Let’s Create More Forward-Looking Jobs in the EU
An easy way to do this is to start high-flying. We need to increase the requirements for blending in European electricity-based fuel when we fly; so-called e-SAF.
It won’t cost much for us as consumers, but it can boost the innovative European companies working with electricity-based fuels, such as Siemens Energy, Topsoe, or Stiesdal.
We are talking about paying around €4–7 / DKK 30–50 extra for a flight from Copenhagen to Malaga.
The countries that have introduced passenger taxes can compensate by removing or minimizing these taxes. The money would instead go directly to making aviation more CO₂-neutral and to innovative European jobs.
Why should we do this now?
Several projects for producing hydrogen from renewable energy have been put on hold because the expected demand is not there. Without demand, it becomes extremely difficult to secure the necessary financing for the plants. See for example: https://www.pwc.dk/da/publikationer/2024/finansieringsmuligheder-for-ptx-projekter.pdf
A requirement for blending e-SAF into aviation fuel is an easy way to create the necessary demand, move projects forward, and thus lay the foundation for the transition away from fossil fuels.
From a security policy perspective, there is an urgent need for the EU to become independent of fossil fuel states. From a climate policy perspective, there is likewise an urgent need to reduce the extent of climate change and its economic consequences.
The EU has already set requirements for e-SAF, and it is clear that the requirement works, as there is good dialogue between producers and buyers. See for example: https://www.atoba.energy/post/atoba-energy-and-arcadia-efuels-partner-for-global-supply.
But the requirement only applies from 2030 and is limited.
Since it actually works, there is reason to consider doing more so we can get started now.
e-SAF
e-SAF is short for electro-Sustainable Aviation Fuel. In EU terms, these are called synthetic aviation fuels (see Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation), Article 3, No. 12).
A synthetic aviation fuel is a fuel that is not of biological origin.
There are a number of specific requirements for this, as set out in the RFNBO Regulation, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1184 of 10 February 2023 establishing a Union methodology setting out detailed rules for the production of renewable liquid and gaseous transport fuels of non-biological origin.
Typically, it will be produced by:
- Producing hydrogen using electricity from solar, wind, or nuclear power and a electrolysis plant, and
- CO₂ from, for example, biogas plants (see https://skykraft.se/en/what-is-esaf/).
The EU is gradually increasing the required share of e-SAF in aviation fuel. Going forward, there must be at least the following amounts of e-SAF in aviation fuel:
- 2030-2031: 1.2 % e-SAF
- 2032-2034: 2.0 % e-SAF
- 2035-2039: 5 % e-SAF
- 2040-2044: 10 % e-SAF
- 2045-2049: 15 % e-SAF
- 2050 -: 35 % e-SAF
(see Annex 1 to the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation)
What does it cost?
Price is always decisive for whether a product succeeds. And e-SAF is currently too expensive to compete with fossil fuel.
EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) estimated in a report of 25 February 2025 (2024 Aviation Fuels Reference Prices for ReFuelEU Aviation) that the price of e-SAF is currently €7,695 per ton, while conventional fossil aviation fuel costs €734 per ton.
The price estimate for e-SAF is based on production costs and cannot be verified by the market, as there is not yet an actual market for e-SAF.
Of course, the price will fall over time as technologies develop. But with such a high premium, the market needs a kick-start. The easiest way is to do as the EU has done: set blending requirements – and gradually increase them. This way, e-SAF is phased in without causing economic pain.
A fuel-efficient aircraft such as the Airbus A320NEO uses about 0.025 liters of fuel per km per seat (see overview on dr.dk). A flight from Copenhagen Airport to Malaga is about 2,471 km. That gives a fuel consumption of 61.775 liters per seat, corresponding to about 49.4 kg, assuming a density of 0.8 kg/L.
Based on these assumptions, the following table can be set up showing the additional cost of the flight to Malaga under the EU’s blending requirements for e-SAF:
| År | e-SAF share | Blended price (EUR/ton) | Total price for 49.4 kg (EUR) | Extra costs vs. 0% (EUR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2029 |
0% |
734.00 |
36.30 |
0.00 |
|
2030-2031 |
1.2% |
817.53 |
40.39 |
4.09 |
|
2032-2034 |
2% |
873.22 |
43.13 |
6.83 |
|
2035-2039 |
5% |
1,082.05 |
53.05 |
16.75 |
|
2040-2044 |
10% |
1,430.10 |
70.36 |
34.06 |
|
2045-2049 |
15% |
1,778.15 |
87.89 |
51.59 |
|
2050- |
35% |
3,170.35 |
156.62 |
120.32 |
An extra cost of €6.83, which is the premium at the 2% requirement, will hardly be noticed by many. The EU can therefore easily accelerate this requirement, for example to 2031.
By comparison, airport passenger taxes amount to about €5–20. In addition, there are a number of other airport charges (see Copenhagen Airport’s tariff sheet).
An extra cost of up to €16.75 should therefore be easily manageable within the current fee levels.
So there is good room to accelerate the blending requirements.
It is clear, however, that a doubling of the price, as the 10% blending requirement entails, will not be well received by travelers. The price of e-SAF must therefore come down significantly before this is introduced.
But the price will not come down unless there is an incentive to produce e-SAF, and the incentive only comes if there is demand. So demand must be stimulated.
Can we use e-SAF produced in China?
If we had free trade on equal terms, it would not matter where e-SAF is produced.
Unfortunately, we do not.
If we want European consumers’ extra payment for air transport to actually benefit innovation and employment in the EU, we must of course require that the majority of the fuel is produced in the EU with plants also built in the EU.
Otherwise, the scheme will simply support the development and production of e-SAF in other countries that distort the market by subsidizing their electrolysis producers and e-SAF production.
Competition is good, but it must be on equal terms. If we are to use e-SAF from another country, we must at a minimum require that:
- it meets the EU’s requirements for production using renewable energy,
- it is produced with the same level of subsidies as in the EU (and this presupposes that we trust the country’s information on subsidies, and that the country does not have an artificially low exchange rate),
- we have the same access to sell e-SAF in that country, and
- that country imposes the same requirements for the use of e-SAF in their aviation fuel.
We must ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of relying on gas from Russia or solar panels and batteries from China.
Our rules should support genuine innovation and prosperity growth in Europe.
Unfortunately, EU rules today are designed so that a producer outside the EU only has to meet the first bullet point. Producers abroad can, through certification proving compliance with equivalent production requirements, gain access to the European market (see Article 9 of the RFNBO Regulation).
From a climate perspective, it is good that the EU wants to boost the global market for e-SAF, and from a narrow economic perspective, it is good that the aviation industry can buy this as cheaply as possible regardless of production location.
But from a societal perspective, it is regrettable that the EU once again risks – with open eyes – moving production and development to countries outside the EU and even letting European consumers pay extra for it.
When the EU imposes extra costs on the citizens of the Union, it should benefit those same citizens in the form of more forward-looking jobs and thus greater prosperity in the EU.
Let’s do it faster and better.
Want to know more?
- You can read more about the regulation at ReFuelEU aviation – Mobility and Transport – European Commission.
- And gain valuable insight into current issues related to e-SAF on Project SkyPower’s site, News & publications | Project SkyPower. It is an alliance of key stakeholders with an interest in e-SAF, including Air France-KLM, Airbus, easyJet, and others.
- And of course, you are always welcome to contact me.
✈️ This makes so much sense – climate-wise, geopolitically, and economically.
But what’s actually holding us back from accelerating the e-SAF blending requirements?
Is it political hesitation? Industry pushback? Lack of courage? Or just fear of public reaction?
As a citizen, consumer, and someone who would love to fly with a clear conscience, it’s really frustrating to see how slow progress is, especially when the cost of transition seems so manageable.
Thanks for laying it all out so clearly.
f you had to name one barrier we, as citizens or businesses, could help push on, what would it be?