Hubbry Logo
Aviation biofuelAviation biofuelMain
Open search
Aviation biofuel
Community hub
Aviation biofuel
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Aviation biofuel
Aviation biofuel
Aviation biofuel
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Refueling an Airbus A320 with biofuel in 2011

An aviation biofuel (also known as bio-jet fuel,[1] sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), or bio-aviation fuel (BAF)[2]) is a biofuel used to power aircraft. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) considers it a key element in reducing the environmental impact of aviation.[3] Aviation biofuel is used to decarbonize medium and long-haul air travel. These types of travel generate the most emissions and could extend the life of older aircraft types by lowering their carbon footprint. Synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) refers to any non-petroleum-based fuel designed to replace kerosene jet fuel, which is often, but not always, made from biomass.

Biofuels are biomass-derived fuels from plants, animals, or waste; depending on which type of biomass is used, they could lower CO2 emissions by 20–98% compared to conventional jet fuel.[4] The first test flight using blended biofuel was in 2008, and in 2011, blended fuels with 50% biofuels were allowed on commercial flights. In 2023 SAF production was 600 million liters, representing 0.2% of global jet fuel use.[5] By 2024, SAF production was to increase to 1.3 billion liters (1 million tonnes), representing 0.3% of global jet fuel consumption and 11% of global renewable fuel production.[6] This increase came as major US production facilities delayed their ramp-up until 2025, having initially been expected to reach 1.9 billion liters.

Aviation biofuel can be produced from plant or animal sources such as Jatropha, algae, tallows, waste oils, palm oil, Babassu, and Camelina (bio-SPK); from solid biomass using pyrolysis processed with a Fischer–Tropsch process (FT-SPK); with an alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) process from waste fermentation; or from synthetic biology through a solar reactor. Small piston engines can be modified to burn ethanol.

Sustainable biofuels are an alternative to electrofuels.[7] Sustainable aviation fuel is certified as being sustainable by a third-party organisation.

SAF technology faces significant challenges due to feedstock constraints. The oils and fats known as hydrotreated esters and fatty acids (Hefa), crucial for SAF production, are in limited supply as demand increases. Although advanced e-fuels technology, which combines waste CO2 with clean hydrogen, presents a promising solution, it is still under development and comes with high costs. To overcome these issues, SAF developers are exploring more readily available feedstocks such as woody biomass and agricultural and municipal waste, aiming to produce lower-carbon jet fuel more sustainably and efficiently.[8][9]

History

[edit]
See also: Aviation biofuel demonstrations

The first flight using blended biofuel took place in 2008.[10] Virgin Atlantic used it fly a commercial airliner, using feedstocks such as algae.[11] Airlines representing more than 15% of the industry formed the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, with support from NGOs such as Natural Resources Defense Council and The Roundtable For Sustainable Biofuels by 2008. They pledged to develop sustainable biofuels for aviation.[12] That year, Boeing was co-chair of the Algal Biomass Organization, joined by air carriers and biofuel technology developer UOP LLC (Honeywell).[13]

In 2009, the IATA committed to achieving carbon-neutral growth by 2020, and to halve carbon emissions by 2050.[14]

In 2010, Boeing announced a target 1% of global aviation fuels by 2015.[15]

US Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II test flight using a 50–50 biofuel blend in 2011

By June 2011, the revised Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons (ASTM D7566) allowed commercial airlines to blend up to 50% biofuels with conventional jet fuel.[16] The safety and performance of jet fuel used in passenger flights is certified by ASTM International.[17] Biofuels were approved for commercial use after a multi-year technical review from aircraft makers, engine manufacturers and oil companies.[18] Thereafter some airlines experimented with biofuels on commercial flights.[19] As of July 2020, seven annexes to D7566 were published, including various biofuel types:[20]

  • Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (FT-SPK, 2009)
  • Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (HEFA-SPK, 2011)
  • usHydroprocessed Fermented Sugars to Synthetic Isoparaffins (HFS-SIP, 2014)
  • Fischer-Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene with Aromatics (FT-SPK/A, 2015)
  • Alcohol to Jet Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (ATJ-SPK, 2016)
  • Catalytic Hydrothermolysis Synthesized Kerosene (CH-SK, or CHJ; 2020).

In December 2011, the FAA awarded US$7.7 million to eight companies to develop drop-in sustainable fuels, especially from alcohols, sugars, biomass, and organic matter such as pyrolysis oils, within its CAAFI and CLEEN programs.[21]

Biofuel provider Solena filed for bankruptcy in 2015.[22]

By 2015, cultivation of fatty acid methyl esters and alkenones from the algae, Isochrysis, was under research.[23]

By 2016, Thomas Brueck of Munich TU was forecasting that algaculture could provide 3–5% of jet fuel needs by 2050.[24]

In fall 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organization announced plans for multiple measures including the development and deployment of sustainable aviation fuels.[25]

Dozens of companies received hundreds of millions in venture capital from 2005 to 2012 to extract fuel oil from algae, some promising competitively-priced fuel by 2012 and production of 1 billion US gal (3.8 million m3) by 2012-2014.[26] By 2017 most companies had disappeared or changed their business plans to focus on other markets.[26]

In 2019, 0.1% of fuel was SAF:[27] The International Air Transport Association (IATA) supported the adoption of Sustainable Aviation fuel, aiming in 2019 for 2% share by 2025: 7 million m3 (1.8 billion US gal).[28][10]

In 2019, United Airlines purchased up to 10 million US gallons (38,000 m3) of SAF from World Energy over two years.[29]

In early 2021, Boeing's CEO Dave Calhoun said drop-in sustainable aviation fuels are "the only answer between now and 2050" to reduce carbon emissions.[30] In May 2021, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) set a goal for the aviation industry to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 with SAF as the key component.[31]

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act introduced the Fueling Aviation's Sustainable Transition (FAST) Grant Program. The program provides $244.5 million in grants for SAF-related "production, transportation, blending, and storage."[32] In November, 2022, sustainable aviation fuels were a topic at COP26.[33]

As of 2023, 90% of biofuel was made from oilseed and sugarcane which are grown for this purpose only.[34]

Production

[edit]

Jet fuel is a mixture of various hydrocarbons. The mixture is restricted by product requirements, for example, freezing point and smoke point. Jet fuels are sometimes classified as kerosene or naphtha-type. Kerosene-type fuels include Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-5 and JP-8. Naphtha-type jet fuels, sometimes referred to as "wide-cut" jet fuel, include Jet B and JP-4.

"Drop-in" biofuels are biofuels that are interchangeable with conventional fuels. Deriving "drop-in" jet fuel from bio-based sources is ASTM approved via two routes. ASTM has found it safe to blend in 50% SPK into regular jet fuels.[35][17] Tests have been done with blending synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) in considerably higher concentrations.[36]

HEFA-SPK
Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosine (HEFA-SPK) is a specific type of hydrotreated vegetable oil fuel.[2] As of 2020 this was the only mature technology[10][2][37] (but by 2024 FT-SPK was commercialized as well[38]). HEFA-SPK was approved by Altair Engineering for use in 2011.[39] HEFA-SPK is produced by the deoxygenation and hydroprocessing of the feedstock fatty acids of algae, jatropha, and camelina.[40]
The Diamond Green Diesel facility in Port Arthur, Texas, operated by Valero Energy, began producing SAF in late 2024, using the HEFA-SPK process.[41][42]
Bio-SPK
This fuel uses oil extracted from plant or animal sources such as jatropha, algae, tallows, waste oils, babassu, and Camelina to produce synthetic paraffinic kerosene (bio-SPK) by cracking and hydroprocessing. Using algae to make jet fuel remains an emerging technology. Companies working on algae jet fuel include Solazyme, Honeywell UOP, Solena, Sapphire Energy, Imperium Renewables, and Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation. Universities working on algae jet fuel are Arizona State University and Cranfield University. Major investors for algae-based SPK research are Boeing, Honeywell/UOP, Air New Zealand, Continental Airlines, Japan Airlines, and General Electric.[citation needed]
FT-SPK
Processing solid biomass using pyrolysis can produce oil or gasification to produce a syngas that is processed into FT SPK (Fischer–Tropsch Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene).[citation needed]
ATJ-SPK
The alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) pathway takes alcohols such as ethanol or butanol and de-oxygenates and processes them into jet fuels.[43] Companies such as LanzaTech have created ATJ-SPK from CO2 in flue gases.[44] The ethanol is produced from CO in the flue gases using microbes such as Clostridium autoethanogenum. In 2016 LanzaTech demonstrated its technology at Pilot scale in NZ – using Industrial waste gases from the steel industry as a feedstock.[45][46][47] Gevo developed technology to retrofit existing ethanol plants to produce isobutanol.[48] Alcohol-to-Jet Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (ATJ-SPK) is a proven pathway to deliver bio-based, low-carbon fuel.[citation needed]

Alternative production routes

[edit]

Several research initiatives and companies have reported work on technologies intended to produce synthetic hydrocarbons and sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).

The SUN-to-LIQUID project (2016-2019) was a European Union Horizon 2020-funded research initiative that demonstrated the production of sustainable aviation fuel directly from sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. The project utilised a solar thermochemical process involving a high-temperature solar reactor to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which was then converted into jet fuel through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. On June 13, 2019, researchers at the IMDEA Energy Institute in Móstoles, Spain successfully demonstrated the complete production chain, marking a significant milestone in solar fuel technology. The project consortium included partners from seven European countries and Switzerland, led by Bauhaus Luftfahrt, and received support from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation. While the demonstration proved the technical feasibility of producing drop-in aviation fuel from renewable sources without competing for agricultural land, the technology remained at an early stage with challenges related to scaling and economic viability requiring further development.[49][50][51][52]

Alder Fuels developed a technology to convert lignocellulosic biomass, including forestry and agricultural residues, into a hydrocarbon-rich intermediate product called "greencrude" through pyrolysis. This greencrude can subsequently be processed in conventional petroleum refineries using existing infrastructure to produce drop-in aviation and transportation fuels. The company's process utilises waste biomass feedstocks that do not compete with food production, addressing one of the sustainability concerns associated with first-generation biofuels.[53]

Universal Fuel Technologies developed Flexiforming technology, a catalytic process designed to convert various feedstocks, including byproducts from existing renewable fuel production, into sustainable aviation fuel. The technology has feedstock flexibility, allowing for the processing of multiple biomass-derived inputs through a single conversion pathway.[54]

Arcadia eFuels developed a power-to-liquid facility at the port of Vordingborg, Denmark, utilising a process that combines water electrolysis powered by renewable electricity with carbon dioxide capture to produce synthetic aviation fuel. The process involves generating green hydrogen through electrolysis, which is then combined with captured CO2 to create synthesis gas (syngas), subsequently converted to jet fuel via Fischer-Tropsch or similar gas-to-liquid processes.[55][56]

Piston engines

[edit]

Small piston engines can be modified to burn ethanol.[57] Swift Fuel, a biofuel alternative to avgas, was approved as a test fuel by ASTM International in December 2009.[58][59]

Technical challenges

[edit]

Nitrile-based rubber materials expand in the presence of aromatic compounds found in conventional petroleum fuel. Pure biofuels without petroleum and paraffin-based additives may cause rubber seals and hoses to shrink.[60] Synthetic rubber substitutes that are not adversely affected by biofuels, such as Viton, for seals and hoses are available.[61]

The United States Air Force found harmful bacteria and fungi in their biofueled aircraft, and use pasteurization to disinfect them.[62]

Aromatics and cycloalkanes

[edit]

As of May 2025 SAF is generally required to be blended with fossil fuel—because jet fuel needs cycloalkanes and aromatics, which are generally deficient in SAF; as well as the more prevalent in SAF n-alkanes and isoalkanes.[63]

Economics

[edit]

In 2019 the International Energy Agency forecast SAF production should grow from 18 to 75 billion litres between 2025 and 2040, representing a 5% to 19% share of aviation fuel.[10] By 2019, fossil jet fuel production cost was $0.3-0.6 per L given a $50–100 crude oil barrel, while aviation biofuel production cost was $0.7-1.6, needing a $110–260 crude oil barrel to break-even.[10] As of 2024, SAF represents just 0.3% of global aviation fuel.[64]

As of 2020 aviation biofuel was more expensive than fossil jet kerosene,[1] considering aviation taxation and subsidies at that time.[65]

As of a 2021 analysis, VFA-SAF break-even cost was $2.50/US gal ($0.66/L).[66] This number was generated considering credits and incentives at the time, such as California's LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) credits and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard incentives.

Sustainable aviation fuels

[edit]
In 2016, Oslo Airport became the first international airport to offer sustainable aviation fuel as part of the fuel mix.

Sustainable biofuels do not use food crops, prime agricultural land or fresh water. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is certified by a third-party such as the Roundtable For Sustainable Biofuels.[67]

As of 2022, some 450,000 flights had used sustainable fuels as part of the fuel mix, although such fuels were ~3x more expensive than the traditional fossil jet fuel or kerosene.[68] In 2023, SAFs account for less than 0.1% of all aviation fuels consumed.[69] Throughout 2024, Alaska Airlines was the leader among U.S. airlines in SAF implementation, accounting for 0.68% of its fuel usage. Other major airlines including United, Delta and JetBlue used SAF in roughly .3% of fuel.[41]

Certification

[edit]

A SAF sustainability certification ensures that the product satisfies criteria focused on environmental, social, and economic "triple-bottom-line" considerations. Under many emission regulation schemes, such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EUTS), a certified SAF product may be exempted from carbon compliance liability costs.[70] This marginally improves SAF's economic competitiveness versus fossil-based fuel.[71]

The first reputable body to launch a sustainable biofuel certification system was the European-based Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) NGO.[72] Leading airlines and other signatories to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (SAFUG) pledged to support RSB as their preferred certification provider.[73][74]

Some SAF pathways procured RIN pathways under the United States's renewable fuel standard which can serve as an implicit certification if the RIN is a Q-RIN.

EU RED II Recast (2018)
Greenhouse gas emissions from sustainable fuels must be lower than those from the fuels they replace: at least 50% for production built before 5 October 2015, 60% after that date and 65% after 2021.[75] Raw materials cannot be sourced from land with high biodiversity or high carbon stocks (i.e. primary and protected forests, biodiversity-rich grasslands, wetlands and peatlands). Other sustainability issues are set out in the Governance Regulation and may be covered voluntarily.
ICAO 'CORSIA'
GHG Reduction - Criterion 1: lifecycle reductions of at least 10% compared to fossil fuel. Carbon Stock - Criterion 1: not produced from biomass obtained from land whose uses changed after 1 January 2008 from primeval forests, wetlands or peatlands, as all these lands have high carbon stocks. Criterion 2: For land use changes after 1 January 2008, (using IPCC land categories), if emissions from direct land use change (DLUC) exceed the default value of the induced land use change (ILUC), the value of the DLUC replaces the default (ILUC) value.

Global impact

[edit]

As emissions trading schemes and other carbon compliance regimes emerge, certain biofuels are likely to be exempted ("zero-rated") by governments from compliance due to their closed-loop nature, if they can demonstrate appropriate credentials. For example, in the EUTS, SAFUG's proposal was accepted[76] that only fuels certified as sustainable by the RSB or similar body would be zero-rated.[77] SAFUG was formed by a group of interested airlines in 2008 under the auspices of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Member airlines represented more than 15% of the industry, and signed a pledge to work towards SAF.[78][79]

In addition to SAF certification, the integrity of aviation biofuel producers and their products could be assessed by means such as Richard Branson's Carbon War Room,[80] or the Renewable Jet Fuels initiative.[81] The latter works with companies such as LanzaTech, SG Biofuels, AltAir, Solazyme, and Sapphire.[82][verification needed]

Along with her co-authors, Candelaria Bergero of the University of California's Earth System Science Department stated that "main challenges to scaling up such sustainable fuel production include technology costs and process efficiencies", and widespread production would undermine food security and land use.[83]

Market implementation

[edit]

By 2019, Virgin Australia had fueled more than 700 flights and flown more than one million kilometers, domestic and international, using Gevo's alcohol-to-jet fuel.[84] Virgin Atlantic was working to regularly use fuel derived from the waste gases of steel mills, with LanzaTech.[85] British Airways wanted to convert household waste into jet fuel with Velocys.[85] United Airlines committed to 900 million US gal (3,400,000 m3) of sustainable aviation fuel for 10 years from Fulcrum BioEnergy (of its 4.1 billion US gal (16,000,000 m3) fuel consumption in 2018), after a $30 million investment in 2015.[85]

From 2020, Qantas planned to use a 50/50 blend of SG Preston's biofuel on its Los Angeles-Australia flights. SG Preston also planned to provide fuel to JetBlue over 10 years.[85] At its sites in Singapore, Rotterdam and Porvoo, Finland's Neste expected to improve its renewable fuel production capacity from 2.7 to 3.0 million t (6.0 to 6.6 billion lb) a year by 2020, and to increase its Singapore capacity by 1.3 million t (2.9 billion lb) to reach 4.5 million t (9.9 billion lb) in 2022 by investing €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion).[85]

By 2020, International Airlines Group had invested $400 million to convert waste into sustainable aviation fuel with Velocys.[86]

United Airlines has expanded SAF use across multiple airports worldwide, including Amsterdam in 2022,[87] San Francisco and London in 2023,[88] and Chicago O'Hare and Los Angeles in 2024.[89]

In March 2024, regular use of SAF began in the Northeastern United States at John F. Kennedy International Airport, as part of a new effort by JetBlue.[90] Southwest Airlines began using sustainable jet fuel at Chicago Midway International Airport in October 2024.[91]

Certified processes

[edit]
Abbreviation Conversion Process Possible Feedstocks Blending Ratio Commercialization Proposals / Projects
HEFA-SPK Synthesized paraffinic kerosene produced from hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids Bio-Oils, Animal Fat, Recycled Oils 50% World Energy, Universal Oil Products, Neste, Dynamic Fuels, EERC
FT-SPK Fischer-Tropsch hydroprocessed synthesized paraffinic kerosene Coal, Natural Gas, Biomass 50% Fulcrum Bioenergy, Red Rock Biofuels, SG Preston, Kaidi Finland, Sasol, Shell Oil Company, Syntroleum
SIP-HFS Synthesized kerosene isoparaffins produced from hydroprocessed fermented sugars Biomass-derived sugar 10% Amyris (company), TotalEnergies
SPK/A Synthesized kerosene with aromatics derived by alkylation of light aromatics from non-petroleum sources Coal, Natural Gas, Biomass 50% Sasol
ATJ-SPK Alcohol-to-jet synthetic paraffinic kerosene Biomass-derived ethanol or isobutanol 50% Gevo, Cobalt, Universal Oil Products, Lanzatech, Swedish Biofuels, Byogy

Environmental impact

[edit]
Further information: Environmental impact of aviation and Biofuel § Greenhouse gas emissions

Plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, therefore plant-based biofuels emit only the same amount of greenhouse gases as they had previously absorbed. Biofuel production, processing, and transport, however, emit greenhouse gases, reducing the emissions savings.[2] Biofuels with the most emission savings are those derived from photosynthetic algae (98% savings) although the technology is not developed, and those from non-food crops and forest residues (91–95% savings).[2]

Jatropha oil, a non-food oil used as a biofuel, lowers CO2 emissions by 50–80% compared to Jet-A1, a kerosene-based fuel.[92] Jatropha, used for biodiesel, can thrive on marginal land where most plants produce low yields.[93][94] A life cycle assessment on jatropha estimated that biofuels could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 85% if former agro-pastoral land is used, or increase emissions by up to 60% if natural woodland is converted.[95]

Palm oil cultivation is constrained by scarce land resources and its expansion to forestland causes biodiversity loss, along with direct and indirect emissions due to land-use change.[2] Neste Corporation's renewable products include a refining residue of food-grade palm oil, the oily waste skimmed from the palm oil mill's wastewater. Other Neste sources are used cooking oil from deep fryers and animal fats.[96] Neste's sustainable aviation fuel is used by Lufthansa;[97] Air France and KLM announced 2030 SAF targets in 2022[98] including multi-year purchase contracts totaling over 2.4 million tonnes of SAF from Neste, TotalEnergies, and DG Fuels.[99]

Aviation fuel from wet waste-derived feedstock ("VFA-SAF") provides an additional environmental benefit. Wet waste consists of waste from landfills, sludge from wastewater treatment plants, agricultural waste, greases, and fats. Wet waste can be converted to volatile fatty acids (VFA's), which then can be catalytically upgraded to SAF. Wet waste is a low-cost and plentiful feedstock, with the potential to replace 20% of US fossil jet fuel.[66] This lessens the need to grow crops specifically for fuel, which in itself is energy intensive and increases CO2 emissions throughout its life cycle. Wet waste feedstocks for SAF divert waste from landfills. Diversion has the potential to eliminate 17% of US methane emissions across all sectors. VFA-SAF's carbon footprint is 165% lower than fossil aviation fuel.[66] This technology is in its infancy; although start-ups are working to make this a viable solution. Alder Renewables, BioVeritas, and ChainCraft are a few organizations committed to this.

NASA has determined that 50% aviation biofuel mixture can cut particulate emissions caused by air traffic by 50–70%.[100] Biofuels do not contain sulfur compounds and thus do not emit sulfur dioxide.[citation needed] While, it may be true that the burning of biofuels do not emit sulfur compounds, some forms of production, such as pyrolysis, can in fact produce sulfur compounds and other pollutants. Some potential pollutants that could be released are hydrogen sulfide and different nitrogen compounds like hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and nitrogen dioxide.[101] It is important to note that there are other forms of biofuel production that may not have the same emmissions.[citation needed]

Because of the scaling required to make aviation biofuel mainstream, the impact of land usage is a current hindrance to the growth of the biofuel industry. Potential solutions to this issue have begun to surface. For example, algae farms can produce a lot more biofuel per unit of area than crops.[102] Trials of using algae as biofuel were carried out by Lufthansa and Virgin Atlantic as early as 2008, although there is little evidence that using algae is a reasonable source for jet biofuels.[103] By 2015, cultivation of fatty acid methyl esters and alkenones from the algae, Isochrysis, was under research as a possible jet biofuel feedstock.[104]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Aviation biofuel

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Aviation biofuel, commonly termed sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), consists of drop-in fuels derived from renewable feedstocks, materials, or synthetic processes, engineered to match the chemical and performance properties of conventional kerosene-based while achieving lifecycle emission reductions of up to 80% relative to fossil equivalents. These fuels are produced via pathways such as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, or alcohol-to-jet conversion, utilizing inputs like used cooking oils, agricultural residues, or to minimize reliance on purpose-grown crops. Development accelerated in the late with demonstration flights, including the first commercial biofuel-powered passenger flight by in 2011 from to , following earlier test flights by airlines like in 2008. Key milestones include certifications for specific SAF pathways since 2009, enabling blends up to 50% with conventional fuel in certified without engine modifications. Production has scaled modestly, with global output reaching approximately 0.03% of demand by 2023, driven by industry commitments like the International Air Transport Association's goal for SAF to comprise 10% of aviation fuel by 2030, though economic viability remains constrained by high costs—often 2-4 times that of fossil —and limited feedstock . While SAF addresses aviation's challenge of net-zero emissions amid limited feasibility for long-haul flights, controversies persist over indirect land-use changes from feedstock expansion, potential competition with food production in first-generation variants, and lifecycle analyses questioning net emission benefits when accounting for processing and emissions. Empirical assessments indicate that second- and third-generation SAF from wastes yield superior reductions, but scaling to displace significant volumes—aviation consumed over 300 billion liters annually pre-pandemic—demands technological advances and policy incentives without exacerbating resource pressures.

Fundamentals

Definition and Properties

Aviation biofuels, also known as sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), are drop-in hydrocarbon fuels produced from non-fossil feedstocks such as plant oils, animal fats, agricultural residues, municipal waste, or synthesized via processes powered by renewable electricity, designed specifically for use in commercial and military aircraft turbine engines. Unlike conventional jet fuels derived from crude oil refining, SAF undergoes conversion technologies like hydroprocessing or alcohol-to-jet synthesis to yield paraffinic hydrocarbons that mimic the molecular structure of kerosene-based Jet A or Jet A-1, enabling seamless blending without engine modifications. Certification under ASTM D7566 governs their quality, stipulating that SAF components must meet rigorous performance criteria before blending, with maximum approved blend ratios varying by production pathway (e.g., up to 50% for certain hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids). Physically, SAF exhibits properties closely aligned with conventional to ensure operational reliability across altitudes and temperatures: ranges from 775 to 840 kg/m³ at 15°C, freezing point is below -40°C to prevent solidification in flight, and net exceeds 42.8 MJ/kg for sufficient . Chemically, SAF is characterized by a higher hydrogen-to-carbon (typically >1.8) and lower aromatic content (<25% by volume in blends), which reduces smoke point and particulate matter formation during combustion compared to fossil fuels with higher aromatics (up to 25%). It also contains negligible sulfur (<15 ppm), minimizing sulfur dioxide emissions, and features a higher flash point (often >38°C), improving ground handling safety. These attributes stem from the paraffinic of most SAF pathways, though variations exist; for instance, Fischer-Tropsch-derived SAF may include minimal olefins but requires additives for seal swell compatibility in . Performance-wise, SAF delivers comparable thrust and to conventional fuels in certified blends, with spray and atomization characteristics in injectors showing minor differences—such as slightly larger droplet sizes under certain conditions—but no adverse impact on engine operability when meeting ASTM limits. Lifecycle analyses attribute to SAF up to 80% lower versus fossil baselines, calculated on a well-to-wake basis assuming sustainable feedstocks and no significant indirect effects like ; however, actual reductions depend on feedstock sourcing, with critics noting potential offsets from energy-intensive production or competition with food crops. Blends exceeding 10% may require additional testing for long-term compatibility, as evidenced by ongoing approvals for 100% SAF demonstrations under evolving ASTM annexes.

Types and Production Pathways

Aviation biofuels, commonly termed sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), are produced through certified conversion pathways that transform renewable feedstocks into synthetic paraffinic s compatible with ASTM D1655 specifications via standards like ASTM D7566. These pathways emphasize drop-in fuels, allowing blends with conventional without modifications. As of July 2023, ASTM has approved 11 pathways, including three co-processing variants, with blend limits typically at 50% and additional processes under evaluation for scalability and certification. The Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA) pathway dominates current production, processing lipid feedstocks such as used cooking oil, animal tallow, and through hydrodeoxygenation to remove oxygen, followed by hydroisomerization and selective cracking to generate branched and linear paraffins in the C8-C16 range suitable for . Approved under ASTM D7566 in 2009 as HRJ-SPK (now HEFA-SPK), it permits up to 50% blending and leverages existing hydrotreating infrastructure from . HEFA's prevalence stems from feedstock availability and lower capital costs, though it competes with food chains and biodiesel markets, limiting supply to under 1% of global demand as of 2023. Fischer-Tropsch (FT) pathways involve thermochemical of , , or from other renewables to produce CO and H2, which undergo catalytic into wax-like hydrocarbons, subsequently hydrocracked and isomerized into FT-SPK. Initially approved by ASTM in 2009 with a 50% blend limit, variants like FT-SPK/A (2011) add aromatics for material compatibility. This route excels in handling non-edible , avoiding land-use conflicts inherent in oil-based paths, but demands high temperatures (200-350°C) and faces efficiency losses from gasification yields below 70%. Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ) processes ferment sugars or gases into alcohols (e.g., from corn or from cellulosic sources), then dehydrate and oligomerize them into olefins, followed by to hydrocarbons. Ethanol-ATJ gained ASTM approval in 2016, with broader alcohol variants certified in 2023, supporting 50% blends and enabling crop-based production from residues or energy crops. ATJ diversifies beyond , with yields up to 40% jet fraction from alcohols, though fermentation energy inputs and use pose challenges in arid regions.
PathwayPrimary FeedstocksKey Process StepsASTM Approval YearMax Blend Limit (%)
HEFAWaste oils, animal fats, Hydrodeoxygenation, isomerization, cracking200950
FT, wasteGasification to , FT synthesis, hydrocracking200950
ATJAlcohols from sugars/Dehydration, oligomerization, 2016 (expanded 2023)50
Co-processing pathways integrate bio-intermediates (e.g., or ) into refineries at low ratios (up to 5-10%), approved under ASTM D1655 Annex A1 since 2020, offering near-term scalability without full standalone facilities. Emerging routes like methanol-to-jet (MTJ) and catalytic hydrothermolysis (CHJ) from wet waste are progressing toward approval, promising higher yields from municipal sources but requiring advances in catalyst durability and aromatics control.

Historical Development

Early Research and Prototypes (Pre-2000s)

Research into aviation biofuels prior to the 2000s was predominantly motivated by the 1970s oil crises, which prompted U.S. Department of Energy sponsorship of alternative fuel studies, including biomass-derived options like alcohols for piston engines, amid concerns over petroleum supply security and costs. Early efforts focused on ethanol and methanol blends with gasoline for general aviation, as these fuels offered renewability from crops like corn or sugarcane, though their lower energy density compared to avgas posed range limitations. In the United States, ground-based engine tests in the 1980s evaluated gasohol (ethanol-gasoline blends) in military piston engines, such as the L-141, revealing improved economy under heavy loads but performance degradation at lighter settings due to vapor lock and cold-start issues. By 1990, the Federal Aviation Administration oversaw endurance testing of a dedicated ethanol-fueled aircraft engine, involving a 150-hour run on a test stand with varied power cycles, confirming viability for blends up to pure ethanol in modified piston designs but highlighting needs for corrosion-resistant materials and fuel system adaptations. The development of AGE-85, an 85% ethanol blend with hydrocarbons for lubricity, underwent flight testing and FAA certification in the late 1980s to early 1990s, demonstrating acceptable power output in small aircraft but limited commercial uptake due to infrastructure challenges and higher production costs. European initiatives paralleled these, accumulating over 6,000 flight hours on , , and ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE, derived from bioethanol) blends by the through collaborative projects involving pilot plants and engine conversions, primarily for and applications rather than jets. Vegetable oil-based fuels saw preliminary tests in the 1970s-1980s, leveraging historical precedents from Rudolf Diesel's 1900 demonstrations, but aviation applications remained experimental and confined to ground rigs owing to high causing fouling and incomplete . Jet engine biofuel prototypes were scarce pre-2000, with research emphasizing synthetic kerosene analogs from non-bio sources like ; biomass pathways, such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from , were theoretically explored but lacked flight demonstrations due to and hurdles. Overall, pre-2000 prototypes underscored biofuels' potential for reducing oil dependence in aviation but revealed causal limitations—lower volumetric content reduced payload-range , and material incompatibilities increased maintenance—stifling widespread adoption until policy incentives and refining advances post-2000.

Commercial Testing and First Flights (2000s)

In the mid-2000s, commercial testing of aviation biofuels focused on ground-based engine evaluations to confirm compatibility with existing and architectures. Engine manufacturers, including , conducted rigorous durability and performance tests using biomass-derived synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) blends, such as those produced via hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathways from plant oils. These tests, performed without hardware modifications, verified that blends up to 50% biofuel delivered equivalent thrust, fuel consumption, and thermal stability to conventional Jet A-1, while showing potential reductions in particulate emissions. The era's pivotal advancements occurred through in-flight demonstrations on commercial airliners, beginning in late 2008. On December 30, 2008, executed one of the earliest such tests, operating a with a 50% jatropha-derived biofuel blend powering one engine during a flight from . This was followed on February 24, 2008, by Virgin Atlantic's from London Heathrow to Amsterdam Schiphol, which utilized a 20% blend from babassu and jatropha oils in one of four GE GEnx engines, marking the first transatlantic demonstration of biofuel in a commercial jet. Japan Airlines complemented these efforts with a December 16, 2008, flight using camelina oil-based biofuel, the first incorporation of that non-food crop in aviation testing. Demonstrations accelerated in 2009, broadening feedstock diversity and blend ratios. pioneered North American testing on January 7, 2009, flying a 737-800 from with a 50% blend of and algae-derived fuels in one CFM56 engine, achieving seamless performance metrics comparable to pure . followed on January 30, 2009, with another camelina-based demo on a , while conducted its inaugural U.S. carrier demonstration later that year. These passenger-free flights, limited to one or two engines per aircraft to mitigate supply constraints, accumulated data on cold-start reliability, altitude performance, and seal material interactions, informing ASTM D7566 certification for up to 50% SPK blends approved in July 2009. Overall, these 2000s efforts validated biofuels as drop-in fuels but highlighted scalability challenges, including limited production volumes and higher costs relative to fossil , which restricted adoption to proofs-of-concept rather than routine operations.

Policy-Driven Expansion (2010s-Present)

The expansion of aviation biofuels from the 2010s onward has been propelled by international and national policies aimed at reducing aviation's through mandates, incentives, and certification frameworks for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), which encompass drop-in biofuels meeting stringent sustainability criteria. The (ICAO) adopted the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) in 2016, establishing a global market-based measure that incentivizes SAF use by allowing certified fuels to offset emissions growth above 85% of 2019 levels, with eligibility requiring at least 10% lifecycle GHG reductions compared to conventional . CORSIA's phased implementation—voluntary from 2021 and mandatory for larger operators by 2027—has driven initial SAF procurement, though compliance relies on verified supply chains and has yet to achieve widespread adoption due to limited production scale. In the , the Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II), effective from 2018, prioritized advanced biofuels for transport, including , by capping food-based feedstocks and setting sustainability thresholds to minimize indirect land-use change impacts, while the 2023 ReFuelEU Aviation regulation under the package mandates SAF blending targets: 2% at EU airports by 2025, rising to 6% by 2030 (with 1.2% from synthetic fuels) and 70% by 2050. These measures integrate with the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), where SAF use reduces allowance purchases, fostering investments in facilities like those co-processing waste oils into hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathways. Complementing this, the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), expanded via the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act and subsequent EPA rulemakings, qualifies SAF under advanced biofuel categories requiring 50% lifecycle GHG reductions, with the 2022 SAF Grand Challenge targeting 3 billion gallons annually by 2030—130 times 2023 levels—and tax credits under the providing up to $1.75 per gallon for qualifying production. These policies have spurred measurable growth in SAF production and deployment, though volumes remain a fraction of demand: global output rose from under 1,000 metric tons in 2010 to approximately 600,000 metric tons in 2023, primarily via HEFA from used cooking oil and animal fats, with announced capacity projected to reach 2-3 million tons by 2025 but constrained by feedstock availability and costs 2-8 times higher than fossil jet fuel. Airlines such as United and Delta have committed to multi-year offtake agreements, enabled by policy signals, while military programs like the U.S. Navy's Great Green Fleet demonstrated 50% biofuel blends in 2016, informing commercial pathways. Despite optimism in policy targets, scalability hinges on resolving supply chain bottlenecks and verifying lifecycle emissions, as some biofuel pathways risk limited net benefits if feedstocks compete with food production or drive deforestation. ![United Airlines Airbus A319 at San Francisco International Airport, exemplifying commercial adoption amid policy incentives][float-right]

Production Processes

Feedstocks and Sourcing

Common raw materials for producing biokerosene include waste cooking oil (e.g., recycled oil from restaurants), non-edible plant oils (such as jatropha oil, algae oil), agricultural and forestry waste, and municipal solid waste. Aviation biofuels, primarily produced via the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathway, rely on lipid-rich feedstocks such as , animal fats, and waste oils. Common sources include , (canola), palm, and , while animal-derived options encompass and from rendering facilities. Waste-based feedstocks, such as used (UCO) and distillers' , dominate current production due to their lower indirect change (ILUC) impacts compared to purpose-grown crops. Sourcing these feedstocks involves complex supply chains, often spanning agricultural or sectors to refineries. In the United States, UCO is primarily collected from restaurants and , with supply constrained by global competition from producers; for instance, U.S. UCO imports reached approximately 1.2 billion pounds in 2023, much of it redirected toward SAF. Animal fats are sourced from meatpacking byproducts, with rendering facilities providing a steady but regionally variable stream—U.S. availability supports about 10-15% of current HEFA capacity. Vegetable oils, while abundant globally (e.g., production exceeding 80 million metric tons annually), face scrutiny for risks in sourcing regions like , prompting certifications such as the (RSPO). Challenges in feedstock sourcing include limited scalability of wastes and residues, which constitute under 1% of global supply suitable for HEFA, leading to price volatility—UCO prices surged over 50% in 2022-2023 due to demand. Policy frameworks, such as the EU's Renewable Energy Directive mandating at least 1% biofuels from wastes by 2025, prioritize non-food sources to mitigate food-vs-fuel competition, yet empirical data indicate that crop-based feedstocks still comprise 20-30% of SAF inputs in regions without strict enforcement, potentially offsetting emissions gains via ILUC. Emerging options like algal oils or municipal solid waste-derived s remain pre-commercial, with algal yields limited to lab-scale (under 10,000 liters per hectare annually) and waste processing hindered by contamination logistics. Overall, feedstock constraints cap near-term SAF growth at 1-2% of demand without expanded waste aggregation or novel sourcing.

Conversion Technologies

The primary conversion technologies for producing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from biomass feedstocks involve thermochemical, biochemical, and hybrid processes that yield drop-in hydrocarbons compatible with existing jet engines, as certified under ASTM D7566 specifications. These include hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis, and alcohol-to-jet (ATJ), which together account for the majority of approved pathways and current production capacity. HEFA dominates commercial output, representing over 90% of SAF supply as of 2023 due to its maturity and use of feedstocks, while FT and ATJ offer pathways for cellulosic and sugar-based materials but face higher costs and scaling challenges. HEFA, approved under ASTM D7566 Annex A2 since 2009, processes vegetable oils, animal fats, or waste greases through hydrodeoxygenation, , and hydroisomerization to remove oxygen and create branched paraffins mimicking Jet A specifications. This yields fuels with high and low aromatics (typically under 25% by volume), reducing emissions, but is constrained to feedstocks that compete with food production and markets, limiting scalability without waste diversion. Commercial examples include Neste's Porvoo refinery in , operational since 2011, producing up to 1.5 million tons annually of SAF blends. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, certified via ASTM D7566 Annex A5 since 2011, gasifies solid (e.g., wood residues) or municipal waste into (CO and H2), followed by catalytic into long-chain hydrocarbons that are hydrocracked to jet-range fractions. This pathway enables broader feedstock flexibility, including non-edible lignocellulosics, but requires energy-intensive gasification and yields waxy products necessitating extensive upgrading, resulting in conversion efficiencies of 40-50% on a mass basis. Facilities like Fulcrum BioEnergy's Sierra plant in , targeting 10 million gallons per year by 2025, demonstrate its application, though high (over $1 billion for large-scale plants) hinder widespread adoption. Alcohol-to-jet processes, approved under ASTM D7566 Annex A6 for ethanol-derived variants since 2016, ferment sugars or starches into alcohols (e.g., or ), which undergo to olefins, oligomerization to hydrocarbons, and hydrotreating for branching. This biochemical route supports crop-based or cellulosic feedstocks, achieving yields up to 70% for iso-paraffinic kerosene, but depends on low-cost alcohol precursors and faces competition from mandates. LanzaJet's Freedom Pines plant in Georgia, commissioned in 2023 with 10 million gallons annual capacity from ethanol, exemplifies progress, though full-scale economics require subsidies to offset premiums of $1-2 per gallon over conventional . Emerging pathways like power-to-liquid (PtL), involving for and CO2 capture followed by FT or synthesis, remain uncertified for standalone use but show promise for non-biological carbon sources, with pilots like those from targeting deployment by 2028; however, their energy demands and costs (2-5 times HEFA) limit near-term viability without renewable electricity surpluses. Co-processing, allowing up to 5-30% SAF intermediates in petroleum refineries under ASTM D1655 Annex A1 since 2018, leverages existing infrastructure for technologies like FT or ATJ but dilutes certification benefits.

Current Scale and Facilities

Global sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production reached approximately 1 million metric tons in 2024, doubling from 500,000 metric tons in 2023, yet accounting for only about 0.3% of total demand. Projections for 2025 estimate production at 2 to 2.1 million metric tons, representing roughly 0.7% of global needs, with growth driven primarily by policy mandates in the and rather than market demand alone. This limited scale reflects high production costs and feedstock constraints, as SAF relies on pathways like hydrotreated esters and fatty acids (HEFA) using waste oils and fats, which compete with diesel markets. In the United States, SAF production capacity expanded to around 30,000 barrels per day by mid-2025, up from 2,000 barrels per day a year prior, fueled by conversions of renewable diesel facilities and new builds supported by federal incentives like the . Key operational facilities include Neste's plant, which produces SAF via HEFA from renewable feedstocks; World Energy's refinery; and Diamond Green Diesel's joint venture sites in , and , with the latter allocating portions of their renewable diesel output to SAF. Phillips 66's Rodeo Renewed facility in California added 10,000 barrels per day of SAF capacity through retrofitting for alcohol-to-jet processes. As of early 2025, six U.S. renewable diesel plants were estimated to dedicate capacity equivalent to 834 million gallons annually for SAF, though actual SAF-specific output remains a fraction due to certification and blending limits. Europe hosts several longstanding SAF facilities, with Neste operating major HEFA-based plants in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and Porvoo, Finland, contributing significantly to global supply through offtake agreements with airlines. Other notable sites include TotalEnergies' Gonfreville facility in France and Preem's refinery in Sweden, both producing limited SAF volumes from forestry residues and waste. Globally, Neste and World Energy dominate current output, underscoring the nascent stage of the industry where fewer than a dozen commercial-scale plants operate at meaningful volumes, with most capacity under development or announcement rather than online. New entrants like Rise Renewables' Reno, Nevada plant, which began SAF production in February 2025 at up to 3,000 barrels per day, highlight ongoing but incremental facility expansions.
Major SAF Production Facilities (Operational as of 2025)LocationKey Pathway/Capacity Notes
Neste Martinez, USAHEFA; part of broader output
World Energy Paramount, USAHEFA; waste oils focus
Rodeo Renewed, USAAlcohol-to-jet; 10,000 b/d added
Diamond Green Diesel Norco/Long Beach/, USAHEFA-derived SAF allocation
Rotterdam//HEFA; major exporter to
This table summarizes select facilities; total global operational capacity remains below 100 million gallons annually for dedicated SAF, far short of the billions needed for meaningful decarbonization.

Technical Requirements

Fuel Specifications and Engine Compatibility

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) must adhere to stringent specifications to ensure interchangeability with conventional kerosene-based Jet A or Jet A-1 fuels, primarily governed by standard D7566 for synthetic hydrocarbons derived from alternative processes. This standard, incorporated into the broader Jet A specification ASTM D1655, mandates properties such as a above 38°C, freezing point no higher than -40°C for Jet A or -47°C for Jet A-1, kinematic between 1.0 and 8.0 mm²/s at -20°C, and ranging from 775 to 840 kg/m³ at 15°C, among others, to guarantee safe combustion and handling. SAF pathways are certified via annexes in D7566 (e.g., Annex A1 for hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids, allowing up to 50% blends), with each requiring demonstration of equivalence in thermal stability, , and energy content to prevent issues like filter clogging or injector fouling. Engine compatibility is achieved through SAF's "drop-in" design, enabling blends with conventional fuel in existing engines without hardware modifications, as certified fuels conform to D1655 requirements for performance and material compatibility. This drop-in nature also extends to ground operations, where no additional specialized training is required beyond standard aviation fuel handling procedures; SAF blends adhere to established industry standards such as EI/JIG 1530 and JIG 1/2/4, ensuring full compatibility with existing storage, distribution, and refueling infrastructure. Aircraft certified for Jet A operation, including engines from manufacturers like GE and Rolls-Royce, accept up to 50% SAF blends across approved pathways, with tests confirming no adverse effects on thrust, fuel consumption, or emissions profiles under standard conditions. Lower aromatic content in many SAFs (typically 8-25% versus 15-25% in Jet A) necessitates blend limits to maintain seal swelling and elastomeric compatibility, avoiding leaks in fuel system components; pure paraffinic SAF may require additives for full 100% use, though ongoing trials as of 2024 demonstrate feasibility in select engines without durability degradation. Certification involves rigorous engine endurance testing, with bodies like the FAA and EASA approving fuels only after verifying no increased wear on bearings, seals, or over thousands of cycles.

Performance Characteristics

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), including those derived from biofuels, are formulated to match the physical and chemical properties of conventional Jet A-1 , ensuring compatibility with engines without hardware modifications. Key metrics such as (typically 0.75–0.84 g/cm³ at 15°C), kinematic (maximum 8.0 mm²/s at -20°C), and freezing point (≤ -47°C) align closely with ASTM D1655 specifications for Jet A-1, though certain SAF pathways like hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) can exhibit slightly lower freezing points due to higher isoparaffin content. Net for SAF meets or exceeds the minimum 42.8 MJ/kg required for Jet A-1, with some bio-derived hydrocarbons offering marginally higher volumetric owing to elevated hydrogen-to-carbon ratios. In engine operation, SAF demonstrates equivalent specific fuel consumption across power settings from idle to takeoff, as verified in ground tests evaluating thrust, operability, and thermal stability. Full-scale engine evaluations, including series and V2500 tests on 100% SAF in 2023–2024, confirmed no degradation in performance parameters such as efficiency or durability, despite variations in aromatic content (often lower in SAF at 8–25% versus 15–25% in Jet A-1). Lower sulfur and soot precursors in SAF can enhance cleanliness, potentially reducing particulate emissions without compromising power output, though blend limits (up to 50% for most pathways under ASTM D7566) persist to maintain and seal compatibility.
PropertyJet A-1 SpecificationSAF Typical Range (Blends)
Density (g/cm³ at 15°C)0.775–0.8400.760–0.845
Freezing Point (°C)≤ -47≤ -47 (often lower)
Kinematic Viscosity (mm²/s at -20°C)≤ 8.0≤ 8.0
Net Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg)≥ 42.8≥ 42.8
While SAF enables seamless integration into fleets, long-term durability data remains limited beyond certification flights, with ongoing research addressing potential sensitivities in extreme conditions like high-altitude relight.

Certification Protocols

Certification of aviation biofuels, referred to as sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), encompasses two distinct protocols: technical qualification for safety and performance compatibility with existing aircraft systems, and sustainability verification for environmental claims under schemes like ICAO's CORSIA. Technical certification ensures SAF functions as a " when blended with conventional Jet A or Jet A-1 fuels, adhering to global standards without requiring aircraft modifications. Sustainability certification, while voluntary for operational use, is mandatory for CORSIA offsetting credits and focuses on lifecycle (GHG) reductions and feedstock criteria. Technical certification is governed by , with the core standard ASTM D7566 specifying approved production pathways for synthetic paraffinic kerosenes (SPK) derived from non-petroleum feedstocks. As of 2025, ASTM D7566 includes up to 11 annexes for pathways such as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA-SPK, Annex A1, approved 2009, up to 50% blend), Fischer-Tropsch SPK (FT-SPK, Annex A2, up to 50%), and more recent additions like hydroprocessed hydrocarbons (HH-SPK, Annex A7). Qualification follows ASTM D4054 guidelines, involving extensive testing: fuel property analysis (e.g., , , freezing point), material compatibility assessments for seals and tanks, combustor sector rig tests for emissions and performance, and full-scale engine endurance runs exceeding 1,500 hours to simulate operational wear. Upon pathway approval by ASTM consensus, the blended fuel must comply with ASTM D1655 for aviation turbine fuels, enabling unrestricted use once certified by authorities like the FAA or EASA. The FAA accepts ASTM D7566-compliant SAF without additional engine recertification for blends up to pathway limits, as verified through bilateral agreements with EASA, which similarly endorses the process to harmonize approvals across jurisdictions. Co-processing of biofeedstocks in refineries is permitted up to 5% under D1655, expanding to higher blends via dedicated pathways. Efforts continue toward 100% SAF certification, with sector tests ongoing but no universal approval as of October 2025; current limits reflect data on long-term material durability and cold-weather performance. Sustainability certification operates separately, certifying supply chains to claim GHG savings under CORSIA, ICAO's global offsetting mechanism mandatory for larger operators from 2027. Approved schemes, listed in ICAO Document 04 (updated October 2024), include the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB), and others, which verify compliance with criteria such as minimum 10% lifecycle GHG reduction versus fossil baselines (using methods like CORSIA Reference or actual values), prohibition of high indirect land-use change (ILUC) feedstocks, and chain-of-custody tracking via mass balance or segregated methods. These schemes require annual audits of producers, with ISCC emphasizing EU Renewable Energy Directive alignment and mass-balance flexibility for scalability, while RSB prioritizes principles like no deforestation and social impacts across bio-based and advanced feedstocks. CORSIA eligibility demands certification from the fuel producer onward, enabling airlines to book emissions reductions proportionally to SAF uptake, though empirical verification of claimed savings depends on accurate lifecycle assessments, which ICAO standardizes to minimize variability. Non-compliance risks ineligibility for offsets, incentivizing producers to adopt low-ILUC waste oils or municipal wastes over crop-based inputs.

Environmental Evaluation

Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for aviation biofuels, also known as sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), are evaluated through well-to-wake analyses that account for emissions from feedstock sourcing or cultivation, , transportation, and aircraft , excluding only the biogenic assumed neutral for biomass-derived fuels. Conventional fossil serves as the baseline, with emissions typically ranging from 84 to 89 gCO2e per megajoule (MJ). SAF pathways offer potential reductions of 50% to over 80% relative to this baseline, but actual savings depend heavily on feedstock type, conversion technology, and methodological assumptions such as allocation of co-products and inclusion of indirect change (ILUC). Emissions vary significantly across pathways. Waste-derived SAF, such as hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) from used cooking oil or animal fats, achieves up to 80% reductions due to low upstream emissions from residue collection. In contrast, crop-based pathways like corn grain alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) or palm oil HEFA often yield minimal or no net savings—and sometimes higher emissions—owing to intensive fertilizer use, energy inputs in farming, and direct land use change (DLUC). Advanced biomass pathways perform better: Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from lignocellulosic feedstocks can reduce emissions by 86–104%, hydrothermal liquefaction by 77–80%, sugarcane ATJ by 71–75%, and corn stover ATJ by 60–75%. Vegetable oil HEFA pathways (e.g., from jatropha or energy crops) typically deliver 34–65% reductions excluding DLUC.
PathwayFeedstock ExampleTechnologyGHG Reduction vs. Fossil Jet Fuel
HEFAUsed cooking oil, tallowHydroprocessingUp to 80%
ATJCorn grainFermentation to jet0% or increase (crop-based)
FT/synthesis86–104%
HTLAlgal or wet biomassLiquefaction77–80%
ATJFermentation to jet71–75%
Uncertainties in lifecycle assessments arise from parametric variations (e.g., yield assumptions, up to 26% deviation), methodological choices like versus market-based allocation (up to 46% impact), and effects, where DLUC or ILUC can eliminate savings if high-carbon ecosystems are displaced. Emerging designs incorporating , carbon capture, and sustainable farming can yield negative emissions (e.g., -3.5 gCO2e/MJ for corn-based ATJ with decarbonization), but these rely on optimistic assumptions about low-carbon inputs and co-product credits, which may not scale globally without grid decarbonization. Certification schemes like CORSIA apply default values that favor residue-based fuels but often exclude full ILUC, potentially overstating benefits for agricultural feedstocks. Empirical data from operational SAF underscore that residue and waste pathways consistently outperform crop-derived ones in verified reductions.

Land Use Change and Biodiversity Effects

The production of aviation biofuels from crop-based feedstocks, such as corn for alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) pathways or soybeans for hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), often entails direct change (LUC) through conversion of existing agricultural or natural lands, and indirect LUC (ILUC) via displacement of production leading to expansion into forests or grasslands. ILUC emissions for corn ethanol-to-jet fuel have been estimated at 16-25 g CO₂e/MJ over a 25-year horizon, depending on the model, while soy oil HEFA pathways yield 15-20 g CO₂e/MJ; palm oil HEFA can reach 35 g CO₂e/MJ due to tropical expansion. These emissions, amortized over time, can offset 20-50% of projected lifecycle GHG savings for such fuels relative to conventional jet fuel's ~89 g CO₂e/MJ baseline, with model uncertainties arising from varying land use emission factors and global assumptions. Biodiversity effects stem primarily from habitat fragmentation and conversion associated with LUC, particularly for first-generation feedstocks like soybeans or , where expansion in regions such as the Amazon or has driven and species loss through monoculture establishment and agrochemical inputs. plantations, once promoted for marginal lands, have similarly contributed to local ecosystem degradation and invasive spread in some cases, though impacts vary by site management. , used in rotations for oilseed-based SAF, shows lower direct habitat demands but can still elevate eutrophication and acidification risks compared to , indirectly pressuring via soil and water effects. Empirical assessments indicate first-generation biofuels generally increase relative species loss compared to alternatives, with LUC accounting for much of the degradation. Feedstocks derived from wastes or residues, such as used cooking oil, animal fats, or agricultural residues, exhibit negligible ILUC and minimal impacts by avoiding competition and habitat conversion, enabling GHG reductions of 60-85% without the displacement effects of purpose-grown crops. Certification schemes under frameworks like ICAO CORSIA incorporate low-ILUC criteria, but reliance on crop-based pathways for scale-up risks amplifying these effects absent stringent enforcement. Cellulosic options, such as , can even yield negative ILUC emissions through soil carbon sequestration, potentially benefiting if integrated into diverse landscapes.

Net Carbon Reduction Claims and Empirical Data

Industry proponents frequently claim that sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) can deliver net lifecycle (GHG) reductions of 50-80% or more compared to conventional jet fuel, primarily by substituting biogenic feedstocks that sequester carbon during growth. However, empirical lifecycle assessments (LCAs) reveal a wide range of outcomes, typically from 10% to over 80%, contingent on the conversion pathway, feedstock type, and methodological assumptions such as inclusion of indirect land-use change (ILUC). The International Organization's CORSIA framework sets a minimum threshold of 10% reduction for eligible SAF, based on well-to-wake emissions, but higher figures require verified pathway-specific data. Pathway-specific LCAs provide concrete empirical benchmarks. For hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) from waste oils like used , reductions often reach 70-80%, reflecting low upstream emissions from non-arable feedstocks. In contrast, alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) fuels from corn grain yield near-zero or negative net savings when ILUC is factored in, as cultivation and emissions offset benefits. Hydrotreated renewable jet (HRJ) from intermediate oilseeds shows moderate gains: camelina-based at 50.4%, carinata at 65.2%, and pennycress at 65.7% versus baselines (89 g CO₂e/MJ), with farming stages dominating emissions (59-72%). Critiques highlight potential overestimation in claims, particularly for waste-derived SAF where reductions exceeding 100% stem from assumed avoidance in landfills rather than absolute atmospheric CO₂ drawdown; alternative baselines like yield far lower savings (e.g., 1% versus 79%). Crop-based pathways, such as corn-soy ethanol-to-jet, risk net emission increases due to ILUC-driven and high inputs in conversion, with U.S. models often excluding ILUC to inflate benefits. Real-world is constrained by feedstock limits, underscoring that while select pathways offer verifiable reductions, aggregate claims warrant scrutiny against full causal chains including emissions.

Economic Considerations

Production and Supply Costs

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production costs significantly exceed those of conventional , primarily due to high feedstock expenses, immature conversion technologies, and limited . In 2024, the average production cost for SAF derived from biofuels was estimated at €1,461 per tonne by the , while the International Air Transport Association (IATA) reported SAF prices at USD 2,350 per tonne, equivalent to approximately 3.1 times the cost of conventional . Forecasts for 2025 indicate SAF costs averaging 4.2 times higher than conventional globally, with production ranging from $6.4 to $19.01 per gallon depending on the pathway and feedstock. Feedstock acquisition constitutes the largest share of SAF production expenses, often 50-70% of total costs, varying by type: waste oils and fats enable lower-cost hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathways, while or alcohol-to-jet routes incur higher expenses due to preprocessing needs. Conversion processes add substantial capital and operational costs, with pathways like Fischer-Tropsch requiring energy-intensive , contributing to overall premiums of 2-10 times conventional fuel depending on the combination. logistics further elevate costs through feedstock collection, densification, and long-distance transport to refineries, which can increase expenses by 10-20% in decentralized models. Global SAF production remains constrained at about 0.3% of total demand in 2024, rising to roughly 0.7% in 2025 with capacity expansions to 2 million metric tons annually, limiting scale efficiencies and sustaining high spot prices. Projections suggest SAF prices may decline to 2-3 times conventional levels by 2030 through larger facilities and standardized designs, though persistent feedstock scarcity and hurdles will maintain premiums absent broader supply growth.
Cost ComponentTypical Share of Total SAF Production CostKey Drivers
Feedstock50-70%Availability of wastes vs. crops; regional sourcing
Conversion/20-30%Technology pathway (e.g., HEFA vs. FT); energy inputs
/10-20%Distance from source to plant;
Capital AmortizationVariable (10-15%)Plant scale and utilization rates

Market Incentives and Subsidies

Government subsidies and tax incentives for sustainable fuel (SAF) primarily aim to offset its higher production costs, which can exceed conventional by 2-5 times, thereby stimulating supply and adoption in the sector. In the United States, the of 2022 introduced the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit, providing SAF producers with a of up to $1.75 per gallon for fuels achieving at least 50% lifecycle reductions compared to baseline , scaled by emissions performance. This credit, extended through 2029 under recent legislative adjustments, targets non-corn pathways to prioritize advanced feedstocks like waste oils and agricultural residues, though extensions have raised concerns over potential inclusion of less efficient conventional biofuels. In the , incentives include allocations from the Emissions Trading System (ETS), with €100 million in free allowances distributed in 2024 to support airline purchases of SAF, supplemented by €25 million from provisions, effectively subsidizing uptake amid blending mandates. Additional programs offer direct subsidies, such as up to €0.5 per liter for certain SAF types, though these are critiqued for favoring synthetic fuels over bio-based options due to feedstock availability constraints. The U.S. Department of Energy's SAF Grand Challenge further bolsters production through grants and loan guarantees, aiming for 3 billion gallons annually by 2030 with at least 50% GHG reductions, drawing on federal funding to de-risk investments in scaling facilities. Internationally, provides corporate tax reductions of up to 40% for SAF production investments, while has implemented a 1% blending mandate from with calls for expanded subsidies to match U.S. levels of 1.25−1.25-1.75 per equivalents. These measures create market pull by lowering effective costs for producers and end-users, but empirical data indicates that without such interventions, SAF's premium pricing—often 3-4 times fossil equivalents—limits voluntary adoption, as evidenced by global production remaining below 0.1% of demand in 2024. Critics, including industry analyses, argue that subsidies distort markets by prioritizing biofuels over or alternatives, potentially inflating costs without proportional emissions benefits if indirect land-use effects are undercounted.

Scalability and Investment Challenges

Scalability of sustainable (SAF) production remains constrained by limited feedstock availability and technological immaturity, with global SAF output representing only 0.3% of production in 2024 despite aviation's projected demand growth. Current capacity struggles to meet even modest blending targets, as SAF accounted for less than 0.1% of total consumption, dominated by conventional . In the United States, SAF production capacity stood at approximately 2,000 barrels per day at the start of 2024, supported by just two operational plants, far below the scale required for widespread adoption. Feedstock limitations exacerbate this, with sustainable sources like waste oils and agricultural residues insufficient in volume and quality to support without competing against food production or other renewable fuel sectors, where SAF comprised only 6% of renewable fuel output in 2024. Technological pathways pose additional hurdles, as the predominant hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) process relies on finite feedstocks, while alternative routes like power-to-liquid (PtL) synthetic fuels remain in early development, absent from the 2024 European fuel mix. Scaling non-HEFA technologies requires substantial advancements in efficiency and cost reduction, yet demonstration projects and weaknesses hinder progress toward 2030 targets, which demand production increases by orders of magnitude. Projections indicate that without accelerated and , SAF volumes will constitute a fraction of needs, limited by unstable s and the energy-intensive nature of conversion processes. Investment in SAF faces barriers rooted in economic viability and risk, with production costs 50% higher than conventional for waste-based pathways and potentially double or more for PtL, deterring private capital without guaranteed demand. High upfront capital expenditures, coupled with price volatility and feedstock market instability, impede binding offtake agreements essential for final investment decisions, as evidenced by stalled projects in despite mandates. The absence of a robust amplifies these issues, with investors wary of risks, dependence, and from cheaper alternatives, necessitating de-risking mechanisms like subsidies or contracts for difference to unlock . Complex production logistics and limited interest in diversifying beyond HEFA further constrain capital flows, underscoring reliance on intervention for scaling.

Regulatory and Policy Landscape

International Standards and Certification

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) must comply with rigorous technical specifications to ensure compatibility with existing aircraft engines and infrastructure, primarily governed by standards. The core specification for conventional , ASTM D1655, defines Jet A and Jet A-1 grades used globally, while SAF blends are regulated under ASTM D7566, which covers aviation turbine fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons from approved conversion processes such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), and alcohol-to-jet pathways. These standards mandate maximum blend limits—currently up to 50% for HEFA-derived SAF and 10-30% for others depending on the pathway—to maintain fuel stability, lubricity, and performance under extreme conditions like freezing at high altitudes. ICAO endorses these ASTM-approved pathways through technical evaluations, ensuring international for safe deployment across member states. Beyond technical fit, international sustainability certification is required for SAF to qualify under ICAO's Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International (CORSIA), which applies to emissions from international flights since 2019 and becomes mandatory for most operators by 2027. CORSIA defines eligible SAF as renewable or waste-derived fuels achieving verified lifecycle (GHG) emission reductions, with criteria prohibiting feedstocks from high-carbon stock areas (e.g., recent ) and requiring at least a 10% GHG savings threshold relative to conventional baselines, calculated via approved methodologies like those in the CORSIA Eligible Fuels guidance. Only two schemes are currently recognized by ICAO for CORSIA compliance: the International and Carbon Certification (ISCC) CORSIA and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) CORSIA, which provide chain-of-custody verification, accounting, and audits for environmental, social, and feedstock . These certifications enable airlines to claim emission reductions for offsetting obligations, with annual reporting of certified volumes to ICAO by approved economic operators. Certification processes involve independent auditors verifying compliance from feedstock sourcing to final blending, emphasizing to prevent greenwashing, though critics note reliance on self-reported data and varying stringency across pathways. ISCC, operational since 2010, covers over 100 countries and includes modules for bio-based feedstocks, while RSB focuses on advanced principles like no-degradation of and , both adapting to CORSIA's evolving requirements such as updated GHG tools released in 2023. ICAO's framework supports scalability by approving new pathways incrementally, with seven approved by 2025, but mandates ongoing reviews to address empirical gaps in long-term impacts.

Mandates and Blending Targets

The (ICAO) has not established global blending mandates for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), but its Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), applicable to operators emitting over 10,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually from 2019, incentivizes SAF use by allowing certified CORSIA-eligible fuels—requiring at least a 10% lifecycle reduction—to offset compliance obligations. CORSIA's framework, mandatory for most international flights from , prioritizes fuels from approved schemes but imposes no minimum blending quotas, relying instead on voluntary uptake to supplement offsetting. In the , the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, effective from 2025, mandates fuel suppliers at airports handling over 800,000 passengers annually to blend a minimum percentage of SAF into , starting at 2% in 2025 and escalating to 6% by 2030, 20% by 2035, 34% by 2040, 42% by 2045, and 70% by 2050, with sub-quotas for synthetic fuels (e-fuels) such as 1.2% by 2030. Non-compliance incurs penalties, including fines up to 1% of supplier turnover or compensatory blending in subsequent years, aiming to enforce supply chain integration without direct purchase obligations. The (EU ETS) complements this by zero-rating certified biofuels for emissions accounting, though ReFuelEU drives the primary blending enforcement. The lacks a federal SAF blending mandate but pursues production targets through the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, announced in 2021, aiming for 3 billion gallons annually by 2030 (achieving at least 50% lifecycle GHG reductions) and 35 billion by 2050 to meet full domestic aviation demand. The Renewable Fuel Standard sets volume obligations for renewable fuels, indirectly supporting SAF via credits like the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit, but blending remains market-driven with technical limits of 10-50% depending on feedstock and certification. Other jurisdictions have introduced mandates, such as the 's policy requiring 2% SAF blending from 2025 (rising to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040), though mid-2025 compliance lagged at 1.29%.
Jurisdiction2025 Target2030 TargetLong-term TargetCitation
(ReFuelEU)2%6%70% by 2050
2%10%22% by 2040
(Grand Challenge, target)N/A~3B gallons production35B gallons by 2050

Government Incentives and Trade Policies

Various governments have implemented tax credits and subsidies to promote sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production and adoption, aiming to reduce aviation's through financial support for fuels achieving at least 50% lifecycle reductions compared to conventional . In the United States, the of 2022 established a SAF blender's of up to $1.75 per , scaled by the fuel's emissions reduction factor, available through 2024; this was succeeded in 2025 by the Section 45Z clean fuel production credit, offering a base of $1.50 per for qualifying SAF with potential increases for greater reductions, set to expire after December 31, 2027. These incentives target domestic production, with the U.S. Department of Energy's SAF Grand Challenge further supporting scale-up via grants toward a 3 billion annual target by 2030, though critics note that expanded credits under proposed legislation like H.R. 1 could favor conventional crop-based biofuels over advanced pathways, potentially undermining stricter criteria. In the , incentives include a dedicated support mechanism under the Emissions Trading System (ETS), allocating free allowances valued at approximately €100 million to airlines purchasing SAF, thereby offsetting costs for fuels used in intra-EU flights starting in 2025. Additionally, the EU has introduced subsidies of up to €6 per liter for synthetic electrofuels and €0.5 per liter for other SAF types to aid affordability, complementing the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation's blending mandates but focusing on direct economic relief for producers and users. These measures prioritize advanced feedstocks, though implementation varies by , with some providing further national grants for and . Trade policies influencing SAF include export quotas and tariffs that shape global supply chains for feedstocks and finished fuels. China expanded approvals for biofuel refiners to export SAF in October 2025, issuing quotas to three additional firms to facilitate international sales amid rising demand. In the U.S., a 10% tariff on Canadian biofuel imports took effect March 4, 2025, alongside calls to close duty-free loopholes for renewable diesel imports under reciprocal trade regimes, aiming to protect domestic producers but raising feedstock costs via potential retaliatory measures. The EU imposed anti-dumping duties on Chinese biodiesel imports in February 2025 to safeguard local industry and jobs, while U.S. producers anticipate SAF export growth to comply with foreign mandates, though tariffs on agricultural inputs from partners like China could constrain expansion. Such policies highlight tensions between incentivizing domestic production and enabling cost-effective imports, with industry groups advocating for stable, long-term frameworks to mitigate investment risks.

Adoption and Deployment

Airline Integration and Operational Experience

Airlines regard sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) as central to addressing climate change, with International Air Transport Association (IATA) member airlines committing to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, supported by intermediate greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. SAF is projected to achieve a 10% share of aviation fuel by 2030, delivering up to 85% lifecycle GHG reductions relative to conventional jet fuel, while remaining drop-in compatible for blending with Jet A or Jet A-1 kerosene. Commitments include procurements exceeding 620 million gallons of SAF from 2025 to 2030, as demonstrated by American Airlines, though higher costs necessitate investments, incentives, and policy support to facilitate the shift from conventional jet fuel blends toward greater SAF incorporation, with climate mitigation as a core strategic priority. Airlines integrate sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), a form of aviation biofuel, primarily through blending with conventional Jet A or Jet A-1 at airport fuel facilities, as SAF is certified as a drop-in compatible with existing engines, fuel systems, and without requiring modifications. The ASTM International D7566 standard permits up to 50% SAF blends for commercial use across approved production pathways, ensuring fuels meet performance specifications for , freeze point, and thermal stability equivalent to fossil-derived jet . Initial integration focused on demonstration flights to validate operational feasibility. In 2011, operated the first commercial passenger flight using a 50% blend on a from to , reporting no differences in engine performance, fuel consumption, or safety compared to standard fuel. This was followed by broader adoption, such as ' first SAF-blended flight from to on February 2, 2022, which utilized a commercially produced blend and proceeded without operational disruptions. United Airlines has advanced routine integration, conducting the first revenue passenger flight with 100% SAF—under special FAA approval—on December 1, 2021, from to , carrying over 100 passengers and demonstrating seamless performance despite the non-standard blend ratio. By 2023, United doubled its SAF delivery locations, incorporating blends into flights departing from hubs like (SFO) and Heathrow (LHR), with no reported impacts on dispatch reliability or in-flight efficiency. In July 2024, United became the first airline to procure SAF specifically for ongoing operations at O'Hare (ORD), expanding to Houston Intercontinental (IAH) in 2025 via partnerships with suppliers like , where blending occurs on-site and fuels are distributed through standard pipelines. Operational experiences across carriers highlight SAF's reliability in diverse conditions, including long-haul routes and varying climates, with empirical data from thousands of flights showing equivalent characteristics and no increased needs attributable to components. Challenges remain logistical, such as coordinating limited SAF volumes with high-demand schedules and ensuring consistent quality from multiple producers, but technical integration has proven straightforward, enabling airlines to incrementally increase blend ratios as supply grows without altering flight operations or crew training.

Supply Chain Logistics

The supply chain for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) encompasses feedstock sourcing, production, blending, transportation, and delivery to aircraft, leveraging existing infrastructure where possible due to SAF's compatibility as a drop-in fuel. Feedstocks such as oils and residues are harvested, collected, and stored before transport via trucks or rail to pretreatment facilities for processing like crushing or densification, addressing inefficiencies in handling. Pretreated materials are then converted into SAF at biorefineries using pathways like hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), with production concentrated in facilities in regions like the and , yielding approximately 2 million tonnes globally in 2025, or 0.7% of demand. Post-production, SAF undergoes blending with conventional Jet A or A-1 fuel within ASTM D7566 specifications, often at terminals or refineries, followed by certification to ensure quality. Transportation to airports relies primarily on trucks for low-volume deliveries, as pipeline integration remains limited by insufficient SAF quantities; multimodal options including rail, ships, barges, and are employed for larger-scale distribution from off-airport terminals. At airports, SAF enters commingled hydrant systems for integrated supply or dedicated trucks for segregated delivery to specific , minimizing infrastructure modifications. Logistical challenges persist due to the nascent state of SAF supply chains, which are regionally variable and resource-intensive to establish, with fragmented inbound logistics from diverse feedstocks exacerbating costs and variability. High transportation costs from dependency, requirements for each batch, and for feedstocks strain , particularly as production ramps to meet mandates like the U.S. target of 3 billion gallons by 2030. Emerging global trade in feedstocks and finished SAF via shipping routes aims to mitigate regional shortages, but adaptations and stakeholder remain critical for efficient integration.

Global Market Penetration

Global sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) penetration remained minimal in 2024, comprising approximately 0.3% of total demand despite production doubling to 1 million metric tons (1.25 billion liters). This volume represented a shortfall from pre-year estimates of 1.5 million tons, attributed to delays in facility commissioning and feedstock constraints. Against an estimated global consumption exceeding 300 million tons annually, SAF's supply has not scaled commensurately with aviation's post-pandemic recovery, limiting deployment to select routes and carriers. Regional disparities underscore uneven adoption. In , particularly the , SAF production capacity grew by about 25,000 barrels per day in late 2024, driven by conversions like Phillips 66's Rodeo facility achieving 10,000 barrels per day of SAF output. However, this expansion still yielded negligible overall market share, with usage confined to voluntary purchases amid absent federal blending mandates until proposed 2025 targets of 2%. , facing stricter regulatory pressures, anticipates accelerated penetration via the European Commission's 2% SAF mandate effective January 1, 2025, applied to intra-EU flights, though actual compliance will hinge on supply . and other regions lag further, with penetration below 0.1% in most markets due to limited policy incentives and infrastructure. Technical blending limits cap practical penetration, with standards permitting up to 50% SAF in approved pathways like hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), though most operations use lower ratios (typically 10-30%) to ensure fuel system compatibility without full drop-in certification. bottlenecks, including segregated storage and distribution requirements, further restrict widespread integration, as SAF often commands premiums 2-4 times conventional prices, deterring broad uptake absent subsidies. Major airlines such as United and Delta have procured SAF for specific flights, but aggregate off-take volumes in 2024 totaled under 0.5 million tons globally, highlighting a persistent gap between procurement commitments and delivered fuel.
RegionEstimated 2024 SAF Share of Jet FuelKey Drivers
~0.4%Capacity expansions (e.g., U.S. facilities adding 25,000 b/d); voluntary offtake.
~0.5%Pre-mandate pilots; impending 2% target in 2025.
Asia-Pacific & Rest of World<0.1%Minimal mandates; high import reliance and costs.
Projections for indicate modest gains to 0.5-1% globally, contingent on new plants in the U.S. and , but scalability challenges persist as production pathways remain dominated by waste-based feedstocks with finite availability.

Controversies

Sustainability Overstatements and Greenwashing

Critics contend that claims surrounding the sustainability of aviation biofuels, particularly sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), often exaggerate environmental benefits while downplaying limitations in lifecycle emissions and scalability, amounting to greenwashing by the aviation industry. Organizations such as the Institute for Policy Studies have described SAF promotion as "magical thinking," arguing it diverts attention from more feasible decarbonization strategies and risks exacerbating climate impacts through resource-intensive production. Industry targets, like the International Air Transport Association's reliance on SAF for net-zero emissions by 2050, are portrayed as viable despite SAF comprising only 0.2% of supply as of 2022 and a track record of unmet production goals. Lifecycle analyses reveal significant variability in SAF's greenhouse gas reductions, with overstatements arising from generalized claims that ignore feedstock-specific impacts. Waste-derived pathways, such as those using used cooking oil, can achieve up to 80% emissions savings compared to fossil , but crop-based alternatives like corn or soy oil often yield net increases due to indirect land-use changes, , and losses. For instance, producing 35 billion gallons of corn SAF annually could emit 340 million metric tons more CO2 equivalent than equivalent fossil fuel volumes, equivalent to emissions from 75 million , while requiring 114 million acres of U.S. farmland—20% more than current corn acreage—and driving up . The U.S. Treasury's April 2024 guidance allowing such crop-based fuels to qualify for tax credits has been criticized for contradicting on their higher emissions. Marketing practices amplify these issues, with the term "sustainable aviation fuel" deemed vague and potentially misleading under consumer protection laws, as it encompasses pathways with disparate environmental outcomes without mandating full lifecycle disclosure. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned a 2023 Virgin Atlantic advertisement claiming a "100% SAF" flight for omitting broader impacts, while a Dutch court ruled the term "too absolute" in a case against KLM. Opportunity Green has warned of legal risks for airlines and producers, advocating alternatives like "lifecycle-assessed alternative fuel" to avoid implying uniform sustainability. Private jet operators, emitting 16 million metric tons of CO2 in the U.S. in 2022, have leveraged SAF rhetoric to counter scrutiny, despite negligible adoption. Empirical evidence underscores scalability overstatements, with 165 SAF projects announced globally over the past 12 years yielding only 36 operational facilities and 10 at commercial scale, hampered by high costs and technical hurdles. Examples include the of SG Preston after failing to build planned plants and the closure of World Energy's Paramount refinery in April 2025 following contract termination by . Ambitious goals, such as the U.S. target of 3 billion gallons by 2030 requiring an 18,887% production surge from 2022 levels, are deemed unfeasible without massive land conversion, potentially undermining and carbon sinks. These discrepancies highlight how promotional narratives prioritize industry over verifiable outcomes.

Resource Competition with Food and Other Sectors

The production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) often relies on feedstocks such as vegetable oils, , and soybeans, which compete directly with crops for and agricultural inputs. In the United States, meeting the SAF Grand Challenge goal of 3 billion gallons annually by 2030 would require 8 to 11 million acres of additional corn cultivation or 35 to 50 million acres of soybeans, diverting land equivalent to several U.S. states from production and potentially displacing staple crops. This expansion mirrors broader trends, where crop-based mandates have historically driven up global by 83% in peak years through diversion of grains and oils to uses. While non-food feedstocks like used cooking oil and agricultural residues are preferred to mitigate competition, their global supply is constrained to roughly 1-2 billion gallons equivalent per year, insufficient for aviation's projected SAF demand of up to 400 billion gallons annually by 2050 to achieve net-zero emissions. Scaling beyond wastes necessitates crop intensification or conversion, as seen in hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathways that already pressure edible oil markets and , with studies linking such production to higher prices and indirect changes. Resource rivalry extends to water and fertilizers, where biofuel crops demand intensive —up to 1,000-2,000 cubic meters per ton of in water-stressed areas—competing with and exacerbating scarcity in regions like and . Empirical analyses of biofuel policies project that maintaining high blending targets could elevate global prices by 0.6% and vegetable oil prices by 8% through 2030, with SAF's growth amplifying these effects absent technological breakthroughs in non-competitive feedstocks. Proponents from industry and argue that SAF creates new revenue streams for farmers without net loss, yet data from prior expansions refute this by demonstrating sustained price inflation and land reallocation.

Empirical Critiques of Emission Reductions

Empirical assessments of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) lifecycle (GHG) emissions reveal that claimed reductions of up to 80% compared to conventional are often confined to limited feedstocks like waste oils, with broader pathways yielding substantially lower or negated benefits due to production processes and indirect effects. For hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) SAF derived from used or animal fats, lifecycle analyses indicate potential GHG savings of 70-90% on a well-to-wake basis, primarily from avoided in , though these exclude upstream allocation uncertainties and assume static supply chains. However, scaling beyond waste streams—projected to cap at 1-2% of demand—shifts to virgin vegetable oils or crop residues, where emissions rise due to energy-intensive hydroprocessing and feedstock cultivation. Indirect land use change (ILUC) emissions pose a primary empirical challenge, as demand displaces food production, prompting cropland expansion into forests or grasslands, releasing stored carbon that offsets aviation-phase savings. A global model applied to 17 biojet pathways estimated ILUC intensities from -58.5 to 34.6 g CO₂e per MJ, with positive values for soy or palm-based HEFA eroding 20-40% of gross reductions and rendering some net positive relative to baselines of ~89 g CO₂e/MJ. Crop-based pathways, such as those from corn or soybeans incentivized under U.S. policies like the , amplify this: ILUC models show net lifecycle emissions increases of 10-20 g CO₂e/MJ over fuels when accounting for in supply regions like or , as agricultural expansion emits 50-100 t CO₂e per cleared. Certification frameworks exacerbate overstatements by underestimating ILUC; the U.S. , used for eligibility, applies static factors that yield 20-50% lower ILUC values than dynamic approaches like those in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), potentially certifying fuels with minimal actual savings as "low-carbon." Peer-reviewed critiques highlight that even optimistic alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) or Fischer-Tropsch pathways from achieve only 40-60% reductions in practice, diminished by high pretreatment energy demands (20-30% of output) and losses from intensified farming. Overall, while niche waste-based SAF delivers verifiable reductions, empirical data indicate that policy-driven expansion favors higher-emission pathways, yielding fleet-wide savings below 20% without complementary measures like yield improvements or .

Future Prospects

Emerging Technologies and Innovations

Advanced conversion pathways beyond hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), which dominate current sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production, are gaining traction to utilize diverse feedstocks and improve scalability. Alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) processes, including ethanol-to-jet (ETJ), convert alcohols such as or into hydrocarbons via , oligomerization, and hydrotreatment, achieving ASTM certification for broader alcohol feedstocks (C2-C5) in August 2023. These pathways leverage established production from or waste, with new U.S. facilities anticipated using corn-derived , though economic viability hinges on feedstock costs and yields exceeding 50% in pilot demonstrations. Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis represents a mature yet innovating technology, gasifying or waste into before catalytic conversion to liquid hydrocarbons, with the first commercial-scale plant by Fulcrum BioEnergy operational since 2022 using . Recent advancements include Johnson Matthey's FT CANS™ process, which enhances selectivity to over 60% while minimizing wax byproducts, and Velocys' microchannel reactors for compact, efficient scaling. In April 2024, FT was selected for the world's largest SAF facility in , targeting 200,000 tons annually from . Power-to-liquid (PtL) pathways synthesize drop-in fuels from captured CO2 and via and FT or intermediates, offering near-zero net emissions if powered by renewables, with lifecycle reductions exceeding 90% in modeled scenarios. invested in one of Europe's first industrial-scale PtL plants in January 2025, aiming for operational output by 2028, while certification for FT-based PtL blends reached 50% in aviation use by 2023. Algae-derived biofuels remain in early development, harnessing microalgae's high lipid yields (up to 50% dry weight) for HEFA or ATJ feedstocks without competing for , supported by U.S. Department of Energy's $20.2 million in grants for mixed strains in November 2024. projects like FUELGAE, launched in 2024 with €5 million funding, target techno-economic feasibility for aviation kerosene from algal oils, though commercialization lags due to cultivation costs exceeding $5 per kg in pilots. innovations, including engineered microbes for direct fuel synthesis, further bolster these efforts, with enabling waste-to-jet pathways certified in limited volumes by 2025.

Projected Supply and Demand Scenarios

Global demand for sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), including biofuels derived from and waste feedstocks, is projected to surge due to regulatory mandates and airline commitments to net-zero emissions by 2050. The (IATA) forecasts total demand reaching approximately 500 million tonnes annually by 2050, with SAF required to comprise a substantial share—potentially up to 70% under blending scenarios—to achieve decarbonization targets. Mandated demand alone could reach 4.5 million tonnes by 2030 from policies like the European Union's ReFuelEU Aviation initiative and U.S. incentives under the . Current SAF production remains minimal, accounting for just 0.3% of global in 2024 and expected to rise to 2.1 million tonnes (0.7% of total ) in 2025, constrained by high production costs exceeding $3 per liter for many pathways and limited scaling of conversion technologies like hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA). Projections indicate supply could reach 6.1 to 8.2 billion gallons (roughly 5 to 6.5 million tonnes) by 2030 from announced and developmental facilities, though this lags behind potential demand exceeding 10 to 15 million tonnes if voluntary targets and mandates fully materialize. By 2050, feedstock assessments suggest potential for up to 400 million tonnes of SAF production globally from sustainable sources like agricultural residues and municipal waste, sufficient in theory to support net-zero if allocated primarily to the sector. However, IATA's outlook highlights a baseline shortfall of around 100 million tonnes, exacerbated by competition for feedstocks with and chemicals, as well as capital requirements estimated at €1 for . In optimistic scenarios with accelerated support—such as expanded subsidies and carbon pricing—supply could align closer to demand, potentially capturing 12% of energy needs; pessimistic cases, reliant on current trends, foresee persistent gaps of 23 million tonnes or more by 2035 due to uneconomic scaling without mandates. Regional variations exist, with projecting a surplus of 15.9 million tonnes by 2030 but near-parity by 2050, underscoring the need for diversified global supply chains.

Potential Limitations and Alternatives

Aviation biofuels, or sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), face significant economic barriers, with production costs typically ranging from two to three times higher than conventional , projected to persist until at least 2030 due to complex refining processes and limited . In 2024, global SAF production reached approximately 1.9 billion liters, representing only 0.53% of total airline fuel demand, underscoring scalability constraints driven by feedstock shortages. Primary feedstocks like and agricultural residues are finite, with hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) pathways constrained by global waste oil supplies, while cellulosic or alcohol-to-jet options require substantial in unproven technologies. Technical and infrastructural limitations further hinder adoption, including ASTM certification restrictions that cap blending ratios at 10-50% depending on the pathway, necessitating engine modifications or dual-fuel systems for higher concentrations. Certain variants, such as gas-to-jet renewable jet fuels, lack sufficient aromatics, potentially causing shrinkage in engines and fuel leaks, as observed in testing. Feedstock sourcing risks exacerbate these issues; without rigorous practices, production can drive indirect land-use changes, , and , competing with food and amplifying emissions through displacement effects. Emerging alternatives to biomass-based SAF include synthetic electrofuels (e-fuels), produced via power-to-liquid processes combining renewable from with captured to yield drop-in substitutes like e-kerosene, bypassing biological feedstock limits entirely. Recent evaluations, such as Southwest Research Institute's 2025 tests, confirm e-fuels' compatibility with existing aircraft, though initial costs remain high without scaled production. itself offers a direct or fuel-cell option for long-haul flights, leveraging its high when liquefied, and can serve as a precursor for e-fuels via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, though cryogenic storage and airport infrastructure retrofits pose near-term hurdles. These non-biological pathways prioritize causal emission reductions through synergies, potentially halving e-fuel costs by integrating and power sectors, as modeled in 2024 analyses.

References

  1. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/sustainable-aviation-fuels
  2. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/sustainability/sustainable-aviation-fuels/
  3. https://www.icao.int/SAF
  4. https://www.carbonclick.com/news-views/how-saf-is-produced-a-sustainable-aviation-fuel-guide
  5. https://aviationbenefits.org/media/168027/atag-beginners-guide-to-saf-edition-2023.pdf
  6. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/ready-for-take-off-aviation-biofuels-past-present-and-future/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/aviation-biofuel
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772656824000757
  9. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saf-what-is-saf.pdf
  10. https://atag.org/industry-topics/sustainable-aviation-fuel
  11. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/sustainable-aviation-fuel
  12. https://www.astm.org/d7566-22.html
  13. https://www.astm.org/news/press-releases/astm-aviation-fuel-standard-now-specifies-bioderived-components
  14. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44359-025-00056-y
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544223025197
  16. https://www.iaa.ie/docs/default-source/misc/beginners-guide-to-aviation-biofuels.pdf?sfvrsn=0
  17. https://www.astm.org/d7566-24d.html
  18. https://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/readijet-saf-ready-to-take-flight-with-inclusion-in-astm-d7566-2516922
  19. https://www.icao.int/SAF/saf-conversion-processes
  20. https://aviationbenefits.org/other-environmental-challenges/climate-action/sustainable-aviation-fuel/producing-sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  21. https://skynrg.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel/technology-basics/
  22. https://rhg.com/research/sustainable-aviation-fuels/
  23. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IEA-Bioenergy-Task-39-SAF-report.pdf
  24. https://worldenergy.net/resource/sustainable-aviation-fuel-101/
  25. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12847
  26. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/se/d5se00231a
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016236100001423
  28. https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/2894.pdf
  29. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA120109.pdf
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44723127
  31. https://www.enac.gov.it/app/uploads/2024/04/02_Chiaramonti.pdf
  32. https://www.oakland.edu/Assets/upload/docs/Energy/inform_Nov_2001.pdf
  33. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA540172.pdf
  34. https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-articles/cfm-remains-at-the-forefront-of-biofuels-testing
  35. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/hydro-power/flying-green-the-use-of-biofuels-for-aviation-51544/
  36. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2009-01-07/continental-flies-biofuel-powered-737
  37. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2008-02-24-Boeing-Virgin-Atlantic-and-GE-Aviation-to-Fly-First-Commercial-Jet-on-Biofuel
  38. http://press.jal.co.jp/en/uploads/Dec%252016%2520Biofuel%2520Press%2520Release%2520.pdf
  39. https://www.aviationpros.com/home/press-release/10399196/continental-airlines-announces-results-of-biofuel-demonstration-flight
  40. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jan-08-fi-biofuel8-story.html
  41. http://press.jal.co.jp/en/uploads/01.%2520Jan%252030%2520Biofuel%2520Press%2520Release%2520%28English%29.pdf
  42. https://united.mediaroom.com/2016-03-11-United-Airlines-Makes-History-with-Launch-of-Regularly-Scheduled-Flights-Using-Sustainable-Biofuel
  43. https://www.geaerospace.com/news/press-releases/other-news-information/ge-leads-introduction-biofuels-aviation
  44. https://www.icao.int/CORSIA/corsia-eligible-fuels
  45. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/fb745460050c48089597a3ef1b9fe7a8/corsia-handbook.pdf
  46. https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/air/environment/refueleu-aviation_en
  47. https://www.eubce.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/10.-Sustainable-Aviation-Fuels-in-the-EU-Nicolae-Scarlat.pdf
  48. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard/overview-renewable-fuel-standard-program
  49. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87802.pdf
  50. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation
  51. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65204
  52. https://ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IEA-Bioenergy-Task-39-SAF-report.pdf
  53. https://www.iata.org/globalassets/iata/publications/sustainability/global-feedstock-assessment-for-saf-production-outlook-to-2050.pdf
  54. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/SAF-Implementation-Framework-Nov-2024.pdf
  55. https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/renewable-diesel-hefa-plant-conversions-for-maximum-saf-production
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452223624000804
  57. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Biofuels%2520Annual_The%2520Hague_European%2520Union_E42025-0004
  58. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/09/f78/beto-sust-aviation-fuel-sep-2020.pdf
  59. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/environmental-protection/Documents/ACT-SAF/ACT-SAF-series-5-SAF-conversion-processes.pdf
  60. https://biodieselmagazine.com/articles/iata-reports-disappointingly-slow-growth-in-saf-production
  61. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2024-releases/2024-12-10-03/
  62. https://www.greenairnews.com/?p=7370
  63. https://decarbonfuse.com/posts/us-saf-production-hits-critical-30-000-bpd-milestone
  64. https://greaseconnections.com/identifying-leading-saf-producers-refineries/
  65. https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/01/estimates-of-sustainable-aviation-fuel-production-capacity-at-u-s-renewable-diesel-plants-through-2026.html
  66. https://www.cleanbridge.co/insights/energy-transition/cleanbridge-global-sustainable-aviation-fuel-2025/supply-and-development-pipeline-gsaf2025/
  67. https://www.sustainableaviationfutures.com/saf-spotlight/economic-opportunity
  68. https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/saf_specs_and_comparison.html
  69. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saf-technical-certifications.pdf
  70. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.760713/full
  71. https://ibac.org/assets/saf-guide-2020.pdf
  72. https://www.caafi.org/resources
  73. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/saf-handbook.pdf
  74. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/environmental-protection/Documents/ACT-SAF/ACT-SAF-Series-14-Updates-on-100-per-cent-SAF.pdf
  75. https://www.ebaa.org/app/uploads/2021/09/1mabimnvxn_print-1.pdf
  76. https://wiki.anton-paar.com/us-en/aviation-fuels/
  77. https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TG67.pdf
  78. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/greenbaum1/
  79. https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2023/13-11-2023-poweroftrent-rr-successfully-completes-100-sustainable-aviation-fuel-test-programme.aspx
  80. https://www.prattwhitney.com/en/newsroom/news/2024/07/03/tried-and-true-engine-sustainable-aviation-fuel
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590162125000115
  82. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/13/5484
  83. https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bbb.2682
  84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11814-024-00309-9
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376042124000800
  86. https://www.nrel.gov/transportation/sustainable-aviation-fuels
  87. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/environment/eaer/sustainable-aviation-fuels/what-are-sustainable-aviation-fuels
  88. https://www.caafi.org/fuel-qualifications
  89. https://www.faa.gov/media/74261
  90. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/sustainable-aviation-fuel
  91. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Documents/CORSIA%2520Eligible%2520Fuels/ICAO-document-04-Approved-SCSs-October-2024.pdf
  92. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Documents/CORSIA%2520Eligible%2520Fuels/ICAO-document-05-Sustainability-Criteria-June-2025.pdf
  93. https://rsb.org/certification/certification-schemes/rsb-corsia-certification/
  94. https://www.iscc-system.org/certification/iscc-certification-schemes/iscc-corsia/
  95. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c00977
  96. https://theicct.org/understanding-the-ghg-emissions-of-different-saf-pathways-sept25/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5348797/
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122008267
  99. https://www.eaps.purdue.edu/ebdl/pdfs/SUS2024.pdf
  100. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1784951
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7735313/
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3420329/
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148117304299
  104. https://bioresources.cnr.ncsu.edu/resources/uncovering-the-potential-of-biomass-from-agricultural-waste-as-sustainable-biofuel-in-aviation-industry-to-promote-net-zero-emissions-a-critical-review/
  105. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/20/10925
  106. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/EDF%2520HIGH-INTEGRITY%2520SAF%2520HANDBOOK.pdf
  107. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c06429
  108. https://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/2023/11/Sustainable-Aviation-Fuels-hope-or-hype.pdf
  109. https://e360.yale.edu/features/corn-soy-biofuel-aviation-congress
  110. https://research.skift.com/reports/sustainable-aviation-fuel-fact-from-fiction/
  111. https://theicct.org/why-and-how-to-bring-down-the-cost-of-saf-sept25/
  112. https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-fuel/
  113. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/agriculture/060225-airlines-see-relief-with-86-jet-fuel-saf-costs-hinder-sustainability-iata-chief
  114. https://rmi.org/unraveling-willingness-to-pay-for-sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  115. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00110/full
  116. https://fmr.org/price-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-2025
  117. https://kh.aquaenergyexpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bio-Aviation-Fuel-a-Comprehensive-Review-and-Analysis-of-the-Supply-Chain-Components.pdf
  118. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/sustainable-aviation-fuels-need-a-faster-takeoff
  119. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/the-cost-of-sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  120. https://www.flightworx.aero/blog/sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236125028431
  122. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/fact-sheet---us-and-eu-saf-policies.pdf
  123. https://climatecatalyst.org/learning-hub/sustainable-aviation-fuel-policy-in-the-united-states/
  124. https://www.catf.us/2025/10/h-r-1-expands-45z-clean-fuel-production-credit-for-conventional-biofuels-while-cutting-sustainable-aviation-fuel-tax-credit/
  125. https://www.facebook.com/iata.org/posts/how-will-changes-introduced-by-the-us-on-tax-credits-affect-aviationthe-one-big-/1258273496334740/
  126. https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/eu-allocates-100m-worth-of-ets-allowances-to-help-airlines-buy-sustainable-aviation-fuels
  127. https://worldenergy.net/resource/saf-policy-around-the-world/
  128. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/business/companies/20251023/calls-grow-to-increase-subsidies-for-production-use-of-sustainable-jet-fuel
  129. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ID-380-%25E2%2580%2593-Staying-aloft_report_final.pdf
  130. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62504
  131. https://www.icf.com/insights/aviation/role-of-airports-scaling-saf
  132. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-publishes-report-sustainable-aviation-fuel-scale-progress
  133. https://luxresearchinc.com/blog/sustainable-aviation-fuel-technologies-benefits-and-challenges/
  134. https://earth.org/sustainable-aviation-fuel-state-of-the-industry-and-challenges-in-2024/
  135. https://theicct.org/pr-eu-saf-mandate-risks-falling-short-without-action-on-investment-barriers/
  136. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Scaling_Sustainable_Aviation_Fuel_Supply_2024.pdf
  137. https://www.energyvoice.com/insights/energy-opinion/563901/the-path-to-sustainable-aviation-fuel-overcoming-investment-and-production-barriers/
  138. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/sp-files/environmental-protection/knowledge-sharing/Docs/Sustainable%2520Aviation%2520Fuels%2520Guide_vf.pdf
  139. https://skynrg.com/sustainable-aviation-fuel-certification-and-astm-international-what-is-it-why-does-it-matter/
  140. https://flysaba.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/SABA-ED-SAF-Certification.pdf
  141. https://www.4air.aero/whitepapers/saf-corsia
  142. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/0bf212bfcb0548f2b6ad4c1e229f7e94/guidance-document-on-saf-sustainability-certification-v0.41_rm-indepth.pdf
  143. https://worldenergy.net/resource/saf-101-certification/
  144. https://www.icao.int/CORSIA/corsia-certified-fuels
  145. https://www.iscc-system.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/ISCC-Certification-Solutions-for-Sustainable-Aviation-Fuels-Thomas-Bock-System-Manager-ISCC.pdf
  146. https://rsb.org/certification/
  147. https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/recommendation-on-sustainable-aviation-fuels-at-the-international-civil-aviation-organization-icao
  148. https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/Meetings/a42/Documents/WP/wp_448_en.pdf
  149. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/environment/eaer/sustainable-aviation-fuels
  150. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/refuel-eu-aviation-handbook.pdf
  151. https://www.emissionsauthority.nl/topics/ets-aviation/sustainable-aviation-fuels
  152. https://www.greenairnews.com/?p=6249
  153. https://climatecatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Sustainable-aviation-fuel-policy-in-the-United-States.pdf
  154. https://www.resourcewise.com/blog/uk-saf-falling-behind-mandate-targets
  155. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/businesses/sustainable-aviation-fuel-credit
  156. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12757
  157. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/sustainable-aviation-fuel-grand-challenge
  158. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-allows-more-biofuel-firms-export-green-aviation-fuel-sources-say-2025-10-17/
  159. https://ethanolproducer.com/articles/us-enacts-10-tariff-on-canadian-biofuels-canada-weighs-retaliatory-tariff-on-biodiesel
  160. https://energy.agwired.com/2025/10/23/clean-fuels-wants-loophole-closed-for-imported-renewable-diesel/
  161. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-protects-eu-biodiesel-industry-dumped-chinese-imports-2025-02-11_en
  162. https://www.sustainableaviationfutures.com/saf-spotlight/global-feedstock-trade
  163. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/sustainability/flynetzero/
  164. https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/company/responsibility/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html
  165. https://www.aacargo.com/about/sustainability.html
  166. https://blog.turkishairlines.com/en/a-brand-new-project-we-fly-to-paris-on-sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  167. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/agriculture/120121-united-airlines-launches-first-commercial-flight-with-100-saf
  168. https://united.mediaroom.com/2024-07-31-United-Is-First-Airline-to-Purchase-Sustainable-Aviation-Fuel-SAF-for-OHare-International-Airport
  169. https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-neste-expand-partnership-saf-3-additiona-hubs/
  170. https://www.leadventgrp.com/blog/integrating-sustainable-aviation-fuel-into-airline-operations
  171. https://www.caafi.org/supply-chain-development
  172. https://skynrg.com/fly-with-saf/saf-for-airlines/supply-chain/
  173. https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2025-releases/2025-06-01-02/
  174. https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d13875e9ed784f75bac90f000760e998/brief-access-to-fuel-infrastructure-to-enable-aviation.pdf
  175. https://biomassboard.gov/saf-grand-challenge-roadmap-building-supply-chains-action-area
  176. https://dhl-consulting.com/news/biofuels-challenges-supply-chain-strategies/
  177. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/sustainable-aviation-fuel-growth-driven.asp
  178. https://www.businessairportinternational.com/features/how-integrating-saf-into-aviation-fuel-supply-chains-requires-collaboration-between-stakeholders.html
  179. https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-sustainable-aviation-fuels/
  180. https://www.ofimagazine.com/news/international-air-transport-association-publishes-new-saf-production-estimates
  181. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/blog/AD/sustainable-aviation-fuel-adoption-by-north-america
  182. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/aviation-biofuels-market-100909
  183. https://www.topsoe.com/saf-certification-and-blending-limits
  184. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/how-the-aviation-industry-could-help-scale-sustainable-fuel-production
  185. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/14/sustainable-jet-fuel-report
  186. https://ips-dc.org/report-greenwashing-the-skies/
  187. https://www.wri.org/insights/us-sustainable-aviation-fuel-emissions-impacts
  188. https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Alt-aviation-fuel-sustainability-mar2021.pdf
  189. https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/greenwashing-warning-over-sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  190. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/AVIATION-SUSTAINABILITY/movadylljpa/
  191. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/alternative-land-use-impacts-of-the-sustainable-aviation-fuel-grand-challenge-corn-ethanol-vs-soybean-oil-pathways/
  192. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2430252/
  193. https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-024-02571-9
  194. https://www.transportenvironment.org/uploads/files/Food20price20Briefing202017.pdf
  195. https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-15-48.pdf
  196. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Alt-aviation-fuel-sustainability-mar2021.pdf
  197. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202505.2431/v1
  198. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721013061
  199. https://www.catf.us/2024/04/greet-underestimates-indirect-land-use-change/
  200. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351
  201. https://ips-dc.org/report-barriers-to-implementing-sustainable-aviation-fuel/
  202. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261925011031
  203. https://matthey.com/ft-cans
  204. https://velocys.com/fischer-tropsch-technology-explained/
  205. https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=138706
  206. https://www.greyb.com/blog/power-to-liquid-technology/
  207. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131517
  208. https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-07-power-to-liquids-explained
  209. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/us-department-energy-announces-202-million-projects-advance-development-mixed-algae
  210. https://www.greenairnews.com/?p=5193
  211. https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/insights/fueling-the-future-biotechnology-innovation-and-the-growth-of-sustainable-aviation-fuels/
  212. https://www.resourcewise.com/blog/iatas-latest-saf-outlook-shows-100m-ton-supply-shortfall-by-2050
  213. https://saf.rmi.org/
  214. https://www.consultancy.eu/news/11402/global-demand-for-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-to-explode-by-2030
  215. https://skynrg.com/safmo25/
  216. https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/de/en/industries/aerospace-defense/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html
  217. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/agriculture/101124-saf-to-account-for-12-of-global-aviation-energy-demand-by-2050-dnv-report
  218. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/agriculture/060525-global-saf-supply-to-fall-23-million-mt-short-of-demand-by-2035skynrg
  219. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44049-6
  220. https://ieefa.org/articles/sustainable-aviation-fuel-shows-potential-issues-remain
  221. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10960063/
  222. https://www.swri.org/newsroom/press-releases/swri-produces-evaluates-sustainable-aviation-fuel-made-e-fuel
  223. https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Hydrogen-Policys-Narrow-Path-Aviation-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  224. https://www.catf.us/resource/decarbonizing-aviation-enabling-technologies-net-zero-future/
  225. https://www.edf.org/media/new-paper-american-made-e-fuels-are-major-opportunity-us-energy-and-aviation-sectors
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.