Alternative fuels represent a potential option for reducing the climate impacts of the aviation sector. The climate impacts of alternatives fuel are traditionally considered as a ratio of life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to those of the displaced petroleum product; however, this ignores the climate impacts of the non-CO(2) combustion effects from aircraft in the upper atmosphere. The results of this study show that including non-CO(2) combustion emissions and effects in the life cycle of a Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK) fuel can lead to a decrease in the relative merit of the SPK fuel relative to conventional jet fuel. For example, an SPK fuel option with zero life cycle GHG emissions would offer a 100% reduction in GHG emissions but only a 48% reduction in actual climate impact using a 100-year time window and the nominal climate modeling assumption set outlined herein. Therefore, climate change mitigation policies for aviation that rely exclusively on relative well-to-wake life cycle GHG emissions as a proxy for aviation climate impact may overestimate the benefit of alternative fuel use on the global climate system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stratton et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: