Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Alternative jet fuel feasibility

J.I. Hileman n,1, R.W. Stratton 2
Massachusetts Institute Technology, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Available online 13 April 2014 Concerns regarding the environmental and economic sustainability of petroleum based transportation
Keywords: fuels, including jet fuel, are driving interest into alternative fuels. The development of viable alternatives
Aircraft fuels could provide benefits in terms of energy diversity thus reducing dependence on any given nation for our
Biofuels energy needs. This manuscript examines the drivers for alternative fuels in the light of the needs of
Greenhouse gases aviation and it provides criteria wherein potential alternative jet fuels can be compared. A wide range of
Air quality transportation fuels was qualitatively examined using these criteria. Because of concerns regarding their
Life cycle emissions safe use and the energy efficiency loss that would be inherent in their use, alcohols and biodiesel are
better suited for ground transportation. Cryogenic fuels are not feasible in the near term because of the
large existing aircraft and airport infrastructure that is incompatible with these fuels. Synthetic fuels
offer aviation with a wide range of potential feedstocks that could augment or potentially replace
petroleum, but concerns regarding the economic cost of production and the current lack of feedstock
availability limits their near term availability to aviation.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction transportation fuels, as well as the resources to make alternative

Since the earliest days of motored transportation when gaso-
line went from being a byproduct of kerosene production to the
driving force in the development of the petroleum industry, the
growth and development of oil and transportation have been
inseparable. This is because refineries continuously maximize the
utility, in the form of economic profit, of a barrel of oil and this
utility is tied directly to how the various products from the barrel
are used. In 2012, the world demand for petroleum was 89.2
million barrels of oil per day (EIA, 2014a). This annual volume is
equivalent to 43,400 gallons per second, or roughly the discharge
rate of a moderate sized river such as the Charles or Connecticut
Rivers in the Northeast United States. However, only a portion of
this oil usage goes to aviation.
Within the United States, 46% of oil by volume that is supplied
goes to gasoline while 31% goes to creating middle distillates,
consisting of diesel fuel, jet fuel, and fuel oils; jet fuel itself
constitutes 8% of this average barrel (EIA, 2014b). In 2010, the U.S.
used 27% of the worldwide demand of jet fuel, which is 5.2 million
barrels per day (EIA, 2014c). As demand dictates, refineries can
direct the petroleum stream that is used to create jet fuel to make
diesel fuel instead. This is because jet fuel falls within the distillation
range and properties of diesel fuels. The fungiblility of
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: james.hileman@faa.gov (J.I. Hileman).
1
Currently with the Federal Aviation Administration.
2
Currently with Bombardier Aerospace.
fuels, must be kept in mind when considering alternative fuels.
Unlike previous periods when spikes in the price of petroleum
have provoked interest in alternatives to petroleum, the environ-
ment represents a potential constraint on the continued growth of
all sectors of the economy. Although concerns about global climate
change dominate the press, other environmental concerns also
need to be addressed. Alternative fuels offer an opportunity not
only to reduce aviation's contribution to global climate change, but
they could also reduce aviation's impact on air quality as fuel
composition could be modified to reduce pollutant formation.
However, the development of a biofuel industry could have
consequences on land and fresh water usage, as well as other
environmental concerns, that cannot be ignored if sustainability is
indeed a concern.
This manuscript examines the forces driving the development
of alternative jet fuels in terms of economics and environment.
It then presents a comparison framework wherein these drivers
can be examined. This framework is then applied to a range of fuel
options that could be considered by aviation to identify feasible
alternative jet fuel options.
2. Motivations driving alternative jet fuel use
As alluded to in the introduction, there are four forces driving the
development of alternative transportation fuels: economic sustain-
ability, environmental sustainability, energy supply diversity, and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.018
0967-070X Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62
competition for energy resources. The relative importance of these
drivers varies depending on geographical location.
2.1. Economic sustainability
2.1.1. Cost of energy
As world's energy demand increases, so does the need for
production. As shown in Fig. 1, oil prices steadily increased over
the past two decades, peaking in 2008 at over $140 per barrel.
Even though the world economy subsequently suffered its worst
recession since the Great Depression, oil has subsequently stabi-
lized at a price between $90 and $100 per barrel. The peak in 2008
and the recent relatively high prices during a global downturn
both indicate a probable end to the era of cheap oil. The increase in
fuel prices had a profound impact on airline operation as the
recent price spike led to fuel overtaking labor as the dominant
contributor to aviation operating costs for the first time.
The escalation of the jet fuel price in the summer of 2008
created a fundamental shift in the economics of air travel in which
gains in other areas of the airline industry were negated by
increases in fuel costs. As long as jet fuel derived from conventional
petroleum remains the dominant fuel, the price of petroleum will
define its market price. The difference between the price of jet fuel
and petroleum, known as the crack spread, denoted by the dark
region in Fig. 1, has averaged 19% of the total price of jet fuel over
the last twenty-four years with a standard deviation of 6%. The
crack spreads of jet fuel and diesel fuel have historically been
similar owing to the similarities in how these fuels are produced.
Fig. 1. Crude and jet price history, and the crack spread between these prices, for
the United States (EIA, 2010c) and U.S. airline average unit operating costs for fuel
and labor (ATA, 2010). Crude and jet prices are based on the average spot prices as
reported by the EIA and prices are in 2010 U.S. dollars.
53
As oil prices increased, previously inaccessible petroleum
resources become economically viable thus increasing petroleum
reserves. This is evidenced by the extraction of conventional
petroleum, (a.k.a., crude oil), from locations farther offshore in
the ocean, the development of unconventional petroleum
resources such as Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan very heavy
oils, and the increase in hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a., fracking) to
access petroleum below rock, deep in the earth's surface. On top of
the development of conventional and unconventional petroleum,
energy companies have responded to increased oil prices with
increased investment in facilities, such as those to create synthetic
liquid fuels from natural gas using Fischer–Tropsch (F–T) synth-
esis, expanded ethanol production, and the production of diesel
replacement fuels from vegetable oils.
The rise in petroleum prices in 2008 was not the first as there
have been periodic shocks in the price of oil. Each shock brings
renewed interest in expanded exploration for new petroleum
reserves and production of alternatives to petroleum. The oil
shocks of the 1970s led to considerable worldwide interest in
alternatives with one success being the formation of the Brazilian
ethanol industry which today is self-sufficient.
2.1.2. Cost of changing infrastructure
The long life of commercial aircraft and the size of the current
aircraft fleet both point toward the need for “drop-in” alternative
fuels. Drop-in fuel options are defined as being compatible with
today's aircraft technology and infrastructure with little or no
modification. In 2012, the worldwide fleet was comprised of
20,310 commercial aircraft (Boeing, 2013), each of which is
designed to operate using conventional jet fuel. This is a sub-
stantial investment of capital as a new single aisle aircraft from
Boeing costs roughly 50 million dollars while a new jumbo jet
costs roughly 300 million dollars (Boeing, undated). If the average
aircraft replacement cost were 50 million dollars, then a trillion
dollars would be required to replace the existing fleet with new
aircraft. Of course, this is an oversimplification but it does point to
the large current investment in commercial aircraft. Furthermore,
at the 2008 rate of aircraft deliveries by Boeing (375), Airbus (483),
Embraer (204), and Bombardier (353) of 1415 aircraft per year, it
would take roughly 14 years to replace the fleet. Since the number
of aircraft in the worldwide fleet is increasing to meet growing
aviation demand, the turnover time would actually be longer.
It has been speculated that an alternative fuel suitable for
aviation use would benefit from the tightly controlled fuel-
distribution infrastructure that supports commercial aviation.
However, if the finished fuel satisfies international standards and
is compatible with current engine technology, the structure of the
distribution system should have little or no effect on the overall
prospects of the fuel. This is especially the case with synthetic
diesel and jet fuels, which are suitable for distribution from the
plant gate.
2.2. Environmental sustainability
2.2.1. Greenhouse gases
In 2012 aviation contributed 2 percent of the world's CO2
emissions (ATAG, 2012). Aircraft also produce non-CO2 emissions
that contribute to global climate change, as will be discussed in
Section 3.2. Within the US, Section 526 of the Energy Indepen-
dence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) has placed
restrictions on the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of alter-
native fuels that can be used by federal agencies.
Biofuels offer an opportunity to reduce the life cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions from transportation fuels. This is not
because their use results in a change in combustion emissions of
54 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62
CO2. The reduction is possible because biomass is created by
photosynthesis of CO2 with water; hence, biomass created from
atmospheric CO2 will have net zero combustion CO2 emissions
when burned. This can be contrasted with fossil fuels, which are
effectively atmospheric CO2 that has been sequestered in the
ground for many millions of years. When biomass is consumed
in combustion, the CO2 is released to the atmosphere from which
it recently came; when fossil fuels are combusted, the CO2 that had
previously been sequestered is released to the atmosphere. To
adequately capture this important difference, the full life cycle CO2
emissions of a fuel must be assessed. This type of accounting is
discussed further in Section 3.2.
2.2.2. Air quality
The air quality impacts stemming from the contributions of
aviation emissions are a continuing issue for airports and the
national air space (Ratliff et al., 2009). Emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons
(UHC), some of which are classified as hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs), and non-volatile particulate matter, (a.k.a., soot or black
carbon), are of concern in the vicinity of airports. NOX, CO, and
UHC emissions from aircraft and other ground-based sources lead
to local and regional production of ozone while secondary parti-
culate matter precursor gases (NOX, SOX, and UHC) can also react
in the atmosphere to contribute to ambient particulate matter
(PM) levels. Airborne PM in turn can cause respiratory illnesses
and aggravate cardiovascular disease; in addition the sulfur also
causes acid rain, which damages infrastructure.
Unlike the use of technologies that would reduce the emissions
from new aircraft gas turbines, a change in fuel composition that
results in reduced aromatic and/or fuel sulfur content could lead to
an immediate benefit in terms of reduced pollutant formation
(Bulzan et al., 2010). Hence, the widespread use of alternative fuels
could lead to a relatively rapid change in aviation's impact on air
quality.
2.2.3. Water availability and quality
Regional availability of water places a bound on the development
of alternative jet fuels and energy, in general. Water plays an essential
role in developing and utilizing energy resources as it is used in
energy-resource extraction, refining and processing, and transporta-
tion. The dependence of biofuels on water extends even further to
include water used for feedstock growth. It is important to distin-
guish between water withdrawal and water consumption. Water
withdrawal involves withdrawing water from its source and subse-
quently returning it after use. The quality of the returned water may
not be the same as when it was originally removed. Electricity
generation is the best example where water use is dominated by
withdrawn water used for cooling (some cooling water is lost to
evaporation and this fraction is considered consumed). Water con-
sumption involves withdrawing water from its source and not
returning it after use. Crop irrigation represents the largest fraction
of water consumption within the US. (DoE, 2006)
Between 1 and 2.5 l of water is required to refine one liter of
petroleum fuels (King and Webber, 2008). Since the U.S. currently
consumes 1.4 million barrels per day of jet fuel, 222 million liters
per day (EIA, 2014b), the U.S. aviation industry is responsible for
consuming between 222 and 556 million liters of water each day.
Most alternative fuels will require comparable quantities of water
as today's petroleum refineries and biofuels have the potential to
consume several orders of magnitude more if irrigation is used in
feedstock production (DOE, 2006).
In addition to water availability, there are also concerns regard-
ing the impact of increased biomass production for alternative fuels
on water quality. Agricultural intensification through the extensive
use of biomass for energy could affect the movement of nutrients
from the land to freshwater systems through increased fertilizer
usage. If additional row crops are grown, this could lead to increased
movement; however, the use of perennial biomass crops for biofuels
production could lessen these impacts.
2.3. Energy diversity
Energy independence has been discussed as a matter of foreign
policy since at least the early twentieth century when the British
admiralty debated the merits of using Middle East petroleum
instead of Welsh coal to power the British navy. In the end, the
technological and economic benefits of using oil outweighed the
security of domestically supplied coal. During the two world wars
that followed, a secure supply of petroleum became paramount to
military success. However, the oil embargos of the 1970s demon-
strated the perils of being dependent on foreign energy supplies.
Because the U.S. consumes 18.5 million barrels of oil per day
(EIA, 2014a), relative to domestic production of 6.5 million barrels
per day (EIA, 2014d), energy independence in terms of transporta-
tion fuels is currently impossible. However, a step toward this goal
is to increase the energy supply diversity of the transportation fuel
mix. To this end, it is important to think about production scales.
A fully loaded Boeing 747–400 consumes approximately 1200
barrels of jet fuel to fly from Boston to Dubai. For comparison,
a moderate sized airport, such as Boston Logan International, uses
roughly 25,000 barrels per day. On a national level in 2008, the
United States consumed roughly 1.5 million barrels per day of jet
fuel with the Department of Defense consuming roughly 190,000
barrels per day of JP-8 and JP-5, or 12% of this total (EIA, 2010b;
DESC, 2008). Although domestic production of petroleum could
easily meet the needs of the U.S. armed forces, the overall
economy currently depends on a much larger supply of petroleum.
Diversifying the energy supply for transportation fuels moves the
U.S. away from being dependent on any one nation or region.
2.4. Competition for alternative fuel resources
Without exception, the feedstocks that could be used to make
alternative jet fuels could also be used to make fuels for ground
transportation. Similarly, biomass feedstocks could also be used to
generate electricity and/or heat instead of transportation fuels. For
example, appropriately treated cellulosic biomass could be directly fed
into power plants without significant modification. As such, there is
considerable competition for our renewable energy resources.
Ground transport fuel consumption is considerably larger than
aviation fuel consumption and the ground transport sector has
considerable experience in alternative fuel use, (e.g., ethanol,
biodiesel, hydroprocessed renewable oils, and compressed natural
gas). Because aircraft must carry their fuel aloft, the requirements
for aviation fuels are more stringent than those for fuels used for
surface transportation. In certain circumstances and because of
fuel properties such as octane and cetane number, ground-based
vehicles may serve as a more attractive application of alternative
fuels and feedstock resources.
In the longer term, transportation sectors that do not require high
energy density fuels could become electrified as is currently happen-
ing with automobiles. However, many transportation sectors, such as
aviation and ground transportation of freight, will continue to require
fuels with large energy density. As such, there will continue to be a
strong need for alternatives for middle distillate fuels. Of these
sectors, the restrictions on safety, tank volume and takeoff weight
place the most stringent requirements on aviation fuels. In general,
the complex interdependencies among energy utilization, econom-
ics, and environmental impact necessitate additional research to
 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62
better understand the trade-offs in how society uses its energy
resources for transportation, heat and electricity.
3. Criteria for evaluating alternative jet fuels
There are many issues to be considered when evaluating the
potential of a specific alternative fuel. These include, but are not
limited to, the economic cost of fuel production, the technical
feasibility of the fuel, the impact of using the fuel on the atmo-
sphere in terms of global climate change and air quality, and the
efficient usage of resources. Each of these is discussed in greater
detail below with consideration of the motivations that are driving
the criteria.
3.1. Economic cost of production
A fuel is only going to be sustainable if it can be economically
produced. A consequence of the recent rise in the price of
petroleum is an increased economic cost of production that could
be supported by the market. The price of jet fuel is set by the
market price of petroleum. Many reports, (e.g., Pearlson et al.
(2013)), provide estimates of the economic costs of producing fuel,
but these values are in terms of what is incurred by the fuel
producer. This should not be confused with the price that would
be paid by a fuel consumer. The price paid by a consumer will be
set by the prevailing market price for conventional jet fuel.
Assuming that the fuel producer can create their alternative jet
fuel at a cost that is less than the prevailing price of conventional
jet fuel, they will sell it at the market price of conventional jet fuel
to maximize profits. However, if the fuel producer and fuel buyer
go into a long-term contract, then the fuel producer may sell their
product at a discount to conventional jet fuel. Policy measures,
such as taxes and mandates from either renewable fuel use or
emissions trading, would also influence the cost that is borne by
the producer and consumer.
3.2. Technical feasibility with current (and future) aircraft
As discussed in Section 2.1, the large existing aircraft infra-
structure is a strong motivation for the development of fuels that
are compatible with the existing fleet of aircraft. Alternative fuels
that do not satisfy the performance characteristics offered by
conventional jet fuel would need to provide substantial benefits
to warrant the development of a second worldwide fueling
infrastructure to support a new fuel. Any fuel that would be used
safely and effectively in the existing fleet would need to meet the
relevant standard, which in the United States are ASTM D1655 and
Fig. 2. Steps considered in the well-to-wake, life cycle GHG inventory of conventional jet fuel (from Stratton et al., 2010 with permission of the authors).
55
D7655 (ASTM 2009a, 2009b). Fuels for aviation must have an array
of characteristics that include:

High energy density (energy per unit volume), which facilitates
long-range flight.

High specific energy (energy per unit mass), which decreases
takeoff weight and improves fuel efficiency.

High flash point, the temperature above which the fuel pro-
duces a vapor that can ignite, which ensures safe operation.

Low freezing point and vapor pressure, which facilitate safe
operation at cruise altitudes.

High thermal stability, prevents chemical decomposition of the
fuel within the gas turbine engine preventing fuel line blockage.

Adequate lubricity, ensures proper functioning of fuel pumps.

Sufficient aromatic compound content, ensures adequate seal
swell within fuel system to prevent fuel leaks.
The first two energy content related properties are critical to
vehicle performance. The flash point, freeze point and thermal
stability properties are critical to the safe operation of the aircraft.
The lubricity and aromatic properties are important but they can
be dealt with via appropriate modifications. The lubricity concern
could conceivably be met with the appropriate additive package
while issues concerning seal swell from aromaticity could in
theory be rectified with the replacement of existing seals with
those that are compatible with the new fuel composition; how-
ever, the costs associated with retrofitting an existing aircraft with
new seals is likely prohibitively large.
3.3. Global climate change impact
As discussed in Section 2.2, alternative jet fuels created from
renewable resources offer the potential to reduce the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from aviation. However, this difference is only
observed when the life cycle emissions of the fuel are considered
from the mine, well or field to the wake behind the aircraft.
The life cycle analysis of alternative jet fuels encompasses
emissions from the complete fuel cycle. This includes recovery
and transportation of the feedstock from the well, field, or mine to
the production facility, processing of these materials into fuels,
transportation and distribution of the fuel to the aircraft tank, and
finally, the combustion of the fuel in the aircraft. The steps of such
a well-to-wake life cycle analysis are shown schematically in Fig. 2.
These “well-to-wake” (WtW) steps can be broadly grouped into
fuel production and distribution, “well-to-tank” (WtT), and fuel
combustion, “tank-to-wake” (TtW). If biomass is involved in the
fuel production, then life-cycle analysis should also take into
56 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62
account land-use changes that would result from feedstock
growth,. If external sources of CO2 are used to feed biofuel growth,
then the system boundary should include the source of the CO2
emissions. For example, photosynthetic algae growth requires
concentrated CO2, such as the flue gas from a power plant, to
achieve commercial growth rates. Thus, the biomass growth is not
from atmospheric CO2 but from fossil CO2.
Proper evaluation of the indirect effects of alternative fuels,
including indirect land use change, requires that the supply and
demand for renewable energy resources be modeled for all sectors
in both the domestic and the global economy (many sectors of the
economy, including energy, forestry, and agriculture, need to be
modeled to understand the impacts of biofuel production on
deforestation). Analysis of indirect land use change also requires
the consideration of government policy to prevent deforestation as
this can substantially impact the results, (e.g., Melillo et al., 2009).
Due to these and other difficulties, calculations of indirect land use
change have substantial uncertainty and can vary widely from one
study to the next (Plevin et al., 2010).
A guidance document created by a consortium assembled by
the U.S. Air Force (AFLCAWG, 2009) presents considerable detail
about the creation of a life cycle GHG emissions inventory for
transportation fuels with particular focus on the key issues in
creating a life cycle GHG inventory: (1) system boundary defini-
tion, (2) allocating emissions allocation among co-products such
as those leaving the biomass system and the refinery, and (3) data
quality and uncertainty.
The relative magnitudes of the GHG emissions from each of the
main life cycle stages from Fig. 2 are presented in Fig. 3 for both
conventional jet fuel and select alternative jet fuel pathways; the data
are from Stratton et al., 2010. The climate impact from non-CO2
combustion emissions were created with a 100 year time window to
be consistent with the treatment of N2O and CH4 emissions from fuel
production. It was also assumed that contrails and contrail-cirrus
formation and climate effects are unchanged by synthetic paraffinic
kerosene (SPK) fuel composition compared to conventional jet fuel
(Dorbian, 2010; Stratton, 2010). These results do not indicate the
variability that could result from recovery and processing techniques.
While combustion CO2 emissions and the non-CO2 combustion
emissions and effects are largely the same for all fuels, emissions
from fuel production and land use change can cause substantial
variability in the complete life cycle GHG inventory. Biofuels also
receive a “Biomass Credit,” which represents the amount of CO2 that
is extracted from the atmosphere to grow the biomass for the fuel.
For Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) fuels, the biomass
credit is equal and opposite to the combustion CO2 emissions; while
for the F–T pathways, its magnitude depends on the amount of
biomass used as the fuel feedstock and for process energy.
The primary factor differentiating the life cycle GHG inventory
of conventional jet fuel from petroleum and oil sands is the
emissions from the recovery of the fuel feedstock, (i.e., crude oil
or bitumen). For HEFA fuels that use terrestrial oils, (i.e., not algae),
the primary factor that differentiates fuels is not the biomass
feedstock, but actually the emissions from land use change as is
demonstrated by the three soy to HEFA scenarios. Because of the
variations in how they can be produced, several factors determine
the variability in life cycle GHG emissions for F–T fuels that use
a combination of coal and biomass. Primary among these are use
of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the amount of biomass used
as a feedstock and process fuel, and whether positive or negative
land use change emissions are incurred.
3.4. Air quality impact
As noted in Section 2.2, the impact of aviation on air quality is
a continuing concern and alternative fuel compositions offer the
potential for reduced emissions that affect air quality from both
new and existing gas turbine engines.
One potential means of achieving a reduction in emissions that
affect air quality is through the use of an ultra low sulfur jet fuel,
which would nearly eliminate aviation's emissions of sulfur oxides,
a secondary particulate matter precursor gas. The specification
that defines Jet A (ASTM, 2009a) allows sulfur content up to
3000 ppm (ppm). However, the fuel sulfur content of jet fuel used
throughout the U.S. is closer to 700 ppm (Taylor, 2009 and DESC,
2008). To reduce aviation's impact on air quality, jet fuel from
conventional petroleum could be desulfurized to a level of 15 ppm
(see also Brunelle-Yeung et al., (in this issue)); this would result in
roughly a 1% increase in volumetric fuel consumption, due to
a slight change in the fuel carbon–hydrogen ratio, at a cost of 1 to
7 cents per gallon (Barrett et al., 2012). Part of this cost is paying
for additional fuel additives to ensure the fuel meets lubricity
requirements.
The amount and composition of aromatic compounds could be
modified with alternative jet fuels, and this could further reduce
aviation's impact on air quality, beyond just sulfur reduction.
Recent measurements of synthetic jet fuels, which lacked aromatic
compounds, have shown large (greater than 50%) reductions in
black carbon, (a.k.a., primary particulate matter). Such reductions
have been observed in an older-technology, low-bypass ratio gas-
turbine engine (TF33 engine, which is used in the B-52 aircraft),
a turboshaft gas-turbine engine (T63 engine, which is used in
some helicopters), and a modern, high-bypass ratio turbofan
engine (CFM56, which is used in the Boeing 737 among other
aircraft) (Corporan et al., 2007a and 2007b; DeWitt et al. (2008);
Bulzan et al., 2010). As these engines represent a wide range of
combustor technology, the reductions appear to be a result of fuel
composition and not gas turbine engine type.
At present, SPK fuels created from F–T synthesis are certified
for use in up to a 50–50 blend with conventional jet fuel (ASTM,
2009b). The limit on the maximum blending percentage of the SPK
fuel is tied to the aromatic content of the fuel. A lack of aromatic
compounds in the fuel could lead to inadequate seal swell with the
result being fuel leaks. Having a 50–50 blend ensures that most of
the fuel will achieve a safe minimum aromatic level of roughly 8%.
Although it is not yet certified for use, the aromatics could also
come from the pyrolysis of cellulosic materials or existing fossil
sources. With the use of synthetic aromatic compounds, one could
potentially create a designer fully synthetic jet fuel (FSJF) with
aromatic compounds specifically chosen to minimize the produc-
tion of emissions that contribute to particulate matter.
3.5. Resource impact (land, water, and non-renewable fuels)
Only fuels having a large production potential will be able to
substantially diversify our energy resources as discussed in Section
2.3. The production potential of any fuel (bio or fossil based) will
be defined by the limits that exist on the raw materials that are
needed for its production. For fossil fuels, there is a limit on the
amount of the resource that can be economically extracted at
a given energy price. For biofuels there are constraints on biomass
availability that are tied to energy price and land requirements. For
both, there are constraints on water withdrawal and consumption,
as was discussed in Section 2.2.
Biomass yield, in terms of mass per land area, and the acreage
available for the biomass cultivation are instrumental in determin-
ing the production potential for a biofuel. With this information
and an understanding of the efficiency in converting biomass to
a finished fuel one can determine how much of a biofuel can be
reasonably expected with our limited resources. Stratton et al.
(2010) demonstrated biomass production limitations of a wide
range of F–T and HEFA pathways. Fig. 4, which is from that study,
 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62 57

Fig. 3. Life cycle GHG emissions for select feedstock-to-fuel pathways broken out by major life cycle stage (data from Stratton, 2010 and Stratton et al., 2010). A 100-year time
window was used to assess all non-CO2 climate impacts. LUC indicates Land Use Change with LUCx0 meaning no land use change, LUCB1 meaning conversion of carbon
depleted soils to switchgrass cultivation, LUCS1 meaning conversion of Brazilian Cerrado, and LUCS2 meaning conversion of Amazon rainforest. CCS indicates carbon capture,
but it does not include sequestration. Note that the impact of aviation induced cloudiness was assumed to be unchanged with alternative jet fuel use; ongoing measurements
and analyses should provide an improved estimate for this impact.

presents a graphical representation of the land requirements to
supply the entire 2009 US jet fuel market with 100% SPK and a 50/
50 blend of SPK and conventional jet fuel using renewable oil
resources. Three representative fuel yields were chosen to represent
typical fuel production yields for HEFA. Production yields of HEFA
from camelina, palm, and algae oils are presented for comparison.
The land areas from Fig. 4 are likely smaller than will be required in
the future as fuel use is expected to increase with time.
As can be deduced from Fig. 4, most renewable oil feedstocks
do not have sufficient biomass production per unit of land to
replace an appreciable quantity of jet fuel. This does not mean that
they should not be cultivated for biofuel production; it simply
indicates that these feedstocks cannot singly replace petroleum as
a source of jet fuel. Any appreciable alternative fuel production
will likely come as a superposition of multiple feedstocks over
multiple regions. For example, camelina could be grown without
irrigation in rotation with other crops in the upper plains of the
U.S. and Canada, thus benefiting local farmers; further, the lessons
learned in converting camelina oil to biofuels could be valuable if
a higher yield crop, such as algae, becomes commercially viable.
The expansion of biofuel use within the U.S. will require
a significant increase in crop and feedstock production. One means
of getting additional production may be to introduce non-
indigenous species to the U.S; however, crops ideal for large-
scale biofuel production are those with high yield that do not
require fresh water irrigation and can maintain high yields when
grown on marginal lands. These are also general traits that
describe invasive species. Hence, it is important to understand
that controlling invasive plants is not a negligible consideration in
the decision making process and the impact of these invasives
could be to inhibit crop production, which could then hurt the
industry that was responsible for their introduction.
In a similar manner to GHG emissions, a life cycle analysis of
water usage can be conducted to determine the water consump-
tion per MJ of fuel energy delivered to the tank. Without
considering any specific examples, water consumption from feed-
stock recovery and processing will dominate the life cycle water
consumption while water consumption from feedstock and fuel
transportation will be indirect through consuming fuels that
required water for their production. Water consumption from
the combustion stage is zero. The creation of synthetic transporta-
tion fuels could place new strains on the current water system.
Using Fischer–Tropsch synthesis to convert natural gas or coal to
F–T diesel are 5 and 7 times more water intensive than conven-
tional diesel fuel, respectively, as measured in terms of mass of
water per unit energy delivered to the fuel tank. Similarly, steam
reformation of natural gas for hydroprocessing of renewable oils to
HEFA will be comparable to refining conventional petroleum. The
use of irrigation to grow biofuel feedstocks can increase the water
usage per unit energy by orders of magnitude (DoE, 2006; King
and Webber, 2008; and Stratton et al., 2010).
As discussed in Section 2.4, if limited resources are used in any
particular sector, then there is a question of whether there could be
greater societal benefits if they were used elsewhere. This could be
true for our limited biomass resources as they could be used to create
fuels for aviation, ground transportation or to generate heat and/or
electricity. An analysis by Hedegaard et al. (2008) indicates that scarce
biomass resources could be used more effectively, from perspectives
of energy efficiency and CO2 mitigation, for heat and electricity rather
than ethanol for transportation. Additional research is needed to
understand the trade-offs among energy utilization, economics, and
environmental impact from using bio-resources for transportation
versus other uses that accounts for relative amounts of biomass and
the availability of other options to decarbonize transportation, heat
58 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62

L
600
ha yr

L
3000
ha yr

L
15000
ha yr

Fig. 4. Land area requirements to replace conventional jet fuel use within the US with 100% SPK and 50/50 blend of SPK with conventional jet fuel, considering different jet
fuel production yields—600, 3000, and 15,000 L/ha/yr. Chart in lower right-hand corner demonstrates jet fuel production yields for three different crops—camelina, palm,
and algae. Figure modified from Stratton et al. (2010) with permission. Placement of circles on map does not necessarily indicate compatible growing regions for these crops.

and electricity. The time period of interest also needs to be taken into
account for such analyses as the mix of energy production and
biomass uses could change with time.
3.6. Technological readiness
A fuel readiness level (FRL) rating provides a means of quantifying
the current technological development of a feedstock-to-fuel pathway.
Such a scale is useful in identifying whether the fuel production is at
the laboratory scale or at large-scale, commercial fuel processing. A
simplified version of this was presented in Hileman et al. (2009), with
a much more detailed version being presented in ICAO CAAF (2010).
4. Potential alternative jet fuels
The fuel pathways, resource, processing method, and finished
fuels, presented in Table 1 have been considered with the criteria
from Section 3 in the sections that follow. The biomass feedstocks
have been treated in a generic fashion to place the emphasis on
the feasibility of the finished fuel and processing pathway.
A consideration of all feedstock options for all of these fuel
pathways is beyond the scope of this manuscript and readers are
directed to the work of Hileman et al. (2009) and Stratton et al.
(2010) for a consideration of some of these resources.
4.1. Conventional jet fuel from petroleum resources
The majority of current jet fuel is made by refining conventional
petroleum (also called crude oil). Thin, light crudes usually have lower
densities, more of the volatile products that make up gasoline and
kerosene, and lower concentrations of sulfur and nitrogen. Thicker,
heavier, darker crudes also can be and are refined to valuable, volatile,
clean products by more-intense processing, but there are economic
and environmental costs for the additional processing. In recent years,
an increasing share of domestic U.S. petroleum demand including that
for jet fuel has been met from non-conventional petroleum resources,
specifically oil sands from Alberta Canada. Other examples of non-
conventional resources include very heavy oils and oil shale. Each of
these resources requires additional processing to yield a synthetic
crude oil that can be pumped from the ground and refined. This
additional processing leads to increased production costs, water usage,
and life cycle GHG emissions relative to conventional crude oil
(Hileman et al., 2009 and Stratton et al., 2010).
4.2. Synthetic jet fuels
As shown schematically in Fig. 5, a variety of feedstock-to-fuel
pathways exist to create alternative jet fuels that are composed of
hydrocarbons, molecules composed solely of hydrogen and carbon,
which have similar properties to conventional jet fuel and could be
dropped into the tank of current aircraft at varied blending percen-
tages. These pathways include the use of Fischer–Tropsch synthesis
with lignocellulosic biomass resources, solid waste, coal, or natural
gas; hydroprocessing or catalytic hydrothermolysis of renewable
plant oils (e.g., terrestrial crops such as soy, palm, jatropha, or
camelina, and waste fats, oils and greases); bio- and thermo-
processing of sugars, starches or appropriately treated lignocellulosic
biomass; bio-processing of waste gases (carbon monoxide or carbon
dioxide) into intermediate products for further upgrading to jet fuel;
and the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass; among others. Many of
these pathways require the production of an intermediate platform
molecule and most will require some measure of hydroprocessing to
create a fuel that is suitable for use in a gas turbine engine.
Considerable effort is ongoing to develop these feedstock-to-
fuel pathways because they either are, or have the potential to be,
compatible with the current aircraft and infrastructure. Well
established pathways such as F–T jet and HEFA fuels have been
certified for 50–50 blends with conventional jet fuel while many
others are being tested for inclusion in the ASTM specification.
 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62 59

Table 1
Potential alternative jet fuel options.

Fuel Source Notes

Conventional jet fuel Refined conventional (a.k.a., crude oil) or unconventional petroleum Meets specifications for use in gas turbine engines
(e.g., Jet A, Jet A-1, (e.g., oil sands, very heavy oils, oil shale)
JP-8)
Synthetic jet fuels Synthetic Parafinnic Kerosene (SPK) and Synthetic Aromatics (SA) Blendstock for use in gas turbine engines; SPK and SA can
from potentially be combined to yield a Fully Synthetic Jet Fuel (FSJF);
a wide range of biomass, waste, and fossil fuel feedstocks
Biodiesel (FAME) Transesterification of long chain renewable oils, (e.g, soy, jatropha, Blendstock for use in diesel engines
camelina oils)
Biokerosene (FAME) Transesterification of short chain renewable oils, (e.g, coconut, Blendstock for use in diesel engines
babassu oils)
Alcohols (ethanol, Fermentation of sugars, starches, or treated cellulose Blendstock for use in spark ignition engines
butanol)
Liquefied natural gas Compression of natural gas to cryogenic state Worldwide means of transporting natural gas
Liquefied Hydrogen Hydrolysis of water (among other options) and compression of Potential energy storage mechanism for primary sources (e.g., wind,
hydrogen to cryogenic state nuclear, solar, geothermal)

Fig. 5. Potential pathways to a renewable, synthetic jet fuel.

4.3. Biodiesel and biokerosene
Theoretically, either biodiesel or biokerosene3 could be blended
with jet fuel. Both of these fuels are created via addition of an alcohol,
typically methanol, to renewable oil in the presence of a catalyst,
such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. This process is
known as transesterification and the resulting fuel is often referred to
as fatty acid methyl ester (FAME).
Jet fuel is an important medium for heat exchange within aircraft
engines and systems. These thermal stresses could cause biodiesel,
even as a dilute blend, to decompose and leave deposits in fuel-system
lines. Such deposits would accrue over time and degrade system
performance and safety. Testing indicates that some biodiesel blends,
even when blended at just 1 percent, could lead to unacceptable
thermal stability degradation (Wilson et al., 2007). Because of con-
cerns about thermal stability of jet fuel, biodiesel is currently not
transported in U.S. petroleum pipelines to prevent trace quantities
trailing back to jet fuel traveling in the same pipeline. In Europe,
biodiesel is currently transported via pipeline as a blend with
conventional diesel fuel, but there is ongoing research to determine
the effect on jet fuel quality and an acceptable level of biodiesel
contamination of jet fuel (e.g., Viltart, 2007; JIG, 2007). Considering
that FAME contamination is being considered on a level that is
measured in parts per million and HEFA fuels are created from the
same fuel resource, it is highly unlikely that a biodiesel or biokerosene
blend would be used for gas turbine aircraft applications. Furthermore,
both fuels have freeze points that are much higher than would be
required for operation at cruise altitudes.

4.4. Ethanol and butanol

3
Between 1980 and 1984, the Brazilian government developed and tested
a biokerosene called PROSENEs. This fuel was used in an Embraer turboprop aircraft
that flew from São José dos Campos to Brasília. Currently, the Brazilian corporation
While suitable for human consumption and currently in use in
Tecbio is continuing the development of biokerosene. The biokerosene developed by automobiles in both North and South America, ethanol is not
Tecbio uses lower–carbon number vegetable-oil feedstocks (Parente, 2006). suitable for aviation operations. It has a low flash point, making it
60 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62
dangerous to handle at the airport. Its high volatility could lead to
problems during cruise operation due to evaporative losses or
fuel-system vapor lock. It has a propensity to attract water, which
would freeze at cruise altitudes. There would also be problems
with material compatibility. While technical means are available to
reduce these risks during normal aircraft operations, significant
costs would be associated with retrofitting existing aircraft to
accept ethanol.
Butanol, like ethanol, can be made by fermentation of sugars.
Research and technology-development activities are under way to
develop butanol as a blendstock with conventional gasoline. While
butanol may be an attractive automotive fuel (especially in
comparison to ethanol), butanol is not suitable for aircraft opera-
tions. Like ethanol, butanol has higher volatility, lower energy
content, and a lower flash point than Jet A. However, the
differences between butanol and conventional jet fuel are smaller
than those between ethanol and conventional jet fuel.
In addition, the use of ethanol or butanol would result in
reduced operational capabilities and a lower energy efficiency of
aircraft operations. The specific energy and energy density of
ethanol are each about 40 percent lower than the energy density
of conventional jet fuel. Similarly, the specific energy and energy
density of butanol are both 23 percent lower than those of
conventional jet fuel. As discussed in Hileman et al. (2014), using
these alcohols as a fuel in jet aircraft would result in a substantial
loss in operational capabilities due to low energy density. Ignoring
the limitation on operability, if all aircraft were able to use ethanol
or butanol, the worldwide fleet would require 78 percent or 23
percent more fuel volume, respectively, and 9 percent or 4 percent
more energy delivered to the tank, respectively, than if it had used
conventional jet fuel. The difference between the ratio of the
energy content and the fuel volume requirement is a result of the
need to carry additional fuel energy.
4.5. Liquefied natural gas
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been cooled
to its liquid state at about -162 1C. Natural gas consists mostly of
methane, with small amounts of ethane, propane, and butane, as
well as other hydrocarbons. LNG has been used as an intermediary
for natural gas transport for over 50 years and its use is currently
growing. Natural gas is one of our most abundant energy resources
with considerable new unconventional resources, such as coal bed
methane and shale gas, being developed around the world. In
addition to these resources, methane hydrates could provide more
energy, in the form of methane, than is contained in all other fossil
fuels. Methane hydrates are methane molecules encased in ice and
are potentially available around the world. At present, the extrac-
tion of methane hydrates is difficult due to the location of deposits.
Also, handling the ice must be done with caution so that the
methane, a potent GHG, is not released into the atmosphere (NETL,
undated; Hendricks, 2007).
The primary advantage of LNG relative to conventional jet fuel
is the potential vastness of the reserves. The main disadvantage is
the storage requirement in terms of dealing with a fuel that not
only has lower energy density than conventional jet fuel, but that
is also cryogenic. LNG would not be compatible with existing
aircraft and it would also require considerable expansion of the
existing worldwide distribution network as all of the airports that
service LNG-powered aircraft would need this fuel. If methane
hydrates were commercialized causing a dramatic change in the
global price structure of energy, then it is possible that LNG could
become an option for aviation in the coming decades. However, it
is also possible that Fischer–Tropsch synthesis of natural gas to a
synthetic fuel would be both economically and environmentally
preferential to LNG.
4.6. Liquefied hydrogen
Hydrogen has been discussed as a future “fuel” for several
decades. Energy is required to produce hydrogen; therefore, it is
not technically a fuel, but instead a means of storing energy from
a primary low-carbon source such as nuclear, wind or solar.
Because of the low density of gaseous hydrogen, it would need
to be liquefied at a temperature of  251 1C for use as an energy
source for aviation. An aircraft could then harness the primary
energy source that has been stored in the cryogenic hydrogen
through combustion.
The introduction of hydrogen to aviation ultimately relies on
the ability to produce clean, inexpensive energy. Because aviation
requires liquefied hydrogen, which must be kept in a cryogenic
state, it is conceivable that aviation would use synthetic hydro-
carbon fuels while gaseous hydrogen is used by other sectors of
the economy with less strict requirements on energy density. This
is because the use of gaseous hydrogen has a higher energy return
on investment than the use of cryogenic hydrogen. As such,
without a differential willingness to pay on the part of the aviation
consumer of hydrogen, it is likely that hydrogen would be used by
ground transportation prior to use by aviation.
If a sufficiently plentiful supply of low-carbon hydrogen were
developed, the aviation industry might also consider the produc-
tion of drop-in alternative jet fuels using the hydrogen and
a renewable source of carbon (e.g., from waste gases, biomass or
the atmosphere) as it might be more cost-effective to operate
aircraft with such a hydrogen-based drop-in fuel than it would be
to build a new fleet of aircraft that are designed to use cryogenic
hydrogen. However, further analysis is required to understand the
tradeoffs between fuel conversion efficiency and aircraft design in
such a scenario.
Of course, clean and inexpensive energy sources would likely
first be used to displace fossil fuels for generating electricity,
instead of producing transportation fuels. This is certainly the case
for nuclear, wind and solar resources, which are currently being
used to replace electricity generation from fossil resources.
5. Conclusion – potentially feasible alternative jet fuels
Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and the
pursuit of energy diversity are driving the development of alternative
jet fuels. Economic sustainability addresses cost of both energy itself
and of infrastructure changes to accommodate new energy sources.
Environmental sustainability can encompass a variety of emissions-
related and natural resource-related concerns, including greenhouse
gas emissions, water quality and use, and air quality, among others,
Energy diversity can help address supply stability and security and
can be used to manage environmental impacts. These drivers were
used to define a set of criteria to evaluate alternative jet fuels. Of the
fuels listed in Section 4, only the petroleum-based and synthetic
fuels are compatible with the current fleet of aircraft and are
therefore potentially feasible with it thus avoiding the high costs
and long process of infrastructure changes associated with aviation
technology modifications.
Alcohols (ethanol and butanol), biodiesel, and biokerosene are
not viable for use in aircraft because of the myriad problems
involving their properties and the energy penalty associated with
their use in aviation. These challenges are not experienced when
they are used for surface vehicles; hence, alcohol fuels, biodiesel,
and biokerosene are better suited for ground transportation.
Cryogenic fuels, either hydrogen or natural gas, are unlikely to
be used for aviation as a new infrastructure is needed to support
their use. LNG could be a choice for aviation should methane
hydrates lead to a dramatic change in the pricing structure of
 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62
energy and LNG proves to be beneficial relative to synthetic fuels
created from natural gas.
Of the compatible, “drop-in” fuels (synthetic hydrocarbons),
F–T and HEFA fuels are currently certified for use as jet fuel when
blended up to 50–50 with conventional jet fuel, and other drop-in
fuels are currently being tested and considered for certification
under the ASTM D7566 standard. As the fuel processing techno-
logy exists, the most significant challenge in developing viable
alternative jet fuels that could reduce aviation's GHG emissions
and impact on air quality lies in developing and commercializing
large-scale production of biomass feedstocks that could be grown
in an economically sustainable manner with a minimum of arable
land and fresh water. Feedstock production and conversion details
will determine the potential GHG emissions reductions that could
be associated with alternative jet fuels. Other environmental
considerations may also become increasingly important, and it is
likely that there will be tradeoffs in environmental performance
for different areas of concern.
Reductions in the impact of aviation on air quality could be
realized with the introduction of an ultra low sulfur jet fuel
specification, but the other costs and benefits of such a fuel policy
need to be weighed against the benefits in a decreased air quality
impact. As more alternative fuels become economically viable,
there will be additional opportunities to choose among those fuels
based on variety of criteria and societal priorities about environ-
mental and other sustainability considerations.
Acknowledgments
The assistance of Kristin Lewis and Kirsten Van Fossen of the
Volpe Center in updating the information in this manuscript is
gratefully acknowledged. This work was conducted with funding
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Energy
and Environment and Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) as a part of
PARTNER Projects 17 and 28 with project management provided
by Warren Gillette, Tim Edwards, and Bill Harrison. This work does
not necessarily reflect the views of FAA or AFRL.
References
AFLCAWG (Aviation Fuel Life Cycle Analysis Working Group), 2009. Framework and
Guidance for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Footprints of Aviation Fuels, AFRL-RZ-
Wp-TR-2009-2206. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio. As of April 2, 2010: 〈http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/
pubs/EstGHGFtprntsAvFuels2009.pdf〉.
ASTM, 2009a. D1655-09, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. As of April 2, 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D1655-09, 〈http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/
HISTORICAL/D1655-07.htm〉.
ASTM, 2009b. D7566-09, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Contain-
ing Synthesized Hydrocarbons. ASTM International: West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. As of April 2, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D7566-09, 〈http://
www.astm.org/Standards/D7566.htm〉.
ATA (Air Transport Association), 2010. Quarterly Cost Index: U.S. Passenger Airlines,
Web page with data through fourth quarter 2009. Last modified January 8, As of
April 2, 2010. 〈http://www.airlines.org/economics/finance/Cost þ Index.htm〉.
ATAG (Air Transport Action Group),2012. Facts and Figures, Web page with data
through March. As of January 10, 2014. 〈http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.
html〉.
Barrett, S.R.H., Yim, S.H.L., Gilmore, C.K., Murray, L.T., Kuhn, S.R., Tai, A.P.K., Yantosca, R.M.,
Byun, D.W., Ngan, F., Li, X., Levy, J.I., Ashok, A., Koo, J., Wong, H.M., Dessens, O.,
Balasubramanian, S., Fleming, G.G., Pearlson, M.N., Wollersheim, C., Malina, R.,
Arunachalam, S., Binkowski, F.S., Leibensperger, E.M., Jacob, D.J., Hileman, J.I., Waitz,
I.A., 2012. Public health, climate, and economic impacts of desulfurizing jet fuel.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (8), 4275–4282.
Boeing, 2013. Current Market Outlook 2013-2032. Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
Seattle, WA
Brunelle-Yeung, E., Masek, T., Rojo, J.J., Levy, J.I., Arunachalam, S., Miller, S.M.,
Barrett, S.R.H., Kuhn, S.R., Waitz, I.A., 2014. Methods for assessing the impact
of aviation environmental policies on public health. Transport Policy (in this
issue).
61
Bulzan, D., Howard, R., Corporan, E., et al, 2010. Gaseous and particulate
emissions results of the NASA alternative aviation fuel experiment (AAFEX),
In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for Land, Sea and Air,
Glasgow, UK.
Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Belovich, V., Pawlik, R., Lynch, A.C., Gord, J.R., Meyer, T.R.,
2007a. Emissions characteristics of a turbine engine and research combustor
burning a Fischer–Tropsch jet fuel. Energy Fuels 21 (5), 2615–2626.
Corporan, E., DeWitt, M.J., Klingshirn, C.D., Striebich, R.C., 2007b. DOD Assured Fuels
Initiative: B-52 Aircraft Emissions Burning a Fischer-Tropsch/JP-8 Fuel Blend,
IASH 2007: In: Proccedings of the 10th International Conference on Stability,
Handling and Use of Liquid Fuels, Tucson, Ariz.
DESC (Defense Energy Support Center), 2008. Petroleum Quality Information
System Report. As of April 2, 2010: 〈https://www.desc.dla.mil/DCM/Files/
2008PQISreport.PDFDLA〉 (Defense Logistics Agency), Fact Book Fiscal Year
2011, p. 29. As of January 13, 2014. 〈http://www.energy.dla.mil/energy_enter
prise/Documents/Fact%20Book%20FY2011%20Rev.pdf〉.
DeWitt, M.J., Corporan, E., Graham, J., Minus, D., 2008. Effects of aromatic type and
concentration in Fischer–Tropsch fuel on emissions production and material
compatibility. Energy Fuels 22 (4), 2411–2418.
DoE (Department of Energy), 2006. Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to
Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water, Sandia National Labs.
As of April 2, 2010: 〈http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/docs/121-RptToCon
gress-EWwEIAcomments-FINAL.pdf〉.
Dorbian, C., 2010. Estimating the Environmental Benefits of Aviation Fuel and
Emissions Reductions (S.M. Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2014a. International Energy Statistics –
Petroleum & other liquids – Annual Consumption Web page with data through
2012. Accessed on January 10, 2014: 〈http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/
IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2〉.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2014b. Table 5.11 Petroleum Products
Supplied by Type, 1949-2011, Web page with data through 2011. As of January
10, 2014: 〈http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec5_27.pdf〉.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2014c. International Energy Statistics –
Petroleum & Other liquids – Annual Consumption – Jet Fuel. Web page with data
through 2011. . Accessed on January 10, 2014: 〈http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbpro
ject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=63&aid=2&cid=regions&syid=2008&eyid=2012&
unit=TBPD〉.
EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2014d. Petroleum Navigator. Crude Oil
Production. Web page with data through 2012. (accessed 13.01.14), 〈http://
www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm〉.
Hedegaard, K., Thyo, K.A., Wenzel, H., 2008. Life cycle assessment of an advanced
bioethanol technology in the perspective of constrained biomass availability.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (21), 7992–7999.
Hendricks, R.C., 2007. Methane hydrates: more than a viable fuel feedstock option.
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH, NASA/TM—2007-214816, AIAA—
2007—4757.
Hileman, J.I., Ortiz, D.S., Bartis, J.T., Wong, H.M., Donohoo, P.E., Weiss, M.A., Watiz, I.A.,
2009. Near term feasibility of alternative jet fuels, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, CA, Partnership for AiR
Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER). Report no. PARTNER-
COE-2009-001. As of April 2, 2010: 〈http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/
proj17/altfuelfeasrpt.pdf〉.
Hileman, J.I., Stratton, R.W., Donohoo, P.E., 2014. Energy Content and Alternative
Jet Fuel Viability. J Propulsion Power 26 (6), 1184–1196, http://dx.doi.org/
10.2514/1.46232.
ICAO CAAF, Proposal To Adopt A Global Fuel Readiness Level (FRL) Protocol,
Presented at the ICAO Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels, 16–18
November 2009, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. As of April 2, 2010: 〈http://www.icao.int/
CAAF2009/Docs/CAAF-09_WP007_en.pdf〉.
JIG (Joint Inspection Group), 2007. Transport of biodiesel in multipurpose pipelines,
Bulletin 15.
King, C.W., Webber, M.E., 2008. Water intensity of transportation. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 42 (21), 7866–7872.
Melillo, J.M., Reilly, J.M., Kicklighter, D.W., Gurgel, A.C., Cronin, T.W., Paltsev, S.,
Felzer, B.S., Wang, X., Sokolov, A.P., Schlosser, C.A., 2009. Indirect emissions
from biofuels: how important? Science 326 (5958), 1397–1399.
Parente, Expedito, 2006. Lipofuels: biodiesel and biokerosene, Presented at the
Workshop on Measurements and Standards for Biofuels: Enabling a Transition
from Petroleum as a Vehicular Energy Source, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, As of April
2, 2010: 〈http://www.nist.gov/oiaa/TECHBIO1.pdf〉.
Pearlson, M., Wollersheim, C., Hileman, J., 2013. A techno-economic review of
hydroprocessed renewable esters and fatty acids for jet fuel production.
Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 7 (1), 89–96.
Plevin, R.J., O’Hare, M., Jones, A.D., Torn, M.S., Gibbs, H.K., 2010. Greenhouse gas
emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be
much greater than previously estimated. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (21),
8015–8021.
Ratliff, G., Sequeira, C., Waitz, I., Ohsfeldt, M., Thrasher, T., Graham, M., Thompson, T.,
2009. Aircraft impacts on local and regional air quality in the united states final
report of PARTNER Project 15, Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and
Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Report no. PARTNER-COE-2009-002. As of April 2,
2010: 〈http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj15/proj15finalreport.pdf〉.
Stratton, R., Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Non-CO2
Combustion Effects from Alternative Jet Fuels, S.M. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2010.
62 J.I. Hileman, R.W. Stratton / Transport Policy 34 (2014) 52–62

Stratton, R.W., Wong, H.M., Hileman, J., 2010. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Alternative Jet Fuels (Version 1.2). A PARTNER Project 28 Report. Partner-
ship for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Report
no. PARTNER-COE-2010-001. As of October 30, 2010: 〈http://web.mit.edu/
aeroastro/partner/reports/proj28/partner-proj28-2010-001.pdf〉.
Taylor, W.F., 2009. Survey of sulfur levels in commercial jet fuel, Coordinating
Research Council, Inc. Alpharetta, GA.
Viltart, P., 2007. B10-Jet A-1 Transfers in MPPs Trial. In: Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Stability, Handling, and Use of Liquid Fuels, Tucson,
Ariz.
Wilson, G., M. Thom, P. Serino2007. Effect of FAME on thermal oxidative stability,
In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Stability, Handling, and
Use of Liquid Fuels, Tucson, Ariz..