Proceedings of the International Symposium on

Sustainable Systems and Technologies, v4 (2016)

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and
Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle
Zachary A. Collier University of Virginia, zac4nf@virginia.edu
Elizabeth B. Connelly University of Virginia, ec5vc@virginia.edu
Thomas L. Polmateer University of Virginia, polmateer@virginia.edu
James H. Lambert University of Virginia, lambert@virginia.edu
Abstract. Multiple factors including climate change, price uncertainties, and geopolitical instability
have prompted many in the aviation industry to investigate the feasibility of replacing traditional
petroleum-based fuels with biofuel alternatives. However, in order to make this transition
successful, these new biofuels must be environmentally sustainable and the necessary support
infrastructure must be in place to make the production, distribution, and storage of these biofuels
technically feasible and cost effective. Developing a value chain, spanning from feedstock
production to distribution at airports, requires garnering buy-in from multiple stakeholder by
demonstrating environmental, economic, and social benefits and incentives. Two such factors are
the environmental benefits gained by switching to a biofuel technology, and the degree of
resilience of the value chain to emergent conditions. In this paper, we describe a life cycle
assessment (LCA) comparing the environmental impacts of algae-derived biofuels to
conventional petroleum fuels, both for aviation and ground transportation. The study finds that
algae biofuels can offer a significant benefit in greenhouse gas reductions, but these benefits
depend heavily upon the upstream CO2 used in feedstock production. We describe an
assessment of aviation biofuel value chain performance with respect to environmental
sustainability, market competitiveness, and quantity and quality of supply. The value chain was
assessed under potentially disruptive emergent and future conditions. We find that uncertainties
associated with changing environmental regulations, oil prices, and competition from competing
industries to be the most disrupting. Finally, we propose future research strategies for developing
an economically viable and environmentally beneficial value chain for aviation biofuels.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Jun-Ki Choi and Annick Anctil, co-editors 2016.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.
Copyright 2016 by Author 1, Author 2, Author 3 Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.
Cite as:
Title of paper Proc. ISSST, Name of Authors. Doi information v4 (2016)

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

Introduction. The recent international Paris Agreement, signed by 195 countries, agreed to
pursue efforts to limit the [global average] temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial
levels (WEF 2016). The World Economic Forum identified the transportation as a sector where
the value chain could be mobilized to drive climate action through biofuel and waste-to-energy
technologies (WEF 2016). In the United States, approximately 22 billion gallons of jet fuels are
produced annually, and are classified as kerosene-type and naptha-type fuels (Davidson et al.
2014). The airline industry and the Federal Government have been investigating a transition to
alternative fuels in an effort to reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuels, improve energy
security, and mitigate environmental impacts (Miller et al. 2013). For instance, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has set a goal for the aviation industry to consume 1 billion gallons
of renewable fuel by 2018 (FAA 2011). A multi-agency collaboration including the US
Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Defense, and Transportation, and the aviation industry,
created the Farm to Fly initiative, which seeks to promote the research and development of
economically and environmentally sustainable aviation biofuels (USDA 2012). Regional initiatives
within the U.S. are also underway to understand the opportunities and challenges for aviation
biofuels specific to certain geographic locations, such as the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest
(see Macfarlane et al. 2011 and MASBI 2013).
Numerous economic benefits can be realized from a transition to aviation biofuels. Diversifying
the source of fuel supply would reduce the dependence on potentially unstable foreign sources,
reducing volatility in the price of aviation fuels (Miller et al. 2013). Despite relatively low oil prices
currently, forecasts show prices steadily rising through 2020 (CAPA 2015). Provided that they
can be purchased at a competitive price, alternative biofuels can be a major driver of savings for
the airline industry. Additionally, production of biofuels can create regional economic benefits.
For example, rural areas could benefit in terms of job growth and economic activity from the
production of feedstocks (Miller et al. 2013). Weisbrod and Lin (1996) note that production of
renewable energy is more labor intensive than energy produced from fossil fuels and nuclear
sources, resulting in a net increase in jobs, and that the use of regionally produced renewable
energy versus imported fuels can reduce the regions vulnerability to global price volatility.
Environmental benefits can also be achieved from a transition to biofuels. Generally, emissions
such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter are produced at a
greater level from the production and use of petroleum-based fuels than biofuels (Miller et al.
2013). The U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) was designed specifically to incentivize
biofuels on the basis of reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to petroleum
fuels (U.S. EPA 2010). Further, biofuels have the potential to offer other environmental benefits
including improvements in soil quality, water quality, and biodiversity, among others (Bauen et al.
2009). Environmental impacts of biofuel production and use are typically estimated through life
cycle assessment (LCA). The focus of many biofuel LCAs is on quantifying greenhouse gas
emissions and fossil energy demand (e.g., the GREET model developed by Argonne National
Laboratory (2015)). Environmental impacts such as land use change, water demand, and others
have also been studied, though to a lesser degree (e.g., Iribarren et al. 2012, Wu et al. 2014).
Despite economic and environmental benefits, several challenges must be addressed (Table 1).
One major challenge is the need to scale up the production of biofuels to achieve the economies
of scale necessary to make their production and use cost effective (Richard 2010). A survey of
experts identified that the high production costs and lack of investment in R&D in biofuel
technologies were major roadblocks to adopting the use of biofuels in the aviation industry (Gegg
et al. 2014). Another concern is the compatibility of current fuel delivery infrastructure with
alternative fuels, pointing to so-called drop-in fuels which are similar enough to conventional

Z.A. Collier et al.

fuels in terms of their performance and composition that they can be safely handled by existing
infrastructure (Davidson et al. 2014, Miller et al. 2013).
Table 1. Drivers and Constraints of the Use of Aviation Biofuels (adapted from Gegg et al. 2014)
Drivers
Constraints
- Carbon reduction
- High production costs
- Energy security
- Lack of investment
- Volatile oil prices
- Sustainable feedstock supply
- Legislation
- Inadequate legislation
- Lack of alternative technology
- Strict environmental controls for biofuels
- New business opportunities
- Lack of supply chain certification
Research Question. In order to facilitate the successful transition from traditional petroleumbased fuels to biofuels, the proposed initiatives must be both economically and environmentally
sustainable. Investments must be made in a portfolio of initiatives spanning the entire value chain,
including feedstock production, fuel refining, transportation and storage, and financing. There is
a need by decision makers to be able to identify environmentally beneficial and resilient
technological, infrastructure, agricultural, business, and value chain innovations under uncertainty.
The goal of this research is to propose an integrated methodology to identify the life cycle benefits
of various aviation biofuel initiatives through life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches, and to
identify the resilience of value chain initiatives to potentially disruptive scenarios. Together, these
methods can serve as the basis of the business case for investments in alternative biofuels. In
this paper we use the term value chain rather than supply chain to emphasize that consumers
and end-users are the source of value via demand for biofuels, and the goal of making biofuel
strategy, planning and operations decisions is to create value in the eyes of the consumer
(Kannegiesser 2008, Feller et al. 2006).
Investigative Method.
Life Cycle Assessment. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool for calculating and analyzing the
environmental impacts associated with products, processes, or systems. The LCA framework
includes four distinct phases: (i) goal and scope definition; (ii) inventory analysis; (iii) impact
assessment; (iv) interpretation (Guine 2002). Biofuels have been studied extensively through
LCA, but differences in the input data, functional units, allocation methods, and other assumptions
can complicate comparisons of LCA results (Cherubini and Strmman 2011).
The first phase of LCA includes defining the functional unit, which is meant to serve as the
measure of the functional output of the system being studied (ISO, 1997). When comparing fuels
(petroleum and bio-based) in different vehicles, the energy measure of megajoule (MJ) of fuel is
a reliable functional unit because it avoids complications associated with differences in energy
efficiency and energy content of the fuel (Han et al., 2013; Elgowainy et al., 2012). Thus, Connelly
et al. (2015a) determine impacts per MJ of jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel from hydrothermal
liquefaction (HTL) of whole algae biomass. Allocation of lifecycle burdens among the three HTL
distillates is performed on an energy content basis. Processing assumptions for algae HTL are
based on data from an algae biofuel company, Sapphire Energy, and assumptions used in other
algae HTL LCAs, as described in the Supplementary Information. Novel to the LCA performed by
Connelly et al. (2015a) is the inclusion of upstream and downstream impacts associated with CO2
source for algae growth and GWP of atmospheric versus terrestrial combustion of biofuels,
respectively.

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

The second phase of LCA tracks the inputs and outputs of each sub-process, which includes
fossil energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions. The third phase then assesses the impacts
of importance defined by the goal and scope of the LCA. In Connelly et al. (2015a), global warming
potential and fossil energy demand were calculated. The interpretation of the results can be
related to compliance with policies, regulations, or corporate objectives, among other factors. In
particular, life cycle greenhouse gas (LC-GHG) emissions of biofuels are used to determine
eligibility for Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) under the RFS2. RINs provide economic
incentives for producing biofuels that offer reductions in LC-GHG emissions relative to petroleum
alternatives. Although jet fuels are obligated under RFS2, they are still eligible to earn RINs. Thus,
comparing LC-GHG emissions of alternative jet fuels produced from different feedstocks can
reveal not only which fuels have the lowest global warming potential, but also which offer the
greatest economic incentives for biofuel producers.
Resilience Assessment. Besides demonstrated environmental benefits, a critical element in
garnering stakeholder buy-in is the long term stability of the value chain. Farmers, biofuel
producers, investors, and other relevant stakeholders must know that there is a good chance that
the value chain will be able to withstand unforeseen emergent and future conditions and that their
investments will not be lost - in other words, they must be ensured that the value chain initiatives
are resilient. Here, resilience is conceptualized as the ability of priorities to withstand disruption
from emergent and future conditions (Hamilton et al. 2015, 2016). Thus, the purpose of the
present resilience assessment is to minimize the disruption to the prioritization, or ranking, of
value chain initiatives under various scenarios. The present definition of resilience is related to
the ISO definition of risk as the effect of uncertainty on objectives (ISO 2009).
In order to assess the resilience of multiple value chain initiatives under different scenarios, a
multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) method is used (Belton & Stewart 2002). MCDA methods
aid decision makers in determining the degree in which multiple alternatives (i.e. initiatives)
perform across a set of relevant criteria in the pursuit of achieving some objective. Weights are
assigned to criteria which represent their relative importance, and are reflective of decision
makers values. The scenario-based MCDA method described here, developed by (Karvetski et
al. 2009, 2010, 2011), builds upon traditional MCDA by recognizing that values and preferences
may shift under different scenarios. The decision maker first produces a rank-ordering of initiatives
under a baseline (no scenario) condition, and then produces a unique rank-ordering for each
identified scenario based on shifted criteria weights. The results demonstrate the relative strength
of each initiative across a wide array of possible scenarios, with initiatives less sensitive to
changing conditions identified as more resilient. See the Supplementary Information for the
mathematical details behind the methodology.
A set of criteria was established in which to assess each of the initiatives, and represent the needs
and interests of stakeholders: reliability of supply, safety of air travel, environmental sustainability,
employment and economic development, financial costs, regulatory compliance, security of
supply (Connelly et al. 2015b). Investments in technologies and processes related to the
production, transportation, and storage of biofuels are numerous and can affect multiple stages
of the value chain (Figure 1). For instance, initiatives influencing the first value chain step,
feedstock production, might include investments in research on more productive feedstocks (yield
per acre), or in specific types of feedstocks (e.g., oilseeds, switchgrasses, algae, etc.). Similarly,
a number of biorefinery methods can receive investment (e.g., hydrothermal liquefaction,
pyrolysis, fermentation, etc.). A total of thirty-seven initiatives spanning the entire value chain
were identified by Connelly et al. (2015b) and are identified in the Supplementary Information.
Following an MCDA approach, each initiative is assessed in terms of its performance against
each of the criteria (37 initiatives x 7 criteria = 259 assessments). To reduce the burden of this

Z.A. Collier et al.

process, a qualitative assessment is conducted in which decision makers answer the question of
how strongly does a specific initiative address a specific criterion, and can take the values strongly
addresses, addresses, somewhat addresses, and does not address. These linguistic values are
then converted into numerical values (1, 0.67, 0.33, 0, respectively). Finally weights are applied
(for the baseline scenario, equal weighting is assumed) and aggregate scores are computed for
each initiative to produce a baseline rank-ordering of initiatives.
Feedstock
Production

Transportation
to Bio-Refinery

Biofuel
Production

Blending of
Biojet Fuel

Transportation
to Airport

Storage and
Delivery to
Aircraft

Figure 1: Aviation biofuel value chain. Adapted from Connelly et al. 2015b.
Next, scenarios are developed, which represent possible divergent futures in which conditions
exist that could potentially cause a shift in management priorities and alter the effectiveness of
different initiatives. Such scenarios could include shifts in economic, environmental, legislative,
technological, or other conditions. Five scenarios were identified, defined in Table 2. To capture
the effect of these scenarios on the priorities of decision makers, the criteria are reweighted.
Relative to the baseline scenario, decision makers assess whether the relative importance of
each criterion either increases, increases somewhat, stays the same, decreases somewhat, or
decreases, and is multiplied by a constant (9, 3, 1, 1/3, 1/9, respectively) (Connelly et al. 2015b).
New rank-orderings are calculated under each scenario based on the modified weightings,
resulting in a total of six rank orderings (five scenarios plus the baseline).
Table 2. Scenarios descriptions (adapted from Connelly et al. 2015b)
Scenario
Constituent Conditions
Expected regulations
Introduction of biofuel-related legislation
European Union Emissions Implementation of carbon taxes and/or emissions cap and trade system
Trading Scheme
Technological competition
Competition from other airports, Relocation of airline hub,
Implementation of carbon taxes and/or emissions cap and trade system
Green preferences
Shift in customer preferences to favor biofuel-powered flights, Change in
air traffic mix
Insufficient supply
Political factors impede commercial-scale biojet fuel refining, Change in
supply or availability of feedstock
Results.
Life Cycle Assessment. Comparative LCAs can inform decision makers as to which product,
process, or service has a lower environmental impact relative to alternatives. The results from the
LCA performed by Connelly et al. (2015a) reveal that algae HTL biofuels can offer an
improvement on LC-GHG emissions relative to petroleum fuels, though only if industrial CO2 is
used for algae growth. Assuming an industrial source of CO2 is procured for the algae growth
phase, algae HTL fuels can perform better than other biofuel pathways in terms of LC-GHG
emissions. Differences in modeling assumptions however mean that results in the literature can
be quite varied. Figure 2 shows the range of estimated LC-GHG emissions reported in the
literature for aviation biofuel pathways. If average LCA results are used to compare LC-GHG
emissions of biofuels, it appears that algae biofuels perform the worst. These comparative results
can be used to inform multi-criteria analyses for which environmental impacts are important to the
decision-making.

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

Figure 2: Estimated LC-GHG emissions. GHG emissions associated with different aviation biofuel feedstocks.
Squares represent average values.

Rank Order

Resilience Assessment. Figure 3 shows the eight top ranking initiatives across all scenarios (all
had a median rank of 10 or better). The initiative invest in R&D of more productive feedstocks
and invest in Fischer-Tropsch bio-refining technologies both have very small variations in their
rank across scenarios, indicating that they are particularly resilient to emergent and future
conditions. On the other hand, develop collection infrastructure for municipal solid waste as
feedstock and provide tax credits for biofuels had a relatively large range, indicating that they
may be more sensitive to the same conditions. Additionally, it was found that the scenario green
preferences was the most disruptive scenario, causing the greatest average shift in rankings
away from the baseline rankings (Connelly et al. 2015b). The importance of the environmental
quality criterion, reflected by the disruptiveness of the green preferences scenario, highlights the
important role LCA can play in providing objective data by which to assess aviation biofuel
initiatives. Table 3 summarizes the results.

Figure 3: Top performing initiatives. Diamonds represent the baseline rankings, and the whiskers represent the
high and low rankings across the five scenarios. Adapted from Connelly et al. 2015b.

Z.A. Collier et al.

Table 3. Key results of resilience analysis (adapted from Connelly et al. 2015b)
Most resilient initiatives
Invest in R&D of more productive feedstocks
Cultivate halophyte feedstocks
Least resilient initiatives
Commit to biojet fuel purchase agreements
Encourage user-friendly biofuel accounting methods
Co-locate bio-refinery with petroleum refinery
Establish trucking infrastructure for fuel distribution
Most disruptive scenario
Green preferences
Least disruptive scenario
Insufficient supply
Discussion and Conclusion. LCA is not without its limitations, one of which is the sensitivity of
output values to input parameter uncertainty (Mayo et al. 2014). However, when used in a relative
sense and linked to decision making tools, LCA can be used to compare environmental criteria of
alternatives that can be modeled with similar system boundaries and assumptions for example
aviation biofuel feedstocks. Linkov & Seager (2011) proposed linking LCA with MCDA tools,
aiding the decision making process that LCA alone does not address by presenting the relative
performance of various initiatives integrated with decision maker values and preferences across
the spectrum of relevant decision making criteria (not only LCA impacts). The scenario-based
methods developed by Connelly et al. (2015b) build upon this by integrating uncertainty about the
performance of various initiatives. Together, LCA and scenario-based decision making can
provide a basis for building a business case for investment in biofuel technologies by identifying
the best case initiatives which both perform the best in terms of LCA impacts and are the least
sensitive in shifts in environmental, economic, social, or other relevant conditions.
Future research pathways include more detailed analyses on the economic and technical
feasibility of biofuel initiatives that were not screened out by the methods described in this paper.
By using the above methods as screening tools, deeper engineering and economic analyses can
be conducted for feedstock and refining technology selection and asset management (Connelly
et al. 2016). Research on methods for visualization of LCA data and results from the scenariobased decision making can also be conducted to create intuitive and compelling graphical
representations for technical and non-technical stakeholders. Finally, further investigation into the
nexus of food-energy-water infrastructure systems can provide insight into the sustainability of
biofuel production relative to traditional petroleum-based fuels.
Acknowledgements. This effort was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant
1541165 "CRISP Type 2: Collaborative Research: Resilience Analytics: A Data-Driven Approach
for Enhanced Interdependent Network Resilience.
References
Argonne National Laboratory. 2015. Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in
transportation (GREET) computer model. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory.
Available from: http://greet.es.anl.gov
Belton V, Stewart T. 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Springer.
Bauen, A, J Howes, L Bertuccioli, C Chudziak. 2009. Review of the Potential for Biofuels in
Aviation. Prod. E4Tech.

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

CAPA (2015) Oil prices are down, so why is United Airlines buying into biofuels? Symbolic or
sound strategy? http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/oil-prices-are-down-so-why-is-unitedairlines-buying-into-biofuels-symbolic-or-sound-strategy-233866
Cherubini F, Strmman AH. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of Bioenergy Systems: State of the Art
and Future Challenges. Bioresource Technology, 102(2): 437451.
Connelly EB, Thorisson H, Valverde Jr. LJ, Lambert JH. 2016. Asset risk management and
resilience for flood control, hydropower, and waterways. To appear in ASCE Journal of Risk
and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, doi: 10.1061/AJRUA6.0000862
Connelly EB, Colosi LM, Clarens AF, Lambert JH. 2015a. Life Cycle Assessment of Biofuels from
Algae Hydrothermal Liquefaction: The Upstream and Downstream Factors Affecting
Regulatory Compliance. Energy & Fuels, 29: 16531661.
Connelly EB, Colosi LM, Clarens AF, Lambert JH. 2015b. Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for
Aviation with Scenario-Based Expert Elicitation. Systems Engineering, 18(2): 178-191.
Davidson C, Newes E, Schwab A, Vimmerstedt L. 2014. An Overview of Aviation Fuel Markets for
Biofuels Stakeholders. NREL/TP-6A20-60254. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), US Department of Energy, Golden, CO.
Elgowainy A, Han J, Wang M, Carter N, Stratton R, Hileman J, et al. 2012. Life-Cycle Analysis of
Alternative Aviation Fuels in GREET. Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory:
ANL/ESD/12-8.
FAA. 2011. FAA Destination 2025. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.
www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/Destination2025.pdf
Feller A, Shunk D, Callarman T. 2006. Value chains versus supply chains. BPTrends.com.
http://www.businessprocesstrends.com/publicationfiles/03-06-ART-ValueChainsSupplyChains-Feller.pdf
Gegg PK, Budd LCS, Ison SG. 2014. The market development of aviation biofuel: drivers and
constraints. Journal of Air Transport Management, 39: 34-40.
Guine JB. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7(5): 311-313.
Hamilton MC, Lambert JH, Valverde Jr. LJ. 2015. Climate and related uncertainties influencing
research and development priorities. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in
Engineering Systems. Part A: Civil Engineering, 1(2): 04015005.
Hamilton MC, Lambert JH, Connelly EB, Barker K. 2016. Resilience analytics with disruption of
preferences and lifecycle cost analysis for energy microgrids. Reliability Engineering and
System Safety, 150: 11-21.
Han J, Elgowainy A, Cai H, Wang M. 2013. Life-cycle analysis of bio-based aviation fuels.
Bioresource Technology, 150: 447-456.

Z.A. Collier et al.

Iribarren D, Peters JF, Dufour J. 2012. Life Cycle Assessment of Transportation Fuels from
Biomass Pyrolysis. Fuel, 97: 812821.
ISO. 1997. ISO 14040: environmental management life cycle assessment principles and
framework. International Standards Organization.
ISO. 2009. 31000Risk managementPrinciples and Guidelines. International Standards
Organization.
Kannegiesser M. 2008. Value Chain Management in the Chemical Industry: Global Value Chain
Planning of Commodities. Springer.
Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Linkov I. 2009. Emergent conditions and multiple criteria analysis in
infrastructure: prioritization for developing countries. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis, 16: 125137.
Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Linkov I. 2010. Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for
energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(2): 228-236.
Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Keisler JM, Linkov I. 2011. Integration of decision analysis and
scenario planning for coastal engineering and climate change. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics: A, 41(1): 63-73.
Linkov I, Seager TP. 2011. Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and
risk assessment for emerging threats. Environmental Science & Technology, 45: 5068-5074.
Macfarlane R, Mazza P, Allan J. 2011. Sustainable Aviation Fuels Northwest: Powering the next
Generation of Flight.
MASBI (Midwest Aviation Sustainable Biofuels Initiative). 2013. Fueling a Sustainable Future for
Aviation.
Mayo M, Collier ZA, Hoang V, Chappell M. 2014. Uncertainty in multi-media fate and transport
models: a case study for TNT life cycle assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 494
495: 104112.
Miller B, et al. 2013. Assessing Opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs. ACRP
Report 83, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_083.pdf
Richard TL. 2010. Challenges in Scaling Up Biofuels Infrastructure. Science, 329: 793-796.
USDA. 2012. Agriculture and Aviation: Partners in Prosperity. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC. http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-farm-to-fly-report-jan-2012.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2010. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Washington, D.C.

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

Weisbrod G, Lin X. 1996. The Economic Impact of Generating Electricity from Biomass in Iowa:
A General Equilibrium Analysis. Economic Development Research Group, Boston, MA.
http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/biomass-iowa-paper.pdf
World Economic Forum. 2016. Scaling Up Climate Action through Value Chain Mobilization.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_2016_Scaling_Up_Climate_Action.pdf
Wu M, Zhang Z, Chiu Y. 2014. Life-Cycle Water Quantity and Water Quality Implications of
Biofuels. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 1(1): 310.

Z.A. Collier et al.

Supplementary Information

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and

Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle
Zachary A. Collier University of Virginia, zac4nf@virginia.edu
Elizabeth B. Connelly University of Virginia, ec5vc@virginia.edu
Thomas L. Polmateer University of Virginia, polmateer@virginia.edu
James H. Lambert University of Virginia, lambert@virginia.edu
Appendix A: Scenario-Based MCDA Methodology. The methodology described here builds
upon traditional MCDA by including the assessment of scenarios in which the preferences of
decision makers (represented by shifts in the criteria weights) change across different scenarios
(Karvetski et al. 2009, 2010, 2011).
While some scenario-based decision models use constant weights across all scenarios (e.g.,
Goodwin & Wright 2001), eliciting scenario-specific weights better accounts for the implications
of the scenario on strategic decision making (Ram et al. 2011).
The elements of the decision model are as follows:
Sc = {c1, , cm}; the set of m evaluation criteria
Sx = {x1, , xn}; the set of n initiatives
xij; the score that initiative xi receives for criterion cj
Sec = {ec1, , ecp}; the set of p emergent conditions
Ss = {s1, , sq}; the set of q scenarios (a scenario contains one or more conditions)
Wjk; the weight for criterion cj in scenario sk
Given these elements, a linear-additive value function can be defined that assigns a score to
initiative xi under scenario sk: V(xi)k = j=1,m wjk*xij
For more detailed theory and case study applications, see (Karvetski et al. 2009, 2010, 2011,
Connelly et al. 2015b).
The following list of initiatives were considered:
o Invest in R&D of more productive feedstocks (i.e., higher yielding per area of land)
o Cultivate lignocellulosic feedstocks (e.g., switchgrass, miscanthus, etc.)
o Cultivate oilseed crops as feedstock (e.g., camelina, jatropha, soybean, canola,
pennycress, etc.)
o Cultivate halophyte feedstocks (e.g., seashore mallow, salicornia, etc.)
o Cultivate algae as feedstock
o Develop collection infrastructure for woody residue biomass as feedstock (e.g., wood
chips)
o Develop collection infrastructure for agricultural residue biomass as feedstock (e.g., corn
stover, wheat straw)
o Develop collection infrastructure for municipal solid waste (MSW) as feedstock
o Provide long-term contracts for feedstock supply (volume and price)
o Develop workforce
o Locate bio-refinery in close proximity of feedstock cultivation
o Locate bio-refinery in close proximity of city or metropolitan area

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

Distribute preprocessing depots with transportation infrastructure to bio-refineries

Invest in hydroprocessing (HEFA) bio-refining technologies
Invest in Fischer-Tropsch (FT) bio-refining technologies
Invest in alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) bio-refining technologies
Invest in fermentation renewable jet (FRJ) bio-refining technologies
Invest in pyrolysis bio-refining technologies
Invest in hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) bio-refining technologies
Develop market for co-products (e.g., chemicals)
Diversify demand for biofuels (e.g., marine shipping, railroad, avgas, etc.)
Provide low-cost financing for bio-refineries
Provide tax credits for biofuels
Commit to biojet fuel purchase agreements
Establish airports as biofuel fueling stations for non-aircraft vehicles
Encourage user-friendly biofuel accounting methods
Co-locate bio-refinery with petroleum refinery
Locate bio-refinery in proximity of pipeline access
Locate bio-refinery in close proximity of sea port for biofuel distribution via barge
Locate bio-refinery in close proximity of rail line for biofuel distribution via train
Site blending facility on airport grounds
Site blending facility at bio-refinery
Site blending facility at existing fuel terminal
Convert petroleum pipeline to biofuel pipeline for biofuel distribution
Establish trucking infrastructure for fuel distribution
Increase number of storage tanks on airport grounds
Establish coalitions encompassing all parts of the supply chain

Appendix B: Life Cycle Assessment Model Input Parameters. The model used to estimate
GWP of algal HTL fuels is based on the input parameters described in the following tables.
Monte Carlo simulation was used to incorporate potential variability in input parameters.
Triangle and uniform distributions were assumed, parameterized as stated in the tables below.
Table S1. Variable input parameters assumed to follow triangular distribution in sensitivity analysis. The likeliest
value in the distribution is used for the baseline results
Parameter
Productivity (g/m2-day)
Carbon in biomass (%wt)
Nitrogen in biomass (%wt)

Phosphorus in biomass (%wt)

Nutrient recycle efficiency (%)
NH3 energy demand (MJ/kg)

Likeliest Value
(Baseline)

25
(Frank et al. 2013)
52
(Jones et al. 2014)

7.8
(Frank et al. 2013)
1.1
(Davis et al. 2014; Liu et
al. 2013; Jones et al.
2014)
60
(Delrue et al. 2013)
42.97
(Wang 2013)

Minimum Value
20
(Delrue et al. 2013)
41
(Liu et al. 2013)
4.8
(Jones et al. 2014; Davis
et al. 2014)

Maximum Value
30
(Delrue et al. 2013)
55
(Frank et al. 2013)

0.6
(Davis et al. 2014)
30
(Delrue et al. 2013)
42.97
(Wang 2013)

1.6
(Jones et al. 2014)
90
(Liu et al. 2013)
43.20
(Liu et al. 2013)

9.8
(Jones et al. 2014)

Z.A. Collier et al.

NH3 GHG emissions (kg/kg)

P2O5 energy demand (MJ/kg)
P2O5 GHG emissions (kg/kg)
HTL temperature (C)
Biocrude yield (%wt)
Carbon in biocrude (%wt)
Upgraded biocrude yield (%wt)
Carbon in upgraded biocrude
(%wt)
Biojet yield (%wt)
Non-CO2 multiplier

2.68
(Wang 2013)
12.72
(Wang 2013)
0.93
(Liu et al. 2013)
300
(Biddy et al. 2013; Liu et
al. 2013)
41
(Jones et al. 2014)
72.1
(Frank et al. 2013)
81
(Davis et al. 2014; Jones
et al. 2014)
84.75
(Elliott et al. 2013)
24
(Zhu et al. 2013)
2.22
(R. W. Stratton, Wolfe,
and Hileman 2011)

2.09
(Liu et al. 2013)
12.72
(Wang 2013)
0.90
(Wang 2013)
250
(Jones et al. 2014; Alba
et al. 2012)
21
(Fortier et al. 2014)
65.0
(Liu et al. 2013)

2.68
(Wang 2013)
15.80
(Liu et al. 2013)
0.93
(Liu et al. 2013)
350
(Biddy et al. 2013;
Roberts et al. 2013)
61
(Davis et al. 2014)
79.2
(Elliott et al. 2013)

75
(Jones et al. 2014)
84.2
(Elliott et al. 2013)
0
(Zhu et al. 2013)
0.60
(R. W. Stratton, Wolfe,
and Hileman 2011)

90
(Fortier et al. 2014)
85.4
(Elliott et al. 2013)
50
(Zhu et al. 2013)
3.80
(R. W. Stratton, Wolfe,
and Hileman 2011)

Table S2. Variable input parameters assumed to follow uniform distribution in sensitivity analysis.
Parameter
Biocrude density (kg/L)
(Elliott et al. 2013; Jena and Das 2011)
Upgraded biocrude density (kg/L)
(Huber, Iborra, and Corma 2006)
Upgraded biocrude energy content (MJ/kg)
(Huber, Iborra, and Corma 2006)
Biodiesel density (kg/L)
(Delrue et al. 2013)
Biodiesel energy content (MJ/kg)
(Delrue et al. 2013)
Biojet density (kg/L)
(Huber, Iborra, and Corma 2006; Hileman, Donohoo, and
Stratton 2010; Kinder and Rahmes 2009)
Biojet energy content (MJ/kg)
(Huber, Iborra, and Corma 2006; Hileman, Donohoo, and
Stratton 2010; Kinder and Rahmes 2009)
Renewable gasoline density (kg/L)
(Wang 2013)
Renewable gasoline energy content (MJ/kg)
(Wang 2013)
Renewable gasoline yield (%wt)
(Zhu et al. 2013)

Baseline
Value
0.9565

Minimum
Value
0.9430

Maximum
Value
0.9700

0.861

0.796

0.926

43.8

42.3

45.3

0.895

0.870

0.920

44

38

45

0.7570

0.7164

0.8756

44.1

42.3

45.3

0.7480

0.6732

0.8228

34.620

31.158

38.082

10

15

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

Feedstock

Process

Agricultural
residue

LC-GHG Emissions
(gCO2e/MJ)
baseline
min
(average)

Biochemical

13

18

41

Hydroprocessing
(lipid extraction)

14

73

193

HTL

21

68

132

Hydroprocessing

20

33

60

Gasification and FT

10

14

Pyrolysis

24

27

30

Forest residue

Pyrolysis

13

21

34

Jatropha

Hydroprocessing

28

42

53

Miscanthus
Municipal solid
waste

Gasification and FT

10

10

10

Gasification and FT

-164

-99

-34

Palm oil

Hydroprocessing

29

31

33

Rapeseed

Hydroprocessing

41

54

63

Sorghum

Biochemical

37

62

97

Soybean

Hydroprocessing

26

35

40

Switchgrass

Gasification and FT

25

62

Tallow

Hydroprocessing

16

45

84

Wood

Gasification and FT
Pyrolysis

-2
23

11
23

26
23

Yellow grease

Hydroprocessing

17

19

21

Algae

Camelina

Corn stover

max

References
Karlsson, et al. (2014); Baral & Malins
(2014)
Agusdinata et al. (2011); Lokesh et al.
(2015); Stratton et al. (2010)
Fortier et al. (2014); Connelly et al.
(2015)
Agusdinata et al. (2011); Han et al.
(2013); Lokesh et al. (2015); Novelli
(2011); Shonnard, et al. (2010); Carter
et al. (2011)
Agusdinata et al. (2011); Han et al.
(2013); Baral & Malins (2014)
Han et al. (2013)
Karlsson, et al. (2014); Baral & Malins
(2014)
Han et al. (2013); Lokesh et al. (2015);
Novelli (2011); Stratton et al. (2010)
Novelli (2011)
Baral & Malins (2014); Pressley et al.
(2014)
Han et al. (2013); Novelli (2011);
Stratton et al. (2010)
Han et al. (2013); Dufour & Iribarren
(2012); Novelli (2011); Stratton et al.
(2010)
Daystar et al. (2012); Olukoya et al.
(2015)
Han et al. (2013); Dufour & Iribarren
(2012); Stratton et al. (2010)
Agusdinata et al. (2011); Novelli
(2011); Stratton et al. (2010); Carter et
al. (2011)
Seber et al. (2014) Dufour & Iribarren
(2012)
Agusdinata et al. (2011); Novelli (2011)
Han et al. (2013)
Seber et al. (2014); Dufour & Iribarren
(2012)

References
Agusdinata, Datu B, Fu Zhao, Klein Ileleji, and Dan DeLaurentis. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment
of Potential Biojet Fuel Production in the United States. Environmental Science &
Technology 45 (21): 913343. doi:10.1021/es202148g.

Z.A. Collier et al.

Alba, Laura Garcia, Cristian Torri, Chiara Samor, Jaapjan van der Spek, Daniele Fabbri, Sascha
R. a. Kersten, and Derk W. F. (Wim) Brilman. 2012. Hydrothermal Treatment (HTT) of
Microalgae: Evaluation of the Process As Conversion Method in an Algae Biorefinery
Concept. Energy & Fuels 26 (1): 64257. doi:10.1021/ef201415s.
Baral, Anil, and Chris Malins. 2014. Assessing the Climate Mitigation Potential of Biofuels Derived
From Residues and Wastes in the European Context.
Biddy, Mary, Ryan Davis, Susanne Jones, and Yunhua Zhu. 2013. Whole Algae Hydrothermal
Liquefaction Technology Pathway. Golden, CO.
Carter, Nicholas, Russell Stratton, Michael Bredehoeft, and James Hileman. 2011. Energy and
Environmental Viability of Select Alternative Jet Fuel Pathways. In 47th
AIAA/ASME/SAU/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. San Diego, California.
http://stuff.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena.mit.edu/dept/aeroastro/partner/reports/proj28/altfuelpat
hways.pdf.
Cherubini, Francesco, and Anders Hammer Strmman. 2011. Life Cycle Assessment of
Bioenergy Systems: State of the Art and Future Challenges. Bioresource Technology 102
(2). Elsevier Ltd: 43751. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.010.
Connelly, Elizabeth B., Lisa M. Colosi, Andres F. Clarens, and James H. Lambert. 2015. Life
Cycle Assessment of Biofuels from Algae Hydrothermal Liquefaction: The Upstream and
Downstream Factors Affecting Regulatory Compliance. Energy & Fuels,
150215103039003. doi:10.1021/ef502100f.
Connelly EB, Colosi LM, Clarens AF, Lambert JH. 2015b. Risk Analysis of Biofuels Industry for
Aviation with Scenario-Based Expert Elicitation. Systems Engineering, 18(2): 178-191.
Davis, Ryan E, Daniel B Fishman, Edward D Frank, Michael C Johnson, Susanne B Jones,
Christopher M Kinchin, Richard L Skaggs, Erik R Venteris, and Mark S Wigmosta. 2014.
Integrated Evaluation of Cost, Emissions, and Resource Potential for Algal Biofuels at the
National Scale. Environmental Science & Technology 48 (10): 603542.
doi:10.1021/es4055719.
Daystar, Jesse, Ronalds Gonzalez, Carter Reeb, Richard Venditti, Trevor Treasure, Robert Abt,
and Steve Kelley. 2014. Economics, Environmental Impacts, and Supply Chain Analysis of
Cellulosic Biomass for Biofuels in the Southern US: Pine, Eucalyptus, Unmanaged
Hardwoods, Forest Residues, Switchgrass, and Sweet Sorghum. BioResources 9 (1): 393
444.
Delrue, F., Y. Li-Beisson, P-a. Setier, C. Sahut, A. Roubaud, A-K. Froment, and G. Peltier. 2013.
Comparison of Various Microalgae Liquid Biofuel Production Pathways Based on Energetic,
Economic
and
Environmental
Criteria.
Bioresource
Technology,
March.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.091.
Dufour, Javier, and Diego Iribarren. 2012. Life Cycle Assessment of Biodiesel Production from
Free
Fatty
Acid-Rich
Wastes.
Renewable
Energy
38
(1):
15562.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.016.
Elliott, Douglas C., Todd R. Hart, Andrew J. Schmidt, Gary G. Neuenschwander, Leslie J.

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

Rotness, Mariefel V. Olarte, Alan H. Zacher, Karl O. Albrecht, Richard T. Hallen, and
Johnathan E. Holladay. 2013. Process Development for Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Algae
Feedstocks in a Continuous-Flow Reactor. Algal Research 2 (4). Elsevier B.V.: 44554.
doi:10.1016/j.algal.2013.08.005.
Fortier, Marie-Odile P., Griffin W. Roberts, Susan M. Stagg-Williams, and Belinda S.M. Sturm.
2014. Life Cycle Assessment of Bio-Jet Fuel from Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Microalgae.
Applied Energy 122 (July 2011). Elsevier Ltd: 7382. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.077.
Frank, Edward D., Amgad Elgowainy, Jeongwoo Han, and Zhichao Wang. 2013. Life Cycle
Comparison of Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Lipid Extraction Pathways to Renewable
Diesel from Algae. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18 (1): 13758.
doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9395-1.
Goodwin P, Wright G. 2011. Enhancing strategy evaluation in scenario planning: a role for
decision analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 1-16.
Han, Jeongwoo, Amgad Elgowainy, Hao Cai, and Michael Q Wang. 2013. Life-Cycle Analysis of
Bio-Based Aviation Fuels. Bioresource Technology 150 (December). Elsevier Ltd: 44756.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.153.
Hileman, James I., Pearl E. Donohoo, and Russell W. Stratton. 2010. Energy Content and
Alternative Jet Fuel Viability. Journal of Propulsion and Power 26 (6): 118496.
doi:10.2514/1.46232.
Huber, G W, S Iborra, and A Corma. 2006. Synthesis of Transportation Fuels from Biomass:
Chemistry, Catalysts, and Engineering. Chemical Reviews, no. 106: 4044.
Jena, Umakanta, and KC Das. 2011. Comparative Evaluation of Thermochemical Liquefaction
and Pyrolysis for Bio-Oil Production from Microalgae. Energy & Fuels 25 (11): 547282.
doi:10.1021/ef201373m.
Jones, S., Y. Zhu, D. Anderson, R. Hallen, D. Elliott, A. Schmidt, K. Albrecht, et al. 2014. Process
Design and Economics for the Conversion of Algal Biomass to Hydrocarbons: Whole Algae
Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Upgrading.
Karlsson, Hanna, Pl Brjesson, Per-Anders Hansson, and Serina Ahlgren. 2014. Ethanol
Production in Biorefineries Using Lignocellulosic Feedstock GHG Performance, Energy
Balance and Implications of Life Cycle Calculation Methodology. Journal of Cleaner
Production 83 (November): 42027. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.029.
Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Linkov I. 2009. Emergent conditions and multiple criteria analysis in
infrastructure: prioritization for developing countries. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis, 16: 125137.
Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Linkov I. 2010. Scenario and multiple criteria decision analysis for
energy and environmental security of military and industrial installations. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(2): 228-236.

Z.A. Collier et al.

Karvetski CW, Lambert JH, Keisler JM, Linkov I. 2011. Integration of decision analysis and
scenario planning for coastal engineering and climate change. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics: A, 41(1): 63-73.
Kinder, James, and Timothy Rahmes. 2009. Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic
Kerosenes (Bio-SPK).
Liu, Xiaowei, Benjamin Saydah, Pragnya Eranki, Lisa M Colosi, Greg B Mitchell, James Rhodes,
and Andres F Clarens. 2013. Pilot-Scale Data Provide Enhanced Estimates of the Life Cycle
Energy and Emissions Profile of Algae Biofuels Produced via Hydrothermal Liquefaction.
Bioresource
Technology
148
(November).
Elsevier
Ltd:
16371.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.112.
Lokesh, Kadambari, Vishal Sethi, Theoklis Nikolaidis, Eric Goodger, and Devaiah Nalianda. 2015.
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Biojet Fuels with a Technical Investigation into Their
Impact on Jet Engine Performance. Biomass and Bioenergy 77 (June): 2644.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.03.005.
Novelli, Philippe. 2011. Sustainable Way for Alternative Fuels and Energy in Aviation Final Report.
Olukoya, Ife A., Danielle Bellmer, James R. Whiteley, and Clint P. Aichele. 2015. Evaluation of
the Environmental Impacts of Ethanol Production from Sweet Sorghum. Energy for
Sustainable Development 24 (February): 18. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2014.10.004.
Pressley, Phillip N., Tarek N. Aziz, Joseph F. DeCarolis, Morton A. Barlaz, Feng He, Fanxing Li,
and Anders Damgaard. 2014. Municipal Solid Waste Conversion to Transportation Fuels: A
Life-Cycle Estimation of Global Warming Potential and Energy Consumption. Journal of
Cleaner Production 70 (May): 14553. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.041.
Ram C, Montibeller G, Morton A. 2011. Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for
the evaluation of strategic options. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(5):817
829.
Roberts, Griffin W., Marie-Odile P. Fortier, Belinda S. M. Sturm, and Susan M. Stagg-Williams.
2013. Promising Pathway for Algal Biofuels through Wastewater Cultivation and
Hydrothermal Conversion. Energy & Fuels 27 (2): 85767. doi:10.1021/ef3020603.
Seber, Gonca, Robert Malina, Matthew N. Pearlson, Hakan Olcay, James I. Hileman, and Steven
R.H. Barrett. 2014. Environmental and Economic Assessment of Producing
Hydroprocessed Jet and Diesel Fuel from Waste Oils and Tallow. Biomass and Bioenergy
67 (August): 10818. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.024.
Shonnard, DR, L. Williams, and T. N. Kalnes. 2010. Camelinaderived Jet Fuel and Diesel:
Sustainable Advanced Biofuels. Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy 29 (3): 38292.
doi:10.1002/ep.
Stratton, Russell W, Philip J Wolfe, and James I Hileman. 2011. Impact of Aviation Non-CO
Combustion Effects on the Environmental Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels. Environmental
Science & Technology 45 (24): 1073643. doi:10.1021/es2017522.
Stratton, RW, HM Wong, and JI Hileman. 2010. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

Value Chain for Next-Generation Aviation Biofuels: Resilience and Sustainability of the Product Life Cycle

Alternative
Jet
Fuels.
Transportation
Noise
and
Emissions.
Vol.
571.
http://www.obsa.org/Lists/Documentacion/Attachments/352/Life_cycle_greenhouse_gas_e
missions_alternative_jet_fuels_V.1.2_EN.pdf.
Wang, Michael. 2013. GREET Model. Argonne, Illinois: Argonne National Laboratory.
Zhu, Yunhua, Karl O. Albrecht, Douglas C. Elliott, Richard T. Hallen, and Susanne B. Jones.
2013. Development of Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Upgrading Technologies for LipidExtracted Algae Conversion to Liquid Fuels. Algal Research, August.
doi:10.1016/j.algal.2013.07.003.