Imperial College London

DrNadinMoustafa

Faculty of Natural SciencesCentre for Environmental Policy

Research Associate
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

n.moustafa18

 
 
//

Location

 

ACE ExtensionSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Publication Type
Year
to

1 results found

Fantuzzi A, Saenz Cavazos P, Moustafa N, High M, Bui M, Rutherford AW, von Holstein Iet al., 2023, Low-carbon fuels for aviation, London, IMSE Briefing Paper No 9

The aviation industry is responsible for 2.1% of global CO2 emissions and represents 12% of CO2 emissions from all transport sources.Aviation is a particularly difficult sector to decarbonise because alternative fuels are relatively expensive, produce highly distributed greenhouse gas emissions in their production and combustion, and should preferably be compatible with existing aviation infrastructure. Emissions from aviation also include nitrogen oxides (NOx), water vapour, particulates, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and sulfur oxides (SOx). These have a 2-3 times greater climate change impact than CO2 alone. The non-CO2 emissions of alternative low-carbon aviation fuels can differ significantly from those of kerosene and have not been fully evaluated. Biofuels• Bio-jet fuels are currently the most technologically mature option for low-carbon aviation fuels because some of these feedstocks and processes are already deployed at scale for other uses. • Bio-jet fuels must be blended with kerosene to achieve certification and can then be used with existing aviation infrastructure. This blending proportionally decreases any potential CO2 emission saving.• Bio-jet fuels can be made from a range of feedstocks, which are restricted in the UK to waste materials. UK biofuel feedstock availability is sufficient for only a small proportion of UK aviation fuel demand (<20%). With blending, their contribution to CO2 emissions saving is much less (<<10%). • Life cycle assessment scenarios show very variable impacts on CO2 emissions for biofuel processes: only some deliver emissions savings compared to fossil fuel kerosene. Calculations for forest residues appear to show consistent savings in CO2 emissions compared to jet fuel, but these do not take account of the difference in timescale between emission and re-absorption, leading to a major underestimation of emissions. The diversion of agricultural and forestry waste to bio-jet fuel produ

Report

This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.

Request URL: http://wlsprd.imperial.ac.uk:80/respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Query String: respub-action=search.html&id=01423431&limit=30&person=true