DALLAS — The world's aviation sector is under increasing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. Since air travel accounts for 2% to 3% of total CO2 emissions, air transport is now law- and market-mandated to switch to low-carbon fuels.
While hydrogen power and electrification hold long-term promise, neither technology is currently mature enough to propel long-range aircraft. Therefore, the fastest path is Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAFs).
The two leading areas of debate in SAFs are biofuels, produced from renewable organic biomass feedstocks, and power-to-liquid (PtL) fuels, which are artificially created using captured carbon dioxide and renewable power.
Both provide significant emissions benefits, are drop-in compatible with existing engines and equipment, and are certified for use in aircraft. They are fundamentally different, however, in terms of cost, technology readiness, and scalability.
Bio-based SAFs are produced from biological materials, such as waste cooking oil, animal fat, and agricultural waste. HEFA (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids) is the most developed process that converts oils and fats into hydrocarbons that are virtually identical to Jet A.
Other nascent pathways include:
HEFA-based fuels have been ASTM-approved since 2011 and are now being used in commercial operations globally. Airlines have commercially operated over 450,000 SAF-fueled flights, nearly all on HEFA blends.

Power-to-Liquid (PtL) fuels, also known as synthetic e-fuels, are produced by combining green hydrogen (generated through electrolysis using renewable electricity) with captured CO₂. Through methods such as Fischer–Tropsch synthesis, this provides synthetic kerosene chemically identical to traditional jet fuel.
In contrast to biofuels, PtL is not based on biological feedstocks. Its principal inputs, renewable electricity and CO₂, are theoretically boundless. In theory, PtL could grow to supply global aviation needs without competing with food or agricultural land use.
However, the process is both expensive and energy-intensive. Present pilot plants produce small quantities at prices significantly higher than those of biofuels, not to mention fossil Jet A.

They both have high emissions reduction potential, but in different ways.
This renders PtL theoretically climate-neutral, whereas biofuels yield immediate, pragmatic reductions.


Both fuels have the major benefit that they are drop-in fuels, with no need for modifications to current aircraft or airport fueling infrastructure.
In 2011, KLM flew the world's first commercial HEFA-powered flight using used cooking oil, paving the way for the uptake of bio-SAF. Multiple airlines, including United, Delta, and Singapore Airlines, have since entered multi-year offtake agreements with producers.
These measures are propelling investment across both categories, albeit near-term supply is expected to be weighted towards biofuels.
IDTechEx predicts that production of SAFbiofuels and PtL together will reach over 57 million tonnes per year by 2035 at a CAGR of 8.5% from 2025.
For aviation, the decarbonization problem is pressing and multifaceted. Biofuels provide short-term reductions, backed by mature supply chains and mandatory regulations. However, they have inherent limitations in the availability of feedstocks, so they serve as a bridging solution rather than a long-term solution.
PtL fuels represent a longer-term solution: carbon-neutral, scalable, and infrastructure-ready when renewable energy and CO₂ capture are at an industrial scale. Punitively expensive for now, the momentum picks up as demonstration projects show it can be done.
The SAF future will not be about either-or but about biofuels being today's solution on the ground and PtL tomorrow's scalable foundation. The effective management of that transition will determine whether flying can meet its net-zero by 2050 pledge while remaining safe and efficient enough to keep the world connected.


.avif)