EventsThe 1st International Online Conference on Environments
Published
This submission belongs to the session S1. Environmental Assessment Methods and Management Technologies of the event The 1st International Online Conference on Environments
Published date
27 Feb, 2026
Academic Editor
author-avatarMilena Horvat
Citation
Yury Erofeev, Stefan Majer, Daniela Thrän, Finn McFall, Life-Cycle GHG of SAF in Real Flights: Empirical WTW Accounting and Reconciliation with TIM, DEFRA, and Base Empreinte, in Proceedings of The 1st International Online Conference on Environments, 2 March–4 March 2026, MDPI: Basel, Switzerland
Share
Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Life-Cycle GHG of SAF in Real Flights: Empirical WTW Accounting and Reconciliation with TIM, DEFRA, and Base Empreinte

Finn McFall 5
1. Faculty of Economics and Management Science, Leipzig University, Institutsgebäude, Grimmaische Straße 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany, Germany
2. SQUAKE.earth GmbH, Brunnenstraße 19-21, 10119 Berlin, Germany
3. DBFZ German Biomass Research Center gGmbH, Torgauer Str. 116, 04347 Leipzig, Germany, Germany
4. Departmentleiterin Systemanalyse und Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung, UFZ / Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
5. Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK, UK
Abstract

The growing deployment of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs) collides with an aviation greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting landscape that remains largely fossil-baseline- and tank-to-wake (TTW)-focused. Operational calculators used for corporate reporting and disclosure—such as Google’s Travel Impact Model, IATA CO₂ Connect, the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator, ATP-DEC and the UK DEFRA factors—generally assume 100% conventional jet fuel and offer little structural treatment of SAF. This study quantifies well-to-wake (WTW) CO₂-equivalent emissions for ten commercial flights operated with certified SAF blends and documented pathways, including hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFAs), Fischer–Tropsch fuels and power-to-liquid e-fuels. Using flight-specific fuel uplift, blend share and aircraft data combined with ISO 14067/14083-consistent life-cycle assessment, the analysis derives WTW intensities per flight, per seat-kilometre and per passenger-kilometre. These empirical results are then compared with estimates from the above calculators, each run under its native distance uplift, passenger-and-cargo allocation and non-CO₂ conventions. The comparison decomposes discrepancies into contributions from the TTW versus WTW scope, treatment of SAF, non-CO₂ assumptions and allocation rules. In addition to climate change impact, the work screens a limited set of further impact categories (such as land-use change, eutrophication potential and water use) to explore trade-offs for SAF produced from dedicated biomass versus waste-based feedstocks. Building on the findings, the paper proposes a minimal, auditable protocol for integrating SAF into existing tools—explicit TTW/WTW disclosure, transparent non-CO₂ options, pathway- and blend-specific WTW factors and book-and-claim rules compatible with SAF certificates—aimed at making SAF deployment visible, comparable and verifiable in Scope 3.6 business-travel accounting.

Keywords
Sustainable aviation fuels
well-to-wake assessment
life cycle assessment
greenhouse gas accounting
Scope 3.6 business travel
environmental assessment methods
Travel Impact Model
Hydrophobic Menthol–Dodecanoic Acid Deep Eutectic Solvent as a Sustainable Extractant for Phenolic Compounds from Lamiaceae Herbal Drugs
Advancing Environmental Policy Studies With Pluralist Epistemology