework specification for synthetic alternatives to complement the
petroleum-based specification. ASTM members are currently reviewing
this new specification approach for approval. With the new
specification, we expect a generic approval of the full range of fuels
from Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) processes\8\--including biomass to liquid
fuels--for use at a 50 percent blend level.\9\ Similarly, we forecast
approval for use by as early as the end of 2010 of hydroprocessed
renewable jet (HRJ) fuel--from non-food biomass feedstocks such as corn
stover, jatropha, camelina, halophytes and algae. This probable
approval relies on recent data but may also require additional
investment in research. The FAA's Continuous Low Emissions, Noise and
Energy (CLEEN) program is one source for this investment. Flight tests
sponsored by industry will also support the certification efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Fischer-Tropsch or F-T synthetic fuel production process is
a catalyzed chemical reaction in which synthesis gas, a mixture of
carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of
various forms. This output produces synthetic petroleum replacements
such as diesel and jet fuel from coal, natural gas or biomass.
\9\ One F-T fuel made by SASOL of South Africa is already approved
for global aviation use at a 50 percent and 100 percent blend. However
this approval is for one specific manufacturer, with one specific
feedstock and one specific facility. CAAFI is targeting a generic
specification that will enable approval of many different
manufacturers, feedstocks and facilities that use this process.
5. In CAAFI's view, what are the main challenges facing widespread use
of biofuels in civil aviation? What issues need to be resolved before
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAAFI can project when widespread aviation use of biofuels may occur?
Speaking as a member of CAAFI, we view three areas as hurdles, as
well as opportunities for future focus:
First and foremost is certification. We believe we have a path for
achieving biofuel approvals at a 50 percent blend level over the next
two years. However, approval of the blend and eventual approval of 100
percent renewable jet fuels may require full combustor rig and or
engine tests under approval protocols. We can leverage U.S. Air Force
investment in biofuel testing to cover the performance of in-use
commercial engines such as on the C-17 aircraft. However, we will
likely need additional testing to cover advanced low emissions
combustors such as those on new commercial engines or advanced cycles
such as those NASA is exploring. Full combustor rig and engine tests
require as much as 250,000 gallons of fuel, which may be a significant
challenge for some candidate alternative fuel producers, as well as
requiring substantial research investment.
The next hurdle is accurately quantifying environmental impacts.
Assessments of both air quality and GHG life cycle emissions impacts
must continue to be timely and thorough as new fuel options emerge. For
example, we, in collaboration with EPA, need to populate emissions
prediction models with measured emissions data for emerging renewable
jet fuels. Acquiring such data is empirical in nature and requires
significant testing and investment. Reducing the uncertainties
associated with land use changes, fertilizer use, and impacts on the
quality and quantity of water resources, GHG inherent in-life cycle
analyses from harvest to processing to transport and use of the
renewable jet fuels, will also require significant effort and
investment, and the collaboration of all stakeholders involved to
ensure an agreeable and accurate framework.
The FAA's CLEEN program, noted above, as well as its NextGen
investments in environment and energy research, are vehicles available
to CAAFI sponsors and other stakeholders to address the certification
and environmental issues. We appreciate the Subcommittee's support for
these efforts.
The final hurdles are infrastructure and deployment. Aviation's
dependence on high-density liquid hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable
future is perhaps unique, unlike surface transportation modes which
have other options such as electric power and lower-density ethanol
fuel. Another unique characteristic of U.S. commercial aviation is that
the fueling infrastructure can serve over 80 percent of all jet fuel
used in about 35 locations, i.e., at our busiest airports. These
realities of dependence and concentrated infrastructure should lead to
aviation becoming a ``first mover'' in the deployment of alternative
fuels. Aviation's circumstances are critical to its attractiveness to
biofuel producers despite aviation's small market for transportation
fuels relative to cars and trucks.
The recent economic slowdown has somewhat diminished the ability of
conventional investment sources to quickly respond to the opportunities
that aviation uniquely provides. However, FAA believes there is a need
for investments in biofuel production infrastructure specific to
aviation. With relatively modest investment at locations near airports
which combine feedstock availability, existing biofuel infrastructure,
need for air quality gains, and U.S. airlines eager to use renewable
jet fuels, we believe successful production facilities can be built.
Focusing sufficient investment on developing a number of success
models, rather than a target percentage of fuel supply from renewable
jet fuels, is likely the key to producers deploying these fuels for
both the aviation industry and perhaps the Nation as a whole.
The Nation has often counted upon the skills of the aerospace
industry to lead the way in technical innovation. Renewable jet fuels
offer the opportunity to team the aerospace science and technology
efforts with those of agriculture, energy, and sustainability to
address the three challenges I outlined above.
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for
the opportunity to testify on how the aviation community is leading the
way to develop and realize the potential of emerging aviation renewable
jet fuels. That completes my prepared remarks and I welcome any
questions that you may have.
Supplement to CAAFI R&D Team Roadmap
Feedstock Roadmap Milestone Description
The following text provides descriptions for each of the milestones
listed on the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI)
R&D Feedstock Roadmap.
Swimlane #1: OIL SEED PLANTS.
(Plants whose seeds contain oil that is suitable for biofuel)
Optimized Castor Study (In Work): A modified Castor plant with about 2X
the oil yield of present Castor plants has been developed in the lab
and will be tested in large scale plots in Brazil (see below). This
could provide biofuel for near-term applications.
Camelina Assessment (Unfunded): This feedstock appears promising for
present biofuel applications using fallow farmland in North America. A
Life Cycle Assessment needs to be performed.
Jatropha Harvesting Prototype (Unfunded): Jatropha appears promising
for near-term oil production without competing for farmland or
irrigated fresh water. However, the plant's oil seed currently needs to
be harvested by hand, and an automated process needs to be developed to
reduce production costs and reduce human contact with the poisonous
plant.
Optimized Castor Plot (Funded): The resulting modified optimized castor
plant (see above) will be planted in a large scale test plot in Brazil
to validate productivity.
Oilseed Inventory Study (Unfunded): The USDA is wishing to perform a
study that accurately describes the various oil seed crops, their
performance, and the rate at which such plants could be scaled up for
commercial production.
Large Scale ``Regional Solution'' Farms Developed (Unfunded): It is
anticipated that there will not be one bio-feedstock for world-wide
production of biofuel, but there will be multiple solutions, depending
on the political-techno and geographic location. Large scale farms are
thought to be developed that are suitable for each region of the world.
Swimlane #2: HALOPHYTES
(Salt water tolerant plants that could also yield oil.)
Euphorbia Analysis (In Work): Research into the plant Euphorbia
Tirucalli (commonly known as the petroleum plant) for possible
development as a feedstock for biofuels. The plant is undergoing
preliminary evaluation for its salt water tolerance and is being grown
in desert areas.
Salicornia Analysis (In Work): A life cycle analysis of the Salicornia
plant, which produces both food and fuel. Development work is primarily
being conducted by Global Seawater Foundation.
Seashore Mallow Analysis (In Work): Seashore mallow could fill a niche
as a biofuel feedstock as the plant's architecture and oil yield are
similar to soybeans. Perhaps even more appealing, is that the plant
thrives in salty soils where nothing else will grow. In fact, the plant
can be irrigated with saltwater. Limited research is under way to
evaluate this crop for North American applications.
Halophyte Assessment (In Work): An analysis of various halophytes for
their potential to produce bio-oils in various parts of the world and
the scale up potential. Various research organizations are conducting
work on specific varieties, but a coordinated assessment effort is
needed to bring all the results together for analysis.
Euphorbia Prototype Plots (Unfunded): Larger scale test plots of
various plants to verify the yield per acre under various growing
conditions.
Optimized Halophytes (Unfunded): Plants that have undergone high
throughput nursery breeding techniques to increase their oil level as
well as other desirable growing characteristics.
Modified Halophyte Prototype Plots (Unfunded): Larger scale test plots
of the above plants to verify growth rates and oil yield.
Large Scale Halophyte Farms Developed (Unfunded): Commercialization of
the above modified Halophyte plants.
GMO Halophyte test plot (Unfunded): Genetically modified versions of
the above halophyte plants to specifically further improve its oil
yield.
8 Tons Salicornia Oil (Unfunded): Expected bio-oil output of large
scale test farms, such as Global Seawater Foundation.
Swimlane #3: ALGAE
(Macro & Micro salt and fresh water organisms having oil content)
Cyanobacteria Study (In Work): A study to evaluate if cyanobacteria,
which are faster growing and hardier than algae, can be genetically
modified to produce oil and grown in photobioreactors to economically
produce biofuel.
Dewater Study (In Work): Several researcher are evaluating how to
economically separate the small amount of algal biomass (typically <
0.1 percent) contained in the large amount of water (>99.9 percent)
used for growing.
Oil Extraction (In Work): Research into how to break down the algae
cell walls and economically extract oil from various algae strains in a
production type setting.
Heavy Metal Removal (In Work): Ways to economically remove the heavy
metals that can be found in algae grown in waster water and/or with
coal flue gas. These metals would poison the fuel processing catalysts
used at fuel refineries.
DOE Algae Roadmap (In Work): DOE is developing an algae biofuels
roadmap. Draft expected to be completed for intra-government review in
Fall 2009.
Algae Strain Study (In Work): Of the 40,000 different algal strains
that are believed to exist in the world, research the additional
strains (beyond the 3,000 varieties) that were studied in the Aquatic
Species Program.
Algae Demo Plants (In Work): Numerous scaled algae demonstration plants
are claimed to be in development around the world. Seambiotic, in
Israel, is one such prototype plant known to be currently producing
algae using flue gas.
Cost of Algae Study (Unfunded): A detailed economic study to assess the
economic viability of algae to compete with fossil fuels. It is believe
that an integrated production approach, that also utilizes valuable
algae co-products, will be required.
Light & CO2 level study (Unfunded): Some previous work has
been performed on limited algal strains to assess their growth
characteristics under varying light and CO2 levels, but more
studies would be required for the optimal algae strains yet to be
discovered.
GMO Cyanobacteria Study (Unfunded): A more in-depth study (from above)
to evaluate the probability and cost of developing a genetically
modified cyanobacteria that has oil producing characteristics.
Results from DARPA project (In Work): The goal of this multi-million
dollar program (BAA 08-07) is to develop the technical capability and
commercial experience to produce an affordable JP-8 (i.e., military
version of commercial Jet-A fuel) surrogate fuel from algae.
USDA algae funding report (Unfunded): A report summarizing the R&D
taking place for algae.
New Algae Techs Ready (Unfunded): The assumed breakthrough technologies
are developed to address the: optimal algal strains, dewatering,
harvesting and oil extraction challenges that remain for this
technology to become economically competitive with fossil fuels.
Cyanobacteria Scaled Demo (Unfunded): A scaled demonstration version of
the GMO cyanobacteria that was developed (see above).
GMO Algae (Unfunded): Genetically modified algae organisms are
developed that have: much higher oil content, resistance to invading
algae species and grazers, higher productivity, high culture stability
and auto-bioflocculation tendencies.
Large Scale Algae Plants Developed (Unfunded): After the technical and
economic breakthroughs are achieved, it is envisioned that vary large
scale algal farms will be developed to start commercial operation of
algae oil for biofuel.
Cyanobacteria Plant Developed (Unfunded): If the GMO cyanobacteria can
be developed, economically produced and is socially acceptable, it is
envisioned that this hardier and higher productivity organism may
displace algae as the main oil producing biofeedstock.
Swimlane #4: CELLULOSE FEEDSTOCKS
Billion Ton Study (Completed): Report conducted by DOE's Oak Ridge
National Lab (ORNL) on ``Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and
Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual
Supply.'' It showed that 1.3B tons/year of biomass could be harvested
to meet one-third of U.S. fuel needs by 2030.
BCIWG Report (In Work): The Biomass R&D Board Biomass Conversion
Interagency Working Group (BCIWG). The Biomass Research and Development
Board established an interagency working group to guide the exploration
of cost effective commercially viable processes for converting
cullulosic and other biomass to biofuels (ethanol, higher alcohols, and
green gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels). The group is comprised of
NSF, DOE, USDA, EPA and DOD and other agencies. The BCIWG is authoring
a 10-year Federal RD&D biomass conversion plan report.
Cellulose to biojet flight demo (Not Funded): A flight demonstration of
a biojet fuel made from cellulose via enzymatic deconstruction and
synthetic biology buildup of pure hydrocarbon molecules (alkanes).
Cellulosic Ethanol becomes cost competitive (Funded): A (hoped for)
milestone where sufficient R&D has overcome the cost hurdles in making
commercial ethanol production less expensive when using a cellulosic
conversion processes versus the conventional corn starch method.
Cellulose to biojet demo plant via pyrolysis (Not Funded): A small
demonstration plant that more efficiently converts cellulosic material
into a bio-crude oil that can then be fed into conventional oil
refineries for processing.
Cellulose/Sugar/Algae Prototype Demo (Not Funded): Sugars that are
derived from hemicellulose from woody plants can be used as nutrients
to rapidly grow algae in non-sunlight reactors (i.e., heterotrophic
conditions). Heterotrophic growth of algae on pentose sugars from
hemicellulose may be a promising approach for algae production as it
would not compete with either food sugar or ethanol sugars, which are
all hexose sugars.
Large scale cellulose farms (Not Funded): Initial commercialization of
prairie grasslands that are (no till) seeded with switchgrass and
harvested with no environmental damage.
GMO plants for easy sugar conversion (In Work): Genetically modified
plants, such as poplar trees, that have enhanced growth characteristics
such that processing enzymes may more easily break down the lignin for
conversion into sugars.
Swimlane #5: OTHER FEEDSTOCKS
(All other plants not covered above.)
DOE's CBTL study done (In Work): A Coal & Biomass To Liquid (CBTL)
study where biomass is used to offset CO2 emissions that
would normally be environmentally prohibitive in a conventional Coal To
Liquid (CTL) fuel production plant.
Revise EISA to include biomass credit (In Work): The present Energy
Independence Security Act (EISA) presently does give environmental
credit for using some types of biofeedstocks in certain fuel processing
methodologies (e.g., bio-oil used in an oil refinery to make a biofuel/
fossil fuel mixture).
Overall Feedstock Assessment (Unfunded): A study to evaluate all other
known types of bio-feedstocks (e.g., switchgrass to alkane hydrocarbons
through synthetic biology) that could be used to produce biofuel for
aviation.
Various Scaled Test Plots (Unfunded): The growing of emerging bio-
feedstocks (see above) that could be used for biojet fuel.
Terra Preta Test Plot for CBTL (Unfunded): A scaled agricultural
project where the excess solid carbon from the CBTL process is buried
in farm plots to evaluate the effect on crop production.
DOE's CBTL & Algae Demos Done (Unfunded): A NETL demonstration project
with APS (Arizona Public Supply) where coal is gasified for power
generation and algae are grown with flue gas effluent to capture and
utilize the CO2.
Large Scale Cellulose Farms for synthetic biofuel & CBTL (Unfunded):
After the fuel processing technologies are developed that can
economically convert cellulose into biofuels, it is envisioned that
large scale (prairie?) farms will be developed to grow cellulose (e.g.,
switchgrass, etc.).
Swimlane #5: OTHER
(Primarily activities to coordinate with.)
CAAFI biofeedstock roadmap (Done): This roadmap which was developed on
January 27th in Dayton, Ohio by 80 representatives from the aviation,
biofuel and feedstock industries.
USDA Feedstock Roadmap (Unknown): It is thought that the USDA should
develop its own feedstock R&D roadmap, which would include
recommendations from this feedstock roadmap.
USDA Feedstock Rankings and R&D Plan (Unknown): Once the roadmap is
developed, funding should be secured for future projects that are
underfunded or unfunded, based on their ranked importance to provide
biofuel feedstocks for aviation as well as ground transportation. The
R&D plan will lay out a formula to achieve U.S. energy independence
with help from carbon neutral biofuels.
USDA Advanced Biofuel Summary (Unfunded): A final summary report
published by the USDA reviewing all of the next generation feedstocks
that could be used for making biofuel and making recommendations.
Biography for Lourdes Q. Maurice
DR. LOURDES Q. MAURICE is the Chief Scientific and Technical
Advisor for Environment in the Federal Aviation Administration's Office
of Environment and Energy. She serves as the agency technical expert
for basic and exploratory research, and advanced technology development
focused on aircraft environmental impacts and its application to noise
and emissions certification and policy, and the application of
alternative fuels to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance energy
security. Lourdes manages and provides agency technical leadership for
the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction
(PARTNER) Center of Excellence. She previously served as the Air Force
Deputy, Basic Research Sciences and Propulsion Science and Technology
in the office of the Deputy Associate Secretary of the Air Force for
Science and Technology. She also worked at the Air Force Research
Laboratory's Propulsion and Power Directorate from 1983 to 1999
planning and executing basic, exploratory, and advanced development
propulsion science and technology programs, focusing on state-of-the-
art aviation fuels and propulsion systems. Her areas of expertise
include pollutant formation chemistry, combustion kinetics, hypersonic
propulsion, and aviation fuels. She received her B.Sc. in Chemical
Engineering and M.Sc. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of
Dayton in Dayton, Ohio and her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of London's Imperial College at London, United Kingdom. She
is also a Distinguished Graduate of National Defense University's
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, where she earned a M.Sc. in
National Resource Strategy. Lourdes has served as a Lead Author for the
Nobel-Prize winning United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and the National Academies of Science National Research Council.
She is an Associate Editor for American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics' (AIAA) Journal of Propulsion and Power and serves on the
Editorial Board of the International Journal of Aeroacoustics. She has
authored over 100 publications and is a 2003 Fellow of AIAA. Lourdes is
a native of Havana, Cuba and grew up in Madrid, Spain and Dayton, Ohio.
She became a U.S. citizen at 16. She is married to Dr. Mark S. Maurice
and has one son, Anthony.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. Dr. Epstein.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN H. EPSTEIN, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT, PRATT & WHITNEY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION
Dr. Epstein. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me. Fifty years ago this
January a Boeing 707 powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, flew
the first transcontinental commercial jet flight in the United
States. Since then, our jet engines have improved dramatically
to the point where the most modern pure power engines consume
only about half as much fuel as those on a 707. However, no
progress has been made on civilian fuels. We use the same fuel
today as we did in 1959.
First, let me address why biojet fuel is important to
aviation. We expect commercial aviation to grow at an annual
rate of four to five percent averaged over the next 40 years.
Given a renewal of the public/private partnership in
aeronautical research, engine and aircraft designers continue
the two to two and a half percent per year improvement in fuel
economy we have demonstrated over the last 50 years. However,
without further action, aviation CO2 would still
grow two to three percent per year. The only solution is to
move to a low-carbon fuel such as a sustainable biojet.
Simply put, biojet converts aircraft to solar power with
the fuel simply serving as a chemical battery recharged by the
sun. The many practical considerations of capital,
manufacturing, logistics, combined with the imperative for
near-term action on climate change means that a new fuel should
be a drop-in fuel. Drop-in means a fuel that can be distributed
and used without modification to delivery channels, aircraft or
engines, and my comments are offered in the context of drop-in
sustainable biofuels.
At Pratt & Whitney, we have been testing biofuels in the
lab and engines. While lab testing is very useful, I cannot
overemphasize the importance of full-scale tests. Pratt &
Whitney has tested biojet blends in a variety of engine sizes
ranging from those powering small business jets up to the
Boeing 747. These tests revealed no negative effects on engine
operation. Actually, pure biojet was better in that it reduced
the particulates emissions important to local air quality.
This January, a Pratt & Whitney powered Japan Airlines
Boeing 747 flew with a mix of conventional and second-
generation biojet fuel. We saw no impact on performance or
engine life. The test is noteworthy because of the varied
feedstock used, camelina, jatropha and algae which shows that
aviation need not bet on a single approach. We are planning an
additional test flight next year. Each flight builds
confidence.
Pratt & Whitney is also leading an international consortium
looking at sustainable biofuels as applied to small gas
turbines that power general aviation business and commuter
aircraft. One thing we have learned is that an engine can be
designed to reduce fuel consumption if we can be assured that
all aircraft fuel was largely biojet. Unfortunately, no such
gain can be had from current engines. While we do not expect
these fuels to affect the economic life of the 70,000 Pratt &
Whitney engines in the field, additional work, such as
endurance testing, is a wise idea. Funding for such tests have
yet to be identified.
The aviation community is sharing knowledge to certify
biojet. This builds on our experience from the recent Air Force
program which certified alternative fuels for energy
independence.
So where do we go from here? Industry is working together
to define appropriate standards, and I expect that biojet can
be produced to meet these standards. So biojet can move into
service with a few more tests, documentation, and action by the
approving bodies which can be done in the next two to three
years at which point all you need is commercial quantities of
biojet.
So the challenges remaining are not in the realm of the
propulsion engineer. They belong to the business community, to
bio and chemical engineers, to ecologists, and to lawmakers.
The growth of the biojet market will depend upon cost and
on capital. The cost of the fuel must reflect the value it
brings to the purchaser, and capital is needed for biojet
production facilities. This is where biojet research can help
by reducing both the carbon and the capital needed to produce
fuel.
Pratt & Whitney is bullish on biojet for aviation. Drop-in
sustainable aviation biojet fuels are an excellent idea for the
aviation industry, for the Nation and for the planet.
Thank you for permitting me to address this important
topic.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Epstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan H. Epstein
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Alan Epstein,
Vice President of Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney, this
country's foremost manufacturer of aircraft and rocket engines with
over 70,000 engines in the field. Pratt & Whitney is part of United
Technologies Corporation, a global technology corporation with a long
history of pioneering innovation in aviation, space, climate control,
elevators, and fuel cells. Because we power many of the world's
airplanes and rockets, control climate in and move people around
buildings in every corner of the globe, we are dedicated to reducing
mankind's impact on climate change.
I am here to speak on sustainable aviation biojet fuels from the
point of view of a manufacturer and maintainer of aircraft engines. I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing which
addresses one of the most promising avenues for aviation to reduce its
impact on climate change.
This January was the 50th anniversary of the first commercial jet
flight in the United States, a Boeing 707 powered by Pratt & Whitney
engines. Since then, our jet engines have improved dramatically. The
most modern engines, such as the new P&W PurePower Geared Turbo Fan
engine family consumes only half as much fuel as those on the B707.
However, no progress has been made on civil aviation fuels over these
50 years; today we still use the same fuel as we did in 1959.
Introduction to Biojet Fuels for Aviation
I am here to discuss how concerted action can move civil aviation
toward new fuels; fuels which are benign to the environment and promote
energy independence for the Nation. The reason why this is an important
topic is that civil aviation is both a generator of national wealth and
a reflection of it. Aerospace is this nation's largest manufacturing
export and provides over half a million jobs in the U.S. We expect the
world's commercial aviation to grow at an annual rate of four to five
percent averaged over the next 40 years, reflecting an increase in
global wealth. The CO2 emissions from aviation are simply
proportional to amount of fuel burned, so unless we take action, they
will increase as well. We anticipate that a public-private partnership
in aeronautical research can continue the two to two and a half percent
per year improvement in fuel economy we have worked so hard to achieve
over the last 50 years. Replacement of old airplanes with new, much
more fuel efficient models is the mechanism by which this new
technology reduces environmental impact. Of course, airlines need cash
and credit to purchase new aircraft. Therefore, care must be taken that
proposed economic measures such as carbon trading or taxes do not drain
funds from aviation that are needed to renew airline fleets with fuel
efficient, climate friendly new aircraft.
Even if all new aircraft and engines were introduced into the
world's fleets, it would still result in a two to three percent average
annual growth in aviation CO2. To stem this CO2
growth over the next 40 years the world must move to a new aviation
fuel. It is important to note that all of the biofuels under
consideration result in the same amount of CO2 exiting a jet
engine's tailpipe, an amount no different than that of today's
petroleum based fuel. The difference important to the climate is the
source of the carbon in the exhaust. In the case of petroleum, natural
gas, and coal based fuels, this is fossil carbon, which was removed
from the atmosphere eons before the advent of humankind. The large
scale release of this fossil carbon is a major factor in the current
climate change concerns. In the case of biofuels, the carbon has been
recently extracted by plants and is then returned to the atmosphere by
the engine. This extraction-addition cycle can be repeated indefinitely
without disturbing our climate. The energy for the process comes, of
course, from the sun. Thus in a very real sense, biojet fuels let us
convert our aircraft to solar power. The biojet fuel simply serves as a
chemical battery charged by the sun.
However, there is carbon release overhead in the process.
Currently, fossil fuels are used in the cultivation, transport, and
processing of the bio material. This is an area ripe for improvement
and innovation, so I expect this carbon overhead will decrease
dramatically as, for example, we learn to increase the efficiency of
sustainable biojet fuel cultivation and processing. Even at its current
state, biojet fuels add much less total carbon to the atmosphere than
do petroleum based jet fuels.
There are many practical considerations of capital requirements,
manufacturing capacity, and logistics, which when combined with the
imperative for relatively near-term action on climate change mean that
any new fuel should be a drop-in fuel. By drop-in we mean a fuel we can
distribute and use without modification either to fuel distribution
channels such as the pipelines and the tank farms or to airplanes and
engines. For many of the same reasons, the biojet fuels must also be
mixable with current jet fuels in arbitrary ratios. We now know that
all these requirements are technically feasible. My following comments
are offered in the context of drop-in biojet fuels.
With this as background, I will discuss what we have learned about
biojet fuels for aviation and where we hope to go. Specifically I will
touch on lessons learned in our research, ground, and flight testing.
What We Have Learned From Recent Flight Tests
While laboratory testing is very useful, since safety is our
primary concern in aviation, I cannot overemphasize the importance of
full scale ground and flight testing. Pratt & Whitney has tested
biofuel blends in a variety of engine sizes ranging from those powering
small business jets up to the Boeing 747. These tests revealed no
negative effects on engine operations or their performance
characteristics. Indeed, emissions measurements with pure biojet fuels
showed that emissions of regulated particulates in the exhaust were
reduced compared to those from conventional fuels. However, those gains
were largely eliminated when we diluted biojet fuel with appreciable
amounts of conventional fuel.
Preliminary results from the recent January 2009 flight tests on a
Pratt & Whitney powered Japan Airlines Boeing 747 are that the mix of
second generation biojet fuel and conventional fuel performed as
expected, with no impact on performance and nothing of note observed in
the post flight engine inspection. This result is another encouraging
step toward approving biojet fuels for aviation applications. This
flight test is particularly noteworthy because of the heterogeneous
composition of the biojet fuel feedstock used--including camelina,
jatropha, and algae. This shows that that biojet fuel can be processed
properly from a variety of feedstocks; that such fuels can be mixed
with each other and conventional fuel; and that aviation need not bet
on a single source of fuel. Together this implies that biojet fuels can
be a robust technical and commercial solution to aviation's CO2
challenge.
Pratt & Whitney is working closely with the engine/airframe/
equipment/fuel supplier community to harness the lessons learned in
recent flight and ground tests of commercial aircraft and engines to
establish the understanding and data base necessary to support the
certification of biojet fuels for civil and military operations. We are
sharing this information as needed under the auspices of DOD and the
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), which define the
specifications for aviation fuels in this country. The community is
benefiting greatly by the experience gained in recent years from the
USAF sponsored efforts to certify alternative fuels made with the
decades-old Fischer-Tropsch process. The primary motivation was DOD's
desire for diversification of the U.S. energy supply to foster energy
independence. Last year, Pratt and Whitney approved the use of these
fuels in all non-after-burning P&W military engines (some of which are
variants of commercial engines) and we expect to approve them for
after-burning fighter aircraft by the end of this year. The climatic
impact of these fuels can be significantly reduced if carbon
sequestration or biomass is used in their production. Fischer-Tropsch
fuels made with only biomass feedstock is one class of biojet fuel. The
experience of certifying these fuels, the first all new fuel in
decades, has taught the aviation community how to streamline the
approval process such that it is now feasible to certify a biojet fuel
within the next two to three years.
The next flight test demonstration with P&W involvement is the Jet
Blue/Airbus/IAE (International Aero Engines)\1\ flight test scheduled
for next year using a blend of third generation biojet fuel feedstocks.
To our knowledge this will be the first flight test using only third
generation feedstock. In addition to generating data on an advanced
type of biojet fuel, this demonstration will add value by broadening
the experience base to include aircraft-engine types which have yet to
fly with biojet fuels. This helps the industry to evaluate if there are
less obvious or overlooked elements in the complex fuel systems of
modern airplanes which might be affected. Also, the total flight time
on biojet fuels is quite limited at the moment, so that each additional
test flight helps to build confidence. Since safety is the predominate
concern for aviation, the value of test data and flight experience
cannot be underestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ International Aero Engines (IAE) is a collaboration of Pratt &
Whitney/Rolls-Royce/MTU/Japan Aerospace Corp which supplies the V2500
series of engines for Airbus A320 family aircraft.
Other activities
Pratt & Whitney is leading an international consortium which
includes universities, government researchers, and biojet fuel
suppliers looking at sustainable biofuels, specifically as applied to
small gas turbine engines that power general aviation, business, and
commuter aircraft.
One result of research at Pratt & Whitney is the realization that
an advanced engine can be designed for improved performance if we could
be assured that all aircraft fuel consisted in large measure of biojet
fuel. By improved performance, we mean better fuel efficiency and lower
engine weight. For example, the improved heat capacity of the biofuel
lets us reduce or eliminate radiators and their attendant weight and
drag penalties. (The irony of increasingly efficient aircraft engines
is that it becomes more difficult to reject waste heat.) There are two
major constraints on realizing such improved performance. First, the
engine must be expressly designed for biojet fuel or a biojet-
conventional fuel mix. There is no performance gain from biofuels
burned in current engines. Second, biofuel must be a substantial
fraction of the fuel in the airplane, 25 percent or more. However, it
may be several decades before biojet fuels are available in the tens of
billions of gallons per year this implies, so that we are a ways off
from being able to exploit some superior biofuel properties in our
engine designs.
Our confidence as an industry in defining appropriate, formal
standards for a drop-in biojet fuel is quite high and tests to date
indicate that biofuels can be produced to meet appropriate standards.
While we do not expect such fuels to affect engines' economic life,
additional testing would be wise. Endurance tests are part of the
normal development process for new engines and materials and would be
recommended in this process. Also, once biojet fuels are deployed into
commercial service, it would be prudent to institute in-service
evaluations which periodically examine engines as they age. This is
typically done when designs are changed or new materials are
introduced. Funding for such tests and evaluations has yet to be
identified.
It is important to note that the activities outlined above are not
what we regard as research. The research required to introduce biofuels
to civil aviation has been done, there are no unanswered scientific
questions. What is required is a modest amount of straightforward
engineering development. From the propulsion provider's point of view,
all that is needed to move biojet fuel into civil service are a few
more tests, documentation, and action by the approving bodies. Of
course, you also need commercial quantities of certified, sustainable
biojet fuel.
What Else Is Needed
Given concerted action, approval and certification of biojet fuels
for civil aviation can be completed with the next two to three years.
Then, biofuels meeting the approved specifications can be legally used
in civil aviation. At that point, all you need is commercial quantities
of biofuel. Therefore, the challenges remaining are not in the realm of
the aeronautical or propulsion engineer. Once the aviation supplier
community completes its approval of biojet fuel, the remaining
questions and challenges belong to the business community, to bio and
chemical engineers, to ecologists, and to lawmakers. The growth of the
civil aviation biofuel market will depend on such factors as:
The cost of the biojet fuel must reflect the value it
brings to the purchaser, the airlines in the case of commercial
aviation. In other words, biojet fuel must be cost competitive
with petroleum based fuels, all things considered. Passing on
increased airlines costs to consumers has not worked well in
the past.
Capital must be invested in the biojet fuel
production chain. At the moment capital is in short supply, but
we all hope that this is only a short-term challenge. The near-
term formal certification of a biojet fuel standard should help
to encourage investment.
Authoritative, peer-reviewed quantitative research is
needed to establish the carbon footprint of various biofuels
and document their sustainable nature. This will be an ongoing
process and should be supported by governments in independent
organizations such as universities.
Innovation has been a mainstay of the long-term increase in U.S.
productivity. Aviation biojet fuel is an area ripe for innovation, in
technology and in business. We see significant opportunities for
technical advancements in such areas as feedstock production to
increase crop yields and decrease freshwater requirements in order to
reduce cost and improve sustainability. Also, there is synergy with
military fuel requirements and markets to foster U.S. energy
independence.
All things considered, it is reasonable to anticipate that several
percent of the world's civil aviation fuel may be supplied by
biological sources by the end of the next decade.
Pratt & Whitney is bullish on biojet fuel for aviation. Simply put,
drop-in, sustainable aviation biojet fuels are an excellent idea. They
will reduce aviation's CO2, while diversifying our fuel
supply and promoting energy independence. Combined with continuing
technical innovation in aircraft and engines, we see sustainable biojet
fuels as enabling the growth in civil aviation that is critical to the
Nation's and the world's economic growth.
Thank you for permitting me to address this important topic.
Biography for Alan H. Epstein
Alan Epstein is responsible for Pratt & Whitney's long-term
technology and environmental strategy. Alan joined the company in
August 2007, after a distinguished 30-year career with Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was R.C. Maclaurin Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, and Director of the Gas Turbine
Laboratory.
Alan is leading Pratt & Whitney's efforts to identify and evaluate
new methods to improve engine fuel efficiency and reduce noise and
combustion emissions for all new Pratt & Whitney engines. Alan will
also provide strategic leadership in the investment, development and
incorporation of technologies that reduce the environmental impact of
Pratt & Whitney products and services. In addition, Alan will also be
responsible for validating Pratt & Whitney's technology and
environmental strategy with customers, industry representatives and
government agencies.
For more than 30 years, Alan has served on numerous government
advisory committees and was an active consultant and advisor to
industry and government on topics ranging from gas turbine engineering,
power and energy, to strategic planning.
He was an author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report on aviation and the environment, has been published in
more than 120 technical publications, and has given more than 90
plenary, keynote and invited lectures around the world. He is a member
of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Alan received his Ph.D., M.S. and B.S. degrees from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. Mr. Glover.
STATEMENT OF MR. BILLY M. GLOVER, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY, BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES
Mr. Glover. Good morning. Madam Chairwoman and Members of
the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. The
Boeing Company designs and manufactures a range of commercial,
military and space products. We are the largest aerospace
company in the world, employing over 160,000 people, 155,000
here in the United States.
Today, Boeing produces a family of commercial aircraft, all
quieter and more fuel efficient than earlier generations. We
believe that sustainable biofuels for aviation have the
potential for reduced life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and
also the potential to increase fuel supply. Both important.
We have identified four plant-derived oils that have very
strong potential: jatropha, camelina, halophytes and those
things are available in the near-term, and algae in the longer-
term. Aviation-quality biofuels derived from these sustainable
energy crop sources show significant improvements when compared
to traditional sources.
This is not your father's ethanol or biodiesel. It is
chemically different. Overall, jatropha and camelina studies
show greenhouse gas reductions 60 percent or more as compared
to petroleum-derived jet fuel.
Let me make one thing abundantly clear. Boeing has no
interest in becoming a biofuel producer. Our goal is to
facilitate rapid commercialization of this new industry and
capture this opportunity. We are very confident that
sustainable sources of plant-derived oils and processing
methods can efficiently produce a high-quality jet fuel. We
have demonstrated that synthetic paraffinic kerosene made from
plant oils can be blended up to 50 percent with normal jet fuel
and operated in a commercial jetliner without modifications.
Over the last year, Boeing has conducted four successful
flight demonstrations with Virgin Atlantic, Air New Zealand,
Japan Airlines, and Continental Airlines. During each flight, a
single engine was fueled by a blend of traditional Jet A and
biofuels. The biofuels were produced by Imperium Renewables and
Honeywell UOP.
While we have not completed all of our evaluations from
these test flights, we found these new biofuels can actually
perform better. They have a lower freeze point, better energy
density, and no abnormal wear or engine deterioration.
Safety has always been and will continue to be the top
priority of Boeing. The three biofuel blends used for the most
recent flights and engine tests met all ASTM D 1655 performance
specifications.
So what is the path forward? We believe the principal
challenges are commercialization, growth and supply of viable
feedstocks, and standard life cycle assessment. Our current
projections are that with appropriate incentives, market
viability could be achieved as early as 2015. Without such
attention, market viability will be delayed.
As you know, aviation has few options to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Other forms of transportation can use batteries
and electrical power, for instance. We can't. Aviation must
rely on three key strategies: continue to produce more
efficient aircraft; number two, fly aircraft more efficiently
by realizing the promise of NextGen and improved air traffic
management systems; and finally, use sustainable biofuels.
Boeing urges governments to support commercialization and
development of aviation biofuels by creating incentives for
energy crop growers and producers of sustainable biofuels, by
ensuring greenhouse gas legislation encourages the development
of sustainable biofuels for aviation, by creating predictable
demand incentives for aviation biofuel and assisting airlines
to invest in these new supply chains, by implementing a refund
of the aviation domestic fuel tax when biofuel blends are used,
and finally by funding rapid development of standard methods
for measuring life cycle carbon emissions and sustainability.
It is foundational.
Boeing is fully committed to working with fuel producers,
engine manufacturers, airlines, and government to ensure the
earliest development of commercially viable markets for
sustainable aviation biofuels. Thank you again for this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:]
Prepared Statement of Billy M. Glover
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to offer The Boeing Company's views on sustainable biofuels
for aviation.
As many of you know, The Boeing Company (``Boeing'') designs and
manufactures a range of commercial, military and space products. We are
the largest aerospace company in the world, employing over 160,000
people.
Today The Boeing Company produces a family of 18 different
commercial aircraft--all quieter and more fuel efficient than earlier
generations of aircraft. In fact, today's jet aircraft are 70 percent
more fuel-efficient than jet aircraft produced only 50 years ago.
Despite the current global economic downturn, the demand for newer,
more fuel efficient aircraft remains strong. In fact, we have almost
900 orders for our newest product, the 787 Dreamliner which should
generate approximately a 20 percent reduction in fuel usage and
emissions. We recognize, however, the aviation sector, as a key
contributor to global GDP, must continually strive to improve its
environmental performance to the extent possible and in line with
industry growth. To be effective we must continue to make improvements
on a global basis.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Boeing is an active participant in the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), the UN body that governs all aspects of
international aviation. Through the ICAO Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP) the industry has driven down aircraft
specific emissions--CO2, soot, and NOXx--on a global basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next 20 years, Boeing forecasts a demand for over 29,000
new large commercial aircraft worth approximately $3.2 trillion. We are
concerned that demand for air travel and thus for commercial airplanes
could be affected by future limits on CO2 emissions. We
therefore are committed to looking for environmentally-friendly
solutions and alternatives to the way air travel is conducted today.
We believe that sustainable biofuels for aviation have the
potential to provide greatly reduced life cycle greenhouse gas
(``GHG'') emissions and greater economic benefits associated with
increased fuel availability.
When we use the term ``sustainable biofuel'' we mean a biofuel
that, at a minimum, meets the following criteria:
1. Utilization of plants that do not compete with food, do not
significantly impact biodiversity and do not jeopardize
supplies of drinking water;
2. Total GHG emissions from plant growth, harvesting,
processing and end-use are significantly lower than GHG
emissions from fossil fuel extraction, production and end-use;
3. In developing economies, development projects include
provisions or outcomes that improve socioeconomic conditions
for small-scale farmers who rely on agriculture to feed their
families, and do not require the involuntary displacement of
local populations; and
4. High conservation value areas and native eco-systems are
not cleared for aviation plant source development.
We have identified four plant-derived oils that have very strong
potential to meet our sustainability criteria: jatropha, camelina and
halophytes in the near-term, and algae in the longer-term. Biofuels
derived from these sustainable energy crop sources show significant
improvements in terms of yield and environmental impacts when compared
to traditional food crop sources currently being used to make ethanol
and biodiesel fuels.\2\ Overall, jatropha and camelina studies show GHG
reductions of 60 percent or more, as compared to petroleum-derived jet
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Preliminary well-to-wake life cycle assessments were carried
out by Michigan Technological University for jatropha and camelina oil
based SPK (see Appendix). A similar algal oil study is currently
underway.
The basis for these studies is from recently available data on crop
yields, oil content, and cultivation requirements1. Both camelina and
jatropha show great promise for increased energy oil productivity
without negatively impacting land and water use. The results of these
studies indicate that more than 60-65 percent reduction in GHG
emissions can be achieved by hydrotreated jet fuel relative to
petroleum-derived jet fuel.
It should be made abundantly clear that Boeing has no interest in
becoming a biofuel producer. Instead, we are using our expertise and
reputation as an innovator to draw attention to the opportunities for a
clean, renewable fuel source in hopes of spurring and accelerating
commercial development. In addition, we are using our technical
capabilities to assure any new aviation biofuel meets all safety and
performance requirements for our airplanes.
We are very confident that sustainable sources of plant-derived
oils and processing methods can efficiently produce a high quality jet
fuel. We have demonstrated that synthetic paraffinic kerosene (``SPK'')
made from plant oils can be blended up to 50 percent with normal jet
fuel (Jet A or A-1) and operated in a commercial jetliner without any
modification to the aircraft or engine.
When Boeing was asked to testify at this hearing, the Subcommittee
posed a number of questions they would like us to address. Let me now
turn to the Committee's questions.
Flight Demonstrations
Over the last year, Boeing has conducted four successful flight
demonstrations with blends of biofuels. During each flight, a single
engine was fueled by a mix of traditional Jet-A and biofuels.
Virgin Atlantic Airways conducted the first test of a
Boeing 747-400 with General Electric engines on February 25,
2008. That test flight operated between London Heathrow and
Amsterdam with an 80120 mixture of biofuel to kerosene.
An Air New Zealand 747-400 equipped with Rolls-Royce
engines was used to test a 50 percent biofuel blend in an
engine ground run, and a test flight from Auckland, NZ on
December 30, 2008. The flight lasted approximately two hours
and consisted of climb, engine windmill restarts, as well as
using starter-assists. Acceleration and deceleration checks
were also carried out. A simulated approach-and-go-around was
conducted at 10,000 ft.
A Continental 737-800 with CFM engines was used to
test a 50 percent jatropha and algae biofuel blend in an engine
ground run, and an experimental flight from Houston, TX on Jan
7, 2009. The flight lasted approximately two hours, and
consisted of a climb, engine accelerations and decelerations, a
windmill engine restart, a starter assisted restart, and a
simulated go-around maneuver at 10,000 ft.
A JAL 747-300 with Pratt & Whitney engines was used
to test a 50 percent biofuel blend in a ground run, and
subsequent flight in Tokyo, Japan on Jan 30, 2009. The flight
lasted approximately two hours, and consisted of a climb,
engine accelerations and decelerations, and an engine windmill
restart.
While we have not completed our evaluations from these test
flights, some of the key lessons learned include the following:
Lower freeze point--In an initial comparison of
biomass-based jet fuel and jet fuel from petroleum, we saw
better freeze point performance from the biofuel blend. This is
extremely important because aviation fuels must be able to
perform in the very low temperatures experienced at high
altitudes.
Better energy density--In several instances we
observed better energy density in the fuel properties of the
individual biofuels and in the biofuel blends when compared to
traditional jet fuel. Higher energy density is an important
benefit to aviation due to the unique lift needed to carry fuel
for flight.
No abnormal wear or engine deterioration--Post-flight
inspections of the aircraft and engines were conducted prior to
the aircraft returning to service or entering into regularly
scheduled maintenance. No abnormal wear or engine deterioration
was observed.
We have no announced plans for additional flight demonstrations at
this time. Our efforts are now focused on commercialization and
certification of these fuels for aviation use.
Research, Development and Testing of Biofuels
Safety has always been, and will continue to be, the top priority
of the Boeing Company. Safety is at the forefront of our efforts to
develop and certify sustainable biofuels. Our most fundamental
requirement for sustainable biofuels for aviation is also the most
important requirement for their safest use--sustainable biofuel must
meet ``drop-in'' requirements--i.e., they must be able to be used in
existing fuel delivery and supply systems and in existing aircraft
without modification or special handling. And they must be fully
compatible to be mixed with other approved fuels.
As discussed earlier, Boeing is developing a comprehensive report
on the data collected from the recent flight and ground tests. We will
be providing this report to the ASTM membership for further review and
analysis. We are continuing to work closely with the ASTM\3\ and other
standards bodies in determining what additional research and/or testing
may be necessary following completion of analysis and review of the
results.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ASTM requirements in development will ensure that bio-
derived fuels meet strict performance and compositional specifications
to be compatible with existing petroleum-based fuels.
\4\ The ASTM process for specification of commercial aviation fuels
supports the operational approval as administered by the FAA. It is a
well established process. As a member of ASTM, Boeing is working
closely with that body to establish a robust standard of certification
for bio-derived fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three sustainable biofuels used for the flight and engine tests
met all ASTM D 1655 performance specifications at a 50 percent blend
with petroleum-based jet fuel.
Fuel property tests took place at several locations including
Boeing, Honeywell UOP, Air Force Research Lab, several independent
outside laboratories and the participating engine companies. Additional
property and performance tests, including material compatibility, were
conducted on these fuels at Boeing labs, the Air Force Research Labs
and the University of Dayton Research Institute. Engine tests occurred
at General Electric as well as Pratt & Whitney facilities.
Engine tests consisted of control, operability (engine start,
flame-out and transient thrust characteristics) and performance, all of
which tested within expected variation. No engine degradation was
evident via control, operability and performance or hardware inspection
at the conclusion of the test.
Operability testing included measuring start times, lean-blow out
margin, acceleration and deceleration times. Emissions testing
consisted of tests for the currently regulated emissions species;
nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and
smoke number.
Our testing revealed some surprising results, for example:
The process to make the bio-derived SPK is feedstock
agnostic;
At a 50 percent blend ratio, a bio-derived SPK fuel
performed equal to, and in some cases better than, traditional
petroleum-based jet fuel in terms of performance and emissions;
No change in aircraft systems, fueling infrastructure
or engines is required for implementing bio-derived SPK fuels
at up to a 50 percent ratio; and
Large-scale production of a bio-derived SPK jet fuel
is possible from sustainable sources.
The Path Forward
We believe the principal challenges facing widespread use of
biofuels in aviation are in the areas of commercialization, growth and
supply of viable feedstocks, establishing standard life cycle carbon
and sustainability assessment methodologies and policies.
Right now biofuels, whether for aviation or other forms of
transportation, are not being produced in sufficient quantities. This
is due largely to the typical early challenges of commercializing an
emerging technology, when development costs are highest and production
processes have not yet reached economies of scale.
In addition, public policy investments and incentives often
afforded existing technologies make it difficult for emerging
technologies to be produced at competitive costs and offered at
competitive prices. This is especially the case for emerging biofuels
that must compete with decades of public and private infrastructure
investments and extensive public policy incentives for fossil fuels. As
a result, the sustained price of a barrel of oil needs to be at least
$70 for biofuel producers to demonstrate competitive business cases
that will generate the necessary investments in infrastructure (bio-
refineries, equipment, etc.) and generate fuels that can be sold at
prices competitive with existing fossil fuels.
Our current projections are that, with appropriate incentives,
market viability could be achieved as early as 2015. Without such
incentives, market viability will likely be delayed much later,
possibly even a decade.
Boeing is convinced sustainable biofuels can significantly reduce
aviation's carbon footprint. We are focusing our efforts on
accelerating viable commercial markets for advanced biofuels from plant
sources that do not compete with food crops and require minimal land
and water use. We are committed to ensuring that our research and
development investments in environmental improvements deliver
significant greenhouse gas reductions.
While other forms of transportation have options to reduce their
carbon footprint, for example by utilizing batteries and electric
motors for propulsion systems, aviation must rely on three key
strategies: continue to produce more fuel efficient aircraft; fly
aircraft more efficiently by realizing the promise of NextGen and
improved air traffic management systems; and use low carbon sustainable
biofuels.
Government can support the earliest commercialization and
development of sustainable biofuels for aviation by:
Creating incentives for sustainable energy crop
growers and producers of sustainable biofuels for aviation;
Ensuring public policy addressing greenhouse gas
emissions does not discourage the development and production of
sustainable biofuels for aviation;
Creating predictable demand incentives for aviation
use of sustainable biofuel blends, and assisting airlines to
invest in new fuel supply chains;
Implementing a refund of the aviation domestic fuel
tax when sustainable biofuel blends are used; and
Funding rapid development and implementation of
reasonable, pragmatic, and standard methodologies for measuring
total life cycle carbon emissions and determining the
sustainability of all liquid fuels.
Boeing is fully committed to working with fuel producers, airlines
and the government to ensure the earliest development of commercially
viable markets for low carbon sustainable biofuels for current and
future aircraft generations.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Mr. Shannon.
STATEMENT OF MR. HOLDEN E. SHANNON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GLOBAL REAL ESTATE AND SECURITY, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES
Mr. Shannon. Good morning. My name is Holden Shannon, and I
am Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security
which includes environmental affairs for Continental.
Continental has a long-standing commitment to providing
customers clean, safe, and reliable air service while
maintaining a commitment to the environment. Continental is the
world's fifth largest airline, serving 131 domestic
destinations, 134 international destinations on four hubs,
Houston, Cleveland, Newark, and Guam in the South Pacific, and
along with Continental Express, we are able to carry our 69
million passengers far more efficiently now than we were a
decade ago.
In fact, since 1997, we have reduced the fuel consumption
and emissions required to transport a mainline passenger one
mile by 35 percent, which has been largely due to our friends
at Boeing, a $12 billion investment in new aircraft, and a
whole host of electrification efforts on the ground in Houston,
Newark, among other things.
Today's airplanes are in fact technologically advanced.
They are quieter, cleaner, and very importantly burn less fuel.
That is why our industry represents just two percent of all
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States despite
continuous growth.
To give you some perspective, today Continental uses
approximately 18 gallons of fuel to carry a passenger 1,000
miles, about the distance from Houston to Chicago. That same
passenger would burn 45 gallons driving. It is a pretty
significant difference.
Between 1978 and 2007, say 30 years, the airline industry
as a whole has improved fuel efficiency a whopping 110 percent
resulting in 2.5 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases. To
put it in layman's terms, that is approximately the equivalent
of taking 19 million cars off the road each year.
Airlines in fact have a strong economic incentive to reduce
fuel consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel,
as Congressman Olson pointed out, has been a very unpredictable
part of our cost. It is the most volatile aspect of our cost
structure in an industry that really does have historically low
returns, razor-thin margins. Fuel costs last year, and
admittedly fuel goes up and down, but as a whole, it represents
30 percent to 40 percent of our cost, greater than any of our
employee costs, wages, benefits, pensions, any of our airplane
costs, and any of our facilities worldwide, so by far, the
largest cost.
Unlike other sectors of the economy, airlines have no
alternative but to consume jet fuel as one of my colleagues
pointed out, but that could change. Because of our dependence
on current fuel sources, as well as our commitment to the
environment and our interest in using alternative energy, we
decided over a year ago to partner with Boeing and GE Aviation
among others to conduct a biofuels flight demonstration in
Houston to help identify sustainable biofuel solutions for our
industry.
In our case, we used an algae and jatropha biofuel blend,
and this in fact was a second-generation biofuel that produces
more energy than earlier biofuels and does not compete with
foodstocks. That is a very important point. As a result, we
believe it will be more stable and commercially viable as a
fuel source than first generation fuels such as ethanol which
one of my colleagues referenced as well, the basic problem with
ethanol being that it just doesn't have enough kick to be
carried relative to the weight that we would need it to
generate on an aircraft.
The biofuel demonstration last January I believe was a huge
success, and although as Mr. Glover has pointed out, we aren't
completely finished with the results. We think that the results
will be very, very positive. Our analysis of the digital flight
data recorder and other data found on the aircraft showed us
that it performed the same way that traditional jet fuel did
except that during the life cycle, of course, when you are
growing plants, we think we could achieve carbon neutrality.
The test itself was highly successful, but much remains to
be done to meet widespread use. With the help of government and
continued coordination of users, manufacturers, fuel suppliers,
we believe that as long as an alternative fuel is certified for
aircraft use, meets the drop-in fuel requirement as Dr. Epstein
explained, meaning that no engine modifications are necessary
for it to be added at any ratio with traditional fuel sources,
and can be made available at an economically competitive price,
is not a small matter, particularly in the case of algae which
of course is still at its embryonic stages of development,
aircraft operators will have the confidence to start using
biofuel in the next five to ten years.
Continuing this process is a priority. Even though there
has been a downturn in fuel prices, fuel efficiency remains a
very huge concern for us and for our industry as well as for
our nation. Further reducing carbon emissions and increasing
fuel efficiency of course is something that all of us embrace.
While there is still today considerable price difference
between traditional jet fuel and plant fuels, we have great
confidence that that spread will lessen as supplies of plant
fuel become more plentiful. The fact that plant fuel can be
mixed in with traditional fuel and can be dropped right into
older engines again means acceptance of the biofuel sources
will grow in line with supply.
Biofuels represent an important tool for the airline
industry to reduce their already-small greenhouse gas footprint
of two to three percent worldwide. We would be remiss if we did
not mention that more focus on the potential, the development,
and the use of alternative fuels, as well as other available
options which all of us have talked about such as the proposed
NextGen efforts to modernize air traffic control system, which
by itself would reduce fuel burned by 12 percent for our
industry, a huge number, that they are collectively far more
commercially productive than to consider imposition of some
kind of cap-and-trade policy on the airlines which would
further depress an already-beleaguered but necessary industry
of air transportation as well as the economy.
As you probably know, government actions which cap a
company's existing carbon footprint can be unfair and certainly
don't reward innovative companies like Continental Airlines. At
a time when our nation and Congress are focused on financial
stability, we ask you to consider that.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing. We very much appreciate your interest in this subject
matter. We look forward to working with you, and we are
available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Holden E. Shannon
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Good Morning. Thank you for inviting me here to testify. My name is
Holden Shannon and I am the Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate
and Security for Continental Airlines. I am responsible for all real
estate, security and environmental affairs throughout Continental's
worldwide network. For starters today, I would like to point out that
we have a long-standing commitment to environmental responsibility and
providing our customers clean, safe, and reliable air service.
Continental is the world's fifth largest airline operating 2,500 daily
flights to 134 domestic destinations and 131 international destinations
through hubs at Newark, Cleveland, Houston, and Guam, and together with
Continental Express, we are able to carry our annual 69 million
passengers far more efficiently than we did a decade ago.
In fact, since 1997, we have reduced the fuel consumption and
emissions required to transport a mainline passenger one mile by 35
percent, largely due to our $12 billion investment in new fuel-
efficient Boeing aircraft and related equipment. Today's airplanes are
not just technologically advanced--they are quieter, cleaner and use
less fuel than ever before.
That is why our industry represents just two percent of all
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. To give you some
perspective, today Continental uses about 18 gallons of jet fuel to fly
one revenue passenger 1,000 miles--about the distance between Houston
and Chicago. By contrast, that same passenger driving his or her car
between Houston and Chicago today would burn about 45 gallons of
gasoline.
In fact, between 1978 and 2007 the airline industry as a whole
improved its fuel efficiency, as measured by revenue ton miles per
gallon of fuel, by 110 percent, resulting in 2.5 billion metric tons of
greenhouse gas (GHG) savings--roughly equivalent to taking more that
18.7 million cars off the road in each of those years! And data from
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics confirms that U.S. airlines
burned almost three percent less fuel in 2007 than they did in 2000,
resulting in absolute reductions in emissions, even though they carried
20 percent more passengers and cargo. Recent data suggests further
gains in fuel and GHG efficiencies in 2008.
It is an often overlooked fact that airlines have a strong economic
incentive to reduce fuel consumption and the resulting GHG emissions
because fuel accounts for a significant--and volatile part of our
operating budget. In fact, last year, fuel cost Continental more than
all of its wages, salaries and benefits worldwide, and more than all of
its airplanes worldwide, and more than all of its hubs and other
facilities worldwide. And, unlike other sectors of the economy,
airlines have no alternative but to consume jet fuel. Fortunately, with
the industry's support, commercial aircraft and engine manufacturers
have succeeded in creating significantly more aerodynamic planes and
significantly more fuel efficient engines than those of prior
generations, resulting in the tremendous decrease in GHG savings I have
already described.
Continental, because it has invested $12 billion in new Boeing
aircraft and other related equipment, has one of the youngest and most
environmentally friendly fleets in the world. While this investment has
already reduced our CO2 emissions significantly, we are not
stopping there. We have plans to invest over $11 billion more in new
Boeing aircraft over the next six years so we will further improve our
fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. And, as other U.S. airlines also
invest billions of dollars in new, more energy efficient aircraft, we
will continue to see additional significant environmental benefits
industry wide.
However, any further major advances in aircraft fuel efficiency
will be dependent on new engine and airframe technologies that are not
yet available in the market place and are not likely to be a
significant factor for much of the fleet for the intermediate-term.
Therefore, any achievable short- to medium-term environmental gains
depend on two factors. The first factor is that the government must
make a significant investment in the decades-old and out of date
government-run Air Traffic Control system which, if modernized, is
projected to reduce greenhouse emissions from aircraft by 12 percent by
2025. This action would be roughly equivalent to taking another 2.2
million cars off the road each year.
The second factor is that we need to stabilize energy supplies at
stable prices which include safe and commercially viable alternatives
to crude-oil based fuels.
While we are here today to discuss this second goal, I am
attaching, for the record, the testimony of James May, CEO of the Air
Transport Association, who just last week testified before the House
Aviation Subcommittee on the near-term achievable goals for NextGen,
which is the modernized ATC system. For the record, we would like to
thank this subcommittee and the Full Science and Technology Committee
for their steady record of cooperation with the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee in focusing on the development and funding
of NextGen as discussed in last session's FAA Reauthorization Bill as
well as H.R. 915, this year's FAA Reauthorization bill. We appreciate
the fact that you all understand the role that NextGen can play in
reducing GHG.
THE CO BIOFUELS TEST: RESULTS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD
As regard to alternative fuels, because of our commitment to the
environment and our leadership in this arena, we decided over a year
ago to partner with The Boeing Company and GE Aviation/CFM
International to conduct a biofuels flight demonstration to help
identify sustainable biofuel solutions for the aviation industry.
Together, we wanted to help continue the evolution toward fuel sources
that absorb carbon before the fuel source is consumed, offsetting
carbon that is emitted when the fuel is burned.
As a result, Continental performed the first sustainable biofuel
flight demonstration in North America on January 7th, 2009, using a
two-engine Boeing 737-800 aircraft. That demonstration flight
represented many industry firsts:
The first commercial carrier biofuel flight in NORTH
AMERICA
The first commercial carrier biofuel flight using
biofuel derived from ALGAE
The first commercial carrier biofuel flight using a
TWO-ENGINE AIRCRAFT
We worked closely with our partners at Boeing, GE Aviation/CFM
International, Honeywell's UOP, and fuel providers Sapphire Energy and
Terasol Energy to make the flight demonstration a success.
Continental's primary role in the demonstration was to show that the
biofuel blend would perform just like traditional jet fuel in our
existing aircraft without modification of the engines or the aircraft.
We call a fuel like this a ``drop-in'' fuel. This is important because,
as I mentioned, the current engine and airframe technology is unlikely
to change materially for many years, so it is crucial that alternative
fuel be safe for use with the current aircraft technology.
Although the flight demonstration was one small step of many toward
the development of alternative energy solutions, we were able to help
gather important data that is needed for the fuel certification process
before the biofuel can be used by the airline industry.
The algae and jatropha biofuel blend used in our demonstration
flight is considered a second-generation fuel and represents a
significant advancement over first-generation fuels like ethanol.
Second generation feedstocks like algae and jatropha produce more
energy per hectare than traditional, first-generation biofuels and, as
a result will be more stable and commercially viable. Moreover, they do
not compete with foodstocks, as for example corn-based ethanol does.
To this end, Continental was pleased that the fuel property and
performance tests showed that the biofuel blend we tested acted just
like traditional jet fuel. The multitude of tests performed by Boeing,
CFM, UOP, the Air Force Research Lab, as well as other third party labs
on the biofuel prior to our flight, all show that the biofuel we used
performs just like traditional jet fuel, with no difference in engine
or system performance. Continental is working with Boeing and all of
its other flight test partners to compile the results of the testing
performed on the various biofuels used in other carriers' flight
demonstrations. The results will be shared with the industry and used
to help certify alternative fuel for use by the aviation industry.
After we performed our biofuel demonstration flight, we analyzed
the digital flight data recorder and other data from the flight to
measure the engine performance. We found that the engine and aircraft
successfully performed just as they would have using traditional jet
fuel, so the test aircraft was returned to revenue service the next
day. We do not anticipate any long-term negative impact on aircraft
from biofuel use as long as it meets the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) fuel certification standard and ``drop-in'' fuel
criteria. Preliminary tests do show that the biofuels exhibit less
smoke, so there may be some benefits that will require closer study,
but we are not aware of a need to perform any additional
demonstrations.
While we were pleased with the test results we have obtained to
date, we would like to see additional long-term materials compatibility
testing for system components like o-rings and seals by the
manufacturers and the wide dissemination of these results. The U.S.
organization that certifies jet fuel specifications for use in
commercial aircraft is the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) International. They will engage in an extensive data review
process before approving new fuel specifications and will decide
whether any additional demonstrations are necessary.
While the test itself was highly successful, significant challenges
must still be overcome to meet our goal of widespread use of biofuels
in aviation.
A fuel specific standard must be developed which
meets key performance and compatibility criteria to ensure
safety.
We will also need to develop a U.S. regulatory
requirement mandating the level of quality throughout the
supply chain; starting at the refinery all the way through to
the airport.
Federal support will be needed to accelerate the
approval and deployment of several alternative aviation fuels
that have already been developed and tested.
Increased funding will be needed for ongoing U.S.
military efforts to develop alternative fuels for military jet
fleets that will transition to commercial fleets.
Because of the economic slowdown, investment dollars
for already conceived pilot plants and full-scale production
plants has dried up. Direct federal support for such
infrastructure investments and greater support in the area of
research and development, including the feasibility of pipeline
use for biofuel transport, may be needed to allow the
development plans to proceed.
In the end, we not only need a stable supply of
energy which is independent from foreign oil, but any
alternative fuel sources need to be produced in large enough
volumes that they are available at an economically viable
price. It will take many years to make a robust supply of
alternative fuels and a network to deliver it to airports, so
continuing our work toward that goal is important now.
With the help of the government and continued coordination of the
industry, manufacturers and fuel suppliers, we believe that, as long as
an alternative fuel is certified for aircraft use, meets the ``drop-
in'' fuel requirement and is available at an economically competitive
price as compared to traditional jet fuel, aircraft operators will have
the confidence to start using biofuel blends in revenue flights in the
next five to ten years. As the supplies increase in a commercially
viable way, we will be able to increase the blend percentage over the
years. Continuing this process is a priority, even though there has
been a downturn in fuel prices. Fuel efficiency remains an important
concern for us and for our nation, and further reducing carbon
emissions and increasing fuel efficiency remains our goal.
CONCLUSION
One final message for today--as an airline which has invested
billions and taken a leadership role in the efforts to increase fuel
efficiency, we do want to raise our concerns over certain global
climate change proposals which could act to disincentivize companies
like Continental who have been proactive in their efforts to reduce
their carbon footprint without government mandates.
Any government action that has the effect of capping a company at
its existing carbon footprint and then ``rewarding'' any improvement
from that cap punishes companies like Continental, who have been doing
the right thing for years by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Biofuels represents an important option for the airline industry to
reduce their already small greenhouse gas footprint. And we know that
this committee is well aware of the potential for the use of
alternative fuels in the airline industry. We would be remiss if we did
not mention that more focus on the potential, the development and the
use of alternative fuels is far more productive than to consider the
imposition of some kind of cap and trade policy on the airlines.
If it is our goal to encourage investments in infrastructure and
innovations which improve the environment, leaders must be careful to
support and nurture the efforts of companies like Continental who are
leaders in those efforts.
We are confident that the measures that Continental, Boeing, and so
many others are undertaking and supporting will continue to limit and
even reduce aviation's emissions footprint. Commercial airlines can and
will remain a very small source of greenhouse gas emissions while
continuing to provide our communities, our states and our countries
with a way to move people and goods around the globe. Job growth and
the global marketplace are critically dependent upon a viable air
transportation system and it is clear to us that more air
transportation capacity will be necessary, not less.
Again, my thanks to the Science and Technology Committee for
holding today's hearing and inviting our participation. We appreciate
your leadership in these matters and look forward to working with you
to integrate sustainable alternative fuels into the aviation industry
in the future.
Biography for Holden E. Shannon
Holden E. Shannon is Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate
and Security, a position he has held since August 2004. In this role,
he is responsible for developing the airlines' facilities worldwide,
including its hubs in Houston, Newark and Cleveland and its
headquarters in downtown Houston. Shannon also is responsible for the
airline's corporate security and environmental affairs groups. Prior to
this position, he was Vice President of Corporate Real Estate and
Environmental Affairs for Continental from August 1997 to August 2004.
Shannon joined Continental in January 1995 as Staff Vice President
of Properties and Facilities, responsible for overseeing system-wide
airport and property development.
Prior to joining the company, Shannon held positions of increasing
responsibility at Northwest Airlines, including Director of Corporate
Real Estate and Manager of Finance. He also held positions in finance
with American Airlines and The First Boston Corporation.
Shannon received his Master of Business Administration from Harvard
University. He also graduated from Rice University, cum laude with a
Bachelor's degree in managerial studies. He serves on the Founding
Board of Directors of The Rice Building Institute and on the board of
Houston's Lawndale Art Center. Shannon lives in Houston with his wife
and two children.
Discussion
Quantifying Priority Levels for Biofuels in the Aviation
Industry
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you so much. At this point, we
are going to begin our first round of questions, and the Chair
will begin with herself.
Again, I want to thank all of you for being here and for
the Members in attendance. I think you have made a compelling
case of the importance of the use of aviation biofuels. Those
of us who fly every week, we pay attention and those that don't
fly every week but fly occasionally, we realize that getting
this right in the future really has a significant impact to all
of us, not just those of us in Congress or those of us who pay
attention to these issues.
But I guess I would really like to drill down a little bit
harder in terms of how high a priority it is for your specific
organizations. For example, Mr. Shannon, you said specifically
that continuing with the investment of biofuels is a priority.
But exactly when does Continental project that it is going to
start using biofuels in its revenue operations? And if you
could go into a little bit more detail in what type of biofuels
you really imagine using.
In terms of your competitors, can you talk about the sense
of how biofuels fit into their plans as well. And so for Mr.
Glover and Dr. Epstein, how important are biofuels to Boeing
and Pratt & Whitney's plans, and what investments are your
companies making to actually be able to deploy the technology
so that we can, you know, in our generation, in our lifetime,
really see this as a mainstream form of fuel. And Dr. Maurice,
I know that the FAA is obviously participating in CAAFI, and I
liked your graphic and slide. You didn't completely go into it,
but it was impressive to see the diverse group of organizations
involved. But in terms of specifically what is FAA doing to
hasten the adoption of whatever biofuels to really make the
most sense for the aviation industry? I mean, you talked about
the importance of fuel certification. What specific plans and
resource commitments has the FAA made to certify not just the
drop-in fuels but also the full range of renewable biofuels
that could meet the aviation sector needs?
Also, how long are we talking about? And again, how high a
priority is it on a list of everything that is on the FAA's
plate?
Finally, Dr. Shin, your testimony discusses the long-term
R&D needs to address some of the important unknown-related
biofuels. But in terms of the relation to NASA's aeronautics
priorities, can you talk about that in terms of the other
issues that are facing you and your organization? Why don't we
start with Mr. Shannon.
Mr. Shannon. Thank you. Thanks for the promotion, too. I
think self-interest is the key to your question. In other
words, if biofuels become an economical force, then I think we
would embrace them. We feel very good about the preliminary
data from our biofuel test. As someone pointed out, the more
biofuel tests there are, the less scary the concept for the
public. What is beautiful about this technology is that it has
enough horsepower, unlike ethanol. It absolutely does not
compete with land that would otherwise be used for crops. You
can't eat algae. There is no competition in terms of other
demands on the product, and I think as soon as it becomes less
than two to three times as expensive as petroleum, I don't
think there is going to be an issue because we can add it
incrementally with traditional fuels, and we don't have to
change our significant 30-, 40-year investment in engines and
aircrafts. So I think it can be very soon, possibly as early as
five to ten years.
Mr. Glover. Thank you. About five years ago, we were
complete skeptics. We said there is not enough energy content.
We were familiar with ethanol and biodiesel and so on, and you
can't produce enough of this and we would have to modify
engines, the delivery systems. We were starting to see some
changes and things that caught our attention. And when we were
looking at the environmental strategy for the whole industry
and said, well, we can keep producing more efficient aircraft,
we can help improve the operations, the daily operations, but
what else can we do? And we really took a critical look at the
fuels. We helped get started the CAAFI organization to bring
more attention to this and find out what can work, and we
became complete converts.
So we invested our intellectual capital and our convening
power to work with airlines and engine companies and the FAA
and others to bring this together, get the facts on the table
and figure out the viability. We think we are largely through
the first round of viability, and now we are helping airlines
and fuel producers and agricultural interests, try to put
together deals that could end up in a commercially offerable
product. And we really see the need to accelerate that, and we
are looking for assistance from the U.S. Government to find
ways to help get over those initial capitalization humps, loan
guarantees, and other forms of appropriate encouragement to
enable commercialization.
We think there are a few things that are ready now and
things that need some more R&D that will come later.
Dr. Epstein. Pratt & Whitney is committed to
environmentally responsible propulsion which is our business,
and I am speaking as a propulsion guy. Innovation has been the
underpinning really of U.S. productivity in the last few
decades, and this is an area, as Mr. Glover said, where just a
few years ago, what is fuel? You know, it is what we pour in
the tanks, what we get out of the tank truck, it has always
been the same. And then we have learned with the DOD energy
independence effort to certify new fuels how to do it. We
worked with the FAA, NASA, and DOD researchers making our
engines and test facilities available so they could come and
make measurements. And now innovations as--we have done two
things. We have reduced the amount of fuel we need to certify
down to 250,000 gallons. Now that seems like a lot except a 747
takes about 50,000 gallons to fill up. So it is not all that
much, especially compared to the past where we need millions of
gallons.
The other is, we are getting very enthusiastic because
these are really engineered fuels, and American ingenuity and
engineering say they are better fuels. And if you can tell me
that my engine will have those fuels in the future, I can make
a better commercial and better military engine, one that will
be lighter, burn less fuel. So we are very enthusiastic about
it. Nevertheless, Pratt & Whitney and United Technologies
doesn't intend to be in the fuel business, but we are
responsive to our customers, Boeing and the airlines, and we
are enthusiastic about it.
Dr. Maurice. Thank you for your question, Madam Chair.
Renewable fuels are very important to the FAA. Environmental
stewardship is at the heart of NextGen. We view renewable jet
fuels as the game changer that can really significantly reduce
CO2 emissions.
As far as what we are doing to hasten the adoption, there
are really two areas that we have the role on. First and
foremost is certification and qualification because you could
have the best equipment, the producers could be producing the
fuels, but they will produce fuels for those people that can
use them. So specifically, we have assigned my colleague, Mark
Robinson, to lead the efforts to work with ASTM International,
and he also leads CAAFI's efforts in this area. So we have
assigned the necessary staff to steward the efforts and make
sure that they are carried out well.
As far as timing is concerned, as I noted, later on this
year we hope to be able to have approval for a 50 percent
generic alternative fuel by the F-T, Fisher-Tropsch process.
That could be made from any number of feedstocks including
biomass. So it would be a renewable fuel.
Looking further into the future at the hydrotreated
renewable jet which is the process that was used to make the
fuels tested by my colleagues, we look to next year having the
results in front of ASTM International to hopefully get that
approved at the 50 percent plan and in looking to 2013 to
having the 100 percent hydrotreated renewable jet fuel. So I
would echo statements of my colleagues, about three to five
years that we could see some significant use.
Chairwoman Giffords. Dr. Maurice, is that effort fully
funded at this point?
Dr. Maurice. That effort with advent of the CLEEN program
which funds is appropriated for, I believe it is fully funded.
And then the second area which we can get the certification
right but we have got to make sure that we know the life cycle
of greenhouse gases so that we do the right thing. We are
investing resources in working with the appropriate
stakeholders to make sure that we can measure that right.
Chairwoman Giffords. Okay. Thank you. I know I am running
out of time, but I would like to hear from Dr. Shin, so please.
Dr. Shin. I will try to be brief. As Madam Chair noted, the
value that NASA Aeronautics brings to the Nation by conducting
cutting-edge, long-term research, we believe that we will
continue work with industry and academia in the whole community
to bring these advanced technologies for vehicles and
operations in certainly the safety area.
So as biofuels is getting more economically viable and if
it gets certification and becomes another source of aviation
fuels, we will have to consider that in our future technology
development. One of the highest priorities within NASA
Aeronautics is to protect the environment from aviation and
also make future vehicles more fuel efficient.
So if and when biofuels again become commercially viable
and also proves all the benefits, then we will consider this as
part of the future technology development, not from the
standpoint of production of biofuels but application of the
biofuels.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Shin. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Olson.
Biofuels Carbon Emission Reductions
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and my first
question is for Dr. Shin, Dr. Maurice and Dr. Epstein. You
touched on this Dr. Epstein in your opening statement, but
understanding that the research in biofuel emissions is still
in its early stages, do you have a sense yet of the potential
reduction in carbon emissions that could be achieved by using
biofuels, and if so, what are the biggest unknowns out there?
Dr. Epstein. I think it is important to understand that the
carbon that comes out of the tailpipe of the jet engine is
exactly the same no matter what the fuel is, whether it is
petroleum-based or coal-based or bio-based. The carbon that we
save is the front end, whether the carbon is geological, mined
out of the ground, or whether it has been recently extracted by
plant action. And so in agriculture, we use fuel for planting,
for harvesting, for processing the fuel. As Mr. Glover said, we
need careful documentation as to how much carbon fuel is used
in these processes. But think. These are the same things that
society is working on to improve as you go from big, diesel
trucks to more efficient trucks, as you can think of even
electric powered trucks and tractors. The entire carbon
footprint goes down.
So I can see now where for the few fuels that have been
studied carefully, the numbers are 40 to 60 percent net carbon
savings. In the longer-term, a decade or two, as society moves
more toward carbon-free transportation, the jet fuel can come
down to very close to zero. We are just recycling solar energy
that we collect on our farms.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. Dr. Maurice.
Dr. Maurice. Right. That is a very good question. Thank
you. We have done a lot of work in looking at the life cycle,
and I would say there is no single number. I think Dr.
Epstein's 40 to 60 percent is probably right about in the
middle, but I would hesitate to put a single number because it
is still a very probability type of answer. And as far as what
the largest uncertainty is land use. When we tried to allocate
different numbers to different parts of the process, that is by
far the biggest unknown. We are working hard to try to address
that.
I might also mention, don't forget the air quality
emissions that we are looking at, and that is pretty
straightforward because these alternative fuels are naturally
lower sulfur so that intuitively leads to less particulates,
and depending on the engine power setting, we have seen
reductions from 10 to 70 to 80 percent, and that is very
attractive. Thank you.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. And Dr.
Shin.
Dr. Shin. Yes, as Dr. Maurice just mentioned about the low
sulfur emission and particulates, we have conducted partnering
with Air Force and FAA and a few other partners on DC-8
aircraft that we have at Dryden Research Center. We didn't fly
the airplane but on the ground we simulated engine power
setting like the airplane flying, and some of the only findings
from the test results support what Dr. Epstein and Dr. Maurice
indicated. The full test results will be analyzed, and we are
planning to have a workshop in the fall so it will be very
interesting to find out what kind of benefit we will gain out
of this.
But this is a well-controlled test, and it is one data
point. So I think nonetheless, it is going to provide a lot of
good information.
Cap-and-Trade Is the Wrong Route
Mr. Olson. Thank you for that answer, Dr. Shin, and Mr.
Shannon, one question for you. Given that Continental has been
very proactive regarding fuel efficiency and environmental
protections, what is your airline's position on how the
industry and government should move forward regarding the
environment? I mean, do you see it as a cap-and-trade type
system as Europe is proposing or something else?
Mr. Shannon. We really don't see it as a cap-and-trade
solution, and the reason why is because we feel that there are
lots of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases that are
available to us today that we are not availing ourselves of,
besides the hopefulness of alternative fuels. When you cap-and-
trade, you are capping something that is commercially
important. The airline industry generates a huge amount of GNP,
and of course, it is something that all of us love. If you cap
flights, you are going to see higher prices, you are going to
see more limited travel.
One of the things we would suggest is encouraging airlines
that have old aircraft to think about replacing those engines,
replacing those aircraft. There probably isn't a need to have
40-year airplanes flying around. We have really clean airplanes
available.
The second thing is that we could do things like
modernizing air traffic control. That alone again is 12 percent
lower fuel burn. It is not a small number.
And then finally, we do see that there are lots of
opportunities to promote fuels like what we have seen in the
last year successfully piloted. So we are here because of our
hope that this technology will provide a solution that does not
force you and the economy to choose between aviation, commerce
and greenhouse gases and the environment.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Shannon. I yield back
my time.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Edwards.
Incentives to Encourage Alternative Fuels in the Aviation
Industry
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
the panelists this morning. I live in the 4th Congressional
District in Maryland which is just outside of the District of
Columbia, and I happen to live along the Potomac River and you
know, get to experience the planes flying over all the way up
the river, coming back again, and dumping fuel and particulates
all along our baseball fields, soccer fields, elementary
schools. And so this is a really important issue for us in my
Congressional district and our community and I think largely
for the environment--you know, Mr. Shannon, I almost left and
then I heard the end of your testimony and decided to stay
because you said in your testimony, you talked about cap-and-
trade not being a way to go for the industry. There are
alternatives, and I want to follow along the lines of Mr.
Olson's questioning because I wonder, you are suggesting that
there are sort of voluntary things that the industry could do
that would move us along the way toward fuel efficiency and
using alternative fuels, and yet we are not very far from peak
carbon emissions around the world in what, 2015. And so I am
wondering, you know, from a policy making perspective, what
kinds of incentives can we encourage for the industry because
if it is not something that says, you know, you got to get
there and make the investment, I think that we are going to get
to 2015 and we are not going to be frankly that much farther
along than we are now. And so it is a little frustrating that
although your airline may be doing the right things, we can't
just depend on volunteerism alone to get us to lower our carbon
emissions.
Mr. Shannon. It seems like a really intelligent question,
but I don't want to give you a glib answer. Continental really
has made it sort of part of our value system to have a clean
airline, but I am telling you, I personally feel that self-
interest is a huge motivator. And we didn't start off in the
early '90s saying we want to be green. Our awareness was raised
along with the population's awareness. We were motivated to
reduce fuel consumption, pure and simple. That turned into a
green philosophy, and we have embraced it. In lots of ways, it
may not be economical in the short-term. I think helping us as
an industry create affordable alternatives to petroleum is
extremely important to traditional fossil fuels. That
singularly will help us. We had a wake-up call this last year.
I mean, we really did. We realized that cheap oil, traditional
oil, will not last forever. That is a huge motivator. And that
day, we don't know when that day will change again. Today fuel
is relatively more affordable. That is a short-term thing, and
we are very motivated to get out of this pinch.
So I personally feel encouraging us as an industry to set
fuel efficiency standards, again, we have done a lot as an
industry, not just as an airline, but also supporting this
effort is one of those things.
Ms. Edwards. Do any of our other panelists have a comment?
Dr. Epstein. One thing that is important is the airline
industry is extremely capital-intensive. New airplanes cost
$100 million or more, and a concern of the industry is that
regulations, taxes, carbon trading end up removing money from
the aviation system that the airlines need to upgrade their
equipment. So how do you reduce the emissions in the short run?
The answer is, just as Continental has said, you replace your
existing older aircraft, and aircraft work for 30, 40, 50
years. With new airplanes, you need new capital to do that. So
Congress has to consider how do you capture any revenue that
comes out of regulatory actions in a way that feeds back into
the aviation system. Funding air traffic control upgrades, tax
credits, investment tax credits for equipment, funding for NASA
for advanced research, it really is a system that is starved
for funding now. Of course, everybody in the United States is
starved for funding now, but the point is, there shouldn't be
extraction from the aviation system into other uses if we want
to make progress in reducing our impact on local communities
and the planet.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I would just
say, I can appreciate the industry wanting to move forward
without those kind of regulations. My real question is just how
do we get there and for those who are not moving in a direction
of a greener, more efficient airline, what do we do to
incentivize and encourage that? Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Good
discussion. Let me just remind the Committee Members and our
panelists that this is a discussion today on biofuels and
aviation. This is not a big discussion on cap-and-trade or
issues that this subcommittee is not faced with. I mean, we
have a unique opportunity to hear from five experts on what is
happening in terms of biofuel development, and I just want to
make sure we don't stray too far. We are going to have a lot of
time to discuss other issues, but today if we could just focus
on the hearing topic, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Reducing Aviation Particulates to Curb Pollution
Mr. Rohrabacher. You notice she said that right before I
got up. First of all, let me commend the Chair. This has been a
very valuable hearing, and I think you put together a good
panel for us, and I have learned a lot. I would, however, on
another issue which has been the undercurrent of all this
testimony is that somehow carbon footprints are affecting our
climate. Just for the record at the hearing, I have quotes from
major prominent scientists from throughout the world suggesting
that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change,
especially global warming, considering that now it used to be
global warming and because it is no longer warming, now they
call it climate change. So anyway, for the record, I would like
to put that in at this point.[See Appendix 2: Additional
Material for the Record.]
Let me say you do not have to be someone concerned about
what I consider to be a bogus issue which is global warming,
now climate change, to be very concerned about the health-
related problems that come with the internal combustion engine
and jet engines and also to be concerned about the fuel that
would be available to our society to make sure that we can have
a modern society and meet our needs.
So with that, I am very concerned about what you have said,
although I disagree with the carbon footprint talk. Let me ask
this question. In terms of biofuels, you have made it clear
about the carbon footprint. What about pollutants such as NOX?
If we were going to with biofuels for jet airlines, would we
then have more NOX and pollutants that hurt human health or
would we have fewer of those pollutants entering the
atmosphere? And particulates as well, right.
Dr. Epstein. NASA researchers and DOD researchers spent a
lot of time at Pratt & Whitney measuring the effects on
engines. For current engines we expect no impact on NOX at all,
that is, you get the same NOX out whether it is a biofuel or
petroleum fuel. If the biofuel is more than 50 percent biofuel,
then we expect a reduction--we don't expect, we have measured
reductions, significant reductions, in regulated particulates
coming out of the engines. So these are both local air quality
improvements.
In terms of advanced engines, if we knew we had biofuels,
we could probably design them to reduce the NOX a little. The
problem is that it is tough to do that and have the capability
of pouring in any fuel that is available that is important for
assuring the fuel supply for the country.
I would also point out----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Biofuel specifically. Does biofuel reduce
NOX?
Dr. Epstein. Biofuel has no effect. It doesn't make it
better, it doesn't make it worse.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Good. Is that what you found?
Mr. Shannon. I am going to defer to more knowledgeable
people on the panel. Our preliminary data suggests it might go
down a little bit but not significantly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Let me just note. I do come from
Southern California. We have these airplanes coming in all the
time. We are very concerned about the pollutants that are
coming out of the airplanes, and I think that what you have
suggested today in terms of the efficiency of the engines that
we have heard about today and the amount of pollutants that
your airline has been able to take out, you should be commended
for that. I am sorry that our colleague has left who wanted to
know maybe how to encourage people to invest in new engines
that would bring down the pollution level. Maybe we should--and
here is the question. Are the depreciation schedules for the
purchase of new engines, what are the depreciation schedules
that we have? If we changed that, I am not sure what it is.
That is why I am asking essentially Pratt & Whitney and
Continental. Are we now encouraged to buy new engines and to
invest in these things that would be more efficient and cleaner
or could we change that depreciation schedule to give us more
of an incentive to do that?
Mr. Shannon. From a corporate side, I think it has more to
do with cash investment. Cash is king in this economy, and I
don't think it would materially change our profile. We are just
very motivated to get our long-term cost down, not just P&L
costs but our real cash-out costs.
Mr. Rohrabacher. How long does it take you to write down
the new engine or a new plane?
Mr. Shannon. You know, I would have to get back to you. I
am thinking that somewhere in the 10-, 15-year timeframe
because a lot of that will depend upon the obsolescence of the
technology, whereas an airplane itself might have a longer life
cycle.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am just talking about the tax law now.
Pratt & Whitney, how long is it going to take? If somebody is
going to buy a new engine from you, how long--if we actually
let them write it off the first day, you would have cleaner
engines and companies may buy new engines.
Dr. Epstein. A great idea but unfortunately, I am the tech
guy, and to answer your question, we need the money men.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Dr. Epstein. I am the wrong person.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Madam Chairman, let me just note that
depreciation schedules, tax policy, does impact on these
decisions, and if we can change the tax law through
depreciation schedules in a way to get people to buy newer jets
quicker, it is much better, much more effective as we have
heard from Mr. Shannon than to have some other regulatory
pressure being put on them. That is the profit incentive you
were talking about. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I would
like to welcome Mr. Bilbray to our subcommittee. Also, let me
remind folks, we are going to have votes coming up pretty soon.
Mr. Bilbray.
Reducing Real Carbon Emissions
Mr. Bilbray. Madam Chair, I appreciate you having this
hearing as being a sort of a hotbed of biofuel research. San
Diego County, we are on top of a lot of stuff. I have to
apologize to you, Madam Chair, though. As we talk about mobile
sources, this is a very small portion of mobile sources. We
need to remember where we are in the global atmosphere of
stuff, that mobile sources, including aircraft, heavy trucks,
and everything else, constitute 28 percent of total emissions
in this country, 28 percent, while electric generation
constitutes 35 percent. And of that electric generation, 22
percent of electric generation is zero-emission generation, has
no impact on the climate. So when we talk about these things,
we got to remember, we are looking at research to reduce 28
percent of the emissions, and with technology, we may be able
to do that, when today as we sit here we have the technology to
reduce 100 percent of that 35 percent of stationary sources for
the generation of electricity. And I want to say that because
as we sit in this room, the Federal Government is still buying
dirty coal to generate electricity for this facility, and I
hope we can work together to avoid that. So I want to say to
those of you who are in aviation, we have a lot in Washington
to do to set an example for you, rather than just mandate, set
an example.
Let me just throw one thing out. Somebody brought up
ethanol. What would happen to you if we mandated 10 percent of
your fuel has to be ethanol, like we have done to the auto
industry?
Mr. Glover. Ethanol would not work on any of the current
airplanes without very significant modifications. It would not
fit into the fuel distribution system, and you couldn't fly as
far on the same amount of fuel.
Mr. Bilbray. Because it doesn't constitute the BTUs per
gallon that you have with the other.
Mr. Glover. It doesn't have the energy----
Mr. Bilbray. We always say about a gallon-and-a-half of
ethanol to match a gallon of traditional gasoline, let alone
the fuel you are having.
Mr. Glover. It is the energy content as well as the
compatibility. It is incompatible with some of the materials.
Subsizing Algae as a Biofuel
Mr. Bilbray. And I appreciate that. It is incompatible with
a lot of automobile operations, too. That is why we can't ship
it through our pipelines, we can't use it for refinery, that is
why California has determined that it has no environmental
benefit, ARB. We are kind of experts in this.
I bring that out because we got to go back to what we are
doing with a lot of this. In fact, when we talk about
emissions, Madam Chair, because ethanol, it takes a gallon and
a half to match gasoline, the emissions are per gallon, not per
BTU. And that dirty little secret is that we are mandating a
use of a product that claims to be environmentally friendly,
but in fact, because of its lack of power actually is a hidden
pollutant problem. I know it is not popular here to bring up,
but I want to bring this up. On the positive side of it,
though--let me say the negative, too, we give ethanol a tax
subsidy but we don't give algae fuel a tax subsidy. Does that
sound logical to you guys? Go ahead.
Mr. Glover. I think we need to--I appreciate if there were
supportive policy in place for this different kind of fuel we
are talking about here. It is not ethanol, it is this
hydrotreated renewable jet. It is a different set of molecules.
It has the higher energy content, it has the compatibility.
Algae is one of the sources we are working on, very promising.
We have a little more work to do, but there are some other
things that are ready now, and with some supportive policy in
place, I think we can make it affordable, make it available to
Mr. Shannon.
Mr. Bilbray. All right. Now, let me clarify. I totally
understand why Members of Congress from corn-growing states
have pushed this. I totally understand that. What I don't
understand is why the rest of us who care about the big picture
and the environment haven't pushed back to balance it out.
I would have to ask Dr. Maurice is it, in your position
with the FAA, have you met with representatives of the Defense
Department regarding an initiative to test and certify
synthetic fuels including biomass jet fuels?
Dr. Maurice. Thank you for that question. Absolutely,
within the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative,
one of our collaborators is the Department of Defense, and we
share data and collaborate on tests. I might also add that I
started my career at the Air Force research lab and the fields
lab so I also have personal relationships with those folks. So
we are working very closely together.
Mr. Bilbray. And does the other services besides the Air
Force, are they working with things like algae or biomass
fuels?
Dr. Maurice. The others, we do work with some of the other
services, but the Air Force is by far the biggest user. So they
seem to be putting forth the most effort.
Mr. Bilbray. I appreciate it. Madam Chair, I appreciate the
chance. I think when we talk about these technologies, I just
want to let you know that the bad news on this is the fact that
industry is looking for places it can build the facility and
get licensed, and the sad thing about it is where you have got
San Diego County where we have all this research, this
breakthrough, sadly they have got to go to New Mexico because
in California, the government will not permit the construction
of the facilities to make the fuel within the decade. And we
really need to put pressure on our colleagues in government to
help this move along.
So I yield back and I appreciate the chance.
Executive Branch Coordination of Biofuels R&D
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. You are
welcome to our subcommittee any time. Come back. We still have
some time, so I would really like to kind of drill down again,
and I would like to use the analogy of building a house. If you
are the main contractor, you have got to figure out whether or
not your electrician is moving in the right direction, you have
got your plumber, of course, you have got the carpenters, you
have got a schedule to meet. So in a way, you have got to make
sure that everything is aligned. So just starting with Dr.
Maurice, how does CAAFI determine whether alternative R&D
initiatives by government entities and the private sector are
properly lining up? And given that CAAFI has no budgetary or
management authority, how is it that you are going to ensure
that the various initiatives get aligned if they aren't?
And for Dr. Maurice and Dr. Shin, who exactly in the
executive branch do FAA, NASA DOD, DARPA, and DOE report to
each as an agency to determine what efforts are under way right
now or are being undertaken in the area of aviation biofuels?
And is there an individual organization that has the
responsibility for the Nation's aviation biofuels activities at
this point? And if so, who? And if not, are there any plans to
create such a leadership position?
Dr. Maurice. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will start with the
question on the building a house analogy which is actually a
very good analogy for CAAFI because that is the approach that
we have taken in looking at all of the various elements. As far
as how CAAFI goes about ensuring that we are all moving in the
right direction, there are two tools that we use. One is the
set of roadmaps in each of the areas to make sure that we can
figure out where we want to be and what all the activities need
to be to get there. The second tool that we just recently
developed in January is this fuel readiness level scale which
was really patterned after the technology readiness level to
really assess where various alternative fuels including biojet
renewable fuels are within the scale so that we can figure out
what it is that we need to do to move them forward.
You are absolutely right about CAAFI not having the mandate
and budgetary authority, but I would go back to what Mr.
Shannon said, the term self-interest, and I think all of us
within CAAFI are very, very motivated to make this happen. And
it is within our self-interest to make sure that things move
forward. For example, in the certification area, we need data,
and our colleagues, Mr. Glover and Mr. Shannon, as they have
moved forward planning their flight tests, have collaborated
with us so we can define what is it that you really need so we
can collect that data. So I believe we are following your
analogy of building the house and making sure we have all of
the subcontractors moving in the right direction.
As far as your second question of coordination, in his
testimony, Dr. Shin referred to the National Aeronautics R&D
plan related to infrastructure. Within that plan, there is an
energy and environment section which I happen to be one of the
co-chairs for. And that again is led by OSTP, by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and we have used that mechanism
to look at the efforts at the broad level. As far as is there
one particular entity that has charge of everything, I am not
aware of such a thing.
Dr. Shin. I think as important topic as this biofuel is for
the implication or potential for the aviation sector, I would
like to use another metaphor or analogy that we have been
working within government for bringing this revolutionary air
transportation system. Some of the witnesses even noted that
Next Generation air transportation system effort. I use that as
somewhat of an analogy for the magnitude and scope of this kind
of emerging technology in involving not only government and
private sector and also academia to create innovative research.
I think we can use the committee that Dr. Maurice just
mentioned under OSTP as a venue to facilitate that kind of
government-wide coordination and collaboration. And that
subcommittee has been in place for a good three years, and it
has produced a first-ever aeronautics R&D policy and also a
subsequent plan. In that plan, as Dr. Maurice noted, there is a
whole section devoted to energy and environment. So I think
that is a starting point, could be a starting point, to provide
better government coordination.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Shin. Mr. Olson.
Possible Unintended Consequences of Biofuels Production
Mr. Olson. Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman, and I will be
brief as we hear the bells ringing. Just one more question for
you, Dr. Maurice. I know you are popular today, but I know the
FAA and the EPA are working to accurately measure the emissions
data associated with the biofuels production use. And I am just
curious if you have seen any downsides, start to see any
downsides, some unanticipated results of the research that they
might emit a greater form of one pollutant or an altogether new
type of pollutant compared to conventional jet fuels?
Dr. Maurice. Thank you, Mr. Olson, for that question. We
certainly are looking at all potential contingencies. As far as
the tailpipe emissions, we really do not see anything because
the fuels are drop-in, other than that change in particulate
matter. As far as life cycle emissions, pretty quickly we
determined that any competition with food sources or anything
that might lead to perhaps using rainforest land and such is
not a path that we would pursue, and very quickly CAAFI
together and all of us individually came up with this concept
that we would go after inedible materials and materials that
would not compete with food sources or encourage that sort of
land use.
So that has been the preliminary work, and we are
continuing to look at all possibilities. Thank you so much.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. Anybody
else like to comment on the question? Mr. Glover.
Mr. Glover. I would actually like to comment on something
that hasn't come up, if you will indulge me.
Mr. Olson. Fire away.
Mr. Glover. This is a new industry. This is jobs. This is
not only technology and environment but it is also jobs. It is
an opportunity that I hope you recognize and can help us go
down the path. We are trying to do our best, and we would sure
like to work with everyone to get it done.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much for that answer. I yield
back my time, Madam Chairwoman.
Where Is the U.S. in Comparison to Europe on Biofuels?
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson. Following up on
what Mr. Glover said, I agree it is jobs but it is also an
ability for us to inspire that next generation. We spend a lot
of time talking about space in this subcommittee and in this
room, and kids are much more in tune with what is happening
with the environment, what is happening with the planet. They
want to do things in a new and innovative way. And so I think
in terms of some of the work that we do to try to get more kids
active in STEM education areas, this is a really key way.
I just would like to close with one question which is a
broad, international question. I know that the European
community recently awarded a contract to ONERA which is a
French aerospace research office to look at all aspects of
alternative fuels for aviation. I also know that there is a
plan by 2012 to be perhaps taxing our airlines as they fly into
Europe, and I know that what we would do in the United States
is one thing. Obviously, those that would have international
businesses have another area that they have to focus on. So I
am just curious if our witnesses would like to talk about the
scope and comprehensiveness of the European community's
research plan and particularly in relation to ours.
Dr. Epstein. For the first 80 years or so of aviation,
there was a partnership between government and industry,
investing in research where the government and industry shared
research investments and then industry took to investing in
exciting new aerospace products.
To a large degree, that has eroded in this country over the
last decade or 15 years, and our products are so long that
although we have a brand-new engine that we are just
introducing, it is really the fruits of a NASA investment in
the early '80s and early '90s. What I see now is that the
preponderance of aerospace investment is moving from the United
States to Europe. And so now aerospace is the largest
manufactured export of the United States. It may not be in the
future. We need the investment, we need the excitement to bring
young people. I see as you pointed out inspiring young people--
I find it is very inspiring for our older people. It has been
astonishing how people come up to me and say, you know, I am
really glad to see the company is doing things to make the
planet better and to help do the green. I think the Nation has
to consider its balance of investments in terms of research and
technology, and aerospace frankly has been languishing and we
may have a problem going forward in the future.
The one other thing I would add is for emissions and
climate, the world and the industry has been very well-served
by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which
sets standards for noise and for emissions. The FAA is the
representative of the United States. For manufacturers, it
tells us what is coming, it lets us plan our products, lets us
invest in research so we can meet upcoming requirements. I
think it is very important that we not let other countries
impose standards but work together with these international
bodies in a consortium to understand where we are going and
continue to allow us to do this long-term planning. Thank you.
Dr. Maurice. Thank you. If I could just specifically talk
about where we are at with respect to Europe on the subject
today, biofuels, I think that is an area that we had, and that
particular consortium that you noted actually came to us to
learn from how we had formed CAAFI. So I think that that is an
area in which we do have leadership, and I fully agree with you
on the inspiration as 25 years ago I came to work in this
industry to work on alternative fuels for aviation and
hopefully will get it right this time. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. Before bringing this
hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for being
here today. I want to thank our Members and for Mr. Olson. I
think it was a good discussion. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional statements from the Members and for
answers to any of the follow-up questions that Subcommittee
Members may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses are excused,
and this hearing is now adjourned. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator, Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. I understand that NASA primarily focuses on mid- to long-tern
research in aeronautics. If biofuels can be ready for use in a few
years, is there any role for NASA in this area? If so, what is it? How
would you go about developing an appropriate R&D plan to address the
issues you have highlighted in your testimony?
If a usable quantity of biofuels becomes available for aviation
use in a few years, for a near-term, NASA could participate in
community's effort in assessing the safety and performance of their use
in aircraft.
A1. The process used to develop an appropriate research and development
(R&D) plan would be similar to the process currently in place to
develop existing R&D plans. In brief, NASA begins by working with
parties concerned with the technology being considered and our partners
from other government agencies, industry and academia to define
objectives, understand the key issues and challenges, develop estimates
of the time and resources needed to address those challenges, identify
the appropriate roles for NASA and its partners that make the best use
of the capabilities possessed by each organization, and determine the
expected outcome based on the resources and talents that will be
employed. NASA has participated in Commercial Aviation Alternative
Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) roadmapping exercises for fuel property
testing and component and engine testing to begin this process for
biofuels, and we will continue that involvement.
Q2. In assessing federal efforts with regards to achieving the goal of
enabling new aviation fuels to ensure a secure and stable supply, the
Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D says:
``DOD efforts to develop new alternative aviation fuels are
making progress, but civil efforts, though making some
progress, are not adequate to meet both the near- and the
combined mid- and far-term objectives in a timely manner
without either reconsidering the objectives or the current
allocation of resources.''
What more should the Federal Government be doing in this area?
A2. The chief impediments to large-scale production are economic and
environmental, and these barriers are being addressed by the
Departments of Defense (DOD) (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
Energy (DOE) as well as private energy sector R&D. NASA has supported
this activity with laboratory studies of Fisher-Tropsch (F-T) chemistry
to improve jet fuel yield.
Q3. Has NASA's research on engine exhaust emissions using alternative
fuels given you sufficient confidence that these fuels will enable
significant reductions of harmful emissions such as sulfur and
particulates? What additional research, if any, do you think is needed?
A3. NASA evaluations of alternative fuel emissions so far have been
limited to F-T fuels produced from natural gas or coal. NASA has found
that pure F-T fuels and F-T fuel blends (F-T blended with conventional
JP-8 fuel) emit less sulfur oxides and significantly less particulates
than conventional fuels because the F-T fuels contained no sulfur or
aromatics (though sulfur and aromatics are present when pure F-T fuels
are blended with conventional JP-8), and the hydrogen content was
higher than conventional jet fuel. Nitrous oxides (NOX) and CO2
emissions were very similar to conventional jet fuel, as expected. Some
preliminary tests by DOD and FAA do show that biofuels have similar
emissions characteristics as F-T fuels.
Fundamental combustion research for these alternative fuels would
help improve our basic understanding of the physical phenomena involved
including fuel atomization, vaporization, and combustion chemistry.
This could help enable development of combustion systems with reduced
emissions that will use these fuels in the future. Additional research
also could be conducted to ensure durability and reliability of engines
when operated on drop-in alternative fuels and blends.
Q4. The Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics
Research and Development and Related Infrastructure released last
December identified two areas of increasing importance and high
uncertainty relating to air quality. The first area is fine particulate
matter, and the second is the potential for aviation to emit hazardous
air pollutants. The document says that there are currently no
standardized test procedures for particulate matter from aircraft
engines. Why are these two areas so problematic and will NASA be
involved in establishing standardized test procedures?
A4. The combustion process produces solid and volatile aerosol
particulates which are emitted into the atmosphere through the engine
exhaust. These particles are quite numerous and extremely small, with
an average size of less than 100 nanometers. Sampling and measuring
these is extremely difficult because effects of the sampling probe,
sampling lines, operating conditions, different measurement
instruments, etc., can have dramatic effects on the results. The SAE-E-
31 Aircraft Exhaust Emissions Measurement Committee is in the process
of developing measurement standards for particulates which is very
difficult due to these issues. They have published a document on
measurement techniques for measuring non-volatile exhaust particulates.
NASA (along with DOD, FAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is an active member of this subcommittee and currently performing
research to address some of these issues.
Q5. As you know, the Air Force has set a goal of certifying all its
aircraft to run on synthetic fuel by 2010, and having those flying
domestically do so on 50 percent synthetic fuels by 2016. What has NASA
learned from its collaboration with the Air Force on alternative fuel
research? Is there an opportunity for the Air Force to benefit from
civil aviation research into biofuels?
A5. NASA has benefited from collaborating with the Air Force on
alternative fuel research. NASA has purchased two Fischer-Tropsch fuels
in conjunction with the Air Force for our research activities. NASA has
also collaborated with the Air Force in exchanging fuel property data
for a number of alternative fuels. The Air Force has provided data to
NASA on their engine emissions measurements using alternative fuels.
NASA and the Air Force recently collaborated on emissions testing using
a Pratt and Whitney 308 engine with F-T fuel and the Aviation
Alternative Fuel Emissions Experiment using a NASA DC-8 aircraft with
two F-T fuels. NASA also has teamed with the Air Force for combustion
flame tube testing at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) using
alternative fuels.
NASA's fundamental combustion research can directly benefit the Air
Force. As an example, NASA work on alternative fuel reaction kinetics
was recently provided to the Air Force. NASA's work on developing
future low emissions combustion concepts with biofuels could directly
benefit the Air Force because some of their aircraft will have
commercial engines or derivatives of commercial engines. The Air Force
can also benefit from NASA research on biofuels. They are working with
NASA to identify algae producers to provide algae oil for their
research.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Biofuels Feedstock
Q1. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
feedstocks--jatropha, camelina, and algae discussed at the Subcommittee
hearing, especially with regard to land use, water use, processing, and
production rates?
A1. Camelina has recently become of interest because it is cold
tolerant, grows on marginal land, and can produce approximately 100
gallons per acre of feedstock oil. It can also be used as food crop.
Jatropha grows in tropical or semitropical climates on marginal lands
and can produce approximately 200 gallons per acre of feedstock oil. It
is not a food crop and some papers discuss issues with toxicity.
Jatropha is a bushy plant or small tree and the fruit is harvested by
hand. Algae can be grown in brackish water and has the potential to
produce much higher yields of 5,000 gallons per acre or more in wane
water but has many issues associated with growth and harvesting. This
is an active area of current research and new developments could have
an impact on these issues. Limited quantities of jet fuel have been
made using Jatropha, camelina, and algae oil.
Certification vs. Research
Q2. Dr. Maurice stated that some forms of biofuels may be certified
``as early as the end of 2010.'' Dr. Shin, you stated that NASA
``believes long-term, foundational research on understanding of fuel
processing, combustor and engine performance, durability of engine
components and emission characteristics will be required for
application of second generation biofuels in aviation.'' Are these two
statements in conflict with each other? How should they be reconciled?
A2. Biojet fuel certification is a procedure to make sure fuel will
meet stringent requirements for current engines, meaning no engine
modification is required. The statements are not contradictory.
Certification of biofuel blends (as stated by Dr. Maurice) by 2010 does
not negate the need to perform long-term, foundational research on
understanding of fuel processing, combustor and engine performance,
durability of engine components and emission characteristics. It is
unlikely that biofuels will be produced from a single feedstock source
or processing technology, which may result in some variations in fuel
properties. Changing fuel composition can have dramatic effects on fuel
atomization, vaporization and combustion chemistry, which in turn will
affect the emissions and performance of the combustion system.
Fundamental combustion research is therefore required to fully
understand the effects of additional evolving fuels on combustor
performance and emissions. NASA is also performing research and working
with engine companies and universities to develop fuel flexible
combustors that reduce NOX, CO, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulate
emissions for future aircraft engines that will be more fuel efficient
than the current generation. This is not an easy task and will require
the development of new combustor concepts in order to meet these goals.
These future combustor concepts may be able to utilize some of the
unique properties of these alternative fuels to reduce emissions beyond
what can be achieved with current jet fuel.
Hydroprocessed Fuels
Q3. How does hydroprocessing biofuels differ from Fischer-Tropsch,
especially with regard to production efficiency, CO2, and
technical maturity? Does one process have a distinct advantage over the
other?
A3. Hydroprocessing bio oils to produce jet fuel requires less energy
than does the Fischer-Tropsch process with natural gas, coal or biomass
as the feedstock because the composition of the bio oil feedstock is
much closer to the final desired product. Life cycle CO2
emissions produced for jet fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process are
higher than conventional petroleum processing but can be reduced using
carbon sequestration and including biomass as part of the feedstock,
Life cycle CO2 emissions using hydroprocessing of bio oils
are reduced compared to petroleum. This is an active area of research
and results are very dependent on the assumptions used in the
assessment, particularly land use considerations. Fischer-Tropsch
processing to produce jet fuel from coal or natural gas has been
demonstrated on a large scale and is currently used by Sasol and Shell.
Hydroprocessing has been used by the chemical industry for a number of
years but has not been demonstrated on a large scale to convert bio
oils into jet fuel.
Engine Performance
Q4. What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
generation turbine engines?
A4. To fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in
current generation engines would require both engine and flight testing
as a minimum. Complete testing of fuel specifications would be required
and include separate testing of seal compatibility and fuel lubricity.
If any issues are encountered, other component testing might be
required such as combustor, fuel nozzle, fuel pump, or other
components. Static engine testing on the ground would be required to
evaluate emissions and performance issues associated with use of the
biofuels. It would also provide an indication of any issues associated
with the fuel system including seals or fuel pump wear issues. Assuming
enough fuel was available, it could also provide an assessment of
reliability and safety issues. Flight testing would probably also be
required in order to assess aircraft system effects, transient
operation, and altitude relight capability. The FAA-led Continuous Low
Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program, seeks to support these
types of tests. NASA is providing support to the FAA in the planning
and execution of the CLEEN program.
Cap-and-Trade
Q5. In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
increased operational tempos into these markets?
A5. NASA currently does not have any expectations related to offsets.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientific and Technical
Advisor, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation
Administration
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. In assessing federal efforts with regards to achieving the goal of
enabling new aviation fuels to ensure a secure and stable supply, the
Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D says:
``DOD efforts to develop new alternative aviation fuels are
making progress, but civil efforts, though making some
progress, are not adequate to meet both the near- and the
combined mid- and far-term objectives in a timely manner
without either reconsidering the objectives or the current
allocation of resources.''
What more should the Federal Government be doing in this area?
A1. The role of the Federal Government in enabling new aviation fuels
for civil aviation involves three key areas: supporting activities to
facilitate the approval of new fuels for use by commercial aircraft,
assessing the overall environmental impacts of new fuels, and fostering
development of alternative fuel production and infrastructure
capability.
The Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to advance alternative
fuels were ahead of those of the commercial sector at the time the
Technical Appendix to the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D was written
and published (December 2008). However, more resources have since been
focused on the civil sector including investment by private industry in
flight demonstrations, the FY 2009 funding of the Continuous Low
Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program which will seek to advance
and demonstrate alternative fuels for commercial aviation with a focus
on renewable options, and additional funding by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), and the DOD for emissions measurements and greenhouse gases
life cycle analyses. We believe that sufficient federal resources are
now in place to meet both the near- and the combined mid- and far-term
alternative fuels objectives of the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D.
Q2. Is the alignment of government and industry R&D initiatives you
describe in your testimony equivalent to an integrated R&D plan for
biofuels in aviation? Is it important to have an integrated plan? If
there is an integrated plan, is it being used to determine the funding
plans of each of the involved agencies in such R&D, and have all of the
agencies formally committed to the implementation of the integrated
plan?
A2. The member organizations of the Commercial Aviation Alternative
Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) have jointly prepared roadmaps for alternative
aviation fuels (including biofuels) research and development (R&D),
certification, environmental assessment, and business development
efforts. These roadmaps have led to increasing coordination among
organizations and have served to guide funding plans of each of the
agencies involved, as well as those of the private sector. The CAAFI
member federal agencies have not made formal commitments beyond those
outlined in the National Plan for Aeronautics R&D. However, although
the CAAFI roadmaps are not equivalent to an integrated roadmap or
represent funding commitments, they have proven very effective in
aligning efforts and the need for a more formal integrated plan is not
clear. To date, key tasks identified by CAAFI stakeholders are on or
ahead of schedule, and we are confident that our mutual interests will
provide the cohesiveness required for success.
Q3. CAAFI lists, among its work to date, ``supporting R&D on low
carbon fuels sourced from plant oils, algae, and biomass.'' What is the
nature of CAAFI's support? Is it providing any funding or other
resource commitments?
A3. CAAFI participants are devoting significant resources in support of
low carbon biofuels, although CAAFI does not fund research per se.
CAAFI is a coalition of stakeholders that individually sponsor and
collectively coordinate research to meet CAAFI's goals. The Boeing.
Continental, and CFM International flight test program completed in
January 2009 is one example of industry investment in this area. The
FAA has funded work in the form of an alternative jet fuel life cycle
analysis framework and measurements of alternative fueled engine
emissions, and is providing leadership in the development of a new fuel
certification process via ASTM International. Another CAAFI sponsor,
the Air Transport Association, has signaled its commitment to
alternative fuels with the introduction of their alternative fuels
principles to support deployment of fuels that meet safety,
environmental and economic criteria. CAAFI has also encouraged its
members who are interested to submit proposals under the Department of
Agriculture program to develop biofuel capacity.
Q4. The Air Transport Association says on its web site:
``In light of this regulatory arrangement and the fact that
the specification for Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel is identified in
the FAA approval certificate, no other type of fuel can be
utilized at this time in the United States. Much work needs to
be done before alternative fuels can safely be used in
commercial aircraft operation with approval from the FAA.''
Do you agree with that statement? If so, what additional work
needs to be done and when do you anticipate it will be completed?
A4. We agree, but with the following clarifications. ``No other type of
fuel'' refers to a fuel that does not meet the specification properties
of Jet A/A-1 fuel. However, it is possible to use ``other types of
fuel,'' or alternative fuels shown to closely meet the specification
properties of Jet A/A-1 after sufficient test and analysis work (in
addition to the specification properties) show that these fuels are
``fit for purpose,'' (i.e., can be safely used in commercial aircraft
operations). We expect seamless integration of these alternative fuels,
called ``drop-in'' fuels, into the distribution system and aircraft
operations.
Three classes of drop-in alternative aviation fuels are currently
under consideration. Fischer-Tropsch (FT) fuels have completed the fit
for purpose evaluation. An industry specification incorporating these
fuels is under review, and the ASTM International Aviation Fuels
Subcommittee should approve it this year. Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet
(HRJ) fuels are currently being evaluated for fit for purpose, and we
expect that they will be incorporated into the aviation fuels
specification within the next one or two years. Bio-chemically derived
fuels are currently in the R&D stage and will follow the HRJ fuels by
one to two years.
Q5. Why is a standardized development readiness scale, similar in
concept to the Technology Readiness Level scale used by DOD and NASA,
needed to track the fuel development, approval and commercialization
process? How far away are we from the establishment and global
acceptance of such a scale?
A5. CAAFI needed a way to classify and track progress on research,
certification, and demonstration activities for alternative fuels. A
variety of scales were in use by CAAFI member organizations including
the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) used by industry, NASA, and the
Air Force, and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) used by the U.S. Air
Force and others. Originally, an Airbus CAAFI representative developed
a special TRL scale for fuel development, but it was a mixture of
research achievements and production development. The CAAFI leadership
team felt we needed a new fuel development scale that would allow for
parallel fuel research activities and certification activities, as well
as clearly show how to transition activities between the CAAFI R&D,
certification, environment, and business and economics teams.
The resulting Fuel Readiness Level (FRL) scale shown below includes
descriptions customized to fuels research and certification events, and
contains specific items of interest to CAAFI members such as required
fuel quantities to achieve specific milestones. It also reflects the
reality that fuels research, production development, and certification
activities may occur at the same time, so a fuel may have different FRL
numbers for R&D and certification.
The CAAFI leadership team is currently coordinating the FRL scale
with CAAFI member organizations in the U.S. and Europe. The roadmaps
and milestone databases developed and maintained by CAAFI use FRL to
help organize and track the research and development milestones and the
process of developing, certifying, and supplying alternative fuels to
commercial aviation.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Biofuels Feedstock
Q1. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of the
feedstocks--jatropha, camelina, and algae--discussed at the
Subcommittee hearing, especially with regard to land use, water use,
processing and production rates?
A1. Jatropha and camelina have an advantage in that they are ready for
use now; they can grow in marginal or under-utilized land, do not
compete with food sources, and do not require considerable water
resources. Camelina is attractive because it can grow as a rotational
crop, returning nutrients to the soil between wheat crops. In terms of
disadvantages, both jatropha and camelina have relatively low oil
yields per acre, and the biomass co-product of jatropha is toxic.
Cultivating jatropha and camelina in large enough quantities to meet
fuel demands will require vast amounts of acreage and careful land use
planning to avoid increased carbon emissions from potential land use
changes. There are also concerns about the unintended consequences of
introducing a non-native, potentially invasive species to the North
American ecosystem.
Algae feedstocks have a number of advantages. It can realize the
highest production rate of any known bio-based feedstock, could grow on
marginal or desert lands (perhaps even in the ocean), and does not
require fresh water. However, it does require sources of salt or brine
water. To achieve commercial growth rates, the algae also need a supply
of carbon dioxide (CO2) from an external source, such as a
fossil fuel power plant. The largest challenge in terms of energy
inputs and environmental impacts lies in separating the water from the
algae to enable extracting enable extraction of the oil. There are a
large number of research organizations and commercial ventures working
to overcome this challenge, but algae is thus far not yet ready for
large scale fuel production.
It is important to note that a single feedstock will not provide a
solution. We will need to pursue a variety of feedstocks and processes
to enable an adequate supply of alternative fuels for aviation.
Certification vs. Research
Q2. Dr. Maurice, you stated that some forms of biofuels may be
certified ``as early as the end of 2010.'' Dr. Shin stated that NASA
``believes long-term, foundational research on understanding of fuel
processing, combustor and engine performance, durability of engine
components and emission characteristics will be required for
application of second generation biofuels in aviation.'' Are these two
statements in conflict with each other? How should they be reconciled?
A2. I do not believe that there is conflict between these two
statements. Dr. Shin's statement generally applies to biofuels at
greater than 50 percent blends. At 50 percent or less, Fischer-Tropsch
(FT) and hydroprocessed renewable jet HRJ biofuels are consistent with
my statement. We forecast approval of FT fuels for use in 2009; these
fuels will likely include biomass components. We also forecast approval
for use by as early as the end of 2010 of HRJ--the fuel recently flown
in the Boeing flight tests--at a 50 percent blend with conventional
petroleum derived jet fuel. Industry and the Department of Defense
(DOD) are currently collecting data on the properties and performance
of these fuels in aircraft and engines that lead us to believe that
certification is achievable in the near-term. Both HRJ and other next
generation biofuel and processes will likely benefit from long-term
research as outlined by Dr. Shin, particularly in the case of use of
100 percent biofuels.
Hydroprocessed fuels
Q3. How does hydroprocessing biofuels differ from Fischer-Tropsch,
especially with regard to production efficiency, CO2 and
technical maturity? Does one process have a distinct advantage over the
other?
A3. Hydroprocessed biofuels require a renewable oil source (such as
that extracted from jatropha, camelina, or algae), while Fischer-
Tropsch (FT) synthesis uses natural gas, coal or solid biomass from an
energy crop such as miscanthus (a grass) or agriculture or forestry
residues/waste. The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and
process efficiency of both depend heavily on the choice of feedstock,
including approaches to growth and collection. It is possible to
capture a large fraction of the emissions from an FT plant with the use
of a carbon capture and storage system. FT facilities that do not use
carbon capture may need to use a much higher quantity of biomass in
order to be environmentally beneficial. Without specific knowledge of
the plant configuration and the feedstock, we cannot readily or
generically compare the CO2 emissions and production
efficiency of hydroprocessing and FT synthesis. However, our initial
computations do show that hydroprocessed fuels generally have lower
life cycle emissions than FT fuels.
The technology for FT fuels synthesis is mature and in commercial
use. The technology for hydroprocessed biofuels is also technically
mature, although not as mature as that of FT processes. Neste Oil is
currently constructing several facilities to produce hydroprocessed
fuels for the diesel market. In addition, UOP Honeywell and Syntroleum
have demonstrated the technology to create hydroprocessed jet fuels.
Engine Performance
Q4. What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
generation turbine engines?
A4. The type and scale of research required to fully understand the
performance and behavior of biofuels in current-generation turbine
engines will vary depending on the characteristics of the candidate
fuel and its similarity to other approved fuels. A complete research
program would most likely not go beyond the following elements:
Initial laboratory evaluation for compliance with the
Jet A/A-1 specification properties. This requires about one
gallon of the fuel.
A more in-depth laboratory evaluation of the fuel to
determine if it meets the fit for purpose properties of
conventionally derived and produced Jet A/A-1 fuel. This would
involve about 80 gallons of fuel. We could complete these first
two steps in two to four months.
Materials compatibility testing of the fuel with a
defined set of aircraft materials. This would take a small
amount of fuel (less than 10 gallons) and take two to four
months to complete.
Engine fuel component testing, engine combustor rig
testing, and Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) testing with the
candidate fuel. This will require approximately 4000 gallons of
the candidate fuel and could take six to eight months to
complete.
Engine ground testing. This will require
approximately 200,000 gallons of the fuel and could take up to
a year complete.
Note that an alternative fuel may not necessarily have to go
through all five of these steps. Industry experts (aircraft, engine and
fuel manufacturers) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may
agree that the fuel's characteristics are so similar to petroleum based
Jet-A fuel that no further testing is required.
Cap-and-Trade
Q5. In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
governments as carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
increased operational tempos into these markets.
A5. Assuming we can establish a standardized framework for a validated
life cycle analysis (LCA), including any land use changes, we expect to
document that biofuel blends will have lower life cycle carbon
emissions. They could be eligible for prorated carbon offsets based on
their audited LCA results. If we can determine that a particular fuel
or fuel blend has lower life cycle carbon emissions than those of
conventional petroleum derived fuels, it seems prudent to offer credits
for the use of such fuels within systems regulating carbon, such as
cap-and-trade. The targeting of any credit will depend upon how a
scheme is set up and the point of regulation (e.g., fuel producer or
user). It is possible that offering such credits would permit continued
or increased aviation operations without the need for offsets. Current
work by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Group on
International Aviation and Climate Change is looking at develop this
type of metric for aviation that would adjust for life cycle carbon
content of fuels.
Alternative Fuels Research
Q6. Are you aware if the U.S. has previously researched alternative
aviation fuel sources, perhaps arising out of past oil embargoes? If
so, how would you contrast today's research with previous efforts?
A6. Yes, I am aware that the U.S. had a large government sponsored
program in the late 1970s and early 1980s to produce alternative
aviation fuels. I started my professional career working on this
program. The focus at that time was to develop synthetic fuels from
fossil resources, such as shale oil, tar sands and coal, to ensure
energy availability and security after the energy crisis of the 1970s.
This effort faded, with the dramatic oil glut of the 1980s. I think it
instructive with world economic growth showing the largest slowing in
nearly 60 years, oil prices still remain twice the levels they were
earlier this decade. The return of economic growth will likely reignite
pressures on oil prices quickly. In addition, today's alternative fuels
research is different in that there are a new set of environmental
drivers not present in the previous effort. Air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions are now major concerns for aviation, in addition to a
secure energy supply and cost. There appears to be fundamental
increased need and emphasis that contribute to the relevance and
prospects for successful achievement of our current efforts.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Alan H. Epstein, Vice President, Technology and
Environment, Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies Corporation
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. Your testimony states that we don't need to do any more research
before introducing biofuels into civil aviation--that ``there are no
unanswered scientific questions.'' Yet, it seems that we need to make
sure that we don't wind up starting down the path of planning for the
widespread use of a particular aviation `biofuel' before we understand
(1) its impact on emissions, (2) the constraints it may impose on
future aircraft technology options, and (3) the impact its production
would have on the environment, especially on land use and water
requirements. How should we, as a nation, go about picking the best
aviation biofuel or biofuels to promote?
A1. My answer, ``. . . from the propulsion provider's point of view . .
. there are no unanswered scientific questions,'' was meant to
encompass a very narrow set of technical issues concerning the use of
specific class of biofuels (synthetic paraffinic kerosene, SPK) in
current engines. The message is that there is a near-term, technically
viable path to biofuels for commercial aviation.
From the wider points of view of the national endeavor and policy-
making perspectives, there is much still to be done to establish the
best paths forward--best in the economic, ecological, and technical
realms. As suggested in the question, this wider research agenda should
include:
the ecology of biofuels--their impact on land, water,
population patterns, wealth generation, and such;
agricultural/bioengineering approaches to sustainably
improving fuel yield per acre;
establishing a broader technology base for the
conversion of biomass into fuels suitable for aviation,
technology that can reduce the environmental footprint of the
conversion, widen the types of biomass that can be used, and
improve the overall economics;
engine research focused on exploring how the new
properties of biofuels and biofuel-conventional fuel mixes can
best be exploited in new engine designs to further reduce
environmental impact--for example through reduce fuel burn and
reductions of particulates and NOX--and to reduce cost.
Q2. What data is Pratt & Whitney gathering to demonstrate that using
biofuels over the long-term will not impact the reliability and
maintainability the aircraft engines it produces?
What are the challenges associated with designing an aircraft
engine that runs optimally on biofuels? How far are we from seeing such
an engine on an airliner?
A2. While we have established that current engines can operate for
short periods of time (hours) on the drop-in biofuels tested to date
with no apparent deleterious effects, we have no direct engine data to
establish the effects of sustained biofuel use on engine reliability
and maintainability. This data would come from engine endurance testing
which will require several hundred thousand gallons or more of biofuel
(about 5-10 million gallons of fuel are burned in a jet engine between
overhauls). Such testing is not funded at this time.
Our engines are now optimized to operate on conventional fuel.
While preliminary analysis suggests that an engine optimized for
biofuel can have fuel economy and emissions superior to that of current
engines, little research work has been done to substantiate and exploit
the potential advantages of biofuels. Also, research is needed to
identify paths toward a dual fuel-optimized engine, one that could
realize the best performance with either conventional or biofuels,
depending on fuel availability. Without such an investment in engine
research, a biofuel-only optimized engine could not go into service
until operators could be guaranteed that a significant portion (say 50
percent) of the fuel they purchased was biofuel. This would require
biofuel production levels of tens of billions of gallons a year, a
level which may be several decades away.
Q3. You indicate in your prepared statement that once biojet fuels are
deployed into commercial service, it would be prudent to institute
periodic evaluations as engines age. You further state that this is
typically done when designs are changed or new materials are
identified. What are some examples of new designs or new materials that
have resulted in periodic evaluations? Who funded these tests and
evaluations?
What should be the Federal Government's role helping assess the
viability of biofuels for aviation and facilitating their widespread
use? Does more need to be done than is currently being done?
A3. When it is clear that a new material or design change is safe but
that there may be uncertainty with the economic life, a ``controlled
service release'' can be a useful tool for reducing this uncertainty.
In commercial service, the airline and/or original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) will inspect the parts in question at relatively
frequent intervals to monitor deterioration. One example was a new
turbine blade coating that promised longer life and reduced costs to
operators. This was first deployed on a single airline with unusually
harsh operating conditions. The coated blades were frequently inspected
on the wing for several years. Historically, the beneficiaries of such
testing pay for it. In commercial service, this would typically be the
OEM and/or airline. Since there is no established aviation biofuel
industry at this time to provide such funding, government support would
help stimulate the aviation biofuel industry by instilling the
confidence with biofuels among regulatory authorities, equipment
suppliers, airlines.
Q4. Your prepared statement indicates that the growth of the civil
aviation biofuel market is dependent on, among other things,
authoritative, peer-reviewed quantitative research to establish the
carbon footprint of various biofuels and document their sustainable
nature. You also say that this will be an ongoing process which should
be supported by governments and universities. Can you elaborate on how
a consensus on the carbon footprints will be achieved and how long this
may take?
A4. Scientific research cycles are several years long--proposals are
solicited prepared and evaluated; research performed and documented;
papers reviewed and dissimulated at conferences and in journals. A
quantitative, scientific consensus on all aspects of aviation biofuels
may take several such cycles, depending upon such things as the
difficulty and complexity of the topic. Detailed understanding of the
carbon footprint and sustainability of specific biofuels has barely
started. This is a complex multi-disciplinary topic and relatively few
studies have been completed. Some have been influential, for example
vectoring the community away from palm oil and pointing out the
importance of avoiding deforestation. Some feed stocks are already
under study, such as jatrophia and camelina, and initial qualitative
work suggests that these can be sustainable when properly managed.
Quantitative consensus may reached in as little as three to five years,
depending upon the scope of the studies. Expeditious funding of a
diverse research community can help both in accelerating such research
and in promoting wide dissemination and discussion.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Engine Performance
Q1. What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
generation turbine engines?
A1. In the case of a mix of synthetic paraffinic kerosene, SPK, and
conventional jet fuel as used in the JAL-P&W-Boeing flight tests, it
would be wise to carry out several so-called endurance tests. These
serve in the engine development process as accelerated life tests to
prove to commercial or military customers that the engine has the
durability and life claimed. Assuming availability of the biofuel, such
testing could be competed in 12-14 months for $10-20M.
Cap-and-Trade
Q2. In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
increased operational tempos into these markets?
A2. Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: We would expect that in a carbon regulated world,
the regulatory measures put in place by governments would be such as to
motivate behaviors that reduced the total carbon released into the
atmosphere. So for example, if a biofuel's total carbon footprint was
only 50 percent that of a conventional petroleum-derived fuel, the
operator using biofuel would need to purchase no more than 50 percent
of the carbon credits they would when using conventional fuel.
Alternatively, an operator's operations could double without enlarging
its carbon footprint. Such market-based flexibility would increase the
value of biofuel to airline operators--incentivizing their adoption.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environment
Strategy, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. What data is Boeing gathering to demonstrate that using biofuels
over the long-term will not impact on the reliability and
maintainability of the aircraft it produces?
A1. The data already collected indicates that the chemistry of the
synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) fuels pose no long-term reliability
or maintenance concerns. Engine companies will be evaluating the
compiled data over the next few months to determine if any additional
testing specifically for the SPKs known as hydrotreated renewable jet
fuels (HRJ) must be completed prior to fuel specification approval.
Q2. What should be the Federal Government's role in helping assess the
viability of biofuels for aviation and facilitating their widespread
use? Does more need to be done than is currently being done?
A2. Federal policy mechanisms should be utilized to assist accelerate
research and development that can increase yield of plant oil sources
and improve supply chain economics; encourage increased agricultural
output of suitable plant oils; help entrepreneurs to scale up and
capitalize new production capability; and designate use of sustainable
biofuel for use in aviation fuel. As mentioned in my testimony,
aviation does not have the range of alternative clean energy sources
that other fuel users have, so the opportunity to reduce aviation
greenhouse gases by use of sustainable biofuels is a very significant
and valuable.
Q3. Boeing has been quoted as having said that it had a hard time
finding biofuel suppliers who can produce testable quantities of their
product. Do you see this as a temporary annoyance or a growing problem?
A3. This is a temporary situation due to the fact that the technology
has evolved at faster pace than the production capacity. Federal policy
(see above and written testimony) can help assure that the market
development matures.
Q4. Have biofuel producers shown greater interest following recent
flight demonstrations? Are there infrastructure and distribution issues
that need to be addressed before widespread aviation biofuel use is
considered? If so, what are they?
A4. Considerable interest from potential biofuel producers has followed
the recent flight demonstrations. A number of scale up and potential
commercialization projects are under discussion. Federal support in
terms of research grants aimed at scale up, permit streamlining,
agricultural education, and loan guarantee programs would be helpful.
In addition, a ``sense of the Congress'' statement indicating the value
of directing advanced biofuels towards aviation would be supportive.
Q5. Is additional R&D needed to secure government, airline, and public
confidence that biofuels are safe and economically-viable supplements
or replacements for jet fuel? Who should conduct this additional R&D?
A5. Additional research and development is needed to improve yield and
increase the variety of plants that are/could be suitable for
sustainable biofuel for aviation. R&D that can improve harvesting and
processing methods is also needed. We are at the beginning of a
learning curve and additional research will help to accelerate long-
term viability and enable larger scale availability.
Q6. What major challenges do biofuels face in trying to secure
modifications to fuel specifications and FAA aircraft certifications?
What modifications to the specification of biofuels and aircraft
certifications are needed before biofuels can be used in civil
aviation?
A6. A new fuel specification for SPK fuels is in development in ASTM.
When complete, the new specification will define criteria for fuels
from biomass (and other sources) that, from a user point of view, can
be treated as ``equivalent'' to traditional jet fuel from petroleum
sources. Once the specification is in place, FAA approval of operation
with new SPK fuels will be straight forward. The FAA has played a
leadership role to oversee and assure proper development of new
specifications, and has strongly supported the work across the industry
as embodied in the Commercial Aviation Fuels Initiative and similar
efforts. Continued FAA involvement is required to enable further
developments and approval of alternative fuels.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Engine Performance
Q1. What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
generation turbine engines?
A1. The validation research for the new Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene
(SPK) fuels has been largely completed. Some additional endurance
testing may be needed to build full confidence. Engine companies will
be assessing that situation later this year.
Cap-and-Trade
Q2. In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
increased operational tempos into these markets?
A2. It is my expectation that biofuel blends should and will be
recognized as a carbon offset in such schemes. That is one method of
ensuring the value is recognized; however a careful construct is
required to avoid unintended consequences. For instance, if the means
of qualification is ambiguous or overly complex, it could actually
deter adoption of low carbon life cycle solutions.
Sustainable Biofuels
Q3. You define `sustainable biofuels' as having several
characteristics, such as using feedstocks that don't compete with food
and that don't displace native eco-systems. What regions of the world
would be ideal sources of feedstock that would go into the production
of biofuels? How do you address the challenge of transporting raw
feedstocks to a processing facility, especially for crops grown in
lesser developed areas of the world?
A3. Given the variety of potential feedstocks, there is also a wide
range of regions where sustainable feedstock might prove viable. Some
of those regions are hampered by lack of infrastructure, including
transport to market. Also, the agricultural work force may require
training to enable economic productivity and yield. I anticipate that
business interests and local communities will develop a wide portfolio
of solutions. Certainly, government actions to direct appropriate
economic, technology and educational attention could help to accelerate
beneficial results. Africa and Latin America are two areas where the
potential for sustainable biofuels is large, given proper attention.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President, Global Real
Estate and Security, Continental Airlines
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. Your prepared statement indicates that Continental would like to
see additional long-term materials compatibility testing for system
components like o-rings and seals by the manufacturers and the wide
dissemination of these results. Who should perform these tests and how
would they be funded? Based on your statement, are you concerned that
results would not be disseminated widely?
A1. While we were pleased with the test results we have obtained to
date, we believe additional long-term materials compatibility testing
for system components like o-rings and seals by the aircraft and engine
manufacturers would be useful. It is important for manufacturers to
disseminate their results through the fuel certification process as
well as their normal customer information transfer processes.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: While we were pleased with
the test results we have obtained to date, we would like to see
additional long-term materials compatibility testing for system
components like o-rings and seals by the manufacturers and the wide
dissemination of these results. The U.S. organization that certifies
jet fuel specifications for use in commercial aircraft is the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. They will
engage in an extensive data review process before approving new fuel
specifications and will decide whether any additional demonstrations
are necessary.
Q2. What should be the Federal Government's role in helping assess the
viability of biofuels for aviation and facilitating their widespread
use? Does more need to be done than is currently being done?
A2. The Federal Government should establish applicable government
policies to encourage widespread use of aviation biofuel use through
fiscal policy, tax policy, and energy policy. The Federal Government
needs to do more to establish polices that will help direct government
assistance to the develop biofuels, create infrastructure and
distribution systems to airports, and encourage widespread use by
airlines.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: While the test itself was
highly successful, significant challenges must still be overcome to
meet our goal of widespread use of biofuels in aviation.
A fuel specific standard must be developed which
meets key performance and compatibility criteria to ensure
safety.
We will also need to develop a U.S. regulatory
requirement mandating the level of quality throughout the
supply chain; starting at the refinery all the way through to
the airport.
Federal support will be needed to accelerate the
approval and deployment of several alternative aviation fuels
that have already been developed and tested.
Increased funding will be needed for ongoing U.S.
military efforts to develop alternative fuels for military jet
fleets that will transition to commercial fleets.
Because of the economic slowdown, investment dollars
for already conceived pilot plants and full-scale production
plants has dried up. Direct federal support for such
infrastructure investments and greater support in the area of
research and development, including the feasibility of pipeline
use for biofuel transport, may be needed to allow the
development plans to proceed.
In the end, we not only need a stable supply of
energy which is independent from foreign oil, but any
alternative fuel sources need to be produced in large enough
volumes that they are available at an economically viable
price. It will take many years to make a robust supply of
alternative fuels and a network to deliver it to airports, so
continuing our work toward that goal is important now.
Q3. In your opinion, what are the most realistic aviation biofuel
options for the near-term? How about for the long-term?
A3. The most optimistic biofuel options will depend on the government
and industry support for larger supplies of feedstocks and refiners to
spur a cost competitive biofuel. A variety of non-food based plant
sources such as camelina, halophytes, or jatropha maybe possible in the
near-term, while algae is seen more as a long-term option due to the
emerging technology needed to extract the algae oil. Biofuel providers
such as UOP will have more information on this topic.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: With the help of the
government and continued coordination of the industry, manufacturers
and fuel suppliers, we believe that, as long as an alternative fuel is
certified for aircraft use, meets the ``drop-in'' fuel requirement and
is available at an economically competitive price as compared to
traditional jet fuel, aircraft operators will have the confidence to
start using biofuel blends in revenue flights in the next five to 10
years. As the supplies increase in a commercially viable way, we will
be able to increase the blend percentage over the years.
Q4. Have biofuel producers shown greater interest following recent
flight demonstrations? Are there infrastructure and distribution issues
that need to be addressed before widespread biofuel use is considered?
If so, what are they?
A4. Yes, biofuel producers have shown increasing interest. Please refer
to answer to question #2. Biofuel providers, such as UOP, may have more
insight on the infrastructure needs.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR ORAL TESTIMONY: See #2. While the test itself
was highly successful, significant challenges must still be overcome to
meet our goal of widespread use of biofuels in aviation.
A fuel specific standard must be developed which
meets key performance and compatibility criteria to ensure
safety.
We need to develop a U.S. regulatory requirement
mandating the level of quality throughout the supply chain;
starting at the refinery all the way through to the airport.
Federal support will be needed to accelerate the
approval and deployment of several alternative aviation fuels
that have already been developed and tested.
Because of the economic slowdown, investment dollars
for already conceived pilot plants and full-scale production
plants has dried up. Direct federal support for such
infrastructure investments and greater support in the area of
research and development, including the feasibility of pipeline
use for biofuel transport, may be needed to allow the
development plans to proceed.
In the end, we not only need a stable supply of
energy which is independent from foreign oil, but any
alternative fuel sources need to be produced in large enough
volumes that they are available at an economically viable
price. It will take many years to make a robust supply of
alternative fuels and a network to deliver it to airports, so
continuing our work toward that goal is important now.
With the help of the government and continued coordination of the
industry, manufacturers and fuel suppliers, we believe that, as long as
an alternative fuel is certified for aircraft use, meets the ``drop-
in'' fuel requirement and is available at an economically competitive
price as compared to traditional jet fuel, aircraft operators will have
the confidence to start using biofuel blends in revenue flights in the
next five to 10 years.
Q5. Some critics minimize the importance of recent flight
demonstrations. What is your response to such criticism?
A5. The flight demonstration was a small, but significant step of many
toward the development of alternative energy solutions. It was a
visible milestone in getting public acceptance of biofuel as a viable
fuel for aviation. Our goal in this test was to work with Boeing and
CFM to demonstrate that biofuels are safe and we will continue to work
with our partners to make sure that safety is our priority.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Although the flight
demonstration was one small step of many toward the development of
alternative energy solutions, we were able to help gather important
data that is needed for the fuel certification process before the
biofuel can be used by the airline industry.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Engine Performance
Q1. What is the type and scale of research that would be required to
fully understand the behavior and performance of biofuels in current-
generation turbine engines?
A1. Continental and the airlines will work together with the aircraft
and engine manufacturers to fully understand the performance of
biofuels in engines, particularly during the biofuel certification
process. To fully understand the scale of the research needed for the
engines, we would need to defer to engine manufacturers such as CFM or
Pratt & Whitney.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN TESTIMONY: To this end, Continental was
pleased that the fuel property and performance tests showed that the
biofuel blend we tested acted just like traditional jet fuel. The
multitude of tests performed by Boeing, CFM, UOP, the Air Force
Research Lab, as well as other third party labs on the biofuel prior to
our flight, all show that the biofuel we used performs just like
traditional jet fuel, with no difference in engine or system
performance. Continental is working with Boeing and all of its other
flight test partners to compile the results of the testing performed on
the various biofuels used in other carriers' flight demonstrations.
Cap-and-Trade
Q2. In aviation markets where carbon emissions schemes may be imposed,
is it your expectation that using biofuel blends would be recognized by
governments as a carbon offset, thus permitting continued or perhaps
increased operational tempos into these markets?
A2. The availability of biofuels at economically viable prices would
allow our industry to meet increasing strict pollution standards
without limiting the transportation industry's growth.
WHAT WE SAID IN OUR ORAL TESTIMONY: Biofuels represents an
important option for the airline industry to reduce their already small
greenhouse gas footprint. We would be remiss if we did not mention that
more focus on the potential, the development and the use of alternative
fuels is far more productive than to consider the imposition of some
kind of cap and trade policy on the airlines.
As you probably know, government actions which ``cap'' a company's
existing carbon footprint and then ``reward'' future improvement could
have the perverse effect of punishing those who are already diligently
reducing our greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily through the purchase
of new aircraft. Instead of creating benefits for those who have been
unwilling to invest in a clean environment until the government told
them to do so, we ought to provide standards which reward excellence
and are required to be met by all. Developing a safe and reliable
biofuels alternative is an important means of meeting that goal.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record