Sustainable Aviation Fuel
As the world continues to prioritize sustainability and environmental consciousness, the aviation industry faces increasing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint.
One promising solution is the production and utilization of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), which offers a cleaner alternative to traditional jet fuel. This article delves into the production process of SAF, highlighting its environmental benefits, and explores the growing demand for this innovative fuel within the aviation industry.
Understanding Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
Definition and characteristics of SAF
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) refers to a type of fuel specifically designed for aviation that is produced from renewable and sustainable feedstock sources.
It is also commonly known as aviation biofuel or drop-in biofuel. SAF aims to reduce the environmental impact of aviation by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional jet fuels derived from fossil fuels.
Characteristics of Sustainable Aviation Fuel
Renewable Feedstocks: SAF is produced from various renewable and sustainable sources such as biomass, waste oils, agricultural residues, algae, and other non-food biomass. These feedstocks can be cultivated or obtained from waste streams, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
Compatibility: SAF is designed to be a “drop-in” fuel, meaning it can be used in existing aircraft engines without requiring modifications or significant changes to infrastructure. It can be blended with or used as a substitute for conventional jet fuel, typically in varying ratios depending on certification requirements.
Carbon Reduction: SAF offers substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions compared to conventional jet fuels. Depending on the feedstock and production process, SAF can achieve carbon emissions reductions ranging from 50% to over 80%. It contributes to mitigating climate change by reducing aviation’s carbon footprint.
High Energy Density: SAF possesses a high energy density, similar to conventional jet fuels. This characteristic ensures that aircraft can achieve optimal performance and range without compromising safety or efficiency.
Quality and Safety Standards: SAF must meet stringent quality and safety standards, including those set by aviation authorities such as ASTM International. These standards ensure that SAF maintains the required specifications for aircraft operation and guarantees safety in flight.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SAF aligns with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including climate action, affordable and clean energy, responsible consumption and production, and partnerships for sustainable development. Its production supports sustainable agriculture, waste reduction, and the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Life Cycle Analysis: SAF undergoes life cycle analysis, considering the environmental impact of its entire production cycle, from feedstock cultivation or collection to fuel refining and distribution. This analysis helps assess the overall environmental benefits and sustainability of SAF compared to conventional jet fuels.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel represents a crucial step towards achieving a more sustainable aviation industry. By combining renewable feedstocks, carbon reduction, compatibility with existing aircraft, and adherence to rigorous standards, SAF provides an environmentally friendly alternative that holds great promise in reducing the environmental impact of air travel.
Key Difference
There are several key differences between Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and conventional jet fuel derived from fossil fuels. These differences highlight the environmental advantages and sustainability features of SAF.
Here are the key distinctions:
Source of Feedstock: SAF is produced from renewable and sustainable feedstock sources, such as biomass, waste oils, and agricultural residues. In contrast, conventional jet fuel is derived from fossil fuels like crude oil, which are finite resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: SAF significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional jet fuel. It can achieve carbon emissions reductions ranging from 50% to over 80%, depending on the feedstock and production process. Conventional jet fuel, on the other hand, contributes to high levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to climate change.
Environmental Impact: SAF production focuses on minimizing environmental impact. It promotes sustainable agriculture, reduces waste, and avoids deforestation. In contrast, conventional jet fuel production involves extracting and refining crude oil, which can have significant environmental consequences such as habitat destruction, oil spills, and air pollution.
Compatibility: SAF is designed as a “drop-in” fuel, meaning it can be used in existing aircraft engines without requiring modifications or major infrastructure changes. It can be blended with or used as a substitute for conventional jet fuel. Conventional jet fuel, however, cannot be easily replaced with SAF due to differences in composition and properties.
Certification and Standards: SAF production adheres to specific certification standards, such as those established by ASTM International. These standards ensure that SAF meets the necessary quality and safety requirements for use in aviation. Conventional jet fuel follows different industry standards and specifications.
Renewable Energy Integration: SAF aligns with the goals of renewable energy integration. It can be produced from various feedstocks that can be cultivated or obtained from waste streams, reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Conventional jet fuel relies solely on crude oil, which is a non-renewable resource.
Sustainability Considerations: SAF production takes into account sustainability aspects, including life cycle analysis, social responsibility, and waste reduction. It aims to contribute to sustainable development goals and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Conventional jet fuel does not possess the same level of sustainability focus.
In summary, SAF offers a more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative to conventional jet fuel. With reduced greenhouse gas emissions, renewable feedstocks, and adherence to stringent standards, SAF presents a significant opportunity for the aviation industry to mitigate its environmental impact and contribute to a greener future.
Importance of reducing aviation emissions and the role of SAF
Reducing aviation emissions is of paramount importance due to the significant impact of air travel on climate change and overall environmental sustainability. The aviation industry is responsible for a considerable share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) but also including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other emissions that contribute to climate change and air pollution.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) plays a crucial role in achieving emission reduction targets and fostering a more sustainable aviation sector.
Here’s an overview of the importance of reducing aviation emissions and the role of SAF:
Mitigating Climate Change: Aviation emissions contribute to global warming and climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that aviation is responsible for around 2-3% of global CO2 emissions. By reducing aviation emissions, particularly CO2, the industry can make significant contributions to global efforts in mitigating climate change and meeting the goals set out in international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement.
Environmental Sustainability: Reducing aviation emissions aligns with broader sustainability goals. SAF offers a viable solution for reducing the industry’s carbon footprint and minimizing the environmental impact of air travel. By transitioning to SAF, the aviation sector can demonstrate its commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship, addressing concerns related to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and other negative environmental consequences associated with conventional jet fuel production.
Regulatory Pressure and Compliance: Governments and international organizations are increasingly implementing regulations and policies to curb aviation emissions. These measures include emissions trading schemes, carbon pricing, and emission reduction targets. By adopting SAF, airlines can ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and position themselves as leaders in sustainability.
Technological Advancements: The development and utilization of SAF also drive technological advancements in aviation. As the demand for SAF increases, it encourages research and innovation in feedstock cultivation, conversion processes, and refining techniques. This, in turn, leads to the development of more efficient and sustainable production methods, helping to further reduce emissions and enhance the overall sustainability of the aviation industry.
Market Demand and Consumer Preferences: There is a growing demand for sustainable and eco-friendly travel options among consumers. Passengers are increasingly conscious of their carbon footprint and seek airlines that prioritize environmental responsibility. By offering flights powered by SAF, airlines can differentiate themselves in the market, attract environmentally conscious travelers, and enhance their brand image.
Collaborative Approach: The adoption of SAF requires collaboration among various stakeholders, including airlines, fuel producers, governments, and industry organizations. This collaborative approach fosters partnerships and knowledge-sharing, facilitating the development, production, and distribution of SAF on a larger scale.
Reducing aviation emissions is crucial for addressing climate change and promoting environmental sustainability. SAF plays a pivotal role in achieving these objectives by significantly reducing the carbon footprint of air travel. By embracing SAF, the aviation industry can demonstrate its commitment to sustainability, comply with regulations, meet consumer demands, drive technological advancements, and contribute to a greener and more sustainable future.
Production Process of SAF
Feedstock selection: Exploring renewable sources for SAF production
The selection of renewable feedstocks is a critical aspect of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production. It involves identifying and utilizing sustainable sources that have minimal environmental impact and can be produced in large quantities to meet the growing demand for SAF. Here are some key renewable feedstock options commonly explored for SAF production:
Biomass: Biomass feedstocks include various organic materials derived from plants, algae, and agricultural residues. This category encompasses energy crops (e.g., switchgrass, miscanthus), agricultural waste (e.g., corn stover, wheat straw), and dedicated non-food crops (e.g., camelina, jatropha). Biomass feedstocks offer significant potential for SAF production due to their abundance, renewable nature, and potential for carbon capture and utilization.
Waste Oils and Fats: Waste oils and fats from food processing industries, restaurants, and other sources can be converted into SAF through processes such as hydroprocessing. These waste streams provide a sustainable feedstock option, as they utilize materials that would otherwise be discarded, reducing waste and environmental impact.
Algae: Algae-based feedstocks show promise for SAF production. Algae can be cultivated in various water sources, including wastewater or brackish water, without competing with food crops for land. Algae can accumulate lipids that can be converted into SAF, offering a potentially high oil yield per unit of cultivation area.
Residues and Waste Streams: Agricultural and forestry residues, such as corn cobs, rice husks, and wood chips, can be utilized as feedstocks for SAF production. These feedstocks are abundant and often considered waste materials, providing an opportunity for their valorization and reducing their environmental impact.
Municipal Solid Waste: Certain organic components of municipal solid waste can be used as feedstocks for SAF production. This approach promotes waste reduction and the production of renewable fuels from non-recyclable or non-compostable waste streams.
Lignocellulosic Biomass: Lignocellulosic feedstocks, such as switchgrass, wood, or agricultural residues, offer potential for SAF production. These feedstocks contain complex sugars that can be converted into biofuels through processes like biomass gasification or biochemical conversion.
Synthetic Biology: Advancements in synthetic biology enable the engineering of microorganisms to produce bio-based feedstocks with desired characteristics. For example, researchers are exploring the use of genetically modified microorganisms to produce lipid-rich feedstocks for SAF production.
It is essential to consider several factors when selecting feedstocks, including their availability, sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, land use requirements, water usage, and potential impacts on food security and biodiversity. Feedstock selection should prioritize feedstocks that do not compete with food production, do not contribute to deforestation, and have minimal negative environmental and social consequences.
Exploring diverse and sustainable feedstock options is key to scaling up SAF production and ensuring the long-term viability of a low-carbon aviation industry.
Conversion technologies
Overview of different pathways (HEFA, F-T, Alcohol-to-Jet, etc.)
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) can be produced through various conversion technologies, each with its unique pathway and process.
Here’s an overview of some commonly used conversion technologies for SAF production:
Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA): HEFA is one of the most established and widely used pathways for SAF production. It involves the hydroprocessing of plant oils or animal fats, such as vegetable oils or used cooking oils. The feedstock is subjected to hydrogenation, resulting in the production of SAF, along with glycerin as a byproduct. HEFA-derived SAF can be blended with or used as a drop-in replacement for conventional jet fuel.
Fischer-Tropsch (F-T): The Fischer-Tropsch process converts synthesis gas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) derived from biomass or other carbon sources into liquid hydrocarbons. This thermochemical process involves several steps, including gasification, gas cleaning, and catalytic reactions. The resulting product is a mixture of hydrocarbons that can be further refined into SAF. F-T SAF offers high energy density and can be used as a drop-in fuel.
Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ): The Alcohol-to-Jet process involves the conversion of alcohol feedstocks, such as ethanol or butanol, into SAF. The alcohol is dehydrated and chemically transformed into olefins or other hydrocarbons, which are then further processed to produce SAF. ATJ SAF can be blended with conventional jet fuel or used as a drop-in replacement.
Catalytic Hydrothermolysis (CH): CH is a thermochemical conversion process that uses water, heat, and catalysts to convert wet biomass feedstocks, such as algae or sewage sludge, into biocrude oil. The biocrude oil can then undergo further refining processes to produce SAF. CH offers the advantage of utilizing wet biomass feedstocks, which reduces the need for energy-intensive drying processes.
Pyrolysis: Pyrolysis involves the thermal decomposition of biomass feedstocks in the absence of oxygen, resulting in the production of bio-oil, syngas, and biochar. The bio-oil can be upgraded through additional processes to obtain SAF. Pyrolysis offers flexibility in utilizing a wide range of feedstocks, including agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops.
Other Pathways: There are ongoing research and development efforts exploring alternative pathways for SAF production. These include biotechnology-based approaches that utilize genetically modified microorganisms or synthetic biology techniques to produce bio-based feedstocks and advanced conversion technologies like electrofuels, where renewable electricity is used to convert carbon dioxide into liquid fuels.
Each conversion technology has its advantages and challenges, including feedstock compatibility, energy requirements, process complexity, and scalability. The choice of conversion technology depends on factors such as feedstock availability, technological maturity, economic viability, and environmental considerations.
It is worth noting that different conversion technologies may have different sustainability and life cycle impacts. Factors such as feedstock sourcing, energy inputs, water usage, and overall greenhouse gas emissions should be carefully evaluated to ensure the sustainability and environmental benefits of the SAF produced.
As the SAF industry evolves, a combination of these conversion technologies may be employed to meet the growing demand for sustainable aviation fuels and advance the goal of reducing the carbon footprint of the aviation sector.
Key Step
Key steps in the production process: from feedstock preprocessing to fuel refining
The production process of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) involves several key steps, starting from feedstock preprocessing to fuel refining.
While specific processes may vary depending on the chosen conversion technology, here is a general overview of the key steps involved:
Feedstock Collection and Preprocessing: The first step is the collection and preprocessing of the selected feedstock. This involves activities such as harvesting biomass, collecting waste oils or fats, or cultivating algae. Feedstock preprocessing may include cleaning, drying, grinding, or extracting oils, depending on the nature of the feedstock.
Feedstock Conversion: The next step is the conversion of the prepared feedstock into a suitable intermediate product. This step varies depending on the chosen conversion technology, such as HEFA, F-T, ATJ, or others. It may involve processes like hydroprocessing, gasification, alcohol dehydration, or thermochemical conversion.
Intermediate Product Refining: The intermediate product obtained from the feedstock conversion step undergoes further refining to remove impurities and optimize the desired fuel properties. This refining process can include activities like distillation, hydrotreating, hydrocracking, and separation techniques to obtain a high-quality fuel intermediate.
Fuel Blending and Additive Incorporation: Once the intermediate product is refined, it is blended with other components to meet the required specifications for SAF. This may involve blending the intermediate with conventional jet fuel or other compatible fuels to achieve the desired properties. Additionally, specific additives may be incorporated to enhance fuel performance, stability, and safety.
Quality Testing and Certification: The blended SAF undergoes rigorous quality testing and certification to ensure compliance with established industry standards and specifications. Testing may include analysis of key properties like density, viscosity, flashpoint, freezing point, and combustion characteristics. Certification by relevant aviation authorities, such as ASTM International, ensures the fuel meets the necessary requirements for use in aviation.
Distribution and Supply Chain Management: Once certified, the SAF is ready for distribution and supply chain management. This involves storage, transportation, and delivery to airports or fueling stations, ensuring a reliable and efficient supply of SAF for aircraft operators.
Aircraft Use: The final step is the utilization of SAF in aircraft. SAF can be used as a blend with conventional jet fuel or as a drop-in replacement, depending on the aircraft’s compatibility and regulatory requirements. Aircraft operators fuel their planes with SAF, enabling them to reduce their carbon emissions and contribute to a more sustainable aviation industry.
It’s important to note that throughout the production process, sustainability considerations, life cycle analysis, and environmental impact assessments are crucial to ensure the overall sustainability of SAF production and use.
The SAF production process is continuously evolving with advancements in technology and feedstock options. Research and innovation aim to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and further enhance the sustainability and scalability of SAF production to meet the increasing demand for environmentally friendly aviation fuels.
Sustainability
Ensuring feedstock sustainability and avoiding deforestation or other negative environmental impacts
Ensuring feedstock sustainability and avoiding negative environmental impacts, such as deforestation, is a critical aspect of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production.
Here are some key strategies and considerations to achieve feedstock sustainability:
Use Residue and Waste Streams: Prioritize feedstocks that are derived from agricultural residues, food processing waste, or other waste streams. By utilizing these materials, SAF production can minimize the need for additional land use and reduce waste, thus avoiding potential negative environmental impacts.
Avoid High-Risk Feedstocks: Identify and avoid feedstocks that are associated with high-risk activities, such as deforestation, habitat destruction, or biodiversity loss. Feedstocks like palm oil, soybean oil, and sugarcane have been associated with deforestation and land-use change. Choosing alternative feedstocks that do not compete with food production or have lower environmental impacts can help ensure sustainability.
Implement Certification and Sustainability Standards: Adhere to recognized certification schemes and sustainability standards to ensure responsible sourcing of feedstocks. For example, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) provides a certification framework for biomass feedstocks, emphasizing social, environmental, and governance criteria. Compliance with such standards provides assurance that feedstocks are sourced sustainably.
Conduct Life Cycle Assessments: Conduct comprehensive life cycle assessments (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of feedstock production and conversion processes. LCAs analyze the entire life cycle of SAF production, including feedstock cultivation, transportation, conversion, and end-use. This enables identification of potential environmental hotspots and allows for targeted improvements to minimize negative impacts.
Engage in Stakeholder Collaboration: Collaborate with stakeholders, including local communities, indigenous groups, NGOs, and governmental bodies, to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and alignment with sustainability goals. Engaging with these stakeholders facilitates the identification of potential environmental and social risks, promotes responsible sourcing, and supports local economic development.
Promote Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Encourage sustainable agricultural practices for feedstock cultivation. This includes practices such as no-till farming, crop rotation, agroforestry, and water conservation. Sustainable agricultural techniques help minimize soil erosion, reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and enhance overall ecosystem health.
Support Research and Innovation: Invest in research and development to explore new feedstock options and improve feedstock cultivation techniques. This includes investigating non-food energy crops, algae cultivation, and advanced agricultural practices to increase feedstock availability while minimizing environmental impacts.
Traceability and Supply Chain Transparency: Establish robust systems for traceability and supply chain transparency to ensure the origin and sustainability of feedstocks. This includes tracking the entire supply chain from feedstock sourcing to fuel production, and implementing mechanisms to verify compliance with sustainability standards.
By implementing these strategies, SAF producers can ensure feedstock sustainability, minimize negative environmental impacts, and contribute to the overall sustainability of the aviation industry. It is essential to prioritize long-term environmental and social considerations in SAF production to foster a truly sustainable and low-carbon aviation sector.
Environmental Benefits of SAF
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: Comparing SAF emissions to conventional jet fuel
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) offers significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to conventional jet fuel. Here’s a comparison of the emissions associated with SAF and conventional jet fuel:
Lifecycle GHG Emissions: SAF can achieve significant lifecycle GHG emissions reductions compared to conventional jet fuel. Lifecycle emissions include emissions from feedstock cultivation, processing, transportation, and fuel combustion. Depending on the feedstock and production process, SAF can achieve emissions reductions ranging from 50% to over 80% compared to conventional jet fuel.
Well-to-Wake Emissions: Well-to-Wake emissions refer to the emissions associated with the entire fuel lifecycle, from the extraction of raw materials (well) to combustion in the aircraft engines (wake). SAF’s lower lifecycle emissions result in reduced well-to-wake emissions compared to conventional jet fuel. This reduction is primarily attributed to the use of renewable feedstocks and the potential for carbon capture and utilization during feedstock growth.
Direct Combustion Emissions: When SAF is used in aircraft, it produces similar or slightly lower direct combustion emissions compared to conventional jet fuel. SAF’s properties allow for seamless blending or direct use in existing aircraft engines without requiring engine modifications or compromising safety.
Carbon Intensity: SAF has a lower carbon intensity compared to conventional jet fuel. Carbon intensity refers to the amount of CO2 emissions produced per unit of energy generated. SAF’s lower carbon intensity contributes to overall GHG emissions reduction and helps mitigate climate change impacts.
Net GHG Reduction Potential: SAF has the potential to deliver net GHG emissions reductions when considering carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies. For example, feedstocks like algae can absorb CO2 during growth, and if coupled with CCU processes, the overall emissions can be further reduced. This enables SAF to potentially achieve even higher GHG emissions reductions compared to conventional jet fuel.
It’s important to note that the specific emissions reduction achieved by SAF can vary depending on factors such as feedstock type, production processes, supply chain efficiency, and the energy sources used during production. Continuous efforts are being made to improve the sustainability and emissions performance of SAF through advancements in feedstock selection, conversion technologies, and supply chain optimization.
The utilization of SAF in aviation is a crucial step towards reducing the carbon footprint of the industry and mitigating climate change. Its significantly lower GHG emissions compared to conventional jet fuel make SAF a valuable tool in achieving a more sustainable and environmentally responsible aviation sector.
Improved air quality and local pollution reduction
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) also contributes to improved air quality and local pollution reduction.
Here are some key ways in which SAF helps mitigate local pollution:
Reduced Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions: SAF has the potential to reduce particulate matter emissions, including fine particles (PM2.5) and black carbon. These particles can have adverse health effects when inhaled and contribute to air pollution. The use of SAF in aircraft engines can result in lower PM emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, leading to improved air quality in and around airports and along flight routes.
Lower Sulfur and Aromatic Hydrocarbon Emissions: SAF typically has lower sulfur content and reduced levels of aromatic hydrocarbons compared to conventional jet fuel. Sulfur compounds and aromatic hydrocarbons contribute to air pollution and can have detrimental effects on human health and the environment. By using SAF, the emission of these pollutants can be minimized, leading to cleaner air and reduced local pollution impacts.
Reduction in Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emissions: While SAF does not directly impact nitrogen oxide emissions, the use of SAF in aircraft engines can indirectly contribute to NOx emissions reduction. SAF’s lower carbon content and improved combustion properties can result in reduced fuel burn and lower overall engine emissions, including nitrogen oxides. NOx emissions contribute to air pollution and can lead to the formation of ground-level ozone, which is harmful to human health.
Decreased Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions: VOC emissions are released from the evaporation of fuels and solvents and contribute to air pollution and the formation of smog. SAF production processes typically involve lower VOC emissions compared to conventional jet fuel production. By promoting the use of SAF, the emissions of VOCs can be reduced, leading to improved local air quality.
Mitigation of Local Air Pollution Hotspots: Airports and surrounding areas, especially densely populated regions, often experience localized air pollution due to aircraft emissions. By adopting SAF, airports can mitigate their contribution to local air pollution hotspots. The use of SAF can reduce emissions of pollutants in these areas, benefiting the health and well-being of nearby communities.
It is important to note that the environmental and health benefits of SAF depend on factors such as feedstock sourcing, production processes, and emission control technologies. Continuous research, development, and optimization of SAF production and utilization are necessary to maximize its positive impact on air quality and local pollution reduction.
The adoption of SAF, alongside other measures like improved aircraft technology, air traffic management, and ground infrastructure, plays a crucial role in creating a more sustainable and environmentally friendly aviation industry that prioritizes cleaner air and healthier communities.
Mitigating the environmental impact of aviation on climate change
Mitigating the environmental impact of aviation on climate change is a critical objective for the aviation industry.
Here are some key strategies and initiatives aimed at reducing the industry’s carbon footprint:
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Adoption: Increasing the production and use of SAF is a key strategy for mitigating aviation’s impact on climate change. SAF offers significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions compared to conventional jet fuel. Encouraging the use of SAF as a blend or drop-in replacement in aircraft can contribute to reducing aviation’s carbon emissions.
Technological Advancements: Advancements in aircraft technology, such as more fuel-efficient engines, lightweight materials, and improved aerodynamics, can significantly reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Continued research and development efforts are focused on improving aircraft efficiency and exploring alternative propulsion technologies, such as electric and hybrid-electric systems, to further reduce carbon emissions.
Operational Improvements: Optimizing flight operations can lead to fuel savings and emissions reductions. Strategies such as improved air traffic management, more direct flight paths, optimized climb and descent profiles, and ground operations efficiency can minimize fuel burn and emissions during different phases of flight.
Carbon Offsetting and Carbon Neutrality: Airlines and the aviation industry can participate in carbon offset programs to compensate for their emissions. Carbon offsetting involves investing in projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere, such as renewable energy projects or reforestation initiatives. Some airlines have also committed to achieving carbon neutrality, aiming to balance their carbon emissions by implementing emission reduction measures and offsetting remaining emissions.
International Collaboration and Regulatory Measures: The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), along with governments and industry stakeholders, works to develop and implement global policies and standards to address aviation emissions. Measures such as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) aim to stabilize net CO2 emissions from international aviation at 2020 levels through the use of offset credits.
Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations: Investing in sustainable airport infrastructure, such as renewable energy generation, energy-efficient buildings, and ground transportation electrification, can reduce the carbon footprint of aviation operations. Implementing sustainable practices in airport operations, such as waste management, water conservation, and renewable energy procurement, also contribute to reducing environmental impact.
Research and Development: Continued research and development efforts are essential to drive innovation and find new solutions for mitigating aviation’s impact on climate change. This includes exploring alternative fuels, sustainable materials, advanced air traffic management systems, and disruptive technologies that can revolutionize the aviation industry and enable more sustainable operations.
It is important to note that a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach is necessary to achieve significant reductions in aviation’s environmental impact. Collaboration among airlines, manufacturers, governments, and stakeholders across the aviation sector is crucial to implement these strategies effectively and drive positive change.
Contributions to achieving global sustainability goals (e.g., Paris Agreement)
The aviation industry plays a crucial role in contributing to global sustainability goals, including those outlined in the Paris Agreement.
Here are some key contributions of the aviation sector towards achieving these goals:
Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The Paris Agreement aims to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The aviation industry is actively working towards reducing its GHG emissions by implementing measures such as adopting Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), improving aircraft efficiency, optimizing flight operations, and participating in carbon offset programs. These efforts contribute to the overall global efforts to mitigate climate change.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Adoption: The use of SAF in aviation is a significant contribution to sustainability goals. SAF offers a lower carbon footprint compared to conventional jet fuel, resulting in reduced net emissions of greenhouse gases. By increasing the production and use of SAF, the aviation industry supports the transition to a low-carbon economy and helps decarbonize the transportation sector.
International Collaboration and Targets: The aviation industry actively collaborates through international organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to set emissions reduction targets and develop global policies. The ICAO’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is one example of a global market-based measure designed to address aviation emissions and contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Research and Innovation: The aviation industry invests in research and development to drive innovation and advance sustainable technologies. This includes efforts to develop electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, explore alternative propulsion systems, and improve operational efficiency. By fostering technological advancements, the industry contributes to the long-term goal of reducing emissions and achieving sustainability targets.
Sustainable Infrastructure and Operations: Airports and airlines are implementing sustainable practices in their operations to minimize environmental impact. This includes investing in renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, waste management, water conservation, and sustainable ground transportation. Sustainable airport infrastructure and operations contribute to reducing carbon emissions and achieving sustainability goals.
Stakeholder Engagement and Awareness: The aviation industry engages with various stakeholders, including governments, NGOs, and communities, to promote sustainability and raise awareness about the industry’s efforts. By involving stakeholders and fostering dialogue, the aviation sector seeks to build support for sustainable practices and ensure a coordinated approach towards achieving global sustainability goals.
Contribution to Sustainable Development: Sustainable aviation supports broader sustainable development goals beyond climate action. It contributes to economic growth, job creation, connectivity, tourism, and the well-being of communities. By enabling people and goods to travel efficiently and safely, aviation facilitates social and economic development while striving to minimize its environmental impact.
The aviation industry recognizes the urgency to align with global sustainability goals, including those outlined in the Paris Agreement. Through collaborative efforts, technological advancements, and sustainable practices, the industry aims to play its part in addressing climate change and contributing to a more sustainable and resilient future.
Industry Adoption and Challenges
Regulatory and policy support for SAF production and usage
Regulatory and policy support for Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production and usage is crucial to accelerate its adoption and maximize its impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the aviation sector.
Here are some key regulatory and policy measures that support SAF:
Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS): Governments can establish Renewable Fuel Standards or similar policies that require a certain percentage of aviation fuel to be sourced from renewable and sustainable feedstocks. These standards create a market demand for SAF and provide a stable policy framework for its production and use.
Blending Mandates: Governments can mandate a minimum blend percentage of SAF in aviation fuel. This encourages fuel suppliers to incorporate SAF into their fuel supply chains and ensures a consistent market demand for SAF. Blending mandates help drive investment in SAF production facilities and stimulate innovation in feedstock sourcing and conversion technologies.
Tax Incentives and Financial Support: Governments can provide tax incentives, grants, or subsidies to promote SAF production and usage. These financial incentives help reduce the cost gap between SAF and conventional jet fuel, making SAF more economically viable for producers and airlines. Supportive financial measures encourage investment in SAF infrastructure and support the scaling up of production capacity.
Research and Development Funding: Governments can allocate funding for research and development programs focused on SAF technologies, feedstock development, and sustainability improvements. This funding supports innovation, enhances the efficiency and scalability of SAF production processes, and facilitates the development of new feedstocks with lower environmental impacts.
Public Procurement Policies: Governments and public entities, such as airports and government fleets, can adopt procurement policies that prioritize the use of SAF. By demonstrating a market demand for SAF, public procurement policies create a positive signal to the industry and contribute to market growth, attracting more investment and driving down costs.
International Collaboration and Standards: Governments can participate in international collaborations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and regional aviation associations, to establish global sustainability standards and harmonize SAF regulations. International cooperation ensures a level playing field for SAF production and usage across different jurisdictions and facilitates the global expansion of SAF markets.
Voluntary Carbon Offset Programs: Governments can encourage or support voluntary carbon offset programs specific to aviation. These programs allow airlines and stakeholders to offset their emissions by purchasing verified carbon credits or investing in emission reduction projects. Voluntary offset programs provide additional incentives for the aviation industry to adopt SAF and support the development of robust carbon markets.
By implementing these regulatory and policy measures, governments can create an enabling environment for SAF production and usage. Such support helps drive investment, incentivizes innovation, and accelerates the transition towards a more sustainable aviation sector, aligned with climate change mitigation goals.
Initiatives and partnerships driving SAF development
The development and adoption of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) are driven by various initiatives and partnerships involving governments, industry stakeholders, research organizations, and non-governmental organizations.
Here are some key initiatives and partnerships that are actively driving SAF development:
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI): CAAFI is a public-private partnership in the United States that brings together airlines, aircraft manufacturers, fuel suppliers, and government agencies. Its mission is to promote the development and deployment of alternative aviation fuels, including SAF. CAAFI facilitates collaboration, conducts research, and works towards overcoming barriers to SAF commercialization.
Aviation Climate Solutions: Aviation Climate Solutions is an initiative led by the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG), a global industry association representing the aviation sector. The initiative brings together airlines, airports, and industry partners to accelerate the development and deployment of sustainable aviation solutions, including SAF. It aims to showcase the industry’s commitment to climate action and promote sustainable practices throughout the aviation value chain.
Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB): RSB is a global multi-stakeholder organization that sets sustainability standards and certification schemes for biofuels, including SAF. RSB’s certification ensures that SAF is produced in a manner that meets rigorous environmental, social, and economic criteria. Its standards cover feedstock cultivation, processing, and supply chain operations, ensuring the sustainability and traceability of SAF.
World Economic Forum (WEF) Clean Skies for Tomorrow Initiative: The Clean Skies for Tomorrow initiative, led by the World Economic Forum, aims to accelerate the development and deployment of SAF globally. It brings together industry leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders to advance the sustainability agenda in aviation. The initiative focuses on promoting collaboration, innovation, and policy support to scale up SAF production and usage.
European Union Aviation Initiative (EU-AI): The EU-AI is an industry-led initiative supported by the European Commission to promote the development and uptake of SAF in Europe. It brings together airlines, fuel suppliers, airports, and other stakeholders to facilitate the commercialization of SAF and ensure its sustainable production. The EU-AI supports research, demonstration projects, and policy development to drive SAF deployment across Europe.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (SAFUG): SAFUG is a global industry coalition composed of airlines, airports, fuel producers, and industry partners. Its mission is to accelerate the development and use of SAF through collaboration and knowledge sharing. SAFUG members collaborate on research, development, and advocacy efforts to support SAF commercialization and increase its availability in the market.
Public-Private Partnerships: Governments and industry stakeholders often form public-private partnerships to drive SAF development. These partnerships involve collaborations between airlines, fuel producers, research institutions, and government agencies to fund research projects, pilot plants, and demonstration flights. These initiatives aim to advance SAF technologies, explore new feedstocks, and improve the sustainability and scalability of SAF production processes.
These initiatives and partnerships are instrumental in fostering collaboration, driving innovation, and overcoming barriers to SAF development. By bringing together key stakeholders and aligning efforts, they play a significant role in accelerating the adoption of SAF and achieving sustainability goals in the aviation industry.
Current and future market trends
Airline commitments and demand projections
Current and future market trends in Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) are characterized by increasing airline commitments and growing demand projections.
Here are some key trends:
Airline Commitments: Many airlines have made commitments to reduce their carbon emissions and incorporate SAF into their operations. Numerous major airlines have announced targets to achieve carbon-neutral growth, reduce emissions, or increase SAF usage. These commitments demonstrate the industry’s recognition of SAF as a crucial tool for decarbonizing aviation.
Mandates and Regulations: Governments and regulatory bodies are increasingly introducing mandates and regulations to promote the use of SAF. For example, some countries have implemented blending mandates or carbon intensity requirements, which create a regulatory framework and market demand for SAF. These measures drive the adoption of SAF and shape market trends.
Partnerships and Supply Chain Collaboration: Airlines, fuel producers, and other stakeholders are forming partnerships and collaborating along the SAF supply chain. This includes long-term offtake agreements, strategic investments, and joint research and development efforts. Such collaborations help secure SAF supply, drive innovation, and enhance the availability and affordability of SAF.
Scaling up Production Capacity: The SAF industry is witnessing investments in scaling up production capacity. This includes the construction of new SAF production facilities and the retrofitting of existing refineries to produce SAF. Increased production capacity is essential to meet the growing demand for SAF and achieve economies of scale that can make SAF more competitive with conventional jet fuel.
Feedstock Diversification: The SAF industry is exploring a broader range of feedstocks to diversify the supply and improve sustainability. While current SAF production primarily relies on waste oils and fats, there is increasing interest in alternative feedstocks such as cellulosic biomass, algae, and municipal solid waste. Feedstock diversification enhances the resilience and sustainability of SAF production.
Falling SAF Prices: As the SAF industry matures and production volumes increase, it is expected that the prices of SAF will gradually decline. Falling SAF prices, coupled with potential policy incentives, can make SAF more financially viable for airlines and increase its competitiveness compared to conventional jet fuel.
Growing Market Demand: Market projections indicate a significant increase in SAF demand in the coming years. Several studies forecast that SAF demand could reach substantial volumes by 2030 and beyond. This demand is driven by airline commitments, regulatory requirements, and the need to reduce aviation emissions. As more airlines seek to decarbonize their operations, the demand for SAF is expected to rise.
Technological Advancements: Research and development efforts continue to focus on improving SAF production processes and exploring advanced technologies. This includes advancements in feedstock conversion technologies, catalysts, and production efficiency. Technological innovations can further drive down costs, improve the sustainability of SAF, and enhance its market competitiveness.
Overall, the market trends in SAF indicate a growing momentum towards its widespread adoption in the aviation industry. Increasing airline commitments, supportive regulations, supply chain collaborations, and advancements in production technologies are driving the growth of the SAF market. As these trends continue, SAF is expected to play an increasingly significant role in reducing aviation emissions and achieving sustainability goals.
Overcoming barriers and scaling up production
Technology advancements, cost considerations, and infrastructure requirements
Overcoming barriers and scaling up Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production requires addressing several key factors, including technology advancements, cost considerations, and infrastructure requirements.
Here’s a breakdown of these aspects:
Technology Advancements:
a. Feedstock Development: Advancing feedstock development is crucial to ensure a sustainable and diversified supply of SAF. Research focuses on identifying new feedstock sources, improving feedstock yields, and enhancing their conversion efficiency.
b. Conversion Technologies: Advancements in conversion technologies, such as hydroprocessing, gasification, and fermentation, can improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of SAF production. Research and development efforts aim to optimize these processes and develop new pathways to produce SAF from various feedstocks.
c. Catalysts and Process Optimization: Developing efficient catalysts and optimizing process parameters play a significant role in improving the conversion efficiency and reducing the costs associated with SAF production. Research focuses on catalyst design, process optimization, and integration of different conversion steps.
d. Emerging Technologies: Exploring emerging technologies, such as electrofuels, solar-to-fuel conversion, and synthetic biology, may offer new pathways for SAF production. These technologies have the potential to further improve the sustainability and scalability of SAF production.
Cost Considerations
a. Economy of Scale: Scaling up SAF production can help achieve economies of scale, reducing production costs over time. Increasing production volumes and optimizing production processes can lead to cost efficiencies and make SAF more cost-competitive with conventional jet fuel.
b. Feedstock Availability and Cost: The availability and cost of feedstocks significantly impact the overall cost of SAF production. Developing feedstocks with lower costs and high yields, as well as utilizing waste and residue streams, can contribute to cost reduction.
c. Research and Development Funding: Continued investment in research and development is essential to drive technological advancements and cost reduction in SAF production. Government funding, public-private partnerships, and industry collaborations can support research efforts and help overcome cost barriers.
Infrastructure Requirements:
a. Production Facilities: Establishing dedicated SAF production facilities or retrofitting existing refineries to produce SAF is essential to scale up production. Investment in infrastructure, including equipment, storage facilities, and distribution networks, is required to support increased SAF production and distribution.
b. Supply Chain Integration: Integration of SAF production into existing fuel supply chains and distribution networks is necessary to ensure a seamless flow of SAF from production to end-users, such as airports and airlines. Collaborations between fuel producers, refineries, logistics providers, and end-users are critical to developing an efficient SAF supply chain.
c. Infrastructure Investment: Governments and industry stakeholders may need to invest in infrastructure development to support SAF production and distribution. This includes incentives for infrastructure upgrades, support for the construction of new facilities, and the development of sustainable fueling infrastructure at airports.
Addressing these technological, cost, and infrastructure challenges requires a collaborative effort between governments, industry stakeholders, research institutions, and financial institutions. Continued research and development, policy support, and investments in infrastructure are crucial to overcoming barriers and successfully scaling up SAF production to meet the growing demand for sustainable aviation fuel.
Conclusion Production of sustainable aviation fuel
The production of Sustainable Aviation Fuel represents a significant step forward in reducing the environmental impact of aviation.
Through the use of renewable feedstocks and advanced conversion technologies, SAF offers a viable solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and achieving sustainability goals.
As industry adoption and regulatory support continue to grow, the future of aviation looks brighter, where sustainable practices and SAF production take center stage, ensuring a cleaner and greener future for air travel.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production plays a vital role in decarbonizing the aviation sector and mitigating its environmental impact. SAF offers a promising alternative to conventional jet fuel, with reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality, and sustainable feedstock sourcing.
Through advancements in technology, such as feedstock development, conversion processes, and catalyst optimization, the production of SAF is becoming more efficient and cost-effective. Ongoing research and development efforts, coupled with supportive policies and funding, are driving innovation and scaling up production capacity.
To realize the full potential of SAF, it is crucial to address barriers such as cost considerations and infrastructure requirements. Continued investment, economies of scale, and diversification of feedstocks are key factors in reducing the cost gap between SAF and conventional jet fuel. Additionally, the development of dedicated SAF production facilities and integration into existing supply chains and infrastructure are necessary to meet the growing demand.
The commitments and collaborations of airlines, governments, industry stakeholders, and research organizations are driving the development and adoption of SAF. Regulatory support, including renewable fuel standards, blending mandates, and financial incentives, is creating a favorable environment for SAF production and usage.
https://www.exaputra.com/2023/05/sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf.html
Weather Guard Lightning Tech
The Blade Whisperer Returns with Morten Handberg
Morten Handberg, Principal Consultant at Wind Power LAB, joins the show to discuss the many variables within wind turbine blades that operators may not be aware of. From design to materials and operation, understanding your blades is crucial to making informed decisions in the field.
Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!
Welcome to Uptime Spotlight, shining light on wind. Energy’s brightest innovators. This is the progress Powering tomorrow.
Allen Hall: Morten, welcome back to the program.
Morten Handberg: Thank you so much, Allen. It’s fantastic to be back. It’s, uh, I really, really happy to be back on the show to discuss blades with you guys.
Allen Hall: So you’re a resident blade whisperer, and we wanted to talk about the differences between types of blades even within the same manufacturer, because I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding if I buy a specific OEM turbine that I’m getting the same design all the time, or even just the same basic materials are that are used.
That’s not the case anymore.
Morten Handberg: No, I mean, there’s always been variations. Uh, so the B 90 is a very good example because initially was, was released with, uh, with the, with the glass fiber spark cap. [00:01:00] But at later iterations it was, then they then switched it to carbon fiber for, for, for larger, for larger turbines, for higher rated power.
But it, it, but it sort of gave that you were not a hundred percent sure. When you initially looked at it, was this actually a ca a glass fiber, uh, beam or a carbon fiber was only when you started to learn the integral, you know, what, what to read in, in the naming convention that you could understand it.
But it caused a little confusion about, you know, I’m looking at glass fiber blade or, or a carbon fiber blade. So it’s been there for a while, but we’re seeing it more and more pronounced with, um. Uh, OEMs changing to signs, uh, or OEMs merging together, but keeping their integral design for, for, for various purposes.
And then for the, for the, for the people, not in, uh, not in the loop or not looking behind the curtain. They don’t, you don’t know, know, know the difference. So I think it’s really important that we, that we sort of highlight some of those things to make it easier for people to, to, to know, to know this.
Allen Hall: There was a generational change. [00:02:00] Uh, even in the 1.5 megawatt class. There were some blades that were fiberglass and then they, there was a trend to move to carbon fiber to make them lighter, but then the designers got better and started putting fiberglass in, where now you have 70 meter blades that are fiberglass worth 35 meter blades, may have had carbon.
Yeah, it’s hard to keep up with it.
Morten Handberg: You know, it’s really difficult to know. I mean, for, for, for the longer blades, it’s becoming more and more pronounced that they will be, uh, there will be carbon fiber reinforced. But a good, uh, example of where it doesn’t really apply is actually with, uh, with Siemens cesa.
Because if you look at Siemens, Cade said, you know, it’s, it’s Siemens, uh, the original OEM Siemens at the original OEM Cade that merged. Quite a few years back, but you know, we still see the very sharp, uh, difference between the two different designs because whenever you install a Siemens Esso turbine offshore, it’s the Siemens integral blade, it will.
And, and they kept that, [00:03:00] uh, and that blade is produced in one cast, it’s called the Integral Blade because that’s their inherited design. And there are no adhesive bond blinds in that. Uh, so all laminated is consolidated. It’s all cast in one go, and then whatever kings and small, uh, defects there, then repaired on factory before they ship offshore.
These are pure glass fiber plate that has not changed at all. So that’s sort of the, uh, how do you say, uh, the one that, that, uh, that is outside the norm that we see today. But the Gaza part of it, they, they’ve kept for onshore purposes, they kept their design using, uh, adhered shells or adhered bond lines.
So they would have two, uh, share webs and then two shells, uh, that are then, that are then, then, uh, glued together, uh, at the bond lines, on the share, on the trading edge, and on the leading edge. With carbon re, re reinforcement. Um, so that is a massive different design within one [00:04:00] OEM and often when people say, well, we have a problem with the Siemens commes blade, which one?
Uh, so then it’s very, very important to understand, you know, what blade type, you know, what, what, what turbine model it is because then we can pretty easily drive it, or even for just know the wind farm because. If it’s offshore, we pretty much, you know, we can, we, we know already. We just need to know the what, what, what size of turbine is, and derive what blade type it is.
Onshore becomes a bit more pro problematic because then you need to know, you know, at what, when was it erected, because then, you know, it can be both, but. If you don’t know, then it will just be presented as a Siemens cesa. So it’s really important to keep, uh, in check, uh, when, when, when, when, when looking at that.
So that’s a, so that’s a very important distinction that, that we need, need to understand when the child, when determining blade damages,
Allen Hall: right, because the type of damage, the integral blade would suffer really completely different than the sort of the ESA bonded design. I was looking at blades in Oklahoma recently that were integral from like a two megawatt machine, and it, it [00:05:00] looks completely different when you walk up to that blade.
You can tell that it’s cast in one piece. It’s very interesting to see, but that makes it, I think the, the thing about those blades is that it’s a little more manufacturing cost to, to make ’em that way, but. They are, uh, tend to be a little more rugged out in service, right?
Morten Handberg: Well, they’re, they’re definitely heavier because of the, the manufacturing process that they go through.
Um, they’re more robust. We, I think we can, we can, we can see that from a track record, uh, in general. Um, but they’re, but the trade off is that they are a lot, they’re heavier. So that means that the, that the components that are used in the Drivetrain Tower Foundation, they’re equally heavier. So you pay the price in the, uh, in the cost of the turbine.
But, uh, overall on the, on the mainland side, we do see less, at least some structural damages and if something really bad happens, so, uh, the trailing edge more often, not it’s kept to the, to the tip or on that part of the trailing edge. So, so, uh, so [00:06:00] the, the, the blade structure keeps together better, um, because of this consolidation of the laminates.
Allen Hall: Right, and the, the traditional ESA design, I’ll call it, has been a bonded design for a long time. The issue with bond lines is there is no peel ply stoppage, so there’s no fasteners in it, in case it starts to come apart, it’ll continue to peel, and that’s what we typically call a banana peel when it really goes bad.
The blade splits in two. Once it starts, it really doesn’t have a way to stop. And I think that’s why inspection is so important on those bonded blades. Right?
Morten Handberg: Yeah. Actually, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1 small thing. Uh, peel ply is actually something that’s used in laminate production to, uh, to you apply it when you’re casting, you laminate typically for repair.
Then when you peel it off. The surface is fresh and clean, and then you can, you can continue working it, adding more, more mobilely or, or new coating. So it removes some, uh, lamination or some grinding process that will otherwise be needed, has no structural purpose in it, [00:07:00] uh, just to kill that myth of, but you’re right.
Uh, when you have an adhere blade for any, for any manufacturer, for any purpose. If you have a, uh, if you have a deep bonding that starts, then it can, it can, depending on the location, it can grow really fast because you don’t have the same consolidation. You do have some bike layers that would add over, but it doesn’t have the same integral strength that you would see with the, uh, with the consolidated laminate.
Allen Hall: So that’s a big difference. And if you’re looking at blades, and if you haven’t. Looked inside of a hub and looked inside the blade. You, you may not even know. And I think that does happen to a lot of engineers that they, because they, they’re dealing with a thousand blades a lot of times the blade engineers, it’s crazy what they’re asked to go do.
You just can’t know all the details all the time. But just knowing these top level things can really help you suss out like where to start. And, and, and even on the inspection res regimes would on an integral blade type design, are you doing different kinds of inspections than you would do on a standard kind of.
Mesa bonded up design?
Morten Handberg: I would [00:08:00] say not actually. I mean, you would still, you would still do, uh, you, you’ll still do internal inspections because, um, you can still have defect developing. They would be, uh, slower, uh, growing in general, um, compared to a, uh, to a more thin skin laminate, uh, type blade. But, but the inspection methodology is, is more, less the same.
You would do an external inspection to check for lighting damages wearing of, uh, coating. So erosion. Any kind of structural damage in developing over the shell, uh, surfaces. And internally, you would check the bond lines, uh, because even though they’re consolidated, there is still, uh, they, they, they still have a, have a bonding, uh, an in laminate bonding.
So you want to check if that is okay. Um, and you wanna see if there’s any, uh, any defects developing in the shoulder area from breathing or from, or any kind of manufacturing defect. So it’s not that. Not that you will. Yeah. That you will then, you know, set it up and then you can let it run forever without looking at it.
You d do need to do maintenance, [00:09:00] um, but if you do proactive maintenance, you can then, then you, you will detect it in time and you can do more, uh, reactive repairs.
Allen Hall: Yeah. And what’s the difference in repair costs between a integral blade where it’s all cast at one time versus a, a bonded design? Does it tend to be a little less expensive because it’s maybe a little localized than a.
Uh, a bonded type shear web design.
Morten Handberg: Well, if the damage affect multiple parts of shear web and, uh, and beam and shell, it will always be a very extreme, very costly repair, regardless of what, whatever blade type it is. Integral blades, I would say typically will likely be more expensive if you have a structural damage, but that’s just because of the sheer number of flies that will be affected because for a, for a thin skin laminate blade.
While the damage can be, can be much larger, the amount of layers that you need to remove will be less. So I would, I would always, I, I would, I would consider it more likely that the repair costs for, for a, [00:10:00] uh, for adhesive bond line blade to have a lower repair cost for the same type of damage that we see an integral blade.
But the integral plate will more, will, will, will have less of them, and you will also be able to detect them earlier. So the chance of preparing. Is higher on an integral plate is what I would normally that, that, that’s how I would normally, you know, pro think of it.
Allen Hall: Okay. That’s that’s good to know. Can we talk carbon protrusions and knowledge of them because it, it has seemed like over time there was, they were really hot in like the mid two thousands, into the 10 20, 10 20 12, 20 15 ish, and then it kinda went away for a little bit ’cause of the cost and now they’re coming back again because of the links.
It’s really. Important that you know if your blades have carbon in them, correct?
Morten Handberg: Yes. Um, one because, uh, carbon is more rigid, um, than, than than glass fiber. It is, uh, it is, it is multiple the times, multiple times stronger than glass fiber. That’s also why it’s favorable to use, [00:11:00]because you can produce a, a longer blade while, um, minimizing the weight increase that you would have.
Um, so that is a very, uh, that is a very appealing trait to have. The problem with carbon is two things. One, it is a, uh, conducted material, which means that it does, uh, create a, um, a mag, uh, how do you say, magnetic seal, if there’s any kind of, uh. Lightning activity if there’s any static develop, uh, uh, buildup inside the blade.
So that can be, that can cause its own set of problems and something where you have to be very observant of what, what kind of LPS system you have and what, what kind of lightning conditions you have. The second part is. Carbon fiber is so rigid. Then that also means if you have any kind of manufacturing defect, the effect of it is multiplied.
Um, because carbon fiber doesn’t, it doesn’t have the same elasticity. Glass fiber is very forgiving if you have a defect there. While it will develop over time [00:12:00] at some point for a large part of the time, they, because it’s so elastic, the loads they get distributed better. For carbon, it will centralize around the, the manufacturing defect and will just grow.
And once it starts growing, then it will, it will expand rapidly. So that’s also why when we see a, a, um, a blade damage where the defect started in the carbon spot, the the blade is simply just cut off. It’s simply like someone just took. Took a, uh, took a hacksaw and then cut the, the blade, uh, blade, blade section off because the, the, because of the rapid growth of that defect.
Um, so that, that’s sort of the, the trade off, but that’s also why we have to be even more observant. If an OEM is using carbon fiber to reinforce it, that they do NDT off their, um, off their blades before sending ’em out. And they do quality control off the protrusions when they receive them so that the owner doesn’t take over an inherited risk.
So that, I would really say that if you have wind turbines with carbon fiber, [00:13:00] if you’re planning to build them. You should make sure that there, that NDT is done, because you cannot verify this by visual. It’s, you know, if you can see them, that’s great, but it, it’s not a guarantee that there is nothing there.
Um, and the amount of defect that we see out there that does suggest that this is, this is not a, uh, a nice to have. It’s an absolute must to, must, must do to do NDT.
Allen Hall: Yeah, the carbon protrusions, if you looked at that process, it’s not a easy process, but they’re trying to orient the fiber in one direction all the time, and even slight variations can reduce the strength inside the protrusion.
So it becomes critical that the quality of the protrusion is good and, and the reason they. Make protrusions is to lower the cost. So the protrusion itself is really set into this fiberglass shell. So you’re really, you have merging two technologies together, which always doesn’t always work as well as you would want it to work.
But it has gotten, at least in my opinion, Morgan, and that’s why I’m asking you. Has it gotten better over time that we’ve gotten used to using [00:14:00]protrusions and are better at and applying them and in and maintaining them? At this point?
Morten Handberg: I think the OEMs are really good at using them in designs. I think they’ve done a really good job at using, utilizing the carbon fiber to its maximum potential, uh, to build blades that are plus a hundred meters.
Uh, what we have to be make sure is that whatever we then do in manufacturing quality control, operation maintenance. That adheres to the, to the same standard that would apply in design. So, you know, that that’s sort of the, that, that, that’s sort of the crux of it. Because if you, if you, if you design something perfect and then you have more, you know, how do you say it more, you know, less, uh, pristine approach to when you’re manufacturing or when you’re servicing it, then you know it, then it causes problem down, problems down the line.
Um, because. It will need maintenance, it will need very strict project control. So that’s why we have to be very vigilant.
Allen Hall: And I wanna talk about the difference between box beams and sort of standard [00:15:00] share. Web I beams, I’ll call ’em, that we typically see a lot more of today. There’s a number of blades, particularly early on that were box beam.
And when I talk to operators of these terms that have box beams and I say, Hey, do you have a box beam? I don’t, I don’t know. I don’t know. Uh, but those blades act uniquely different than sort of the blades we’re buying today, right?
Morten Handberg: Well, the B Beam is still in production. You can still acquire a turbine with a box beam in it.
It’s a, uh, it’s a investor design. It’s something that they invented, that they’ve used for ages, uh, decades. Uh, uh, think that goes all the way back to some of the first way business space. So it’s a very, uh, it’s, it’s a very strong design that they’ve utilized for, for. For the history of Vestas. Um, and it was originally a carbon based spark cap in a box beam.
There was a, it was a closed square that was a elongated. So, um, and then narrowing as you get further to the tip, uh, and then later on with the B [00:16:00] 90, they introduced carbon fiber protrusions instead of glass cyber in it to make it stronger and also enable building longer blades, but while keeping the low weight, because that’s really where they won a lot, is that they could keep extremely low blade weights.
And thereby very light turbines. Uh. While still, uh, uh, uh, how do you say producing, uh, having the same rated power as an equivalent turbine from any other m So that was really a, a, a, a unique design that this they had or have. Um, so the, if you want to know, if you have a box beam blade or an SST blade, you simply just have to look inside the plate.
It’s very easy. Uh, if you have a bucketing plate, all you will see is a, is a, is a square. Um, where at and, and you know, at, at a large tunnel and nothing else, if you have an I-beam with one or two share webs, if you look inside the blade, you will see, see these two share webs, but you also see the chamber and the trailing edge.
And in the leading edge. And that’s because it’s an open design. [00:17:00] So it’s actually very easy to detect if you have one or the other. But they’re very different from each other, uh, in a lot of other senses. Um, the. The box beam design is inherently non-structural shells. The, the blade shells are really, really thin, also very easy to repair because they’re so thin, but they’re very thin because the, all the loads is taken up by the box beam.
For the SST or the eye beam design, the loads are, while still thin skin relative is taken up more load. But, and, and in the design, they’re considered as being part of the load carrying structure. So you have to be more observant of maintaining the shell structure as well as the, as as the, the, how do you say, the low carrying structure on an, on an, uh, SST or I beam Blade.
Then you had to on a, on a box beam. And a good example of this is that you sometimes see that blade shields coming apart, coming apart on, um, on, on, on blade damages. And what is unique for [00:18:00] the i, for, for the box beam is that the box beam will just stay in place. It doesn’t it? It’s. Basically the, the turbine doesn’t seem, seem to care if it’s there or not.
It will just continue operating. Uh, so, so you can have, uh, shells, uh, part of the shell missing for a period of time. And the you, they only notice because, you know, you look up and then, hey, part of the, part of the blades look like it is looking like a, like a pine cone, a squirrel chew that, uh, because the part of the, the, uh, the shelves are missing and it, it’s quite weird.
Um, but, but that, that is how it is.
Allen Hall: Box beams. SST, that all makes sense to me. Uh, one of the things that we’re running into more recently is as blades get longer and the costs go up and the risk goes up along with it, as the blades get longer, of course, uh, there’s there’s much more instrumentation going on to the blades in the manufacturing process.
So now we’re seeing. Uh, thermal couples being applied during the manufacturing process to verify that [00:19:00] everything is cured out properly, which is a wonderful thing to do, honestly, in the manufacturing area, but. If they’re not removed, and I think more recently we have seen some thermocouples left in blades.
It can become a problem later on in life.
Morten Handberg: Well, I mean, uh, it’s actually something that’s been used for, for quite a while. It is, uh, thermocouples is something you would use to verify that your adhesive have seen the right curing temperature to make sure that it has the right mechanical properties. Which makes a lot of sense.
Um, obviously, you know, as an electrical engineers, you are, you know, you, you would know that, you know any, any, uh, conductive material. Whenever ex uh, and lighting expert, then when exposed to a lightning current will start to generate its own ma own magnetic fields that will, uh, that will on its own, uh, create a potential problem because then the, um, then, then they will start to react with each other.
And that can cause, um, that can cause risk of flashover, uh, it can cause lighting attachment [00:20:00] on its own. And that really applies to any kind of conductive component that you would have in your plate. Including your carbon beams. Uh, it’s not something that is unique for, for cabling inside the blades. It’s actually also something that if you have sense installation that you have to be very concerned about, you know, if you’re installing it.
How will it then, you know, react with the LPS system so that your census don’t start to become a flashover points that you introduce that. So that’s something that typically, uh, especially OEMs, they’re very concerned about, uh, that how will it interact with the LPS system and how will it interact with their carbon reinforcement?
And I think that’s fair. Um, how widespread an issue it is that we see flashover, I don’t know that many cases, but again. We don’t want to just install a lot and then find out there was a problem later on. You know, that’s really what we as an industry cloud should start to move away from. So I think there’s lot of good sense if you want, you know, I’m a big proponent for condition monitoring, but I [00:21:00] also am a big opponent that we need to verify things and understand the risk before starting to instrument their left and right.
Um. And for carbon fiber, fiber blades, you know, if they’re not integrated into the LPS system, that means that then they will, they will have their, they, they will create, create their own magnetic field during a lightning search. And that can then cause flash overs that we’ve seen with some, uh, historic and some, uh, current.
Models. Um, but the problem is, is is there for any carbon blade if the LPS system is not designed with intent, that to handle any, um, any lightning issues in, in the carbon fibers.
Allen Hall: And I think it gets down to inspection and regimes and timing depending on what is inside of your blade or, and even how it’s constructed.
In my opinion. I think what I see from operators is based upon their knowledge of what is happening in the blade. They’ll, uh, add a internal rover or drone, not internal, maybe sometimes internal drone, but usually a rover, [00:22:00] uh, will go inside the blade and start taking pictures. That has become more prevalent, I’d say in the last two years where you hear of full campaigns, and I know down in Brazil, earth, wind does them all the time down in Brazil because the, they have a capacity factor over 50%, so the blades are really getting used.
Those internal inspections have been eye-opening in, in terms of. Detecting problems early, and is that, is that where we’re headed right now is that we just need to know visually what’s going on more because the, the blade variations, OEM to OEM and factory to factory, that we just need to have a little more monitoring for a while until we get into an alignment.
Morten Handberg: I think that inspections is a symptom of not having the right tools to, to monitor. Not wanting the right tools to monitor because if we had condition monitoring and every blade, and every blade was fitted at with it from birth, we would know a lot more about what’s going on in the blades from day one.
And that will also mean that we would know if [00:23:00] two or three or five blades in a, in a 15, uh, turbine wind farm had problems we could focus on inspection regime on that. So, but right now, because we don’t have that, then we need to, to roll out a very large, very complex, uh, inspection regimes that takes a lot of downtime, is very expensive because we don’t have the necessary dataset to, to, uh, to, to determine accurately which turbines are actually at risk.
So I think it’s more of a symptom of, of the need for, for, for CMS. Um, I’m not, I’m not have nothing against rovers. I think they’re great for what they do, but I would prefer that we use them for these specific issues instead of having it as a, as a, as a major rollout over the entire wind farm.
Allen Hall: Oh, I, I agree with you there.
I think CMS is getting utilized more and more and more, and, and in fact, uh, as we talked to operators this year, because of, of rule changes in the United States, a lot of operators in the United States are now moving to a CMS system that they previously probably wouldn’t have done, [00:24:00] uh, because of the lifetime of the blade.
Right. So that, that’s something that I think. Uh, Denmark and Europe has done so much better. And Morton, you’re in the middle of all that, being based in Denmark, that CMS is a way of life, uh, on a lot of turbines in Europe and, but in the States and other places, even Australia, it, it may not be that widely used.
Morten Handberg: Well, I would say for the Australian market where we’ve done some work, they are, uh, very positive towards CMS and we know, we know quite a few operators that are actively either looking into it or looking at it from the, from day one in their wind farms. Uh, operators in Europe, I would say we we’re still not there yet.
Owners, there are some owners that are installing it, um, actively. It’s not something that, you know, we’re not seeing on the majority of the wind farm shed. It’s not, it’s not commonplace. It’s still, I would say, compared to the amount of turbines we have, it’s still a novelty. So our, I’m, I’m still, I’m, it’s still one of my, uh, my, uh, month, uh, how do you say my, uh, catchphrases [00:25:00] when I come out to onus and we’re talking about the problems, is that, you know, you can hand your blood damages, uh, on X, Y, and z.
You know, going forward, if you want to catch ’em early on or you want to understand them better, how they affect your blade, you need to look into CMS. Um, and again, it’s, there are a lot of good CMS options out there. A lot of them have actually been, been verified and, uh. I would say, you know, some higher tier systems, they make a lot of sense.
They give you a lot more data, but it’s, you know, something is better than nothing. I would say, let’s get some data in, let’s get started on the process. Let’s get some learnings, and then we can develop the technology. If we’re always waiting for the perfect system, then we’ll never get anywhere.
Allen Hall: I’m gonna bring up zero defects because I think this is all headed towards zero defects and we’ve, we’ve talked to a number of operators in the last six months who say to themselves.
In my, uh, TSA, I had a serial defect clause, but we missed the window opportunity. Usually it’s a year or two and you have to show a certain percentage. It’s like 25% have this [00:26:00] problem. If you’re not measuring a turbine or blade or anything on your, you will never figure out if you have a serial defect, and, and particularly if you don’t know what the architecture of each blade is, you won’t be able to connect the dots of these blades made at a particular factory, have this issue.
CMS becomes really vital in, in that aspect. As we’re putting billions of dollars into a farm, the value return is very high.
Morten Handberg: Yes, I would say so. The problem is that for a lot of operators then the operational margins, they’re very low. So if you don’t get it installed, uh, during CapEx, then to find budget for it during oex is something that’s really, is really hurting.
Uh, the budget and, and, and, you know, with elec the electricity prices in a lot of places being really low, then there might be a need for it, but it’s really difficult for to, to find a, a budget for it, that, that can then send that investment unless there is some really something really critical where it says it’s a do or die [00:27:00] thing.
Um. So, so I would, I would agree with you, yes. For, you know, it’s something that can help us identify if there is, uh, serial issues, because then the defect will develop and, you know, even if there is a serial issue, it can help us prevent the worst case scenario that the, that we see blade collapses, blades being replaced.
So, so there’s a lot of, you know, downstream, uh, um, advantages of, uh, of installing CMS and I, I truly believe that it will help us with the green transition as well, because as you know, with the number of blades that we’re replacing right now, you know, you know, scrapping blades is not green transition. If we can prolong lives, if we can repair them in, in, in due time, that’s how we get to, to, uh, to a green transition where the, where wind industry becomes profitable and affordable and where it’s, it, you don’t create an issue for some part of the industries, uh, because it’s a big problem for owners.
It’s a big problem for insurance [00:28:00] companies that we see this big turnover of blades because of, of catastrophic damages. So more, the more we can do to prolong life of blades. Prevent damages from happening or capture damages early on, and then get them repaired, will, will really help that, uh, uh, that move moving forward.
Allen Hall: Wow. That’s why we love having you on Morton because you can explain the complex and simple terms, and I think you’re right. You, you’re moving the industry. Uh, you’re recommendations are, are being heard by operators and by OEMs. I think. The industry is changing, and that’s great to hear. Morton, how do people get ahold of you?
Is it best to reach you on LinkedIn?
Morten Handberg: Well, either LinkedIn or you can also reach me on my, um, on my company email, MEH, at wind power app.com. Uh, that, that would be the, the far easiest way to get in. Hold me to, uh, uh, uh, where we can discuss any kind of late issues you might have. Always happy to, to support any owners or insurance insurers.
Allen Hall: More than I love having you on. We gotta have you on sooner next time and, and keep talking to these issues because a lot of [00:29:00] operators are struggling and there’s so much technology being applied to blades. We need to have you back on pretty soon.
Morten Handberg: Absolutely. I would love to be on to, uh, uh, to, to explain more complex issues and to puncture more, more myths.
Let, let’s do it.
https://weatherguardwind.com/blade-morten-handberg/
I wrote a post earlier today about a British geneticist, Dr. Gordon Strathdee, who had lived in the United States for four years, and believes that, by 2028, the U.S. will fall under military dictatorship. He believes this, not because of Trump per se, but because of the mentality of the typical American voter. I hope you’ll read his incredibly astute comments here.
In the earlier post, I argued against Strathdee’s position, but I’ve given a great deal of thought to this matter over the years since Trump came on the political scene here in 2015, and I agree that there is considerable reason to be concerned about this outcome, that strokes the civilized world as being so horrible.
To summarize Strathdee’s thinking in two quick statements:
1) A solid percent of U.S. voters love Trump and everything he stands for, and there are exactly zero deal-breakers here, certainly no criminal misconduct. Did his supporters bat an eyelash when the president, deposed in the 2020 election, tried (and nearly succeeded) in overthrowing the U.S. federal government? Not for a millisecond.
2) Given this, the American people are getting exactly what they are asking for. They adore Trump’s blend of racism, cruelty, and his extending his middle finger to our nation’s traditions, e.g., working against the world’s dictators, working in concert with our allies, and accepting of the findings of the courts.
I’m sure this isn’t going to impress too many of my readers, but there is a certain justice and rightness in giving the people what they want. I need to accept the truth, i.e., that I live among tens of millions of grossly undereducated people who are thrilled with what’s happening here, and are going to be extremely resistant to changing their thinking.
We need to keep in mind that this situation is not at all limited to the United States. Until recently, Hungary, with its history of great art, architecture and especially music, was one of the most enviable societies on Earth. Now, they have a ruthless dictator. The precise mechanism behind all this I don’t know, but what about this suggestion: The people wanted one?
It’s virtually certain that Trump will be connected to Epstein and the sex trafficking of underage girls.
The question, however, is will he lose any support? We’re talking about an adjudicated rapist who tried to overthrow the United States federal government. For the MAGA base, there are no deal-breakers.
-
Climate Change3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Greenhouse Gases3 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy4 months ago
US Grid Strain, Possible Allete Sale