What will happen to jet engines?
Catalogue of capabilities of the gas turbine engine.
Fuel: Jet-A or SAF? Its complex!!
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.
Low output of SAF makes air transportation more dependent on oil for the next 25 years!
Even if all announced SAF projects were completed, volumes would reach just ~1% of expected global jet fuel demand in 2030/37. So, nothing to get too excited about yet. (EIA)
Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are made from used cooking oils, solid waste and food waste. They’re expensive to produce given the aggregation and distillation required, and currently cost 2x regular jet fuel. In 2019, less than 200,000 metric tons of SAF were produced globally, equal to less than 0.1% of commercial airlines jet fuel consumption.
.png){kind=logo}
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 SAF 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?
Case Study.
United Airlines, corporate venture capital fund, United Airlines Ventures (UAV), Oxy Low Carbon Ventures (OLCV), a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, and Cemvita Factory (CF), a Houston-based biotech company are investing in a new synthetic microbe biology process that converts CO2 into hydrocarbons to produce sustainable aviation fuel and commercialize the technology. CF will also use synthetic biology to turn carbon dioxide into chemical. Cemvita is the third SAF-related technology UAV has invested in, including an equity stake in hydrogen-electric engine developer ZeroAvia, zero-emission engines for regional aircraft, with Heart Aerospace to acquire one hundred of its ES-19 aircraft, and Archer Aviation to speed up the production of short-haul electric aircraft. United and OLCV funded engineering studies, financed construction of operating SAF plants.
Hype risk - cheaper oil from cheap oil!
.jpg)
Most of the Earth’s natural resources, those that are the cause of climate change and those that are the solution, are predominantly found in eleven countries: Russia, USA, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, China, Brazil, Australia, Iraq, Venezuela, and India, in that order. For all practical purposes these are the producers, and all the other countries are the consumers. (Source Statistica).
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. 28. 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.29. 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.29. 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.30. 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. 31. 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.32. 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. 33. Every military, civilian and utility aircraft in service today and on order, is powered by GTE engines fueled by Jet-A fuel. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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.37. 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.38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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.41. 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. 42. 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. 43. Airbus is projecting demand for over 39,000 new passenger and freighter aircraft in that timeframe.44. Around 15,250 of these will be for replacement of older less fuel-efficient models, according to Airbus. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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.
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. 28. 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.29. 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.29. 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.30. 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. 31. 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.32. 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. 33. Every military, civilian and utility aircraft in service today and on order, is powered by GTE engines fueled by Jet-A fuel. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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.37. 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.38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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.41. 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. 42. 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. 43. Airbus is projecting demand for over 39,000 new passenger and freighter aircraft in that timeframe.44. Around 15,250 of these will be for replacement of older less fuel-efficient models, according to Airbus. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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?
Over the last 20 years many startups came and went in the biofuel revolution. Slate journalist Annie Hamming wrote in January 2022 that: "Labs and start-up companies began to crop up to develop next-generation biofuels using genetic engineering, based on the foundation of a nearly impossible premise. These companies were set up to do costly R & D to try make fuel for less money than tapping already existing oil out of the ground. They were trying to make something from scarce, more expensive materials, cheap as oil, a thing so thoroughly embedded in the economy by virtue of its cheapness. Long odds. Annie went on to write that: "the people steering the ship of these companies knew they were gambling on bad odds. Companies such as Amyris, Solazyme, Lanzatech, Neste, LiveFuels, LS9, and Pacific Biodiesel are all biofuel companies, have diversified. Many start-ups closed: Range Fuels, Sapphire Energy, Coskata, and Kior. Companies trying to avoid collapse had to find new strategies and find them quickly. They switched over to cosmetics, fragrances, and household cleaners! Some chemical compounds made from petroleum are also obtained from other fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas, or renewable biomass sources such as maize, palm fruit or sugar cane.(Matar and Hatch, 2001; Meyers, 2005; Speight, 2007, 2008).The major hydrocarbon products produced from petroleum by refining are: liquefied petroleum gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, fuel oil, lubricating oil, and paraffin wax.” Pricing conundrum.
Amyris was founded in 2003, and its origin story included the venture capital entrepreneur Vinod Khosla urging its founders on: “Set your sights on diesel. It is the hardest thing you would want to do, but it is the biggest market out there, and you will build an incredible company.” Unable to deliver on promises. Within a decade, all these companies had run into financial and technical difficulties. Making fuel from bioengineered microbes, at a technical level, seemed possible; making them at scale and price competitive is a different story. In 2010, in a well-publicized stumble, Amyris CEO John Melo promised investors that by 2011, the company would be making 6-9 million liters of its fuel, farnesene, each year, and 40-60 million by 2012. Those numbers would have been virtually inconsequential to the oil and gas industry, where Melo built his career. The promises were completely unrealistic for biotechnology, and the company was only able to deliver one million liters in 2011. Every other company experienced less dramatic versions of the same thing: unable to deliver on production goals that were already modest. Bioengineering favors tweaking higher priced products.
Annie went on to report that: "the most successful rehabilitations began with the recognition that the fuel being produced by bioengineered microbes was closely related to several other chemicals attached to much higher price tags.” Switch to other products.
Genetic engineering may not have had the horsepower to produce hundreds of millions of liters of product per year, but it did have the finesse to tweak fuels into other products. This made it possible to start with an already-developed base chemical and turn it into something relevant to several different industries. Amyris and Solazyme at different points pursued industrial lubricants, rubber replacements, plastic additives, food additives, nutritional supplements, and fish food." Source: Annie Hamming.
IATA take a counter-market view, says Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) will be upscaled.
IATA take a counter market view on developing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).In recently published material, the association argued: “IATA member airlines and the wider aviation industry are collectively committed to ambitious emissions reduction goals. 1. Sustainable Aviation Fuel has been identified as one of the key elements in helping achieve these goals. 2. Governmental support is essential to using sustainable aviation fuels to achieve the industry's climate goals.IATA paints a different picture of progress. Over 370,000 flights have taken to the skies using SAF since 20161. Seven technical pathways exist2. One hundred million liters of SAF [will be] produced in 2021.3. SAF can reduce emissions by up to 80% during its full lifecycle.4. Around fourteen billion liters of SAF are in forward purchase agreements.5. More than forty-five airlines now have experience with SAF.
Airlines have limited options & no money to invest in Net-Zero Technology.
Airlines have hedging strategies to mitigate losses from uncertain oil supply, and oil prices. They do not have the money to invest in concept-technologies. 1. Current oil contracts. The carrier can buy at today’s price if the company believes oil prices will continue to rise. 2. Call option agreements give the airlines the right, but not the obligation, to buy oil at a certain price within an agreed period. The airline pays an option premium to the trader for that right. 3. Collar hedge. The carrier will buy a call option and a put option at the same time. The put option allows the airline to sell the oil at a future date for a price set today. The trader pays an option premium to the airline in this case. Hopefully, the premiums are a wash. 4. Swap contracts. A swap enables the airline to lock in the purchase of oil at a future date. 5. No oil hedge. Airlines must believe that they will be able to pass on all fuel cost increase to passengers and freight shippers.
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 global oil supply and price volatility started in 2020, and accelerated in 2022. The market went from glut and zero price, to reduced output and $100-plus dollar price.
Within that timeframe ~one trillion dollars in cash flow was sucked out of the air transportation industry.
The refrain of the oil lobby is that if consumers of oil want supply stability and low prices then the US government should open federal lands for oil drilling. The facts tell a different story. More than eighty percent of US oil reserves are on private lands. The Federal courts ordered the Federal government to continue the Trump administration policy of granting exploration licenses on federal land. These facts suggest that oil supply is not the issue, price is, and the higher it is, regardless of volatility, the greater is the wealth creation in oil producing economies. Another factor may be one where the government subsidizes the cost of fuel if it reaches a particular threshold.
The past may be precedent.
The Six-Day War in 1967, the Yom-Kippur War of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979, combined to cut the supply of oil, pushed up energy costs which damaged the economies of nations that relied on energy sourced in the region.
The first oil crisis pushed oil prices to the point that US domestic inflation took hold. In response, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to curb inflation. It worked for a time. However, recession soon followed in the early 1980s.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988, cut the supply of oil from Iran, their production had collapsed. By July 1980, the oil market price was $30 (over $100.00 today), more than double the $12.70 market price in December 1978. By the 1990s the price of OPEC oil had increased almost 40% since 1980.
The effects of this conflict were short lived however. Nations had already mobilized efforts to stabilize oil supplies after the 1973 crisis. Other oil sources had been under development in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Siberia, Canada and the North Sea.
In addition, countries dependent on oil from the Middle-east region had begun to shift away from oil as an energy source in order to avoid the fluctuations in supply and price.
Countries reliant on OPEC oil sought to mitigate the effects of rising prices and dependence by replacing oil with other fuel sources such as coal, nuclear power and natural gas. The switch to coal for electrical generation was a simple change, in addition more research was done, and emphasis was placed on the use of nuclear power to encourage the switch from oil. [1] L. Maugeri. The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World's Most Controversial Resource. pp. 142. F. Toth. "Oil and Nuclear Power: Past, Present, and Future." Energy Economics, vol. 28(1), pp. 4, Jan. 2006.
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!
In 1956, Geophysicist M. King Hubbert, a Shell geologist predicted, that based on the amount oil enclosed in the ground, "oil-in-place," at the begining of the Industrial Age; oil production in the US would peak in 1970. In 1959 he correctly forecasted that the oil production peak for the US 11 years in advance, thus the reason why the production peak for any oil province is sometimes called the “Hubbert peak”. In 1962 Hubbert predicted global oil production would peak in 2000.
The modeling makes mathematical sense if nature had stopped creating oil at the begining of the industrial revolution, i.e. that once and for all time, the total stock of oil in the Earth was the volume present at the beginning of the industrial era. Even though that did not occur, it is a fact that oil production cannot rise forever which means that output will stabilize or decline someday.
Fundamental to the belief about the dominance is that no viable replacement exists for fossil fuels, namely coal, gas and oil.
By 2016, oil was being pumped at the rate of about 30 billion barrels per year, more than double the rate in 2000, and that included a glut of oil between 2014 and 2018! In the intervening four decades, geopolitical rivalries based on oil politics, dissrupted the global economy every two years on average.
Oil discoveries are not consumed immediately they are discovered. It takes time to go from discoveries to production,. The data available todate indicates that the delay between discoveries and production is a function of how long it takes to build the production infrastructure. The often-referenced case study is in the United States, where production has lagged discovery by around 35 years, with a high degree of certainty.
Central to the climate emissions question for air transportation is that the gas turbine engine suits the purpose even though Iit is a mature technology. Any technology to replace it, will have to overcome its advantages. Otherwise airlines will be faced with picking a Net-Zero engine less suitable!1. It runs on a wide variety of fuels. 2. Very high power-to -weight ratio compared to internal combustion engine.3. High operating speeds.4. Low operating pressures.5. Smaller than most reciprocating engines of the same power rating.6. Far less vibration than a recprocating engines .7. Low lubricating oil/use8. less moving parts than reciprocating engines.
In retrospect, the assumptions predicting the timing of the demise of oil do not hold up in the real world. Based on the assumption that reserves are finite, it is to be expected that as oil becomes scarce, the price will rise. Eventually the price should reach a point where it becomes technologically viable to replaces oil as the primary energy source, with biofuel, electric, green hydrogen or a hybrid. Thereafter, as the new energy sources satisfy the need for fuel, then prices can fall to a point where it is no longer profitible to produce oil.
To date, oil prices fall during periods of oversupply and not because of competition from viable alternative energy sources. Producers have the ability to cut output to bring oil prices up again. Convinced no viable replacement extists for oil, and instead of preserve cash during a downturn, the oil industry invests heavily in new extraction technology, not to increase supply, but to reduce the cost of production, and in so doing taps into previously non-recoverable oil fields. The net result is that the recoverable reserves of oil-in-place extends further into the future.
What happens if CO2e sources are not removed in the aviation industry?
Stating the problem.For more than a eighty years, air transportation dependents on Jet-A has been necessitated by the fact that no other viable power source was available for transporting people, at speed, over long air distances. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) can potentially be added to Jet-A supply in ways that will cut CO2e emissions. Replacing Jet-A with SAF is important because the greater the success in producing SAF, the greater will be the reduction in air polution, and the use of CO2e producing landfills and incinerators will be reduced.
The goal is to standardize the specification for all fuels used in jet engines. As all jet engines today require Jet-A specifications, the expectation is that a standard will be built into Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) for the same purpose.
Tests todate indicate that CO2 emissions may be reduced by ~80% over the lifecycle of the SAF compared to Jet-A. The projection depends on a number of issues including the type of SAF used, upscaling to full production at the same levels as Jet-A is produced today, and the buildout of supply chain from the source of the SAF raw material to SAF at the airport.
The pandemic and Black Swan events aside, the air transportation industry expects to transport ~8 billion passengers by 2050, double the pre-pandemic output. It is yet unclear what fuel source will power the aircraft carrying these passengers .
Jet-A and SAF can fulfill the mission. Both generate high levels of energy per unit of output and weight because they have a very similar chemistry. Jet-A emits high levels of Green House Gasses (GHG) over the life-cycle, SAF does not. Jet-A is kerosene refined from oil which is a fossil fuel that is not renewable, but will still meets the demand for energy in 30 years time. SAF is produced from biomass material that is renewable but to date cannot be produced to a level that would transport 8 billion people on an annual basis by 2050.
Cost aside, the production of SAF is still at the R&D phase. For now it cannot be produced at levels that can compete with Jet-A fuel in all market conditions. SAF will be refined from a range of materials in addition to plants, algae, waste cooking oil, household and business solid waste, paper, textiles, and food scraps. It will take time to upscale the process.
If fossil fuel is to be the source of aircraft propulsions that transports billions of people, then society expects the oil industry & its users to solve the climate crisis that results from burning oil, and to do so well before 2050.
As was the case with the tobacco industry and the plastics industry, oil companies implemented campaigns in the last few decades seeking to redirect blame for the climate crisis away from the industry and to attribute blame to personal choice of individuals. The concept of the carbon footprint emerged from those campaigns. A carbon footprint, is the human generated emissions expressed as the weight in tonnes of greenhouse gases (Carbon-equivalent - CO2e) produced from the fossil fuel burnt by an individual, event, oranization, service, place, or product and resulting from: 1. The use of fossil fuels for electricity, health and transportation.2. Land use and forestry.3. Production and consumption of food.4. Manufacturing of goods.5. Service industry.
6. Other human activity.
The problem compounds, when measuring green house gas emissions by the aerospace industry, that aircraft vary in size and performance based flights range, passengers on board and the type of fuel used.
ISCC certification.
Jet A and Jet A-1 are produced to a standardized international specification. The companies that produce jet fuel are also producing alternative fuels. Since 2016 Air BP reports that it has been investing in its own alternative fuel refineries and facilities. To date, Air BP has supplied SAF at over 20 locations across three continents to fuel many different types of aircraft from private jets to large passenger aircraft. Air BP became the first aviation fuel supplier to be independently certified carbon neutral for drop-in fuelling operations at all its global operated locations. In 2020, Shell announced its Spanish facility, would became the first globally to achieve the ISCC CORSIA certification. Another company, Fulcrum, states it "intends to construct additional facilities and will supply Air BP with SAF from several different plants." CORSIA shortcomings.
The ICAO CORSIA emissions scheme measures the CO2 generated by burning "Jet-A fuel" in "international" flights. The CORSIA scheme does not quantify the emissions from building the aircraft, airport operations or Maintenance Repair Organization (MRO) activities.
"One passenger on a return flight, London-New York-London, accounts for ~986kg of CO2 emissions. An average person in 56 countries, generates less carbon dioxide per year than one person on a trans-Oceanic flight." (Nonprofit Atmosfair, Germany).
Application of SAF off-take agreements.
An off-take agreement is an arrangement between a producer (SAF refinery) and a buyer (airline) to purchase or sell portions of the producer's upcoming goods, for example SAF. It is normally negotiated to secure a market and revenue stream for its future output. Off-take agreements are used to help the selling company acquire project financing for future construction, expansion projects, or new equipment through the promise of future income & proof of existing demand for the goods.
The carbon footprint concept puts oil companies in a position where they advocate for a mixed-fuel-source approach: 1. Oil companies will enter into off-take agreements with SAF producers which can be monitized.2. The terms and conditions of these agreements will be structured in ways to be accepted by investors willing to fund infrastructure build out, SAF production facilities, and distribution.
Air BP was the first operator to supply SAF through an existing hydrant fuelling system. The supply began in 2016 at Norway’s Oslo Airport. That same year Air BP agreed a strategic partnership with Fulcrum BioEnergy to building an SAF refinery and plant in Reno, Nevada. The most recent briefing from Fulcrum is it is "making low-carbon, low-cost, transportation fuels from an abundant resource–household garbage." The company sees itself as one "committed to improving the quality of life in communities – that starts with solving a fundamental problem: too much garbage. Utilizing trash as a feedstock, Fulcrum diverts large volumes of waste from local landfills and reducing greenhouse/emissions by more than 100 percent on a lifecycle basis."
Safety of the traveling public.In aircraft, SAF must be blended with Jet-A to be approved for use. So far, the maximum blend is 50%. The SAF/Jet-A blend is then re-certified as Jet A or Jet A-1 but it must first comply with duality tests. The blend is then re-certified as Jet A or Jet A-1. It is handled the same as a traditional jet fuel, so no further changes are required. How does the cost of SAF compare to traditional jet fuel?SAF is to date more costly than Jet-A fuel. As new technology is developed and as R&D in upscaling sustainable feedstocks moves to full production, it is expected SAF will become price-competitive with Jet-A. Is "Drop in fuel" the same as SAF?SAF can drop straight into existing infrastructure and aircraft, thus the term drop-in fuel. However, is is expected that full production of drop-in fuels will take some years, and that other carbon reducing technologies must be employed to reduce carbon. The main areas being studied today include:
1. Improved aircraft/engine design.
2. Development of electric propulsion from batteries.
3. Development of green hydrogen power for long haul operations.
2. Streamlined take-off, cruise and landing techniques. How can we accelerate the use of SAF?Steps to be taken to reduce carbon emissions using SAF include:
1. Governments must introduce inventive policies to accelerate the growth of SAF.
2. New policies must focus on R&D and reduce investment risks over the long term.
3. Regulators must speed up publication of technical standards for development and commercialization of improved production technologies and innovative sustainable feedstocks. 4. Some airlines are now providing passengers and corporate customers with the option to fund the use of SAF in order to reduce emissions associated with your ticket. 5. Higher levels of SAF production and use by airlines will lead to lower SAF costs at the point of delivery.
6. A significant increase in investment is needed for advanced feedstock processing.
7. Investment is needed for the development of sustainable and scalable feedstocks.
The sources, sinks and removal hierarchy for CO2e emissions that are accounted for at the national level are.
1. Industrial processes & product uses.
2. Agriculture.
3. Land use, land-use change & forestry.
4. Waste.
5. Energy.
a. Fuel combustion based on sectoral approach.
b. Fugitive emissions from fuel.
c. CO2 transport and storage.
6. Industrial processes and product uses.
a. Mineral industry.
b. Chemical industry.
c. Metals industry.
d. Non-energy products from fuel and solvent use.
e. Electronic industry.
f. Product use as substitute for ODS .Other product and manufacturer use.
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 combination of higher fuel costs and more environmental regulation could reduce aviation activity.1. Utilization of older and fuel inefficient aircraft would be reduced as costs rise and regulations are enforced.2. The number of operating turboprops likely would increase. 4. Permanent fuel cost increases will likely lead to increased fuel burn improvements.
5. Increased regulation speeds up the adoption of CO2 mitigating measures.6. Reduced fuel burn & improved environmental stewardship results from: a. Aircraft technology innovations. b. Optimized operational procedures. c. Network changes. 7. Reductions in aviation environmental impacts may have changes in national air transportation systems costs. 8. Reduced access to the air transportation system may have social and economic costs impacting small communities the most. 9. Governments may have to decide levels of access to service as the system transitions to higher fuel costs.10. Non-hub airports serving small communities lost ~12% of connections, compared to the network-wide loss of 2.8%, July 2004-08.
The net effective : The cost of fuel is influenced by crude oil prices as well as domestic and international market-based carbon policies, such as cap and trade, and carbon taxes.
Airlines, route networks and aircraft fleets are going to change radically between now and when the Net-Zero goal is reached in 2050. Non-renewable Jet-A and renewable sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) are going to be determining factors in reaching the targets set out in the ICAO CORSIA scheme before it expires in 2035. The way in which fuel price increases affect air transportation network and fleet assignment decisions, need more detailed analysis. The form and shape of government policies in meeting socio-economic and environmental objectives needs to be debated publicly square between all interested stakeholders.
1. Achieve environmental benefits as those set out in the Paris & Glasgow agreements for 2050, and the ICAO Corsia scheme for 2035.
2. Develop GHG removal technology for scalable production.
3. Develop biomass feedstock and supply chain for biojet fuel deliveries.
4. At a price point that is competitive with fossil fuel.
Summary. The MIT study discussed below using "the 2004-08 fuel price surge as a natural experiment, it has been shown that connections to non-hub airports serving small communities were most sensitive to effective fuel cost increases. It was found that non-hub airports lost 12% of connections, compared to an average loss of 2.8%, July 2004-08. The complete loss of service July 2007-08 at 70 non-hub airports, representing 14% of continental US airports with commercial service, resulted in an average driving time of 75 minutes to the next nearest airport with service. It is believed that reduced access to the national air transportation system had social and economic effects for small communities. The cessation of operations of Air Midwest and Big Sky Airlines, the sole carriers serving 20 communities in July 2007, resulted in much of the volatility in airports with service 2007-08. Regional and commuter airlines were less able to handle fuel cost volatility during this period as ten declared bankruptcy. To maintain historic levels of access to the air transportation system, funding for Essential Air Service (EAS) subsidized routes has doubled since 2003 while the number of continental US communities serviced by subsidized routes has increased 19% to 107 in 2010. Even though subsidies have increased, 36 airports were without service for 10 months or longer following the 2008 fuel price surge."
If small communities continue to require more subsidies to maintain air service, the environmental costs are added to fuel cost,so governments will need to decide what level of access to air service is acceptable, what level of subsidies they are willing to provide, and how flexibility can be designed into programs to reduce interruptions in air service to small communities in future. Increases in the effective cost of aviation costs could result from escalating crude oil prices and environmental driven costs (i.e. from cap and trade schemes or taxes).
Complementary analyses of aircraft fuel efficiency, airline economics, and airfares provided a basis for understanding some airline decisions during the fuel price surge that can be extrapolated to examine future trends as environmental policy is implemented. Increased effective fuel costs will provide incentives for airlines to improve fleet fuel efficiency, reducing the environmental effects of aviation, but may cause an uneven distribution of social and economic impacts as airline networks adapt. As fuel costs increased 2004-08, utilization of older and fuel inefficient aircraft was reduced while the number of operating turboprops increased. Permanent effective fuel cost increase will likely lead to increased adoption rates of CO2 mitigating measures which reduce fuel burn, such as aircraft technology innovations, optimized operational procedures, and network changes. Benefits due to reductions in the environmental impacts of aviation may be balanced by social and economic costs. Government action may be required to determine acceptable levels of access to service as the air transportation system transitions to higher fuel costs."
In a MIT* study of the effects of aviation fuel price increases and environmental costs, it found that in the study period from July 2004 to July 2008, the cost of Jet-A fuel rose 244%. At that point fuel became the largest airline operating cost item.
Basis for airline route decisions;
Changes in oil prices and supply volatility have an impact on fleet and route network desisions over the short and long term. The decision to purchase aircraft for replacement and growth are based on studies of aircraft fuel efficiency, airline economics, and airfares. Higher real-fuel prices incentivise airlines to improve fleet fuel efficiency. Changes in government regulation will drive aircraft selection, based on choice between in-service gas turbine engine propulsion and replacement propulsion systems such as SAF, electric and hydrogen.
Cap & Trade cost derives from fuel emissionsis.
Airlines’ financial performance and the provision of air service globally will have to add in the effects environmental costs such as the cap and trade schemes, GHG emissions taxes, to fuel costs already made worse by the volatility in the price of oil.
* James K.D. Morrison* , Philippe A. Bonnefoy, and R. John Hansman, Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Effective cost of fuel impact the balance of supply and demand.
The MIT study found that increases in the effective cost of fuel impact the balance of supply and demand in the system, resulting in changes in airline supply (i.e. network and fleet).
Added environmental cost implications.Refer to Table One above. Effective cost of fuel impact the balance of supply and demand.The MIT study found that increases in the effective cost of fuel impact the balance of supply and demand in the system, resulting in changes in airline supply (i.e. network and fleet). Environment legislation & regulation make an already complex fleet & route decisions more complex. The greater the complexity the greater the risk of higher costs, lower profits, smaller fleets and less routes.
Learning curve lessons.
Gevo, Enerkem, Neste, Virent Energy, LS9, and Cobalt Technologies are just few of biofuel companies who have variously pursued rubber, plastics, chemicals, textiles, paints, adhesive, solvents, and detergent ingredients. This shift was pervasive enough in the industry that the annual hype list from Biofuels Digest, the Hottest 50 Companies in Bioenergy, by 2012 was expanded into the much clumsier Hottest in Biobased and Renewable Chemicals, and in 2017, the even more nebulous Hottest in Advanced Bioeconomy. In one sense, companies were diversifying their revenue streams; in another, they were throwing spaghetti at the wall.The drivers for investment funding is ROI on investment, ie. go where the largest profits are to be made. Rather than a startup investing its resources in expensive R&D designed to coax agents, compounds, emulsions, fungi and pigments, to make fuel (biofuel) for less money (profits) than tapping already existing (cheaper) oil out of the ground (Jet-A), start with an already-developed base chemical and evolve to something relevant to several different industries.
Producers will sell their materials to the highest bidder. The bidder that makes the most profit with the least cost will outbid the producer looking to sell against a price it cannot match!
Background notes One
One of the greatest challenges of our time is the fight against climate change. The urgent need to lower greenhouse gas emissions has also been recognised by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the aviation industry. ICAO Member States have set ambitious targets to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from air transportation, including carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and beyond. CORSIA, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, is ICAO’s instrument to address the increase in total CO2 emissions from aviation.
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.
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.