Shannon Aero's review for replacing the aircraft gas turbine engine.
What will happen to jet engines?
The ideal engine to replace the gas turbine engine "would be the most fuel efficient at its thrust level, the most reliable, the lightest, the quietest and the cleanest engine; all made at the lowest cost. (RR).
Gas turbine engines will not go down with out a fight! They have plenty of gas left in the tank
Catalogue of capabilities of the gas turbine engine.
Fuel: Jet-A or SAF? Its complex!!
Low output of SAV makes air transportation more dependent on oil for the next 25 years!
How are those companies doing, the ones set up to do expensive R & D, to make fuel for less money, than tapping already existing oil out of the ground?
Will fossil fuel producer keep output steady, keep Jet-A pricing low, to keep SAV out of the market?
Can or will institutional investors' shift investments from fossil fuel companies to SAV?
Will Civil Society Groups & the "Greata" effect stigmatize Jet-A powered aircraft?
Biofuel startup record is not that good!
How are those companies doing, the ones set up to do expensive R & D, to make fuel for less money, than tapping already existing oil out of the ground?
Hype risk - cheaper oil from cheap oil!
The value of these resources is $310 trillion. The earnings from these resources are the sovereign funds that finance most investment activity in the world.
The political balance between the producer and consumer countries could be destabilizing as the Paris Agreement deadlines get nearer. The producers are in a strong negotiating position because (1) they can argue that the consumer countries are the cause of pollution and should endure the cost of solving the emissions problem, and (2) they can argue that the USA and Canada, have conflicting positions because they are both producers and consumers.
As money talks, those investment institutions managing producer country sovereign funds may develop greensplaing policies to appease Civil Society groups and may be pressured to back climate change policies that are in the best interests of the producing countries. It is a realistic possibility that the producing countries are going to determine critical elements climate change strategy, in as far as humanity has options. 1. Narrowing the analysis of climate change for the aerospace sector to its simplest form, the complexity of this problem stems from the inevitability that the gas turbine engine (GTE) will be replaced by the Net-Zero Engine, a new propulsion technology; and fossil fuel will be replaced by a renewable energy that is more sustainable. 2. A key criterion for investing in an innovative technology is the growth potential of the market. Aircraft production is characterized by consolidation and a dependence on government contracts, in a process ongoing for more than 80 years, reaching its zenith when the defense-contractor system was created in the 1950s.3. Because it is necessary to sustain the national defense system, the policy emerged where priority in aerospace spending focuses on “feeding the beast.” This leaves very little room for start-up companies to enter the research and development market, a critical starting point for entering the market.4. Government defense needs presumes that aircraft contracts are directed to companies that already do business with the government. 5. The realistic option in the aircraft industry is that manufacturers will continue to merge and restructure and in the process the investor pool may be rearranged and not redirected to startup competitors. 6. Investors are unsure when NZE will replace GTE technology and which energy source will replace Jet-A. Will it be a blend, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), electricity, hydrogen, or hybrid?7. Ideas and conceptual drawings to not rise to the level of a design that will qualify for type certification.8. The lead time from announcing a new aircraft design to delivery of the first one to an airline is in the range of ten to fifteen years.9. The airframe manufacturers, Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and the other OEMS, cannot move beyond the concept stage, until they know what NZE) technology is going to replace the GTE. 10. The GTE manufacturers do not have any NZE aircraft technology in development and so the day the GTE can be replaced is far off.11. For airlines and lessors, ordering and financing aircraft to meet the ageing fleet, “replacement demand,”and the aircraft for “growth demand” when air traffic recovers to its growth trajectory, awaits decisions that only the GTE manufacturers can decide.12. The winner, in the race to produce the renewable, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (RSAF) that must eventually replace the non-renewable, non-sustainable fossil oil energy supply, is at the research stage. 13. The quantities of biomass produced is limited to the amount needed to study fuel blending because of the uncertainty surrounding the GTE/NZE question. 14. The agreed upon RSAF that will fuel the next generation of engines in far from being decided, delaying the day that engine manufacturers can build the engine suited to that propulsion source.15. It is in manufacturers commercial interest to delay the day they must phase out the production of GTEs and for good reason.16. The global pool of engines and those on back- order will not run out their life cycles for another 20 years, suggesting the earliest the GTE manufacturers would want to start the process of switching over to NZE technology is a few years before or after 2050.17. GTE manufacturers do not have the motivation to replace their product lines because every military, civilian and utility aircraft in service today is powered by GTE engines (engine pool). 18. The GTE care and maintenance market is one GE, Pratt, Whitney, Rolls-Royce, and others in the maintenance support chain, will not want to abandon because, parts sales generate more than the original price of the engines. Their business models depend on supporting the engines they sell across markets. 19. Most engine parts purchases are in small quantities. Airlines make most purchases in units of less than a hundred and therefore must repeat transactions often. In the process this creates a cash-flow stream for suppliers, over the operating lifetime of the engine. 20. The more technical the part, the more engine buyers expect installation services, application aids, parts, post purchase repair and maintenance, retrofitted enhancements, and vendor R&D to keep the products effective and up to date for as long as possible and to help the operator stay competitive, typically that is for ten to twenty years. (Harvard).21. GTE manufacturers have long-term power-by-the-hour revenue programs in place with airlines, business aircraft owners and lessors, which are cash positive and profitable. 22. Even if the timeline for transitioning to GTE to NZE technology is twenty years off, the manufacturers, will want to invest in NZEs on the condition that the engine pool converts to NZE at the same time. 23. Manufacturers will do everything possible to protect this revenue stream for as long as it is politically tenable. 24. Startups may enter the market with technology that may disrupt the incumbents, but they face a roadblock in that a startups do not have the capability to support untested technology for the typical 20-to-30-year life cycle, they do not have unencumbered access to the existing supply chain and they do not have post-sale parts supply agreement or power-by-the-hour programs. 25. This is setting up a Climate Change conundrum for aircraft supply chain and gives the oil producers a vital say in the outcome. 26. Many investment institutions have declared a willingness to withdraw funding from the oil industry if the producers fail to make a credible plan to meet the Paris Agreement objectives.27. The investment institutions, that invest oil revenues for the producers, will want to continue supporting the Oil States and the oil industry until extractable reserves are exhausted. 28. They will be timid to invest client’s money in technologies designed to replace fossil fuel. 29. The member countries of the United Nations know that for as long as there are extractable fossil fuel reserves within the borders of oil producing nations, many countries will extract it.30. They must because oil is the mainstay of strategic developing economies that control, not just oil, but other natural resources critical to the global economy.31. It would be political folly for the Oil State governments to expect citizens to forego the only wealth generator capable of providing them with gainful employment.32. That imperative will remain for as long as oil is cheaper than any other energy source that wants to compete with it in price, volume, and distribution. 33. For those investment institutions who say they want to back the renewable energy sector companies competing with oil; and that are willing to cut back investments in the oil sector, those banks will need to demonstrate that renewable energy can be produced in quantities that do not dislocate the economies of oil producing nations or put the oil companies out of business.34. The oil companies know this. They do not have the motivation to replace fossil fuel with renewable fuel because virtually every internal combustion engine in the world, counting in the billions, is powered by fossil fuel derived energy. 35. Every military, civilian and utility aircraft in service today and on order, is powered by GTE engines fueled by Jet-A fuel. 36. The oil sector has the financial resources, control of the energy supply chain, and the support of the Oil States to ensure that competing energy sources cannot beat them in free market conditions. 37. If government intervene in the market and legislate the phase out of fossil fuel, and phase in renewable fuel, to meet the Paris Agreement 2050 deadline, the aftereffect may cause political dislocation worldwide. 38. If burdensome regulations are introduced by EASA and the FAA on the airlines within the counties and regions under their oversight, that sets a hard deadline for the switch from GTE powered aircraft to NZE ones, the fleet replacement phase may begin between 2025 and 2030 and may prove to be chaotic.39. If the ICAO CORSIA scheme standards are tightened in North America and the European Union, and other jurisdictions do not follow suite, the demand for new aircraft may shift to fleet replacement over the next 20 years.40. Renewable energy companies also must show that they have financial resources to build out the infrastructure needed if the oil suppliers limit their use of the existing supply chain. 41. The idea that the replacement of current fleets will be driven by the need to improve fuel efficiency is misplaced. The primary driver for replacement and growth demand will be the requirement to replace aircraft powered by GTEs with ones powered with NZE that create less noise. 42. The data shows that fuel burn efficiency increased by an average 1% annually over the last six decades but slowed in the period between 2000 and 2020, the timeframe in which the newest engine technology was introduced.43. A similar outcome is expected for noise because, to cut emissions, aircraft will come closer to residential populations, during departure and arrival, and we have no understanding of the noise emissions of NZE that have yet to be designed. 44. Orders to meet traffic growth demand under this scenario, could be suspended until NZE technology is approved by regulators, possibly in the 2035 and 2040 timeframe. 45. Airbus is projecting demand for over 39,000 new passenger and freighter aircraft in that timeframe.46. Around 15,250 of these will be for replacement of older less fuel-efficient models, according to Airbus. 47. Government climate change policy for the consumer countries may have to provide ways to level the GTE/NZE competitive playing field, with tools such as a behavior-changing tax, oil refining restrictions or inject the necessary funding GTE manufacturers need to develop NZE technology. 48. The specification for Jet-A could be restated to require the elimination of emissions until a point is reached that airlines accelerate the retirement of GTEs. 49. However, the performance restrictions imposed on Jet A, would impact biomass produced SAF in similar ways because oil and biofuel have similar chemistries. Fossil fuel is derived from plants over millions of years and biofuel is produced from plants grown on farms today. 50. If the 50/50 blended biofuel/Jet-A option is the final choice, it will delay even further, the day that NZEs can be designed to replace GTEs.
If the biofuel revolution does not work, what then?
IATA take a counter-market view, says Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) will be upscaled.
Airlines have limited options & no money to invest in Net-Zero Technology.
The investment institutions
Civil Society Groups & the Greata effect.
The benefits of the 2020 glut in oil & near-zero prices did not translate into airline profits!
The past may be precedent.
Making decisions to order & then finance Net-Zero aircraft fleets, that have no track record, for delivery in the 2030s, is going to be complicated.
An "Oil Event" has disrupted the global economy every two years averaged over the last 70 years!
What happens if CO2e sources are not removed in the aviation industry?
Choozing between Jet A and renewable fuel can dramatically change the level of air services provided on the supply side and, air travel use on the demand side.
The figures show that these targets are challenging. Until 2020, the global number of flights has been rising for decades. In 2018 alone, over 4.3 billion passengers got on a plane – 62% more than in 2010. Three main reasons are often cited to explain these developments: booming low-cost carriers, a growing global middle class, and an increasing airport infrastructure (led by the Asia Pacific region). It is expected that the global passenger traffic will return to pre-COVID levels in 2024, and subsequently further increase.
To combat rising emissions, the aviation industry is investing in alternative fuel concepts with potential environmental benefits. Compared to conventional fossil fuels, (SAF) fuels have the potential to cut emissions substantially. Therefore, the deployment of SAF fuels is very important to meet increasing demands and provide lower greenhouse gas emissions.
What are Sustainable Aviation Fuels? Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are non–conventional (non-fossil-derived) aviation fuels. While SAF is the term connoted by IATA to describe this type of fuel, other terms such as sustainable alternative fuel, sustainable alternative jet fuel, renewable jet fuel, or biojet fuel can often be used to mean the same thing. The chemical and physical characteristics of SAF are almost identical to those of conventional jet fuel and they can be safely mixed with the latter to varying degrees, use the same supply infrastructure, and do not require adaptation of aircraft or engines. Fuels with these properties are called “drop-in fuels” (i.e., fuels that can be automatically incorporated into existing airport fueling systems).
For aviation fuels to be deemed as ‘sustainable’ they must meet certain sustainability criteria, including for instance a reduction in life cycle carbon emissions and ensuring that feedstocks used for SAF production are not obtained from high carbon stock lands.
Benefits of Sustainable Aviation Fuels? The use of sustainable aviation fuels can reduce life cycle emissions by up to 80% compared to conventional fossil fuels SAF enable a more diverse geographic supply and degree of energy security No modification of transport systems or airport fueling systems is necessary, as SAF are generally “drop-in fuels” Beyond sustainable aviation fuels, the concept of “Lower Carbon Aviation Fuels” (LCAF) is based on prospective technologies that may allow the production of fossil fuels with a lower carbon footprint, such as carbon capture, utilization and storage and the use of renewable energy fuel in oil refineries.
In all cases, it is important to verify compliance with voluntary or mandatory sustainability criteria. In 2016, a set of sustainability criteria for CORSIA eligible SAF was approved by the ICAO council. These include:
At least 10% net GHG emissions reductions compared to the baseline life cycle emissions values for aviation fuel on a life cycle basis No land use change of land with high carbon stock (primary forests, wetlands and peatlands) on or after 01 January 2008 As a well-experienced sustainability certification scheme, ISCC is in the position to guarantee compliance and enhance traceability through site-specific audits. ISCC’s vast experience in road transportation is of high value when it comes to certifying sustainable aviation fuels. Since large volumes of certified feedstock are already available and many major fuel producers are ISCC members, SAF certification with ISCC is feasible and practical.