The carbon dioxide challenge facing aviation

Abstract This paper investigates the challenge that U.S. aviation would face in meeting future Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals to mitigate global climate change via technological options. This investigation is done within a framework that considers aviation GHG emissions as a function of aviation growth, aircraft efficiency, operational efficiency, and life cycle GHG emissions of aviation fuels. The concept of life cycle GHG intensity (LGI) with units of grams carbon dioxide equivalent per payload distance traveled is used for this purpose as it can be decomposed into components that quantify improvements in aircraft design, operations, and alternative fuels. For example, the life cycle GHG intensity of U.S. aviation in 2005 was 1.37 g CO 2 e/kg km. If U.S. aviation is to meet the IATA 2050 goal of a 50% reduction in CO 2 relative to a 2005 baseline while allowing for a 3.2% annual growth rate in payload–distance traveled, it will need to decrease to 0.22 g CO 2 e/kg km in 2050, an 84% reduction. The analysis framework that is developed in this manuscript was used to compare the improvements in life cycle GHG intensity that could accompany the use of advanced aircraft designs, operational improvements, and alternative fuels to those required on a fleet-wide basis to meet the future GHG reduction goals under varied aviation growth scenarios. The results indicate that the narrow body segment of the fleet could indeed meet ambitious goals of reducing GHG emissions by 50%, relative to 2005 levels, with a 3.2% annual growth rate; however, it would require relatively rapid adoption of innovative aircraft designs and the widespread use of alternative fuels with relatively low life cycle GHG emissions.

[1]  Russell W Stratton,et al.  Impact of aviation non-CO₂ combustion effects on the environmental feasibility of alternative jet fuels. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Jack L. Kerrebrock,et al.  N+3 Aircraft Concept Designs and Trade Studies. Volume 2; Appendices-Design Methodologies for Aerodynamics, Structures, Weight, and Thermodynamic Cycles , 2010 .

[3]  James I. Hileman,et al.  A techno‐economic review of hydroprocessed renewable esters and fatty acids for jet fuel production , 2013 .

[4]  William A. Crossley,et al.  Exploring Different Problem Formulations to Evaluate Environmental Impacts of Aviation , 2012 .

[5]  James I. Hileman,et al.  Energy Content and Alternative Jet Fuel Viability , 2010 .

[6]  James I. Hileman,et al.  Energy and Environmental Viability of Select Alternative Jet Fuel Pathways , 2011 .

[7]  Mark Drela,et al.  Design Drivers of Energy-Efficient Transport Aircraft , 2011 .

[8]  Mark Drela,et al.  Development of the D8 Transport Configuration , 2011 .

[9]  Larry Williams,et al.  Camelina‐derived jet fuel and diesel: Sustainable advanced biofuels , 2010 .

[10]  Philippe A. Bonnefoy,et al.  DYNAMICS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATING MEASURES TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL AVIATION , 2010 .

[11]  James I. Hileman,et al.  Payload Fuel Energy Efficiency as a Metric for Aviation Environmental Performance , 2008 .

[12]  J. E. Green,et al.  Civil aviation and the environmental challenge , 2003, The Aeronautical Journal (1968).

[13]  Russell W Stratton,et al.  Quantifying variability in life cycle greenhouse gas inventories of alternative middle distillate transportation fuels. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Russell W Stratton,et al.  Environmental performance of algal biofuel technology options. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Nicholas Aaron Carter,et al.  Environmental and economic assessment of microalgae-derived jet fuel , 2012 .