Aviation fuels of the future − A techno-economic assessment of distribution, fueling and utilizing electricity-based LH2, LCH4 and kerosene (SAF)

This paper investigates the techno-economic implications on air travel when fossil-based kerosene is phased out of the market, specifically focusing on the comparison between liquid hydrogen, liquid methane and renewable kerosene for ten exemplary flight routes to estimate the cost of air travel per passenger and 100 km distance travelled $\left(\frac{{€}_{2020}}{PAX100km}\right)$ for every fuel type. By considering the entire supply chain, including hydrogen production from renewable sources, synthesis, oversea transport, domestic distribution, and utilization, this study addresses the overarching question of whether it is more economical to change the fuel source or the fuel itself to reduce fossil kerosene usage in the aviation industry. It is demonstrated that aircraft acquisition costs play a minor role compared to fuel supply costs and specific fuel demand. The study shows that for electricity-based fuels, liquid hydrogen is the most economic option, even with a potential energy penalty, followed by liquid methane and renewable kerosene. The results for an aircraft with a capacity 180 passengers are 3.08, 4.57 and 5.11 $\frac{€}{PAX100km}$ for liquid hydrogen, liquid methane and renewable kerosene, respectively. Challenges regarding storage and isolation requirements for cryogenic fuels in aviation are discussed, with assumptions made that these obstacles can be overcome to realize economic benefits. Additionally, the study suggests potential shifts in aircraft size selection by airlines to mitigate rising fuel prices in the future. The study advocates for the aviation industry's openness to new fuels like liquid hydrogen and liquid methane to alleviate the cost increase associated with phasing out fossil kerosene.