EU rules could make fossil-free aviation fuels unnecessarily expensive and energy-intensive
EU regulations risk leading to inefficient use of biomass for production of sustainable aviation fuel, according to a study from Chalmers University of Technology. Image: CC BY Gustavo Ramirez/CC0
The effects of the Iran war on the oil market have brought renewed attention to the EU’s plans for domestic production of fossil-free aviation fuels. But EU rules for synthetic aviation fuels risk steering development towards production pathways that are both more expensive and more energy-intensive than necessary – making it harder to meet climate targets. This is shown in a recent study from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, that has analysed different methods for producing synthetic methanol.
Last year, rules were introduced requiring a minimum blend of 2 percent sustainable aviation fuel at EU airports. This blending requirement will increase gradually, reaching at least 70 percent by 2050. By then, half of the sustainable aviation fuel must consist of a category known as RFNBO: Renewable Fuel of Non-Biological Origin. These are synthetic fuels, also known as electrofuels, produced from renewable hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide.
Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology now show that the RFNBO rules favour a “detour” in the production of synthetic fuels, which risks increasing both costs and energy use.
“Regulations influence not only industry’s investments in technology, but also which research and development priorities are pursued. Instead of driving innovation towards the most efficient solutions, we risk locking ourselves into less resource-efficient production methods,” says Henrik Thunman, Professor of Energy Technology at Chalmers and co-author of the scientific article.
Thousands of new plants will be needed globally to meet the growing demand for sustainable aviation fuels in the coming decades. This will require very large investments in facilities with long operating lifetimes.
Big differences between alternative pathways for the same product using the same raw material
The research team at Chalmers has studied the production of synthetic methanol, which is an example of a fuel molecule that can be converted into sustainable aviation fuel. It provides a representative case for analysing how different production pathways affect resource use in the production of such fuel molecules.
These energy-rich molecules can be produced by combining carbon atoms and hydrogen in chemical processes. In the study, the researchers compared three different production pathways for methanol in which the carbon atoms come from biomass – so-called biogenic carbon. Two of the methods are based on biomass combustion, where carbon dioxide is captured from flue gases and then mixed with hydrogen produced separately using electricity. The third is based on gasification, where heated biomass is converted directly into synthesis gas, which contains both carbon and hydrogen.
All three production pathways are technically feasible, and both the raw material and the final product can be the same. However, they differ clearly in terms of energy use, cost and electricity demand.
The direct production pathway is disadvantaged by EU regulation
“The gasification pathway proved to be the most resource-efficient option in our analysis, with up to 46 percent lower production cost and 30 percent lower electricity demand than the two combustion-based alternatives. The difference shows how large the energy losses can be when biomass is first combusted into carbon dioxide, which is then rebuilt into fuel molecules using large amounts of electricity and hydrogen,” says Johanna Beiron, researcher in Physical Resource Theory at Chalmers and first author of the article.
Despite this, combustion is favoured much more strongly than gasification by the EU regulatory framework. The RFNBO category – which is expected to expand from close to zero today to 35 percent of all aviation fuel in the EU by 2050 – includes all fuel from the combustion-based alternatives, but excludes around half of the fuel produced via gasification.
The reason is that RFNBO fuels may not be produced using energy and carbon atoms that come directly from biomass, as they largely do in gasification-based production. In contrast, it is permitted to use carbon atoms from biomass in combustion-based routes, provided this is done by capturing the carbon dioxide formed when biomass is used for other energy purposes. One example is the combustion of residual material from the forest industry in combined heat and power plants.
But such residual material can be used more resource-efficiently through gasification.
“One of the combustion-based alternatives we analysed was the process in combined heat and power plants,” says Johanna Beiron. “It has lower cost and energy efficiency than gasification, even when we include the additional electricity needed to replace, for example, the district heating that the combustion process can contribute.”
Regulation risks working against its own objectives
One purpose of the RFNBO classification is to stimulate increased generation of renewable electricity for the production of green hydrogen, and to reduce dependence on biomass, which is a limited resource.
But the carbon atoms for synthetic aviation fuel must come from somewhere. Biomass is expected to be the least costly fossil-free carbon source for RFNBO production, and the researchers expect that today’s regulatory framework will result in a very high demand for carbon dioxide from biomass combustion. Instead of reducing the need for biomass, the EU regulations risk driving a less energy-efficient use of the limited biomass resource.
“The regulatory framework does not account sufficiently for how efficiently different systems use energy and resources,” says Henrik Thunman. “The study therefore highlights a structural issue in EU energy and industrial policy: regulation risks working against its own objectives when definitions of sustainable fuels are not aligned with fundamental energy principles or with the Union’s broader ambitions for resource efficiency.”
Adjusted regulation may be needed to enable effective transition
The researchers hope that their results will contribute to greater knowledge about the technologies and systems that are available.
“It is surprising that EU rules do not provide clearer incentives for the most efficient alternatives,” says Johanna Beiron. “The current regulatory framework risks causing lock-in to combustion-based energy systems, even though technically mature processes already exist that would provide both lower energy use and lower cost – such as gasification and electrification of district heating.”
“Our study shows that some parts of the regulatory framework probably need to be adjusted if the EU is to achieve its long-term goals,” says Henrik Thunman. “Better coordination is needed between climate targets, resource efficiency and industrial feasibility in order to address the uncertainty that currently exists. This uncertainty makes it difficult to make rational investment decisions for the large-scale expansion of sustainable aviation fuels in the coming years.”
