Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-396)
MR JOE
GREENWELL, DR
JOHN BENNETT,
MR ANDY
TAYLOR, MR
DAVID CLARKE,
MR COLIN
BEESLEY AND
MR JOHN
MORAN
3 MAY 2006
Q380 David Lepper: Colleagues from
Rolls-Royce, welcome. I hope you found the first part interesting.
I think everybody is agreed about the importance of dealing with
aviation fuel in terms of our CO2 emissions and the
world's CO2 emissions. I think the Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research recently said that if the climate change
impact of aviation continues to grow at current rates, all householders,
motorists and businesses would have to reduce their CO2
emissions to zero in order for the UK Government to meet its 2050
target. I would be interested in hearing what Rolls-Royce is doing
within that context. Can I just put something to you that you
said in your submission, and that was to express a concern about
alternative fuels for aviation due to "safety, energy density,
cost, global availability and environmental impact". You
have got some concerns about alternative aviation fuels. Some
of my colleagues who went to the US heard similar concerns being
expressed by Boeing in Washington. What is Rolls-Royce up to and
what is the issue about the problems with alternative fuels?
Mr Clarke: I will comment to start
with on what we are doing generally and then I will pass to Colin
and John to comment on the details of the technical programmes
and the issues around alternative fuels where there are some very
big concerns both from our side and the operators' side. If you
look generally at what we are doing in this arena, we invest about
£600 million a year in product development, at any one time
we are probably developing between two and five new gas turbine
products for aviation and every single one of those represents
an improvement on the one that went before. This year we are doing
two major new engines which will be improvements over what we
did just last year. To give an indication of what that means in
practice, over the last 50 years, which realistically is the horizon
of the gas turbine jet industry and aviation industry, we have
improved fuel efficiency of our engines by about 1% a year, which
may not sound very much but the reality is when you are working
with something where simply achieving that kind of change requires
that kind of investment every year, that is a fair rate of progress
given we are dealing with materials and structures operating quite
literally at the limits of their capabilities. This is not something
you can change trivially in terms of changing fuels. John, who
is chief combustion engineer, will explain some of the realities
of what is involved in changing the fuel of an engine. Given that
kind of background, the fuel we are using has not changed particularly
for many years in the industry. Where we are going right now is
we are evaluating the possibilities of alternative fuels and we
do that mostly at a research level where we are working with a
number of UK universities and overseas in terms of what is possible
given the types of engine and type of combustion systems that
we have got today, and we are looking at where will be the bounds
in terms of alternative fuels. One of the key things to bear in
mind is this is an industry where we cannot change anything independently
of the fuel manufacturers or independently of the operators, independently
of other international agencies and international programmes,
so we work very closely with all of those groups and are represented
on groups like ICAO[7]
which is looking at emission standards from engines and fuel standards
to go with aircraft. We are working with all of those groups in
a genuinely co-ordinated fashion to take these kinds of issues
forward. I must stress it is not something that is immediate,
and the Ford guys said the same thing about their products, you
are talking about a 12-15 year life cycle. Shell was saying ethanol
is a 50 year programme. Our products are out there 25 years-plus,
we design for a minimum 25 year operation. To change that product
significantly, those gas turbines that fly overhead here and right
now, you will have to engineer a new engine and in crude terms
you cannot retrofit. You cannot go to a Boeing 747 and put a completely
new engine on to it without huge investment. It does mean there
is a very long-term life cycle. Realistically you cannot roll
over product in a few years, it is going to be a 25 or 40 year
programme to roll over gas turbine product into a new technological
standard. You can do some of that but it is a hugely long-term
business that we are in and a quite challenging one.
Mr Beesley: If I can start with
the Tyndall Centre report, which we read with great interest.
We would not argue with the results of the sums that they came
out with given the assumptions they used, which were rather pessimistic
from an aviation point of view and very optimistic from all the
other sectors' points of view which relatively made the aviation
sector by 2050 very large compared to everybody else's emissions.
Q381 David Lepper: The Government
does seem to be looking towards a huge increase in air travel.
Mr Beesley: Yes. In some ways
the increased focus on the environmental challenges of the aviation
industry mean it is a victim of its success in meeting the growing
demand for air travel and air transport that more and more of
us want to do as much as we can. Rolls-Royce is a founder signatory
and very proactive in the formation of the Sustainable Aviation
Strategy, which was launched last year, which is a collaboration
between the manufacturers, the airlines, the airports and air
traffic control in the UK, and has set out a path towards sustainability.
The major contribution from our perspective is the technology.
As David was referring to, specifically we are committed to a
50% reduction in fuel burn and CO2 emissions over a
20 year timeframe of 2000—20, on top of a 70% reduction
in fuel burn that we have done historically since the first jet
aircraft. We are talking about huge improvements in efficiency
on top of what has already been achieved. We have not planned
any contribution from lower carbon fuels in those assumptions,
we are assuming that the current global standard fuel, Jet A1
kerosene, will remain so. As David referred to, aviation is a
truly global industry, aircraft have to be able to rely on the
same standard quality fuel being available at all of their destinations
and also some unintended destinations occasionally. Safety is
the number one priority of the aviation industry and it has an
excellent safety record.
Q382 David Lepper: I think you were
involved in, or contributed to, the study carried out by Imperial
College two or three years ago on Potential for Renewable Energy
Sources for Aviation.
Mr Beesley: Yes.
Q383 David Lepper: It sounds as though
perhaps you do not agree with some of the findings of that study
which suggested that synthetic kerosene and biodiesel offered,
I think they said, the greatest potential benefits as alternative
aviation fuel.
Mr Beesley: It would be fair to
say we nurtured that report, using the terminology of the day.
Q384 David Lepper: There is lots
of nurturing going on.
Mr Beesley: The Department of
Trade and Industry funded the work with very strong guidance from
ourselves and British Airways, who ought to be credited also.
We gave them the brief of going away and finding the best alternative
aviation fuel, so the report is written in that context. They
talked about three possibilities and dismissed lots of other alternatives.
I think the most practical solution was the Fisher-Tropsch synthetic
kerosene which is currently being used and approved for use at
a 50% blend. It is manufactured by Sasol in South Africa. Much
of the fuel that is uplifted in Johannesburg is already synthetic
kerosene. In this case it is manufactured by coal but there is
no technical reason why the same process could not be used to
manufacture it from biomass. In terms of the report it is a proven
practical alternative. The other fuel that they said was possible
was hydrogen, which is a very long-term potential for the future.
Most people who have looked at hydrogen have said there are some
huge, great technical challenges mainly to do with the storage
of the fuel and the logistics of creating enough hydrogen at all
the airports of the world. Many people say that you would expect
aviation to move over to hydrogen ten to 15 years after all other
transport has. I think in the context of the discussions you were
having earlier you can see where we are coming from there. Within
the PRESAV report we did suggest the possibility of blending biodiesel
into traditional kerosene. With the benefit of hindsight I think
they were a little optimistic. They say ten to 20% would be possible
but we would have concerns certainly at the higher end of that
range. One of the fundamental properties that an aviation fuel
has is that it has to remain liquid at minus 60 degrees centigrade,
which is the temperature within the wings at altitude. Not only
that, you have to have a fuel where the engines can be relit at
30,000 feet, which is a big challenge. The biodiesel fuels have
technical constraints which do not make those two things easier.
Also, any fuel containing oxygen, as all the biofuels do—biodiesel
and ethanol contain oxygen—is not good news for an aviation
fuel. If you are carrying around heavy oxygen molecules you have
to burn more fuel just to carry it around. There are some real
inefficiencies just from using a fuel that has got less energy
density.
Q385 David Lepper: Presumably you
have given consideration to the implications of eventual agreement,
if it happens, on aviation being included within the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme. There are discussions going on towards that end,
which may or may not be completed at some point. I imagine you
and others have taken into account the likely implications of
that. Is that likely to affect the speed of technological process
or not?
Mr Beesley: I have to admit to
an interest. I have been a member of the Aviation Working Party—
Q386 David Lepper: Good.
Mr Beesley: —on the European
Commission Climate Change Programme looking at incorporating aviation
into phase two of the Emissions Trading Scheme. There are a huge
number of options available. The working party submitted its final
report literally a few days ago which will be presented to the
European Parliament during this year. There are many problems
in integrating what is a European scheme within a global aviation
industry, some of them political, as you can imagine. If it is
just a European scheme, which would be the least controversial,
it would be unlikely to have any great impetus on a global aviation
industry. Intra-EU aviation is only about 15% of global aviation,
so there would be little incentive for products being developed
specifically for the European market. There is also the issue
of the fact that aviation uniquely has impacts on the climate
beyond just its CO2 emissions. It is unclear with the
current level of scientific understanding what the best way is
of addressing that. We know that reducing fuel burn is a good
idea and reducing CO2 has got to be a good thing, so
the whole aviation industry is geared towards reducing its fuel
burn and increasing its efficiency. Emissions trading will hopefully
further encourage that which is happening anyway.
Q387 Patrick Hall: I would like to
congratulate Rolls-Royce on the evidence. I thought it was very
readable as well as being short, and that always helps. I thought
paragraph six was particularly measured and balanced where you
say: "While carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft are a
significant and growing contributor to climate change . . ."[8]
et cetera, plus the effect Mr Beesley has just referred to of
cruise, which I had not sufficiently understood. Can I say the
message in paragraph six contrasts rather strongly in my view
with the message in paragraph 11 where you said: "Aviation
kerosene accounts for only 3% of the global use of fossil fuels.
It can be argued that the benefits to local and global economies
and to personal and social mobility brought about by aviation
justify the use of this resource for this purpose . . ."
et cetera. That sounds like on the one hand you are upfront about
the issues and on the other you are not yet serious about doing
something about it. That message in paragraph 11 could sound complacent,
and you are here to explain this. I would like to ask you exactly
where is Rolls-Royce's policy on this issue. As a supplementary
to that, could you indicate, if you are able to now, what proportion
of your research budget is being directed to replacing safely
and efficiently and economically the current aviation kerosene?
Mr Beesley: Thank you for that
question, which is very perceptive. We are often misunderstood,
so thank you for giving us the chance to correct it. Yes, we are
concerned about the environmental impact of all of our products.
The point we were trying to make was that aviation is only 3%
of fossil fuel use. It is growing faster than some others but
on an absolute level it is very small and will remain so for some
time. Because of all the constraints within the aviation industry,
and we have mentioned some of them to do with the technical specifications
required that the fuel remains safe and reliable and efficient,
you can argue that the best use for what kerosene there is is
in aviation rather than for other uses, power generation and land
transportation to name but a couple. We are putting all of our
effort through research and technology to make sure that the kerosene
that we are burning is being done as efficiently and as cleanly
as possible. That is the point we are trying to make but it is
a complex argument.
Q388 Patrick Hall: I understand that,
but it could look like, and it might actually be, because it is
in everybody's interest to make fuel consumption more efficient
whatever the fuel is, that you are relying on every other sector
to directly tackle carbon change, CO2 emissions and
arguing that for the foreseeable future, and I am not quite sure
how long that is, you did not answer my point about scientific
research, the aviation industry does not need to do that. I think
that would be a mistake if that was the position. It may well
be the perception that people will draw from that position which
perhaps you will think about. If you can answer it now, please
do, if not maybe write, about the scientific research budget and
what you are putting into looking beyond existing kerosene. Not
just the efficiency because you have been doing that for decades.
Mr Clarke: That is right. It is
a very interesting point. If we were purely an aviation company
the answer to your question would be less than 1%. In terms of
what we are investing directly of our funding in alternative fuels
to kerosene for aviation the answer would be less than 1%. If
you look at what we are investing in efficiency from our research
programme the answer is more than 70%. Efficiency of fuels is
absolutely crucial. On the specific issue of alternative fuels
the answer is a very, very small number for aviation but it is
worth recognising we are not just an aviation business, we are
also involved in ground based power in terms of power generation,
we do power systems and propulsion systems for marine application,
and in those areas we are looking for alternative fuels because
those are areas where there is a clear opportunity and a clear
demand from customers for alternative fuels, whether it is gas-based
or liquid-based fuels. In those areas we work primarily on non-kerosene
fuels, it is gaseous-based fuels that we are interested in, and
diesels as well. What we are seeing is the investment we make
in those areas and in the technology groups that work in those
areas feed through into our aviation activities over the longer
term. It is important to recognise that it is not just aviation
activity gas turbines, in the gas turbines we use in the aerospace
industry and our product range we use derivatives of the same
products in those other sectors, so there is a high degree of
commonality across those markets for us. We can take the technology
that is developed in one area and use it, generally with some
modification, in one of the other sectors. The answer on alternative
fuels is clearly we are working on that at the moment in the other
sectors where there is a clear market driven potential to go into
those areas with alternative fuels, whether it is a conventional
fossil fuel or whether it is a biofuel or hydrogen. Our latest
business sector is around fuel cells, not for transport applications
but for ground based power applications where we have a solid
oxide fuel cell system in development at megawatt scales which
are going into those.
Q389 Sir Peter Soulsby: In your paragraph
ten you referred to the Sasol plant and the production of synthetic
kerosene. The impression given there is that this fuel does have
a future, and I mean to aviation. That is how I am reading it.
If that is so, and that is what you say there, why do you feel
that is not being reflected more in your medium or long-term investment
and research plans?
Mr Moran: Synthetic kerosenes
are different. One thing we can do with the Sasol process is it
gives us the opportunity to tailor make a fuel that is tailor
made to the kind of combustion process that we have. At the present
time Jet A1 is a highly polished fuel but it comes along with
some things that we do not like. It has got polycyclic aromatics
in it, it has got benzene rings, things that we do not like in
there. Those produce soot and smoke particles. You do not see
very many soot and smoke particles from modern gas turbines but
they are still there at the very small level. What the Fischer-Tropsch
process allows you to do is tailor make a fuel that will not have
those polycyclic aromatics in it. Therefore, the ability to make
those precursors to smoke that come from benzene rings and polycyclic
aromatics are not there any more. As far as PM2.5s and PM10s are
concerned, the aim to use something like a Fischer-Tropsch kerosene
would be a far nicer thing to do. We may also be able to increase
the power density of the fuel as well using the Fischer-Tropsch
methodology. One of the things that we find difficult with the
biofuels is this oxygen molecule that comes along for free but
does not produce anything with regard to heat output. What that
means is when looking at a blend of 20% of this biodiesel along
with kerosene, for example, there is a 25% reduction in overall
heat output. That means we would have to burn 25% more fuel. Going
to Fischer-Tropsch fuel we may be able to increase the power density
of the fuel, not by very much but we would be able to tailor the
fuel to give us more energy, so one, two, three, four per cent
maybe of energy increase, and obviously that is really worthwhile.
Q390 Mr Drew: Can I go back to what
Mr Beesley was talking about. I think it is fair to say the last
time we were in Brussels the airline emissions issue was not seen
as unalloyed success, let alone future joy ringing from the corridors
of power there. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? I
do not mean just in terms of countries, but the carriers, the
manufacturers like yourself. I know it is a complicated issue.
It is symbolic in terms of the world becoming a bit more serious
about emissions, is it not, and if we do not get this right then
the rest is mere chattering in the background.
Mr Beesley: You are asking me
a question that could take me into dangerous territory with some
of our customers, so I will have to be slightly diplomatic in
my answer.
Q391 Mr Drew: That is why I asked
it!
Mr Beesley: Obviously all of the
aircraft operators have to fly to global standards with essentially
the same equipment and really there is not a lot different in
the way that they use our products so in one way the answer is
there are no good guys or bad guys, they are all pretty much the
same. The UK is blessed with some of the good guys in that some
airlines do report their emissions from their airline operations
and some do not. You can look at British Airways as an example
of a good guy.
Q392 Chairman: Is the United Kingdom
Government through its fiscal and other financial policy doing
enough to assist the more rapid development of the technologies
you have described, both in terms of next generation of engines
and next generation of aviation fuels?
Mr Beesley: The motivation to
develop new technology for aviation has been there all the time.
Even if fuel was free we would be under pressure to improve fuel
efficiency simply because if you can carry less fuel not only
are you saving money but you can fly your aircraft further or
replace some of the fuel with greater payload, more paying passengers.
There is a built-in multiplier effect on the cost model of running
an airline if you can use less fuel. The motivation is there and
always has been and it has been increased recently through the
very rapid increases in fuel price.
Q393 Chairman: Part of the reason
I ask you that is you have made very strong emphasis in your evidence
about the longevity of the asset.
Mr Beesley: Yes.
Q394 Chairman: You also disappointingly—I
do not say this critically—have told the Committee that
retrofitting aircraft of an existing specification with more modern
engines is not financially viable. The reason I asked about the
fiscal aspect was whether you felt from the airline operator's
point of view that a more generous regime of write-down could
speed up the turnover in age terms of the fleet thus enabling
the fruits of your labours to be incorporated in new aircraft
quicker.
Mr Beesley: Part of the reason
it is difficult to change an aircraft is the number one priority,
which is safety. Aircraft are certified at the time that they
are first designed and first flown. To change that aircraft in
any way, whether it is part of an engine or a type of fuel, takes
an incredible amount of certification safety work in order to
get that allowed. The costs of doing that are often prohibitive
for all but essential changes.
Q395 Chairman: One final question
in terms of the engine design. You talked about your long-term
objective of a 50% reduction in fuel burn over quite a long time
period. Does that mean that engine design is going to improve
incrementally or does there come a point—a point you made
earlier about the nature of materials operating at their limit—at
which new types of engine, perhaps even non-metallic types, may
offer a quantum leap breakthrough in terms of fuel consumption?
Mr Beesley: Can I put that target
in context? We are talking about 50% for the aviation industry,
the system, between 2000 and 2020. We have broken that 50% target
down into the different parts, although it has got to be the system
working together that delivers it. Our part as the aero engine
manufacturers is 20%. There is another 20% to come from the airframe
and another 10% to come from better air traffic control allowing
the aircraft to waste less fuel. Our part of that target is 20%.
The Trent 1000 engine for the Boeing 787, which enters service
in 2008, so that is less than halfway through that time period,
will be 12% better than our baseline, so we will be more than
half the way in less than half the time. Having said that, it
does get increasingly hard because the better you get as you approach
the laws of physics there are limits. We believe that 20% is a
challenging but realistic target for 2020. There is some small
further improvement to come after that date.
Q396 Chairman: After that are we
looking at a complete quantum leap in what constitutes a modern
gas turbine engine?
Mr Clarke: The reality is in terms
of what you see on the wing, or it might be above the wing in
many cases, it probably will not look that different but in terms
of what is inside it, will it be non-metallic, there will be non-metallics
in there, I am sure, but there will still be some parts which
will be metal for both safety reasons and life reasons because
it is too difficult to do in ceramic. To give you an indication:
we have been running ceramic systems in research and development
and production for 35 years. Mr Beesley and myself have both been
in it for 20 years and they are not in production yet, other than
in one or two components. It is a very long, challenging job.
That is the other thing about the kinds of things we are talking
about, the research timescales are not a few years. Like the fuel
cells, this is ten, 20, 30 years. You will see it but you will
not see it physically on the outside of the engine.
Chairman: Both from the automotive and
aviation standpoints you have brought a well-informed dose of
realism to our consideration of how we address the question of
greenhouse gas emissions and the use of biofuels in both the worlds
of road transport and aviation, for which we are grateful. May
I thank you both for your written evidence, which was of a high
quality and very helpful to the Committee. If there is anything
that subsequently occurs to you that you would like to write to
us about following questions, we are always open to further input.
Thank you very much indeed for coming and for your patience in
answering our questions this afternoon.
7 International Civil Aviation Organisation Back
8
Ev 140, para 6 Back
|
