What Is E-Kerosene? A Complete Guide to Sustainable Aviation Fuel and Why It Matters
- Green Fuel Journal
- 3 days ago
- 32 min read
The aviation industry stands at a critical crossroads. Aircraft transport nearly 5 billion passengers annually, but this mobility comes at a significant environmental cost. Aviation contributes approximately 2-3% of global CO2 emissions—a figure projected to triple by 2050 if no action is taken.
As the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and 193 member states committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the search for viable solutions has intensified.
Enter what is e kerosene—a synthetic aviation fuel that could fundamentally transform how we fly. E-kerosene, also called synthetic jet fuel or power-to-liquid (PtL) fuel, represents one of the most promising pathways to decarbonize aviation while maintaining current aircraft technology.
Unlike bio-based alternatives constrained by feedstock limitations, e kerosene aviation fuel can be produced using only renewable electricity, water, and captured carbon dioxide, offering truly scalable production potential.
This comprehensive guide examines what is e kerosene, how the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process creates this carbon neutral jet fuel, the economic and technical challenges facing e fuels production cost, and why the EU ReFuelEU Aviation mandate positions synthetic jet fuel as central to aviation decarbonization technologies.
With the first commercial e-kerosene plant now operational in Germany and over 45 e-fuel facilities planned across Europe, understanding this technology has never been more important.
What Is E-Kerosene and How Does It Work?
E-kerosene is a synthetic hydrocarbon fuel chemically identical to conventional jet fuel but produced without petroleum.
The term "e-kerosene" derives from "electro-kerosene," reflecting its production from renewable electricity.
When discussing what is e kerosene, it's essential to understand that this sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a type of synthetic jet fuel that can directly replace fossil-based kerosene in existing aircraft engines without modifications—a property known as "drop-in" capability.
The production of e kerosene aviation fuel follows the power-to-liquid PtL fuel pathway, which converts electrical energy into liquid hydrocarbons through a multi-step chemical process.
This transformation requires three primary inputs:
renewable electricity (from wind, solar, or other sustainable sources), water, and carbon dioxide (captured either directly from the atmosphere or from industrial point sources).
The Five-Step E-Kerosene Production Process
1. Renewable Energy Sourcing
The foundation of green hydrogen carbon capture aviation fuel production begins with abundant renewable electricity. E-kerosene facilities typically co-locate with wind farms or solar installations to minimize transmission losses and energy costs.
For example, the Atmosfair pilot plant in Werlte, Germany, contracts electricity from four local wind farms. Current electrolysis efficiency means producing e kerosene requires approximately five times the energy content of the resulting fuel—a significant but decreasing energy penalty as technology improves.
2. Green Hydrogen Production Through Electrolysis
Water electrolysis splits H₂O molecules into hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (O₂) using an electric current. Three main electrolysis technologies exist:
Alkaline Water Electrolysis (AWE): Mature technology operating at 60-70% efficiency
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM): Higher efficiency (70-80%) with faster response times
Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cells (SOEC): Highest theoretical efficiency (80-90%) but less commercially mature
Current green hydrogen production requires 50-56 kWh of electricity per kilogram of H₂, depending on electrolyzer efficiency. At 70% efficiency, this translates to approximately 17.76 kg of hydrogen per megawatt-hour of electricity consumed.
For e-kerosene production, approximately 0.8 kg of hydrogen is needed per kilogram of synthetic fuel produced.
Present-day green hydrogen costs range from $3-7 per kilogram in 2024-2025, though costs are projected to fall below $2.50/kg by 2030 as electrolyzer capital costs decline and renewable electricity becomes cheaper.
The capital cost of electrolysis has already fallen 60% since 2010, reducing hydrogen costs from a range of $10-15/kg to $4-6/kg.
3. Carbon Dioxide Capture: DAC vs. Point Source
E-kerosene production requires 3.1 kg of CO₂ per kg of SAF produced.
Two primary CO₂ sourcing methods exist:
Direct Air Capture (DAC): Extracts CO₂ directly from atmospheric air (415-600 ppm concentration). Current DAC costs range from $400-1,000 per ton of CO₂ captured, though 2024 studies project costs falling to $230-540 per ton by 2050 with technological improvements and scale. The Mammoth project in Iceland, operated by Climeworks, represents the world's largest DAC facility as of 2025.
Point Source Capture: Captures concentrated CO₂ streams from industrial processes like biogas plants or cement production. The Atmosfair facility sources CO₂ from an adjacent biogas plant processing food waste, where CO₂ concentration is much higher, reducing capture costs to approximately $70 per ton.
For lifecycle emissions in aviation fuel to achieve carbon neutrality, CO₂ must come from atmospheric or biogenic sources rather than fossil fuels. Using fossil-derived CO₂ would merely recycle emissions rather than achieving net removal.
4. Syngas Production and Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis
The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process represents the heart of e-kerosene production. This catalytic reaction, discovered by German chemists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923, converts a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide (syngas) into liquid hydrocarbons.
Before Fischer-Tropsch synthesis can occur, the captured CO₂ must be converted to carbon monoxide (CO) through the Reverse Water-Gas Shift (RWGS) reaction:
CO₂ + H₂ → CO + H₂O
This reaction typically occurs at 200-240°C and elevated pressure.
The resulting syngas (CO + H₂ mixture) then undergoes Fischer-Tropsch synthesis over metal catalysts—typically iron (Fe) or cobalt (Co)-based: nCO + (2n+1)H₂ → CₙH₂ₙ₊₂ + nH₂O
The Fischer-Tropsch reaction produces a distribution of hydrocarbon products following the Anderson-Schulz-Flory (ASF) distribution.
By controlling reaction temperature, pressure, and catalyst composition, producers can optimize for kerosene-range hydrocarbons (C₉-C₁₇). Low-temperature Fischer-Tropsch (LTFT) synthesis (200-240°C) favors production of longer-chain paraffins suitable for jet fuel.
Carbon efficiency of the FT pathway reaches 98-99% for total liquid products, though kerosene-specific efficiency ranges from 60-77% depending on process optimization. The kerosene yield from Fischer-Tropsch crude is approximately 75% after refining, with by-products including naphtha and diesel-range hydrocarbons.
5. Refining and Upgrading to Aviation-Grade Fuel
The synthetic crude oil (syncrude) produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis requires additional refining to meet stringent aviation fuel specifications.
This upgrading typically involves:
Hydrocracking: Breaking longer hydrocarbon chains to desired kerosene length
Isomerization: Converting n-alkanes to branched iso-alkanes to lower freeze point
Distillation: Separating the kerosene fraction from lighter and heavier components
The final product, Fischer-Tropsch Synthesized Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK), must meet ASTM D7566 standards for aviation fuel certification.
Current certification allows blending up to 50% e-kerosene with conventional jet fuel, though research toward 100% synthetic fuel certification is advancing rapidly.
Virgin Atlantic and Rolls-Royce completed the first transatlantic flight using 100% SAF in November 2023, demonstrating technical feasibility.
What Are the Main Benefits of E-Kerosene for Aviation?
E-kerosene offers several distinct advantages over both conventional jet fuel and alternative aviation fuel pathways, positioning it as a cornerstone of long-term aviation decarbonization technologies.
Drop-In Capability: No Engine Modifications Required
The most significant practical advantage of e kerosene aviation fuel is its status as a true "drop-in" replacement for fossil kerosene. E-kerosene is chemically identical to conventional Jet A/A-1 fuel, containing the same hydrocarbon compounds (C₉-C₁₇ paraffins) that current aircraft engines are designed to burn.
This molecular compatibility means:
No aircraft engine modifications needed
Compatible with existing fuel infrastructure (pipelines, storage tanks, refueling systems)
No changes to aircraft design or weight characteristics
Full interoperability with current aviation fleet (~28,000 commercial aircraft globally)
Immediate scalability without fleet replacement
This contrasts sharply with alternative decarbonization approaches like hydrogen-powered aviation or battery-electric aircraft, which would require complete aircraft redesign, new ground infrastructure, and decades-long fleet turnover.
For long-haul flights crossing oceans or continents, where energy density is paramount, synthetic jet fuel remains the only viable near-term solution.
Lifecycle Emissions Reduction: 90-100% Potential
When produced using renewable electricity and atmospheric CO₂ capture, e-kerosene can achieve 90-100% lifecycle emissions reduction compared to fossil jet fuel.
The carbon neutrality calculation works as follows:
CO₂ Capture: Atmospheric or biogenic CO₂ is captured (3.1 kg CO₂/kg fuel)
E-Kerosene Production: Fuel is synthesized and distributed
Combustion: Aircraft burns fuel, releasing CO₂ back to atmosphere (3.16 kg CO₂/kg fuel burned)
Net Result: The CO₂ released equals the CO₂ initially captured, achieving carbon circularity
Residual emissions (typically 5-10% of fossil baseline) come from:
Production facility construction and maintenance
Transportation of captured CO₂ and finished fuel
Energy used in non-electrolysis process steps
Fugitive emissions during production
European Commission studies confirm that e-kerosene produced from renewable hydrogen and direct air capture achieves lifecycle emissions of 8-15 gCO₂e/MJ, compared to 89 gCO₂e/MJ for conventional jet fuel—representing an 83-91% reduction.
Non-CO₂ Climate Impact Reduction
Aviation's climate impact extends beyond carbon dioxide. Non-CO₂ effects—including nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), contrail formation, and cirrus cloud generation—contribute approximately two-thirds of aviation's total climate forcing.
The 2023 revision of the EU ETS Directive now mandates monitoring and reporting of non-CO₂ aviation emissions starting January 2025.
E-kerosene offers several advantages for non-CO₂ emissions:
Reduced Sulfur Content: Synthetic fuels contain virtually zero sulfur (conventional jet fuel contains up to 3,000 ppm), reducing sulfate aerosol formation
Lower Particulate Matter: Cleaner combustion produces fewer soot particles, which serve as ice nuclei for contrail formation
Consistent Fuel Quality: Synthetic production ensures uniform fuel properties, enabling optimized combustion and reduced NOₓ emissions
Research from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in 2025 demonstrated that e-kerosene combustion produces fewer ice-forming particles than conventional jet fuel, potentially reducing contrail-induced warming by 20-40% on routes where contrail avoidance strategies are implemented.
Infinite Scalability: Beyond Biofuel Limitations
Unlike bio-based sustainable aviation fuel pathways constrained by feedstock availability, e-kerosene production scales with renewable energy capacity rather than biomass supply.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates sustainable biomass supplies could support approximately 380 billion gallons of liquid fuel production annually—insufficient for global aviation demand projected to reach 500-600 billion gallons by 2050.
E kerosene aviation fuel circumvents these limitations by using:
Water: Abundant and recyclable (water is a by-product of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis)
CO₂: Available from atmosphere or industrial sources
Renewable Electricity: Scalable through continued wind and solar deployment
The primary scaling challenge shifts from feedstock availability to energy infrastructure: meeting global aviation fuel demand with e-kerosene would require significant renewable energy capacity expansion.
Producing sufficient e-kerosene for 2050 aviation demand would require approximately 1.5 times the EU's current total renewable electricity production—a substantial but theoretically achievable goal given projected renewable energy growth.
What Are the Production Challenges and Cost Barriers?
Despite its promise, e-kerosene faces significant economic and technical hurdles before achieving widespread commercial deployment. Understanding these e fuels production cost challenges is essential for realistic assessment of scale-up timelines.
Current Production Costs: The Economic Reality
E-kerosene currently costs 4-10 times more than conventional jet fuel. The Atmosfair pilot plant in Werlte, Germany, produces e-kerosene at approximately €5 per liter ($5.80/liter or $21.95/gallon) as of 2024. This compares to conventional jet fuel prices averaging €0.50-0.80 per liter ($0.58-0.93/liter or $2.20-3.50/gallon) during the same period.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published 2024 Aviation Fuels Reference Prices for ReFuelEU Aviation compliance showing:
Conventional Jet Fuel (2025): $2.50/gallon
Bio-based SAF (2025): $7.50/gallon (3x conventional)
E-SAF/E-kerosene (2025): $25.00/gallon (10x conventional)
Breaking down e-kerosene production costs reveals several key components:
Cost Component | Percentage of Total | 2024 Cost Range | 2030 Projection |
Green Hydrogen | 40-50% | $3-7/kg H₂ | $1.5-2.5/kg H₂ |
CO₂ Capture (DAC) | 15-25% | $400-1,000/ton | $300-400/ton |
Renewable Electricity | 30-40% | $40-80/MWh | $20-40/MWh |
Capital Expenditure (Amortized) | 20-30% | Varies | 50% reduction |
Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis & Refining | 10-15% | Process-specific | Modest improvement |
Green Hydrogen: The Primary Cost Driver
Green hydrogen production represents the largest single cost in e-kerosene manufacturing. Each kilogram of e-kerosene requires approximately 0.8 kg of hydrogen, and current production costs of $3-7/kg H₂ translate directly to $2.40-5.60 in hydrogen costs per kilogram of fuel.
Several factors drive hydrogen costs:
Electrolyzer Capital Costs: Current installed capital costs for PEM electrolyzers range from $1,500-2,500/kW capacity. A facility producing 10,000 tons of e-kerosene annually requires approximately 100-150 MW of electrolyzer capacity, representing $150-375 million in equipment costs alone.
Electricity Prices: With 50-56 kWh required per kg of hydrogen, electricity costs dominate operational expenses. At $50/MWh (industrial renewable electricity rate), hydrogen production costs $2.50-2.80/kg. However, electricity represents 60-70% of hydrogen operational costs, so price variations significantly impact final fuel costs.
Capacity Factor: Electrolyzers achieve lowest costs when operating continuously (>90% capacity factor). However, renewable electricity availability varies with weather conditions, creating tension between high utilization and cheap electricity. Direct coupling with renewable sources can reduce costs 10-30% versus grid-sourced power but may lower capacity factors unless coupled with multiple renewable sources or battery storage.
Encouragingly, multiple studies project green hydrogen costs falling below $2.50/kg by 2030 and potentially reaching $1/kg by 2050 as electrolyzer manufacturing scales and renewable electricity costs continue declining. China and Australia lead in low-cost renewable energy, with projections suggesting they could achieve $2.50/kg hydrogen by 2024-2026 in optimal locations.
Direct Air Capture: Energy-Intensive Carbon Sourcing
While point-source CO₂ capture from concentrated streams costs $40-100/ton, direct air capture (DAC) technology—necessary for truly carbon-neutral aviation fuel at scale—remains expensive.
Current DAC costs range from $400-1,000/ton CO₂ depending on technology:
Liquid Solvent Systems (Carbon Engineering approach): $226-544/ton projected for 2050
Solid Sorbent Systems (Climeworks approach): $281-579/ton projected for 2050
Calcium Oxide Systems (Heirloom approach): $230-835/ton projected for 2050
A 2024 study by ETH Zürich estimates DAC costs will fall to $230-540/ton by 2050—substantially higher than earlier optimistic projections of $100/ton that have proven unrealistic without accounting for material costs, energy requirements, and real-world operational complexities.
With 3.1 kg CO₂ required per kg e-kerosene, DAC adds $1.24-3.10 per kg fuel at $400-1,000/ton CO₂, or $0.71-1.67 per kg at projected $230-540/ton costs. These figures represent 12-20% of total production costs—significant but not dominant.
Capital Expenditure and Scale-Up Challenges
E-kerosene facilities require substantial upfront investment. Announced projects indicate costs of approximately $500-1,200 per ton annual capacity, meaning a 100,000 ton/year plant (still modest compared to aviation demand) requires $50-120 million in capital investment.
The Atmosfair pilot plant in Werlte produces only 350 tons annually (~8 barrels daily), representing 0.0035% of Germany's annual aviation fuel consumption (10 million tons in 2023). Scaling to 45 industrial-scale facilities planned across Europe by 2030—with combined capacity approaching 3 million tons—would still supply only ~5% of European aviation fuel needs.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) varies across the production chain:
Water Electrolysis: TRL 9 (commercially deployed)
CO₂ Capture: TRL 7-8 (demonstration scale for DAC)
Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis: TRL 9 (commercial for fossil feedstocks, TRL 7-8 for renewable H₂/CO₂)
Integrated E-Kerosene Production: TRL 6-7 (pilot scale transitioning to demonstration)
Energy Intensity: The Physical Reality
Perhaps the most fundamental challenge facing e-kerosene is thermodynamic efficiency. The complete production chain from electricity to usable aviation fuel operates at approximately 20-30% overall efficiency, meaning 3-5 units of renewable electricity produce 1 unit of fuel energy.
The Atmosfair plant requires over five times the energy content of the fuel produced—a physical reality that cannot be engineered away, only incrementally improved. This energy multiplication effect means decarbonizing aviation through e-kerosene requires massive renewable energy expansion beyond other electrification needs.
Comparative energy requirements per passenger-km traveled:
Electric Vehicle: 0.15-0.20 kWh/passenger-km (direct use of electricity)
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle: 0.30-0.40 kWh/passenger-km (one conversion step)
E-Kerosene Aviation: 0.80-1.20 kWh/passenger-km (multiple conversion steps)
This inherent inefficiency explains why e-kerosene makes economic sense only for aviation—where energy density requirements mandate liquid fuels—rather than ground transportation where direct electrification proves far more efficient.
Cost Reduction Pathways: 2030-2050 Trajectory
Multiple factors should drive costs downward over the next 25 years:
Electrolyzer Cost Reductions: Alkaline electrolyzer costs projected to fall to $388/kW (pessimistic) or $88/kW (optimistic) by 2050. PEM costs could reach $286/kW (pessimistic) or $60/kW (optimistic), representing 80-90% cost reductions from current levels.
Renewable Electricity Price Declines: Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for solar and wind continues falling. Solar PV in optimal locations already achieves <$20/MWh, while offshore wind approaches $40-60/MWh.
Scale Economies: Manufacturing scale-up and standardized facility designs could reduce capital costs 40-50% through learning-by-doing effects. Gas turbine capital costs, as reference, have fallen 15% for every doubling of production capacity.
Process Integration: Improved heat integration, co-electrolysis (simultaneous H₂O and CO₂ reduction), and optimized synthesis conditions could improve overall efficiency from 20-30% to 35-45%, reducing energy requirements per kg fuel.
The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) estimates e-kerosene production costs could fall to $104-124/MWh ($2.50-3.00/gallon) by 2030 and $60-69/MWh ($1.50-1.70/gallon) by 2050, representing 2.5x conventional jet fuel costs in 2050 compared to 10x today.
While still a premium, these costs could become manageable with carbon pricing, regulatory mandates, and production tax credits.
What Is the Difference Between E-Kerosene and Other Sustainable Aviation Fuels?
The sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) landscape includes multiple production pathways, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and scaling potential. Understanding these differences clarifies why synthetic jet fuel from power-to-liquid processes represents a critical long-term solution alongside near-term bio-based alternatives.
HEFA (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids): The Current Market Leader
HEFA represents the most mature and widely deployed SAF pathway, accounting for >95% of SAF flights to date.
This process refines waste oils, used cooking oil (UCO), animal fats (tallow), and vegetable oils into jet fuel through hydroprocessing:
Hydrodeoxygenation removes oxygen from lipid molecules
Hydrocracking breaks long carbon chains to kerosene length
Isomerization creates branched hydrocarbons to lower freeze point
Advantages:
Technology Maturity: TRL 9, commercially proven at scale
Low Production Costs: $3-5/gallon depending on feedstock
Existing Infrastructure: Can leverage existing refineries with modifications
High Blending Limits: Approved for 50% blending (some types up to 100%)
Emissions Reduction: 40-80% lifecycle GHG reduction vs. fossil fuel
Limitations:
Feedstock Constraints: Global UCO and tallow availability limited to ~8-15 billion gallons/year—only 1-2% of aviation fuel demand
Land Use Concerns: Vegetable oil feedstocks compete with food production
Cost Volatility: UCO prices have tripled in some markets due to demand from renewable diesel and SAF
Regional Availability: Waste feedstocks concentrated in specific geographic areas
Scalability Ceiling: Cannot meet 2050 aviation fuel demand without significant virgin oil use
The European Union estimates bio-based SAF production requires 5% of EU arable land for energy crops—clearly unsustainable at global scale. ReFuelEU Aviation acknowledges these limits by capping HEFA's share in mandates and requiring increasing synthetic fuel percentages.
AtJ (Alcohol-to-Jet): The Flexible Intermediate
Alcohol-to-Jet pathways convert ethanol or isobutanol into SAF through oxygen removal and carbon chain coupling (oligomerization). LanzaJet commissioned the world's first commercial-scale EtJ (ethanol-to-jet) facility in Soperton, Georgia in 2024, with 10 million gallons/year capacity.
Advantages:
Feedstock Diversity: Can use corn, sugarcane, cellulosic biomass, or municipal solid waste
Existing Ethanol Industry: Leverage 16 billion gallons/year U.S. ethanol production capacity
Lower Capital Costs: $2-4/gallon production costs projected
Regional Flexibility: Agricultural residues available globally
GHG Reduction: 50-100% depending on ethanol source and production methods
Limitations:
Feedstock Sustainability Concerns: Corn ethanol involves indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions
Yield Efficiency: Only 60-90% carbon efficiency for kerosene fraction
Water Competition: Agriculture-based feedstocks require irrigation in many regions
Scaling Ceiling: Cellulosic ethanol remains expensive; total AtJ potential ~50-80 billion gallons/year
Feedstock Costs: Ethanol prices ($1.50-2.50/gallon) constitute 40-50% of SAF production costs
AtJ serves as an important bridge technology, particularly for regions with strong agricultural sectors, but faces similar ultimate scaling constraints as HEFA due to biomass availability limits.
FT-BtL (Fischer-Tropsch Biomass-to-Liquid): Gasification Pathway
Biomass gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis converts solid biomass (wood waste, agricultural residues, municipal solid waste) into liquid fuels:
Gasification converts biomass to syngas (CO + H₂) at high temperature
Gas cleaning removes impurities (tar, particulates, sulfur)
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis produces liquid hydrocarbons
Refining upgrades to aviation-grade fuel
Advantages:
Diverse Feedstocks: Agricultural/forestry residues, MSW, energy crops
High Carbon Efficiency: 98-99% for total liquid products
Multiple Products: Co-produces diesel, naphtha alongside jet fuel
Emissions Reduction: 60-90% lifecycle GHG reduction
Waste Valorization: Can process municipal solid waste, solving two problems simultaneously
Limitations:
High Capital Costs: Gasification plants require $300-500 million investment for commercial scale
Complex Operations: Gasification produces contaminants requiring extensive gas cleaning
Feedstock Logistics: Biomass collection, storage, and transportation challenging
Technology Maturity: Only a few commercial-scale facilities operating (Fulcrum Bioenergy, Velocys projects)
Scaling Limits: Sustainable biomass availability caps total production potential
E-Kerosene (PtL): The Long-Term Winner
E-kerosene produced via power-to-liquid stands apart due to its fundamental scalability beyond biomass constraints:
Key Differentiators:
Characteristic | HEFA | AtJ | FT-BtL | E-Kerosene (PtL) |
Feedstock Type | Lipids (oils/fats) | Alcohols/sugars | Solid biomass | Electricity + H₂O + CO₂ |
Feedstock Scalability | Limited (~15B gal/yr) | Moderate (~50-80B gal/yr) | Moderate (~80-120B gal/yr) | Unlimited (energy-constrained) |
Technology Maturity (TRL) | 9 (Commercial) | 8-9 (Early commercial) | 7-8 (Demonstration) | 6-7 (Pilot to demonstration) |
Current Production Cost | $3-5/gallon | $5-8/gallon | $6-10/gallon | $20-25/gallon |
2050 Projected Cost | $4-6/gallon | $4-7/gallon | $5-8/gallon | $4-7/gallon |
Lifecycle GHG Reduction | 40-80% | 50-90% | 60-90% | 90-100% |
Land Use | High (virgin oils) to Low (waste) | Moderate to High | Moderate | Minimal (renewable energy infrastructure) |
Water Use | Low | High (agriculture) | Moderate | Moderate (but recyclable) |
Blending Limit (ASTM) | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% (100% under development) |
Why E-Kerosene Is Considered the Long-Term Winner:
Infinite Feedstock Scalability: Unlike biomass pathways fundamentally limited by land area, photosynthetic efficiency, and competing uses, e-kerosene production scales with renewable energy deployment.
The 2050 global aviation fuel demand (~500 billion gallons) is theoretically achievable with ~15,000 TWh/year of dedicated renewable electricity—a massive but technically feasible expansion given that global electricity generation exceeds 28,000 TWh/year already.
Superior Carbon Intensity: When produced with atmospheric direct air capture and renewable hydrogen, e-kerosene achieves near-zero lifecycle emissions (<10 gCO₂e/MJ), superior to any bio-based pathway due to agricultural inputs, processing emissions, and land-use change considerations.
No Land Competition: E-kerosene facilities can be built in non-arable locations (deserts, coastal areas) co-located with renewable energy, avoiding conflicts with agriculture and food security. Wind and solar installations require 30x less land than biofuel crops to produce equivalent energy.
Policy Support: The EU ReFuelEU Aviation mandate's sub-target specifically for synthetic fuels (1.2% by 2030, rising to 35% by 2050) creates guaranteed demand and investment certainty. This regulatory structure acknowledges biofuel limitations and positions e-kerosene as the majority of SAF supply by mid-century.
Technological Convergence: Declining costs for renewable electricity, electrolyzers, and CO₂ capture create a favorable long-term trajectory. Unlike biofuel pathways approaching maturity with limited cost reduction potential, e-kerosene benefits from improvements across multiple technology curves simultaneously.
Strategic Perspective: Near-term SAF supply will predominantly come from HEFA and AtJ pathways due to lower costs and higher maturity. However, meeting 2050 net-zero targets requires e-kerosene to comprise 50-70% of aviation fuel. Investment and policy support must begin now to achieve the 25-year scale-up timeline necessary for commercial deployment.
How Are Governments and Industry Supporting E-Kerosene Adoption?
The transition to sustainable aviation fuel requires coordinated action across government policy, industry investment, and international frameworks. Recognizing e-kerosene's strategic importance, policymakers worldwide are implementing mandates, incentives, and funding programs to accelerate commercialization.
EU ReFuelEU Aviation: The World's Most Comprehensive SAF Mandate
The European Union's ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, enacted in October 2023 and effective January 1, 2025, establishes the world's most ambitious and comprehensive framework for sustainable aviation fuel adoption. This regulation creates legally binding obligations on fuel suppliers at all EU airports, backed by substantial penalties for non-compliance.
Mandate Structure:
The regulation sets progressive blending targets that increase every five years:
Year | Total SAF Mandate | Synthetic E-Fuel Sub-Mandate | Impact |
2025 | 2% | Not specified | Initial market creation |
2030 | 6% | 1.2% (20% of SAF) | Major scale-up required |
2035 | 20% | Not specified | Substantial infrastructure |
2040 | 34% | Not specified | Approaching majority supply |
2045 | 42% | Not specified | Deep market penetration |
2050 | 70% | 35% (50% of SAF) | Near-complete transition |
Key Features:
Supplier Obligations: Aviation fuel suppliers must ensure that fuel made available at EU airports meets minimum SAF percentages. This "supplier mandate" differs from airline obligations, ensuring fuel availability rather than consumption tracking.
Sub-Mandate for Synthetic Fuels: The separate target for e-kerosene and other synthetic fuels (1.2% in 2030, rising to 35% by 2050) explicitly recognizes that bio-based SAF alone cannot meet long-term demand. This sub-mandate creates guaranteed demand for e-kerosene producers, de-risking investment in first-mover facilities.
90% Fuel Uplift Rule: Airlines must refuel at least 90% of their annual fuel needs at each EU airport before departure. This anti-tankering provision prevents airlines from avoiding SAF costs by carrying excess fuel from non-EU airports, ensuring regulation effectiveness.
Flexibility Mechanism (2025-2034): Until 2034, suppliers can meet obligations based on weighted average across all EU airports. After 2034, requirements must be met at each individual airport, necessitating widespread distribution infrastructure.
Non-Compliance Penalties: Member States must establish penalty regimes for shortfalls. Germany has proposed penalties of €17,000 per ton of synthetic fuel obligation missed—creating strong economic incentives for compliance. Suppliers must also make up shortfalls in subsequent reporting periods on top of current obligations.
Sustainability Criteria: All SAF must comply with EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) sustainability and greenhouse gas savings criteria, ensuring only genuinely low-carbon fuels qualify.
Economic Impact:
EASA analysis indicates ReFuelEU Aviation will drive €1.5-2.0 billion in investment by 2030 and potentially €100+ billion by 2050. The regulation is projected to reduce aviation sector CO₂ emissions by approximately 60% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.
Current e-SAF pricing at €4-6 per liter means the 1.2% mandate in 2030 adds approximately €0.05-0.07 to average fuel costs per liter—a 6-9% increase over conventional fuel prices.
By 2050, with 35% e-SAF requirement, even at reduced projected costs of €1.50-2.00/liter, aviation fuel costs could be 40-60% higher than fossil baseline, translating to ticket price increases of 10-15% (fuel typically represents ~25-30% of airline operating costs).
Switzerland adopted ReFuelEU Aviation as of January 1, 2026, extending the mandate beyond EU borders and demonstrating international influence.
US Inflation Reduction Act: Production Tax Credits
The United States takes a different approach, using production tax credits rather than mandates to incentivize SAF production.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted in August 2022, provides substantial financial support:
45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit (effective 2025):
Base credit: $0.20-1.75 per gallon depending on lifecycle emissions reduction
E-kerosene achieving >90% reduction: $1.75/gallon credit
Climate-smart agriculture provisions for feedstock production
Technology-neutral, allowing HEFA, AtJ, and PtL pathways
45Q Carbon Capture Tax Credit:
$85 per ton for CO₂ captured and sequestered
$60 per ton for CO₂ utilized in products (including e-kerosene)
Applies to direct air capture facilities supporting e-fuel production
Federal Funding Programs:
$244.5 million in grants announced in August 2024 for 22 SAF projects
$3 billion in DOE loan guarantees for SAF production scale-up
Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs: $8 billion supporting green hydrogen infrastructure
SAF Grand Challenge: Joint initiative by DOE, DOT, USDA, and EPA targeting:
3 billion gallons SAF by 2030
35 billion gallons SAF by 2050
100% of aviation fuel from sustainable sources by 2050
The IRA's production tax credit approach provides revenue certainty for e-kerosene producers without direct consumer mandates. At $1.75/gallon, this credit reduces production costs from ~$20-25/gallon to ~$18-23/gallon—still not competitive with fossil fuel, but significantly improving project economics and attracting private investment.
Asia-Pacific Policy Shifts
Japan: Proposed legislation mandating 10% SAF by 2030. Government supporting 30+ SAF projects with ¥300 billion ($2+ billion) in subsidies and loan guarantees.
Singapore: Implementing 1% SAF mandate by 2026, scaling to 3-5% by 2030. Established SAF levy of S$3-9 ($2.25-6.75) per passenger on departing flights to fund SAF uptake.
China: Civil Aviation Administration set targets to increase SAF use and lower GHG emissions intensity by 2030. Developing domestic e-fuel capabilities with $500+ million in government-backed investments.
Australia: Released 2024 Asia-Pacific Low Carbon Fuels White Paper identifying HEFA and AtJ as priority pathways. Announced A$1.1 billion ($730 million) incentive scheme for domestic SAF production.
South Korea: Announced mandatory SAF blending for departing international flights starting 2027, initial target 1% rising over time.
Industry Commitments and Offtake Agreements
Airlines and fuel suppliers have committed to substantial SAF purchases, creating demand signals essential for e-kerosene facility financing:
Lufthansa Group: First customer for Atmosfair e-kerosene, committed to 25,000 liters annually for five years. Target 5% SAF by 2030.
Norwegian Air Shuttle: Equity investment in Norsk e-Fuel, securing long-term offtake agreements for facility output.
KLM: Committed to >10% SAF by 2030, including synthetic fuel purchases. Investing in SkyNRG e-fuel development.
Delta Air Lines: $1+ billion SAF investment fund, including agreements with future PtL facilities.
United Airlines: Committed to 3.4 billion gallons of SAF through 2030, including emerging e-fuel pathways.
Shell Aviation: Developing e-fuel production capabilities, targeting 2 million tons SAF annually by 2025.
Total contracted SAF volume reached 22 billion liters by 2022, up from 9 billion liters in 2021—though most contracts remain for bio-based HEFA with e-kerosene agreements for 2026-2030 delivery.
EU Innovation Fund and Green Deal Industrial Plan
The EU Innovation Fund, financed by ETS revenues, allocated €40 million to Nordic Electrofuel in 2024 for commercial-scale e-fuel plant construction.
Total Innovation Fund resources exceed €40 billion for 2020-2030, with substantial portions directed toward SAF projects.
Sustainable Transport Investment Plan (STIP): Aims to mobilize €2.9 billion for aviation e-fuel projects by 2027, combining:
EU Innovation Fund: €1.5 billion
Horizon Europe: €300 million
Recovery and Resilience Facility: €400 million
InvestEU: €500 million
Private co-financing: €200 million
International Frameworks: ICAO and CORSIA
International Civil Aviation Organization provides global coordination through:
Long-Term Aspirational Goal (LTAG): Net-zero CO₂ emissions by 2050, adopted by 193 member states in October 2022.
Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA): Requires emissions beyond 85% of 2019 levels to be offset through SAF use or carbon credit purchases. CORSIA baseline reset to 85% of 2019 emissions starting 2024, continuing through 2035.
CAAF/3 Agreement (2023): Global aspirational vision to reduce international aviation CO₂ by 5% in 2030 through SAF and other cleaner energies.
What Are Real-World Developments and Pilot Projects?
Moving from theory to practice, several pioneering e-kerosene facilities now demonstrate technical feasibility while revealing scaling challenges. These real-world projects provide crucial data for next-generation commercial plants.
Case Study: Atmosfair (Germany) – World's First Commercial E-Kerosene Plant
The Atmosfair/Solarbelt facility in Werlte, Lower Saxony, inaugurated in October 2021, represents a milestone as the world's first industrial-scale power-to-liquid plant producing aviation fuel. Despite subsequent technical challenges, this pilot plant provides invaluable lessons for the industry.
Technical Specifications:
Capacity: 350 tons crude kerosene annually (~8 barrels/day)
Electrolyzer Power: 1.25 MW PEM electrolysis producing 20 kg H₂/hour
CO₂ Source: Adjacent biogas plant processing food waste (amine washing) + direct air capture
Renewable Energy: Four contracted wind farms providing green electricity
Fischer-Tropsch Temperature: 200°C at high pressure
Output: Synthetic crude transported to Heide refinery near Hamburg for upgrading to Jet A-1
Operational Experience:
Initial projections anticipated regular operations beginning Q1 2022, but the facility has encountered significant technical challenges. In June 2024, Atmosfair announced successful production of 5 tons of TÜV-certified e-kerosene, delivered to German tour operators Hauser Exkursionen and Neue Wege Reisen for 0.1% blending in customer flights using Book & Claim procedures (similar to green electricity certificates).
However, in April 2025, Atmosfair disclosed that the plant "still doesn't function nearly as planned after four years." Hoped-for continuous production has not materialized, with Atmosfair exploring "all alternatives to find solutions, including taking steps against technology providers."
The organization cited this experience as demonstrating that "some technological concepts get stuck on the way from laboratory to industrial scale," drawing parallels to the failed Choren biomass-to-liquid project in Freiberg, Saxony from the 2000s.
Key Learnings:
Scale-Up Complexity: Moving from laboratory bench scale (TRL 4-5) to industrial demonstration (TRL 7-8) reveals integration challenges not apparent in component testing.
Component Reliability: The integrated system requires reliable operation of multiple components simultaneously—electrolyzer, CO₂ capture, syngas conditioning, Fischer-Tropsch reactor, and product separation—where single-point failures halt production.
Process Optimization: Achieving designed throughput and conversion efficiency requires extensive operating experience and parameter optimization impossible to fully predict from models.
Operational Economics: Even at small scale, production costs of €5/liter ($5.80/liter) demonstrate the challenge of economic viability without substantial policy support or carbon pricing.
Despite these setbacks, Atmosfair successfully produced limited quantities of certified e-kerosene, proving the fundamental technical concept while illuminating the long path from pilot to commercial scale.
Nordic Electrofuel (Norway) – E-Fuel 1 Pilot Plant
Nordic Electrofuel is developing a pilot facility at Herøya Industrial Park, Norway, targeting 10 million liters (2,640 gallons) synthetic fuel production annually starting 2025.
Project Details:
Technology: Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with TRL 8 (qualified under operational conditions)
CO₂ Source: Carbon capture from geothermal plant (point-source capture)
Output: Synthetic kerosene and diesel
Funding: €40 million EU Innovation Fund grant secured in 2024
Status: Engineering phase, targeting Final Investment Decision (FID) by end of 2024
Scale-Up Plan: Second production plant planned for 2030 if pilot succeeds
Strategic Advantages:
Geothermal CO₂ provides low-cost, concentrated CO₂ stream (>95% purity)
Norway's abundant hydroelectric and wind power offers cheap renewable electricity
Strong policy environment with Norwegian government support for e-fuel industry development
Norwegian Air Shuttle, the country's largest airline, made an equity investment in Norsk e-Fuel (related entity), securing long-term offtake agreements and demonstrating airline confidence in the technology pathway.
Europe's 45+ Planned E-Fuel Facilities
According to Transport & Environment's 2024 E-Kerosene Tracker, 45 e-fuel production facilities have been announced across Europe, comprising:
25 industrial-scale projects
20 pilot/demonstration projects
Combined potential capacity approaches 3 million tons—approximately 5% of European aviation sector fuel needs. However, T&E cautions that futures remain "very uncertain" as zero facilities have achieved
Final Investment Decision (FID) as of early 2024.
Leading Projects:
Arcadia eFuels (Vordingborg, Denmark):
Planned capacity: 67,000 tons/year (downscaled from 325,000 tons)
Technology: PtL with Fischer-Tropsch
Status: Engineering phase, FID targeted 2024
Timeline: Production start 2026-2027
Norsk e-Fuel Alpha Plant (Mosjøen, Norway):
Planned capacity: 27,000 tons/year initial, scaling to 100,000+ tons
Technology: PtL with renewable electricity and CO₂
Funding: Norwegian government and private investment
Status: FEED phase, FID targeted 2024
Timeline: Production start 2026-2027
P1 Fuels (Magdeburg, Germany):
Planned capacity: 200,000 tons/year e-methanol (convertible to e-kerosene)
Technology: PtL with DAC
Investment: €1+ billion
Timeline: Construction planned 2025-2028
Challenges to Deployment:
Green Hydrogen Supply: Many facilities lack secured long-term hydrogen supply contracts at competitive prices. Building dedicated electrolysis capacity adds $150-300 million to project costs.
CO₂ Availability: Point-source CO₂ from sustainable sources is geographically limited. Scaling to DAC significantly increases costs.
Renewable Electricity Access: Securing 100-200 MW of dedicated renewable power requires either co-location with generation or long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) at competitive rates.
Policy Uncertainty: While ReFuelEU Aviation provides demand certainty, national implementation details, penalty enforcement, and long-term policy stability remain concerns for investors.
Offtake Agreements: Commercial-scale facilities require 10-15 year fuel purchase commitments to secure project finance. Airlines hesitate to commit to €4-6/liter fuel costs far above market prices.
Capital Access: Each 100,000 ton/year facility requires $100-200 million capital. Limited track record makes financing challenging at scale.
Optimistic vs. Realistic Timelines: T&E analysis suggests that even if all announced projects proceed, Europe might produce 600,000 tons by 2030—meeting only the bare minimum 1.2% synthetic fuel requirement, with no margin for delays or failures.
Global Developments Beyond Europe
United States: Infinium developing e-fuel facilities in Texas targeting synthetic aviation fuel and marine diesel. Twelve (carbon transformation company) operating e-jet fuel pilot in California.
Chile: HIF Global constructing Haru Oni e-fuels facility in Punta Arenas, initially targeting e-methanol/gasoline, with potential aviation fuel expansion.
Middle East: Saudi Arabia and UAE exploring e-fuel facilities co-located with solar farms, leveraging abundant cheap solar electricity and proximity to aviation hubs.
Australia: Hazer Group and other developers planning e-fuel facilities leveraging world-class solar and wind resources.
Industry Partnerships: Major energy companies including Shell, TotalEnergies, BP, and Repsol establishing e-fuel research programs and pilot facilities, positioning for commercial deployment as costs fall.
Frequently Asked Questions About E-Kerosene
Q. Is E-Kerosene Really Carbon Neutral?
E-kerosene can achieve 90-100% lifecycle emissions reduction when produced using renewable electricity, atmospheric carbon capture, and sustainable operations. The carbon neutrality works through a closed loop: CO₂ captured from the atmosphere is synthesized into fuel, which releases the same CO₂ when burned in aircraft engines. The net effect is carbon circularity—no new carbon enters the atmosphere.
However, small residual emissions (5-10%) come from facility construction, transportation, and process energy not derived from renewables. True carbon neutrality requires:
100% renewable electricity for electrolysis and process operations
CO₂ from atmospheric DAC or sustainable biogenic sources (not fossil point sources)
Sustainable supply chains for equipment, materials, and logistics
Accounting for indirect emissions from infrastructure and manufacturing
Independent lifecycle assessments show properly produced e-kerosene achieves 8-15 gCO₂e/MJ versus 89 gCO₂e/MJ for fossil jet fuel—an 83-91% reduction. With continued improvements in renewable electricity generation and process efficiency, emissions could approach true net-zero by 2040-2050.
Q. Can Airlines Use E-Kerosene Today?
Yes, but only in limited blends. E-kerosene is currently certified under ASTM D7566 for blending up to 50% with conventional jet fuel. This "drop-in" fuel requires no engine modifications, fuel system changes, or aircraft alterations. Airlines including Lufthansa, KLM, Virgin Atlantic, and others have conducted test flights and begun small-scale commercial use.
The main limitation is availability—global e-kerosene production remains under 10,000 tons annually in 2024-2025, compared to 360+ million tons of total aviation fuel consumption. Prices of €4-6 per liter ($20-25/gallon) also limit adoption to demonstration projects, voluntary sustainability programs, and compliance with emerging mandates.
100% synthetic fuel flights have been demonstrated (Virgin Atlantic transatlantic flight, November 2023), proving technical feasibility. ASTM certification for 100% synthetic fuel use is under development and expected by 2025-2026, which would unlock e-kerosene's full decarbonization potential.
Q. What's the Difference Between E-Kerosene and SAF?
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is the umbrella term for all non-fossil aviation fuels meeting sustainability criteria. E-kerosene is one type of SAF, specifically the synthetic fuel produced through the power-to-liquid pathway.
SAF Categories:
Bio-based SAF: HEFA, AtJ, FT-BtL from biomass feedstocks
Synthetic SAF: E-kerosene (PtL), e-methanol, other electrofuels
Waste-derived SAF: Fuels from municipal solid waste, used cooking oil, animal fats
The key distinction: e-kerosene uses only electricity, water, and CO₂ as feedstocks, making it independent of biomass availability. Bio-based SAF faces scaling limits from agricultural and waste feedstock constraints, while e-kerosene scales with renewable energy deployment.
Current SAF supply is >95% bio-based HEFA, but regulatory frameworks like ReFuelEU Aviation specifically require increasing e-kerosene percentages (35% of total SAF by 2050) recognizing biofuel limitations cannot meet long-term aviation demand.
Q. Why Does E-Kerosene Cost More Than Conventional Jet Fuel?
Several factors drive e-kerosene's current 4-10x price premium:
Green Hydrogen Costs: Producing the required 0.8 kg H₂ per kg fuel at $3-7/kg adds $2.40-5.60 per kg fuel—the largest single cost component.
CO₂ Capture Expenses: Direct air capture costs $400-1,000/ton, adding $1.24-3.10 per kg fuel. Even point-source capture at $70-100/ton contributes $0.22-0.31 per kg.
Renewable Electricity Prices: 50-56 kWh required per kg H₂, with electricity comprising 60-70% of hydrogen operational costs.
Low Production Scale: Current pilot facilities produce <1,000 tons annually at $2,000-5,000/ton capital cost, far from the 100,000+ ton scale needed for cost reduction through economies of scale.
Capital Cost Amortization: Small facilities cannot spread fixed costs over sufficient volume, keeping per-unit costs high.
Process Energy Intensity: 20-30% overall efficiency from electricity to fuel energy means 3-5 units of electrical energy produce 1 unit of fuel energy.
Why Will Costs Fall: Electrolyzer costs declining 60%+ by 2030; renewable electricity costs falling to $20-40/MWh in optimal locations; manufacturing scale-up reducing facility capital costs 40-50%; improved process integration increasing overall efficiency to 35-45%. These combined improvements could bring e-kerosene costs to $4-7/gallon by 2050—still a premium over fossil fuel but manageable with carbon pricing.
Q. How Does E-Kerosene Production Affect Energy Grids?
Large-scale e-kerosene production creates both challenges and opportunities for electricity grids:
Grid Load Impact: A 100,000 ton/year facility requires 150-200 MW of continuous electrolyzer capacity plus additional process energy—equivalent to powering 100,000-150,000 homes. Meeting European aviation demand with e-kerosene would require approximately 400-600 TWh/year of dedicated renewable electricity by 2050—about 15-20% of projected EU electricity consumption.
Demand Flexibility Benefits: Electrolyzers can modulate output in seconds to minutes, providing valuable grid balancing services. During periods of excess renewable generation (high wind/solar output), electrolyzers can absorb surplus electricity that would otherwise be curtailed. When electricity is scarce, production can scale down, making e-fuel facilities "flexible demand" assets.
Integration with Renewable Energy: Co-locating e-kerosene facilities with wind or solar farms creates synergies:
Reduces transmission infrastructure requirements
Utilizes electricity that might otherwise be curtailed due to grid congestion
Provides revenue stability for renewable generators through long-term power purchase agreements
Enables renewable development in areas with limited grid connection capacity
Storage and Seasonal Balancing: E-kerosene production provides long-duration energy storage—converting surplus summer solar electricity into storable liquid fuel for year-round aviation demand. This addresses renewable energy's intermittency challenge more effectively than battery storage for multi-month timeframes.
Grid Planning Implications: Achieving net-zero aviation through e-kerosene requires coordinated planning of renewable energy deployment, transmission expansion, and production facility siting to avoid stranding assets or creating grid bottlenecks.
Conclusion: E-Kerosene's Role in Aviation's Zero-Carbon Future
What is e kerosene ultimately represents more than a technical innovation—it embodies a fundamental reimagining of how we produce and consume energy for mobility. As the aviation industry commits to net-zero emissions by 2050, e-kerosene stands as one of few pathways capable of achieving this goal while maintaining current aircraft technology and global connectivity.
The journey from today's €5/liter pilot-scale production to 2050's projected €1.50-2.00/liter commercial-scale sustainable aviation fuel requires coordinated action across multiple domains:
Technology Development: Continued innovation in electrolyzer efficiency, direct air capture cost reduction, and Fischer-Tropsch process optimization to improve overall system efficiency from 20-30% to 35-45% and beyond.
Policy Frameworks: Regulatory mandates like ReFuelEU Aviation providing long-term demand certainty, complemented by production tax credits, carbon pricing mechanisms, and public funding for first-mover facilities.
Infrastructure Investment: Massive scale-up of renewable electricity generation, with 15,000+ TWh/year globally dedicated to e-fuel production by 2050, plus associated transmission, storage, and distribution infrastructure.
Industry Commitment: Airlines, fuel suppliers, and aircraft manufacturers aligning operations, investments, and R&D toward synthetic jet fuel adoption, including long-term offtake agreements enabling facility financing.
Public Understanding: Societal acceptance that truly sustainable aviation requires either significantly higher ticket prices (10-15% increases) to cover carbon neutral jet fuel costs, or modest reductions in flight frequency as energy costs internalize environmental impacts.
The first commercial e-kerosene plant in Werlte, Germany, despite its technical challenges, demonstrates that power-to-liquid aviation fuel can transition from laboratory concept to industrial reality.
The 45+ facilities planned across Europe and emerging projects in North America, Asia-Pacific, and Middle East show investment confidence in the technology's long-term viability.
Yet realism demands acknowledging substantial hurdles. Current e-kerosene costs 4-10 times conventional fuel, pilot facilities face operational challenges, and achieving gigaton-scale production by 2050 requires energy system transformation of unprecedented speed and scale.
Success is not guaranteed—it demands sustained political will, substantial capital investment, and technological breakthroughs across multiple domains.
E-kerosene will not replace all aviation fuel overnight, nor should it. Near-term sustainable aviation fuel supply will predominantly come from mature bio-based pathways like HEFA and AtJ. But meeting mid-century climate goals requires e-kerosene to comprise 50-70% of aviation fuel by 2050—a timeline demanding that investment and construction begin immediately.
For students, researchers, business leaders, and policymakers engaging with aviation decarbonization technologies, understanding what is e kerosene provides essential context for the decades-long transition ahead.
This synthetic jet fuel pathway represents not a simple technology swap, but a fundamental restructuring of energy systems toward renewable electricity as the universal feedstock for all sectors, including those like aviation that require energy-dense liquid fuels.
The sky is not the limit—it's the proving ground for humanity's commitment to sustainable mobility.
E-kerosene provides the technological means; whether we achieve the necessary scale depends on choices made today by governments, industries, and societies worldwide.
References & Further Reading
This article is backed by authoritative sources and comprehensive research from leading organizations, government agencies, and peer-reviewed publications.
Primary Research Sources
European Commission - ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/air/environment/refueleu-aviation_en
Official EU policy framework for sustainable aviation fuel mandates (2023-2050)
International Energy Agency (IEA) - Aviation Sector Analysis
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation
Comprehensive data on aviation emissions, fuel consumption, and decarbonization pathways
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) - Long-Term Aspirational Goal
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/pages/LTAG.aspx
Global framework for net-zero aviation emissions by 2050
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) - Sustainable Aviation Fuels
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/environment/eaer/sustainable-aviation-fuels
Technical certification, safety standards, and SAF implementation guidance
E-Kerosene Production & Technology
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) - Aviation E-Fuel Production
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10960063/
Peer-reviewed study on power-to-liquid pathways, DAC integration, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (March 2024)
MDPI Energy & Fuels - Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis for Decentralized Kerosene Production
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/7/1836
Technical analysis of FT process optimization for synthetic aviation fuel
ScienceDirect - E-Fuels Technical and Economic Analysis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890423005113
Comprehensive techno-economic modeling of synthetic kerosene production (May 2023)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) - Co-Electrolysis Advancement
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-03-boosting-efficiency-sustainable-aviation-fuel.html
Industrial-scale integration of efficient co-electrolysis with fuel synthesis (March 2025)
Cost Analysis & Economic Studies
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) - Green Hydrogen Production Costs
https://theicct.org/the-price-of-green-hydrogen-estimate-future-production-costs-may24/
Detailed cost projections and methodology for hydrogen production (May 2024)
ETH Zürich - Direct Air Capture Cost Projections
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304135808.htm
Research study projecting DAC costs at $230-540/ton CO₂ by 2050 (March 2024)
World Resources Institute (WRI) - Direct Air Capture Analysis
https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal
Comprehensive assessment of DAC technologies, costs, and deployment challenges
World Economic Forum - DAC Cost Reduction Pathways
Strategic analysis of achieving sub-$150/ton DAC costs
Atmosfair Project Documentation
Atmosfair - World's First Commercial E-Kerosene Plant
Official project documentation and operational results (June 2024)
Atmosfair - Technical Challenges Update
https://www.atmosfair.de/en/technical-challenges-e-kerosene/
Transparent reporting on pilot plant challenges and lessons learned (April 2025)
Clean Energy Wire - Atmosfair Inauguration
Coverage of pilot plant launch and technical specifications (October 2021)
European E-Fuel Development
Transport & Environment - E-Kerosene Tracker Report
https://te-cdn.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/files/2024_01_E-kerosene_Tracker_TE.pdf
Comprehensive analysis of 45 planned European e-fuel facilities (January 2024)
GreenAir News - 45 E-Fuel Facilities Study
https://www.greenairnews.com/?p=5227
Industry analysis of planned PtL capacity and investment challenges (February 2024)
Climate Catalyst - Sustainable Aviation Fuel Policy in the EU
https://climatecatalyst.org/learning-hub/sustainable-aviation-fuel-policy-in-the-eu/
Detailed breakdown of ReFuelEU Aviation implementation (November 2025)
Policy & Regulatory Frameworks
Policy Tracker - ReFuelEU Aviation Analysis
https://tracker.carbongap.org/policy/refueleu-aviation/
Independent monitoring of EU SAF mandate implementation and challenges (October 2025)
Carbon Direct - SAF Mandates in EU and UK
Economic analysis of mandate compliance costs and market impacts
U.S. Department of Energy - Clean Hydrogen Production Cost Analysis
Official U.S. government assessment of PEM electrolyzer costs and hydrogen production economics
Aviation Emissions & Climate Impact
Our World in Data - Global Aviation Emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
Comprehensive data visualization of aviation's climate impact (April 2024)
IEA Global Energy Review 2025 - CO2 Emissions
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/co2-emissions
Latest data on global aviation emissions recovery and growth projections
Climate Action Tracker - International Aviation Assessment
https://climateactiontracker.org/sectors/aviation/
Independent evaluation of aviation sector progress toward Paris Agreement goals
European Commission - Reducing Emissions from Aviation
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport-decarbonisation/reducing-emissions-aviation_en
EU policy framework including ETS, non-CO₂ effects monitoring, and CORSIA implementation
SAF Comparison & Pathway Analysis
IEA Bioenergy Task 39 - Progress in Commercialization of SAF
https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IEA-Bioenergy-Task-39-SAF-report.pdf
Comprehensive comparison of HEFA, AtJ, FT, and PtL pathways (June 2024)
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) - Fueling Up Sustainable Aviation
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/06/fueling_up_sustainable_aviation.pdf
Detailed analysis of SAF production pathways and U.S. market outlook (June 2024)
SkyNRG - SAF Technology Basics
https://skynrg.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel/technology-basics/
Industry overview of approved SAF production pathways and technical requirements (August 2025)
Prime Movers Lab - Challenges and Trends in SAF
https://www.primemoverslab.com/ideas/sustainable-aviation-fuels
Investment perspective on SAF pathway economics and scaling challenges
LanzaJet - What Is Sustainable Aviation Fuel
https://www.lanzajet.com/news-insights/what-is-saf
Commercial SAF producer perspective on technology pathways and market development (August 2025)
Hydrogen Production & Costs
MDPI - Green Hydrogen Production and Deployment
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44373-025-00043-9
Recent peer-reviewed research on electrolyzer technologies and cost trajectories (September 2025)
Montel Energy Blog - Hydrogen Production Cost Trends 2025
https://montel.energy/resources/blog/hydrogen-production-cost-trends-2025
Industry analysis of green, blue, and grey hydrogen cost evolution
GEP Blog - Green & Blue Hydrogen Levelized Cost
Supply chain perspective on hydrogen production economics
ScienceDirect - Techno-Economic Analysis of Hydrogen Production
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319925016234
Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of hydrogen pathways (April 2025)
Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis & Technology
ScienceDirect - Kerosene Production via Fischer-Tropsch vs. Methanol
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236124004162
Comparative technical analysis of FT and methanol pathways for kerosene (March 2024)
Velocys - Fischer-Tropsch Technology Explained
https://velocys.com/fischer-tropsch-technology-explained/
Commercial FT technology provider overview and microchannel reactor advantages (October 2025)
INERATEC - Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis
https://www.ineratec.de/en/glossary/fischer-tropsch-synthesis
Technical explanation of FT process and catalytic mechanisms
Energy Science & Engineering - Sustainable Aviation Fuel via Fischer-Tropsch
https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.1379
Fully formulated synthetic jet fuel production and refining pathways (January 2023)
Policy & Market Analysis
Persistence Market Research - Sustainable Aviation Fuel Market Forecast to 2032
https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/sustainable-aviation-fuel-market.asp
Market analysis projecting $25.2 billion SAF market by 2032
U.S. Trade.gov - European Union SAF Regulation
U.S. government analysis of EU SAF policy impacts on international trade
EESI (Environmental and Energy Study Institute) - U.S. Aviation Emissions Commitments
Analysis of U.S. aviation climate policy and SAF Grand Challenge
Additional Technical Resources
NREL - Sustainable Aviation Fuel State-of-Industry Report
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87802.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy comprehensive SAF production process assessment (2024)
IATA - SAF Technical Certifications Fact Sheet
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saf-technical-certifications.pdf
ASTM D7566 certification pathways and maximum blend ratios
Springer Nature - Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis for Power-to-Liquid Fuels
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-62411-7_22
Academic overview of FT catalyst development and reactor technology
Royal Society of Chemistry - Decentralised E-Fuels Production
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/se/d3se01156a
Technical and economic analysis of small-scale distributed e-fuel production (January 2024)
Latest Industry News & Updates
Sustainability Directory - First Commercial E-Kerosene Plant
Industry analysis of Atmosfair plant significance and scale-up challenges (November 2025)
TriplePundit - Sustainable Aviation Fuel and E-Kerosene Solution
https://triplepundit.com/2024/sustainable-aviation-fuel-e-kerosene/
Business sustainability perspective on SAF market development
IDTechEx - Direct Air Capture Reaching $100/Tonne
Market research on DAC cost reduction pathways (May 2025)
ScienceDirect - Advancing Aviation Sustainability by 2050
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037604212500096X
Recent research on renewable energy systems integration for e-fuel production
CORDIS EU Research - KEROGREEN Project
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/763909
EU-funded research on novel CO₂ dissociation and Fischer-Tropsch integration (2018-2022)
Disclaimer:
This article provides educational information about e-kerosene and sustainable aviation fuels based on current research and industry developments. Technology capabilities, costs, timelines, and regulatory frameworks continue to evolve. Readers should consult authoritative sources and qualified professionals for the most current information relevant to their specific applications.
The production and use of aviation fuels involve complex technical, economic, environmental, and safety considerations that require expert evaluation. This article does not constitute investment, technical, or policy advice.
Read full disclaimer; https://www.greenfueljournal.com/disclaimers
Copyright Notice:
All cited sources remain the property of their respective publishers and organizations. This article synthesizes publicly available information for educational purposes under fair use principles. Links provided enable readers to access original authoritative sources for detailed information.
