ADDRESSING
THE CARBON
INTENSITY OF
CURRENT AND
FUTURE
AVIATION
FUELS
PATHWAYS
The technical, economic, and environmental implications of
sustainable aviation fuel and hydrogen-as-a-fuel for aircraft
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
3 Decarbonizing the Aviation Sector - Honeywell’s Perspective:
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) vs Hydrogen as a Fuel
4 Executive Summary
5 1. Sustainable Aviation Fuel
5 1.1 Feedstock Availability
6 1.2 Carbon Intensity
7 1.3 Infrastructure Re-Use
7 1.4 Structure Price Advantage vs Hydrogen
8 1.5 The Inelasticity of Jet
9 2. Hydrogen as Fuel
9 2.1 H2 Capability Advantage
9 2.2 Volume Energy Density Hurdle
9 2.3 Support Infrastructure
9 2. 4 Carbon Intensity of H2 vs Conventional Jet A and SAF
11 3. Market Evolution Signposts
12 4. Honeywell-Propelling the Future of Air Transportation
13 5. A Commitment to Sustainability
14 References
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Table of Contents | www.honeywell.com | 2
DECARBONIZING
THE AVIATION SECTOR
HONEYWELL’S PERSPECTIVE:
SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL
(SAF) VS HYDROGEN AS A FUEL
The aviation sector is responsible for over 2% AUTHORS
of global emissions (roughly 1 Gt CO2e) each
year¹. To reduce GHG emissions, policy makers,
governments, industry organizations, and
regulators have started to craft combinations
of rules, incentives, and fines to spur the
industry towards a more decarbonized future, Ben Owens
most of which target a 2050 timeframe for VP and Chief Strategy
significant carbon intensity (C.I.) reductions. Officer, Honeywell UOP
There are three main paths that industry can take towards reducing GHG
emissions and lowering the overall C.I. of their operations: sustainable
aviation fuel (SAF), hydrogen (H2), and electrification. This paper focuses on
SAF and H2 as the two main fuel sources for multi-passenger aviation.
Honeywell has helped make SAF a reality. In 2009 Honeywell led the committee²
for approval for HEFA-SPK (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids – Synthetic
Paraffinic Kerosene) as aviation turbine fuel under ASTM D7566 Annex 2, approved
in July 2011, and subsequently worked with the United States Department of Defense Amanda Copperthite
to certify the use of SAF for the US Navy and US Air Force. In 2012, AltAir Fuels VP Strategy, Marketing,
installed the first commercial renewable jet production unit using Honeywell UOP ConsultancyHoneywell STS
technology, and in 2016 United Airlines became the first commercial airline to use
SAF on a regular scheduled flight. In December 2021, United made history flying the
first flight powered by 100% SAF produced from Honeywell’s Ecofining process.
Since then, Honeywell UOP Ecofining Technology has enabled the conversion
of 11 bio-based feedstocks (such as animal fats, used cooking oils, yellow grease)
into renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel, and green naphtha. Additionally, it
has been licensed 32 times, and currently has 6 operational plants. It is our view
that SAF is the best available option to decarbonize the global aviation industry.
Gavin Towler
VP CTO PMT & UOP,
Honeywell UOP
Byrne Norman
Sr Strategic Planning Manager,
Honeywell STS
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Summary | www.honeywell.com | 3
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Today, SAF produced from processing fats,
oils, and greases (FOGs) is considered
a mature production pathway; however,
projected feedstock availability is only
sufficient to meet demand until 2030³.
Beyond 2030, additional SAF pathways such as ethanol-to-jet (ETJ) and
biomass-to-liquids (BtL) are the next viable feedstocks that will meet SAF
demand due to 1) availability of feedstock at lower carbon intensity (C.I.), 2) the
potential of infrastructure reuse and 3) structure price advantage vs H2.
While H2 has some attractive physical qualities (e.g. high specific energy and potential
for extremely low lifecycle emissions when distribution networks have matured), there
are several challenges that need to be met to scale commercially: Airplane fueling
requires H2 in a liquid form to meet operational and safety requirements, the low
volumetric energy of liquid H2 (requires ~4x the volume compared to conventional
jet fuel)⁴, current aircraft and supporting infrastructure (e.g. compression, pipelines,
and storage) would need to be expanded and new H2 liquefaction investment
would be required. Additionally, competition for H2 fuel from other hard to abate
sectors (such as steel and cement manufacturing) could lead to elevated market
prices for low C.I. H2 (i.e. low carbon or Blue H2 and renewable or Green H2).
The availability of renewable H2 will likely be limited by both the rate at which
electrolyzers can be commissioned and the rate at which the electrical
grid decarbonizes, which is also affected by the pace of electrification
of all other sectors increasing total demand for electricity.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Executive Summary | www.honeywell.com | 4
SUSTAINABLE
AVIATION FUEL 1
1.1. FEEDSTOCK AVAILABILITY
While FOGs processing is mature from a technology perspective, internal Honeywell
analysis suggests that feedstock volumes are only able to satisfy future demand
until ~2030. For SAF to be widely adopted as a decarbonization vector for aviation,
more production volumes at lower C.I. are vital. The amount of land available
to meet the future demand for SAF would need to increase ~2x using current
feedstocks and current farming processes. However, with the continued evolution
of agricultural practices and the development of next generation pathways that
utilize sugars or biomass (e.g. ETJ and BtL), future demand requirements from
both a volume and C.I. reduction standpoint can be addressed. Therefore, the
additional land required to meet incremental SAF demands is expected to be
much lower than the land required for the 1st generation feedstock production.
Both sugars and biomass feedstocks are more abundant than FOGs. According to
a US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office study, the US contains
roughly 1 billion dry tons of biomass that can be sustainably gathered and converted
into between 50 and 60 billion gallons of low C.I. fuels each year⁵. Examples of these
resources include wood mill waste, agricultural and forestry residues, dedicated
energy crops, oil seeds and municipal solid waste streams. Together these feedstocks
can meet the projected fuel demands of the US aviation industry and other modes
of transportation requiring additional volumes of drop-in low carbon fuel while
producing high value bioproducts and renewable chemicals.⁶ Biomass crops for SAF
production can be grown in the off season, and can help farmers earn extra revenue,
reduce nutrient loss, improve soil and water quality, and help control erosion.
Part of that biomass is already being converted to ethanol for domestic fuel
consumption. The US produces over 17.5 billion gallons per year (with overproduction
by about 1.1 billion gallons⁷) for blending into fuels. As electric vehicles (EVs)
continue to become more widespread, there will be more ethanol available for
conversion into jet fuel via ethanolto- jet (ETJ) processes. According to the Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) and the IEA, electric vehicles will account for ~10% of the
total light duty fleet travelling on US roads by 2030 (~27 million⁸ as opposed
to 1.3 million⁹ today). Additionally, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards regulate how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. CAFE standards
require higher fuel efficiency in the future, which will decrease gasoline demand.
Assuming this directly correlates to 10% less gasoline required, that would free
up an additional ~1.6 billion gallons per year by 2030 to process into jet fuel.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Sustainable Aviation Fuel | www.honeywell.com | 5
1.2. CARBON INTENSITY
The C.I. of SAF is highly dependent on the following variables: the production
pathway also known as conversion (i.e., conventional petroleum refining, HEFA,
ATJ (alcohol-to-jet), ETJ), type of feedstock (e.g., corn, sugarcane, palm, soy),
farming practices and transportation infrastructure (e.g., trucks, waterborne
vessels). For example, the carbon intensity of Jet A made from crude oil in a
conventional refinery has a carbon intensity of ~85-95 g CO2e/MJ of fuel10.
Comparatively, the life-cycle C.I. of SAF produced from an ETJ pathway (N.B.
ETJ is expected to provide ~50% of the total supply mix by 2050) can be as
low as ~24 or as high 78 g CO2e/MJ11. The wide disparity can be attributed to
the choice of feedstock: SAF produced from sugarcane grown in Brazil or by
processing forestry residue has a life-cycle C.I. of ~24 g CO2e/MJ whereas SAF
produced from corn grown in the USA has a life-cycle C.I. of 78 g CO2e/MJ12.
Although the sugarcane and forestry residue pathways have similar total lifecycle
C.I. values, the distribution of the C.I. is quite different across the value chain. For
example using sugarcane as the ETJ feedstock, ~80% of emissions are generated
primarily from upstream activities (e.g. farming, collecting) and induced land-use
change (ILUC). The emissions associated with these activities are also known as
“Core LCA Values” by CORSIA13. The C.I. generated from the actual production of
SAF from sugarcane is only 15% of total C.I. or ~4g CO2e/MJ14. Comparatively, 80%
of the C.I. for SAF produced from forestry residue originates from the production
process with no C.I. penalty for ILUC. Some conversion pathways (e.g. based on
herbaceous energy crops like miscanthus and switchgrass) can generate a negative
ILUC credit. The negative ILUC credit reduces the overall Core LCA value thus
making it a less GHG intensive fuel. On the other end of the CI intensity range, SAF
produced using corn feedstock and ETJ conversion generates 2-3x more GHG at ~
78 g CO2e/ MJ of fuel15. Roughly 45% of the C.I. for corn based ethanol production
originates from the production portion of the value chain. Brazilian ethanol
refineries are able to lower their production C.I. by burning sugarcane residue for
energy and through using less land to cultivate sugarcane when compared to corn.
However, a significant negative consequence of Brazilian sugarcane-based ethanol
production is the deforestation of the rainforest to accommodate more farmland.
Other biomass-derived SAFs produced through Fischer-Tropsch pathways can
range in C.I. from 6-36 g CO2e/MJ of fuel produced16. Forestry residue and
municipal solid waste (MSW) have C.I.s of 6 and 14 g CO2e/MJ respectively,
while switchgrass has a C.I. of 36 g CO2e/MJ. Land-use change (LUC) is
the largest driver for switchgrass since it requires cultivation on arable land,
crowding out other crops, whereas forestry residues and MSW are waste
products from current production processes or consumption of goods17.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) established CORSIA default
life-cycle emissions values for CORSIA-eligible fuels. CORSIA Default Life Cycle
Emissions Values may be used by aircraft operators to claim emissions reductions
from the use of CORSIA-eligible fuels in a given year. Alternatively, the CORSIA
framework allows fuel producers to calculate Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values
for SAFs to claim Life Cycle Emissions Values lower than the provided default
values, provided the refiner can properly verify its process with quantifiable metrics
and supporting data. The detailed methodologies to calculate actual values are
detailed in the ICAO document “CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual
Life Cycle Emissions Values”. The process of calculating and certifying actual
C.I. values requires a 3rd party certifier and can take as long as 12-18 months.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Sustainable Aviation Fuel | www.honeywell.com | 6
1.3. INFRASTRUCTURE RE-USE
SAF has a positional advantage over the adoption of H2 in that it can be produced in
reasonable quantities today and current infrastructure is well suited for the transport
and distribution of SAF fuel. Given that aircraft have a typical operating lifetime of
30+ years, planes being produced and delivered today will feasibly still be in operation
in early 2050. As a drop-in fuel, there is little to no need for engine retrofits and/
or changes to how the fuel is stored both on and off the plane. This translates into
little to no impact to day-to-day operations for airlines, meaning they can start their
decarbonization journey today. As production capacities ramp up and further process
technologies come online, SAF can be widely deployed and prices can decrease.
As refiners around the world look to repurpose underutilized facilities due
to falling gasoline demand, transitioning to SAF/renewable diesel is an
economically attractive way to repurpose these assets which have already
been fully capitalized and already have the necessary infrastructure to deliver
product to market. Repurposing these assets via a process called “revamp” can
be completed within 2 years of a final investment decision being made, thus
allowing for a fast-to-market solution for large scale production of biofuels.
For example, Ecofining technology was leveraged for a revamp project
where underutilized traditional fossil fuel assets were repurposed
to a +7 thousand BPD biofuels facility within 18 months.
1.4. STRUCTURE PRICE ADVANTAGE VS HYDROGEN
There are two sources of lower C.I. H2: low carbon H2 produced from steam methane
reforming and renewable H2 produced from electrolysis powered by renewable
energy. For the purposes of this paper, renewable H2 will be the primary focus. Today,
the main cost components for renewable H2 include low-cost renewable electricity
(about ~50% of total cost of H2), capital and fixed costs plus balance of plant (30%),
electrolyzer stacks (10%), and water treatment and purification (10%). Although,
electricity typically makes up at least 50% of the renewable H2 product cost,
electricity cost can be above 80% with high electricity prices and/or low capital costs.
The 2020 world average production cost for industrial electricity is $103/MWh.
Including distribution, the average industrial electricity price climbs to $216/
MWh18. The price of renewable H2 production could be at parity or less than jet
where very low cost renewable energy is available (e.g. between $10/MWh - $30/
MWh). However, NREL estimates that by 2050 mix of renewable energy in the US
is expected to be ~80% at an estimated retail electricity price of $50/MWh19. If
the mix of renewable energy is lower than expected, C.I. reduction of the supplied
electricity is still possible through deployment of carbon capture and storage
(CCS) on the grid; however, this increases the cost of the provided electricity.
The other capital costs are based on the type of electrolyzer technology deployed.
There are four types of electrolyzer technologies: alkaline (ALK), proton-exchange
membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolyzer
cell (SOEC). ALK technology accounted for 69% of electrolyzer sales in 2021,
ahead of PEM. This is mainly because ALK electrolyzers have been deployed at
commercial scale for ~70 years. In 2022, BloombergNEF expects the share of ALK
electrolyzers to increase to 75-78%. However, PEM penetration rate is expected
to grow as performance increases and cost decreases. PEM cost is declining
faster than ALK because (1) PEM’s higher power density potential and (2) cost
benefits due to rapid scale-up of production. By 2025, PEM is expected to overtake
ALK 20 as the most commonly deployed electrolyzer technology. Current cost of
renewable H2 production utilizing ALK technology and assuming an electricity
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Sustainable Aviation Fuel | www.honeywell.com | 7
price of $20-$40/MWh, yields a production cost of approximately ~$3.3/kg. ALK Assuming that fuel costs account for
renewable H2 production is unlikely to reflect future costs of production as larger ~30% of the fare price and that the
scale PEM and AEM electrolyzers are expected to replace existing ALK installed average fare is ~$370 per passenger26,
base after useful end-of-life and represent the future installed capacity. the fuel-related cost per passenger is
~$110 per flight. Were the price of Jet
Based on a Honeywell techno-economic analysis (TEA) for a PEM electrolyzer and
A to double, the fuel cost associated
using $30/MWh for the cost of electricity, the net cost of production for renewable
with each passenger would also double,
H2 is ~$3.1/kg. Executing the same analysis with the current global average for
from ~$110 to ~$220. This directly
electricity production of $103/MWh (not including distribution), the net cost of
translates into a 30% increase in
production for renewable H2 is ~$7.0/kg21. Net cost of production is expected to
the average fare from $370 to $480.
decline as PEM and AEM electrolyzers reach commercial scale. Given that the
Historically, the average fare price has
specific energy of H2 is ~2.8x that of conventional jet fuel and discounting the effects
been close to $480, most recently in
of additional mass for fuel tanks and cooling equipment, the amount of energy
2014 where the average fare cost $477.
delivered by 1 gallon of jet fuel is roughly equivalent to 1.1 kg of H2. Assuming jet
Most passengers would likely tolerate
fuel prices22 are ~$3.00/gal at the refiner, energy delivered from jet fuel is ~2.5x
increases in fare costs between 20-25%
lower than the cost of energy delivered from renewable H2. In the US, there are
(i.e. between approximately $440 and
investment and production tax credits for renewable H2 at $3/kg (bringing the
$460 per ticket) and therefore airlines
net cost of production down to ~$4/kg) and run through 2032; however, there are
would likely not experience substantial
a negligible number of aircraft that could make use of that H2 as a fuel today.
decreases in passenger traffic.
1.5. THE INELASTICITY OF JET Realistically, governments will not fund
There are structural changes happening in the market. Current macroeconomic incentives for producers in perpetuity.
headwinds, rising geopolitical tensions, and changes in consumer/supplier Although it is currently unknown
behavior have impacted airline operations and have led to increased costs: whether SAF will reach exact price
parity with Jet A, production costs for
1. The world is short jet; typically during this time of the year, Jet newer pathways will decline as the
A in Europe trades at a discount compared to the US. market for SAF matures and scales
up. Additionally, given the relative
2. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has led to upward pricing
inelasticity of demand for air travel and
pressure on oil with no clear line of sight to decreasing hostilities
the increasing efficiency of newer aircraft,
3. Certified pilot shortages leading to reduced service and higher airlines will be able to reduce overall fuel
fare prices; certification process takes ~3 years so shortage consumption while passing through
cannot be addressed in the short term (18-24 months).23 the net higher fuel costs to passengers
without substantially altering demand.
4. More senior pilots adjusting hours for work-life balance
Historically, high aviation fuel prices haven’t led to appreciable decreases in total
passenger count (although growth rates in passenger travel have flattened during
periods of high prices)24. Average airfares have typically declined year over year as
airlines improve operational efficiency through acquisition of newer, more efficient
planes, standardization of the operational fleet that reduces maintenance, repair,
and overhaul (MRO) costs, and charging additional fees for addons or premium
services (e.g. seat selection, checked bags, premium food and beverage, etc.).
Higher fuel costs would negate some of those efficiency gains and have led to
increased passenger fares in the past; however, current travelers’ willingness-to-
pay is quite high. Traders are seeing pent up demand for air travel and vacation
coming out of the pandemic. According to a recent survey of would-be American
travelers, over 70% said they were comfortable with resuming travel 25.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Sustainable Aviation Fuel | www.honeywell.com | 8
HYDROGEN
AS FUEL 2
2.1. H2 CAPABILITY ADVANTAGE
Burning H2 for fuel leads to two distinct advantages over fossil/biomass based
fuels: 1) it is CO2 free when burned and, if produced via renewable power, has a
very low C.I. across its “lifecycle” 2) it has a very high specific energy meaning less
mass is required for equivalent energy outputs from fossil/biomass based fuels. As
more restrictive emissions requirements are implemented, some SAF production
pathways won’t be able to compete without purchasing additional carbon offsets
or blending with higher cost production methods (e.g. power-to-liquids).
2.2. VOLUMETRIC ENERGY DENSITY HURDLE
Although H2 has extremely high specific energy compared to conventional jet fuel
(120 MJ/kg vs 43 MJ/kg), it is an extremely small molecule and therefore has
poor energy density: 8.5 MJ/L (for cryogenic liquid H2) vs ~34 MJ/L for jet fuel.
Therefore, aircraft will need to carry ~4x the amount of H2 on a volumetric basis when
compared to traditional jet fuel. This means increases in the time to refuel aircraft.
Furthermore, cooling equipment and storage vessels add additional mass which
would negate some of the performance gains driven by the higher specific energy.
2.3. SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
Global jet fuel consumption per year comes out to approximately 84 billion gallons27,
or approximately 29 kt/hr of production. Given that H2 has about ~2.8x energy
per kg when compared to jet fuel and assuming renewable H2 is produced from
an 85% efficient electrolyzer at 33 kWh/kg, the minimum amount of electrolyzer
capacity required to meet global aviation energy demand would be 400GW.
Considering an average capacity factor of 25% for solar28 and 40% for
wind29, those 400 GW of electrolyzers would require 5 billion solar panels
(assuming 320W size) or roughly 334 thousand wind turbines (assuming
3MW per turbine)30. Although deployment of renewable power infrastructure
is accelerating, the IEA estimates that solar and wind capacity build
outs need to be 2-3x larger to meet the 2050 Net Zero Scenario31.
2.4. CARBON INTENSITY OF H2 VS CONVENTIONAL JET A AND SAF
The C.I. of production for conventional Jet A is 85-95g CO2 /MJ. The well-
to-wing carbon intensity for H2 ranges from 5.1 g CO2 /MJ to 18 g CO2 /MJ
based on the feedstock route and transportation method. Conventional Jet
A and SAF utilizes existing infrastructure and distribution network where
large volumes can be shipped via marine vessels, pipelines, and over-the-
road trucks. Large airports (e.g. LAX, MIA, AMS etc.) receive jet fuel via
local pipeline distribution from local storage tanks. Therefore, the C.I. of
the distribution of Jet A and SAF is relatively small per ton of product.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Hydrogen as Fuel | www.honeywell.com | 9
Similar to SAF, the C.I. for H2 varies based on feedstock, stored state (liquid
vs gas) and type of transportation method used. H2 has traditionally been
produced through steam methane reforming (SMR), and a modern SMR plant
produces between 9 and 11 kg CO₂e per kg of H2 produced32. This is typically
referred to as “grey” hydrogen. Adding conventional carbon capture and
storage to SMR plants (to produce low carbon or “blue hydrogen”) can reduce
the carbon intensity to between 1.5 and 5 kg CO₂e per kg of H2, depending on
how much carbon capture is undertaken. The C.I. of renewable (or “green”) H2
produced via water electrolysis from renewable energy is ~0.45 g CO2 /MJ.
However, the C.I. significantly increases for “well-to-wing” H2 due to emissions
created through the additional electricity required for multiple steps of cooling
and liquefaction, boil-off, and transport of ~4x the volume of fuel compared
to conventional jet or SAF. The electrolysis process for making renewable
H2 and the compression requirements to transport and store are extremely
energy-intensive; fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) using H2 for fuel consume 40-
55% more energy than their diesel counterparts per mile driven33. Additional
compression and liquefaction may be required during transportation
and storage of H2 to limit product loss as a result of boil-off. The C.I. from
transporting H2 will likely be higher than traditional SAF in most cases for some
time until H2 transportation, storage and delivery infrastructure matures.
Switching from the use of conventional jet fuel to SAF or H2 has the potential
to significantly reduce inflight GHG and other related emissions (e.g. NOX,
water vapor, contrails). For example, SAF and H2 could reduce the emissions-
related impact from contrails by upwards of ~40-80%34. The incremental
increase in volume of water vapor in the atmosphere from the use of SAF
is minimal while the use of H2 has the potential to significantly increase
the amount of water vapor released into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Edit TextSustainable AviationDocument
Variable, FOOTER Fuel Whitepaper | Hydrogen
Title | Edit Section as www.honeywell.com || 10
Fuel || www.honeywell.com
Marker 10
MARKET EVOLUTION
SIGNPOSTS 3
There are several signposts that can be Although renewable H2 has an extremely
attractive C.I., the infrastructure needed
used to assess the likelihood of adoption to deliver the quantities at the scale
of SAF and renewable H2: policy levers and required has not been met. Currently,
only ~100GW of electrolyzer capacity is
incentives, demonstration & commercialization, slated to come online by the early 2030s
supporting infrastructure investment, and timeframe. Ancillary infrastructure
required to support an H2 aviation fuel
increasing adoption over current solutions. network (including renewable power,
pipelines, etc.) is also lacking. For H2 to
Governments, regulators, and industry bodies have created initial sets of targets supplant SAF as the aviation fuel of choice,
for a decarbonized aviation sector with 2050 being the goal for net zero. As critical mass for airframes needs to be
decarbonization targets and compliance requirements increase, the demand for achieved. Offtake agreements between
lower C.I. fuels is expected to increase significantly. Additional incentives might aircraft manufacturers and airlines must
be needed to attract additional early investment, but policy and regulatory levers be signed to give adequate lead time to
have been installed in the EU and the US to push these requirements forward. investin appropriate infrastructure.
SAF currently makes up small portion of the total jet fuel consumed; however, there is
direct line of sight to achieving the 5% volume targets set forth by US and EU policies
by 2030. As additional feedstock pathways (e.g. ETJ and BtL) continue to scale, we
forecast SAF can account for ~20% of the jet fuel pool by the mid-2030s timeframe.
2000 - 2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2040 2040-2060
Commercial Demonstration - 2008 Gov’t & Policy Milestones - 2023 Projected 20% Adoption Rate - 2035
First SAF powered flight occurred. Policies incenting SAF production Timeframe for SAF with majority
coupled with volumetric requirements. supplied from new processes
Underlying Infrastructure - 2023 Projected 5%
New feedstock (biomass and Adoption Rate - 2030
ethanol) going commercial. Target for SAF with
majority supplied from
mature process.
5% 20%
5% 20%
Projected 5% Adoption Rate - 2050
Timeframe for 5% adoption assuming that
Gov’t & Policy Milestones - 2023 Underlying Infrastructure - 2030
a hydrogen fueled aircraft enter into
C.I. and emissions reductions targets Projected global electrolyzer capacity
service in 2035 and that narrow body H2
set for industry. ~90 GWs by 2030; only enough for
planes are to be delivered in 2050.
25% of aviation fuel need.
Commercial Demonstration - 2035 Projected 20% Adoption Rate - 2060
ZEROe initiative from Airbus targeting 2035 ~2075 timeframe assuming entry into
for announcement of zero emission plane. service timelines are met.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Hydrogen as Fuel | www.honeywell.com | 11
PROPELLING
THE FUTURE OF AIR
TRANSPORTATION
4
For more than 110 years, brilliant minds at
Honeywell have been finding ways to make flying
safer, more comfortable, and more efficient. Our
latest undertaking is helping the global aviation
industry shrink its environmental footprint with
innovative solutions that improve fuel efficiency,
reduce CO2 emissions, and push new boundaries
with game-changing technology breakthroughs.
Honeywell is making progress along two dimensions when it comes
to helping the aviation industry reduce its reliance on conventional
fuels and use more sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
As a leading producer of propulsion engines for business jets and helicopters and APUs
(auxiliary power units) for various fixed-wing aircraft, we’re making sure our gas turbines
can run efficiently on SAF. We are already certified with ASTM to operate at up to a 50%
SAF blend and are in testing to demonstrate at 100%. In fact, our first flight test with a
Honeywell APU running on 100% SAF is scheduled for later this year. Over the next 5-10
years, we expect thousands of aircraft to take advantage of the ability to operate our APUs
and engines with 100% SAF. We estimate that running engines on 100% SAF will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from Honeywell APUs (and other jet engines) by 60%-80%35.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper | Propelling the Future of Air Transportation | www.honeywell.com | 12
A COMMITMENT
TO SUSTAINABILITY 5
The aviation sector through the Air Transport
Action Group was the one of the first industrial
sectors to set goals to reduce its environmental
impact pledging to cut its greenhouse gas
emissions in half by 2050 (using 2005 as a
baseline)36. Honeywell is pleased to join forces
with customers, partners, and suppliers to help
the industry achieve that ambitious goal.
Sustainability is deeply engrained in Honeywell’s corporate culture, and we
recently announced a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2035. This fits with
our broader mission, which includes providing innovative products, services and
software solutions to help our customers achieve their own sustainability goals.
At Honeywell, we are proud of what we have accomplished so far. But we are
not satisfied. Thousands of Honeywell employees in every corner of the world
work every day to leverage our expertise and domain knowledge to meet our
customers’ needs, to improve quality of life, and to protect planet Earth.
Sustainable Aviation
Edit Text FuelFOOTER
Variable, Whitepaper | A Commitment
Document Title | EdittoSection
Sustainability www.honeywell.com || 13
Marker || www.honeywell.com 13
REFERENCES
1
IEA Aviation Emissions
2
Committee for Approval of HEFA SPK under ASTM D7566 Annex 2, approved July 2011
3
According to HON internal market analyses & projections
4
U.S. Department of Energy - Hydrogen Storage - On a volume basis, liquid hydrogen and jet fuel has a volume energy
density of 8 MJ/L and 34.8 MJ/L.
5
US DoE BETO Biomass for SAF
⁶US Department of Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Sustainable Aviation Fuels, Bioenergy Technologies Office
⁷EIA Biofuels Explained
⁸EEI US EV Fleet Size
⁹IEA Electric Fleet
10
International Council on Clean Transportation
11
GREET Aviation Module
12
GREET Module
13
CORSIA: Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
14
GREET Module
15
GREET Module
16
GREET Module
17
GREET Module
18
IEA Energy Pricing Tools
19
NREL Electricity Futures Study
20
H2 Council
21
Internal HON UOP TEA Oct 2022, assuming renewable power to produce 2,300 MT H2/y with 5,000 operating hr/y
22
IATA Fuel Price Monitor
23
United Master Executive Council
24
IEA: World Air Traffic Evolution
25
Morning Consultant: Return to Travel
26
Bureau Transportation Statistics: Average Annual US Itinerary Fare
27
IATA Fuel Fact Sheet
28
EIA Solar Capacity Factor
29
DoE Land Based Wind Market Report
30
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: How Much Power is 1 GW
31
IEA Renewable Electricity Capacity
32
Monash University
33
Stillwater Associates: How Does Hydrogen Compare to Biomass-based Diesel
34
GREET Module
35
Honeywell Sustainable Aviation Fuel
36
Air Transport Action Group (ATAG)
Honeywell
855 S Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
800-582-4263 Sustainable Aviation Fuel Whitepaper LTR | Rev 1 | 09/23
www.honeywell.com ©2023 Honeywell International Inc.
