As enthusiasm grows for greener methods to power jets and airplanes, some aviation professionals are noting potential challenges associated with the operational integration of SAF with existing infrastructure and technology. Discussions among experienced professionals working in government and regulatory agencies can clarify what is factual and what remains unknown about SAF. This is especially true when discussions include input from industry and academic research.
SAF Is a Drop-In Fuel
The performance and characteristics of blended SAF and conventional jet fuel are essentially identical because they contain the same concentrations of the same hydrocarbon jet fuel components. However, petroleum-derived fuels typically contain more trace materials, such as sulfur or nitrogen compounds. Many of the SAF blend components need to be blended with conventional jet fuel because they lack the aromatic hydrocarbons that are naturally found in petroleum-derived jet fuel. Aromatics help to swell seals and gaskets and, historically, they have been considered beneficial when selecting sealing materials.
Most SAF feedstock processes lack the necessary level of aromatics. However, there are undesirable aspects of aromatics, such as having lower specific energy and contributing to combustor liner wear. Furthermore, aromatics are difficult to burn, and incomplete combustion of the aromatics emits troublesome particulates into the atmosphere. This is known as “sooting.” SAF blended with conventional jet fuel keeps aromatic content maintained at a specified level, preserving seals in existing aircraft and infrastructure, while minimizing the undesirable effects.
After neat SAF is blended with conventional jet fuel, it is tested in accordance with ASTM D7566, which requires a minimum of 8% aromatics. Since the blended fuel is essentially chemically identical to conventional jet fuel — including aromatics — the D7566 standard contains a provision allowing redesignation from ASTM D7566 jet fuel batches to ASTM D1655 (Frontiers in Energy Research, 2021). The blended fuel can be handled, stored and dispensed just like conventional Jet A/A-1 and is therefore considered a drop-in fuel.
It is important to note current SAF usage is low, and SAF blend percentages are limited. To date, the common view is that existing airport fueling systems and infrastructure can, without modification, readily use SAF as a drop-in fuel. In the future, as SAF usage rises or if neat SAF is no longer required to blend with conventional jet fuel, additional periodic analysis on infrastructure implications will be needed to confirm seal compatibility, seal shrinkage and more.
SAF Is Not Exactly Like Jet A Fuel
Although put to the same use once produced, Jet A/A-1 fuel and SAF differ most obviously in their origins, and most notably in their life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions. With neat SAF, up to 80% less carbon dioxide (CO2) life cycle emissions occur when compared to conventional jet fuel (IATA, 2019). The remaining 20% accounts for discharges due to the energy inputs of growing, transporting and refining SAF. Although burning SAF still generates the same amount of CO2 as conventional jet fuel, this is offset by the CO2 absorbed or reclaimed by the feedstock itself. Impurities like sulfur and particulate matter releases are less common in the production and use of SAF relative to conventional jet fuel (IATA, 2020).
Total energy cost is another point of comparison. Producing petroleum-derived hydrocarbons currently remains the more cost-efficient option. Supply lines for petroleum-derived fuels are well-established, which reduces energy use for transporting and distributing raw and refined products. Environmental impacts of SAF vary greatly depending on feedstock components. Some sources, like municipal waste and used cooking oils, add even more value as they would otherwise go unused — taking up space in a landfill and possibly emitting additional greenhouse gases.