Alternative fuels’ blending model to facilitate the implementation of carbon offsetting and reduction Scheme for International Aviation
<p dir="ltr">The aviation sector contributes 4.1% to the global economy, although it was responsible for 2.8% of the net global CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in 2019, and it contributed around 12% of the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions produced from the transportation sec...
محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| مؤلفون آخرون: | , , |
| منشور في: |
2022
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
| الملخص: | <p dir="ltr">The aviation sector contributes 4.1% to the global economy, although it was responsible for 2.8% of the net global CO<sub>2</sub> emissions in 2019, and it contributed around 12% of the CO<sub>2</sub> emissions produced from the transportation sector alone in 2018. Hence, the UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) can serve as a cost-effective mechanism to promote low carbon fuels and mitigate CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, where integrating alternative jet fuels may reduce the cost associated with CORSIA's offsetting requirements. Therefore, this study considers the following alternative production pathways; Gas to Liquid, Oil to Jet, Gas to Jet, Sugar to Jet, Catalytic Hydro-thermolysis Jet and Alcohol to Jet; for the development of an optimal fuel blending model. A multi-objective model is developed and transformed into a singular objective function for a convenient minimisation of the total fuel-related costs for operators under CORSIA. The model considered the reclaiming possibility of offsetting costs when a CORSIA's eligible fuel is utilised. The results demonstrated that an increase in carbon price increases the total net cost of fuel purchasing and carbon taxing, therefore, enhancing the opportunity for airlines to integrate larger shares of alternative fuels. In addition, the presented model managed to select optimal fuels' blending ratios considering carbon credit approach, which achieved a total cost reduction by 0.13% to 8.08%, assuming a carbon tax range of 3–180 $/tonne CO<sub>2</sub>.</p><h2>Other Information</h2><p dir="ltr">Published in: Fuel<br>License: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124974" target="_blank">https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124974</a></p> |
|---|