Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Does an A220-500 need a new wing and engines? Part 3. May 29, 2025
- Boeing’s future depends on FAA approvals May 26, 2025
- Department of Justice, Boeing OK to Non-Prosecution Agreement May 23, 2025
- Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 23. May 23, 2025
- Services are driving revenues and profits in difficult times, Part II May 22, 2025
Bjorn’s Corner: Air Transport’s route to 2050. Part 21.
By Bjorn Fehrm
May 9, 2025, ©. Leeham News: We do a Corner series about the state of developments to improve the emission situation for Air Transport. We try to understand why development has been slow.
Since we started in October last year, we have looked at:
- Alternative, lower emission propulsion technologies, ranging from electric aircraft with batteries as energy source, different propulsion hybrids, and new concepts for Jet-fuel and Hydrogen gas turbine engines.
- We have also reviewed recent research on the role of CO2, NOx emissions, and Contrails generated by airliners in global warming.
- Two weeks ago, we summarized the present situation around SAF, Sustainable Aviation Fuel.
Last week, we listed some base data about the present situation for Global Air Transport. We will now use this data to calculate the effect of air transport on global warming from the three alternatives.
Emission-free airliners
Let’s start by imagining a scenario in which we are successful in producing CO2 and NOx emission-free airliners based on the different projects we examined. These projects can replace the existing 19, 30 to 50-seat, and 70 to 100-seat turboprops in the market.
We assume the 19 and 30 to 50 seat projects will result in Entry Into Service, EIS, of aircraft from 2030. The replacement of 70 to 100-seat turboprops starts in 2040 when we assume Airbus delivers its ZEROe fuel cell-based hydrogen airliner.
Aircraft production ramp is more challenging than most alternative propulsion projects realize. Here, we assume a best-case scenario where production in the first year is one aircraft per month. Then, this is doubled for year two, with a 50% increase in yearly production rate thereafter until a maximum production of 100 aircraft per year is reached.
This level is not the maximum these companies can ramp to; it’s what the market accepts in terms of new aircraft sales to replace older turboprops in these market segments. The resulting yearly output of emission-free airliners is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The yearly replacement of CO2 and NOx-emitting Turboprops. Source: Leeham Co.
From the table, we can see we replace a total of 1800 older 19 seaters and 1800 30 to 50 seaters. Finally, 800 70 to 100 seaters get replaced. These aircraft consume per year:
- 19 seaters around 1,000 tonnes Jet-A1 per year. In the year 2050, we have replaced 1,800 Turboprops in total. During 2050, these emission-free 19-seaters would save 1.8 million tonnes of Jet fuel from being consumed.
- 30 to 50 seaters, around 1,900 tonnes Jet-A1 per year. In the year 2050, we will have replaced 1,800 Turboprops in total. During 2050, these would save 3.4 million tonnes of Jet fuel from being consumed.
- 70 to 100 seaters, around 2,500 tonnes Jet-A1 per year. In the year 2050, we have replaced 800 Turboprops in total. During 2050, these would save 2 million tonnes of Jet fuel from being consumed.
In total, by 2050, the Jet-A1 consumption in these airliner segments would have reduced by 7.2 million tonnes.
Last week, we learned that the yearly consumption of Jet-A1 for Air Transport is around 300 million tonnes. If the market introduces more efficient jet aircraft up until 2050, which keeps consumption at about the same level, we will save 2.4% of Jet-A1 from being burned in gas turbines.
As there is a direct relation between CO2 emissions and Jet fuel consumption, the savings in CO2 emissions would also be 2.4%.
Over the next Corners, we will compare these savings to the other Global Warming mitigating measures we listed above.
Aircraft below 100 seats is just a fraction of seatmiles of 150-200 seats aircrafts. So getting a new generation of 150-240 seat aircrafts with 10-25% lower fuel burn makes the biggest impact. Gouvernments can support new aircrafts and with airport fees to tip the scale for airliners to order them. Similar for SAF that gouvernments can support electrical cars purchases and thus make more SAF avsilable.
I think a deeper analysis would need to be done on which uses most fuel, Single Aisle nominal 190 seat or the wide body.
Quantity of flights vs heavy use of fuel to get a long distance flight in.
There are some weed data as well, short 200 mile flights with an A320/MAX vs a more (if that can be the right verbiage) nominal 1500 mile flight. Regardless you can do a rough breakout.
I don’t see electric cars and SAF having any relevance to each other. Pretty much an all gasoline fleet, hybrid to X amount and electric now to X amount.
Plants don’t burn kerosene or diesel, its natural gas more and more as well as the legacy coal burner. Replacing those with natrual gas and possibly nuke plants down the road.
Trying to put incentives in is the issue of what people will accept. Europe is a lot more open to that vs the US, I would guess a harder sell in Africa, South America as well as West of China and the myriad of states (US, Europe and China of course are the big hitters)
No real idea on China, though you have the issue that they now have the National Project in the 919 and a proposed 929 notional wide body and nothing indicating alternative fuels.
In Europe the shift to electrical cars of hybrid cars is progressing, trucks are next from a slow start, duty time regulations help limit truck battery sizes. Eventually there will be less need for Ethanol that are today mixed into gasoline for E10 fuel. Today Battery and hybrid powered car sales equal gasoline only car sales. This without heavy government rules/subsidies. Just look at scooter sales where electrical ones are taking over in places like India.
Fully admit not knowing about India but Japan, US and China, scooters had large or some popularity (founded the Japanese motor cycle indusry6) but fell off for cars as we are seeing in China.
I don’t see how electric relates to SAF? Whatever process is used to get SAF is very expensive.
Add in the take on my part, modern car emissions are almost non existent. What it takes to make a battery as well as the means to charge it (much currently comes from fossil fuels). Mining has a huge impact on the environment. I have yet to see an end to end comparison in what an electric car costs in terms of impact vs a gasoline one in a total figure.
We bought what will be our last car and its gasoline only. Can’t justify the added costs of hybrid let alone all electric.
Normally I don’t break into Bjorns corner with other news but the Tariff change is huge.
Its what I expected, a lot of hooopla that got no where but the Orange one will claim victory and blame the Biden administration for any problem.
Next gen NBs will be tube with wings and engines that get 10 percent better fuel economy. Everything else ( flying wings and Hydrogen fuel) is wishful thinking. And wishful thinking has been going on for a long time.