Can Sustainable Aviation Fuel Meet Future Demand?

Runeel Daliah: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the webinar, “Can Sustainable Aviation Fuel Meet Future Demand?” My name is Runeel Daliah, principal analyst here at Lux Research, and I will be moderating today’s session. Presenting today is my colleague Rajvi Megha, research associate here at Lux Research. Throughout the webinar, you can type any questions you have in the question box on your screen. Time permitting, we will do our very best to answer as many questions as we can. If your question does not get answered, please don’t hesitate to email it to [email protected], and we’ll respond. If, at any point, you experience difficulties, such as a frozen screen, simply refresh your browser. Before we start, a word about who we are. At Lux Research, we help organizations make more confident innovation decisions about what matters next. As an independent research and advisory firm, we work with many of the world’s largest companies to identify emerging opportunities, evaluate technologies, and make high-impact innovation decisions. At Lux, our scientists, engineers, analysts, and industry experts combine original research and methodologies with practical decision frameworks to help organizations like yours separate the signal from the noise. Every day, we help clients answer three critical questions: Where should we focus our innovation efforts? Which technologies deserve investment? Which partners can help us accelerate innovation? Today’s webinar, as you will see, is an opportunity for us to share some of that thinking with you. Now, let’s jump into the discussion. Over to you, Rajvi.

Rajvi Megha: Hello, everyone, and welcome to today’s webinar, where, as Runeel said, we will discuss the sustainable aviation fuel market and assess the realistic prospect of SAF meeting the mandates laid out by different countries. First, we will discuss the current state of SAF, looking at how much is being produced today and the main technologies in use. Then, we will move to the SAF technology landscape and examine emerging pathways being developed to convert various low-carbon feedstocks into sustainable aviation fuel. Finally, we will discuss SAF costs and economics and share a few key takeaways on how we see the space evolving. First, let’s look at the current state of SAF. What is driving the adoption and development of SAF globally? The answer is mandates. As you can see here, mandates are obligations that countries have implemented or are considering implementing. These mandates require fuel suppliers to blend a certain amount of SAF into their aviation fuel products. Right now, as you can see, the EU and the UK are the only regions with active SAF mandates, which have been in place since 2025. However, the figure shows several countries in Asia—including India, Thailand, Japan, and other Southeast Asian countries—that are also considering a mandate or, in many cases, a target for blending SAF into their aviation fuel supply. This is what is driving the development and adoption of SAF globally. Now, let’s examine the SAF demand these mandates will create. Today, in 2026, global demand for SAF is about 1.2 million tons. It will gradually increase from 2027 and is projected to triple by 2035. This demand is increasing through two mechanisms. First, the existing mandates in the EU and the UK are becoming more stringent, which increases demand for SAF. Second, assuming that all the regions and countries shown on the previous slide—such as India, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand—implement mandates, demand for SAF will grow and, if all goes to plan, reach about 40 million tons by 2050. Today, however, we are very far from reaching that level. Over the past five years, the SAF market has evolved, but quite slowly. Activity began to pick up in 2022, when global SAF production was about 0.5 million tons and regions such as the EU and the UK were discussing mandate implementation. This led to a slight increase in SAF production, which reached about 0.8 million tons by 2023 and 1 million tons by 2024—double the 2022 capacity. The reason was that, by 2024, there were strong signals that the EU and the UK would implement mandates in 2025. As of last year, SAF production had reached about 1.9 million tons. However, this is still far below the amount needed by 2030. How do we close the gap and raise production from 2025 levels to meet the 2030 target? We need to unlock new and different technologies for converting low-carbon feedstocks into sustainable aviation fuel. SAF is not an emerging technology; it is already commercial. As the numbers discussed previously show, all current SAF production comes from bio-oil-to-SAF, the first category shown here. Most activity is also concentrated in this category, with major corporations such as Neste, Axens, Honeywell, and Exxon. However, many alternative pathways are being developed for SAF production using different feedstocks, such as CO2, ethanol, methanol, and solid biomass. Although the commercial pathway currently converts vegetable oils or waste oils, the other pathways use alternative feedstocks such as CO2, ethanol, methanol, or solid biomass. These pathways are still in development, which is why most of the companies active in them are startups, including Infinium, Ineratec, MetaFuels, and Dimensional Energy. With these different pathways under development, the question is: Which is the best? Today, bio-oil-to-SAF is the most commercially mature pathway, but does that mean it will remain the ideal pathway by 2030? To answer this question, we need to define an ideal SAF pathway. Our rubric for an ideal SAF technology begins with feedstock that is both abundant and sustainable. What does that mean? The SAF industry and the aviation fuel market are very large. Given that mandates could create demand for about 40 million tons of SAF by 2050, any SAF technology should use a widely available feedstock. However, the feedstock must also be sustainable because the purpose of SAF is to provide a low-carbon alternative to fossil jet fuel. The challenge is to find a feedstock that is both sustainable and abundant. Another metric is the scalability of the conversion technology. Because aviation is a very large market and jet fuel is treated as a commodity, SAF will eventually also become a commodity. Today, fossil jet fuel is produced by very large, centralized refineries. Therefore, any SAF conversion technology must also be scalable enough to match the capacity of the centralized refineries producing fossil jet fuel today. Finally, experienced developers and technology providers are essential. Regardless of the technology used, a SAF project requires a billion-dollar investment, credible financing, and experienced developers capable of providing the technology needed to convert low-carbon feedstocks into SAF. Although many startups operate in this space, the large amount of capital at stake means that any chosen SAF pathway should have experienced developers that can provide credible technology and secure sufficient financing.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at the technologies currently used to produce SAF. The first, and most commercially mature, is bio-oil-to-SAF, which was ASTM-approved in 2011. This pathway converts vegetable oils or waste oils—such as used cooking oil, animal fats, or other bio-oils—into sustainable aviation fuel. Today, because this is the only commercial technology, you can see a picture of the Neste Singapore refinery, currently the world’s largest SAF refinery. This pathway is also known as HEFA, which stands for hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids. Its main feedstocks, including vegetable oils and waste oils, are converted into SAF using hydroprocessing and hydrocracking. In the presence of hydrogen, oxygen is removed from these feedstocks, followed by hydrocracking. Essentially, the process is very similar to conventional crude-oil refining, but instead of crude oil, it converts waste oils or vegetable oils into sustainable aviation fuel. A typical HEFA facility produces not only SAF but also renewable diesel and naphtha. Today, all existing HEFA refineries favor renewable diesel production for road transportation because it has historically been the larger market. However, the product slate can be adjusted depending on what the operator wants to maximize. If a facility is optimized for SAF, production could reach up to 80% SAF, with the remaining 20% comprising renewable diesel and naphtha. Does this make HEFA an ideal SAF technology? No, because feedstock remains a constraint. The EU and UK mandates specify that any feedstock used must be low-carbon and cannot be a food crop, excluding vegetable oils such as soybean oil. This means that, in these mandated regions, the main eligible feedstocks are waste oils, such as used cooking oil or animal fats. Although used cooking oil is sustainable and has very low carbon intensity, it is highly distributed and inherently limited in supply. Thus, while the pathway is fully commercial, the feedstock is low-carbon, the technology is scalable, and experienced developers such as Honeywell, Axens, and Exxon are involved, the limited supply of waste-oil feedstock prevents HEFA from being an ideal SAF pathway.

How can this limitation be overcome? This is where technological innovation comes into play. One startup we will discuss is Cemvita, a U.S.-based company headquartered in Houston. It is developing a microbial platform that converts CO2 into bio-oil, which can then serve as a complementary feedstock for HEFA refineries. Essentially, the company is unlocking a new source of bio-oil from CO2 to supplement the waste-oil feedstocks already used in HEFA facilities. Clients should bear in mind that the technology is still at a very early stage. So far, the company has demonstrated production at a 75,000-liter fermentation scale, which is still very small compared with the large, centralized refineries that produce SAF. Based on our research and analysis, we do not expect this solution to become commercially viable at scale until 2030. Nevertheless, this type of innovation could unlock alternative feedstocks and help overcome HEFA’s feedstock limitations. Another innovation involves energy crops, which are grown for energy production rather than food and can be cultivated between rotations of major crops such as soybeans or corn. A good example is the partnership between Bayer and BP that launched New Gold, an initiative aimed at accelerating camelina production in North America for SAF and renewable diesel. Bayer leads crop development and farmer access, while BP contributes refining expertise and fuel-marketing experience. This is another example of using camelina as an alternative feedstock for existing HEFA refineries without competing with food crops.

The next pathway is biomass-to-SAF, which includes two different approaches. The first is gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, which was ASTM-approved in 2009. Biomass is gasified into syngas at very high temperatures in the presence of oxygen or steam. The resulting syngas is then converted into hydrocarbons through a Fischer-Tropsch reactor and subsequently refined into jet-range fuel. Although the pathway is approved, it is not yet commercial. The second approach is biomass liquefaction, also called pyrolysis. Solid biomass is converted into liquid biocrude at a very high temperature in the absence of oxygen. Because no oxygen is present, the biomass is not burned; instead, it is converted into liquid biocrude, which can then be upgraded and refined into jet-range hydrocarbons. Biomass liquefaction, or pyrolysis, is not yet commercial, remains at an earlier stage than gasification, and has not yet received ASTM approval.

Are these ideal SAF technologies? Their main advantage is that they can unlock abundant, low-carbon feedstocks, including agricultural and biomass residues. These feedstocks are widely available globally and have low carbon intensity. However, challenges remain around technology and the developer landscape. For gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, the key bottleneck is tar formation. Gasification has existed for many years but has been commercialized mainly for heat and power production; there has not yet been a successful commercial case for fuel production. When biomass is gasified, its ash and heavier organic components can contribute to tar and solid-carbon formation, which accumulates in the gasifier. Tar can also contaminate the syngas and deactivate the Fischer-Tropsch catalyst, leading to expensive maintenance. Today, no company has successfully demonstrated the conversion of solid biomass all the way to jet fuel at commercial scale through this pathway. Another challenge is the technology-provider landscape. Many companies are developing gasification and Fischer-Tropsch technologies, but most are startups, and there are still no clear leaders because no one has successfully built a commercial project. For a multibillion-dollar SAF project, a reliable and experienced technology provider is essential.

One company seeking to become a reliable provider in this space is the French company Haffner Energy, which is developing a differentiated gasification platform. Unlike conventional fluidized-bed gasification, Haffner’s technology separates biomass conversion into two stages. First, biomass undergoes thermolysis, producing a gas stream and solid biocarbon. The solid biocarbon is separated, and the gas is sent to a second, high-temperature steam-reforming step to produce syngas. This staged approach is important because the reforming step can help break down tars and other heavy hydrocarbons before the syngas enters the Fischer-Tropsch reactor. Compared with conventional fluidized-bed gasification, where tar formation can increase operating costs, Haffner is targeting syngas with negligible soot and aromatics. However, the company is still at an early stage. It has operated a pilot plant in France since 2024 and is developing its first demonstration project in Canada with Mondi Energies, a five-megawatt project. Equipment deliveries are expected by 2027. For a large commercial-scale SAF facility, however, the timeline would most likely extend to 2030–2035.

The other biomass pathway discussed earlier is pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is much less advanced than gasification, and relatively few developers operate in this space. One is the Netherlands-based company BTG Bioliquids, which has demonstrated its technology at multiple European locations. Today, however, all of the pyrolysis oil it produces is used mainly for heating applications and some marine demonstrations; it has not yet been upgraded all the way to SAF. One major challenge is the high oxygen content of pyrolysis oil, which must be removed. Removing this oxygen requires more hydrogen and can increase refinery operating costs. Certification is another challenge. The pathway has not yet received ASTM approval, and the approval process may take another five to six years. Pyrolysis therefore still has a long way to go before it can scale and become commercially relevant for SAF production.

The third pathway is ethanol-to-jet, which was ASTM-approved in 2016. As the name suggests, it converts ethanol into jet fuel through a three-step process. First, ethanol is dehydrated into ethylene, which is then oligomerized into longer-chain hydrocarbons before being hydrogenated into jet fuel. Technically, the ethanol can come from first-generation sources, such as corn, sugarcane, or beets, or from second-generation ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass. Is ethanol-to-jet an ideal SAF technology? This is where things become interesting. Although the technology remains at demonstration scale, with LanzaJet operating the only facility currently producing jet fuel from ethanol in Georgia, several large and credible technology providers—including Honeywell, Axens, and Praj Industries—are active in the space. These companies are technology licensors rather than project developers, but they are prepared to offer their technologies at commercial scale. Under the right market conditions, there is no major issue with technology scalability or provider capability. The main bottleneck is feedstock. The EU and UK prohibit the use of first-generation ethanol, such as ethanol made from corn, sugarcane, or beets, for SAF production. Under EU and UK regulations, only second-generation ethanol from cellulosic biomass is eligible. This places ethanol-to-jet in an interesting position because its feedstock limitation is largely regulatory. If other countries, such as Japan, India, or Thailand, allow first-generation ethanol under their SAF mandates, ethanol-to-jet could gain access to abundant, scalable feedstock and experienced technology providers. In that case, it would come much closer to being an ideal SAF pathway. Today, particularly in the EU and UK, the key bottleneck remains access to eligible ethanol feedstock, which is why innovators are trying to scale second-generation ethanol technologies.

One such innovator is the British startup Nova Pangaea Technologies, which is developing a thermochemical process that converts lignocellulosic biomass into fermentable sugars. These sugars can ultimately be converted into ethanol and refined into sustainable aviation fuel. The main challenge with second-generation ethanol is the costly pretreatment and fractionation needed to break down lignocellulosic biomass and recover fermentable sugars. These additional processing steps make the pathway uneconomical and technically complex. Nova Pangaea is advancing a reference plant in the UK with about 3.5 kilotons per year of biomass throughput, with operations targeted for mid-2026. Although the company is making progress, we still consider this an early-stage pathway. Based on the history of second-generation ethanol, including previous failures by much larger corporations such as Clariant, significant scale-up and economic risks remain before this technology can become commercially available for SAF production.

The fourth pathway is methanol-to-jet, the most recently ASTM-approved pathway, having received approval earlier this year. It converts methanol into jet fuel through a catalytic process in which methanol is first converted into light olefins, then oligomerized into longer-chain hydrocarbons, and finally hydrogenated into sustainable aviation fuel. Although the feedstock is methanol, the process is very similar to ethanol-to-jet. Today, most methanol comes from fossil-based sources such as natural gas. Under SAF mandates, however, fossil methanol cannot be used, so eligible feedstocks are limited to low-carbon methanol: either biomethanol produced from biomass or biogas, or e-methanol produced from biogenic or captured CO2 and green hydrogen. How does this pathway compare with our criteria for an ideal SAF technology? Methanol-to-jet is still developing. Although the pathway was approved earlier this year, there are currently no commercial-scale or even demonstration-scale facilities. We expect the technology bottleneck to be overcome faster because experienced companies such as Topsoe, Exxon, and Honeywell are developing these technologies. Their involvement increases the likelihood that the pathway will reach commercial maturity sooner. The bigger challenge is feedstock availability. Biomethanol is constrained by the availability of biomass or biogas, which is geographically distributed and often produced at relatively small scale. A large, centralized methanol-to-jet facility would therefore likely need to source biomethanol from multiple locations. E-methanol is theoretically less constrained because it can be produced from biogenic or captured CO2 and green hydrogen, but it remains scarce and expensive because of high green-hydrogen costs. Thus, the main bottlenecks for methanol-to-jet are feedstock availability and technology scale.

Despite methanol-to-jet development by large corporations, a handful of startups also operate in the space. MetaFuels, a Swiss startup, is developing a new catalyst system for converting methanol into jet fuel. Its key differentiator is a proprietary metal-organic framework, or MOF, catalyst, which the company claims can improve SAF selectivity and yield compared with conventional catalyst systems. However, MetaFuels remains at an early stage. It currently operates a 50-liter-per-day pilot facility in Switzerland and is advancing a 10-ton-per-day facility at the Port of Rotterdam, with production targeted for 2030. The key challenge is competitive positioning. Although MetaFuels’ technology may be promising, it competes directly with large, experienced providers such as Exxon, Topsoe, and Honeywell. We do not currently see enough differentiation for MetaFuels to compete head-to-head with these established licensors. For companies developing a methanol-to-jet project today, we would therefore prioritize large corporations over a startup.

The final pathway is CO2-to-SAF, in which CO2 and hydrogen are converted into jet fuel. Typically, this process has two steps. First, CO2 and hydrogen are converted into syngas through the reverse water-gas-shift reaction. The syngas is then converted into jet-range hydrocarbons through the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. The CO2 can be biogenic or captured from ambient air through direct air capture, while the hydrogen comes from water electrolysis. Is this an ideal SAF pathway? The main bottleneck is technology scale. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is not new and has long been used in very large facilities where natural gas serves as the feedstock. For SAF, however, the feedstocks are ambient or biogenic CO2 and green hydrogen. The process cannot follow the same megarefinery model because these feedstocks are not available at such a large scale in a single location. The challenge is therefore to adapt an established Fischer-Tropsch process to smaller, modular units. Small-scale Fischer-Tropsch synthesis has been demonstrated at pilot or demonstration scale, and a few startups are developing modular reactors. However, the approach still needs to prove reliable performance and favorable economics at commercial scale.

One company that stands out in this crowded landscape is the British startup OXCCU, which is developing a one-step process that converts captured CO2 and green hydrogen directly into jet-range hydrocarbons. Normally, CO2 and hydrogen are first converted into syngas through reverse water-gas shift, after which the syngas is converted into jet-range hydrocarbons through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. OXCCU combines these reactions into a single process using a proprietary iron-based catalyst. The main advantage could be lower process complexity and potentially lower capital costs because the separate reverse water-gas-shift unit is eliminated. However, OXCCU is still at a very early stage of scale-up. Its OX1 demonstration plant in London produces about 1.2 liters of liquid fuel per day, while its OX2 demonstration plant is designed to produce approximately 10 to 30 liters per day and is expected to come online later this year. Although the technology may be promising, it still needs to demonstrate catalyst performance, durability, and economics at scale before it can become commercially relevant for SAF.

Another company seeking to streamline the CO2-to-SAF process is the American startup Twelve, which is developing proprietary CO2 electrolysis technology. Instead of producing green hydrogen separately and then combining it with CO2 through the reverse water-gas-shift reaction, Twelve uses proprietary CO2 electrolysis to convert CO2 and water directly into syngas using renewable electricity. This removes the need for a separate green-hydrogen production step and could simplify the overall process. Twelve brought its first demonstration plant, Air Plant One, online earlier this year in Washington. The facility is designed to produce approximately 120 tons of SAF per year. Twelve’s next step is to demonstrate that this approach can maintain competitive electricity consumption, conversion efficiency, and electrolyzer lifetime as it scales. Ultimately, it must prove that this alternative CO2 electrolysis pathway offers an economic advantage over the conventional reverse water-gas-shift and Fischer-Tropsch pathway.

We have now examined five SAF pathways, and the key point is that none is ideal. The commercial bio-oil-to-jet pathway performs well on technology maturity, sustainability, and developer experience. Its main limitation, however, is the inherently limited supply of waste oils. Other pathways can potentially access more abundant and sustainable feedstocks, including biomass, ethanol, CO2, and methanol, but most still face challenges involving technology scale-up, performance, and capital costs. For biomass-to-SAF, for example, gasification still needs to demonstrate reliable fuel production at scale. For CO2-based and other e-SAF pathways, technologies such as electrolysis and small-scale Fischer-Tropsch synthesis remain expensive and uneconomical.

So far, we have compared pathways based mainly on feedstock availability, sustainability, scalability, and developer maturity. One factor remains: cost. At the end of the day, cost determines whether a SAF project succeeds. We intentionally saved cost for the final section because Lux Research has developed a proprietary SAF cost model. There are several important assumptions behind this analysis. We modeled a best-case scenario in which every pathway is fully optimized and scaled to a one-million-ton-per-year SAF facility. The costs shown therefore represent roughly the lowest production costs we expect these technologies to achieve at scale. For feedstocks, we assume approximately €1,000 per ton for used cooking oil, €125 per ton for biomass, €1,200 per ton for first-generation ethanol, and €1,500 per ton for second-generation ethanol.

Looking first at the bio-SAF pathways—including used cooking oil, biomass, and ethanol—the key takeaway is that SAF remains more expensive than fossil jet fuel across all pathways. In February 2026, jet fuel cost about €700 per ton. Prices temporarily increased during the Iran crisis in May 2026, reaching about €1,100 per ton. We expect that spike to be short-lived, with fossil jet fuel returning to about €700 to €800 per ton by the end of the year. Among the SAF pathways shown, ethanol-to-jet using first-generation ethanol could potentially be one of the lowest-cost options, assuming the technology scales successfully and the feedstock is permitted under relevant regulations.

If we examine e-SAF pathways, the difference is much larger. Whether CO2 is converted to jet fuel through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or methanol is converted to jet fuel, e-SAF remains very expensive compared with both bio-SAF and fossil jet fuel. In this analysis, we assume a biogenic CO2 cost of about €150 per ton and a green-hydrogen cost of about €5 per kilogram. Even at €5 per kilogram—a highly optimistic, relatively low cost for green hydrogen—the resulting e-SAF production cost remains very high, at about €4,000 per ton. Under these assumptions, e-SAF can be five to six times more expensive than fossil jet fuel. The main reason is the cost of green hydrogen, which has a major impact on the economics of both CO2-to-jet and methanol-to-jet pathways using e-methanol. This also explains why relatively few e-SAF projects have reached a final investment decision or commercial deployment. More broadly, it reinforces the importance of SAF mandates and additional financing mechanisms because, regardless of the pathway, SAF remains more expensive than fossil jet fuel.

Given that no pathway scores perfectly against all criteria, how should the industry prioritize them? Our recommendation is as follows. The first priority should be bio-oil-to-SAF. Why? It is already commercial and supported by many experienced developers. The technology is scalable, and there are many credible providers. The main challenge is securing an abundant supply of waste-oil feedstock. Waste oils are globally traded commodities, and regions such as the EU rely heavily on imports from countries such as China and Malaysia. Overall supply remains limited. If you plan to build a SAF facility in the coming years, prioritize securing long-term waste-oil supplies as early as possible because competition for these feedstocks will continue to increase. If countries such as India, Thailand, and Japan implement mandates by 2027, they will compete for the same feedstocks.

If you cannot secure a long-term supply of waste oil or other bio-oil feedstocks, the next pathway to prioritize is ethanol-to-SAF. Although it is still developing, mature technology providers are already active in the space, suggesting that it can scale. The main challenge is feedstock. In the EU and UK, first-generation ethanol cannot be used for SAF production, but this restriction may not apply in other regions. If you are producing SAF for a market outside the EU and UK, you may be able to use first-generation ethanol. Among those options, Brazilian sugarcane has a much lower carbon intensity than U.S. corn. Therefore, if you cannot secure a long-term supply of waste-oil or bio-oil feedstock, consider ethanol-to-SAF, particularly using Brazilian sugarcane where regulations allow it.

Finally, if an e-SAF pathway is required because a mandate calls for a certain share of e-SAF, we recommend methanol-to-jet over CO2-to-SAF via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Based on our analysis, methanol-to-jet is a lower-cost e-SAF pathway than the Fischer-Tropsch route. The main challenge is cost rather than the technology itself because several mature developers operate in this space. We therefore expect technology scale-up to be manageable. The key bottleneck is securing an affordable source of green hydrogen because hydrogen costs have a major impact on e-SAF economics.

To summarize the main takeaways: First, expand HEFA feedstocks beyond waste oils to meet SAF mandates. HEFA is commercially mature and scalable, but waste-oil supply is inherently limited. Clients should prioritize alternative, scalable feedstocks such as energy crops that can use the existing HEFA pathway through 2030. Second, scale technologies that can unlock more abundant low-carbon feedstocks, such as biomass. Core platforms such as gasification and pyrolysis already exist, so the priority should be to improve and optimize them rather than develop entirely new conversion technologies while also reducing SAF costs. Third, when choosing between bio-SAF and e-SAF, prioritize bio-SAF. This recommendation is driven mainly by economics. Bio-SAF pathways based on ethanol, biomass, or bio-oils can generally produce SAF at a lower cost than e-SAF. Ultimately, the goal is to bring SAF production costs as close as possible to those of fossil jet fuel. We therefore recommend prioritizing bio-SAF over e-SAF and considering e-SAF only where mandates specifically require it. Thank you very much. I hope this was interesting and helpful. We will now take a couple of questions.

Runeel Daliah: Thank you very much, Rajvi. As Rajvi said, we will take a few questions about the presentation. You can type them in the question box on your screen. I see that some of you have already found it because a couple of questions have come in. If we do not get to your question on this call, someone from Lux will be in touch with you shortly afterward. Quite a few questions are coming in, but perhaps I can group them by theme. Rajvi, we received several questions about the mandates, especially the EU SAF mandate, because it is the largest mandate in the world today. The questions are essentially asking: Based on everything you just said, do you think we will meet the EU SAF mandate targets?

Rajvi Megha: The answer is yes and no. We will likely meet the 2030 goals, but meeting the 2035 target is unlikely. The reason is that there is not enough waste-oil feedstock to meet the 2035 goal solely through the HEFA pathway. Instead of focusing only on waste oils, clients should also consider alternative feedstocks that can use existing HEFA pathways, such as energy crops or bio-oils. The next pathway closest to commercial maturity, as discussed earlier, is ethanol-to-jet, which can use abundant feedstock. However, because the EU and UK mandates do not allow first-generation ethanol, second-generation ethanol remains too immature to scale in time for 2035. The third option is e-SAF, produced through either Fischer-Tropsch synthesis or methanol-to-jet. It remains highly expensive, and most green-hydrogen projects are still under development, while the current price of green hydrogen remains high. It is therefore quite likely that the EU will have to delay the mandate after 2030 or reduce the penalties.

Runeel Daliah: Well, we will see whether that happens. I think the EU has been quite clear that it does not intend to delay the mandate or reduce the penalties, but there are still four years to go. Based on how the space is evolving, that seems like a likely scenario. The EU is one region, but several audience questions also appear to come from the U.S. or Asia. For these different regions—let’s take the U.S., Europe, and Asia as examples—which technologies do you think would be most relevant for developers to build?

Rajvi Megha: Starting with the U.S., because HEFA is currently the most commercially mature pathway, it would be the first priority, provided that a client has secured enough waste-oil supply through 2030. The second priority would be ethanol-to-jet because the U.S. has an established ethanol supply chain based on corn production. Developers can leverage that existing ethanol capacity to convert ethanol into sustainable aviation fuel. Thus, my first priority for the U.S. would be HEFA, followed by ethanol-to-jet. In the EU, HEFA would also be my first priority, although competition for waste oils continues to increase. Through 2030, waste oils are expected to meet SAF demand. The second priority would be methanol-to-jet, which received ASTM approval earlier this year. One reason is that the EU can import methanol from regions with cheaper renewable electricity, where CO2 and hydrogen can be converted into e-methanol. The EU could therefore focus on building more methanol-to-jet facilities while using imported, lower-cost methanol. In Asia, my first priority would again be HEFA because the region has substantial waste-oil capacity. Instead of exporting that feedstock to the EU, Asian countries could use it domestically for SAF production. The second priority would be ethanol-to-jet because countries such as India and Thailand have substantial ethanol capacity based on maize and other crops. A third option would be biomass-to-jet through gasification. My three choices for Asia would therefore be HEFA, ethanol-to-jet in countries with existing ethanol capacity, and biomass-to-jet where solid biomass, such as municipal solid waste, forestry residues, or agricultural residues, is available.

Runeel Daliah: Great. A few more questions are coming in, but I am also watching the time and realize that we have reached the end of our session. To those whose questions we could not answer, our apologies. We will be in touch shortly after the webinar, so you will still have an opportunity to receive an answer. For now, this concludes today’s webinar. The slide presentation and webinar recording will be sent to all attendees by email. After leaving the webinar, you will be prompted to complete a survey about today’s presentation. We would greatly appreciate your feedback, which will help us improve future webinars. Please also take a moment to view our upcoming webinars on our website. Thank you very much for joining us, and have a great day, everyone.

Rajvi Megha: Thank you so much. Have a great day.