Difference between revisions of "User talk:SAF Brazil"
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The figure below contains graphic representation of the SAF supply chain from the [https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/saf-grand-challenge-building-supply-chains-request-information-summary/ SAF Grand Challenge Roadmap] | The figure below contains graphic representation of the SAF supply chain from the [https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/saf-grand-challenge-building-supply-chains-request-information-summary/ SAF Grand Challenge Roadmap] | ||
[[File:Figure-2 SAF-roadmap.jpg|800px| | [[File:Figure-2 SAF-roadmap.jpg|800px|]] | ||
SAF can be produced using various technological pathways and feedstock combinations, resulting in different types of SAF. It is important to understand these combinations which allow us to understand any factors directly or indirectly affecting availability and affordability. A general overview of feedstocks and associated pathways is illustrated below | |||
[[File:SAF FeedstockPathways.png|600px|]] | |||
Three generations of feedstocks are defined on the [https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saf-handbook.pdf IATA SAF Handbook] based on their usage chronology, emission reduction potential, sustainability criteria, environmental impact, and availability: | |||
1. First Generation (1G): Includes food-grade fats and oils like canola, palm, and soybean. While technologically mature and commercially scalable, they pose sustainability issues such as competing with food supply and high land usage. | |||
2. Second Generation (2G): Comprises waste fats, oils, and greases (FOGs) like used cooking oil and inedible animal fats. These are more sustainable than 1G due to higher emission reduction and no additional land usage, but are more expensive due to limited supply. | |||
3. Third Generation (3G): Encompasses biological/agricultural wastes and energy crops from degraded land, including municipal solid waste, forestry residues, and algae oils. They offer the most positive environmental impact and cost benefits but require advanced processing technologies. | |||
[[File:FeedstockClasification SAF.png|700px|]] | |||
==Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Allocation== | ==Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Allocation== |
Revision as of 21:53, 7 October 2024
Roadmap Creators: Gabriel Ruscalleda, Emilia Ospina Arango and Dawit Dagnaw
Time Stamp: Updated 10 October 2024
Technology Roadmap Sections and Deliverables
Our technology roadmap identifier is shown as:
- 2BSSAF - Brazil Solution - Sustainable Aviation Fuel
This indicates that we are dealing with a “level 2” roadmap at the product level, where “level 1” would indicate a market level roadmap, "level 2" would indicate our SAF Production and “level 3” or “level 4” would indicate an individual technology roadmap.
Roadmap Overview
Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) offers a promising solution for reducing the aviation industry’s carbon footprint, but scaling its production to meet global demand presents significant challenges. Brazil is often referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of sustainable fuels” due to its significant potential and advancements in renewable energy.
This roadmap explores the dilemma of SAF scalability, focusing on two critical aspects: availability and affordability. The feedstock supply and production capacity is analyzed within the country, and innovative strategies are proposed to enhance scalability. Additionally, economic competitiveness of SAF will be evaluated and compared to conventional jet fuel, considering factors such as production costs, market incentives, and policy support in Brazil.
The figure below contains graphic representation of the SAF supply chain from the SAF Grand Challenge Roadmap
SAF can be produced using various technological pathways and feedstock combinations, resulting in different types of SAF. It is important to understand these combinations which allow us to understand any factors directly or indirectly affecting availability and affordability. A general overview of feedstocks and associated pathways is illustrated below
Three generations of feedstocks are defined on the IATA SAF Handbook based on their usage chronology, emission reduction potential, sustainability criteria, environmental impact, and availability:
1. First Generation (1G): Includes food-grade fats and oils like canola, palm, and soybean. While technologically mature and commercially scalable, they pose sustainability issues such as competing with food supply and high land usage.
2. Second Generation (2G): Comprises waste fats, oils, and greases (FOGs) like used cooking oil and inedible animal fats. These are more sustainable than 1G due to higher emission reduction and no additional land usage, but are more expensive due to limited supply.
3. Third Generation (3G): Encompasses biological/agricultural wastes and energy crops from degraded land, including municipal solid waste, forestry residues, and algae oils. They offer the most positive environmental impact and cost benefits but require advanced processing technologies.
Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Allocation
(DESCRIBE THE DSM)
Roadmap Model using OPM
The Object-Process-Model (OPM) of the 3BSSAF - Brazil Solution - Sustainable Aviation Fuel roadmap is presented in the figure with the Object-Process-Language (OPL) below.
Level 1 OPM
Level 2 OPM
Figures of Merit
(ADD)
The table below shows a list of FOMs by which charging of electric vehicles can be quantified and compared
Category | Figure of Merit | Units | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Competitiveness | SAF unit cost | [USD/MJ] | Market cost of SAF per unit of volume or energy |
Competitiveness | Cost per reduced ton | [USD / tCO2e] | Incremental cost per ton of carbon equivalent reduced vs CAF |
Competitiveness | Investment potential | [USD / tCO2e] | Financing opportunity per potential unit output of technology |
Competitiveness | Installation cost per unit | [USD / Vol] | Cost of deploying SAF production infrastructure relative to capability |
Efficiency | Energy efficiency | [%] | Energy input to produce SAF vs energy output in SAF |
Productivity | Feedstock crop yield | [Ton / ha] | Crop yield in volume produced per unit area |
Productivity | Feedstock availability | [Ton / year] | Crop availability in volume produced per year |
Productivity | SAF conversion yield | [%] | SAF produced with relation to total refinery biofuel production |
Performance | Energy density | [MJ/Vol] | Energy content per unit volume of fuel |
Performance | Blend ratio of pathway/feedstock | [%] | Volume SAF relative to total volume of fuel after blend |
Performance | Fuel consumption | [Vol/Time] | Fuel consumed per hour of flight to compare SAF vs CAF |
Sustainability | Carbon savings potential | [tCO2e / MJ] | Potential reduction in emissions for use of SAF vs CAF as baseline |
Sustainability | Carbon emissions | [tCO2e / MJ] | Life-cycle carbon equivalent emissions to generate unit of fuel |
Sustainability | Emission reduction factor | [%] | Percentage reduction per equivalent unit of use of SAF |
Alignment with Company Strategic Drivers
Positioning of Company vs. Competition
Technical Model
CO2-eq emission model
Fuel consumption model
Feedstock availability model
Technical model integration
Financial Model
List of R&D Projects
Key Publications, Presentations and Patents
Technology Strategy Statement
References
[1] U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. SAF Grand Challenge Roadmap: Flight Plan for Sustainable Aviation Fuel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/beto-saf-gc-roadmap-report-sept-2022.pdf
[2] Reference 2