IATA – the International Air Transport Association – views hydrogen as a key element of the airline industry’s goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. IATA sees hydrogen-powered aircraft flying short-haul routes of up to 120 minutes within the next 20 years.
Aircraft manufacturers continue to study hydrogen’s potential. As a leader in hydrogen-propulsion evolution, Airbus is working on a ZEROe project, which aims to develop a zero-emission aircraft by 2035. It has announced plans to use an A380 as a test bed for propulsion systems that use liquid hydrogen. Deutsch Aircraft plans to fly a Dornier 328 hydrogen fuel cell demonstrator in 2025 and other airframe manufacturers continue to investigate the possibilities of hydrogen flight.
The green evolution from jet aviation fuel to SAF and ultimately to battery and hydrogen comes with a unique set of challenges according to Alberstadt. “Jet fuel has about four times the volumetric energy density of hydrogen,” he said. “That means you need four times as large a fuel tank to fly the same distance.”
“This and other factors make production, transportation and storage more complex, largely because efficient hydrogen infrastructure is in its infancy,” Robinson added. “Then there’s the price. Hydrogen currently costs about four times as much as jet fuel on a flight-mile basis. The price will drop once production is scaled-up, but hydrogen will remain more costly than conventional jet fuel for a considerable time, unless increasing carbon taxes cause jet fuel prices to rise while hydrogen costs are falling.”
Because of this reasons, United is likely not that interested yet in hydrogen based jet fuel.
Based on my understanding of the article I mentioned above, if Cemvita eCO2 process would produce the jet fuel it would be the same as normal jet fuel but would be converted from captured CO2. But if the produced jet fuel would be the same, then testing it with existing planes and engines would be easy - look at the previous tests:
The SAF used by the jet was “drop-in” ready, meaning it is interchangeable with conventional Jet A and Jet A-1 fuel and requires no modifications to engines or airframes. This also makes it compatible with the existing commercial fleet and the existing fuel distribution and storage infrastructure. “These molecules don’t know where they come from,” says Gurhan Andac, GE Aviation’s engineering leader for aviation fuels and additives, about the difference — or the lack thereof — between SAF and conventional jet fuel.
But before that I think we should expect some announcements, and at first ground testing etc.
As this article mentions:
the activation of CO2 is extremely challenging; CO2 is a fully oxidized, thermodynamically stable and chemically inert molecule. Furthermore, hydrocarbon synthesis via the hydrogenation of CO2 usually favours the formation of short-chain, rather than desirable long-chain, hydrocarbons.
So the task of turning CO2 from emissions to jet fuel is likely very difficult and as it was mentioned by my great teammates the companies communication from a year ago when the United investment happened it was only their intention to develop this process.
But my judgment is that their marketing activity will likely be focused on existing products, and we should rather watch for specific announcements about their progress in jet fuel and maybe preparations for testing.
My clarification to the above thanks to @Adam6180 pointing out that it could be understand in more than one way:
I am not an expert but my understanding is that even if they would get the identical (in chemical sense) fuel to normal jet fuel the proces of this being done from CO2 captured from the atmosphere makes this fuel a Sustainable Jet Fuel because the net CO2 emissions would be low (hopefully the transformation proces would not produce a lot of emissions). But it might be a good idea to ask for clarification just to be sure.
@michal_dubrawski Cemvita seems to have given initiatives in their company new names, so that now, I agree, their SAF enterprise falls under their "eCO2" business line. As you said, it will be very challenging to produce jet fuel. Production of their target molecule(s) needs to b optimized in their cyanobacterial culture systems at some point (it may or may not yet be optimized), they have to scale up production successfully, which may require building a new facility, and whatever they produce with their cyanobacteria will still need to be refined into jet fuel, all before anything ever goes in an engine.
I see what United is doing as throwing "small" amounts of money at a lot of different companies and technologies, so that they can help pick the options they think may work best for them down the road and have ownership stakes in them. I think these are long-term investments in technologies at mostly nascent stages of development.
@belikewater I really appreciate that you have shared your thoughts with me. I agree with your assessment above. I wonder if the molecules of such jet fuel are the same - do you really need the do this kind of test before you start producing the fuel on the mass scale? I understand that there might be some requirements by law (articles I read mentioned that law currently allows sustainable jet fuel to consist not more than 50% of fuel plane has), but if this is just a formality (I would assume so) is this testing serving more for the PR purposes? If so, do you need to repeat it for every source of such fuel?
@michal_dubrawski Exactly so - I think a flight demonstration would be for PR purposes only. And they've already had one such test flight. How much would be gained by another? The public, and nearly all investors, wouldn't notice or care that the fuel came from a different source or company. The proof is in the chemical analyses, and anything beyond that is largely PR fluff. Because yes, the specifications for jet fuel are pretty tight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel And exactly - if you had to do a test flight for every new source, when does that end? And where do you draw the lines? Different companies, oil fields, technologies...?
For Cemvita, a test flight would probably be an important PR milestone, but for United, I think it wouldn't be as big. I would suspect that a test flight would be conducted somewhere along the path of breaking in a new large-scale production facility. I think it would be akin to a formal ribbon-cutting ceremony in front of some new building. The building is already there; people just want a photo.
But I could turn out to be wrong - Cemvita could be a lot farther along than I think. They're extremely tight-lipped, though, so I suspect we won't know until the end of the forecast.
I read some good analysis by @belikewater and @DKC. My understanding from reading this article ("Transforming carbon dioxide into jet fuel using an organic combustion-synthesized Fe-Mn-K catalyst") and analysis of Cemvita website is that if they would produce the jet fuel for United in the near future it would be of their eCO2 product/ business line https://www.cemvita.com/eco2 Other two business lines are cOre related to biomining by making "biolixiviants tailored to extract target metals from your ore body or waste" https://www.cemvita.com/core-biomining The third is Gold Hydrogen https://www.cemvita.com/gold-hydrogen - while there are experiments with hydrogen as a fuel for aircraft it is seen as a more distant future: https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/about-us/blogs/honeywell-explores-future-of-hydrogen-powered-aircraft
Because of this reasons, United is likely not that interested yet in hydrogen based jet fuel.
Based on my understanding of the article I mentioned above, if Cemvita eCO2 process would produce the jet fuel it would be the same as normal jet fuel but would be converted from captured CO2. But if the produced jet fuel would be the same, then testing it with existing planes and engines would be easy - look at the previous tests:
https://www.ge.com/news/reports/united-flies-worlds-first-passenger-flight-on-100-sustainable-aviation-fuel-supplying-one
But before that I think we should expect some announcements, and at first ground testing etc.
As this article mentions:
So the task of turning CO2 from emissions to jet fuel is likely very difficult and as it was mentioned by my great teammates the companies communication from a year ago when the United investment happened it was only their intention to develop this process.
I have found information here https://rocketreach.co/cemvita-factory-inc-profile_b4573061fca63d3d that Cemvita "Cemvita Factory Inc.'s headcount grew by 31 people (72.09%) in the last year." and that
90 people are employed at Cemvita Factory Inc..
They are also recruiting new people including "Head of Marketing & Communications" https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3520715729/?eBP=JOB_SEARCH_ORGANIC&refId=KtD6bsV8IH3f3nBausGxsg%3D%3D&trackingId=62kb1QeXwJ6Qr2VpyttHrg%3D%3D&trk=flagship3_search_srp_jobs
But my judgment is that their marketing activity will likely be focused on existing products, and we should rather watch for specific announcements about their progress in jet fuel and maybe preparations for testing.
My clarification to the above thanks to @Adam6180 pointing out that it could be understand in more than one way:
I am not an expert but my understanding is that even if they would get the identical (in chemical sense) fuel to normal jet fuel the proces of this being done from CO2 captured from the atmosphere makes this fuel a Sustainable Jet Fuel because the net CO2 emissions would be low (hopefully the transformation proces would not produce a lot of emissions). But it might be a good idea to ask for clarification just to be sure.
@cmeinel @belikewater @DKC
@michal_dubrawski Cemvita seems to have given initiatives in their company new names, so that now, I agree, their SAF enterprise falls under their "eCO2" business line. As you said, it will be very challenging to produce jet fuel. Production of their target molecule(s) needs to b optimized in their cyanobacterial culture systems at some point (it may or may not yet be optimized), they have to scale up production successfully, which may require building a new facility, and whatever they produce with their cyanobacteria will still need to be refined into jet fuel, all before anything ever goes in an engine.
I see what United is doing as throwing "small" amounts of money at a lot of different companies and technologies, so that they can help pick the options they think may work best for them down the road and have ownership stakes in them. I think these are long-term investments in technologies at mostly nascent stages of development.
@michal_dubrawski Exactly so - I think a flight demonstration would be for PR purposes only. And they've already had one such test flight. How much would be gained by another? The public, and nearly all investors, wouldn't notice or care that the fuel came from a different source or company. The proof is in the chemical analyses, and anything beyond that is largely PR fluff. Because yes, the specifications for jet fuel are pretty tight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel And exactly - if you had to do a test flight for every new source, when does that end? And where do you draw the lines? Different companies, oil fields, technologies...?
For Cemvita, a test flight would probably be an important PR milestone, but for United, I think it wouldn't be as big. I would suspect that a test flight would be conducted somewhere along the path of breaking in a new large-scale production facility. I think it would be akin to a formal ribbon-cutting ceremony in front of some new building. The building is already there; people just want a photo.
But I could turn out to be wrong - Cemvita could be a lot farther along than I think. They're extremely tight-lipped, though, so I suspect we won't know until the end of the forecast.