1. SAF so far: too little, too slow
No realistic decarbonization pathway is in sight for aviation. Not by 2030 and not by 2050. Demand for fossil jet fuel continues to rise. It is expected to reach new record levels this year. IEA and BNEF anticipate an increase of 50% to 11.4-11.6 mb/d by 2050, should there be no fundamental changes in climate or transport policies.(1)
Consumption rose by 200,000 b/d (barrels per day) in 2025 compared to the previous year, representing approximately 3% growth. For the current year 2026, a similarly robust increase of 180,000 b/d of jet fuel is expected (see chart below).
In absolute terms, consumption of fossil jet fuel grew 10 times faster than Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) supply last year. In the current year, according to current IATA projections, the growth rate will be 16 times faster.
The deployment of SAF cannot keep pace with this growth. Volumes climbed from the equivalent of 22,700 b/d (2024) to 43,100 b/d (2025) and could reach 54,400 b/d SAF this year according to IATA. This means SAF’s market share will remain below the 1% threshold this year (see chart below).
Projections for the coming years are only cautiously optimistic. They primarily refer to the production capacities of facilities that can produce either SAF for aviation or HVO/RD (2) for road transport. What the actual mix will look like is difficult to predict.
Market experts at GENA Solutions Oy (Lahti/Finland) estimate the nominal operational capacities of these facilities at 6.1 million tonnes at the end of 2025. One year earlier, it was 2.9 million tonnes. This would indicate that less than one-third of HEFA/HVO capacities were used for SAF.
2. SAF production pathways and limitations
🔷 HEFA (feedstock: UCO/Animal Fats)
Apart from two small facilities, there are currently only HEFA-SAF capacities available for SAF (stand-alone or co-processing). They demonstrate favorable climate performance when using UCO (used cooking oil) as feedstock, which has been the dominant practice to date.
However, UCO potential is limited (more on this in a later blog post). Aviation also competes here with trucking (HVO/RD) and maritime shipping.
Competition to the HEFA pathway will remain limited. Well into the 2030s, the near-total dominance of HEFA-SAF will persist.
The problem of inter-sectoral competition also arises in similar fashion for ethanol and methanol (see below), which can be utilized for decarbonization in road transport (ethanol), maritime shipping (ethanol, methanol), and also in industry (methanol).
🔷 Ethanol-to-Jet (EtJ)
EtJ has considerable growth potential in the SAF sector. Electrification in road transport could free up substantial volumes for aviation. Sugarcane, corn, and other crops provide a large feedstock base.
The climate performance of corn ethanol is disputed, as is the case with most crop-based oils. This does not constitute a fundamental obstacle, as crucial factors (particularly ILUC effects, energy/fertilizer inputs) could be minimized. Until then, however, considerable efforts are required.
LanzaJet commissioned the first commercial-scale ethanol-to-jet facility in November 2025 (Freedom Pines). Current production volumes are not publicly known. According to earlier reports, volumes of up to 500 b/d would be conceivable.
🔷 Methanol-to-Jet (MtJ)
MtJ also has potential, particularly in China, though deployment in maritime shipping or industry appears more likely. Further processing toward jet fuel would be technically quite complex and demanding.
🔷 Fischer-Tropsch Process (FT-Waste)
FT facilities can in principle utilize a very broad range of waste feedstocks. However, very high costs, low output selectivity, and numerous technical problems will significantly slow or even completely prevent widespread deployment. To date, there is no commercial-scale FT-waste facility in sight.
🔷 E-SAF
The same applies to eSAF (synthetic aviation fuel), which is intended to utilize electrolysis hydrogen (green hydrogen) and CO2 from other processes (primarily from industry and agriculture). Output of existing projects is negligible..
The EU mandates a 1.2% eSAF blending requirement from 2030, which is to rise to 35% by 2050.
However, costs are exorbitant, running ten times higher than conventional jet fuel. No significant cost reduction is in sight. Volumes will therefore remain low, as government financing will rapidly reach its limits.
CO2 availability will also become more difficult once industrial CO2 point sources becomes scarce in the EU after 2040 and biogenic CO2 would simultaneously need to serve several demand sectors.
Source: WoodMackenzie
3. SAF climate benefits and feedstocks
The feedstock potential of UCO and other waste oils is limited. Crop-based oil or ethanol can broaden the feedstock base, but this reduces the climate benefit per litre of SAF.
Large feedstock potentials with favorable climate performance will become available if agricultural residues of all kinds can be utilized (cellulosic biomass). In addition, the methanol economy could be expanded so massively that it could supply not only industry and maritime transport but also aviation.
The cellulosic and/or methanol pathway likewise faces enormous scale-up challenges. Most experts remain rather pessimistic. The expansion could proceed so slowly that leapfrogging toward hydrogen or electric aircrafts might even be easier and faster.
4. SAF costs and prices
The alternatives to fossil jet fuel are expensive. EASA places average market-based reference prices in the EU at:
- €734/t for conventional jet fuel
- €2,085/t for HEFA-SAF
- €7,695/t for e-SAF
This results in enormous direct CO2 avoidance costs of approximately €430/tCO2 when deploying HEFA-SAF and €2,210/tCO2 for eSAF. By comparison, one tonne of CO2 (EUA) currently costs just €85/t in the European ETS.
Particularly regarding eSAF promotion, the question therefore arises whether government-subsidized expansion of this pathway represents the best solution.
The potential for significant cost reduction is limited for both HEFA-SAF and eSAF. Moreover, the cost question is too narrow in any case, as a rapid increase in SAF mandates will drive prices far above costs. It would therefore be quite possible that SAF will become more expensive rather than cheaper in the future.
Source: EASA
5. SAF mandates and new import dependencies
The number of SAF mandates outside the EU and UK remains limited at present, but a number of Asian countries are gradually following suit, starting with Singapore and Korea and soon to be followed by India, China, and other states. In the US, individual airlines are already quite active in deploying SAF. Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and China can draw on a large domestic feedstock base for HEFA-SAF (UCO). The US or Brazil could pursue the EtJ pathway (corn, sugarcane).
In the EU, the feedstock base is less favorable. As with many other technologies, Europe is heading toward high dependence on China for HEFA-SAF as well. Already in 2024, 38% of feedstocks (primarily UCO) for SAF production in Europe came from China, according to EASA.
The abolition of double-counting for advanced biofuels and (from 2027) palm oil products in major EU states such as Germany (under RED III) will further complicate UCO availability for aviation. Higher SAF exports from China can likely only ease the situation until SAF demand rises in China. Thirty SAF projects have already been announced in China. However, there is no timeline yet for nationwide SAF mandates..
Source: Argus
6. Conclusion
It is clear that HEFA-SAF can only represent an interim solution for aviation decarbonization.
The feedstock base must be considerably broadened. Ethanol and perhaps also methanol are candidates here. However, in the long term larger volumes would only be available through the utilization of cellulosic biomass, that is, through the enormous quantities of straw, bagasse, stover, etc., that accrue regularly.
Or a leapfrogging approach toward new propulsion systems such as H2 or batteries must be pursued. Here, in addition to major technological challenges, an airline industry that hardly appears innovation-friendly and a sluggish licensing bureaucracy stand in the way.
In parallel, therefore, the numerous non-fuel ideas should be implemented. Rapid contrail management would be inexpensive and comparatively quick to realize. In the areas of fleet modernization, air traffic organization, and the airline industry itself, there are also many potentials that can contribute to comparatively rapid decarbonization.
Notes:
(1) Reported volumes depend on definition. We estimate the combined demand of commercial aviation, general aviation, private jets and military jets, based on data from IATA and IEA.
(2) HVO = Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (EU); RD = Renewable Diesel (USA). Synthetic diesel fuels produced from vegetable oils, waste fats or used cooking oils. The hydrogenated paraffinic composition is chemically similar or identical to fossil diesel and can be used as a drop-in fuel in diesel engines.
Sources:
Argus: Argus APAC SAF Outlook 2025, November 2025
EASA: Briefing Note – 2024 Aviation Fuels Reference Prices for ReFuelEU Aviation, 2025
GENA: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Update (December 2025), January 2026
Marie Owens Thomsen: IATA Media Day – Progressing Towards Net Zero Carbon Emissions by 2050, December 2025
IATA: Net zero 2050 – Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), December 2025
S&P Global Energy (Platts): Insights, December 2025
WoodMackenzie: Fuel for flight: aviation’s path to 2050; September 2025
Photo Credit:
Shutterstock 2523545977
Your comment
- Please use our contact form