Potential For Biojet Production From Different Biomass Feedstocks and Consolidated Technological Routes - A Georeferencing and Spatial Analysis in Brazil

9321031, 2019, 13, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary-wiley.ez139.periodicos.capes.gov.br By IFRN - Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte- on [07/12/2021].
Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles
Modeling and Analysis
Potential for biojet production from
different biomass feedstocks and
consolidated technological routes: a
georeferencing and spatial analysis in
Brazil
, Fabio T. F. da Silva, Alexandre Szklo, Energy Planning Program, Graduate
School of Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Centro de Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Joana Portugal-Pereira, Energy Planning Program, Graduate School of Engineering, Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Centro de Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Centre of Environmental
Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK
Received May 23 2019; Revised June 27 2019; Accepted July 18 2019;

View online August 27, 2019 at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com);
DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2041; Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 13:1454–1475 (2019)
Abstract: This paper assesses the biojet fuel production potential in Brazil. It evaluates feedstock
availability by applying a georeferencing analysis, and determines the cost-effectiveness and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions of selected production routes throughout their entire life cycle. This study identies
and locates Brazilian hotspots in terms of bioenergy availability and proximity to the main sites of fuel
consumption and handling in the country. Findings show that the biomass availability for each crop in
the hotspots would be sufcient to feed the biojet conversion plants proposed in this study. The biojet
production potential in the hotspots would represent 48% of the country’s jet fuel consumption in 2014,
allowing the current certicated 50% blend with conventional fuel. The major biomass hotspots are close
to airport and fuel logistic basis. However, even with a US$ 200.tCO–12 tax, hydroprocessed esters and
fatty acids (HEFA) biojet is far from being competitive with petroleum-based jet fuel, whereas the Fischer–
Tropsch synthetic parafnic kerosene (FT-SPK) route may produce a competitive biojet. One possible
pathway to incentivize biojet fuel production in Brazil would be, rst, to implement carbon taxes that
would allow the development of smaller plants. Then, with technological learning and larger production
scales, it would be possible to reduce or even eliminate the carbon taxes. © 2019 Society of Chemical
Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.
Keywords: aviation; sustainable fuels; georeferencing analysis; life cycle assessment; Brazil
Correspondence to: Francielle Carvalho, Energy Planning Program, Graduate School of Engineering, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro, Centro de Tecnologia, Bloco C, Sala 211 Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-972,
Brazil. E-mail: franciellemcarvalho@gmail.com
1454 © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
9321031, 2019, 13, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary-wiley.ez139.periodicos.capes.gov.br By IFRN - Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte- on [07/12/2021]. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles
Modeling and Analysis: Potential for biojet production in Brazil F Carvalho et al.
Introduction resources make it a potential player.13 is study therefore

develops a methodological framework to assess the techno-
A
lthough civil aircra are only responsible for about economic and environmental potential of biojet production
2% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, forecasts applied to a case study in Brazil that could also act as a
suggest a steep rise in emissions in the coming biofuel exporter. e country is a major producer of several
decades.1,2 Hence, a reduction in fossil fuel consumption may agricultural commodities and its extensive territory with
not only reduce impacts on climate change but also ensure favorable edaphoclimatic conditions can ensure a high-level
the protability of air companies if they started being charged biomass supply for feedstock.13 Furthermore, sugarcane and
for their carbon emissions. soybeans already have a well-established production chain
In this context, the International Air Transport Association in Brazil. Besides sugars and vegetable oils, lignocellulosic
(IATA) set ambitious goals to reduce fuel consumption, biomass (e.g. agricultural and forestry residues) can be used
which included fuel eciency improvements, ‘carbon neutral’ as feedstock for biojet production.13 Eucalyptus forestry is
growth from 2020 onwards, and a reduction of 50% in the highly ecient in Brazil, which has the lowest production
carbon footprint by 2050 in relation to 2005 levels.3,4 e costs in the world.14,15 Oil crops are also an interesting
strategy adopted is based on eciency gains, improvements feedstock option given the country’s experience in biodiesel
in air-trac management, alternative fuels, and market-based production.16 Forestry residues are largely produced at
mechanisms. Even if ambitious, the strategies are insucient low cost, and so are an attractive option for feedstock.
to oset the expected growth for the aviation sector.5 Hence, Agricultural and agro-industrial residues (henceforth agro-
the development of bio-based jet fuels (hereaer biojet) will residues) that are not recovered also have an expressive
become crucial in coming years. potential for bioenergy production and when le on the
rough the International Civil Aviation Organization farmland they decompose and release GHG emissions.17
(ICAO), governments also agreed upon CO2 emission Nevertheless, producing fuels from residual biomass
standards to be applied to new aircra from 2020.6 During presents major challenges regarding logistics due to its
the 39th ICAO Assembly, governments also developed a scattered production, low bulk density, and biodegradable
proposal for a Carbon Osetting and Reduction Scheme for nature, which lead to high collection, transport, and storage
International Aviation (CORSIA) to ‘neutralize’ emissions costs.18–20 Geographical information systems (GIS) are
above 2020 levels.7 therefore useful tools to optimize biomass supply chains, as
According to ICAO, 23 biojet fuel initiatives and projects they can help to determine the best locations for conversion
are currently in progress.8 Until now, plants in the US, plants given the production sites and the existing transport
Netherlands, Singapore, Finland, and Italy have been infrastructure, minimizing logistics costs.18–22
producing biojet fuel and most of its commercial production In terms of the production of aviation biofuels, the
has followed the ‘hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids’ scientic literature presents a range of studies focusing on
(HEFA) pathway. Vegetable oil, used cooking oil (UCO), dierent countries’ capabilities. For instance, the potential
and animal fats are the most commonly used feedstocks. feedstocks in Brazil to supply biojet fuel production and
However, biojet output represents only a small percentage their techno-economic and sustainability challenges and
of the plants’ total capacities, as HEFA diesel is the main opportunities were overviewed in Cantarella et al. and
product. e world’s biojet production facilities have an Cortez et al. 4,13 e current scenario and prospects for
annual operational capacity of about 4.3 billion liters, aviation biofuels use in Brazil and their sustainability
which corresponds to less than 1.5% of international jet fuel challenges and barriers were discussed in Cremonez et al.
demand.9 Recently, SkyNRG announced the development and Moraes et al.2,23 e major environmental, economic
of the world’s rst dedicated plant for producing biojet fuel, and social impacts from biojet production were identied
which is expected to open in 2022 in the Netherlands. e in Cremonez et al .24 e use of dierent feedstocks to
plant will process waste and feedstock residues and use co-produce biojet and higher value added products, and
sustainable hydrogen produced from wind energy and water the option of integrating biojet production with sugarcane
electrolysis to produce 100 000 t of biojet fuel per year.10 reneries were assessed in Klein et al., Alves et al., Wang
In terms of biomass feedstocks, past studies have and Tao, Hari et al., and Diederichs et al.16,25–28 e
focused on evaluating the land requirements for bioenergy possibilities for converting algae oil into aviation fuels
production without threatening food production and were presented in Bwapwa et al.29 Regarding production
preserving the ecosystem.4,11,12 In this case, Brazil’s routes, the most promising pathways and biomass resources
extensive experience in bioenergy and its wide availability of for biojet production in Norway were assessed in Guell
© 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 13:1454–1475 (2019); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2041 1455
F Carvalho et al. Modeling and Analysis: Potential for biojet production in Brazil
etal.,30 while the economic costs and environmental Biojet fuel

impacts of production from renewable oils were quantied
in Pearlson31 and the conversion of hardwood biomass to Dierent technological pathways are available to convert
liquid transportation fuels was evaluated in Elia et al.32 biomass into alternative fuels: the technology chosen depends
Previous studies, although relevant, did not evaluate the strongly on the type of biomass. Table1 shows the production
regions with the highest economic and market potential routes already certied for blends with conventional jet fuel.
to install biojet production hubs. To ll this gap, this study As of today, seven companies are producing biojet fuel
attempts to identify suitable sites for implementing biojet on a commercial scale in plants located in ve countries
fuel reneries in Brazil and to evaluate their technical and (Table2). Most of its production follows the HEFA pathway
economic viability. For this purpose, a georeferencing using vegetable oil, used cooking oil (UCO), and animal fats
analysis of feedstocks’ availability was developed, coupled as feedstock.9 Six airports are regularly distributing blended
with a life-cycle assessment (LCA) and cost estimates for alternative jet fuel, which has been used in more than 150 000
two consolidated biojet production routes. e integration ights (Table3).36
of these analyses represents a methodology that could be is study assesses two pathways, which meet American
applied in any assessment of the conversion of biomass Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specications:
residues to advanced fuels. However, this is particularly Fischer–Tropsch Synthetic Paranic Kerosene (FT-SPK)
relevant for the aviation biofuels, whose consumption is and HEFA. Although the authors recognize the promising
restricted to a few bases worldwide. is methodology Brazilian potential for the route starting with ethanol as a
also addresses the principal barriers for the development feedstock (ATJ), as acknowledged by Klein et al.16 and de
of advanced fuels: feedstock availability, costs, and Jong et al.,37 this work focuses on agricultural residues and
sustainability.9 As the methodological section of this paper oil crops, given that ethanol production currently has a
will detail, the locational analysis of residue availability high demand in Brazil’s exible vehicle market. However,
leads to the identication of hotspots for aviation fuel following international trends toward the electrication of
production, which is crucial for establishing feedstock road transportation, ethanol distillery owners could consider
supply and cost, the scale of plants, logistics barriers, and diversifying biofuel production routes to ATJ in future.
GHG emissions. As far as the authors are aware, this is the
rst attempt to perform an explicit georeferencing analysis
associated with biojet production in a major potential
HEFA-SPK
producing country. Hydroprocessing is a common process in conventional
e next section of the paper details the state of oil reneries. e catalytic hydrogenation process
art regarding the technological routes for converting produces hydrogen-saturated, straight-chain, paran-rich
residues into jet fuels. e subsequent section details the hydrocarbon liquids. To meet jet-fuel specications, the fuel
methodology of the study, proposing links between the should have good cold-ow properties and a high ash point.
three analyses to be undertaken (georeferenced analysis, Hydroisomerization and cracking reactions are therefore
life-cycle assessment, and cost analysis). e results of required.30 e product is a synthetic paranic kerosene
each analysis are then given and the links between them (SPK) with a carbon chain in the range of C9–C15.31 e
are discussed. Finally, the main conclusions, limitations process produces around 50–70% jet fuel along with diesel,
of the paper, and suggestions for future work are fractions of propane, naphtha, and low-pressure gas (LPG).30
presented. It is noteworthy that naphtha can be submitted to a catalytic
Table 1. Biojet fuel production routes approved by ASTM. Adapted from Mawhood et al., from CAAFI, and
from IATA5,33–35
Conversion route Abbreviation Maximum content of biofuela Approved by ASTM since
Gasication and Fischer–Tropsch synthesis FT 50% 2009
Hydroprocessing of vegetable oils HEFA 50% 2011
Synthetized iso-parafns SIP 10% 2014
Synthetized parafnic kerosene with aromatics SPK/A 50% 2015
Alcohol-to-jet ATJ 50% 2018
a
In blends with fossil kerosene, molar basis.
1456 © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 13:1454–1475 (2019); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.2041
Table 2. Companies producing biojet fuel.

Company Location Technology Feedstock Capacity Status
–1
Neste Rotterdam, Netherlands NEXBTL Vegetable oils, UCO and 1.26 billion L.year Operational
Singapore animal fats
Porvoo, Finland 240 million L.year–1

Porvoo 2, Finland
ENI Venice, Italy Econing™ Vegetable oils 450 million L.year –1
Diamond green diesel Norco, Louisiana, US Econing™ Vegetable oils, UCO and 500 million L.year –1
animal fats
UPM Lappeenranta, Finland UPM Bioverno Crude tall oil 120 million L.year –1
AltAir Paramount, California, US Econing™ Non-edible oils and waste 150 million L.year –1
Renewable energy Geismar, Louisiana, US Developed by High and low free fatty acid 315 million L.year –1
group dynamic fuels LLC feedstocks
Emerald biofuels Port Arthur, Texas, US Econing™ Vegetable oils 330 million L.year –1 Planned
construction
Note: NEXBTL, Econing™ and UPM Bioverno are different patented technologies that produce biofuels from the hydrotreatment of oils and
fats (HEFA pathway).
Based on IRENA.9
Table 3. Airlines and airports using biojet fuels change, whereas residual oils have the advantage of low
blends. costs.30 Dedicated feedstock are generally expensive but
Airline Trafc type Airport their costs can be shared with other co-products. Figure1
United airlines Departures Los Angeles shows HEFA-SPK production from biomass feedstocks.
KLM International Airport e conversion of vegetable oils in hydrocarbons is already
commercial. However, the high feedstock costs may be a
Lufthansa Departures Oslo Airport
barrier to its development, as well as the need for on-site
SAS
hydrogen production. Nevertheless, the integration of the
KLM/KLC
plant with oil reneries could reduce hydrogenation costs.13,37
SAS Departures Stockholm Arlanda
KLM Airport
All airlines Departures Bergen Airport FT-SPK

KLM Departures and arrivals Växjö Småland Airport e process begins with biomass pre-treatment, which aims
KLM Departures San Francisco Airport to elevate the density of the biomass by reducing particle
SAS size and moisture, improving logistics, and ensuring reliable
Finnair and continuous feeding. e pre-treated biomass follows
BRA Departures Halmstad City Airport the gasication step, which produces syngas. Fluidized
Note: Other airports that have also been receiving alternative beds and entrained ow gasiers are considered the most
jet fuel include: Stockholm Bromma Airport, Åre Östersund suitable technologies for biofuel production.30 Syngas is
Airport, Göteborg Landvetter Airport, Karlstad Airport, Brisbane
Airport, Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Toronto Pearson then conditioned to remove CO2 and impurities, and the
International Airport. H2 :CO ratio is adjusted.5 e cleaned and adjusted syngas
Based on ICAO (2019).36 follows the Fischer–Tropsch (FT) synthesis outputting liquid
hydrocarbons through a series of catalytic reactions.5,26 e
reforming process producing aromatics and hydrogen. resulting products are a mixture of saturated hydrocarbons,
Aromatics are suitable for composing a complete biojet blend, totally free of sulfur, nickel, nitrogen, vanadium,
and hydrogen is necessary for hydrotreating processes. asphaltenes, and aromatics.38 Finally, the hydrocracking,
e feedstocks used are natural oils and fats rich in hydroisomerization, and fractioning processes produce the
triglycerides and free fatty acids. First-generation feedstock nished jet fuel.26 Figure2 shows the main steps in FT-SPK
includes oil crops already used for food or animal feed. e production.
utilization of non-food crops may reduce potential impacts Feedstock can include lignocellulosic biomass, such as
associated with competition with food chains and land-use woody energy crops, forestry and agro-residues, and waste.
Figure 1. Biomass feedstock and technological processes of HEFA-SPK

production.
Figure 2. FT-SPK production steps.
However, their characteristics aect syngas quality, eciency,

and the type of gasier used. Forest products have a well
established market, so the production of fuels should come
from low-value materials, such as forest and some agricultural
residues.30
e main co-products are diesel and naphtha. As
mentioned above, naphtha can be submitted to a catalytic Figure 3. Methodology developed for the assessing the
biojet fuel production potential.
reforming process to produce aromatics and hydrogen,
forming an up to 100% biojet fuel blend and supplying
feedstock for the hydrotreating processes. Gasication and to the sustainability assessment is expressed by a tradeo in
FT synthesis also produce heat, electricity, and chemicals the logistics process because larger amounts of biomass use for
that may increase the overall economic performance of the biojet production may result in greater displacement of fossil
process.30 jet fuel, but might also require more energy consumption to
transport resources from longer hauling distances. Lastly, the
link between the economic and sustainability assessments is
Methods given by the eect of carbon prices on the competitiveness
of biojet compared to petroleum jet fuel. en, this conjoint
Figure3 depicts an overview of the methodological procedure
assessment aims to address the most important features of the
adopted by this study. Each angle of the triangle represents
biojet production chain.
an individual analysis for the biojet production and the edges
are the key parameters that link them pairwise. Feedstock
availability is therefore related to economic assessment by
Feedstock availability
determining the potential production capacity for a site, given e rst step of this study evaluates the available potential
the biomass supply, the possible scale of the production plants from residual biomass, following the methodology developed
and the demand. en, the relation of the resource availability in Portugal-Pereira et al. 17 e potential for environmental
sustainability represents a fraction of the theoretical where:

potential available given technological possibilities, logistical RPj: residue environmentally sustainable potential (MJ.year–1 ).
restrictions, and competition for non-energy uses.17,20 is Ai : planted area of crop i (ha.year−1).
study quantied the environmentally sustainable potential Pi: productivity of crop i (tonne.ha−1 ).
of residues from major crops in Brazil – sugarcane, rice, RPRj,i: residue of j to product i ratio. (dimensionless mass
soybean, wheat, maize, eucalyptus, pinus, and forestry basis)
extraction. ESR :j environmentally sustainable removal rate of residue
e methodology adopted was based on the indirect j (%).
quantication of the residues produced. en, a bottom-up ARj: availability rate of residue j (%).
analysis was done to determine the technical potential of LHVj : low heating value of residue j (MJ.kg−1).
bioenergy from agricultural, agro-industrial, and forestry Brazilian data on agricultural planted area (Ai) and crop
residues (Eqn (1)): productivity (P )i were obtained from the IBGE,39 in the
Municipal Agricultural Survey (PAM) for all Brazilian
(1)
municipalities in 2014 (Table4). For woody biomass residues,
data were obtained from the IBGE.40 Table5 shows the values
of RPR, ESR, AR and LHV used for each crop residue.17,41–43
Table 4. Planted area and productivity of the
crops selected. is methodology enabled the quantication of the
bioenergy technical potential of each Brazilian municipality.
Crop Planted area (ha.year–1) Total production (t.year–1)
en a georeferencing spatial analysis was performed to
Sugarcane 10438 737 156
identify areas with very good biomass potential and to
Rice 2341 12 176
analyze their proximity to strategic locations for feedstock
Soybeans 30 274 86 761
handling, and jet fuel production and consumption. It was
Maize 15 342 79 878
thus possible to identify, for each Brazilian municipality, the
Wheat 2835 6262
bioenergy potential segregated by crop.
Table 5. Characteristics of the evaluated residues.

Crop Residuea RPRb ESRc (%) AR d (%) LHV (MJ.kg–1)e Reference
17
Sugarcane Straw 0.22 34 65 18.62
17
Bagasse 0.22 100 10 19.81
17
Rice Straw 1.54 50 100 17.22
17
Husk 0.26 100 30 17.08
17
Soybeans Straw 2.01 30 100 20.09
17
Corn Stover 1.53 25 100 18.67
17
Wheat Straw 1.55 15 100 19.54
41,42
Eucalyptus Forestry residues 0.10 50 100 25.24
41,42
Woodcuts 0.45 100 100 20.26
41,42
Pinus Forestry residues 0.10 50 100 25.24
41,42
Woodcuts 0.45 100 100 21.81
41,42
Native forest Forestry residues 0.60 50 100 25.24
41,42
Woodcuts 0.18 100 100 19.44
a
Woodcuts are considered as all the residues produced up until the production of the basic product (charcoal, wood chips, sawdust, and
wood chips), including cutting and peeling activities. Forestry residues are timber and other forest products that remain with no dened
use.31
b
For agro-residues an average factor from data collected in literature and presented in ABRAF 14 was used. The values for woody biomass
were based on Pearlson and on Elia et al.31,32
c
Based on ABRAF, on Pearlson, and on Elia et al. 14,31,32
d
It was assumed, conservatively, that 35% of the sugarcane straw is not available because it is harvested manually with open-air burning,
based on ABRAF.14 Nonetheless, reduction of the burning practice has already been determined by the government. In São Paulo state all
harvest should be mechanized by 2021, while in the northeast this process should be concluded by 2031. Availability factors of 10% and
30% for sugarcane bagasse and rice husk, respectively, were assumed given the use of these residues for combined heat and power, based
on ABRAF and CAAFI.14,33
e
Dry basis.
e next step was to construct kernel density maps from pesticides, herbicide use, and energy consumption in the
vector datasets containing bioenergy data, dening, for each agricultural stages and direct-land-use change emissions
municipality polygon, its centroid as the source point of the (LUC). e functional unit adopted for LCA was the MJ and
potential and considering a 100 km distance spread. (e the energy allocation method was chosen as applied in the EC
kernel map represents a statistical method for estimating directive on biofuels and bioliquid sustainability criteria.45,46
density curves. It is a tool applied in the geographic analysis e petroleum-derived jet-fuel life cycle begins with the
of behavior patterns. rough interpolation methods, activities of oil recovery in oil elds; it continues with the
these maps show the punctual intensity of potentials in all rening process, and ends with fuel consumption by aircra.
regions analyzed. e maps show the residues’ distribution Activities related to fuel transportation and infrastructure are
beyond the municipal limits. Existing sites that could be not included in the model.
associated with biojet production in terms of infrastructure For the HEFA biojet fuel, the life cycle begins with
for feedstock and fuel logistics (oil reneries, terrestrial and soybean production in the agricultural elds. Data from
waterways terminals of fuel handling, main airports, soybean fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and energy for soybean
oil reneries, and biodiesel and ethanol plants) were also oil extraction were obtained using average values in
identied and georeferenced in the map. e maps were Capaz et al., in Cavalett and Ortega, in Rocha et al., and
designed with QGIS soware (version 2.18.14 Las Palmas).44 Prudêncio et al. 47–50 Data regarding diesel consumption
and electricity were obtained from IBGE.51 e biomass
Life cycle assessment (LCA) transport distance to the biofuel production plant was
e Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy 100 km. is value represents an optimistic estimate for
Use in Transportation (GREET) model was used to assess biomass transportation, representing twice the distance
life-cycle fossil-fuel consumption and GHG emissions. recommended by (Homann et al., 2013). 52 as an
e fuel life cycle called well-to-wake (WTW) include the economically feasible radius for transporting biomass for
well-to-pump (WTP) and the pump-to-wake (PTW) stages. energy purposes. e LUC due to biomass production is
e WTP stage comprises the upstream and downstream a critical point in LCA. is study considered only direct
activities from the well-to-fuel production and the subsequent land-use changes in the Brazilian savannah (Cerrado).
transportation to the pump, and the fuel combustion during Emissions were normalized to a CO 2-equivalent basis
aircra operation constitutes the PTW stage. Brazilian tailored using the global warming potential metric and considering
assumptions were input into GREET, such as fertilizers, a time horizon of 100 years (GWP100), following IPCC
(2007).53 Table6 contains the inputs given for the soybean
Table 6. Input data for agricultural stage of agricultural stage in GREET. e following step in HEFA
soybean production used in GREET. fuel production is the hydroprocessing of soybean oil.
Parameter Value Unit Source Emissions in this stage are related to hydrogen production.
Productivity 3 t.ha–1 54 e GREET model considers the UOP process for the
Fertilizers hydrodeoxigenation of renewable oils.
Nitrogenous 0.32 g.kg soybean–1 47–49 e FT-SPK biojet life cycle begins in the agricultural phase
P2 O5 12 g.kg soybean–1
of the biomass. As residual biomass is the feedstock for this
FT-SPK pathway, no energy use and emissions associated
K2 O 23.10 g.kg soybean–1
with farming and collection of biomass were considered.
CaCO3 138 g.kg soybean–1
Next, in the fuel production step, the CO2 produced along
Farming energy 2.08 MJ.kg soybean–1 51
with syngas in the gasication process may be vented or
Oil extraction energy 0.86 MJ.kg soybean–1 47–49
–1 50,55
captured and sequestered. is study did not consider CO2
LUC emissions 2568.40 g CO 2e.kg soybean
capture or export. Finally, to produce jet fuel, additional
Table 7. Parameters considered in HEFA and FT biojet fuel estimates. Based on Pearlson31 and on
Elia et al.32
Parameters HEFA FT-SPK
Operating hours (hours.year–1 )a 8000 8000
3 –1 b
Installed capacity (10 L.day ) (A) 348.5 (B) 697.1 (C) 1045.6 (A) 127.2 (B) 159.0 (C) 397.5 (D) 1589.9
a
Feedstock (soybean oil) has a storage period of 13 days.31
b
Liters of biojet per day.
hydrocracking and a higher rate of syngas recycling are Table 8. Inputs and products profile and
needed, increasing hydrogen and power requirements. As in parameters adopted for HEFA pathway. Based on
the HEFA case, hydrogen production may be responsible for Pearlson.31
increasing emissions in fuel production. Inputs
e GHG emissions during operation are associated with Soybean oil (t) 2.02
fuel combustion in aircra. Major emissions are CO2 and Hydrogen (t) 0.08
water vapor, as well as methane (CH4) and N2O. Water vapor Natural gas (GJ) 45.04
was not included in the GHG emissions in GREET. Electricity (MWh) 0.71
Products
Techno-economic feasibility of biojet Biojet (t) 1
production routes Propane (t) 0.09
Dierent plant capacities were considered for each pathway. GLP (t) 0.12
e plant capacities, procedures, and assumptions undertaken Naphtha (t) 0.14
to estimate the capital and operational HEFA and FT-SPK Diesel (t) 0.47
biojet production costs were based on Pearlson (2011) 31 and Parameters a,b
Elia et al. (2013),32 respectively. Monetary values were adjusted Construction time (years)c 3
to the base year 2014, in accordance with GDP deators given Plant lifetime (years) 20
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis56 – see Table7. a
Not pioneer plants built from traditional and well-established
e economic analysis performed relies on a nth plant petrochemical plant and equipment. 31
b
estimate (or nth of a kind, NOAK). is kind of evaluation Plant built near reneries. Reduced infrastructure costs such as
building roads, ofces, laboratories and distribution terminals.
tends to underestimate the capital costs and overestimates c
Optimistic construction time. The average time for complex
the plant performance compared with values observed for rening projects is 5 years.61
rst-of-a-kind plants (FOAK).37,57,58 According to de Jong
et al.,37 as biojet fuel production is a novel industry, pioneer Table 9. Assumptions made in fixed-costs
plants estimate seem more appropriate to assess the short-term estimate.
economic feasibility of biojet production pathways. Integration FOM
between industrial processes would also reduce biojet fuel costs. Insurances 0.5% of investment
Taxesa 5.0% of investment
HEFA Maintenance 5.5% of investment
Table8 presents a summary of the energy consumption, Miscellaneous supplies 0.2% of investment
b
yields, and parameters adopted for HEFA pathway Staff and operation 0.4–0.7% of investment
operations. e industrial facilities receive rened soybean oil Contingency 10% of subtotal
(SVO). e agricultural steps of SVO production and rening Note: a,b: Values adapted for Brazilian reality.
Source: Pearlson (2011).
are therefore not included. e O&M costs are composed of
xed (FOM) and variable (VOM) costs. e FOM were based
Table 10. Prices of inputs considered in the
on literature heuristics and interviews performed in Pearlson
variable cost estimates.
(2011)31 (Table9). e VOM costs include expenses with
Inputs Prices
catalysts, electricity, natural gas, water, and feedstock. is
Catalyst 0.2–0.5 $.L –1 of fuel produced 31
study considered the hydrogen production in site (Table10). –1a 61
Electricity 102.93 US$.MWh
e biomass transportation costs were obtained from a linear
Natural gas 15.96 US$.GJ–1 62
regression analysis using data from SIFRECA, (brazilian
–1 63
freight information system) 58 which resulted in Eqn (2).60 e Soybean oil 776 US$.t
a
biomass transport distance of 100 km was considered, which Industrial tariff.
is the same transport distance considered in the LCA.

1
FT-SPK
T  14. 40 S$. t 1  0. 56 US$. t.km .d (2)
e inputs and energy consumption of this route are
where: summarized in Table11. is study considered a construction
CT : Transportation costs (US$.t–1 ). time of 3 years and a plant lifetime of 25 years. As the
d: Biomass transport distance (km). feedstock considered is residual biomass with no dened use,
Table 11. Inputs and energy consumption for market condition, assuming revenues of carbon credits
FT-SPK production. and excluding transaction costs, such as selling margins,
Inputs and taxes. A biomass transport distance of 100 km was
Biomass a (t) 5.36 considered. 68
Water (t) 0.82
biojet  $CO2 Ebiojet  E jet  $CO2 x Ediesel xdx • biomass  ZPPbioj et
Electricity (MWh) 0.3–0.5
(4)
Outputs
Biojet (t) 1 where:
b
Gasoline (t) 0.32 Cbiojet : Biojet levelized cost (US$.L–1).
a
Dry matter. : Carbon tax or CO2 price (US$.tCO2–1 ).
b
As mentioned in the FT-SPK route description, the reforming of
naphtha (or gasoline) is an alternative to produce aromatics and
Ebiojet : Biojet life cycle emissions (tCO2e.L –1 ).
hydrogen (catalytic reforming) or only hydrogen (steam reforming). Ejet: Conventional jet fuel life cycle emissions (tCO 2e.L–1).
Ediesel : Diesel emissions by medium and heavy duty trucks
(tCO2e.(t.km)–1 ).
Table 12. Prices of inputs for variable costs
estimates for FT-SPK plant. d: Biomass transport distance (km).
ηbiomass: Biomass yield (%) (tbiomass.L fuel–1).
Biomass (US$.t –1) 0 —
ZPPbiojet : Zero Prot price for biojet (US$.L–1).
Water (US$.t –1) 4.54 65
–1 a 61
Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed by varying CC,
Electricity (US$.MWh ) 102.93
a
FOM, VOM, and the CO2 prices.
Industrial tariff.
Results
no costs for its acquisition were assumed. Fuel production
costs are based on the individual components of the industrial is section contains the ndings for each angle of Fig.3.
facility. e total plant investment comprises equipment e next section presents the integration of the analyses as
costs and indirect costs. Variable costs were estimated from proposed in the methods section.
input prices (Table12) and from the transportation costs of
biomass, which were determined using Eqn (3), obtained Feedstock availability
from a linear regression using data from SIFRECA.59 Again, e total biomass potential was estimated as 3932 PJ.year–1 .
a biomass transport distance of 100 km was considered, as is potential is mainly concentrated in Brazil’s south (33%),
in the HEFA pathway and in the LCA. e operation and southeast (28%), and midwest (27%) regions, which contain
maintenance costs correspond to 10% of the plant total larger agricultural areas (Fig.4). Detailed results for all crops
investment.65 and for each Brazilian municipality are also presented in File S1.
(3) Soybeans and sugarcane, the most signicant crops in
 
Brazil, together account for about 56% of total agricultural
where: area in Brazil. 75 Residues from these crops correspond
CT: Transportation costs (US$.t–1). together to nearly half (53%) of the total estimated potential.
d: Biomass transport distance (km). e eucalyptus residues represent 16% of the country’s
Fuel levelized costs (LCOF), which represent the lifetime potential, followed by maize (14%), and rice (9%). Crops with
costs divided by the production of the fuel, were calculated a smaller contribution are pinus (5%), forestry extraction
assuming that the total capital investment would be incurred (2%), and wheat (1%).
in the construction period. e annual FOM and VOM costs e kernel maps enabled the evaluation of the bioenergy
were adjusted according to the plant’s lifetime. Based on dispersion over the territory. e states of São Paulo (SP)
Oxera Consulting Ltd,67 a discount rate of 12% per year was and Paraná (PR) stand out for their bioenergy potential
considered. concentration, according to the criteria adopted in this
Aer determining the LCOF, the assessment of the study. Kernel density maps were also generated for each crop
competitiveness of biojet vis-à-vis petroleum-based jet residue individually and for the total agro-residues.
fuel was made by estimating a zero prot price (ZPP) Figure5 reveals the hotspots determined for each crop
for the biojet (Eqn (4)). e ZPP represents the selling residue and shows the municipalities that host each hotspot
price for biojet in a theoretical perfect competitive identied. e main existing Brazilian sites for jet-fuel
Figure 4. Bioenergy potential for each crop in country’s regions.
Figure 5. Biomass energy hotspots for each crop.
production, distribution, and use, biodiesel and ethanol and fuel-handling and consumption areas in the state of São
plants, and soybean oil reneries were included in the map Paulo. ese localities were also included in the map with the
(Fig.6), revealing the proximity between biomass production hotspots of each crop (Fig.7).
Figure 6. Total bioenergy potential and important localities for jet fuel logistics, biofuels, and soybean oil production in Brazil.
Figure 7. Biomass energy hotspots and important localities for jet fuel logistics, biofuels, and soybean oil production in Brazil.
At the end, the georeferencing analysis revealed an costs. Moreover, the biomass availability for each crop in its
expressive biomass potential in the southeast region of Brazil, hotspots would be sucient to feed the FT conversion plants
mostly in São Paulo state. Implementing bioreneries at these proposed in this study (Table13). e FT-biojet production
sites would reduce logistics constraints and transportation potential in the hotspots, considering residues from all
the crops, actually represents 48% of the country’s jet fuel which can be particularly important to the biomass storage
consumption in 2014, which would be sucient to compose operation 69 (Fig.9).
the current certicated 50% blend with conventional fuel.
It also corresponds to 77% of the southeast’s demand, while Life-cycle assessment
when considering only residues from sugarcane the potential
e results show that, as expected, FT-SPK and HEFA have
represents almost 30% of the demand.68 When considering
lower GHG emissions and fossil-fuel consumption when
residues from eucalyptus production, the potential equals
compared to conventional jet fuel. Fischer–Tropsch synthetic
14% of the southeast’s demand (Table14).
paranic kerosene from wood residues causes a reduction
Alternatively, placing bioreneries in remote sites is also
of 94% in GHG emissions and fossil fuel consumption
possible. is is the case in the midwest region, which
compared to the petroleum-derived jet fuel, while HEFA
depends on an external fuel supply and where greater
from soybeans registered reductions of 52% and 69%,
bioenergy potential is from soybean and maize residues (52.8
respectively (Fig.10). e results highlight the potential of
PJ). ese could be harnessed for local biojet production,
biojet production from biomass residues in Brazil, a low-cost
providing fuel directly to Brasilia (capital city) airport
and highly available feedstock. Even though results for HEFA
(Fig.8). Producing biojet fuel from vegetable oils through
are less expressive than results for FT-SPK, it also contributes
HEFA is also a possibility given the presence of soybean oil
with great life-cycle reductions. e GHG emissions for
reneries and biodiesel plants in this area. However, in this
HEFA pathway are mainly derived from the WTP stage.
case, the hydrogen supply can become a constraint. e
Well-to-pump emissions were negative given the CO2
complementarity of soybean and maize production over the
absorption from the atmosphere in the growth phase of
year due to crop rotation would also provide a more regular
biomass, even admitting limited carbon emissions from land
feedstock to the FT plants, diminishing seasonality issues,
use (Fig.11). Emissions from HEFA production are mostly
associated with soybean farming and collection, fertilizer,
Table 13. Bioenergy from biomass residues for and hydrogen use, whereas fossil-fuel consumption is related
each crop hotspot and energy inputs for FT-SPK to diesel consumption in harvesting and transportation
pathway. activities (Fig.12). Altering the allocation method in GREET,
Hotspots FT-SPK may improve HEFA results as the production of fuels from
Crop State Potential (TJ) Biomass input soybeans generates various co-products. However, applying
per year (TJ) a system-expansion approach would potentially distort
Total (All crops) SP 226 538 Plant A 2679 comparison of dierent biofuel production systems.
Sugarcane SP 217 356 Plant B 3110 e fossil energy consumption in the FT biojet was 0.06 MJ.
Soybeans MT 93 545 Plant C 7752 MJ –1, while it reached 0.34 MJ.MJ –1 in the HEFA biojet, due to
Maize MT 48 535 Plant D 33 091 diesel consumption in soybean harvesting and transportation
PR 38 568 activities (Fig.13). As the PTW stage represents the fossil
Wheat PR 5456 energy consumed during aircra operation, only conventional
Rice RS 71 769 jet fuel registered results for this stage (1MJ.MJ–1 ).
Eucalyptus SP 98 258
ese results are compatible with those found in the
literature 70–72 (Fig.14). Stratton et al. 70 and Elgowainy et al.71
Pinus SC 75 370
performed a LCA in GREET model for alternative aviation
Forestry extraction AC 3741
fuels, whereas Bailis et al. 72 analyzed the GHG emissions and
Table 14. Bioenergy and FT-biojet production with residues in the southeast region.
Hotspots in Potential FT-biojet production Brazilian jet fuel Southeast jet fuel Production-demand
southeast region (TJ. potentiala (million consumption (million demand (million ratio (southeast) b
year –1) L.year –1) L.year–1) L.year –1)
Total 226 538 3629 7508 4700 0.77
(all crops)
Sugarcane 217 356 1247 0.27
Eucalyptus 98 258 675 0.14
ªTechnical potential.
b
Based on the technical production potential.
Figure 8. Soybeans and maize energy hotspots and localities of biodiesel and
soybean oil production in midwest regions.
LUC (savannah conversion to cropland), GHG emissions

increased by 60% in relation to conventional fuel.
Techno-economic feasibility of biojet

production routes
HEFA-SPK
e main results found for the HEFA biojet pathway are
shown in Table15, which also contains the LCOF for each
plant capacity. e VOM costs are the major contributors to
HEFA pathway costs (Fig.15). For plant B, a reduction of 38%
in capital costs comparing to plant A is observed, whereas for
Figure 9. Soybean and maize annual production prole. plant C this reduction is 48% (Fig.16).
Based on da Silva.
FT-SPK
LUC from Jatropha curcas-based jet fuel in Brazil. All of these Table16 shows results for CC, O&M costs, and LCOF
studies considered an energy-based allocation method and for each plant capacity. In contrast with the HEFA route,
Stratton et al.70 and Bailis et al.72 considered LUC scenarios. the CCs are the major factor behind the LCOF of the
Likewise, Elgowainy et al. 71 found increased fossil-fuel FT-SPK, and most of the VOM costs arises from biomass
consumption in the WTP stage for alternative fuels (0.70 MJ. transportation (53% to 59%) (Fig.17). e scale gains are
MJ–1 and 0.25 MJ.MJ–1 for FT-SPK and HEFA, respectively) notable by comparing plants A and D (45%).
and reduced GHG emissions (70% and 85%, respectively).
Stratton et al.70 also found reduced GHG emissions (58% for Discussion
HEFA from soybeans with no LUC and 80% from FT-SPK
from forest residues). When LUC for soybean production is section discusses the results presented before, by
were considered (conversion of grassland to soybean elds), integrating the three analyses, as described in Fig.3.
GHG emissions associated with HEFA increased by 12%. e e rst integrated analysis refers to the number of plants
HEFA biojet analyzed by Bailis et al.72 revealed a reduction that could be installed in each hotspot. As detailed before,
of 55% in GHG emissions considering no LUC. Considering the biomass availability for each crop in its hotspots would
Figure 10. Life cycle or WTW results.
Figure 11. GHG emissions in the WTP and PTW stages. Figure 13. Fossil fuel consumption in the WTP and PTW stages.
availability were reviewed in this section in terms of the

scale of the plants. It is worth remembering that large-scale
plants are less expensive than smaller plants, especially for
the FT-SPK pathway. In this case, the number of biojet FT
plants to be implemented considering the bioenergy potential
for each hotspot was determined for the smallest and the
biggest plant sizes (plants A and D, respectively) used in the
techno-economic analysis (Table17). Findings indicate that
the bioenergy potential in all hotspots considered would be
sucient to build one or more production plants with the
smallest and biggest sizes (plants A and D, respectively),
except for the wheat and forestry extraction residues potential
Figure 12. Emissions from different activities in the WTP and considering the biggest plant size (plant D). Remarkable
stage and total GHG emissions with carbon offset. results were found for sugarcane and eucalyptus, whose
residues would be sucient to feed 81 and 36 of the smallest
be sucient to feed the FT conversion plants proposed in size plants and 6 and 3 of the biggest size plants, respectively.
this study (see Table13). However, to explore the country’s e second integrated analysis aims to evaluate the trade-
biojet fuel production capacity, the results of feedstock o between biomass availability and biofuel logistics. To
Figure 14. GHG emissions for biojet fuel from different LCA studies.
Table 15. HEFA biojet fuel costs.

HEFA
Plant (A) Plant (B) Plant (C)
Plant capacity (L.day–1) 348 531 697 061 1045,592
–1
CC (US$.yr ) 64 976 703 86 635 604 101 074 871
FOM (US$.yr–1) 27 625 729 38 795 729 38 814 264
–1
VOM (US$.yr ) 220 382 306 440 764 611 661 146 917
LCOF (US$.L–1) 2.22 2.07 2.05
Figure 16. Fixed costs contributions versus scale gains.
Table 16. FT-SPK costs.

Parameter Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D
Plant capacity (L.day–1) 127 190 158 987 397 468 1 589 873
–1
CC (million US$.yr ) 148 173 322 834
FOM (million US$.yr–1) 14 15 28 66
–1
VOM (million US$.yr ) 3 4 9 38
LCOF (US$.L –1) 0.89 0.82 0.61 0.47
Figure 15. Contributions to HEFA biojet LCOF.

hotspot is the one that is closest to an airport, among all
do so, the distances between the bioenergy hotspots, the hotspots, with a distance of only 56 km – or smaller than the
nearest airports, and fuel distribution bases were determined reference distance of 100 km used in the LCA of this study.
(Fig.18, Table18 and Table19). As expected, the sugarcane On the other hand, the forestry extraction hotspot registered
In sum, by adopting a reference distance of 100 km, our

LCA and cost analyses can be considered conservative, as the
major biomass hotspots are close to airport and fuel logistic
basis.
Finally, the link between the economic and the
sustainability assessments is given by the eect of carbon
prices on the competitiveness of biojet compared to the
petroleum jet fuel. To this end, the ZPP was determined.
Table20 presents results of ZPP for dierent scenarios of CO2
taxes and HEFA plants capacities. Even at a price of US$200.
tCO2e –1 and considering the plant with largest production
capacity, the biojet ZPP reached US$1.53.tCO 2–1, which is
Figure 17. Cost components and technological scale gains more than twice the petroleum-derived jet fuel market price
for FT-SPK plants. (US$ 0.71.L–1) in 2014.73 e HEFA route biojet therefore
appears to lack competitiveness with conventional jet fuel,
even with environmental incentives.
Table 17. Feasible biojet fuel plants according to Table21 shows the ZPP of biojet for dierent CO 2 prices
hotspots bioenergy potential. scenarios and FT-SPK plant capacities. For a CO2 price of
Hotspots Number of plants US$ 50.tCO2–1 , only plant scale A presents a ZPP slightly
Crops Smallest size Biggest size higher than the petroleum-derived jet fuel market price,
(plant A) (plant D) while in the US$ 100.tCO 2–1 scenario all plant scales have
Sugarcane 81 6 ZPP below it. Regarding the plant scale, it is noteworthy that
Soybeans 34 2 the ZPP of plants C and D are lower than the conventional
Maize (1) 18 1 jet-fuel market price regardless of the CO 2 price.
Maize (2) 14 1 Technological scale gains and carbon taxes can therefore
Wheat 2 0 promote biofuel competitiveness in the near future. However,
Rice 26 2 for large-scale plants, optimization in the technological process
Eucalyptus 36 3 still represents a challenge for fuel development.37 One possible
Pinus 28 2 pathway to incentivize FT-SPK in Brazil would be to rst
Forestry extraction 1 0 implement carbon taxes that allow developing smaller plants.
en, with technological learning the carbon taxes could be
reduced or even eliminated by promoting larger plants.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to identify
a large distance to the nearest airport (824 km). Regarding the major contributors to the LCOF (Fig.19). Variations of
the distribution bases, the wheat hotspot is the one that is 10%, 25%, and 50% in capital costs (CC), variable O&M costs
closest to a distribution base (32 km) – again being closer (VOM), CO2 prices and biomass transport distance values were
than 100 km. e sugarcane hotspot that hosts the greatest performed and all plant capacities were evaluated. Figure19
potential is approximately 50 km distant from the nearest fuel shows the results for the largest HEFA (plant C) and FT-SPK
base. Only for three hotspots are the distances to the nearest (plant D) plant capacities. Findings conrm the inuence of the
fuel distribution base greater than 100 km (the reference VOM on the HEFA biofuel prices. e VOM is high due to the
distance of the LCA done in this study). For maize in the soybean oil price. Soybean oil itself is just as expensive as the
midwest region and eucalyptus hotspots, these distances are jet fuel and competition for use in biodiesel production may
108 and 134 km, respectively – they are therefore only slightly compromise its availability. For FT-SPK, the CC is the major
higher than the reference distance used in the LCA. However, component of the LCOF. Hence, in this case, technological
for the rice hotspot, the distance to nearest fuel distribution improvements are crucial to make larger plants feasible.
base is 236 km, more than double the distance considered To sum up, FT-SPK plants can reach competitiveness with
for the biomass transportation in the economic analysis the conventional jet fuel in the mid-term, provided that
and LCA. Figure18 shows a map containing the bioenergy large-scale plants become available at reliable costs. However,
hotspot for each crop residue and the closest relevant facilities while uncertainties in the crude oil price can represent an
for logistics (airports and fuel distribution bases). opportunity to improve alternative fuels’ competitiveness, 74
Figure 18. Bioenergy hotspots and the closest airports and fuel distribution bases.
Table 18. Distance between biomass hotspots Conclusion

and the nearest airport.
Hotspots Nearest airport State Distance e present study sought to evaluate the technical, economic,
(km) and environmental potential for biojet production in Brazil
Total (all crops) Aeroporto de Ribeirão SP 57 and to determine potential localities for its production in
Preto the country. e combination of a georeferenced analysis
Sugarcane Aeroporto de Ribeirão SP 56 of feedstock availability with LCA and cost estimates for
Preto
HEFA and FT-SPK pathways represents a novel methodology
Soybeans Aeroporto Internacional MT 324 to identify the country’s competitive advantages for biojet
Marechal Rondon
production, which could be replicated worldwide.
Maize Aeroporto Internacional PR 151
e feedstock availability analysis revealed that low-cost
Cataratas
biomass residues corresponded to an impressive primary
Aeroporto Internacional MT 316
energy potential (3932 PJ.year–1 ) in Brazil. e GIS analysis
Marechal Rondon
identied the hotspots in São Paulo state, where most of the
Wheat Aeroporto Internacional RS 291
Afonso Pena bioenergy potential associated with sites with infrastructure
Rice Aeroporto Internacional PR 467 for feedstock handling and jet fuel production and storage
Cataratas is located. Alternatively, the establishment of bioreneries in
Eucalyptus Aeroporto Internacional SP 138 the midwest region is also an attractive option, given the large
de Viracopos bioenergy potential from soybean and maize residues and the
Pinus Aeroporto Internacional RS 211 region’s dependence on an external jet fuel supply. Biomass
Afonso Pena hotspots with the highest energy potential are also close to
Forestry extraction Aeroporto Internacional AM 824 airports and fuel distribution bases, favoring biomass logistics
Eduardo Gomes and reducing transportation emissions.
e LCA shows signicant GHG emission-mitigation
agreements already made by the aviation industry suggest potential. e best case was the FT-SPK from forest residues,
that the competition must actually take place between with a 94% reduction in GHG emissions and fossil fuel
biofuels (through mandates), instead of between biofuels and consumption, while the HEFA route totalized reductions of
petroleum-derived fuels. 52% in GHG emissions and 69% in fossil fuel consumption.
Table 19. Distance between biomass hotspots and the nearest fuel distribution base.
Hotspot Distribution base Municipality State Distance (km)
Total (all crops) Ruff CJ Distribuidora de Petroleo Ribeirão Preto SP 51
Sugarcane Ruff CJ Distribuidora de Petroleo Ribeirão Preto SP 49
Soybeans Small Distribuidora de Derivados de Petroleo Sinop MT 100
Maize Comercio de Derivados de Petróleo Isabella Ltda. Assis Chateaubriand PR 34
Small Distribuidora de Derivados de Petroleo Sinop MT 108
Wheat Petrobras Distribuidora S.A. Londrina PR 32
Rice Ipiranga Produtos de Petroleo S.A. Santa Maria RS 236
Eucalyptus Flag Distribuidora de Petroleo Ltda. Bauru SP 134
Pinus Ravato Distribuidora de Combustíveis Ltda. São Mateus do Sul PR 85
Forestry extraction PDV Brasil Combustíveis e Lubricantes Ltda. Porto Velho RO 62
Table 20. Zero profit price of biojet for different increases the competitiveness of fuels produced by smaller
HEFA biojet plant capacities. plants. e great advantage of this pathway is the possibility of
Biomass transport distance ZPPbiojet (US$.L–1 ) using biomass residues as feedstock, a low-cost resource widely
100km available in Brazil. As indicated in the georeferenced feedstock
Plant A Plant B Plant C
–1 availability analysis, the bioenergy potential estimated for
CO2 prices (US$.tCO2e ) 0 2.22 2.07 2.05
dierent crop residues would be sucient to feed all plant
10 2.19 2.05 2.03
capacities considered in the economic assessment.
50 2.09 1.94 1.92
On the other hand, HEFA biojet LCOF varies from US$
100 1.96 1.81 1.79
2.05.L –1 to US$ 2.22.L–1 for three plant capacities (116 to
150 1.83 1.68 1.66
348 million liters per year). ese costs are mostly driven by
200 1.70 1.55 1.53 feedstock expenses, as soybean oil is a valuable product with
other competitive advantages. Carbon taxes (50–200 US$.
tCO2–1 ) were not enough to guarantee the competitiveness
Table 21. Zero profit price of biojet for different of HEFA. Nevertheless, uncertainties regarding jet fuel
FT-SPK plant capacities.
prices may oer a competitive opportunity for the aviation
Biomass transport ZPP biojet (US$.L–1)
distance 100 km
biofuels. Moreover, as the aviation industry is committed
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D to the development of alternative sustainable biofuels, the
CO2 prices 0 0.89 0.82 0.61 0.47 initiatives and ongoing projects are expected to encourage its
(US$.tCO2e –1) 10 0.86 0.79 0.59 0.45 development in the near future.
50 0.75 0.68 0.48 0.34 In the end, one possible pathway to incentivize biojet in
100 0.62 0.54 0.34 0.20 Brazil would be, rst, to implement carbon taxes that allow
150 0.48 0.41 0.21 0.07 the development of smaller plants. en, with technological
200 0.35 0.27 0.07 — learning and larger production scales, these incentives could
be reduced or even withdrawn.
Finally, despite the eorts to conduct an accurate analysis of
Furthermore, both biojet production pathways evaluated biojet fuel potential in Brazil, this study has limitations that
registered fossil fuel consumption below 1MJ.MJ–1 , should be addressed in future works to enhance the results
which emphasizes that these fuels are, in fact, sustainable. reliability. For instance, future studies could:
Comparing the results with other studies that performed
LCA for biojet fuel production in other localities was useful i. Improve the analysis of residue availability. In
to conrm that the advantages also applied in Brazil. this study, the density of residues was considered
e economic analysis indicates that levelized costs for uniform in each municipality when, actually, they are
FT-SPK vary from US$ 0.47.L–1 to US$ 0.89.L–1, according heterogeneously concentrated.
to four plant capacities (42 to 529 million liters per year). ii. Improve the logistic evaluation of the biomass value
Expressive technological scale gains were observed for plants chain. In this study, the biomass transport distance
with larger capacities. e application of carbon taxes also was limited to 100 km, and then was compared to
Figure 19. Sensitivity analysis for HEFA (plant C) and FT-SPK (plant D) biojet fuels.
the distance between hotspots and airports and fuel Acknowledgement

storage basis. For instance, pretreatment options like
torrefaction and densication reduce logistic costs and e authors would like to thank CNPq for nancial support
enable larger conversion scales. 69 for the development of this study. ey are also grateful for
iii. Consider the production of biojet fuel in isolated the nancial support provided by the INCT-Climate Change
locations (such as the midwest region) to reduce their Project Phase 2 (Grants FAPESP 2014/50848-9, CNPq
fuel dependence. 465501/2014-1, and CAPES/FAPS N° 16/2014).
iv. Apply dierent allocation methods in the LCA. is
can signicantly impact the results. e energy-based References
allocation method was chosen as the hydrotreating
1. ICAO. Aviation and Climate Change. Environ Rep 2013. 2013.
process coproduces hydrocarbon fuels. Available: https://cfapp.icao.int/Environmental-Report-2013/
v. Improve the economic analysis. For instance, the les/assets/basic-html/index.html#1 [4 February 2018].
ligno-cellulosic feedstocks for the FT-SPK plants 2. Cremonez PA, Feroldi M, de Araújo AV, Negreiros Borges M,
Weiser Meier T, Feiden A et al., Biofuels in Brazilian aviation:
procurement prices were considered zero in this current scenario and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
work, because they are currently residues. However, 43:1063–1072 (2014).
once conversion plants start demanding these 3. IATA. Technology Roadmap 2013. Int Air Transp Assoc. 2013;
4th editio(June):86. Available: https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/
scarce resources, the market will most likely set an environment/Documents/technology-roadmap-2013.pdf
equilibrium price for them. In addition, the economic [4February 2018].
analysis performed relied on a NOAK estimate. 4. Cantarella H, Nassar AM, Cortez LAB and Baldassin R,
Potential feedstock for renewable aviation fuel in Brazil.
is tends to underestimate the capital costs and
Environ Dev 15:52–63 (2015).
overestimate the plant performance if compared with 5. Mawhood R, Cobas A, Slade R, Final S. Establishing
FOAK plants. 37,57,58 a European renewable jet fuel supply chain: the
technoeconomic potential of biomass conversion
vi. Review the technological pathways that were assessed,
technologies. RENJET Climate KIC. London; 2014. Available:
including the reforming of naphtha, which is a https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/icept/Public/RENJETWP1_1I
co-product of HEFA and FT-SPK. is is an option CTechnoeconomicpotentialjan15.pdf [6February 2018].
for composing a 100% blend of biojet fuel that was 6. ICAO. ICAO Council adopts new CO2 emissions standard
for aircraft. 2017. Available: https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/
not developed in this study. Pages/ICAO-Council-adopts-new-CO2-emissions-standard-
vii. Apply the methodology developed in this study for-aircraft.aspx [4 February 2018].
in other countries with vast areas for agricultural 7. IATA. Annual Review. Dublin; 2016. Available: http://www.iata.
org/publications/Documents/iata-annual-review-2016.pdf
production, such as the USA, India, and China.
[6February 2018].
viii. Apply the methodology developed in this study 8. ICAO. Initiatives and projects. ICAO Environ - Altern Fuels.
to other biojet production pathways. For example, 2019; Available: https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/
GFAAF/Lists/InitiativesandProjects/Projects.aspx [1June 2019].
production routes using alcohols (ATJ) or sugars may
9. IRENA. Biofuels for Aviation. 2017. Available: https://www.
become relevant given the well-established bioethanol irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Biofuels_
production in Brazil. for_Aviation_2017.pdf [1June 2019].
10. SkyNRG, World’s rst bio-jet fuel production plant lignocellulose, vegetable oil and sugar cane juice. Bioresour
announced. Candian Biomass (2019; Available). https://www. Technol 216:331–339 (2016 Sep).
canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/worlds-rst-bio-jet-fuel- 29. Bwapwa JK, Anandraj A and Trois C, Possibilities for
production-plant-announced/ [20June 2019]. conversion of microalgae oil into aviation fuel: A review.
11. Cornelissen S, Koper M and Deng YY, The role of bioenergy in Renew Sustain Energy Rev 80(August):1345–1354 (2017).
a fully sustainable global energy system. Biomass Bioenergy 30. Guell BM, Bugge M, Kempegowda RS, George A, Paap SM.
41:21–33 (2012 Jun). Report Benchmark of conversion and production technologies
12. Prieler S, Fischer G and van Velthuizen H, Land and the food- for synthetic biofuels for aviation. 2012.
fuel competition: insights from modeling. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 31. Pearlson MN. A Techno-economic and Environmental
Energy Environ 2(2):199–217 (2013 Mar). Assessment of Hydroprocessed Renewable Distillate
13. Cortez LAB, Nigro FEB, Nassar AM, Cantarella H, Nogueira LAH, Fuels [M.Sc. Dissertation]. Department of Aeronautics
de Moraes MAFD et al., Roadmap for sustainable aviation biofuels and Astronautics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
for Brazil — a Flightpath to aviation biofuels in Brazil. Editora 2011. Available: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/
Edgard Blücher. São Paulo, p. 60. Available: (2014). http:// handle/1721.1/65508/746766700.pdf?sequence=1 [5 April 2016].
openaccess.blucher.com.br/article-list/roadmap-aviation-272/ 32. Elia JA, Baliban RC, Floudas CA, Gurau B, Weingarten MB and
list [13 November 2017]. Klotz SD, Hardwood biomass to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel: 1.
14. ABRAF, Anuário Estatístico. Associação Brasileira dos Process synthesis and global optimization of a thermochemical
Produtores de Florestas Plantadas (Brazilian Association of renery. Energy Fuels 27(8):4302–4324 (2013).
Planted Forests Producers), Brasília, p. 148 (2013). 33. CAAFI. Frequent Asked Questions. 2017. Available: http://
15. RISI. World Timber Price Quarterly 2015. 2015. Available: www.caa.org/resources/faq.html [9 January 2018].
www.risi.com/timberland [10 December 2017]. 34. IATA. IATA Sustainable Aviation Fuel Roadmap. 2015.
16. Klein BC, Chagas MF, Junqueira TL, Rezende MCAF, Cardoso Available: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/
T d F, Cavalett O et al., Techno-economic and environmental Documents/safr-1-2015.pdf [7 June 2016].
assessment of renewable jet fuel production in integrated 35. IATA, Sustainable aviation fuels fact sheet 2. SAF Tech Certif
Brazilian sugarcane bioreneries. Appl Energy 209(September 2018:2018–2019 (March 2016).
2017):290–305 (2018). 36. ICAO. Latest news. ICAO Glob Framew Aviat Altern Fuels.
17. Portugal-Pereira J, Soria R, Rathmann R, Schaeffer R and 2019; Available: https://www.icao.int/environmental-
Szklo A, Agricultural and agro-industrial residues-to-energy: protection/gfaaf/pages/default.aspx [5 June 2019].
techno-economic and environmental assessment in Brazil. 37. de Jong S, Hoefnagels R, Faaij A, Slade R, Mawhood R
Biomass Bioenergy 81(April):521–533 (2015). and Junginger M, The feasibility of short-term production
18. Rentizelas AA, Tolis AJ and Tatsiopoulos IP, Logistics issues strategies for renewable jet fuels - a comprehensive techno-
of biomass: The storage problem and the multi-biomass economic comparison. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 9(6):778–
supply chain. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(4):887–894 800 (2015 Nov).
(2009). 38. Tijmensen MJA, Faaij APC, Hamelinck CN and Van Hardeveld
19. Atashbar NZ, Labadie N and Prins C, Modeling and MRM, Exploration of the possibilities for production of Fischer
optimization of biomass supply chains: A review and a critical Tropsch liquids and power via biomass gasication. Biomass
look. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(12):604–615 (2016). Bioenergy 23(2):129–152 (2002).
20. Angelis-dimakis A, Biberacher M, Dominguez J, Fiorese 39. IBGE, Produção agrícola municipal 2014. Instituto Brasileiro
G, Gadocha S, Gnansounou E et al., Methods and tools to de Geograa e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro (2014. Available
evaluate the availability of renewable energy sources. Renew from:). http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/pesquisas/pam/
Sustain Energy Rev 15 (2):1182–1200 (2011). default.asp?o=18&i=P [14 February 2016].
21. Sharma B, Ingalls RG, Jones CL and Khanchi A, Biomass supply 40. IBGE. Produção da Extração Vegetal e da Silvicultura 2014
chain design and analysis: Basis, overview, modeling, challenges, [Internet]. 2014 . Available: http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/
and future. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:608–627 (2013). pesquisas/pevs/default.asp?o=30&i=P [13 February 2016].
22. Ghaderi H, Pishvaee MS and Moini A, Biomass supply chain 41. IPEA, Diagnóstico dos Resíduos Orgânicos do Setor
network design: an optimization-oriented review and analysis. Agrossilvopastoril e Agroindústrias Associadas. Instituto de
Ind Crops Prod 94:972–1000 (2016). Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (Applied Economy Research
23. Moraes MAFD, Nassar AM, Moura P, Leal RLV and Cortez Institute), Brasília (2012).
LAB, Jet biofuels in Brazil: Sustainability challenges. Renew 42. Canto JL Do. Colheita mecanizada de biomassa florestal
Sustain Energy Rev 40:716–726 (2014). para energia [Tese D.Sc.]. Universidade Federal de Viçosa;
24. Cremonez PA, Feroldi M, de Oliveira C d J, Teleken JG, Alves 2009.
HJ and Sampaio SC, Environmental, economic and social 43. Dias JMCDS, Souza DT De, Braga M, Onoyama MM, Miranda
impact of aviation biofuel production in Brazil. N Biotechnol CHB, Barbosa PFD, et al. Produção de briquetes e péletes a
32(2):263–271 (2015). partir de resíduos agrícolas, agroindustrais e orestais. Embrapa
25. Alves CM, Valk M, de Jong S, Bonomi A, van der Wielen LAM Agroenergia. 2012;132. Available: www.cnpae.embrapa.br
and Mussatto SI, Techno-economic assessment of biorenery 44. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information
technologies for aviation biofuels supply chains in Brazil. System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project; 2016.
Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 11(1):67–91 (2017 January). 45. European Commission, Proposal for a directive of the
26. Wang W-C and Tao L, Bio-jet fuel conversion technologies. European Parliament and of the council on the promotion
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53:801–822 (2015). of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast). Off J
27. Hari TK, Yaakob Z and Binitha NN, Aviation biofuel from Eur Union 2017:0382 (2016). Available). http://eur-lex.europa.
renewable resources: routes, opportunities and challenges. eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:3eb9ae57-faa6-11e6-8a35-
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42:1234–1244 (2015). 01aa75ed71a1.0007.02/DOC_1&format=PDF%0Ahttp://eur-lex.
28. Diederichs GW, Ali Mandegari M, Farzad S and Görgens JF, europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC07
Techno-economic comparison of biojet fuel production from 67R%2801%29 [3 March 2018].
46. European Commission, Communication from the commission 63. Firjan. Quanto custa o Gás Natural para indústria no Brasil?.
on the practical implementation of the EU biofuels and Rio de Janeiro; 2011. Available: http://www.rjan.com.br/
bioliquids sustainability scheme and on counting rules for lumis/portal/le/leDownload.jsp?leId=2C908A8F4EBC426A
biofuels. Off J Eur Union 2:8–16 (2010). Available: http://eur- 014EC144CB142B50&inline=1
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:5201 64. IndexMundi. Commodities prices. Soybean Oil. Available: http://
0XC0619(02)&from=EN [3 March 2018]. www.indexmundi.com/pt/pre?os-de-mercado/?mercadoria=óleo-
47. Capaz RS. Estudo do desempenho energético da produção de de-soja&meses=60&moeda=brll [25 July 2016].
biocombustíveis: Aspectos metodológicos e estudo de caso 65. IEA. Production of alternative transportation fuels: Inuence
[Dissertação M.Sc.]. Universidade Federal de Itajubá; 2009. of crude oil price and technology maturity. Paris; 2013.
48. Cavalett O and Ortega E, Integrated environmental Available: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
assessment of biodiesel production from soybean in Brazil. publication/production-costs-of-alternative-transportation-
JClean Prod 18(1):55–70 (2010). fuels-inuence-of-crude-oil-price-and-technology-maturity-.
49. Rocha MH, Capaz RS, Lora EES, Nogueira LAH, Leme MMV, html [10 November 2016].
Renó MLG et al., Life cycle assessment (LCA) for biofuels in 66. Sabesp. Comunicado tarifas 2012. 2012. Available: http://
Brazilian conditions: A meta-analysis. Renew Sustain Energy site.sabesp.com.br/uploads/le/clientes_servicos/
Rev 37:435–459 (2014). comunicado_04_2012.pdf [10 July 2016].
50. Prudêncio V, Van Der WHMG, Spies A and Roberto S, 67. Oxera Consulting Ltd, Discount rates for low-carbon and
Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean renewable generation technologies. Oxera Consulting LLP,
according to crop production and transport scenarios. Oxford, p. 52 (2011;(April)).
JEnviron Manage 91(9):1831–1839 (2010). 68. ANP. Anuário estatístico brasileiro de petróleo e gás natural e
51. IBGE. Censo Agropecuário 2006. Rio de Janeiro; 2006. biocombustíveis 2015. Vol. 53. Rio de Janeiro; 2015. Available:
Available from: http://www.ibge.gov.br/ [03 May 2016]. www.anp.gov.br [3 September 2017].
52. Hoffmann BS, Salem A, Schaeffer R. O Potencial termelétrico 69. Silva FTF da. Avaliação da torrefação e densicação de
a carvão no Rio Grande do Sul diante restrições de resíduos agrícolas no Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio
disponibilidade de água e objetivos de redução de emissões de Janeiro; 2017. Available from: http://www.ppe.ufrj.br/ppe/
de CO2, aplicando a queima em leito uidizado [Tese D.Sc.]. production/tesis/ftferreira.pdf [4 March 2019].
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; 2013. 70. Stratton RW, Min Wong H and Hileman JI, Life cycle
53. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical greenhouse gas emissions from alternative jet fuels. 571:1–
Science Basis. 2007. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_ 133. Available (2010). http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/
and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html [10 December 2016]. reports/index.html [20 February 2016].
54. CONAB. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira - Grãos. Safra 71. Elgowainy A, Han J, Wang M, Carter N, Stratton R, Hileman
2015/16. 2016;(safra 2015). J et al., Life-Cycle Analysis of Alternative Aviation Fuels in
55. IPCC. Emission factor detail (ID:521417). 2011. Available: http:// GREET. Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago (2012).
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/ef_detail.php [10 October 2016]. 72. Bailis RE and Baka JE, Greenhouse gas emissions and land
56. BEA. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Implicit price deators use change from Jatropha curcas -based jet fuel in Brazil.
for gross domestic product. http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8684–8691 (2010).
?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=13#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1 73. IndexMundi. Jet fuel prices 2014. 2016. Available: http://
&904=2011&903=13&906=a&905=1000&910=x&911=0. 2016. www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=jet-
Available: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&is fuel&months=60 [5 December 2016].
uri=1&903=13#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2011&903=13&9 74. European Parliament. The Impact of Oil Prices Fluctuations on
06=a&905=1000&910=x&911=0 [5 July 2016]. Transport and Its Related Sectors. Bruxelas; 2009. Available:
57. Merrow EW, Phillips KE and Myers CW, Understanding Cost http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/
Growth and Performance Shortfalls in Pioneer Process Plants. join/2009/419084/IPOL-TRAN_ET(2009)419084_EN.pdf
The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, pp. 1–102 (1981). 75. IBGE. Dados de previsão de safra. Área plantada. Inst Bras
58. Morrison GM, Witcover J, Parker NC and Fulton L, Three Geogr e Estatística. 2016; Available: http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/
routes forward for biofuels: incremental, leapfrog, and bda/prevsaf/default.asp?t=2&z=t&o=26&u1=1&u2=1&u3=1&u4=1
transitional. Energy Policy 88:64–73 (2016).
59. SIFRECA. Fretes Rodoviários. Sistema de informação de
fretes. 2011 . Available: http://log.esalq.usp.br/sifreca/pt/ Francielle Carvalho
fretes/rodoviarios [15 July 2016]. Francielle Carvalho is a chemical
60. SIFRECA. Fretes Rodoviários. Óleo de soja. Sistema de
engineer. She has an MSc in energy
Informação de fretes. 2016. Available: http://esalqlog.
planning from the Federal University of
esalq.usp.br/sifreca/mercado-de-fretes/outros-
produtos/#oleodesoja [cited 15 July 2016].
Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ-Brazil). Currently,
61. Nogueira de Oliveira LP, Rodriguez Rochedo PR, Portugal- she is a doctoral candidate and
Pereira J, Hoffmann BS, Aragão R, Milani R et al., Critical researcher at the Center for Energy and
technologies for sustainable energy development in Brazil: Environmental Economics (CENERGIA)
technological foresight based on scenario modelling. J Clean group. Her research interests include bioenergy
Prod 130 :12–24 (2015). resources, biofuels logistics, techno-economic and
62. ANEEL. Relatório SAS. 2012. Available: http://relatorios.aneel.gov. life-cycle analysis, bio-energy with carbon capture and
br/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id=/RelatoriosSAS/RelSampRegCC. storage (BECCS), co-benets of mitigation strategies,
xlsx&Source=http://relatorios.aneel.gov.br/RelatoriosSAS/Forms/
and energy transition in the transportation sector.
AllItems.aspx&DefaultItemOpen=1 [9August 2016].
Fábio T. F. da Silva Joana Portugal-Pereira

Fábio T. F. da Silva has a MSc in Joana Portugal-Pereira is a senior
energy planning from the Federal scientist at IPCC Working Group III
University of Rio de Janeiro. He is on the Mitigation of Climate Change
currently a doctoral candidate in the based at the Centre for Environmental
same institution and a researcher at the Policy of Imperial College London.
Center for Energy and Environmental Joana holds a MSc degree in
Economics (CENERGIA). His research environmental engineering with a
focuses on advanced bioenergy supply chain analysis, specialization in bioenergy (University
biomass pretreatment options, and biochar for carbon of Lisbon), and a PhD in urban engineering (University
sequestration. of Tokyo), with an emphasis on life-cycle assessment
modeling of alternative fuels. Her research interests
focus on energy system innovations towards mitigation
of global and local environmental impacts. She has
Alexandre Szklo vast experience in developing environmental modeling
Alexandre Szklo is an associate tools to provide a better understanding of the economic
professor in the energy planning and environmental co-benets of low-carbon energy
program of COPPE (Alberto Luiz portfolios and to deliver policy recommendations.
Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies
and Research in Engineering) at the
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
(UFRJ). He has a PhD from COPPE/
UFRJ, and is a chemical engineer. Alexandre is the
author of numerous books and papers in scientic
journals, and has supervised more than 120 doctoral
theses and master’s dissertations.

Potential For Biojet Production From Different Biomass Feedstocks and Consolidated Technological Routes - A Georeferencing and Spatial Analysis in Brazil

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Potential For Biojet Production From Different Biomass Feedstocks and Consolidated Technological Routes - A Georeferencing and Spatial Analysis in Brazil

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9321031, 2019, 13, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary-wiley.ez139.periodicos.capes.gov.br By IFRN - Instituto Federal do Rio Grande do Norte- on [07/12/2021].

Received May 23 2019; Revised June 27 2019; Accepted July 18 2019;

Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.

Introduction resources make it a potential player.13 is study therefore

etal.,30 while the economic costs and environmental Biojet fuel

Table 2. Companies producing biojet fuel.

Porvoo, Finland 240 million L.year–1

All airlines Departures Bergen Airport FT-SPK

Figure 1. Biomass feedstock and technological processes of HEFA-SPK

Figure 2. FT-SPK production steps.

However, their characteristics aect syngas quality, eciency,

sustainability represents a fraction of the theoretical where:

Table 5. Characteristics of the evaluated residues.

is the same transport distance considered in the LCA.

Figure 4. Bioenergy potential for each crop in country’s regions.

Figure 5. Biomass energy hotspots for each crop.

LUC (savannah conversion to cropland), GHG emissions

Techno-economic feasibility of biojet

Figure 10. Life cycle or WTW results.

availability were reviewed in this section in terms of the

Table 15. HEFA biojet fuel costs.

Figure 16. Fixed costs contributions versus scale gains.

Table 16. FT-SPK costs.

Figure 15. Contributions to HEFA biojet LCOF.

In sum, by adopting a reference distance of 100 km, our

Table 18. Distance between biomass hotspots Conclusion

the distance between hotspots and airports and fuel Acknowledgement

Fábio T. F. da Silva Joana Portugal-Pereira

You might also like