Blue sky turns Green

Emissions of certain gases and particulate matter at both high altitude and around densely populated areas are concerning.

While other industries may emit more, aviation cannot be complacent. Passenger kilometres are growing. Lower cost ticketing brings many economic and social benefits but increases in the numbers of passengers and flights also have an impact the environment.

A global carbon offsetting scheme comes into place on January 1 2019. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the United Nations agency dealing with commercial flight, adopted the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) in 2016. Its requirements mean that operators will need to assess, monitor, confirm and report emissions on all international flights, and purchase ‘emissions units’ to offset growth in what are called ‘covered emissions’ — in aviation’s case, from fuel combustion.

Meanwhile, passengers are becoming more conscious of their own environmental impact.

Qantas told Australian Aviation it believes it has the “the largest airline offset program in the world” under its Future Planet banner. It said that every 59 seconds a Qantas customer chooses to offset a share of the fuel emissions created during their flight. Since 2007, the airline has also offset all employee business travel emissions as well as its use of ground fuel.

“The program is not-for-profit with all monies collected used to purchase carbon offsets directly from verified projects in Australia and around the world,” the airline said.

“The Qantas Future Planet program supports more than 40 local and global carbon offset projects including the protection of native forests in Tasmania to ensure a healthy habitat for the Tasmanian devil, (and) the creation of jobs for Indigenous communities in northern Australia through fire management projects.

“Further afield, the program has helped fund the conservation of 600,000 hectares of lush tropical rainforest in Papua New Guinea and the introduction of renewable wind energy in India.”

Reducing emissions and the impact of those emissions is also good business for airlines. More efficient aircraft burn less fuel, costing airlines less money to operate. Also, within the next decade, we are likely to see electric, or at least hybrid-electric, aircraft operation regional and short-haul services.

Reducing emissions is also good business for airlines.’

“There is some exciting potential in the technology space. Aircraft and engine manufacturers are currently looking at the potential for the electrification of commercial aircraft engines and systems using solar and battery storage technology,” said Robert Wood, Virgin Australia Group General Manager for Group Sustainability.

“Hybrid jet fuel and electric engines are also being analysed to look at their viability (see Australian Aviation, January 2018). While these technologies may take some time to develop and come to market … they demonstrate real promise for the industry long-term,” he said.

But in the meantime, airlines worldwide are concentrating on reducing their use of fuel.

Steffen Milchsack, head of Corporate Responsibility Communications for Lufthansa said the group had set a new efficiency record in 2017: 3.68 litres of fuel consumption to fly one person over a distance of 100 kilometres,” an improvement of 4.5 per cent compared with 2016.

As a comparison, a Toyota Corolla hatchback burns 6.0 litres of petrol per 100 kilometres, according to the manufacturer. Over comparable distances, rail is usually quoted as burning 10 to 20 times less fuel per passenger than an automobile.

“In 2017, we implemented a total of 34 fuel-saving projects group-wide,” Milchsack said, “which sustainably reduced CO2 emissions by some 64.4 thousand tons. The quantity of kerosene saved amounted to 25.2 million litres — this is equivalent to approximately 250 return flights between Munich and New York with an Airbus A350-900.”

So who are the runners — and the riders — in the ongoing race to improve aviation’s sustainability?

New technology is crucial

“The biggest lever for increasing eco-efficiency is new aircraft and engine technologies,” according to Milchsack.

Lighter composite aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are already making strong contributions to efficiency and, thus, reduced emissions. So are newer generation engines such as the CFM International LEAP, General Electric GEnx, Pratt & Whitney PW1000G (previously known as the Geared Turbofan), and the latest iterations of the Rolls-Royce Trent family, for example the 1000, 7000 and XWB.

Industry observers will nevertheless be aware that these technologies have proved more bleeding-edge than leading-edge, with engine issues affecting the 737 MAX and A320neo families, the A330neo much delayed, and Boeing 787 Dreamliners parked around the world awaiting maintenance. But the industry has survived power plant entry-into-service crises before, and the long-term prognosis for these engines is largely positive.

“Airlines are highly motivated to improve fuel efficiency of their aircraft, with fuel often being the largest single cost. The demand from airframers for more efficient power plants will only grow, not lessen,” said Pratt & Whitney spokesperson Jenny Dervin.

“The development of the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbofan (GTF) engine contributes significantly to the improved environmental footprint for operators,” Dervin said. “The engine improves fuel efficiency by up to 16 per cent and reduces NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions to (50 per cent of) the regulatory standard. It also has a 75 per cent smaller noise footprint, reducing impacts on communities near airports. The engine was introduced to revenue service in 2016, so the environmental improvements will continue to grow.”

‘Airlines are highly motivated to improve fuel efficiency of their aircraft.’
Jenny Dervin

Dervin said Pratt & Whitney spent 20 years and more than $10 billion in developing the GTF engine: “As with any engine program, we will continue to refine and advance the performance of the engine.

“The new GTF architecture has proven its ability to meet or exceed promised fuel efficiency performance since its entry into service … And we believe that we will have a GTF 2.0 version before any other engine maker has their own 1.0 version. Traditionally, engine programs have a life of 30 years or more, with incremental improvements to fuel efficiency made over time.”

Dervin said the advantages of the GTF come from “unique architecture” with a gear that allows the fan and turbine to spin at optimal speed.

“Other engine manufacturers have achieved the same fuel efficiency improvement over legacy engine platforms through other means, but only the GTF has a long runway for future fuel efficiency improvements,” she said.

The GTF is offered as an option for the A320neo and is currently exclusive to the Embraer E2, the A220 (formerly Bombardier C Series), Mitsubishi Regional Jets and the Irkut MC-21.

Airlines, for their part, are using both inflight connectivity, improved modelling technology, and a wealth of emerging information on flight operations, to fly more efficiently.

Qantas noted that it is “using technology to allow for multiple inflight adjustments to the flight path based on meteorological conditions, allowing Qantas pilots to choose the most efficient and least impactful path”. This includes Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure, which allow pilots to adjust the flight path more frequently than previously to take account, and advantage, of up-to-the-minute meteorological conditions.

Increasing digitalisation of air traffic management is also reducing delays and allowing more efficient routings. This contributes not only to a better passenger experience but to reduced environmental impact from fewer holding patterns, smoother planned descents, and other improvements.
Fuel efficiency goals are just one part, though; reducing the impact of emissions is crucial but switching to more sustainable sourcing is also important.

Growing role of new fuels

The combustion of jet fuel is the most significant contributor to aviation emissions, said Virgin Australia’s Robert Wood. “That’s why … we have such a strong focus on improving fuel efficiency, and on expediting the development of the sustainable aviation fuels industry. The industry has other challenges beyond emissions such as waste and broader tourism impacts. The Virgin Australia group are continually working to reduce our impacts across our operations.”

Biofuels — those manufactured via biological processes, including from crops, biomass, algae, or via other emerging technologies — are promising alternatives to traditional fuel.

“There are a lot of exciting developments in the biofuels space globally and here in Australia,” Wood said.

“Although the industry is still scaling up, with commercial scale plants currently under construction, there is more investment, momentum and support for these fuels than there has been for many years. There are now six fuel production or feedstock pathways certified for use in commercial aviation, with the most recent ethanol-to-jet fuel pathway having some strong potential in Australia.”

Virgin recently completed stage one of a trial at Brisbane Airport, blending biofuels with traditional jet fuel and supply of the blend into the general airport fuel supply system. “This has only occurred at a handful of airports globally and is the first such trial in our region,” said Wood.

“The fluctuating oil price is always a challenge for airlines to manage,” Wood said. He added that while biofuels are not yet price competitive with standard jet fuel, Virgin is taking a long-term view of their commercial viability — a time when economies of scale deliver higher production levels and lower cost.

Price is a significant constraint said Lufthansa’s Steffen Milchsack who pointed out that alternative fuels are still two to three times more expensive than conventional kerosene. In addition, some biofuels have negative environmental and social consequences, especially those that use scarce arable land and water resources.

With negative impacts in mind, new options are coming into play.

In January, Qantas operated its first trans-Pacific flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne with a 787-9 using blended biofuel from carinata, a type of non-food mustard seed. About 24,000kg of this blended fuel saves 18,000kg of carbon emissions. It was developed by Canada-based agritech company Agrisoma Biosciences

“Our partnership with Agrisoma marks a big step in the development of a renewable jet fuel industry in Australia. It is a project we are really proud to be part of as we look at ways to reduce carbon emissions across our operations,” said Qantas International CEO Alison Webster.

“The flight is part of the partnership announced in 2017 which will also see the companies work with Australian farmers to grow the country’s first commercial aviation biofuel seed crop by 2020.”

It’s a relatively small start: a 10 per cent biofuel blend delivered a seven per cent reduction in emissions. There are, however, other social and environmental benefits.

According to Qantas, carinta does not require specialised production or processing techniques. “It is water efficient and The University of Queensland field trials in Gatton, Queensland, and in Bordertown, South Australia, have demonstrated it should do very well in the Australian climate.

“It is sown in either fallow areas where food crops fail or in between regular crop cycles, known as ‘cover cropping’. Rotational or break-crops can improve soil quality, reduce erosion for food crops and provide farmers with additional income.”

“Carinata-based fuel offers a more than 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions in comparison to standard petroleum based fuel. The crushed carinata seed produces a high-quality, high-protein, non-GMO meal for the Australian livestock, dairy and poultry market. One hectare of carinata seed yields 2,000 litres of oil, which produces 400 litres of biofuel, 1,400 litres of renewable diesel and 10 per cent renewable by-products.”

Virgin Atlantic, meanwhile, has successfully trialled a new type of fuel using waste products from steelmaking and other heavy industrial processes on a Boeing 747-400 flight from London to Orlando. It was made possible through technology developed by former New Zealand company LanzaTech, now based in Chicago.

In a process developed in collaboration with Pacific Northwest National Lab and the US Department of Energy, LanzaTech turns waste gases into ethanol which, it says, can be used for a range of low carbon products, including jet fuel.

Virgin Group founder Richard Branson said: “Long haul travel is more important than ever for connecting people around the world and it’s our responsibility to ensure we’re doing that in the most sustainable way possible.

“Working with LanzaTech will enable us to greatly reduce our carbon emissions.

In a further statement, Virgin Atlantic said that if the technology was rolled out worldwide to eligible steel mills it could produce enough fuel to meet around 20 per cent of the current commercial global aviation fuel demand.

“Crucially, because it’s made from plentiful, affordable waste-streams, the fuel has a fighting chance at coming in at a price on a par with current fossil fuel prices — a truly ground-breaking move that would enable airlines like Virgin Atlantic to achieve the big carbon savings needed.”

Yet whatever fuel is burned, and however efficiently, combustion engines will still emit gases and particulates, especially at high altitude and over populated areas near airports. Can the answer to this problem be electric or hybrid-electric aircraft?

New methods of propulsion

A growing number of players have entered the battery-powered electric aircraft market over the past two decades. As battery storage has improved and efficiency increased, so, too, has the size, range and performance of these aircraft. Lessons have also been learned from defence applications.

The challenge of moving from the ultralight Solar Impulse 2 circumnavigation of the globe in 2015-16 to an aircraft the size of a regional turboprop has spurred a previously unthinkable amount of competition. According to global strategy consultancy Roland Berger the number of electrically propelled aircraft around the world now exceeds 130, and “our developments database grew by approximately 30 per cent between May and October 2018”.

‘A growing number of players have entered the battery-powered electric aircraft market.’

Roland Berger suggests roughly half are urban air taxis, with most of the remainder general aviation applications. “Not only are smaller developments easier to fund and test, but current electrical systems technology still favours lower power and shorter distance flights.”

Technology required to deliver battery power capable of sustaining regional and large commercial flight is not expected before 2030. “Today’s regional and large commercial electrical aircraft concepts, therefore, tend to employ turbo-electric hybrid systems at present,” Roland Berger said.
Interestingly, while the major airframers and engine makers are involved, the technology required means that new, innovative entrants to the market may sit at something of an advantage to more traditional aviation suppliers.

As a further indication of the focus on electric technology, Heathrow Airport’s chief executive John Holland-Kaye this month announced that the airport will grant an exemption to the first electric hybrid aircraft to enter into regular service at London’s primary hub.

“There are already more than 100 electric aircraft projects underway across the world and current industry thinking suggests electric aircraft could touch down at major international airports by 2030,” the airport said in a statement. “Innovators are facing two main hurdles though: the cost of development and current demand. This prize has been designed to incentivise airlines to invest in electric technology, helping to increase demand and speed up the arrival of zero-emissions flights at the UK’s biggest airport.”

“With global air passengers expected to double by 2035, these changes will play a critical role in driving a sustainable future for the aviation sector … The airport currently incentivises airlines to bring their greenest fleet to Heathrow through the use of environmental charges, and will continue to work with airlines to develop these incentives in the future.”

Closer to home, Wendy Weir, Brisbane Airport Environment and Sustainability Manager, said “there are now 87 airports worldwide certified for mapping their carbon footprints under the Airports Council International Airport Carbon Accreditation program. This programme provides a unique common framework and tool for active carbon management at airports with measurable results. It covers the operational activities that contribute most to carbon emissions.”

“There are now 14 accredited airports in the Asia Pacific region representing six countries, and 4.6 per cent of air passenger traffic in the … region.”
“ACI published a policy brief on airport resilience and adaptation on October 3 2018 to encourage airports to conduct risk assessments, consider various adaptation measures, and develop mitigation measures for the potential impact of climate change on infrastructure and operations,” Weir said.

“The brief includes case studies from airports in Norway, Australia, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Amsterdam and Singapore. It also provides recommendations and an extensive rundown of potential climate stressors and their related potential impacts on infrastructure and operations, and a non-exhaustive list of airports that have already started to work on resilience and adaptation to climate change.”

Much of that airport work will try to mitigate the direct effects of global climate change while taking account of the importance of the impact locally of aviation-related activity.

Focus on local and global impacts

Aviation’s activities don’t just affect the troposphere; local efforts to improve sustainability also need attention, such as mitigating the impact of takeoff, landing and ground engine operations, airport vehicles engines, staff and passengers travelling to and from airports, and the handling of physical waste from the cabin post-flight.

Some airlines, for example, have moved to single-engine taxiing operations in order to reduce emissions and, indeed, save fuel. Pushing an aircraft around the tarmac using turbines is not an efficient use of Jet A-1, but trials about 10 years ago of increased use of ground tugs to manoeuvre aircraft prior to takeoff and after landing proved problematic; airframes are designed primarily for pushback rather than extensive towing.

Electric and battery-powered operations vehicles show promise, but the charging infrastructure and planning can be complex and current activity is largely at the trial stage with everything from electric tugs to catering trucks and baggage carts under test.

Physical consumer waste from the aircraft, for its part, has seen renewed attention this year in the form of the war against single-use plastics, including drinking straws and coffee stirrers. A complexity, particularly in the Australian context, is biosecurity concern around materials’ recycling.
Virgin’s Robert Wood said his group has strong interest in issues around the handling of physical waste. “We have been able to introduce recycling processes off our aircraft domestically operating to areas with biosecurity restrictions – such as Western Australia.

“However, for international operations, this still remains a challenge in Australia and around the world. We are currently working with our caterer, Gate Gourmet, on a trial at Sydney Airport to assess whether a new approach can be adopted to meet Australia’s international biosecurity restrictions and allow for greater levels of recycling off our international aircraft.”

Across the Tasman, caterer LSG Sky Chefs (part of the Lufthansa Group), has been working with customers and government regulators to tackle the problem, said Lufthansa’s Steffen Milchsack, “The facility in Auckland has teamed up with Air New Zealand and the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to tackle inflight waste from NZ’s international services arriving in Auckland,” he said. “The waste reduction initiative ‘Project Green’ is expected to divert 150 tonnes of waste from landfill annually.”

Specifically, sayid Milchsack, “Project Green has enabled 40 Air New Zealand inflight products that were previously sent to landfill due to biosecurity controls, to be reclassified so they can be reused on future flights if removed from aircraft sealed and untouched. Products approved to date include sealed beverages and unopened snacks with further items expected to be added in coming months.”

Milchsack said that in the first month of running Project Green, 13 tonnes of waste, including 266,000 plastic cups, 480 kg of sugar packets and 3.5 tonnes of bottled water were diverted.”

Within Lufthansa’s airline operations last year, “several disposable products in economy class were replaced by reusable components and, since May 2018, plastic packaging for textiles in business class was replaced by paper banderoles. Alternative materials for all disposable plastic products are currently being tested and or developed, although sustainable and suitable alternatives are not yet available for all of them.”

Qantas, too, has partnered with OzHarvest to retrieve unused catering items from its centres in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth. Last year, Qantas said, it contributed to the production of over 300,000 community meals by providing more than 100 tonnes of food to the charity.

Yet high-profile moves may not necessarily have the most impact and, indeed, can lead to accusations of ‘greenwashing’. The more rational, considered, and evidence-based a decision can be, the more likely it is to have a sustainable impact.

Realistically, there is a finite amount of sustainability investment available, but an ever-growing number of options for aviation to spend that money.
It may make more sense for the industry to focus resources on ground emissions, which make up a substantial part of the emissions-generated pollution around airports.

On a purely rational basis, the greatest reduction in both climate changing emissions and local environmental impacts may well not be with aircraft, or even airside at airports.

Dollar for dollar in investment terms, are there more benefits generated by building or expanding electrified rail or alternative fuel bus access to airports to reduce private car usage? Does sustainable, locally generated electricity make more sense than biofuel infrastructure? Does investing in fixed electrical ground power and pre-conditioned air to reduce the usage of aircraft auxiliary power units and external ground power units bring greater benefit than creating alternative fuel infrastructures?

The easy answer is “all of the above”. But that decision ‘paralysis’ does not solve the greatest existential threat to aviation: the health on which all of us depend.