E-Kerosene (Power-to-Liquid) 2026: The Path to Unlimited Aviation Fuel

Executive Summary

E-kerosene—synthetic jet fuel produced from green hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide—is the most scalable long-term pathway to fully decarbonised long-haul aviation. Unlike bio-based sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), power-to-liquid (PtL) routes are ultimately constrained by renewable electricity and CO₂ supply rather than biomass. In 2026, e-kerosene projects remain early stage, but dozens of developers are pairing large-scale electrolysers with direct air capture (DAC), biogenic CO₂, and offshore wind or solar portfolios. At Energy Solutions, we benchmark PtL economics against HEFA and alcohol-to-jet (ATJ), map learning rate requirements, and assess where e-kerosene can realistically scale before 2035.

• Early PtL plants commissioning towards 2030 typically show levelised e-kerosene production costs in the 2,500–3,500 USD/t range (roughly 2.1–2.9 USD/litre) assuming renewable power at 40–60 USD/MWh and full-load hours of 4,000–6,000 per year.
• Well-to-wake GHG reductions of 80–95% are technically achievable when using additional renewable power and sustainably sourced CO₂; however, indirect emissions from grid electricity and DAC can erode benefits if project design is weak.
• Under typical European 2030-style policy packages (carbon prices 100–150 EUR/tCO₂, SAF mandates, and PtL sub-targets), abatement costs for e-kerosene often land between 400 and 900 USD/tCO₂, materially above waste-based HEFA but competitive with some direct air capture offsets.
• Reaching even 5% of global jet demand by 2035 with PtL would require roughly 500–700 TWh/year of additional renewable electricity and tens of millions of tonnes of CO₂ offtake contracts, implying tight coupling with power-sector decarbonisation and heavy-industry capture projects.
• Despite high costs, e-kerosene is gaining traction in hard-commitment offtake contracts with premium airlines and corporate travel buyers who value long-term, verifiable scope 3 reductions more than near-term cost minimisation.

What You'll Learn

• Power-to-Liquid Basics: From Renewable Electricity to Synthetic Jet Fuel
• Benchmarks: Production Costs, Efficiencies, and Carbon Intensity
• Economic Analysis: Abatement Costs, Policy Stacks, and Offtake Structures
• Case Studies: Flagship PtL Projects in Europe and the Middle East
• Global Perspective: Regional Resource Advantages and Trade Flows
• Devil's Advocate: System Efficiency, Power Competing Uses, and CO₂ Supply
• Outlook to 2030/2035: Learning Curves and Mandate-Driven Scale-Up
• Implementation Guide: Airlines, Developers, and Investors
• FAQ: E-Kerosene, Power-to-Liquid, and Aviation Decarbonisation

Power-to-Liquid Basics: From Renewable Electricity to Synthetic Jet Fuel

Power-to-liquid e-kerosene is a drop-in synthetic hydrocarbon fuel produced by combining green hydrogen with a carbon source and then upgrading the resulting synthesis gas or intermediates into kerosene-range molecules. Unlike bio-based SAF routes such as HEFA and ATJ, PtL chains are built primarily from electrolysers, CO₂ capture units, and Fischer–Tropsch (FT) or methanol-to-jet (MtJ) reactors. The same molecules can meet ASTM D7566 specifications when blended with conventional jet.

A stylised PtL-to-kerosene chain comprises the following building blocks:

• Renewable electricity generation from wind, solar, hydro, or dedicated nuclear, providing low-carbon power to the site.
• Electrolyser systems (alkaline, PEM, or SOEC) that convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, operating at high utilisation factors wherever possible to amortise capex.
• CO₂ capture from biogenic point sources (biomass plants, ethanol, biogas upgrading), industrial flue gases, or direct air capture, depending on regional availability and policy rules.
• Synthesis section, where hydrogen and CO/CO₂ are combined via FT or MtJ, producing a synthetic hydrocarbon mix.
• Fuel upgrading and fractionation to isolate kerosene-range products and adjust properties (e.g. via isomerisation and distillation) to meet aviation fuel standards.

Overall energy efficiency from electricity to e-kerosene is typically 25–45% on a lower heating value (LHV) basis depending on electrolyser type, heat integration, and whether oxygen or waste heat are valorised. This compares with 50–70% for many bio-based SAF routes when measured from biomass input to jet fuel energy.

Benchmarks: Production Costs, Efficiencies, and Carbon Intensity

Reported e-kerosene costs in 2025–2026 span a wide range because of different assumptions on power pricing, electrolyser capex, CO₂ source, and policy support. To compare PtL with HEFA and ATJ on a technology-neutral basis, this section focuses on levelised fuel production cost at the plant gate before incentives, as well as indicative lifecycle carbon intensity.

On a per-litre basis, the midpoints above correspond roughly to 0.55–0.75 USD/litre for fossil jet, 1.1–1.4 USD/litre for HEFA, 1.3–1.7 USD/litre for ATJ, and 2.1–2.7 USD/litre for e-kerosene under favourable PtL assumptions. With jet fuel accounting for 20–40% of typical airline operating costs, the PtL premium is extremely material unless blended at low shares or backed by strong policy support.

Economic Analysis: Abatement Costs, Policy Stacks, and Offtake Structures

For airlines and fuel suppliers, the core question is not just the absolute cost of e-kerosene but who pays for the premium and how it compares with alternative decarbonisation routes. Because PtL routes are capital intensive and power hungry, they are particularly sensitive to the structure of policy incentives.

Under a simplified European-style scenario in the early 2030s, assume fossil jet at 900 USD/t, HEFA at 1,600 USD/t, and e-kerosene at 2,900 USD/t, with lifecycle emission reductions of 70% and 90% respectively. Ignoring logistics and blending costs, the implied abatement costs can be approximated as shown below.

These abatement costs are well above current and projected carbon prices in most compliance schemes. As a result, e-kerosene build out depends heavily on blending mandates, PtL sub-targets, contracts-for-difference (CfDs), investment tax credits, and high-value offtake contracts with corporate customers willing to pay a green premium for verifiable scope 3 reductions.

Case Studies: Flagship PtL Projects in Europe and the Middle East

Case Studies: Early E-Kerosene Developers and Offtakers

Case Study 1 – North Sea Wind-to-Jet Hub

Context

• Location: Coastal Northern Europe with access to large offshore wind zones.
• Concept: Integrated 150 kt/year PtL plant using 1.2 GW of offshore wind and biogenic CO₂ from nearby biomass CHP plants.
• Status: FEED stage in the mid-2020s with multiple airline MoUs for offtake beyond 2030.

Economics (Indicative)

• Capex: Around 3.0–3.5 billion USD including offshore grid connections and CO₂ capture units.
• Levelised cost: Modelled e-kerosene LCOF in the 2,400–3,000 USD/t range assuming 40–50 USD/MWh offshore wind and high utilisation.
• GHG reduction: 85–95% vs fossil jet, depending on allocation of biomass emissions and grid interactions.

Lessons Learned

Co-locating electrolysers with large-scale offshore wind improves utilisation and reduces balancing costs, but adds complexity to grid planning and marine permitting. Long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with price floors are critical to keep financing costs under control.

Case Study 2 – Solar-Driven PtL in the Middle East

Context

• Location: Desert region with exceptional solar resources and proximity to export ports.
• Concept: 100 kt/year e-kerosene hub using 800 MW of PV, grid backup, and a mix of industrial and DAC-based CO₂ capture.
• Status: Early-stage project with sovereign-backed developer and international airline consortium.

Economics (Indicative)

• Capex: 2.0–2.6 billion USD for electrolysers, synthesis, capture, and export terminal.
• Levelised cost: 2,200–2,800 USD/t assuming solar LCOE of 20–30 USD/MWh and high electrolyser availability with storage.
• GHG reduction: 80–90% vs fossil jet, depending on shipping distance and DAC energy penalties.

Lessons Learned

Very low-cost solar can offset higher transport and storage costs, making export-oriented PtL hubs competitive in the long run. However, water sourcing, DAC scaling, and long-distance jet fuel logistics add complexity which must be priced into long-term agreements.

Global Perspective: Regional Resource Advantages and Trade Flows

E-kerosene production will not be evenly distributed. Regions with abundant low-cost renewables and suitable CO₂ sources are likely to become exporters, while densely populated demand centres rely on imports or higher-cost domestic options.

Devil's Advocate: System Efficiency, Power Competing Uses, and CO₂ Supply

While e-kerosene is attractive on paper as a virtually unlimited drop-in fuel, it is also one of the most energy-intensive decarbonisation routes under discussion. There are valid questions about whether scarce low-carbon power should flow into PtL plants or into green hydrogen for industry, heat pumps, or direct electrification.

System-Level Trade-Offs

• Electricity use: Supplying 1 tonne of e-kerosene typically requires 12–18 MWh of electricity, equivalent to powering several electric buses or hundreds of households for a day.
• CO₂ sourcing: Relying on fossil flue gas capture may lock in residual emissions, while large-scale DAC is still expensive and energy intensive.
• Infrastructure: PtL plants require new logistics chains for CO₂, water, and power, in addition to conventional fuel storage and blending infrastructure.

When Not to Rely on E-Kerosene

For routes where high-frequency short-haul electrification or hydrogen-based aircraft may become viable by the 2030s, it can be more efficient to deploy PtL volumes on long-haul segments where alternatives are limited. Likewise, airlines with constrained balance sheets may prefer to prioritise operational efficiency, fleet renewal, and bio-SAF before entering large, long-dated PtL offtake contracts.

Outlook to 2030/2035: Learning Curves and Mandate-Driven Scale-Up

Long-term scenarios for aviation decarbonisation generally show bio-based SAF dominating through the 2020s, with PtL e-kerosene gaining share from the early 2030s onwards as costs fall and mandates tighten. The pace of cost reduction will depend on electrolyser learning rates, renewable power prices, and the maturity of DAC technologies.

Implementation Guide: Airlines, Developers, and Investors

For stakeholders considering PtL e-kerosene, the right strategy is rarely to jump directly to 100% synthetic fuel targets. Instead, most credible plans combine incremental PtL ramp-up with near-term efficiency and bio-SAF measures.

1. Map policy exposure and PtL quotas: Quantify how emerging PtL sub-targets in core markets (EU, UK, selected Asia-Pacific countries) translate into volume obligations for your fleet.
2. Assess power and CO₂ access: For developers, identify locations with long-term access to low-cost renewables and reliable CO₂ streams; for airlines, evaluate whether to support specific hubs via equity stakes or long-dated offtake contracts.
3. Structure offtake contracts carefully: Blend fixed-volume commitments with price bands and indexation to carbon prices and power costs, to avoid stranded contracts if technology or policy shifts.
4. Integrate PtL into customer offerings: Translate e-kerosene premia into transparent surcharges or subscription models for corporate travellers seeking science-based target alignment.
5. Monitor technology learning: Track electrolyser tender prices, DAC pilot performance, and synthetic fuel certification developments to update internal abatement cost curves regularly.

FAQ: E-Kerosene, Power-to-Liquid, and Aviation Decarbonisation

How much more expensive is e-kerosene than fossil jet in the 2026–2030 window?

Most mid-2020s PtL studies and early project disclosures point to e-kerosene production costs of 2,500–3,500 USD/t at the plant gate, compared with 600–900 USD/t for fossil jet. Even by 2030, mid-case scenarios still place e-kerosene at roughly three to five times the cost of fossil jet on a fuel-only basis, before considering certificates or mandates.

How does e-kerosene compare with bio-based SAF such as HEFA and ATJ?

Bio-based SAF pathways like HEFA and ATJ are generally cheaper but feedstock constrained. In typical 2026 conditions, HEFA from waste oils may land around 1,200–1,800 USD/t, while ATJ from conventional ethanol is often in the 1,600–2,400 USD/t range. E-kerosene is more expensive but not limited by biomass, relying instead on renewable electricity and CO₂ sources.

What lifecycle emissions reductions can e-kerosene deliver?

When produced from additional renewable power and sustainable CO₂ sources, e-kerosene can typically deliver 75–95% reductions in well-to-wake CO₂ emissions relative to fossil jet. Lower reductions occur when grid electricity is not fully decarbonised, when DAC systems are energy intensive, or when CO₂ is sourced from fossil flue gases without stringent accounting.

Why would airlines buy such an expensive fuel?

Early e-kerosene volumes are typically purchased under long-term offtake agreements by airlines with ambitious net-zero targets and premium customer segments. For high-value corporate or first-class tickets, the incremental cost of PtL fuel per passenger can be modest compared with ticket prices, especially when blended at low percentages. Regulatory compliance and corporate climate commitments, rather than pure fuel cost optimisation, often drive the decision.

Is there enough renewable electricity for large-scale e-kerosene?

In principle, global renewable resource potential far exceeds aviation demand, but in practice competition for clean electricity is intense. Supplying 5% of global jet demand with e-kerosene by 2035 could require several hundred TWh of additional renewable generation, on top of decarbonisation needs in power, industry, and buildings. This is achievable in high-resource regions but demands coordinated planning.

Does using fossil CO₂ undermine the climate benefits of PtL?

Using CO₂ from fossil flue gases in PtL projects can still reduce net emissions compared with burning additional fossil fuels, but does not eliminate upstream fossil extraction. Many policy frameworks therefore prioritise biogenic or atmospheric CO₂ (via DAC) for PtL, especially in long-term net-zero scenarios. In the near term, transitional projects may use concentrated industrial CO₂ streams to gain operational experience before DAC scales.

Can existing aircraft use 100% e-kerosene?

E-kerosene molecules are designed to be drop-in compatible with existing turbine engines, subject to the same ASTM D7566 certification frameworks as other SAF routes. Today, most commercial operations use blends up to 50%, but multiple demonstration flights with high-SAF or neat synthetic fuels have been performed. Certification work for broader use of high-PtL blends is ongoing.

How should investors think about the risk profile of PtL projects?

PtL projects combine power-market exposure, technology risk, and policy dependency. Investors typically seek long-term PPAs for renewable electricity, fixed-price offtake contracts indexed to carbon prices, and robust government support (grants, CfDs, or tax credits). Projects with integrated developers, airlines, and utilities can spread risk more effectively than merchant PtL ventures.