Reuters has reported that the U.S. Treasury will release guidance by the end of this week on the issue of subsidies for using corn-based ethanol for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Producers of corn-based ethanol fuel see aviation applications as one of the few pathways for growing their industry with the expanding of electric vehicles stemming demand for automotive fuel. Conversely, opponents of the subsidies see devoting more land to crops for producing transportation-based fuel as exacerbating global warming. Those opponents would prefer that animal fat and used cooking oil take precedence in generating SAF.
The Biden Administration faces pressure from lobbyists from farm regions, a critical electorate in the upcoming presidential election. Originally, guidance from the U.S. Treasury was expected in September, then delayed twice. Late last month, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told Reuters he was confident ethanol would be a staple for SAF. He said, “They [U.S. Treasury] will provide some direction and guidance,” but added that specific rules might take “a little bit longer.”
Under President Biden’s climate law, SAF producers vying for the billions of dollars in tax-credit subsidies via 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act must present approved scientific models showing the fuel they will produce will generate half the greenhouse gas emissions as conventional petroleum fuels over its lifecycle.
Ethanol in aviation. I am a mechanic by trade and see the damages first hand by running E-85 in vehicles. Fuel pumps, fuel tank sending units, fuel injectors, etc.
Now running the lower concentrations of alcohol doesn’t seem to be an issue in the automotive industry. However, vehicles are not at altitude like aircraft are. Either way, I don’t want to be the first test pilot for alcohol.
I do not believe that they are considering using ethanol as a component of the actual fuel. The ethanol would be used as part of the chemical process in making the fuel.
Karrpilot, have you seen the damage that tetraethyl lead does to engines? I fly with a Rotax engine and Rotax would rather that you use premium E10 instead of 100LL (which is not low lead compared to previous leaded auto fuel) if you can not find 94 octane gas without ethanol.
You couldn’t be the first test pilot even if you wanted to. Ethanol blends have been used in aviation for decades. The EMB-202A was approved for E100 some 20 years ago and is still widely in use in Brazil, as is its successor, the EMB-203.
Ethanol is not a drop-in replacement, both engines and airframes have to be designed to accomodate it. But that’s not rocket science either. Ethanol has its issues, but so does TEL.
Let’s see, would any pilot want to have in their fuel a substance that absorbs water, then have it freeze at altitude? Now I am not an auto mechanic, (I am an A+P) but I have already seen what ethanol does to gas powered lawn equipment. Even the FAA currently bans any ethanol in auto gas STC’s for aircraft. I’m surprised any so called “environmentalists” would be calling ethanol a sustainable fuel of any kind, considering that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than ethanol produces.
Let the poor eat 100 UL.
The current most promising AVGAS 100 UL currently tested by the FAA in the PAFI project contains ethanol ether. (ETBE). The ethanol content is about 45 % and ETBE does not attract water. These are good news for the avitation piston engine industry. Then for JET-A1 you have several approved routes byt the ASTM to make synthetic Jet-fuel from ethanol. This is good for the industry if tax reductions are introduced. We have to understand that going away from traditional hydrocarbon fuels to “nonfossil” fuels is the next step we all have to apply to.
This is all driven by BigAg just like the horrible ethanol mandates for auto fuel. Nearly half of the US corn crop is used for making ethanol, instead of feeding humans and livestock. It makes Midwest corn farmers rich, but everyone else loses. For human flourishing and energy independence we should be using MORE fossil fuels, not less. Read Alex Epstein’s new book, “Fossil Future”.
And the EPA published a report a few years ago that showed ethanol in gasoline increases CO2 emissions over burning pure gasoline.
The sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) referred to here is a replacement for conventional jet fuel, not avgas.
Nascar uses Sunoco E15 fuel.
And, Indy cars…
For now, Shell is keeping its recipe a secret. Last year, Indy cars ran on 100-octane fuel made from 85 percent ethanol derived from corn and 15 percent racing gasoline. Shell said this season’s IndyCar fuel remains a 100-octane E85 blend.
E85 should be higher than 100 octane. When I drove to Oshkosh for EAA AirVenture last year, I notice that the E85 at the pumps in Minnesota was listed as 105 octane and that would have been mixed with the lowest grade gasoline.
E85 is a high-octane fuel that is slightly diluted with 15% gasoline and registers at 105 octane or more12. However, E85 has a 27% lower heating value than E0 gasoline, meaning you have to use more of it to get the same BTUs1. When combined with its cooling properties, the actual knock resistance of E85 is much higher than the octane rating would suggest.
Ethanol is a sponsor of Indy Car.
No, “ethanol” is not a sponsor of “IndyCar.”
But Shell is—-Building on the sponsorship contract renewal and the extension announced on at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Shell will be the official fuel, motor oil and lubricant Sponsor of the NTT INDYCAR Series. Shell said the 2024 season’s IndyCar fuel remains a 100-octane E85 blend made from corn.
Once people stop questioning what they are being told, then of course they will follow the “next step we all have to apply to”.
How is the fuel type related to the US Treasury is beyond me.
It’s literally in the first sentence:
“…U.S. Treasury will release guidance by the end of this week on the issue of subsidies for using corn-based ethanol for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).”
The U.S. Treasury is weighing in on the issues of subsidies to farmers for growing corn for aviation fuel. They are not commenting about chemistry or aviation or climate.
My point is how ridiculous the government has become where the US Treasury is involved in aviation fuel. regardless of what they think their involvement is………THAT’S why I made the statement. If the government is involved it WILL fail.
Billions of dollars of tax credit subsidies via the 2022 Inflation “Reduction” Act. So it’s driven by politics.
Wait! Wait! Just how ‘green’ is corn based fuel? In the final analysis… not ‘green’ at all. How many petroleum based calories are consumed to:
–grow corn?
–harvest corn?
–ship the raw corn to a processing sit?
–go through all of the complex steps to ‘refine’ the corn to create fuel?
–distribute the fuel to end users?
–maintain separation of corn based fuels and known safe petroleum fuels?
–the major opportunity costs of the ongoing subsidy of corn based fuels (interest charges on national debt, higher food costs to people, potential interest SAVED by paying down the debt rather than borrowing more to subsidize?
–etc.
–etc…
Toto just pulled back the curtain….
AND (now with SWA’s recent announcement of obese people getting multiple seats at no extra charge) offering a 50% Plus Plus discount to ‘plus’ passengers – whose discounted fares will be covered by healthy weight passengers and passengers traveling with small children.
Turning food into fuel is immoral.
Search ATJ SAF for details of the process of alcohol to jet fuel synthesis.
Here is an example explanation
https://skynrg.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel/technology-basics/
This is not about ethanol as a replacement for gasoline. It is about ethanol as a feedstock for synthetic jet fuel.
The replacement for the MAJORITY of GA aircraft already exists. They were certified to run 80 Octane or higher LONG before 100LL existed. IE 100LL was a substitute fuel to enable removal of 80 Octane and 130 Octane fuels. MOGAS still works for the Bulk of the fleet.
Those who can’t run 80 Octane can make other adjustments to lower compressions. Don’t expect the majority of aircraft owner/operators who can burn MOGAS to subsidize 20% of the fleet!
That’s all well and good, but that 20% of the fleet uses over 80% of the Avgas! If you can run on Mogas, great, go for it. But don’t ask the rest of us to spend thousands of dollars to derate our engines to make you happy. We use high horsepower engines for a reason. They serve a vital part of aviation. I agree with you 100% that the government does not need to subsidize anyone for turning corn into fuel, especially since there is already an unleaded replacement for 100LL. It’s called GAMI G100UL. It’s just that the government is too busy trying to buy votes to follow good science.
Adjustments to engines are not possible. That would void the airworthiness certificates of most planes due to being unable to meet certification standards for aborted landings (go-arounds) or single engine climb requirements for twins.
We have a saying in chemical engineering that, given enough time and the right catalysts, a good Chem E can turn methane into motor oil. However, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Bottom line, the use of ethanol-based motor fuels is more a political issue than an good engineering issue and, being an election year, we have to keep the farm vote happy. Ethanol makes a good racing fuel because pf its high octane rating, but that would not make it good for our aircraft engines. The auto companies spent years and tens of billions of dollars designing fuel systems that could tolerate E85 in cars and trucks. Trying to use a high-ethanol fuel in our legacy aircraft fuel systems would be a bad idea and the cost of modifying those systems would be a huge expense. IMHO, spending more taxpayer dollars supporting farmers to raise ethanol for Avgas is a bad idea all around.
You ever notice WHERE corn is most produced?
IOWA
as in IOWA PRIMARIES.
Vote Now! You Huskers!
Funny, but the Huskers are from Nebraska. At any rate, you broke the magic code!
If they would kill the subsidies, the market would inform us all the best policy around using corn for fuel.