Can we really decarbonise by 2050?

Australian Aviation: How will the Wellcamp SAF deal work?

Dr Kimberly Camrass: We know many different feedstocks can be used to produce SAF. This project will use household, construction and demolition waste as their feedstock, which was really attractive to us at Boeing, given that it has other sustainability benefits in terms of diversion of waste from landfills and things like that. So, in terms of how that will work, we’ve invested at an early stage in that project, and that’s critical.

Many of these projects struggle to get off the ground because they don’t have that early-stage investment to go through, you know, pre-feed and feed and get to a financial close opportunity. We saw that as a really important investment and a really important time to make that investment. How will it work? Wagner has their Wellcamp airport out in Toowoomba. In the short term, they’ll be blending imported SAF with conventional jet fuel at that airport, and that’ll be the first time we’re seeing SAF circulate in the Australian aviation ecosystem on a regular scale. We’ll see that likely early next year. The larger refinery will be producing stuff onshore with the view of a 2027 production time frame. So, we’re excited and proud to partner with Wagner Sustainable Fields because we think there are real opportunities for that feedstock, particularly in Queensland, to start to drive SAF production.

AA: What are the barriers to not using more SAF at the moment?

Daniel Dott: I think we recognise there are no technical barriers to SAF. We’ve done demonstration flights. We understand how SAF works. There are currently eight approved pathways to make SAF from different feedstocks and technology. But the challenge is primarily economic. It’s around two to five times and can be up to eight times more expensive than conventional aviation fuel. With aviation fuel typically making up about 30 per cent of an airline’s cost base, it is a fairly costly transition to make. It is a difficult but important lever for aviation decarbonisation. The challenge is overcoming some of those economic barriers to entry.

AA: Is the expense linked to supply and demand? Is it simply because there isn’t enough SAF available to us?

DD: It depends on the pathway to make SAF, which will drive a huge cost. Feedstock availability and rateability are the other important parts, as are the cost of that feedstock and the capital investment required to invest in specific SAF technologies. It’s very expensive, and because it’s a very expensive product, it makes uptake challenging. Some technologies can scale well and bring the cost closer to conventional jet fuel, but certainly not on par with it.

KC: Last year, Boeing collaborated with CSIRO to produce the staff roadmap for Australia, which clearly outlines the economic, environmental and national security benefits that a domestic SAF industry could have. Cost is a barrier, but the key enabler that we see to overcoming those barriers is an integrated suite of policies at a federal level that starts to reduce that cost differential, and that also sets some demand signals to the market – whether that’s through a mandate or government procurement, particularly through defence procurement.

There are some real opportunities for that industry to be facilitated through government policy. I think it’s pleasing to see that we have seen movement from the federal government here over the last few months through the May budget announcements and recent consultations around the development of low-carbon liquid fuel policies. But I think the momentum needs to continue because otherwise, we risk our feedstocks going offshore to enable the development of other domestic SAF industries.

AA: How much SAF do we need to make if we want all flights to have a percentage of SAF in them?

KC: We need around 26 domestic refineries to maximise the opportunities for SAF production by 2050. At the moment, we see some really good progress with several SAF projects proceeding through their pre-feasibility and feasibility stages. The Wagner sustainable fuel project, Jet Zero in Townsville, and others. But the true challenge here is scaling that and accelerating that so that it can only really be done, or can most effectively be done, through that integrated suite of policies at a federal level.

AA: Last year, Virgin Atlantic flew a 100 per cent SAF-fuelled flight. Are we ever likely to see most flights fuelled like this?

DD: Some may not know that, and you alluded to it earlier, you are required to blend synthetic blend component, which is the neat SAF with conventional jet fuel, up to a ratio of about 50 per cent. That’s required because the synthetic blend component doesn’t contain aromatics, which is important for engine function. Virgin Atlantic’s flight flew on 100 per cent SAF because they introduced synthetic aromatic kerosene, an approved pathway, but that’s a bit more expensive to make. There are some commercial challenges around that, but it is something that the industry is working on because it takes out the need to blend it with conventional jet fuel and completely removes our reliance on fossil fuels. So that’s a really important step in the industry. And I know Boeing and others are working towards 100 per cent as well.

KC: Boeing has a target of making sure all of our new aircraft are 100 per cent SAF compliant by 2030, and that’s reflected by others in the industry as well. So, I think one of the other challenges around this is the long lead times for some of these things, obviously, for the development of new aircraft and the development of the SAF production facilities. So, there must be industry-wide consensus around some of these targets.

AA: What’s your dream list of requests from the government to help our push to sustainability?

DD: Well, I think we need to recognise that a broad suite of policies is required to preserve the affordability of air travel and access to air travel. Sustainable aviation fuel is expensive, but it is an important lever to decarbonisation. So, a suite of policies is designed to ensure that we maintain a level playing field and create the right signals for domestic SAF production that creates jobs for Australians and preserves liquid fuel security for our country.

KC: Yeah, I think the point about maintaining affordability is really important. Of course, both in Australia and globally, we know 80 per cent of people have never been on an aircraft. That’s a significant statistic when considering the opportunities we get through air travel. So, we are, globally, required to be part of this transition to ensure that a broader range of people can experience those benefits. In terms of what we’d like to see here in Australia, and if money wasn’t an issue, there needs to be an integrated policy suite that includes both demand signals, so a mandate, but a sensible mandate for the introduction and the requirement of SAF use, really significant government procurement of staff for its use is critical, and it’s such a key long term demand signal to the market.

But that alone is not sufficient, particularly given the industry’s infancy here. We need to see those corresponding supply-side measures, and they need to go beyond short-term grants. This is long-term in terms of duration. So, we do see some really good examples globally. In the UK, for example, they’re utilising a ‘contracts for difference’ approach to provide some long-term financial security to some of these investments. I’d like to see those policies delivered soon. We don’t have time to waste, but in a way that’s careful and measured, and that pulls both demand and supply side levers.

AA: Do you think electric aircraft, or eVTOLs, will make a big difference, or is this still the stuff of science fiction?

KC: We know from our modelling that Boeing has a publicly available climate impact model called a Cascade. You can Google it. You can get on there and manipulate all the different decarbonisation levers for aviation based on your assumptions. I’d encourage you to take a look. What Cascade and broader global modelling show is that SAF will be the largest abatement contributor, particularly in the short to medium term. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to invest now in some of those advanced technologies and particularly the research behind that, and Boeing is certainly doing that, along with others. They will play a really important part in the net zero transition.

As I mentioned earlier, Wisk is a great example of that. It’s a different way of thinking about air travel. It’s interesting to integrate those principles of sustainability and autonomy. I think we do, however, need to be aware of the fact that when we’re advocating for government policy and investment, we do that in a way that understands the proportional impact and contribution that those different decarbonisation levers will have and also that understands the timing. We’re not likely to see, hydrogen or electric propulsion flying long distances before 2040, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important. When we look at regional flights, we think about how to use those for small aircraft in Australia in the short or medium term.

DD: Yeah, I think one of the benefits of sustainable aviation fuel is that it’s a drop-in replacement for jet fuel. It doesn’t require any infrastructure changes, either supporting the airport or aircraft engines or airframes. That’s a that’s a huge plus for sustainable aviation fuel. However, as Kimberly mentioned, there are alternatives out there, and I think there will be specific use cases relevant to that technology. But looking at airlines such as us and others, that might be a bit more challenging in the near to medium term.

KC: Airport infrastructure is also a key consideration when we look at those advanced technologies. You know, the broader exclusion zones. You know the potential impact on turnaround times. These challenges are not insurmountable but must be worked through over the longer term. In contrast, as Daniel mentioned, SAF is a drop-in replacement that we can utilise immediately.

AA: Aviation is likely to see its share of carbon production increase in the next 20 years because other sectors can decarbonise more quickly. How will we deal with that reputational damage?

KC: At the moment, we know that aviation contributes around 2.5 per cent of global emissions, which is not insignificant. Still, it’s perhaps less than people may imagine. And as you say, that proportion will rise as other easier-to-abate sectors make those transitions towards net zero. I think we must do several things. The first is to start implementing our decarbonisation levers as quickly as possible. We won’t be able to reduce all of our emissions to net zero through in-sector measures. We will have to look at offsets and carbon capture, and in terms of reputational issues, that’s an area where we need to be really careful. We need to be stringent in terms of the sustainability criteria around those. And I think it’s pleasing to see that, as a sector, there are global standards and agreed approaches that we can all utilise, which is promising.

AA: Some people will argue we should simply fly less. How do we argue against that point?

DD: Australia is uniquely challenged in respect of our geography. We don’t have a high-speed rail. There is a responsibility. We saw how important aviation was during COVID when the ability to fly was limited. Aviation is an important and integral part of Australia’s economy. Still, in terms of connecting communities and people, it is the responsibility of airlines to be responsible and do what they can to maintain sustainable but affordable access to air travel. Things like sustainable aviation and fuel decarbonisation opportunities are important.

AA: How realistic is the 2050 target we’ve been set to fully decarbonise?

KC: So, that net zero target by 2050 is methodologically sound. Aviation was the first sector where, as people may know, both the industry body and ICAO [the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency], were relatively simultaneously committed to that target. ICAO tasked its committee for environmental protection to look at the modelling and to develop the methodology needed to set that target.

KC: So, that net zero target by 2050 is methodologically sound. Aviation was the first sector where, as people may know, both the industry body and ICAO [the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency], were relatively simultaneously committed to that target. ICAO tasked its committee for environmental protection to look at the modelling and to develop the methodology needed to set that target.

KC: So, that net zero target by 2050 is methodologically sound. Aviation was the first sector where, as people may know, both the industry body and ICAO [the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency], were relatively simultaneously committed to that target. ICAO tasked its committee for environmental protection to look at the modelling and to develop the methodology needed to set that target.