As the aviation industry strives to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, electro-sustainable aviation fuel (eSAF) has emerged as a promising yet controversial solution. eSAF holds immense potential for decarbonizing the skies. But critics argue it might come at a cost to the industry’s growth and operational viability. Will eSAF salvage aviation quickly?
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is a critical solution in the aviation industry’s journey toward decarbonization. It addresses the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonize. This is due to its reliance on energy-dense fuels for long-haul flights.
The difference between SAF and eSAF?
SAF is typically bio-based and produced from renewable feedstocks like used cooking oil, agricultural residues and municipal wast. However, eSAF is is synthesized through the Power-to-Liquid (PtL) process. Here, hydrogen is produced through electrolysing water with renewable energy. Capturing CO2 is done directly from the atmosphere. This is then followed by synthesising these components into liquid carbons. These are in principle endless resources, the holy grail. The following table summarises the key differences between SAF and eSAF:
| Aspect | SAF | eSAF |
| Production process | Biodigestion of cooking oils, agricultural residues, municipal waste and algae and synthesis | Electrolyzing water to produce hydrogen, capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere and synthesizing into liquid hydrocarbons |
| Feedstock source | Available biological or waste-based feedstocks | Renewable electricity, water, and captured carbon dioxide |
| Carbon reduction Potential | Achieves up to 80-90% lifecycle carbon emission reductions | Near-total carbon neutrality, provided the energy used is from renewable sources and the CO₂ is directly captured from the atmosphere |
| Scalability | Easy to scale with current infrastructure but may be limited by feedstock and land mis use | Unlimited scalability if renewable electricity and carbon capture technologies are widely adopted and become more affordable |
| Costs | Relatively high compared to conventional jet fuel | More expensive due to the high cost of renewable electricity and advanced carbon capture technology |
European mandates
The European Union (EU) has established firm mandates to increase the use of SAF and eSAF through the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation. This is part of the ‘Fit for 55’ package, approved in 2023. This regulation sets binding targets for fuel suppliers and aircraft operators. They will have to progressively incorporate SAF and e-SAF into aviation fuel supplies.
The Implementation timelines for SAF and eSAF are as follows:
- 2025: Fuel suppliers are required to ensure that at least 2% of the aviation fuel supplied at EU airports is SAF
- 2030: The SAF mandate increases to 6%, with a sub-target of 1.2% specifically for e-SAF
- 2050: The mandates aim for 70% SAF, including 35% e-SAF
The regulation includes stringent penalties to enforce compliance. Fuel suppliers failing to meet the SAF and eSAF blending obligations will face fines determined by each Member State. The minimum is set at of twice the price difference between fossil kerosene and SAF. This is then multiplied by the shortfall in the required SAF volume.
Will eSAF salvage aviation quickly?
Critics argue that prioritizing electro-sustainable aviation fuels (e-SAF) over bio-based sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) may be impractical and harmful due to several factors:
- Limited production capacity: The current infrastructure for e-SAF is underdeveloped. Reuters highlights that only a few refineries produce e-SAF, and the production levels are insufficient to meet the aviation industry’s demands.
- Energy efficiency concerns: The production of e-SAF is energy-intensive. A Bain study notes that the process requires substantial amounts of renewable electricity, raising questions about its overall energy efficiency and environmental benefits.
- High production costs: E-SAF production is currently significantly more expensive than bio-based SAF. The Financial Times reports that synthetic fuels, including e-SAF, are so much more costlier, that it makes widespread adoption almost impossible.
These critiques suggest that e-SAF holds promise for long-term sustainability. But current economic and logistical challenges make it less viable compared to bio-based SAF in the near future. Even long term acceptance of eSAF is doubtful, without causing significant costs impact for the airlines. This will jeopardise airlines’ business models significantly and airtravel will once again become a luxury good.
The future of eSAF and aviation
eSAF offers a long-term solution to aviation’s environmental challenges. However, its success depends on overcoming cost and production barriers. Government policies, subsidies, and industry-wide collaboration will be crucial in ensuring e-SAF does not hinder but rather enhances the aviation sector’s future.
In conclusion, eSAF won’t salvage airtravel quickly but could reshape it. That reshaping may lead to growth or stagnation. It depends on how well the industry and governments address its challenges. However, the short term and most likely long term preference remains the bio-based SAF option. it must be scaled thoughtfully though to avoid jeopardizing land use for essential purposes like food production.
Interested to learn more about eSAF and SAF production and availability? Contact us!
