Alaska Air tests of biofuel a hit, but demand exceeds supply

Alaska Air Group has surpassed other airlines in terms of biofuel passenger flights. But even though it’s ahead, the greener flights can’t become a regular thing until the supply catches up to the demand.

The Seattle-based Alaska Air recently launched its Flying Green program, which involves 75 passenger flights powered by a 20 percent biofuel blend of used cooking oil. While other domestic airlines, including Continental, United and Virgin Atlantic, have also run biofuel flights, they were nowhere near the amount of trips Alaska Airlines and Horizon Airlines have put forth.

“They’re demonstrating leadership in North America with their effort here. They’re probably one of the more progressive airlines in terms of the newness of their fleet, some of the procedural things they’re doing,” said Terrance Scott of Boeing Commercial Airplanes’ environment and aviation policy team. “This is kind of the next evolution in their use of emerging technologies and sustainable practices to reduce their environmental footprint and of course Boeing is very proud to partner with them on all of these initiatives.”

The program’s purpose is to raise awareness that airlines can use regularly use greener aviation fuels on commercial flights. However, to do so regularly once the 75 flights are completed just isn’t an economic feasibility at this point.

Alaska’s selected biofuel blend costs almost six times the amount of its regular jet fuel. Spokeswoman Bobbie Egan said that Alaska Air Group pays $3.14 per gallon for regular Jet fuel versus $17 per gallon of the biofuel blend.

“We wanted to demonstrate that there is a marketplace and a demand for aviation biofuels,” said Egan. “But there isn’t yet current access to an adequate and affordable biofuel supply. So without an adequate supply the costs are going to be extremely high.”

Biofuel feedstocks — everything from camelina to algae — are produced all over the world but finding the volumes to support regular flights is difficult. Stock must be produced in large quantities at economical rates before the airlines can purchase them regularly.

A worldwide feedstock search led Alaska Air Group to a Louisiana company called Dynamic Fuels.

Biofuels must also meet safety standards that regular aviation fuels must pass. Scrutiny standards set by ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials, led the fuel to be tested by the production company plus third-party companies in Portland and Seattle.

Scott has been working on bringing biofuels into the marketplace for six years. Boeing even co-led the technical review process that ASTM used in its decision this summer to approve biofuel use for commercial flights.

“We’ve got research projects literally around the world to figure out where the sources are and what is sustainable and what can be economically scaled up to meet what we envision as market demand,” he said.

While flights like Alaska Air’s 75 send the signal that a market exists if the fuel is provided, the challenge is that demand exceeds the supply.

Biofuel prices vary based on the feed stocks, or fuel sources, and what’s required to process them. Part of the production problem is that these stocks are produced in one-off batches, meaning they are typically not produced on a continuous basis. This can even include batches made only once or as prototypes.

“Anytime you do a one-off batch versus a consistent fuel processing run, the cost is going to be higher,” Scott said.

Available feedstock sources are needed to make a more consistent transition.

Scott said one way to help this along is for the government to stay supportive and offer policies that encourage such technological investments. Several such practices are already in place.

“In the U.S., it’s extending Department of Defense contracting authority, which is currently limited to five years for fuel purchases, to 10 years and beyond,” said Scott.

This can encourage startup processing facilities, assuring them that there is a long-term viability for this market.

Another example is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s encouragement to develop biofuel feed stocks, including guaranteed loans and viability on crops.

The USDA and Federal Aviation Administration teamed up for the Farm to Fly program to help evaluate feedstock development needs. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has championed these efforts.

High prices are not limited to prospective greener alternatives. Fuel costs remain one of the biggest expenses for any airline. Egan said jet fuel prices have tripled in the last decade.

She said Alaska Air Group pays $3.25 million more annually for every penny increase in fuel costs.

“Aviation fuel is so significantly impacted by volatile price swings that we need some type of alternative that could help balance that out,” she said.

Flying Green promotes the environmental needs for such cost stabilization. The main reasons transportation companies are looking more at greener fuels is to cut carbon emission. Alaska’s 75 flights contain 10 percent fewer emissions than they with regular aviation fuels normally used.

Egan said if all Alaska Air Group flights used the 20 percent biofuel blend for one year, the emission savings would represent the equivalent of taking nearly 64,000 cars off the road. This number would go up substantially if larger airlines did the same.

International airlines, such as Lufthansa of Europe, Dutch airlines KLM and Areomexico have also used biofuels. Like Alaska, KLM uses biofuels made from cooking oil. Lufthansa also flies regular flights with green fuel.

Jonathan Grass can be reached at jonathan.grass@alaskajournal.com.