Welcome to Game Mode!
Select your challenge level:
Type missing words.
Enter to skip. Backspace to replay.
© 2024 All rights reserved
Menu
Aviation must find an alternative to fossil fuels if countries are to hit ambitious net zero targets by 2050. As the FT’s Peggy Hollinger explains, intriguing options using electric batteries, bio and synthetic fuels, and hydrogen propulsion are being explored, but so far nothing can compete with the cost and efficiency of carbon-polluting kerosene.
If you had to come up with a catchy statement that summed up this topic, what would it be?
Zero emissions aviation, it’s not pie in the sky, but it’s definitely going to be a long-haul journey. Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. Pre-pandemic, it accounted for about 2.4% of total global emissions. But many countries around the world have decided they want to be net zero by 2050. And that means that aviation has to work hard and fast to get there. By far the biggest factor when it comes to emissions is how you power one of these (aeroplane) through the air. There’s nothing more efficient or economical than jet fuel. But fossil fuel emits carbon. And by 2050, we’re expecting 10 billion passengers to fly 20 trillion kilometres. That’s a lot of carbon. There are alternatives being developed.
Electric Aviation
Electric aviation has caught lots of people’s imagination. The problem is simple that the batteries are still too heavy, and that means that frankly you can’t pack the aircraft with very many passengers. So, when it comes to bigger aircraft and longer trips, it’s all about the fuel. We have a range of options there.
Biofuels
First up, there’s biofuels. These are fuels that are made from feedstocks that can range from plants to used cooking oil, municipal waste, household waste. Biofuels, like all sustainable fuels, are 2 to 4 times the cost of jet fuel. And, in the wake of a pandemic that has grounded the majority of the world’s commercial aircraft, airlines simply can’t afford to pay that extra cost.
Synthetic fuels
The second option are synthetic fuels, which are artificially created to replicate kerosene. Synthetic fuels are very new. But they do exist; KLM actually recently completed a flight using synthetic fuels. But they are very expensive and very energy intensive. One massive advantage of both biofuels and e-fuels is that they can be just dropped straight into the tanks. In fact, they’re called drop-in fuels. You don’t have to change the aircraft. You don’t have to change the engines. Minor adjustments, just tiny tweaks to the engines. You don’t have to change the fuel supply system. One thing to remember about these drop-in fuels is that that they do emit carbon when they’re burned. The advantage is that they only release the carbon that they’ve already taken out of the atmosphere. So they’re what’s called net zero, not true zero.
Hydrogen
The only true zero option, at least that we know about at the moment, is hydrogen. It’s got 3 times the energy density of kerosene. The problem is that its volume is four times bigger. You will need tanks that are so big. So like electric aviation, hydrogen might be better suited to shorter flights. But possibly the biggest obstacle is that it would require trillions in investment. Investment in new aircraft, in fuel storage systems, in fuel distribution systems, and in production itself. These sustainable aviation fuels will cost more. Even the industry says it will be a very tough challenge to get to net zero by 2050. So we the passengers have a choice to make. Either we fly less or we pay more.
© 2024 All rights reserved