In an article on The Conversation website, Salman Ahmad, Lecturer in Operations and Supply Chain Management, University of the West of Scotland writes about why flying is still so dependent on fossil fuels.
Why your holiday flight is still not being powered by sustainable aviation fuel
As you wait in the departure lounge for your flight this summer, you may notice your aeroplane being pumped full of fuel ahead of takeoff. And then you may start to wonder why flying is still so dependent on fossil fuels, and whether you should have booked a holiday destination that’s accessible by a more environmentally friendly form of transport.
So what happened to plans for so-called sustainable aviation fuel? Wasn’t it supposed to be the “game changer” that would make flying a much greener travel option than it used to be?
Clearly, the move to adopt the technology is facing difficulties. One problem seems to be that there simply isn’t enough sustainable fuel to go around.
But the business side of the process is also holding back sustainable fuel uptake.
Research my colleagues and I conducted in 2021 revealed a deeply fragmented landscape at pretty much every step of sustainable fuel development. There are obstacles everywhere, blocking the paths of the producers developing these fuels, the airlines who might use them and the governmental and campaign groups pushing for change.
Everyone seems to agree that sustainable fuel matters. They just don’t all agree about how to really get it off the ground.
Our findings demonstrate that producers, for instance, were understandably focused on more research and development to improve efficient production. They were also worried that scaling up facilities could disrupt production that is already in place.
Airlines meanwhile, are grappling with the economics of moving to sustainable fuel, which is around three to ten times more expensive than conventional fuel. Right now, a litre of conventional aviation fuel costs around £0.96 per litre in the UK – for sustainable aviation fuel it’s around £1.97. (Depending on the length of the journey and the size of the engine, a plane could need around 13,000 litres per hour of flying.)
They spoke about inconsistent supply (especially at major airports), and the need for clearer regulations and incentives across the industry.
“Cost is clearly the most important driver,” one airline executive told us, explaining that dealing with those costs would ultimately depend on passenger demand for greener travel – and how willing those passengers are to pay a premium for sustainable fuel.
Distribution companies that take the sustainable fuel where it needs to go, have found themselves struggling to navigate the complexities of an emerging supply chain. They spoke of the logistical challenges of transporting and storing sustainable fuel, and a lack of clear communication between producers and airlines.
They saw themselves as a crucial part of the sustainable aviation fuel puzzle, but were concerned about investing in logistics and infrastructure without guaranteed demand.
Elsewhere, politicians and climate campaigners tend to view the adoption of sustainable fuel from a broader perspective, stressing the urgency of action on climate change. Their thinking is dominated by environmental strategy and sustainable aviation fuel regulation.
But here, trust becomes an issue. Some of those involved with sustainable fuel development said they doubted government promises to support the sector over the long term. Others are cynical about whether airlines will really prioritise climate action over their very tight profit margins.
Up in the air
So sustainable fuel inspires plenty of different viewpoints and concerns. But one common thread was an overwhelming concern about cost and scale of production.
Aside from being far more expensive than fossil-based jet fuel, building enough production facilities to make more will require billions of pounds of investment.
The big question is who will foot the bill.
Some of this will need to be tax funded. For if the UK wants to become a leader in the use of sustainable aviation fuel, as the government says it does, it needs more than ambitious targets. It needs to start making things happen.
And our research suggests that the industry as a whole would benefit from some certainty to encourage investment right across the supply chain. Without a clear and stable regulatory framework, everyone will remain hesitant about committing significant resources to sustainable fuel.
Collaboration between the key players could also be improved, with a better dialogue between those in the industry and regulators, potentially leading to a shared vision for the future of sustainable aviation fuel.
That future is by no means doomed. Major commercial airlines like Air France-KLM, IAG (British Airways) and United Airlines in the US are working with sustainable fuel producers around the world.
But while the desire to decarbonise aviation seems clear, the path forward is not straightforward. It is a complex picture of politics, economics, trust and differing priorities.
By navigating this turbulence wisely, the sustainable fuel sector can be part of a broader flight path to net zero. But if managed poorly, targets to dramatically increase its use will remain elusive.
External link
Energy in Demand - Sustainable Energy - Rod Janssen 
I think the author is making an extremely valid point. It is no use any government declaring that it is their policy to change behaviour and sourcing within a sector, if there are neither incentives nor regulations in place to help stimulate this wish to occur.
Otherwise it is simply yet another case of mimicking St Augustine’s famous plea: “ Lord, make me be chaste. But not yet.”
An we are still forgotten the big climate impacts of flying: the climate effects of vapour and particles emirtted in high altitudes. SAF will do little to change than.
You are right but no one has found a solution. And, like it or not, people are going to fly. There is no simple answer.
The simple answer is flying less. for holiday, you can use trains and loval options. for business you can use online meetings.
I don’t know how we encourage people to fly less. What government instruments are there? We have Yamina Saheb and her Sufficiency Lab doing much to take a more realistic approach to their lifestyles. As for trains, I use them a lot but my family is in Canada. As for business, since the pandemic, online meetings are much more common. Nothing is simple.
Of course, while the objective is simple (flying less), the realisation is not simple. For me it is a first step to have more people (including decision-makers) recognising the full climate effects of flying and that quick-fixes as SAF can only solve a smaller part of the problem. The aviation industry has calmed down everybody with the promise of SAF to solve the problem and playing down the other cliamte effects to the extend, where even Extinction Rebellion has turneed its focus to private jet rather than the aviation mass transport that is the bulk of the climate problem. Now, when the public is calmed down and politicians turn to to other problems, the aviation industry is also letting the SAF slip away.
You make good points. As for SAF, I am with a group at Oxford trying to have a different approach. We are trying to get funding for a major study. Have a look at this – https://oxfordclimatepolicy.org/sites/default/files/SAF%20ecbi%20Discussion%20Note_0_0.pdf
Thank you for the reference. Unfortunately I have to disagree completely with the concept of the study that ignores the 2/3 of the climate effect of aviation that comes from vaopour and particcles emitted in high altitudes. It is as flawed as the analysis by IATA (quoted in the concept) that finds that 65% of aviation greenhouse effects can be mitigated with SAF when it is most likely that less than 1/3 of aviation emissions are possible to mitigate with SAF.
I’m not disagreeing but that concept paper had very specific boundaries for obvious reasons.