Removing sulfur from jet fuel cools climate: study

Dec 14, 2011

A Yale study examining the impact of aviation on climate change found that removing sulfur from jet fuel cools the atmosphere. The study was published in the October 22 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"Aviation is really important to the global economy. We better understand what it's doing to climate because it's the fastest growing fossil fuel-burning sector and there is no alternative to in many circumstances. Emissions are projected to increase substantially in the next two decades—by a factor of two—whereas projections for other sectors are expected to decrease," said Nadine Unger, the study's author and assistant professor of climate science at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Particles of sulfate, formed by burning sulfur-laden , act like tiny mirrors that scatter solar radiation back into space. When sulfur is removed from the fuel, warming occurs but it's offset by the cooling effect of nitrate that forms from nitrogen oxides in jet exhaust. The result is that desulfurization of jet fuel has a small, net cooling effect.

In 2006 the United States introduced an ultralow sulfur standard for highway diesel, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is interested in desulfurized jet fuel for its potential to improve air quality around airports. Aircraft exhaust particles lodge in the lungs and cause respiratory and cardiovascular illness. In 2006 there were more than 31 million flights across the globe, according to an FAA emissions inventory.

"It's a win-win situation, because the sulfate can be taken out of the fuel to improve air quality around airports and, at the same time, it's not going to have a detrimental impact on global warming," she said.

Unger used a global-scale model that assessed the impact of reducing the amount of in jet fuel from 600 milligrams per kilogram of fuel to 15 milligrams per kilogram, which is the level targeted by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The study also simulated the full impacts of aviation emissions, such as ozone, methane, carbon dioxide, sulfate and contrails—those ribbons of clouds that appear in the wake of a jet—whereas previous studies examined each chemical effect only in isolation.

"In this study we tried to put everything together so that we account for interactions between those different chemical effects," said Unger. "We find that only a third of the climate impact from aviation can be attributed to carbon dioxide."

Unger also ran a simulation of aviation emissions at the Earth's surface and found that the climate impact is four times greater because the occur at altitude in the upper atmosphere.

"The chemical production of ozone is greater in the upper troposphere and its radiative efficiency is greater," she said. "It's a stronger greenhouse gas when it's higher up in the troposphere, which is exactly where is making it."

Explore further: Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

More information: The paper, "Global Climate Impact of Civil Aviation for Standard and Desulferized Jet Fuel," can be found at www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1120/2011GL049289/

Related Stories

Boeing, Embraer back sugar jet-fuel study

Jul 26, 2011

Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer and US rival Boeing said Tuesday they will co-finance research to determine the sustainability of using Brazilian sugarcane in jet fuel.

New study for cleaner aviation fuel

Apr 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- CSIRO together with Australasia's major aviation players is leading a world-first study to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from air transport by helping to develop a sustainable aviation ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antonima
1.2 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2011
Yes, this is why they burned the oil fields back in '91. You just have to add a little bit of chemical x, and it will remain in the atmosphere for decades and reflect sunlight.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2011
"Unger used a global-scale model"

Very droll. The same kind of models that didn't predict the cooling for the last 13 years?
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2011
Dang, how am I going to get my daily dose ?

Ahahahahahhaa...*poot* AAAARRRRRRRRRR,..., I've ruined another pair of perfectly good pantaloons ;)