Johan

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 125 (2023) 103886
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc
Sustainable aviation fuels – Options for negative emissions and high

carbon efficiency
Johan Ahlström a, *, Yawer Jafri b, Elisabeth Wetterlund b, c, Erik Furusjö a, b
a
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden
b
Department of Energy Science, Division of Energy Engineering Technology, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
c
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
A B S T R A C T
Mitigating the climate impact from aviation remains one of the tougher challenges in adapting society to fulfill stated climate targets. Long-range aviation cannot be
electrified for the foreseeable future and the effects of combusting fuel at high altitude increase the climate impact compared to emissions of green-house gasses only,
which further limits the range of sustainable fuel alternatives. We investigate seven different pathways for producing aviation biofuels coupled with either bio-energy
carbon capture and storage (BECCS), or bio-energy carbon capture and utilization (BECCU). Both options allow for increased efficiency regarding utilization of
feedstock carbon. Our analysis uses process-level carbon- and energy balances, with carbon efficiency, climate impact and levelized cost of production (LCOP) as
primary performance indicators.
The results show that CCS can achieve a negative carbon footprint for four out of the seven pathways, at a lower cost of GHG reduction than the base process
option. Conversely, as a consequence of the electricity-intensive CO2 upgrading process, the CCU option shows less encouraging results with higher production costs,
carbon footprints and costs of GHG reduction. Overall, pathways with large amounts of vented CO2, e.g., gasification of black liquor or bark, as well as fermentation
of forest residues, reach a low GHG reduction cost for the CCS option. These are also pathways with a larger feedstock and corresponding production potential. Our
results enable a differentiated comparison of the suitability of various alternatives for BECCS or BECCU in combination with aviation biofuel production. By
quantifying the relative strengths and weaknesses of BECCS and BECCU and by highlighting cost, climate and carbon-efficient pathways, these results can be a source
of support for both policymakers and the industry.
1. Introduction Several complex mechanisms contribute to the high-altitude effects,

which are caused by the combustion of fuel at high altitudes. The most
Global CO2 emissions from aviation amounted to 1.9% of the total prominent warming mechanism is the formation of contrail cirrus,
green-house gas (GHG) emissions in 2020 (Ritchie, 2020). However, which are essentially high-altitude clouds made up of ice crystals that
owing to the presence of the so-called high-altitude effect, aviation fuels are formed when steam condenses on the aerosols caused by the com
create an additional global warming effect, and aviation is therefore bustion of jet fuel (Jungbluth and Meili, 2018 Nov 19). To further
responsible for 3.5% of the effective radiative forcing (Lee et al., 2021) complicate the overall mechanisms, several of the mechanisms cause
(Lund et al., 2017). Although these numbers might appear small in both a cooling and warming effect, depending on temperature, time, and
relation to emissions from other parts of the society, technical limita other factors. Although some of the high-altitude effects have a short
tions entail that aviation is one of the more complex sectors to readjust lifetime, research also suggests that the long-term effects are severe. For
towards reduced climate impact. If the climate obligations specified in instance, studies have shown that contrail cirrus also remains an
the Paris Agreement are to be reached, emissions from all sectors need to important part of the long-term climate impact, at around 15% over a
become net zero by 2050 (Schleussner et al., 2016). 100-years’ time span (Lund et al., 2017).
Abbreviations: ATJ, Alcohol-to-Jet; BECCS, Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage; BECCU, Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Utilization; BL, Black liquor; CAPEX,
Capital Expenditure; CCS, Carbon Capture and Storage; CCU, Carbon Capture and Utilization; DFB, Dual Fluidized Bed; EU ETS, European Emission Trading System;
FR, Forest Residues; FT, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis; GHG, Green House Gas; GWP, Global Warming Potential; HDO, Hydro deoxygenation; HEFA, Hydro processed
Esters & Fatty Acids; HP, hydropyrolysis; IEA, International Energy Agency; IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change; LCA, Life-Cycle Assessment; LCOP,
Levelized Cost of Production; LPG, Liquefied Petroleum Gas; OPEX, Operational Expenditure; RED II, European Renewable Energy Directive; RFI, Radiative Forcing
Index; RWGS, Reversed water-gas shift; SAF, Sustainable Aviation Fuel; SD, Sawdust.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: johan.m.ahlstrom@ri.se (J. Ahlström).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2023.103886
Received 15 February 2022; Received in revised form 27 February 2023; Accepted 4 April 2023
Available online 13 April 2023
1750-5836/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Ahlström et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 125 (2023) 103886
While large parts of the transport system are expected to transition Swedish knowledge center for renewable transportation fuels 2021)). In
towards fulfilling climate obligations by increased electrification, e.g., thermochemical biofuel production processes a part of the feedstock is
battery electric vehicles (Schiffer and Manthiram, 2017 Sep 6), this generally combusted to generate heat for the biomass conversion; hence
option is not currently available for commercial aviation (Moua et al., part of the feedstock carbon is vented as CO2. Likewise, in
2020). Limitations in battery capacity essentially leaves only one option fermentation-based biofuel production processes, CO2 is generated as a
for aviation to decrease its climate impact, namely renewable liquid consequence of the fuel conversion process. A clear opportunity to
fuels, produced either from biological feedstock (biofuels) or from address this issue is through capture and utilization of vented CO2
electricity (electro-fuels/power-to-fuels, including liquidized (CCU), where additional biofuel product is generated through the re
hydrogen), such fuels can be commonly called sustainable aviation fuels action of electrolysis hydrogen with the CO2. Furthermore, separation
(SAF) (Chiaramonti, 2019 Feb 1). The International Energy Agency and storage of the vented CO2 (BECCS) (Vergragt et al., 2011) creates an
(IEA) estimates that the share of SAF in aviation needs to be more than opportunity to balance the additional global warming attributed to the
15% by 2030 if we are to fulfill announced policy pledges (net zero high-altitude effect (Lund et al., 2017). Using BECCS to compensate for
emissions scenario) (International Energy Agency (IEA) 2021). the climate impact of contrails has been highlighted, e.g., by (Åkerman
Besides avoiding fossil GHG emissions, an additional benefit with et al., 2021). There is a multitude of techno-economic studies on avia
SAF is the potentially lower high-altitude effect. The combustion tion biofuel production from waste streams, crops and biomass (e.g.,
chemistry of aviation biofuels and aviation electro-fuels is different from (Dahal et al., 2021), (Atsonios et al., 2015)). In the literature, the need
their fossil counterparts and some recent findings indicate that com for both BECCS, electro-fuels/CCU as well as a large-scale production of
bustion of aviation biofuels generates fewer particles and aerosols that SAF from renewable feedstock has been emphasized. However, to our
contribute to high-altitude effects. Voight et al. compared the formation knowledge, no extensive comparison of different production pathways
of contrail cirrus from operation of an Airbus A320 (short to mid-range combined with either CCS or CCU has to date been performed.
flights) on standard jet fuel and on low aromatic sustainable aviation This work presents an assessment of seven different technology
fuel blends (Voigt et al., 2021). Their results show that burning sus pathways for producing SAF by combining aviation biofuel production
tainable aviation fuels can lower the formation of soot and ice concen with CCS or CCU. The technologies include conventional as well as novel
trations with 50–70%, which, in turn, will lower the high-altitude processes, where SAF are produced through processes such as Fischer-
climate impact. Similar conclusions were drawn by Tran et al. (2020); Tropsch (FT) and alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) syntheses. When CCS is used,
Narcisoand de (2021) and Grewe et al. (2017). the CO2 generated in the processes is captured and stored permanently.
Owing to the political complexity of cross-border policy, aviation is Under the CCU option, the CO2 generated is captured and upgraded to
one of the sectors of transportation least affected by current policy in biofuels through a process based on reversed water-gas shift (RWGS)
centives. In the EU, jet fuels up until now have been completely exempt and FT synthesis (König et al., 2015). Process models from the literature
from taxation. The European Emission Trading System (EU ETS) has are adapted for this study and used to compile the mass and energy
covered aviation since 2012, although the impact on emission mitiga balances of the considered processes. Thereby, it is possible quantify the
tion through demand-side reductions has been insignificant (The Euro increase in carbon utilization and how production costs and climate
pean Commission 2021; Oesingmann, 2022). Under its ‘Fit for 55′ impact are affected when adopting the processes with CCS or CCU.
package, the European Commission has recently set out a draft of new The primary aim is to compare the specific pathways’ suitability for
plans for reducing aviation emissions (Von der Leyen, 2021; European CCS and CCU from a carbon efficiency, cost and climate perspective.
Commission 2021). Specific measures include the ReFuelEU aviation Secondary, the aim is to, in a more general sense, study different aspects
proposal for accelerating the uptake of SAF, a revision of the EU ETS of cost and GHG performance, such as the possibility to produce nega
scheme intended to progressively phase out the free allocation of al tive emissions biofuels while accounting for high-altitude effects on
lowances, and the introduction of a minimum tax rate on fossil jet fuels global warming. The results also enable a more general discussion and
for intra-EEU passenger flights, responsible for 40% of the EU’s aviation comparison between BECCS and BECCU integrated with SAF produc
emissions (EUROCONTROL 2021). Some individual member states have tion, where the eventual possibility of negative emissions from BECCS
implemented national policy measures to accelerate the phase-out of can be put in relation to efficient use of carbon for fuel production.
fossil jet fuels. In Sweden, an emission reduction obligation was intro Finally, this research quantifies the cost and climate performance of
duced in 2021, which stipulates a gradual phase-in of SAF in blends with several SAF production routes with coherent assumptions to allow for
fossil jet fuels, starting at 0.8% GHG reduction in 2021, and gradually comparison. To the best of our knowledge, no such study has been
increasing to 27% by 2030 (The Swedish Government 2021). To provide published previously.
additional support for SAF, landing and takeoff tariffs have also been
adjusted according to the climate impact of the used fuel (the Swedish 2. Methodology
Confederation of Transport Enterprises (Transportföretagen) 2021).
The rather modest policy incentives for development of fossil-free 2.1. Examined aviation biofuel production pathways
aviation have entailed that the development of aviation biofuels has
been slower than the development of road biofuels. However, by 2040 it A list of the aviation biofuel pathways examined in this work is
is likely that biomass will be used for production of SAF (Fosilfritt presented in Table 1. An overview with information on biomass feed
Sverige 2021). According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2021, total stock types, biofuel products and principal conversion steps is provided
aviation biofuel will have to amount to 3 mboe/day (million barrel of oil in Fig. 1.
equivalent, 126 TJ/day) by 2050 in order to reach the net zero emission Three different categories are used to classify the pathways based on
scenario (International Energy Agency (IEA) 2021). Bauen et al. esti their main conversion technology: Gasification based pathways, hydro
mated that, depending on growth scenarios, between 3 and 13 million treatment based pathways and Fermentation based Pathways. The first parts
tons (130–561 TJ) of SAF can be produced globally by 2030 (Bauen of the abbreviations are based on the feedstock type, BL for black liquor,
et al., 2018). They pointed out that to achieve this development, pro Bark, FR for Forest Residues, Tallow, Wheat, and SD for sawdust. The
duction and use of aviation biofuels must have overcome technical and second part of the abbreviation describes the final upgrading technol
market entry barriers by 2030. ogy, FT for Fischer-Tropsch, HP for hydropyrolysis, HDO for hydro
The current discussion regarding how much biomass can be sus deoxygenation and ATJ for alcohol-to-jet. Except for Wheat-ATJ all
tainably procured and used highlights the need for high conversion and pathways use feedstocks that can be considered residual.
carbon efficiency; ensuring that the carbon atoms in the biomass are
used to as large a degree as possible (see e.g. (Emma, 2020), (f3 The
2
Table 1 pathways. All pathways also generate streams in which CO2 is found in
Abbreviations and descriptions of the aviation biofuel production pathways dilute form, e.g., in flue gas. Diluted CO2 streams require investment in
considered. additional separation equipment to enable CCS and CCU. The CCS option
Abbreviation Description was designed to study the capture of residual CO2 with subsequent
Gasification based pathways
transport to an offshore permanent storage location by ship or by truck
1a (BL-FT) Synthetic jet kerosene from black liquor gasification and FT and ship. The CCU option was designed to upgrade the carbon captured
synthesis to synthetic jet kerosene, diesel and petrol through a process based on
1b (Bark-FT) Synthetic jet kerosene from bark by circulating fluidized bed reverse water gas shift and FT synthesis (not optimized for jet fuel yield).
gasification and FT synthesis
The process generates a biofuel mix containing substantial quantities of
Hydrotreatment based pathways
2a (FR-HP) Synthetic jet kerosene from forest residues by hydropyrolysis hydrocarbons in the diesel and petrol range, which must be separated
2b (Tallow- Synthetic jet kerosene from tallow by hydrodeoxygenation out through distillation. It should be emphasized that for the CCU option,
HDO) secondary CO2 streams were used to increase the SAF production of a
Fermentation based pathways given pathway. BECCU pathways using CO2 as a primary resource for
3a (Wheat- Synthetic jet kerosene from wheat by fermentation to ethanol and
ATJ) ATJ
production of electro-SAF were not considered.
3b (SD-ATJ) Synthetic jet kerosene from sawdust by fermentation to ethanol Source references for process data and design choices are provided in
and ATJ Table 2. Note that the feedstock input to each pathway was kept the
3c (FR-ATJ) Synthetic jet kerosene from forest residues by fermentation to same under the base, CCS and CCU options, to generate a consistent
isobutanol and ATJ
frame of reference for easier comparison. Further details on the as
sumptions and data used for modeling the biofuel pathways and the
2.2. Study overview BECCS and BECCU configurations are provided in the next two sections.
This study evaluates the performance of seven pathways towards the 2.3. Biofuel pathway process models
production of SAF under three process options, each signifying a
different approach to the treatment of residual carbon streams. Path Production scales and process configurations for process models
ways that met one or both of the following conditions were prioritized: were based on a survey of techno-economic literature and were intended
(a) based on feedstocks with significant potentials in a northern Euro to be representative of future commercial implementations. Carbon and
pean context, with a particular emphasis on residues and by-products of energy balances are reproduced in full in the Supplementary Material.
the forestry industries, (b) where the principle conversion steps are at a Biofuel pathways are typically composed of multiple processing
relatively high TRL levels, with a particular emphasis on pathways that steps, which can be broadly classified into two stages. The biomass
are currently certified for drop-in SAF production in accordance with feedstock is, in the first stage, converted to an intermediate product of a
ASTM requirements. Performance was defined in terms of carbon effi type that can easily be upgraded to a biofuel product in a second stage.
ciency as a measure of biogenic resource utilization performance, climate Where possible, a single source was used for modeling all the steps in a
impact as a measure of climate performance, biofuel production cost as a process configuration. When use of multiple sources was required, a
measure of economic performance, and GHG reduction cost as a com standard set of thermochemical and compositional data was used to
bined measure of climate and economic performance. reduce the inconsistencies created by using different sources.
The base option constitutes a comparative baseline for the other two
process options, without capture of residual streams of carbon from the 2.3.1. Gasification based pathways
biofuel production. CO2 is separated out from the main process in Simplified schematic overviews of 1a (BL-FT) and 1b (Bark-FT) are
concentrated streams in the two gasification and the three fermentation shown in Fig. 2.
1a (BL-FT) plant was considered co-located and integrated with a
Fig. 1. Overview of the av SAF pathways.
3
Table 2
Principal references and key design parameters for pathway process models under the base, CCS & CCU options.
Integration Feedstock CO2 Capture Streams CO2 Transport Reference Studies
(Type of Industry) Input Yes/No [Quantity]
[LHV MW]
Concentrated Dilute Truck Ship
1a Yes 92.8a Yes [1] Yes [1] No Yes (Jafri et al., 2020; RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
(BL-FT) (Pulp Mill) 2021)b
1b No 533 Yes [1] Yes [1] No Yes (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden 2021; Ahlström et al.,
(Bark-FT) 2019)c
2a Yes 107 No Yes [1] No Yes (Meerman and Larson, 2017; Jafri et al., 2019)d
(FR-HP) (Crude Oil Refinery)
e
2b Yes (Rendering Plants, Oil 1262 No Yes [1] No Yes (Danish Energy Agency, Energinet 2021)
(Tallow- Refinery)
HDO)
3a No 240 Yes [1] Yes [1] Yes Yes (Joelsson et al., 2016; Geleynse et al., 2018)f
(Wheat-ATJ)
3b No 132 Yes [2] Yes Yes Yes (Geleynse et al., 2018; Haus et al., 2020)g
(SD-ATJ) [1]
3c No 132 Yes [1] Yes [1] Yes Yes (Geleynse et al., 2018; Tao et al., 1)h
(FR-ATJJ)
a The biofuel plant in 1a (BL-FT) would be operated in parallel with a recovery boiler and was sized for a scenario in which the thermal load on the recovery boiler is the same as under normal operation
but with
an increase of the pulping capacity. See (Jafri et al., 2020) for more information.
b
Data for black liquor gasification was taken from (Jafri et al., 2020) while data for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis was provided by RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
AB (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden 2021).
c
Data for bark gasification and syngas cleaning was taken from (Ahlström et al., 2019) and for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
2021).
d
Balances in (Jafri et al., 2019) were modified to account for the absence of energy integration, with (Meerman and Larson, 2017) being the original reference.
Integration with the crude oil refinery was limited to the delivery of the hydrotreatment products to the refinery for final processing and blending.
e
Throughput of animal by-products that yield 888 MW LHV of tallow and 375 MW LHV of meat and bone meal.
f
(Joelsson et al., 2016) for wheat-to-ethanol and (Geleynse et al., 2018) for ethanol-to-jet fuels.
g
(Haus et al., 2020) for sawdust-to-ethanol and (Geleynse et al., 2018) for ethanol-to-jet fuels.
h
(Tao et al., 1) for forest residues-to-isobutanol and (Geleynse et al., 2018) for isobutanol-to-jet fuels.
Fig. 2. Simplified schematic overviews of the gasification pathways with biogenic carbon outflows outlined by green arrows. Only biogenic carbon flows are shown.
Dashed lines indicate physical boundaries. More details are available in the Supplementary Material.
4
market pulp mill with access to a sea harbor. Exchange of both material D2887 boiling curves for the hydropyrolysis products in (Roberts et al.,
and energy between the plant and the mill is extensive. The pulping 2015) and were found to be in reasonable agreement.
chemicals in the black liquor are recovered and returned to the mill for The 2b (Tallow-HDO) plant was modelled as a large facility co-
reuse. The BL-FT plant was sized to process 18.5% of the black liquor located and integrated with a crude oil refinery with access to a sea
processed by the recovery boiler of a model state-of-the-art market pulp harbor. It was designed to be similar in size to future commercial plants
mill, with a pulping capacity of 2000 t/d. The recovery boiler based on the ranges provided in (Danish Energy Agency, Energinet
throughput was kept the same by increasing the pulping capacity (see 2021). The hydrocarbon product mix is dominated by jet fuels (76.3%
(Jafri et al., 2020) for more information). on mass basis) with petrol (9.6%) and LPG (14.1%) as by-products. The
1b (Bark-FT) was modelled as a stand-alone plant with access to a sea excess energy gasses and 15% of the heat produced in the hydrotreat
harbor and was sized to process approximately 3000 t/d of bark on an as ment processes at the biofuel plant were assumed to replace an equal
received basis, which was deemed to be the inflection point for feedstock amount of heat from the combustion of natural gas in the refinery
logistics and availability (Thunman et al., 1). (Danish Energy Agency 2017) (Jafri et al., 2020).
2.3.2. Hydrotreatment based pathways 2.3.3. Fermentation based pathways

Simplified schematic overviews of 2a (FR-HP) and 2b (Tallow-HDO) Simplified schematic overviews of 3a (Wheat-ATJ), 3b (SD-ATJ) and
are shown in Fig. 3. 3c (FR-ATJ) are shown in Fig. 4.
2a (FR-HP) was modelled as a plant with access to a sea harbor Ethanol plants were considered to be set up as stand-alone plants in
located by an existing crude oil refinery without energy integration, but an inland location, to maximize local uptake of feedstock (wheat,
with certain material integration. It was assumed that the final refining sawdust, or forest residues), with synthetic jet fuel, petrol and diesel as
and blending of the liquid hydrocarbon products from the hydro the final products from the ATJ process. The input of wheat grain to 3a
pyrolysis process could take place at the crude oil refinery in existing (Wheat-ATJ) was set to 1417 t/d on an as received basis, in accordance
units. Aviation fuel was approximated as petrol, due to lack of specific with the source reference and Lantmännen Agroetanol’s commercial
data. The 2a (FR-HP) plant was sized for a forest residue throughput of facility near Norrköping, Sweden (Andersson, 2015). The input of
1000 t/d on an as received basis, based on the size of the planned sawdust to 3b (SD-ATJ) at 1200 t/d on an as received basis corresponds
hydropyrolysis-based biorefinery in Åmli in Aust-Agder, Norway (In to ~10% of the Swedish sawdust potential and was the same as that in
ternational, 2019). the source study (Haus et al., 2020).
The process configuration in the source reference (Meerman and The 3c (FR-ATJ) plant was modelled with two boilers – a biomass
Larson, 2017) was based on the IH2 (integrated hydropyrolysis and boiler for the forest-residue to isobutanol stage, and an electric boiler for
hydroconversion) concept described by Marker et al. (2013). The share the isobutanol to jet fuel stage, with the latter also supplying the heat
of synthetic jet kerosene in the hydrocarbon product pool was based on requirements of CO2 capture under the CCS option. The input of forest
the operation of the IH2 technology in the so-called “jet mode” as pre residues to 3c (FR-ATJ) was scaled to be the same as the input of sawdust
sented by Bauldreay (Bauldreay, 2018). 40–50% of the hydrocarbon to the 3b (SD-ATJ) plant, on an energy basis. The electric boiler was not
product in the “jet mode” consists of a naphtha cut, which for this work needed under the CCU option since the excess heat generated during the
was treated as petrol, 35–40% of a jet cut, which for this work, was upgrading of CO2 to synthetic jet kerosene was enough to meet the heat
treated as synthetic jet kerosene, and 10–20% of a marine distillate cut, requirement.
which for this work was treated as marine fuel. The shares of petrol, The forest residue-to-isobutanol stage in 3c (FR-ATJ) was modelled
synthetic jet kerosene and marine fuel were here set at 50%, 30% and with data from the upgrading of cellulosic corn stover by Tao et al.
20%, respectively. The shares were cross-checked against the ASTM (2014). Their study was deemed to provide the best compromise
Fig. 3. Simplified schematic overviews of the hydrotreatment pathways with biogenic carbon outflows outlined by green arrows. Only biogenic carbon flows are
shown. Dashed lines indicate physical boundaries. More details are available in the Supplementary Material.
5
Fig. 4. Simplified schematic overviews of the fermentation pathways with biogenic carbon outflows outlined by color coded arrows. Gray arrows represent the 3a
pathway, red arrows the 3b pathway, and blue arrows the 3c pathway. Only biogenic carbon flows are shown. More details are available in the Supplemen
tary Material.
between completeness and fullness of process data on the one hand, and The CO2 streams produced during the conditioning of syngas, the
closeness of the feedstock (forest residues) on the other. The CO2 pro upgrading of biogas, and during fermentation were classified as high
duced in the isobutanol production step was here estimated following a purity ‘concentrated’ streams. The concentration of CO2 in these streams
simplified approach, where approximately two-thirds of the isobutanol was assumed to be 100% and they could therefore be processed for
obtained was assumed to originate from the glucan fermentation route, storage or for upgrading without the need for separation or further
and one-third from the xylan fermentation route. The resulting CO2 treatment. Low purity or ‘dilute’ CO2 streams were divided into three
yields are consequently uncertain and only appropriate as a first categories for the purpose of estimating the utility demand of carbon
approximation. capture, as summarized in Table 3. The capture rate was set at 85% for
all types of streams. The utility demand for carbon capture was primarily
2.4. Modelling assumptions for CO2 capture, transport & upgrading satisfied with excess heat and/or electricity from the biofuel processes.
Where this was not possible, electricity imported to the plant was used.
The modeling assumptions for CO2 capture and transport were As shown in Table 4, the share of diluted CO2 flow in relation to the
developed jointly with a study on BECCS and BECCU for road biofuels by total flow differs significantly between the processes, with 12% diluted
the authors (Jafri et al., 2021). A summary of the most important as CO2 for the BL-FT process and 100% diluted CO2 for the FR-HP and
sumptions is provided below, and readers are directed to the afore Wheat-ETJ pathways. Capturing CO2 from diluted streams requires
mentioned study for further details and references. investing in process equipment, which in turn increases the investment
Table 3
Electricity and heat demand for capturing dilute CO2 streams using monoethanolamine (MEA) as solvent.
Dilute Stream Electricity Heat Capture Rate [%] CO2 Concentration References
[MJ/kg CO2] [MJ/kg CO2] [% mol]
Biomass boiler 0.0870 (Pröll and 3.76 (Sagues et al., 2020; 85 (Onarheim 15.5 Post-combustion (Pröll and Zerobin, 2019; Sagues
Zerobin, 2019) Onarheim et al., 2015) et al., 2015) et al., 2020; Onarheim et al., 2015)
Refinery fuel 0.341 (IEAGHG 2017) 4.00 (Onarheim et al., 2015) 85 8 Post-combustion (Onarheim et al., 2015; IEAGHG
gas 2017; Roussanaly et al., 2017)
Methane 0.126 (IEAGHG 2017) 3.60 (Onarheim et al., 2015) 85 24 Mixed (Onarheim et al., 2015; IEAGHG 2017)
reforming
6
Table 4
Share of diluted CO2 in relation to the total amount of available CO2 for each pathway, under the CCS and CCU options. .
1a (BL-FT) 1b (Bark-FT) 2a (FR-HP) 2b (Tallow-HDO) 3a (Wheat-ETJ) 3b (SD-ETJ) 3c (FR-ATJ)
Share diluted CO2 12% 65% 100% 100% 44% 67% 70%
cost of the plant. However, previous research by the authors indicates product mix made up of synthetic jet kerosene, petrol and diesel with
that the increased CAPEX of capturing dilute CO2 might be offset by electrolysis H2 through reverse water gas shift and FT synthesis based on
lower CO2 distribution costs, entailing a lower cost of GHG reduction data from König et al. (2015). H2 was considered to be produced by
(Jafri et al., 2021). It should be mentioned that these are theoretical polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolysis with a nominal sys
process designs. To fully determine the most economic option of each tem efficiency of 60% on LHV basis (Buttler and Spliethoff, 2018; Rego
pathway requires a more detailed assessment, which was left out of the de Vasconcelos and Lavoie, 2019). A summary of product yields and
scope of this work. utility consumption is provided in Table 6. Owing to the heating de
Under the CCS option, the captured CO2 was liquefied with a mands of the FT-unit, part of the off-gasses from the separation sequence
propane-based refrigeration unit at − 30 ◦ C, 15 bar(g) (Element Energy are used as fuel for heating, instead of being recirculated to the
2018). The biofuel plants for the fermentation pathways were assumed RWGS-reactor. Therefore, part of the carbon entering the FT-process is
to be located 50 km inland from a harbor capable of handling CO2 lost as flue gas. The overall carbon efficiency of the RWGS+FT process is
transporting ships. The CO2 captured in these pathways was transported ~75%.
to the harbor in liquefied form in 40 t trucks and stored in 4500 t tanks
before shipment to the storage site. The total cost of transport by truck 2.5. Greenhouse gas footprint
was calculated as an annual cost, by multiplying the total number of
annual trips by a specific cost per km (0.86 EUR/km, as applicable to a The standards specified in RED II were used to calculate the GHG
Swedish case developed by (Mikhelkis and Govindarajan, 2020)). The footprint of each pathway from well-to-wheel (usage in jet engine) (The
biofuel plants for all other pathways were treated as being located by a European Commission 2021). Following the RED II standard, pathway
CO2 transport harbor. emissions were allocated to the products of each pathway according to
The choice of ship size was found to have a substantial impact on the refinery principle. This means that allocations are made on
economic performance under the CCS option. Since both the production energy-basis until the point where streams diverge. Hence for pathways
scales and the shares of feedstock carbon in residual streams varied with more than one product (all studied pathways), emission allocation
significantly between pathways, there was a large variation in the diverges at the part in the process where the process streams are sepa
quantities of CO2 that were available for capture – from ~41 kt/y for 2b rated. Thereby, emissions from the electricity used for H2 production for
(Tallow-HDO), to ~911 kt/y for 1b (Bark-FT). An overview of CO2 the CO2-to-jet process (CCU) are only allocated to the fuels produced
transport parameters e.g., ship sizes is provided in Table 5. The reference through that process (SAF, petrol, and diesel); different emission factors
capital cost for the 20 kt ship was from (Kler et al., 2015) and the are also applied for distribution of the final products. Unlike for CCU,
remaining from (Element Energy 2018) and is provided in the supple negative emissions from CCS were allocated, on an energy basis, to all
mentary material. Pathways able to utilize their assigned ship for 4,000 biofuel products.
h/y or more were assumed to have their own dedicated ship. Pathways An overview of the most important emission factors is presented in
that do not produce enough CO2 to do so were assumed to instead share Table 7. In six of the pathways the feedstock is classified as a residue and
the costs with other same-sized plants. A similar approach was used for therefore emissions linked to land use change and carbon accumulation
allocating the costs of the platform and the storage tanks (40,000 t) from improved agricultural management were omitted.
moored adjacent to the storage well. The storage site was an 80% Due to the complexity of showing the GHG footprint of every specific
depleted offshore gas and the storage depth 1000 m (Neele et al., 2017). product of all seven pathways under all three process options, the GHG
The mid-point estimate in (Kler et al., 2015) was used as the reference footprint is reported either as only the share of GHG emissions attributed
cost of the injection platform and the 40 kt temporary CO2 storage to the aviation biofuel product, or as an average GHG footprint (on
(including offshore transport and installation). energy basis) of all biofuel products of each pathway. See the
Under the CCU option, the CO2 captured was upgraded to a biofuel
Table 6
Table 5 Product yields and utilities for CO2 upgrading under the CCU option. Reworked
Overview of CO2 transport parameters. from König et al. (2015)).
a
Pathway Transported CO2 Ship Size/CO2 Annual Utilization Stream Notes
[kt/y] Capacity [kt] [hour/y]a Hydrogen [kg/kg 0.132
1a (BL-FT) 173 4000 5365 consumption CO2]
1b (Bark-FT) 911 20,000 5658 Synthetic jet [kg/kg 0.105
b kerosene CO2]
2a (FR-HP) 149 2000 4613 Petrol yield [kg/kg 0.075
2b (Tallow- 41 2000 2565 CO2]
HDO)b Diesel yield [kg/kg 0.060
3a (Wheat- 360 8000 5589 CO2]
ATJ) Electricity [MW/ 0.740
3b (SD-ATJ) 183 4000 5673 (Internal Use) kgCO2]
3c (FR-ATJ) 247 8000 3827 Steam (Internal [MW/kg 3.44
Use) CO2]
a
Transport distance was set at 1200 km and the total time at sea at 128 h. 2.3 bar steam [MW/kg 0.709 Excess. Used for process demands, e.
b
The total quantity of CO2 transported from a crude oil refinery is likely to be CO2] g., for heat for CO2 capture.
significantly higher since a realistic CCS implementation would be built around 8.8 bar steam [MW/kg 0.488 Excess. Used for process demands, e.
the capture of fossil CO2, with the biogenic CO2 only making up a very minor CO2] g., for heat for CO2 capture.
20 bar steam [MW/kg 2.85 Excess. Used for process demands, e.
fraction. The resulting economies of scale and their impact on CO2 transport
CO2] g., for heat for CO2 capture.
costs were not estimated since the impact on the levelized cost of biofuel pro
a
duction would be minimal. Presented in terms of 1 kg of CO2 upgraded.
7
Table 7
Overview of GHG emission factors.
Value Unit Reference [Notes]
Electricity 46.8 kg CO2eq/MWh (Pool, 2021) [Swedish mix]

GWP methane 32 g CO2eq/g CH4 (International Energy Agency 2010)
Forest biomass outtake 1.03 kg CO2eq/MWh (Eliasson and Johannesson, 2014)
Forest biomass transport 0.02 kg CO2eq/MWh,km (Åkerman et al., 2021)
Jet fuel distribution 1.51 kg CO2-eq/MWh (Pettersson et al., 2019)
Bio-Methane distribution 2.49 kg CO2-eq/MWh (Pettersson et al., 2019)
Petrol distribution 1.55 kg CO2-eq/MWh (Pettersson et al., 2019)
Diesel distribution 1.45 kg CO2-eq/MWh (Pettersson et al., 2019)
CO2 distribution, truck 108 g CO2eq/ton*km (The European Commission 2021)
CO2 distribution, ship (LNG fuel) 38 g CO2eq/ton*km (Brynolf et al., 1)
Wheat cultivation 50.4 kg CO2-eq/MWh (Börjesson et al., 2010) [Wheat-ATJ only]
Average fossil fuel footprint 333 kg CO2eq/MWh Used for estimating GHG reduction costs (see text)
Supplementary Material for a full breakdown of the GHG footprint Naturally, the total high-altitude effect will differ between flight
evaluation. routes, depending on the time spent at high altitude. The share of total
flight time spent above an altitude where there is an additional warming
2.5.1. High-Altitude effect effect will differ depending on, e.g., length, speed, and flight planning. It
Although the effects of high-altitude emissions clearly have an is also important to emphasize that there are other options to decrease
impact on the GHG footprint of bio jet fuels, we have not been able to the high-altitude effect of aviation, for instance implementation of route
find specific GWP factors concerning the different bio jet fuels consid optimization strategies. To evaluate aviation biofuels taking such effects
ered in this work. Owing to the lack of consistent data for how to handle into account would require detailed scenario analysis outside the scope
the GWP of high-altitude effects, several LCA studies of bio jet fuels of this work. The emission factors attributed to the high-altitude effect
simply do not account for them at all, e.g. (Lokesh et al., 1; Budsberg represent an average for long-distance aviation and might be both
et al., 2016). As mentioned in the introduction, recent literature has higher and lower for specific cases. Thereby, the calculations presented
concluded that it is likely that the GHG footprint caused by high-altitude in this work provide an indication of the scale of the high-altitude effect
effects is lower for bio jet fuels than for fossil jet fuel. However, little is in relation to the total climate impact of SAF; they should not be viewed
said about long-term effects. Therefore, specific representation of the as exact data.
GWP of high-altitude effects from bio-jet fuels has not been included in
this work. Rather, a sensitivity analysis was carried out to account for
high altitude effects without specifically assessing the combustion of the 2.6. Economic evaluation
fuel generated in the different pathways. Thereby, a broader perspective
on the climate impact of SAF has been provided and examined. There are companies, at various stage of development, that work on
The central assumption here assumed GWP values corresponding to production of aviation biofuels with BECCU (see e.g. (gevo [Internet]
an increase in the GHG footprint of FT and hydrotreatment-based 2022; LanzaTech [Internet] 2021)), already captured carbon can also, as
aviation biofuel with 69.8 g CO2eq/MJ and alcohol-based aviation well, be stored in a BECCS concept. However, large-scale commercial
biofuel with 70.9 g CO2eq./MJ (Cavalett and Cherubini, 2018). As no production is currently not available and therefore the economic
specific value for hydrotreatment-based aviation fuels was provided in assessment was carried out for an energy market scenario for the year
Cavalett and Cherubini (2018), it was assumed that their fuel chemistry 2030. The prices of central energy carriers such as electricity and
more resembles that of FT-based fuels, than that of fermentation-based biomass were estimated with the energy price and carbon balance sce
fuels. The sensitivity case assumed a 30% reduction in the GWP nario (ENPAC) tool (Harvey and Axelsson, 2010). Potential revenue
values. It is important to acknowledge that the GWP of the high-altitude from the sequestration of CO2 under the CCS option was not included in
effect is dependent on the usage of the fuel product and should not be the main scenario, but the impact of a CO2 sequestration credit of 100
attributed to production of the fuel in itself. For that reason, the term EUR/tCO2 on biofuel production costs was included as a sensitivity case
climate impact was used to describe the combined GWP from production in the overall assessment. All prices were denominated in EUR2020 using
of the fuel and the high-altitude effect from using it. exchange rates of 0.88 EUR/USD, 0.095 EUR/SEK, and 1.13 EUR/GBP.
All energy flows were computed in MWLHV.
Table 8
References for estimating capital expenditure.
Pathway References Notes
1a (BL-FT) (Jafri et al., 2020; RISE Research Oxygen for gasifying black liquor was purchased on the market under the base and CCS options but was taken from the
Institutes of Sweden 2021) PEM electrolyzer under the CCU option.
The same reference was used for the process modeling and CAPEX estimation of the gasification stage. The CAPEX for
the FT stage was based on scaling the costs of individual process units.
1b (Bark-FT) (RISE Research Institutes of Sweden The same reference was used for the process modeling and CAPEX estimation of the gasification stage. The CAPEX for
2021; Thunman et al., 1) the FT stage was based on scaling the costs of individual process units.
2a (FR-HP) (Tan et al., 2014) (Jafri et al., 2020). Partly different references were used for process modeling and CAPEX estimation. It was assumed the final refining
and blending of the liquid hydrocarbon products from the hydropyrolysis process could take place at the crude oil
refinery in existing units without additional CAPEX and OPEX requirements.
2b (Tallow- (Danish Energy Agency, Energinet 2021) The same reference was used for process modeling and CAPEX estimation.
HDO)
3a (Wheat- (Frankó et al., 2016) The same reference was used for process modeling and CAPEX estimation.
ATJ)
3b (SD-ATJ) (Haus et al., 2020) (Haus et al., 2020) is partly based on (Frankó et al., 2016) and was used for both process modeling and CAPEX
estimation.
3c (FR-ATJ) (Geleynse et al., 2018; Tao et al., 1) The same references were used for both process modeling and CAPEX estimation.
8
Table 9
Prices for selected energy and material streams. See the Supplementary Material for an expanded, annotated listing.
ENPAC Notes
[EUR/ [EUR/
kg] MWh]
Electricity [Buy] – 49
Electricity [Sell] – 50 Plants exporting renewable electricity were assumed to be eligible for support and the corresponding support
level (5 EUR/MWh) was included in the price.
Pellets [Sell] – 32 Pellets from lignin and other forestry assortments.
Bio-Methane [For Industrial Heating, – 43 Based on alternative cost for the consumer, where the biogas was exempted from the energy tax according to
Producer gate price] current Swedish tax levels and avoided the EU ETS allowances at the cost level of the CO2 emissions charge.
Gate prices were calculated assuming the same distribution costs for natural gas and biogas.
Wood chips & Forest Residue [Buy] – 29 Forest residue include tops and branches, bark, hog fuel, sawdust etc. Price of wood chips was based on the price
relation between wood chips and by-products the last decade.
District Heating Water – 28 Assuming heat replaces existing Bio-CHP
Natural Gas – 51 Including CO2 charge.
Fossil Petrol [Sell] – 47 Producer gate price.
Fossil Diesel [Sell] – 54 Producer gate price.
Other Sources Assumptions and references
[EUR/ [EUR/
kg] MWh]
Wheat Grain 0.167 – December 2020 price for the wheat used for ethanol production in Sweden (Niléhn, 2018; Jordbruksverket
2021).
Meat Industry By-Products 0.300 – AO2 carcass price was chosen as an indicative reference price for tallow feedstock (PRI.EU.MAR 2021; Zagklis
et al., 2020)
Bark – 27 Bark is a forestry by-product and the price was assumed to shadow the price of forestry residue in ENPAC.
Sawdust – 27 Sawdust is a forestry by-product and the price was assumed to shadow the price of forestry residue in ENPAC.
Estimates of capital expenditure (CAPEX) were taken from the x, respectively.

literature. An annotated listing of references is provided in Table 8. The Operational expenditure (OPEX) was classified into OPEXMaterials &
CAPEX calculations should be considered as indicative. Finding reliable Energy and OPEXO&M. OPEXMaterials & Energy represented energy and ma
estimates from commercial projects is difficult as many of the produc terial costs. OPEXO&M covered maintenance and personnel costs, with
tion pathways currently (2022) only exist in demonstration scale. Where costs for process components expressed as a fraction of the capital cost,
possible, the same references were used for both the process models and set at 3% for all cost components apart from intermediate and offshore
the CAPEX estimates. Where such information was available, estimates CO2 storage units, which were set at 5%, following (Element Energy
were used and scaled in accordance with the methodology provided in 2018).
the source studies. Data granularity and underlying assumptions, such as Gross margins for petrol and diesel were added to the OPEX of the
those related to indirect costs and balance of plant, varied between FR-HP (2a) pathway, to account for the additional cost of refining bio
different studies. Some of the estimates were based on total capital in products in existing units that are presumed to be operating at full ca
vestment (TCI) and variously included cost items such as engineering, pacity. The Swedish Energy Agency estimated the average gross margin
construction, and contingency, others were based on estimates of main to be 1.52 SEK/l (9.1 kWh/l) for petrol and 1.10 SEK/l for diesel (energy
and auxiliary equipment costs. density: 9.8 kWh/l) in the year 2021 (The Swedish Energy Agency
PEM CAPEX was calculated with a reference value of 1000 EUR/kW 2021).
(2018 USD price level) and without economies-of-scale (Jafri et al., The ENPAC input data for estimating the prices of energy carriers in
2020). The CAPEX estimates for the RWGS and FT-based CO2-to-jet step the year 2030 was based on the Sustainable Development (SD) scenario
was for a configuration similar to that used as the basis for the carbon from the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2017 (International Energy
and energy balances (Albrecht et al., 2017). The CO2-to-jet TCIs Agency 2017). A selection of the most important energy and material
compiled were modified to exclude the costs of major process either not prices from ENPAC and other sources is presented in Table 9, with
included in the configuration studied, namely, a turbine, or estimated further details provided in the Supplementary Material.
separately, namely, electrolyzers. The CCU options in 1a (BL-FT), 2a More information on the ENPAC inputs, outputs and assumptions,
(FR-HD) and 3b (SD-ATJ) were scaled with references costs for the such as representative CO2 emission charges for Northern Europe as well
small-sized CO2-to-jet concept. The remaining pathways were scaled as prices for crude oil, natural gas and coal specific to this study can be
with reference costs for the large-sized concept. found in the Supplementary Material and in (Jafri et al., 2021). Most
The scaling of costs was carried out as described in Eq. (1) (Remer were taken or adapted from previous work presented in Pettersson et al.
and Chai, 1990): (2020).
PSF
C = C0 ∗ 0
(Eq. 1) 2.7. Performance indicators
P
where C is the cost of the process or specific unit operation, C0 the base The efficiency with which each pathway utilizes its feedstock carbon
cost, P0 the base scale, and P the scale. SF is the scaling factor, which, under each of the three process options was measured with Eq. (3):
unless otherwise specified, was set to 0.67. CBiofuel + CPermanentStorage
(Eq. 3)
Product (s)
The Chemical Engineering Plant Index was applied to update all cost ηCarbon =
CFeedstock (s)
data to 2020 monetary values (Chemical Engineering 2021):
Carbon in permanent storage under the CCS option, and carbon in
CEPCI2020
C2020 = Cx ∗ (Eq. 2) non-aviation biofuel products under all options, was treated in the same
CEPCIX
manner as the carbon in aviation biofuel products, for the purpose of
Where C2020 is the equipment cost in 2020 monetary value, Cx the estimating the efficiency of carbon utilization in this study. This was
cost at the given year x, and CEPCI the cost index at year 2020 and year considered reasonable since increasing the production of biofuels of all
types and the sequestration of CO2 both contribute to the reduction of
9
GHG emissions. With that in mind, the temporal arc for the carbon aggregated, and h the annual plant operating hours, set at 8000 for all
deposited in permanent storage is different from that which is upgraded pathways under all options. The value for the capital recovery factor
to biofuels. The former is removed from the carbon cycle for millennia, (CRF) was set at 0.126, based on a real discount rate of 11% applied to
while the later replace fossil equivalents. the investments over a time period of 20 years.
The levelized cost of biofuel production was used as the principal The main measure of climate performance was the GHG footprints of
measure of economic performance and was calculated as follows: aviation biofuel product fractions with and without high-altitude effects,
which were quantified by allocating emissions on an energy basis in
CRF ∗ CAPEXTotal + OPEXMaterials + OPEXO&M − RevenueBy−

(Eq. 4)
& Energy products
LCOP =
p∗h
where CRF is the capital recovery factor, CAPEXTotal the total capital accordance with the RED II guidelines.
investment, OPEXMaterials & Energy the annual operational expenditure on The emission factors taken into account for the GHG footprint
energy and material streams, OPEXO&M the annual operational expen consideration are presented in Eq. (5) (see also Section 2.4):
diture on operational personnel and maintenance, RevenueBy-products the
E = eec + ep + etd − eccs (Eq. 5)
annual revenue from by-product sales, P the biofuel production capacity
in MWth with all biofuel products (aviation, road and marine) Where E denotes the total value-chain emissions from the production
Fig. 5. Climate impact with high altitude effect and sensitivity analysis. Light red bars represent GHG footprints of the biofuels in a well-to-wheel perspective, and
green bars the high-altitude effect contributions. The red X marks the net climate impact including the high-altitude effect contribution, and the blue lines the net
impact for the sensitivity case (decreasing high-altitude effect with 30%).
10
and use of the biofuel, eec emissions from extraction and cultivation of possibility for negative emission biofuels with the CCS option. This is
raw materials, ep emissions from processing the feedstock(s), etd trans partly an effect of low emissions under the base option, but mostly due to
port and distribution emissions, and eCCS emissions savings from CO2 the generation of relatively high levels of biogenic CO2 in relation to the
capture and geological storage. The climate impact was then calculated fuel production levels. This pathway is followed by the two gasification-
according to Eq. (6) based ones (1a and 1b), where relatively large volumes of CO2 are
generated in concentrated forms. The forest residue hydropyrolysis
Climate impact = E + ha − effect (Eq. 6)
pathway (2a) also reaches net negative GHG emissions for the CCS
where E is the total value chain carbon footprint (Eq. 5), and ha-effect the option.
high-altitude effect (see Section 2.5.1) The tallow-HDO pathway (2b) is not able to yield climate-neutral
GHG reduction cost was used as a measure of the combined carbon SAF. Already under the base option, most of the carbon in the animal
and climate performance as defined in Eq. (7): by-product feedstock ends up in either the biofuel product, or in the
meat and bone meal by-product. Thus, the levels of available CO2 are too
low to make a significant difference in terms of climate impact under the
( )
AnnualProductionCostBiofuel − AnnualProductionCostFossil
GHGReductionCost (Eq. 7)
ClimateimpactFassil − ClimateimpactBiofuel
where Annual Production CostBiofuel is the combined annual biofuel CCS option. The same effect can also be observed in the CCU option,
CAPEX and OPEX, Annual Production CostFossil the reference fossil where the climate impact remains almost constant in relation to the base
equivalent, calculated by multiplying the annual biofuel production option.
capacity with the average of fossil petrol and diesel gate prices for the Also for the wheat and sawdust ethanol-to-jet pathways (3a and 3b),
year 2030 (50.2 EUR/MWh) in the ENPAC SD 2030 scenario, Climate the net climate impact remains positive under the CCS option, albeit at
impactBiofuel the biofuel climate impact calculated according to Eq. (6) low levels for the sawdust pathway (3b). This is a consequence of the
and Climate impactFossil the reference fossil fuel GHG footprint (92.5 fact that a relatively small fraction of feedstock carbon is available in
gCO2eq./MJ) plus the aforementioned high altitude effect (same for bio CO2 for CCS. A substantial amount of the carbon in the feedstock ends up
and fossil aviation fuel). In calculating the Annual Production CostFossil, as a pellet by-product. Notably, 3b is the only pathway where the
the relatively small difference in the distribution costs of biofuels and sensitivity analysis for the high-altitude effect has an impact on whether
fossil fuels was ignored. negative emission SAF can be obtained. A high-altitude effect contri
bution 30% lower than the GWPs used as the reference values would
3. Results and discussion result in the pathway being able to produce negative emission SAF. As
stated, (see Sections 1 and 2.5.1), previous research suggests that the
The impact of high-altitude effects on climate impact and opportu high-altitude effect of bio aviation fuels is lower than for their fossil
nities for negative emissions SAF is covered in Section 3.1. Carbon and counterparts. Hence, it might be possible to generate climate neutral/
GHG performance under base, CCS and CCU options is shown and dis positive biofuels through the ethanol-to-jet route.
cussed in Section 3.2. LCOPs are presented together with climate impact
in Section 3.3. Section 3.4 discusses the cheapest alternatives for
3.2. Carbon & climate performance
decreasing GHG emissions, section discusses the LCOP under a carbon
sequestration revenue for the CCS option, and Section 3.6 presents a
Fig. 6 shows the climate impact (Eq. (6)) as a function of the carbon
summary of the results.
efficiency (Eq. (3)) for the base, CCS and CCU option for all seven
All figures use the same color scheme and markers for each pathway
pathways. The climate impact of the base option is relatively uniform
throughout the results (with the exception of Fig. 5). Circles represent
among the different pathways, while the carbon efficiency ranges from
the base option, squares the CCS option and triangles the CCU option.
25 to 66%. The tallow-HDO (2b) pathway (dark green dot) clearly dis
plays the highest carbon utilization efficiency in the base option.
3.1. Negative emission SAF & high-altitude effects Under the CCS option, the results tend to display an almost opposite
trend; the carbon utilization efficiencies go up to 70–95% while the
Fig. 5 displays the net climate impact for the SAF product for every resulting climate impact become more dispersed. The, for the base op
biofuel pathway under all three process options (base, CCS and CCU), tion, efficient tallow-HDO process (2b), remains at a similar carbon ef
when accounting for high altitude effects. ficiency and climate impact. Conversely, the processes that exhibit the
The most important result is that four of the pathways, 1a, 1b, 2a and lowest efficiencies for the base option reach among the highest carbon
3c, can achieve net negative climate impact for the aviation biofuel utilization rates and by far the lowest climate impact when CCS is
fraction under the CCS option, with pathway 3b not far off the negative implemented. The reason is, as mentioned above, that in the tallow-HDO
mark. This result makes it clear that it is possible to operate aviation process, most of the feedstock carbon ends up either in the aviation
without climate impact, even when factoring in high altitude effects. biofuel product, or in by-products, resulting in a negligible amount of
Overall, feedstock and processing emissions under the base option generated sequesterable CO2. For the FR-ATJ (3c, light blue), BL-FT (1a,
are in the range 1–18 g CO2eq/MJ depending mainly on feedstock type dark blue) and Bark-FT (1b, yellow) pathways, the opposite is true. The
and electricity use. In all pathways, adding the CCU option to the process carbon utilization is low in the base option owing to a large part of the
increases the climate impact due to the large electricity consumption, feedstock being converted to CO2 to heat the processes. When that CO2 is
albeit with non-noticeable levels in the 2b (tallow-HDO) pathway. The stored, the carbon-utilization reaches levels close to 90%, thus gener
main specific contributions to the GWP potential and thus the climate ating a positive climate impact. However, for the FR-HP pathway (2a,
impact is through the high-altitude effect, which however is similar for magenta, the carbon efficiency is relatively high already in the base case.
all pathways. The FR-HP pathway has the second highest efficiency for the base case
Iso-butanol to jet from forest residues (3c, FR-ATJ) offers the best and, since the process does not generate any non-fuel by-products, also
11
Fig. 6. Carbon efficiencies and climate impact (including the high-altitude effect contribution) under the base (circles), CCS (squares) and CCU (triangles) options.
Fig. 7. Levelized cost of production and climate impact of all considered pathways under the base (circles), CCS (squares) and CCU (triangles) options. The top figure
presents the gasification and hydrotreatment pathways, 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b. The bottom figure presents the fermentation pathways, 3a-3c.
12
large quantities of CO2 available for CCS or CCU. produced. Nonetheless, the 2a pathway still achieves among the lowest
Under the CCU option, all pathways are clustered at approximately LCOP for the CCS option, which is explained by the relatively large
the same climate impact as for the base option, and at a slightly lower availability of CO2 in absolute terms. These results can be put in contrast
carbon efficiency than for the CCS option. The CO2-to-jet process does to the FR-ATJ (3c) pathway which achieves the lowest climate impact of
have a relatively low carbon efficiency in itself; approximately 27–28% all value chains, but also the, by far, highest cost for the CCS option. The
of the ingoing CO2 is lost as flue gas, which explains the lower carbon 3c pathway has high levels of CO2 in relation to the fuel production,
efficiency compared to the CCS option. explaining the potential for large negative emissions; however, the ab
With relatively high feedstock-to-biofuel conversion rates, and with solute amounts are low. Low absolute amounts of CO2 imply that the
substantial by-product but small capturable carbon flows, the relative specific costs of separation and transportation for CCS and separation
increase in carbon efficiency achieved under the CCS and CCU options is and upgrading for CCU are high.
minimal for SAF produced from meat processing by-products (Tallow- Scale of production also explains why the two gasification pathways
HDO). This is explained by the oxygen content in oil and fat feedstocks have more similar costs for CCS and CCU compared to the base options.
(~11 wt%). Most of the oxygen is removed as water, resulting in a high Although the BL-FT (1a) pathway offers more CO2 for capture per MWh
carbon and hydrocarbon yields in the hydrotreatment step. On the biofuel produced than the Bark-FT pathway (1b), the quantities avail
contrary, the feedstocks for the other pathways (biomass) have high able in absolute terms are greater in the latter case. Therefore, the
oxygen content (30–40 wt%) with the larger part of the oxygen removed specific cost of capture and upgrading is lower for the 1b pathway,
as CO2, resulting in relatively lower yields. which is particularly evident from a comparison of the LCOPs of the two
From a perspective with relatively low GHG emissions from elec pathways under their respective CCS options, with the LCOPs being
tricity production (e.g., Sweden), adopting the CCU concept allows for almost equal in value. These results emphasize that scale of production
substantial increases in carbon efficiency, while the difference in climate is important for achieving low LCOPs for CCS and CCU, both in absolute
impact is small. However, it is also clear that when producing aviation terms and in terms of CO2 availability in relation to biofuel production.
fuels, both the base and CCU option remains at a climate impact of be With the exception of Wheat-ATJ (3a), the fermentation-based
tween 50 and 100 g CO2eq./MJ; the CCS option is required to deliver bio pathways show among the highest LCOPs for all process options. The
aviation fuels with both high carbon efficiency and low climate impact. overall cost picture of the FR-ATJ (3c) pathway is also dispersed relative
to other pathways. The reason is, again, the economy of scale for sep
3.3. Cost performance aration, transportation and upgrading of CO2. The fermentation path
ways are in general smaller than the gasification and hydrotreatment
Fig. 7 shows the LCOP and climate impact for the gasification (1a and pathways and consequently have lower absolute CO2 flows. According
1b) and hydrotreatment (2a, 2b) pathways in the top figure and for the to the cost model applied in this work, the cost of shipping under the CCS
fermentation (3a-c) pathways in the bottom figure. Circles represent the option is to an extent binary. It is assumed that plants with CO2 avail
base option, squares the CCS option and triangles the CCU option. It ability below a certain minimum threshold can share the storage infra
should be observed that in contrast to other by-products, no economic structure and ships for transporting CO2. The specific cost of CO2
value was assigned to CO2 sequestration in these calculations. Starting transportation is lower for plants with large quantities of CO2. There
with the gasification and hydrotreatment pathways (top figure); in all fore, among the fermentation pathways, the cost of CCS is higher for the
pathways except for BL-FT (1a), the LCOP is lowest for the base option, SD-ATJ and FR-ATJ pathways, which becomes particularly clear when
increases under the CCS option, and is highest under the CCU option. comparing the 3c pathway to the 3a pathway, where the production
Also for the fermentation pathways (bottom figure), the cost is lowest for scale is approximately 100 MWth (60%) larger for the latter.
the base option, but for both SD-ATJ (3b) and FR-ATJ (3c), the cost is For three of the pathways, BL-FT (1a), SD-ATJ (3b) and FR-ATJ (3c),
lower for the CCU option than for the CCS option. Wheat-ATJ (3a) dis the LCOP is, as mentioned above, lower for the CCU than for the CCS
plays the same trend as most of the gasification and hydrotreatment option. Common for these pathways is the high amounts of CO2 avail
pathways. able in relation to the base option fuel production, i.e., relatively large
The Wheat-ATJ (3a) pathway reach the lowest base option cost, at 90 volumes of additional product can be produced from the CO2-to-jet
EUR/MWh. However, whereas the 3a pathway also reaches the lowest process, in relation to the base product output. Nonetheless, this
CCS option cost (120 EUR/MWh, together with 2b), the 1a pathway has conclusion is also true for the Bark-FT (1b) and Wheat-ATJ (3a) path
similarly low cost for the CCU option (143 EUR/MWh). The difference in ways. However, these two pathways have the, by far, largest absolute
cost between the CCS and CCU option is also much larger for the 3a flows of CO2 (911 and 360 kt/year, respectively) and thus the cost of
pathway (120 and 143 EUR/MWh respectively) compared to the 1a CO2 transportation and injection is low enough to outweigh the rela
pathway (148 and 143 EUR/MWh). The reason for this change in trend tively low cost of CCU, resulting in processes where CCS is cheaper than
is the lower specific CAPEX for the CCU option in the 1a pathway, owing CCU, although the cost increase in relation to the base option is low for
to a larger flow of CO2. The 2b pathway actually has the lowest cost for both options.
both the CCU option and the CCS option (together with 3a for the CCS).
As was highlighted in previous sections, the Tallow-HDO pathway (2b) 3.4. Cheapest alternatives for reducing ghg emissions & improving carbon
has low levels of CO2 available for both CCS and CCU. This implies small utilization
differences in costs between the three options, but essentially no change
in climate impact, since very low amounts of CO2 are stored with CCS Fig. 8 shows the GHG reduction cost and carbon efficiency for the
and very low amounts of additional fuel are produced with CCU. CCS option (top) and CCU option (bottom) in relation the base option.
The gasification pathways (1a and 1b) in general display a compa These numbers can be compared to a highest observed cost for jet
rably good economic performance under all options, particularly the 1a kerosene (excluding taxes) in the past five years of approximately 61
pathway. BL-FT (1a) has the second lowest LCOPs for the base option as EUR/MWh (IATA - Fuel Price Monitor [Internet] 2021). The clearest
well as for the CCU option, and the fourth lowest cost for the CCS option. observation from Fig. 8 is how, while the cost of GHG reduction de
The Bark-FT pathway (1b) has the worst economic performance of the creases or remains constant for most pathways with the CCS option, a
gasification and hydrotreatment based pathways but outperforms two of clear increase in GHG reduction cost can be observed for all pathways
the fermentation-based pathways (3b and 3c). with the CCU option. For CCU, the climate impact, as has been dis
The hydropyrolysis pathway (2a) has a higher climate impact cussed, remains broadly the same or increases slightly compared to the
compared to the gasification pathways for the CCS option. This is base option, for all pathways (Fig. 6). Therefore, with GHG emission
explained by the lower levels of CO2 available in relation to the biofuel savings similar to those achieved under the base option, but with higher
13
Fig. 8. Cost of reducing 1 kg of CO2 equivalents and carbon dioxide efficiency for all pathways for both the CCS option (top) and the CCU option (bottom). Circles
represent the base option, squares the CCS option and triangles the CCU option.
Fig. 9. Carbon sequestration costs of all pathways for the CCS option without CO2 revenue (green), the CCS option with 100 EUR/t CO2 revenue (yellow), the base
option (blue) and the CCU option (brown).
14
costs due to the added expenses of the CO2 upgrading processes, biofuels sequestration revenue. According to statistics by the International
produced with CCU have higher GHG reduction costs. In contrast, all Aviation Transport Association (IATA), the highest observed cost for jet
pathways except Tallow-HDO (2b), exhibit a possibility to decrease the kerosene (excluding taxes) in the past five years was approximately
climate impact substantially by adopting CCS, as discussed above. $95/bbl, which corresponds to 61 EUR/MWh (IATA - Fuel Price
Consequently, CCS both results in generally lower GHG reduction costs, Monitor [Internet] 2021). Judging by these results, it is safe to conclude
and achieves higher carbon efficiencies, compared to the CCU option that blending mandates, policy support or taxes are required to see a
considered in this work. substantial demand and corresponding production of SAF.
For the CCS option, the two gasification-based pathways, BL-FT (1a)
and Bark-FT (1b) have the lowest cost of GHG reduction, closely fol 3.6. Result summary
lowed by Wheat-ATJ (3a) and FR-ATJ (3c). However, although the black
liquor gasification-based pathway (1a) has slightly lower costs, the Table 10 summarizes the overall performance of aviation biofuel
largest gain from adding CCS is achieved for the bark gasification pro pathways under the three process options. Besides cost, carbon and
cess (1b), which can reach very high carbon utilization with competitive climate efficiencies, estimates for Swedish feedstock potentials are
GHG reduction costs. On the other hand, the hydropyrolysis pathway provided for context. Feedstock potentials for all feedstocks except black
(2a) reaches the clearly highest carbon efficiency, although the GHG liquor were taken from recently published Swedish estimates
reduction cost is slightly higher compared to the best performing op (Börjesson, 2021; Potter et al., 2020). For black liquor, estimates from
tions. For 2a, the cost of GHG reduction remains almost similar when (Jafri et al., 2019) were applied, with the potential presented as a range;
adopting the process with CCS. This is explained by the fact that the upper limit denotes the entire Swedish black liquor throughput
although a beneficial climate impact is reached, the negative emissions under an annual production increase of 1.3% between 2018 and 2030,
are relatively small in relation to the gasification and isobutanol path while the lower limit denotes black liquor only from pulp mills with
ways. Thereby, the added cost of CCS is almost matched by the increased recovery boilers built before 1995.
carbon utilization. In general, all pathways based on forest biomass assortments have
For the CCS option, two of the fermentation pathways (3a and 3c) good feedstock availability, while the Swedish feedstock potential of
also reach GHG reduction costs in the same range as the gasification animal by-products is limited. However, the animal by-products-based
pathways. However, for the Wheat-ATJ pathway (3a) the CCS option Tallow-HDO (2b) is the only pathway that is in commercial operation
comes out as slightly worse than its corresponding base option (0.155 today. Most of the forest biomass-based pathways have technology
compared to 0.146 EUR/kg CO2eq.). For Tallow-HDO (2b) the added readiness levels of around 7, and thereby have not yet reached full
cost of CCS and any differences in climate impact are almost negligible, commercialization (Jafri et al., 2019; van and J, 2021; Fagerström et al.,
therefore CCS and CCU have negligible effects on GHG reduction costs. 2021; Cerruti et al., 2020; Bhosale, 2018; ARTFuels 2020). The
Excepting the Tallow-HDO pathway, Wheat-ATJ has the highest climate Wheat-ATJ pathway (3a) is at a similar level of development as the
impact of all pathways and, similarly to Tallow-HDO, the small change forest biomass pathways. It seems to have limited applicability in a
in climate impact explains why the additional cost of CO2 separation and Swedish context and the feedstock potential is therefore not evaluated.
storage outweighs the gain of a decreased climate impact. The results in Table 10 emphasize what has already been discussed in
Interestingly, the pathway with largest negative GHG emission po earlier sections. Low efficiency of the CO2-to-jet processes, as well as
tential when CCS is applied (FR-ATJ, 3c) does not have the lowest GHG expensive process equipment, makes an uncompelling case for adding a
reduction cost. This is an effect of the high LCOP for the base process, the biofuel-based CCU option to the production of SAF from biomass feed
low absolute amounts of CO2 stored, and the resulting high specific costs stock. This result is true for all pathways considered, except for Tallow-
of CO2 infrastructure. HDO (2b), where, instead, the added production from the CCU is
SD-ATJ (3b) has the highest GHG reduction costs for all options. This inconsequential both in comparison to the total production and to all
is a consequence of the second highest base option LCOP and a relatively other pathways. Excluding the Tallow-HDO process, the relative in
low potential for both CCS and CCU due to a low CO2 flow. The cost of crease in LCOPs under the CCU option is 16–59%. It should, however, be
GHG reduction is significantly improved by adopting CCS, but it is left noted that while the CCU costs are primarily driven by the cost of
with the second lowest carbon efficiency after Tallow-HDO (2b), due to electricity, the uncertainty in CAPEX estimates is large, and better es
the diversion of significant amounts of the feedstock carbon to the pellet timates together with more carbon-efficient FT process configurations
by-products. may result in GHG reduction costs that are closer to the base option.
Overall, the Wheat-ATJ (3a), BL-FT (1a) and FR-HP (2a) process
3.5. Impact of CO2 revenue pathways have the lowest costs for the base option. The gasification-
based pathways (1a, 1b) demonstrate the most compelling cases for
Fig. 9 shows the LCOP of all pathways with CO2 sequestration rev the CCS option as they generate large enough amounts of CO2 to reach
enue of 100 EUR/t under the CCS option, compared to the LCOP for the low LCOP, while also delivering negative emission SAF. In the Bark-FT
CCS option without a revenue, as well as to the LCOP of the base and pathway, the chosen value of the sequestration credit leads to lower
CCU options. LCOP for the CCS option compared to the base option and for BL-FT, the
A CO2 credit of 100 EUR/t for the CCS option, unsurprisingly, has a cost is the same for the base and CCS option when there is a CCS credit.
large impact on the biofuel LCOP for some of the pathways, especially Wheat-ATJ also results in a low biofuel production cost under the CCS
those with large negative emissions. For the FR-ATJ pathway (3c), the option but is penalized by a high climate impact.
LCOP decreases with over 30%, and for the two gasification pathways
the corresponding numbers are 36% (1a) and 30% (1b), respectively. 4. Conclusions
For the Bark-FT pathway (2b), as well as for the Wheat-ATJ pathway
(3a), the 100 EUR/ton revenue leads to the CCS option exhibiting a A techno-economic assessment of seven different pathways for pro
lower LCOP than the base option. It is, however, also clear that for duction of SAF has been performed. The aim was to compare the specific
several pathways, a larger revenue would be required for the CCS option pathways suitability for CCS or CCU from a carbon efficiency, cost and
to be economically competitive to the base option (3b SD-ATJ, 3c FR- climate perspective, but also to, in a more general sense, study different
ATJ and 2a FR-HP). aspects of cost and GHG performance, such as the possibility to produce
It should be observed that while biofuel product costs differ between negative emissions biofuels, while accounting for high-altitude effects
the different pathways, none of them reach a level where they can be on global warming.
cost competitive with fossil jet kerosene, even with the CO2 The clearest outcome of this work is the distinction between the CCS
15
Table 10
Overall assessment of aviation biofuel pathways under the base, CCS and CCU options.
16
and CCU options’ potential to cost-efficiently reduce the climate impact CRediT authorship contribution statement
of SAF. The CCS and CCU options both entail increased carbon effi
ciency, either through CO2 sequestration, or through additional biofuel Johan Ahlström: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal anal
production. However, in contrast to road biofuel production, where the ysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Yawer Jafri:
climate impact usually is low, the additional warming effect of Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
combusting fuels at high altitude entails that it is not possible to Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project adminis
produce SAF from biomass with CCU and reach a climate impact tration. Elisabeth Wetterlund: Conceptualization, Writing – review &
under 85 g CO2eq/MJ. This implies that although a significant editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Erik
improvement compared to fossil fuels is seen both for the base and CCU Furusjö: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
option, it is only through CCS that the climate impact of aviation can be Project administration, Funding acquisition.
fully mitigated.
The results presented in this work can be compared to previous work Declaration of Competing Interest
by the authors on 14 pathways for road biofuels with BECCS and BECCU
(Jafri et al., 2021), in which the outcomes for the CCU option were found The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
to be more favorable. The critical decision in that case rather concerned interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
whether the investor wants to prioritize negative emissions or enhanced the work reported in this paper.
biofuel production, with both options being competitive against the base
option for cost-efficient GHG emission reduction. In contrast, the results Data availability
of this work are clearly more challenging for CCU. A CO2-to-jet option
based on the FT technology is relatively inefficient compared to Data will be made available on request.
CO2-to-road biofuel options based on catalytic methanation,
methanol synthesis and MTG technologies. The lower efficiency in
combination with the relatively large investments required and the low Supplementary materials
relative impact on the GHG balance entails that the cost of GHG emission
reduction is high for all pathways with CCU. Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
When studying the results of the CCS adopted pathways, a more the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2023.103886.
optimistic image emerges. Four of the seven pathways can reach
positive climate impact (net negative emissions), regardless of the References
high-altitude effect. Importantly, this can be achieved at GHG reduc
tion costs that are not only low in absolute terms, but that are also an Åkerman, J., Kamb, A., Larsson, J., Nässén, J., 2021. Low-carbon scenarios for long-
distance travel 2060. Transp. Res. Part. D. Transp. Environ 99, 103010. Oct 1.
improvement compared to the base option. The uncertainty in estima Ahlström, J.M., Alamia, A., Larsson, A., Breitholtz, C., Harvey, S., Thunman, H., 2019.
tions of the high-altitude effect can also have an impact on a pathway’s Bark as feedstock for dual fluidized bed gasifiers—Operability, efficiency, and
estimated climate impact. economics. Int. J. Energy. Res 43 (3), 1171–1190. Mar 10.
Albrecht, F.G., König, D.H., Baucks, N., Dietrich, R.-U., 2017. A standardized
Looking at individual pathways, the pathways with large streams of methodology for the techno-economic evaluation of alternative fuels – A case study.
CO2 both in relation to fuel production and in absolute terms, achieve Fuel 194, 511–526.
low LCOPs and larger negative GHG emissions for the CCS option, Andersson, K., 2015. Bioenergy The Swedish Experience. Svebio. Available from: https://
www.svebio.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Bioenergy_Swedish_experice_3rded_
resulting in lower costs of GHG reduction. Especially the black liquor web-1.pdf.
and bark gasification pathways with FT-synthesis, the forest resi ARTFuels, 2020. Success Stories of Advanced Biofuels For Transport - The GoBiGas
dues hydropyrolysis and the wheat fermentation ATJ pathways Project. Available from: https://artfuelsforum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/
Success-Stories.pdf.
show low costs of GHG reduction for the CCS option, although the
Atsonios, K., Kougioumtzis, M.A., Panopoulos, K.D., Kakaras, E., 2015. Alternative
wheat pathway has a negative climate impact (net positive GHG thermochemical routes for aviation biofuels via alcohols synthesis: process
emissions). The lowest climate impact is, notably, clearly achieved modeling, techno-economic assessment and comparison. Appl. Energy 138,
by the forest residues fermentation isobutanol-to-jet pathway. 346–366. Jan 15.
Börjesson, P., Tufvesson, L., Lantz, M., 2010. Livscykelanalys Av Svenska Biodrivmedel,
However, this pathway is penalized by the low scale of production and 118. Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund university, p. 221. Available
the high CAPEX, resulting in a high LCOP and consequently a cost of from: https://portal.research.lu.
GHG reduction slightly higher than previously mentioned pathways. se/portal/en/publications/livscykelanalys-av-svenska-biodrivmedel
(60d1c4e8-69bf-4923-a0a0-7b4c3753deb7).html.
Pathways with small streams of CO2 are generally less suited for cost Börjesson, P., 2021. Länsvis Tillgång På Skogsbiomassa För Svensk biodrivmedels- och
efficient production of SAF with CCS or CCU, which is particularly bioflygbränsleproduktion. Lund.
obvious for the tallow hydro-treatment pathway. It might appear con Bauen, A., Nattrass, L., Bauen, A., Nattrass, L., 2018. Sustainable aviation biofuels:
scenarios for deployment. Biokerosene. Status Prospect 703–721. https://doi.org/
tradictory that pathways with low carbon utilization for the base option 10.1007/978-3-662-53065-8_27. Aug 9 [cited 2021 Nov 25]Available from: link.
are the ones that look most interesting from an investment perspective, springer.com/chapter/.
but with substantial high-altitude effects, large streams of CO2 for Bauldreay, J., 2018. Bringing IH2* Cycloparaffinic Kerosene (CPK) to market. caafi.org.
Bhosale, J., 2018. Praj in Advanced Stage of Discussion to Set Up Two 2nd Gen Ethanol
storage become necessary for attaining climate-neutral SAF. Plants in EU. The Economic Times.
Nonetheless, the results are uplifting in that the pathways most Brynolf, S., Fridell, E., Andersson, K., 2014 Jul 1. Environmental assessment of marine
suitable for the production of SAF correlate well with the pathways fuels: liquefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J. Clean.
Prod 74, 86–95.
where there is clear room for increased production. Although technol
Budsberg, E., Crawford, J.T., Morgan, H., Chin, W.S., Bura, R., Gustafson, R., 2016.
ogies such as tallow hydrotreatment are well developed and commer Hydrocarbon bio-jet fuel from bioconversion of poplar biomass: life cycle
cialized, most of the available feedstock is already being utilized. Thus, assessment. Biotechnol. Biofuels 9 (1), 1–13, 91. 2016 Aug 11Available from: https:
our results indicate that utilizing feedstock such as animal by-products //biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-016-058
2-2.
as tools for transitioning the road and shipping sectors rather than for Buttler, A., Spliethoff, H., 2018. Current status of water electrolysis for energy storage,
production of aviation fuels is not necessarily bad. There is a large grid balancing and sector coupling via power-to-gas and power-to-liquids: a review.
potential to utilize forest residual streams and sawdust for pro Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev 82, 2440–2454.
Cavalett, O., Cherubini, F., 2018. Contribution of jet fuel from forest residues to multiple
duction of SAF and, when combined with CCS, these pathways are sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain 1 (12), 799–807, 112. 2018 Nov
the best candidates for producing biofuels for climate neutral 19Available from. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0181-2.
aviation.
17
Cerruti, E., Gruttola, F., Lauro, G., Valentini, T., Fiaschi, P., Sorrenti, R., et al., 2020. Jafri, Y., Ahlström, J.M., Furusjö, E., Harvey, S., Pettersson, K., Svensson, E., et al., 2021.
Assessment of Feedstocks and Technologies for Advanced Biofuel Production. In: E3S Double yields and negative emissions? Resource, climate and cost efficiencies in
Web Conf, 197, p. 5002. Jan. biofuels with carbon capture, storage and utilization. Front. Energy Res. 10 (June),
Chemical Engineering, 2021. The Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index [Internet]. 785. https://doi.org/10.3389/FENRG.2022.797529/BIBTEX.
Available from: https://www.chemengonline.com/pci-home. Joelsson, E., Erdei, B., Galbe, M., Wallberg, O., 2016. Techno-economic evaluation of
Chiaramonti, D., 2019 Feb 1. Sustainable aviation fuels: the challenge of integrated first- and second-generation ethanol production from grain and straw.
decarbonization. Energy. Procedia 158, 1202–1207. Biotechnol. Biofuels 9 (1), 1–17.
Dahal, K., Brynolf, S., Xisto, C., Hansson, J., Grahn, M., Grönstedt, T., et al., 2021. Jordbruksverket, 2021. Priser På Jordbruksprodukter - december 2020. Månadsbrev -
Techno-economic review of alternative fuels and propulsion systems for the aviation priser på jordbruksprodukter.
sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev 151, 111564. Nov 1. Jungbluth, N., Meili, C., 2018 Nov 19. Recommendations for calculation of the global
Danish Energy Agency, 2017. Danish energy agency & energinet. technology data – warming potential of aviation including the radiative forcing index. Int. J. Life.
renewable fuels. [Internet]. Available from: https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analys Cycle. Assess 24 (3), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1556-3, 2018
er/technology_data_for_renewable_fuels.pdf. 243Available from: link.springer.com/article/.
Danish Energy Agency, Energinet, 2021. Technology Data - Renewable Fuels. Available König, D., Baucks, N., Dietrich, R.-U., Wörner, A., 2015 Nov. Simulation and evaluation
from: https://ens.dk/en/our-services/projections-and-models/technology-data/te of a process concept for the generation of synthetic fuel from CO2 and H2. Energy
chnology-data-renewable-fuels. 91, 833–841.
Element Energy, 2018. Shipping CO2 – UK Cost Estimation. Available from. https Kler R., Neele F., Nienoord M., Brownsort P., Koornneef J., Belfroid S., et al.
://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach Transportation and unloading of CO2 by ship - a comparative assessment. 2015.
ment_data/file/761762/BEIS_Shipping_CO2.pdf. LanzaTech [Internet]. [cited 2021 Nov 29]. Available from: https://lanzatech.com/.
Eliasson L., Johannesson T. Effekten av olika bottensåll på prestation, bränsleförbrukning Lee, D.S., Fahey, D.W., Skowron, A., Allen, M.R., Burkhardt, U., Chen, Q., et al., 2021.
och flisens fraktionsfördelning för flishuggarna Kesla 645 och Eschlböck Biber 92 The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to
Skogforsk. 2014. 2018. Atmos. Environ 244, 117834. Jan 1.
Emma, Gosalvez, 2020. Biomass: A Sustainable Energy Source For the Future? | College Lokesh, K., Sethi, V., Nikolaidis, T., Goodger, E., Nalianda, D., 2015 Jun 1. Life cycle
of Natural Resources News [Internet]. NC state university [cited 2021 Nov 25] greenhouse gas analysis of biojet fuels with a technical investigation into their
Available from. https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/01/biomass-a-sustainable-energy- impact on jet engine performance. Biomass Bioenergy 77, 26–44.
source-for-the-future/. Lund, M.T., Aamaas, B., Berntsen, T., Bock, L., Burkhardt, U., Fuglestvedt, J.S., et al.,
EUROCONTROL, 2021. The EU’s “Fit For 55” Package: What Does It Mean For aviation? 2017. Emission metrics for quantifying regional climate impacts of aviation. Earth.
Available from: https://www.eurocontrol.int/article/eus-fit-55-package-what-do Syst. Dyn 8 (3), 547–563. Jul 10.
es-it-mean-aviation. Marker, T., Roberts, M., Linck, M., Felix, L., Ortiz-Toral, P., Wangerow, J., et al., 2013.
European Commission, 2021. European Green Deal: Commission proposes Biomass to Gasoline and Diesel Using Integrated Hydropyrolysis and
Transformation of EU Economy and Society to Meet Climate Ambitions. Available Hydroconversion. US Dep of Energy. Available from: https://www.osti.gov/bibli
from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3541. o/1059031.
f3 The Swedish knowledge center for renewable transportation fuels. Missuppfattningar Meerman, J.C., Larson, E.D., 2017. Negative-carbon drop-in transport fuels produced via
kring användningen av skogsbiomassa för att begränsa klimatförändringar | f3 catalytic hydropyrolysis of woody biomass with CO2 capture and storage. Sustain.
centre [Internet]. f3. 2021. Available from: https://f3centre.se/sv/faktablad/miss Energy. Fuels 1, 866–881.
uppfattningar-kring-anvandningen-av-skogsbiomassa-for-att-begransa-klimatforan Mikhelkis, L., Govindarajan, V., 2020. Techno-economic and partial environmental
dringar/. analysis of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization, and
Fagerström, Anton, Grahn, Desiree, Lundberg, Susanne, Ghosh, Sreetama, storage (CCU/S): case study from proposed waste-fed district-heating incinerator in
Creaser, Derek, Olsson, Louise, Abdelaziz, Omar, Wallberg, Ola, Sweden. Sustainability 12.
Hulteberg, Christian, Poulikidou, Sofia, Lewren, Adam, Rydberg, Tomas, Moua, L., Roa, J., Xie, Y., Maxwell, D., 2020. Critical review of advancements and
Martin, Michael, Anderson, Sara, Julia Hansson, A.H, 2021. Large Scale Bio Electro challenges of all-electric aviation. In: Int Conf Transp Dev 2020 Emerg Technol Their
Jet Fuel Production Integration At CHP-plant in Östersund. IVL, SwedenStockholm. Impacts - Sel Pap from Int Conf Transp Dev 2020, pp. 48–59. https://doi.org/
Available from: https://www.ivl.se/english/ivl/publications/publications/large-sca 10.1061/9780784483138.005. Available from: ascelibrary.org/doi/.
le-bio-electro-jet-fuel-production-integration-at-chp-plant-in-ostersund-sweden. Narciso, M., de, Sousa JMM, 2021. Influence of sustainable aviation fuels on the
html. formation of contrails and their properties. Energies 14 (17), 5557, 2021, Vol 14,
Fosilfritt Sverige, 2021. Biostrategi - Fossilfritt Sverige [Internet] [cited 2021 Nov 24]. Page 5557Sep 6Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5557
Available from: https://fossilfrittsverige.se/strategier/biostrategi/. /htm.
Frankó, B., Galbe, M., Wallberg, O., 2016. Bioethanol production from forestry residues: Neele, F., de Kler, R., Nienoord, M., Brownsort, P., Koornneef, J., Belfroid, S., et al., 2017.
a comparative techno-economic analysis. Appl. Energy 184 (2016), 727–736. CO2 transport by ship: the way forward in Europe. Energy. Procedia 114,
Geleynse, S., Brandt, K., Garcia-Perez, M., Wolcott, M., Zhang, X., 2018. The Alcohol-to- 6824–6834.
Jet Conversion Pathway for Drop-In Biofuels: techno-Economic Evaluation. Niléhn, Anders, 2018. Spannmålspriset Fortsätter Att Stiga. Lantbruksnytt.
ChemSusChem 11 (21), 3728–3741. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201801690. Nov Oesingmann, K., 2022. The effect of the European emissions trading system (EU ETS) on
9Available from: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/. aviation demand: an empirical comparison with the impact of ticket taxes. Energy.
gevo [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sep 9]. Available from: https://gevo.com/products/sustain Policy 160, 112657.
able-aviation-fuel/. Onarheim, K., Solantausta, Y., Lehto, J., 2015. Process simulation development of fast
Grewe, V., Bock, L., Burkhardt, U., Dahlmann, K., Gierens, K., Hüttenhofer, L., et al., pyrolysis of wood using aspen plus. Energy Fuels 29 (1), 205–217.
2017. Assessing the climate impact of the AHEAD multi-fuel blended wing body. Pettersson, K., Gåverud, H., Görling, M, 2019. WELL-TO-WHEEL COST FOR
Meteorol. Zeitschrift 26 (6), 711–725. FORESTBASED BIOFUELS. Available from: f3.se.
Harvey, S., Axelsson, E., 2010. Scenarios For Assessing Profitability and Carbon Balances Pettersson, K., Axelsson, E., Eriksson, L., Svensson, E., Berntsson, T., Harvey, S., 2020.
of Energy Investments in Industry. Chalmers. Available from: https://publications. Holistic methodological framework for assessing the benefits of delivering industrial
lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/98347.pdf. excess heat to a district heating network. Int. J. Energy. Res 44 (4), 2634–2651. Mar.
Haus, S., Björnsson, L., Börjesson, P., 2020. Lignocellulosic Ethanol in a Greenhouse Gas Pool, Nord, 2021. Market Data [Accessed 2021-08-23]. Available from: https://www.no
Emission Reduction Obligation System-A Case Study of Swedish Sawdust Based- rdpoolgroup.com/en/.
Ethanol Production. Energies 13 (5), 1048. Feb 23Available from: www.mdpi. Hanna Karlsson Potter, Sofia Poulikidou, Kajsa Henryson, Torun Hammar JH. HVO
com/journal/energies. Produced from Swedish Raw Materials. 2020. Available from: https://f3centre.se/
IATA - Fuel Price Monitor [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 1]. Available from: app/uploads/FDOS-20-2021_P46980-1_SR_211209-1.pdf.
https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/. Pröll, T., Zerobin, F., 2019. Biomass-based negative emission technology options with
IEAGHG, 2017. Understanding the Cost of Retrofitting CO2 Capture in an Integrated Oil combinedheat and power generation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang 24 (7),
Refinery. Available from: https://ieaghg.org/publications/technical-reports/reports- 1307–1324.
list/10-technical-reviews/819-2017-tr8-understanding-the-cost-of-retrofitting-co2- PRI.EU.MAR, 2021. Meat Market Observatory - Beef and Veal. EU Remainder for Calves
capture-in-an-integrated-oil-refinery. and Young Cattle.
International Energy Agency (IEA), 2021. World Energy Outlook 2021, 386. OECD Publ. Rego de Vasconcelos, B., Lavoie, J.-M., 2019. Recent advances in power-to-X technology
Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021. for the production of fuels and chemicals. Front. Chem 7, 392.
International Energy Agency, 2010. World Energy Outlook 2010. energy.eu, Paris. Remer, D.S., Chai, L.H., 1990. Design cost factors for scaling-up engineering equipment.
International Energy Agency, 2017. World Energy Outlook 2017. Paris. Chem. Eng. Prog 86 (8).
International, B., 2019. Biozin biorefinery project awarded NOK 30 million from RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, 2021. Internal Correspondence with RISE Research
Innovation Norway. bioenergyinternational.com. Institutes of Sweden AB.
Jafri, Y., Wetterlund, E., Anheden, M., Kulander, I., Håkansson, Å., Furusjö, E., 2019. Ritchie, H., 2020. Climate change and flying: what share of global CO2 emissions come
Multi-aspect evaluation of integrated forest-based biofuel production pathways: part from aviation? - Our World in Data [Internet]. Our World Data [cited 2021 Nov 24].
2. economics, GHG emissions, technology maturity and production potentials. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation.
Energy 172, 1312–1328. Roberts, M., Marker, T., Ortiz-Toral, P., Linck, M., Felix, L., Wangerow, J., et al., 2015.
Jafri, Y., Wetterlund, E., Mesfun, S., Rådberg, H., Mossberg, J., Hulteberg, C., et al., Refinery Upgrading of Hydropyrolysis Oil From Biomass. Gas tech inst, United
2020. Combining expansion in pulp capacity with production of sustainable biofuels States. Available from: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1221922.
– Techno-economic and greenhouse gas emissions assessment of drop-in fuels from Roussanaly S., Anantharaman R., Jordal K., Giraldi C., Clapis A. Understanding the cost
black liquor part-streams. Appl. Energy 279, 115879. retrofitting CO2 capture in an Integrated oil refinery : cost estimation and economic
evaluation of CO2 capture options for refineries. 2017.
18
Sagues, W.J., Jameel, H., Sanchez, D.L., Park, S., 2020. Prospects for bioenergy with The Swedish Energy Agency, 2021. Övervakningsrapport Avseende Skattebefrielse För
carbon capture & storage (BECCS) in the United States pulp and paper industry. Rena Och Höginblandade Flytande Biodrivmedel Under 2021.
Energy Environ. Sci 13 (8), 2243–2261. The Swedish Government, 2021. Duty to Reduce Aviation Kerosene (Reduktionsplikt För
Schiffer, Z.J., Manthiram, K., 2017 Sep 6. Electrification and decarbonization of the Flygfotogen). Available from: https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/lag
chemical industry. Joule 1 (1), 10–14. radsremiss/2020/12/reduktionsplikt-for-flygfotogen/.
Schleussner, C.F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R., Fischer, E.M., et al., Thunman, H., Gustavsson, C., Larsson, A., Gunnarsson, I., Tengberg, F., 2019 Feb 1.
2016. Science and Policy Characteristics of the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal, Economic assessment of advanced biofuel production via gasification using cost data
6. Nature Climate Change. Nature Publishing Group, pp. 827–835 [cited 2021 Feb from the GoBiGas plant. Energy. Sci. Eng 7 (1), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/
26]Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3096. ese3.271. Available from: doi.wiley.com/.
Tan, E.C.D., Marker, T.L., Roberts, M.J., 2014. Direct production of gasoline and diesel Tran, S., Brown, A., Olfert, J.S., 2020. Comparison of particle number emissions from in-
fuels from biomass via integrated hydropyrolysis and hydroconversion process-A flight aircraft fueled with Jet A1, JP-5 and an Alcohol-to-Jet Fuel Blend. Energy Fuels
techno-economic analysis. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 33 (2), 609–617. Jul. 34 (6), 7218–7222. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00260. Jun
Tao, L., Tan, E.C.D., Mccormick, R., Zhang, M., Aden, A., He, X., et al., 2014 Jan 1. 18Available from: pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/.
Techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment of cellulosic isobutanol and van, Dyk S, J, Saddler, 2021. Progress in Commercialization of Biojet /Sustainable
comparison with cellulosic ethanol and n-butanol. Biofuels,. Bioprod. Biorefining 8 Aviation Fuels (SAF): Technologies, Potential and Challenges. France.
(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1431. Available from: onlinelibrary.wiley. Vergragt, P.J., Markusson, N., Karlsson, H., 2011. Carbon capture and storage, bio-
com/doi/full/. energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in.
The European Commission, 2021a. Reducing Emissions from Aviation [Internet] [cited Glob. Environ. Chang 21 (2), 282–292. May 1.
2021 Nov 24]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-em Voigt, C., Kleine, J., Sauer, D., Moore, R.H., Bräuer, T., Le Clercq, P., et al., 2021. Cleaner
issions/reducing-emissions-aviation_en. burning aviation fuels can reduce contrail cloudiness. Commun. Earth. Environ 2 (1),
The European Commission. Directive of the european parliament and of the council 1–10, 2021 21Jun 17 [cited 2021 Nov 4]Available from: https://www.nature.co
amending directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European parliament and of the council, m/articles/s43247-021-00174-y.
regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European parliament and of the council and Von der Leyen U. Statement by the president on delivering the european green
directive 98/70/EC of the European parliam. 2021. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 24]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/c
The European Commission. Annex C: methodology for calculation of GHG emission ommission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_21_3701.
avoidance. 2021. Zagklis, D., Konstantinidou, E., Zafiri, C., Kornaros, M., 2020. Assessing the Economic
the Swedish Confederation of Transport Enterprises (Transportföretagen). Världsledande Viability of an Animal Byproduct Rendering Plant: case Study of a Slaughterhouse in
klimatåtgärder för flyget infördes i Sverige 1 juli - Transportföretagen [Internet]. Greece. Sustainability 12.
2021 [cited 2021 Nov 25]. Available from: https://www.transportforetagen.se/nyh
etslista/2021/juli/varldsledande-klimatatgarder-for-flyget-infors-i-sverige-1-juli/.
19

Johan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 125 (2023) 103886

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

Sustainable aviation fuels – Options for negative emissions and high

1. Introduction Several complex mechanisms contribute to the high-altitude effects,

Fig. 1. Overview of the av SAF pathways.

2.3.2. Hydrotreatment based pathways 2.3.3. Fermentation based pathways

Electricity 46.8 kg CO2eq/MWh (Pool, 2021) [Swedish mix]

Estimates of capital expenditure (CAPEX) were taken from the x, respectively.

CRF ∗ CAPEXTotal + OPEXMaterials + OPEXO&M − RevenueBy−

You might also like